OFFICIAL NFL 2012 week 7 thread

[IAteYourMother]

No, it's the safety play by the coach by not risking his players to unneeded injuries, the line was -7 points.

Is this a joke I'm not understanding?

 

[SSSnail]

Is this a joke I'm not understanding?

Coach didn't want to subject his players to another drive by the Seahawks, why is that so hard to understand? The last part is just to confirm your statement, that coincidentally, the line is at -7 for Niners.

 

[JujuFish]

Coach didn't want to subject his players to another drive by the Seahawks, why is that so hard to understand? The last part is just to confirm your statement, that coincidentally, the line is at -7 for Niners.

You do realize that the team that scores a safety gets the ball, right?

 

[RPD]

You do realize that the team that scores a safety gets the ball, right?

They don't just magically get it on the 20 yard line. There's this kick off play that happens.

 

[SSSnail]

You do realize that the team that scores a safety gets the ball, right?

You do realize that there's such a thing as Onside kick, right?

 

[Farang]

Harbaugh made absolutely the right call. Anyone thinking otherwise must not understand the rules of football--this isn't even debatable. It's an interesting footnote on the gambling line but that's it.

 

[eits]

Doesn't mean a whole lot. 40 times are measured from a dead stop, not while you are already running at full speed.

are they measured wearing a bunch of pads and a helmet carrying a football, too?

 

[JujuFish]

You do realize that there's such a thing as Onside kick, right?

You do realize that a successful onside kick after a safety is one of the rarest plays in football, right? You don't describe something with the slimmest of hopes of coming true as "subjecting" your team to it.

 

[eits]

Skins vs Giants should be good.

the skins will win, but it will be a close one. i hope it's another killing, like last year, but we'll see.

 

[eits]

I will be there. Should be great.

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!

it will be a great game.

 

[BD231]

the skins will win, but it will be a close one. i hope it's another killing, like last year, but we'll see.

How do u figure the skins win? Did you see what NYG did to sf?

 

[eits]

How do u figure the skins win? Did you see what NYG did to sf?

did you see what the skins did against the falcons (almost beat them until rg3 got knocked out) and against the vikings? those games were supposed to be blow-outs because the skins had an awful secondary. however, the skins have learned how to get their act together as best as possible on defense, given their deficits.

did you see what the giants did against the eagles?

we'll see how it all turns out.

 

[SSSnail]

You do realize that a successful onside kick after a safety is one of the rarest plays in football, right? You don't describe something with the slimmest of hopes of coming true as "subjecting" your team to it.

Why when you can just kneel and end it? Why take the STUPID FUCKING RISK?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_(American_football_score)#Refusing_a_safety

 

[Farang]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_(American_football_score)#Refusing_a_safety

Interestingly, the Seahawks took an intentional safety earlier this year. Both were sound decisions.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Coach didn't want to subject his players to another drive by the Seahawks, why is that so hard to understand? The last part is just to confirm your statement, that coincidentally, the line is at -7 for Niners.

First of all, I'm talking about gambling purposes, not what Harbaugh should or shouldn't have done. I've already made it clear that I think it was the correct call for safety reasons.

2nd, I have trouble understanding for grammatical reasons. What does "it's a safety play" mean? Does that mean it was the safe play? Was it a pun on the football term safety which awards a team 2 points?

Finally, I know the line is -7 or maybe -7.5 depending on the bookie. That's why declining the safety is such a big swing for gamblers. So I have no idea what the purpose of your reply was, because in this context it makes no sense.

 

[SSSnail]

First of all, I'm talking about gambling purposes, not what Harbaugh should or shouldn't have done. I've already made it clear that I think it was the correct call for safety reasons.

2nd, I have trouble understanding for grammatical reasons. What does "it's a safety play" mean? Does that mean it was the safe play? Was it a pun on the football term safety which awards a team 2 points?

Finally, I know the line is -7 or maybe -7.5 depending on the bookie. That's why declining the safety is such a big swing for gamblers. So I have no idea what the purpose of your reply was, because in this context it makes no sense.

You're picking on a word? Seriously??? Get a fucking life.

Safety play as in a play that hinged on safety reason. You can't be serious... it wasn't a football terminology relating to the points they could have gotten, but meaningless.

And quit with the gambling shit, it makes you look even less intelligent than currently. So after what I wrote, you still answer with this stupid crap?

Go ahead, pick on my grammar some more.

 

[IAteYourMother]

You're picking on a word? Seriously??? Get a fucking life.

Safety play as in a play that hinged on safety reason. You can't be serious... it wasn't a football terminology relating to the points they could have gotten, but meaningless.

And quit with the gambling shit, it makes you look even less intelligent than currently. So after what I wrote, you still answer with this stupid crap?

Go ahead, pick on my grammar some more.

As a 49er fan, let me ask you to kindly get your head out of your ass and try to actually comprehend what you read. No where in this thread have I suggested that gambling has anything to do with Jim Harbaugh's decision. All I said was that the events that transpired were "one of the all time gambling covers."

THAT is why I'm confused by your choice of words, because the words you're typing have no bearing on my original statements, no matter how hard you try. I AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENT THAT IT WAS THE CORRECT COACHING DECISION. AND I ALWAYS DID.

 

[SSSnail]

As a 49er fan, let me ask you to kindly get your head out of your ass and try to actually comprehend what you read. No where in this thread have I suggested that gambling has anything to do with Jim Harbaugh's decision. All I said was that the events that transpired were "one of the all time gambling covers."

THAT is why I'm confused by your choice of words, because the words you're typing have no bearing on my original statements, no matter how hard you try. I AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENT THAT IT WAS THE CORRECT COACHING DECISION. AND I ALWAYS DID.

You're just arguing semantics while knowing full well what I meant. Anyways, moving on. I might have you confused for someone that wrote this:

holy shit. One of the all time gambling cover

Honestly, I have no idea what that fucker was trying to say either, grammatically or contextually, seeing that we're now arguing semantics and all.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Honestly, I have no idea what that fucker was trying to say either, grammatically or contextually, seeing that we're now arguing semantics and all.

I wrote that. It's not entirely accurate since some books had it at SF -7, but alot had the line finishing at -7.5, so it's partially correct.

When I call it a ridiculous gambling cover, I'm simply referring to the fact that the Seahawks covered the spread through a ridiculous chain of events. Consider that the Seahawks are covering the spread on 4th down and 13.

So first, the WR catches the ball for what looks like barely a first down. Then a safety is called on a questionable chop block call which means that the 49ers cover the spread, and 49ers bettors everywhere are celebrating because they miraculously won their bets on a safety that no one saw coming. Then Harbaugh goes "unconventional" by asking for the spot because he might decline to avoid injuries. And somehow the Seahawks don't get the call, and so the Seahawks cover.

When I nitpick on grammar, it's because your reply made little sense to me in the context of my original post. i don't nitpick on grammar just because I feel like it, I actually had no idea what you were talking about.

 

[BUTCH1]

bullshit!!! RG3 WILL

RG3 is exciting to watch, the fact is though sooner or later a 265lb linebacker gets the one clean huge hit that changes his career for the worse..

 

[IndyColtsFan]

bullshit!!! RG3 WILL

If I have a choice of 2 rookies -- one whose style is similar to Peyton Manning's style (and reportedly a similar football intellect) or another whose style is more like Cam Newton/Michael Vick, who do you think I would select? Don't kid yourself either -- had the Skins landed the top pick, they would've drafted Luck too.

What you'll see with RG3 is exactly what we've seen with every other running QB so far -- they have a great year and the next year, the defenses have all adapted and he'll be screwed. That is why it is very important for him to develop into a pocket passer who only runs as a last resort and who is smart enough to get it out of bounds or slide before the hits come. If he doesn't develop into more or less a pure pocket passer, he won't last.

And ignoring all of the points above, let's assume for a minute that the prospects are equal. Who would you trust more to steer your franchise to championship contender status -- a guy who buys expired peanuts from a bankrupt airline to sell to his fans (and, by the way, has NO track record of winning) or a guy that once he took over the team from his deceased, drunken dad immediately built a contender and won 1 SB and appeared in another? Yeah, I'll take my chance on Irsay surrounding Luck with what he needs.

 

[BUTCH1]

If I have a choice of 2 rookies -- one whose style is similar to Peyton Manning's style (and reportedly a similar football intellect) or another whose style is more like Cam Newton/Michael Vick, who do you think I would select? Don't kid yourself either -- had the Skins landed the top pick, they would've drafted Luck too.

What you'll see with RG3 is exactly what we've seen with every other running QB so far -- they have a great year and the next year, the defenses have all adapted and he'll be screwed. That is why it is very important for him to develop into a pocket passer who only runs as a last resort and who is smart enough to get it out of bounds or slide before the hits come. If he doesn't develop into more or less a pure pocket passer, he won't last.

And ignoring all of the points above, let's assume for a minute that the prospects are equal. Who would you trust more to steer your franchise to championship contender status -- a guy who buys expired peanuts from a bankrupt airline to sell to his fans (and, by the way, has NO track record of winning) or a guy that once he took over the team from his deceased, drunken dad immediately built a contender and won 1 SB and appeared in another? Yeah, I'll take my chance on Irsay surrounding Luck with what he needs.

What a QB in the NFL needs is good pocket "presence", when to slide off the pressure while still look downfield for open receivers. Not only do defenses adapt, today's LB's are far too big and strong to want to absorb open-field hits from. Occasional scramble on a third and 3 with the middle open?, fine but that's about all the running a QB should do IMO. Look at the success of Manning or Brady for examples, both over 10 yrs and playing at a high level..

 

[AMDZen]

bullshit!!! RG3 WILL

Its not even going to be close when all is said and done. RG3 will be a blip on the radar of NFL history, to presume that Luck will be in Canton one day isn't even that big of a stretch statement.

 

[JujuFish]

Why when you can just kneel and end it? Why take the STUPID FUCKING RISK?

Hey dumbass, I never said you shouldn't kneel it. That is absolutely the safest play. You made it sound like the Seahawks were guaranteed one more drive, and I was making sure you weren't really that stupid, which is not something one can take for granted with you.