******* Bucs vs Skins Game Thread *******

Well I'll be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
OH BS. You are telling me that Simms didn't see him after staring him down for five seconds?
 
Well game over, skins win. Looking forward to the Seahawks whipping the the crap out of the skins next week.
 
Skins 121 yds of O.......set record for lowest production of a winning team in a playoff game....................................lol
 
some BS calls saved this team. I'll have fun seeing you get killed in Qwest you SOB team...
 
ahhh, its always "Can't wait for the (X) to crush the Skins next week."

Yeah, our offense sucked, Portis looked hurt. We lost Wynn and Taylor.

But, a win is a win.

I'll take it.
 
well.after watching this game........my suspicions are verified.
 
You think Simms would trade the Horns Natinonal Championship win for the win here?
 
joe theismann is the biggest geek on the planet.
 
lanecity1975 said:
well.after watching this game........my suspicions are verified.

There is no way you can tell me that wasn't a catch. The hypocrisy of "the rule" (another magical one like the tuck rule) was already made apparent earlier by myself.
 
SultanOfSix said:
There is no way you can tell me that wasn't a catch. The hypocrisy of "the rule" (another magical one like the tuck rule) was already made apparent earlier by myself.


read the post directly on top of yours.

that was my suspicion.
 
That was an easy replay to get right.

we all saw the ball smash into the ground and move around. It wasn't a catch.
 
Wheat said:
That was an easy replay to get right.

we all saw the ball smash into the ground and move around. It wasn't a catch.

Um ok. Tell me how this isn't bull****:

I like how when a running back is tackled and his knee is down, the field cannot cause a fumble.

But somehow, if the receiver catches the ball and is tackled with the knee down and the ground causes a fumble, it's an incomplete pass.
 
because he had the ball from a hand off, he had posession.

a WR has to get the ball in his hands and control it.
 
Wheat said:
because he had the ball from a hand off, he had posession.

a WR has to get the ball in his hands and control it.

Yeah, which he did.

There was no bobbling or anything.

He caught it, his knee hit, then the ground caused the fumble.

How is it different?
 
because the running back has already established posession.
 
lanecity1975 said:
because the running back has already established posession.

Exactly, it's a question of possession. That's not what the ruling on the field stated.

He said, he has to have possession until he hits the ground and maintain it when he does. That is total BS.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
464,647
Messages
13,824,214
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top