| 0 |
Subject: Should i even consider benching Romo
Posted by: Poker pro
- [53938220] Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 14:42
However i also have Warner who is hot and has a good matchup..Am i crazy?It will be in the 50s tonite i think during the dallas game! |
| 1 | Poker pro
ID: 53938220
Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 18:08
|
No help?
|
| 2 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 18:27
|
Green Bay is not going to stop Romo. Or, should I say, the odds are against it. Why would you take a risk on Warner? Romo has been consistently better all season. Twice as many TD's, 1000 more passing yards, it's a pretty easy decision.
Don't get beat with your best players on the bench.
|
| 3 | Poker pro
ID: 53938220
Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 18:43
|
Thanks for talking me out of that.Warner i feel is a excellent play also and ill use him in anther league!Thanks
|
| 4 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 18:57
|
Romo is the safer play, but I like Warner better this week.
|
| 5 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 19:35
|
agree with ref.
|
| 6 | Texas Flood
ID: 353452713
Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 22:08
|
Hope you kept Romo.
|
| 7 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 23:34
|
No question, Romo played very well. Dal was 6.5 pt favorites, and that blatantly BS Pass Interference call against GB midway thru the 4th, put Dal up by 10, allowing them to cover the spread. Even the Dal radio announcers, were calling it a BS PI call against GB. Have to wonder, how many tens of thousands changed hands, on that one call. Dal beat GB yes...but THEY didnt cover the spread...the Refs gave it to them.
|
| 8 | wiggs
ID: 51013815
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 00:07
|
sarge,
I disagree, I might be a homer here, but if you watch that PI call the defender clearly grabs his arm and shoulder.
|
| 9 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 09:13
|
I couldnt see the game, but listened on the radio. (Local TX station). Backjudge didnt throw the flag, another one did and they conferred. The announcers on the local radio station however, were syaing the GB fans would be sore PO'd, because it was a HORRIBLE call. Said the two guys got their feet entangled and the defender was half turned looking back to the ball. If two obviously Dallas biased announcers calling the game, call it a BS call, I got to believe they are right. Then in the post game, the two "experts" they reviewed the game with, said the same. So I got 4 announcers/"experts" who are Dallas fans, telling the listening audience, it was a BS call against GB. That works for me when I cant "see" the play in question.
|
| 10 | wiggs
ID: 6825712
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 09:17
|
they definately got their feet tangled to cause the fall, but right before the feet got tangled you see the DB put his arm on his shoulder pad and then on the right (I believe) elbow. I watched the game but couldnt hear it because I was at a bar, so I dont know what was said. I will say it was probably a ticky tack call compared to some of the other stuff that was allowed throughout the game, but i believe the rule is no contact after 5 yards.
|
| 11 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 10:43
|
Difference though, between "Illegal Contact" and Pass Interference. There may have been contact, but if said contact did not "reroute" or "interfere" with the Rcvrs ability to make a play on the ball, then I believe its a 10 yd penalty, not the 40 yarder the PI resulted in. Further, if the contact is "mutual" and the Defender is making a play on the ball, its "Incidental Contact" and no penalty should be called.
|
| 12 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:10
|
IT was incidental contact IMM. Yo ucna't have illegal contact during the pass as that is PI. He touched him, but he did not put the WR at a disadvantage whatsoever. If they don't get their feet tangled I am guessing there wouldn't have been a flag.
GB was missing several of their defenders. KGB causes a lot of pressure on the QB and Woodson is one of the best cover guys. I heard right before the game that Woodson was OUT despite reports all day that said he'd be playing. Obviously that helps the passing game even more.
|
| 13 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:18
|
Coworker (die-hard Dallas fan. He was at the game.) says it was a BS call since the ball was "uncatchable". If the ball CANNOT be caught, then the defender CANNOT interfere. It isnt possible.
|
| 14 | wiggs
ID: 6825712
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:28
|
it is hard for me to say if the pass is uncatchable because to me the hand on the shoulder and elbow slowed him down a step allowing them to get tangled up. IMO if he doesnt slow him down he blows right by him.
I am not a ref, and dont claim to be so I dont know all the rules of PI, and I have seen worse plays that had no calls, but to me if someone touches another player while the ball is in the air it is PI. Also I dont know for a fact, but i dont remember the defender ever looking back for the ball.
There was also a play where I believe it was Crayton in the corner of the end zone and the defender clearly grabbed him on the arm not allowing him to go up and get the ball and there was no call. To me that was a much worse play then the long PI.
|
| 15 | barilko6
ID: 1949205
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:30
|
Re: Woodson in Post 12:
I heard early in the morning that he was definitely out, which lead me to take Dallas. You need better sources!
I saw that play as well, and the announcers also mentioned that it was an uncatchable ball, and therefore shouldn't have been pass interferance.
I was happy though, having already taken Dallas -7.
|
| 16 | wiggs
ID: 6825712
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:30
|
Sarge,
I would like for you to see the play and let me know what you think. It is hard to go only on hearing about it.
|
| 17 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:33
|
Agreed Wiggs, and I am admittedly at a distinct disadvantage trying to discuss the play. But when I have clearly biased Dallas fans, saying it was a BS call against GB, and that it is fairly obvious that call impacted the game, then I have to assume (dangerous as that can be), that there is a reasonable degree of validity to their statements.
|
| 18 | barilko6
ID: 1949205
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:39
|
Watching it live, without reply, I was calling for Pass Interference myself. There was definite contact in the vicinity of what seemed to be a catchable ball.
With the replay, I still think its tough to not call the PI, as the defender did make a lot of contact to the receiver.
|
| 19 | wiggs
ID: 6825712
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:39
|
and like i said in my 1st post, I might be acting as a homer here.
The reason I think i am defending it is I watched the game with about 10 die hard giants fans who hate the cowboys, and not 1 of them said that was a BS call, and that is something they say everytime a call goes in Dallas' favor.
|
| 20 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:41
|
Re: 15
I was watching NFL Network and Adam Schecter or whatever his name is said he'd play (like 90 mins or so before the game). I had heard earlier that day that there was a decent chance he would play afterall. When I heard he was inactive, I went back into Rotohog and got TO back. Still didn't get Romo though. TO/Romo had another TD that TO decided to hand to harris for a pick instead.
|
| 21 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:43
|
Wiggs, from the sideline version, it looks like PU. From the end zone view it looks like incidental contact. I watched the game live and thought it was PI until I saw the replay from the end zone.
|
| 22 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 11:44
|
PU=PI
|
| 23 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 12:55
|
Charles Woodson (toe) was "not even close" to playing on Thursday night.
"It was cut and dried. I knew it wasn't going to happen." Woodson said. Toe injuries can linger, and Charles wouldn't guarantee he'd be back next week. If he has turf toe, it could be a while. His replacement, Jarrett Bush, was benched in favor of Tramon Williams in the second quarter.
Source: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|