ImageImage

GT: Eagles @ Packers

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25, humanrefutation

User avatar
chuckleslove
RealGM
Posts: 18,566
And1: 1,128
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
Location: In an RV down by the river
Contact:
     

Re: GT: Eagles @ Packers 

Post#781 » by chuckleslove » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:13 pm

Marley2Hendrix wrote:
chuckleslove wrote:
Marley2Hendrix wrote:
Yep, at least we'll see bullet interceptions rather than the dying ducks seneca was tossing up. Wallace would have led us to 6 points at best. Tolzien, well, 12?[/quote]


Seneca led us to 17 points last week with no game planning whatsoever, I don't know how people figure we wouldn't score at all or only 6 points, you just make yourself look like an idiot spewing stuff like that.


(*cough*)



Not sure what point you are trying to make here. You don't know what Wallace would have done if he played the entire game, neither do I definitively but I think it would have been more than 6 points like you claimed and I stand by that.
I'm dealing with cancer, it sucks, can follow along for updates if that's your thing: Chuck's cancer Go Fund Me page
User avatar
trwi7
RealGM
Posts: 111,786
And1: 27,354
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: Aussie bias
         

Re: GT: Eagles @ Packers 

Post#782 » by trwi7 » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:14 pm

You guys want to place blame on this game?

Two missed field goals (though one was 53 yards and probably shouldn't have been attempted with Crosby's awfulness from 50+)

Defense giving up over 6 yards per carry

Defense allowing nearly 230 pass yards on only 12 completions

Two interceptions, including one in the end zone
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."


I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
User avatar
Turk Nowitzki
RealGM
Posts: 34,459
And1: 11,475
Joined: Feb 26, 2010
Location: on the Hellmouth
     

Re: GT: Eagles @ Packers 

Post#783 » by Turk Nowitzki » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:16 pm

We had several chances that would've made this much more a game than it turned out to be. Trying to find a silver lining here.
User avatar
emunney
RealGM
Posts: 62,883
And1: 41,260
Joined: Feb 22, 2005
Location: where takes go to be pampered

Re: GT: Eagles @ Packers 

Post#784 » by emunney » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:16 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
emunney wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:
Yeah, but you're response to GB rings false because by confirming it rather than saying that it stands, they need to find that there is definitive proof that the call was correct.


No, that's not how it works. You need to find definitive proof to overturn the call. No proof is required to confirm it.


My understanding is that there are two standards for holding up the play:

1. Confirming: saying the call is correct.
2. Saying it Stands: no indisputable video evidence.

Am I wrong?


You're not wrong, but that doesn't mean he needs indisputable evidence to confirm the call. Not that there's any distinction in outcome whether the call 'stands' or 'is confirmed' anyway. It's purely a value judgment with no consequences.
Here are more legal notices regarding the Posts
User avatar
humanrefutation
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 32,909
And1: 16,588
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
       

Re: GT: Eagles @ Packers 

Post#785 » by humanrefutation » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:18 pm

emunney wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:
emunney wrote:
No, that's not how it works. You need to find definitive proof to overturn the call. No proof is required to confirm it.


My understanding is that there are two standards for holding up the play:

1. Confirming: saying the call is correct.
2. Saying it Stands: no indisputable video evidence.

Am I wrong?


You're not wrong, but that doesn't mean he needs indisputable evidence to confirm the call. Not that there's any distinction in outcome whether the call 'stands' or 'is confirmed' anyway. It's purely a value judgment with no consequences.


I don't think I agree with you on the "indisputable evidence" portion, but we're pretty much arguing semantics at that point.
User avatar
MadCityBucky
General Manager
Posts: 9,873
And1: 11
Joined: Jun 21, 2007

Re: GT: Eagles @ Packers 

Post#786 » by MadCityBucky » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:26 pm

The safeties on this team are terrible, especially Jennings, guy seems to make one huge mistake every game that gives up a TD.
xTitan
RealGM
Posts: 17,135
And1: 2,283
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
     

Re: GT: Eagles @ Packers 

Post#787 » by xTitan » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:29 pm

MadCityBucky wrote:The safeties on this team are terrible, especially Jennings, guy seems to make one huge mistake every game that gives up a TD.

Burnett us awful as well, I can't understand why his non-tackling, non-playmaking ass keeps getting a pass.

Return to Green Bay Packers