GT: Eagles @ Packers

[chuckleslove]

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.

[trwi7]

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

[Turk Nowitzki]

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.

[emunney]

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.

[humanrefutation]

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.

[MadCityBucky]

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

[xTitan]

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.