New Site

Exactly, which is why you look ridiculous. Saying it's possible that we also had the lateral call on for the first punt against Atlanta instead of just admitting the truth which is that the opposite side man responsible for blocking the gunner almost always ends up in that position just shows that you're arguing this for personal reasons.

It's possible, I guess. I just find it odd that on a supposedly set lateral, Marshall would run back exactly like he does on normal punt returns, and that he never did get back to Gamble's level before the throw even though Chris held it for a good three seconds.

 

actually no. I believed it was a called play executed poorly. The team and the coach said so as well. I don't believe you've proven anything above other than circumstance. The end result is that it was a called play. John Fox isn't infalliable and he's not covering anything up. The team isn't going to practice something all week without the head coach being involved, and the head coach is damn sure going to be involved on calling any special plays, much less being involved on the overall calls.

It has nothing to do with you and it reflects poorly upon you when you keep wanting to make it about you.

and when he did go back, he hauled ass to get back to it. I have no idea why this keeps it from being a called play.

 

You keep coming after me to argue with me about it, just like you came after me about Delhomme in the chat. You always insist that it's just me being paranoid, but whatever the motive, the simple fact is that you keep instigating arguments over the things I say. My guess is that with the effort I've been putting into my site and all you feel like you've been lazy lately since you haven't really made any insightful comments or threads in a long while now, and so you're engaging in old feuds.

In any case, you said that Marshall didn't have blocking, then said he did have blocking, then admitted that he didn't. You said Marshall wouldn't have been in that position if it hadn't been a called play, then when I provided proof that Marshall was in the same position on a punt return against Atlanta, you said we might have had the lateral call on then too.

Now if you don't have anything else to add, maybe you can be bothered to actually produce something worth reading instead of having every other post be an argument with me.

 

There's no motive. I just believe you're wrong, and your 'evidence' is circumstancial just as it was in chat with "what the fuck". And if I can't say anything to disagree with you without you feeling like it's some vendetta, that sounds like your issue, not mine. That, or you're trying to invalidate my opinion by trying to get in some pissy spat. Either way, if your words are that valid, they can stand without you being angry at me for disagreeing, or for agreeing with what the coach said.

Uhh, yeah, sure. That's it. I'm jealous of the attention you're getting, or something. I wish I could've spent till 1 am freezeframing things to state something a coach disproved in 0:00:45.

I don't remember ever saying he had blocking, but maybe I did. Either way, I stated that he wouldn't likely have blocking.

You don't know we didn't have the call. You do know the coaches' words on this, which don't go back to last week of course. Neither of us know for sure. When Gamble threw, Marshall damn sure knew what was going on. Marshall would have to travel from the line to get to where he needed to be, regardless. And from Gamble's throw, he obviously wasn't where Gamble expected him to be.

 

Dude, it's at the top of this page.

Jesus, you're so obsessed with arguing with me about everything that you can't even keep straight what you've said shortly after you said it.

Agreed.

In any case, could you maybe be bothered to write something worth reading? It's been a while since you've put something good together, and I used to enjoy reading the breakdowns. I know it's not a matter of time, because you're spending plenty of that arguing with me.

 

don't see it, the first at the top of my page is WP. And how does "why would Marshall have blockers" = me saying "Marshall had blockers"?

I also never said "the MCM didn't have blocking". I said, in chat, that I didn't believe he did. You proved otherwise. You never had a counter for my statement that the play was designed not to have it, that the play would look obvious, and that PRs generally don't have any sort of realistic blocking or personal protection at this level anyway.

I'm stating my points. You disagree with them. To this moment, I've yet to see anything that proves the call wasn't in place. It has nothing to do with you. I'm arguing with anyone who continues to push this "the team did something behind John Fox's back, he'd never call this" stuff. Because I don't believe it's true. If you want me to go counterpoint on anything you break down, I'd be glad to, even though this could very well just be baiting.

 

Isn't that what you'd want though? To make it look totally like every other play?

 

You said "why would Marshall have blockers" as a way of "proving" that the play was designed. You were saying that Marshall did have blockers, and thus that it was planned. Only you'd earlier stated and now again say that Marshall didn't have blockers, which is correct.

This is getting pathetic. In the first part of that quoted portion you reference the fact that I proved you wrong about the Music City Miracle not having blocking in front of Dyson. I showed that it did, which you kindly admit. Then you say I have no counter for the assertion that a lateral shouldn't have blocking anyway? The Music City Miracle is the counter, dude. How could you miss that? At this point you're just rambling because you're upset, which is understandable, but it's getting a bit ridiculous. The MCM was referenced precisely because it was an analogous example, and it did have blocking. Now the lack of blocking certainly doesn't "prove" that the play was unplanned, since it could have been designed with no blocking or just executed incredibly poorly, but when coupled with all the other evidence it sure casts an awful lot of doubt.

Fine. Notice that I'm not the one who hounded you in chat about it. I'm not the one who came into your thread and argued about it. I'm not the one saying that your opinion is invalid. You're coming after me and instigating this argument, for whatever reason. We disagree, so let it go.


vpkozel:
No, you most definitely wouldn't want Marshall to still be five yards upfield of Gamble three seconds after he caught the ball. It seems like even magnus agrees about that.

 

Why would he have blockers = "he was supposed to have blockers"? No. That doesn't mean that at all.

I'm not upset at all, but thanks for being concerned. :gaga:

I don't see any counter for it, no. MCM was a kick return. Not analogous. A similar throw situation, but there have been actual plays like this I've seen in NFL games that didn't have blocking. Not KR.

It was probably both poor execution (regardless of Gamble's throw) and designed without blocking. Plays are often designed without blocking in the element of surprise, and punts don't have blocking handy unless they just don't rush the punt at all.

I'm not saying your argument is invalid, but by you trying to start this personal stuff, you're trying to discredit me by saying it's just me disagreeing. It's certainly not which is why I suggested moving on.
So we're agreed.

 

you wouldn't want Marshall standing out there from the snap or running right there, or him standing there with 3 blockers ahead of him, but Marshall still should've been in position. Whether that proves anything about whether it was called or not, I believe not. Gamble was definitely executing something, and throwing to someone.