Comments for Minor annoyances at http://www.18to88.com , comment 1 to 59 out of 20 comments http://www.18to88.com Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:55:08 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1993 Oh, I'm a piece of work? We've had three debates: 1. the first you proved yourself wrong 2. The second was a kind of split decision where plenty of people backed us both 3. This one you claim I had Alzheimers because I claimed a kick was short when the announcer who was there claimed it was short twice. Do you deny that kick would have been good from 50 yards? If so, don't you think that means the coach should have tried to get a couple more yards to give it a better chance? Even if that kick was long enough, which it might have been (I'm not saying it wasn't, just that it was hard to tell from that angle), it was clearly right on the border of Prater's range. McDaniels screwed up. He needed to gain 5-7 yards. He gained 3 with a gutless play call. It wasn't enough. The video shows that. The field goal was on line until the end when it ran out of gas. - DZ Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:49:05 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1992 Angle, my ass. That is irrefutable evidence that the kick was long ENOUGH to be good. If it was a foot to the left, it was 3 points. The small margin he missed it makes the angle a moot point. You really are a piece of work. Proves HIS point, he says! LOL. - Guy Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:42:21 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1991 Interesting. I don't think that helps you much. 1. I'm not sure it was long enough. The angle you froze it at isn't along the back side line. If you note, the point where the ball was froze it was in front of the goal line. If it was long enough, it wasn't by much. Prater clearly needed a couple more yards. 2. You certainly can see why I said it was short. Tirico declared it short twice. It's not like I freeze framed it at the time of the game to check how short it was. 3. That kick is good from 50 yards. No good from 54. Sort of proves my point. Thanks for doing the work. I'll post it and let others comment - DZ Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:16:25 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1990 Not only was the kick long enough, it was cromartie who almost caught it, not sproles. Vegetables are good for your memory, DZ. Try some. - Guy Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:04:57 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1989 ok that didn't work. try this link: [url]http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=21c80sl&s=4[/url] let's hope the NFL doesn't pull this from the website any time soon. - Guy Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:03:08 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1988 Original Video - More videos at TinyPic - Guy Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:02:19 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1985 You're going to do a hell of a lot of squirming when you see the kick was long enough. :) - Guy Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:22:18 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1984 That's my point though...he needed 5-7 yards and he got three. Three is fine if it is enough, [i]which I don't think it normally would be[/i]. There was plenty of time to get more than three yards. I objected to the profuse praise the coach got because he essentially took the safest, most gutless route and I felt like it cost the team. Worst decision ever? Meh, probably not. Wrong? Probably. Gutless? Without question. It was the safest possible call. Too safe. RE: guy...yeah TYT is an incredible site. I'm going to bed...get it to me and I'll embedded it tomorrow. - DZ Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:17:05 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1983 Awesome! I've been looking for a site like that for Colts games. Can't believe that didn't come up via search. Anyway, I am getting the first half of the game, I will cut out the field goal so it is a smaller file and see if I can post it somewhere or send it to you directly. Shouldn't be too long. - Guy. Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:14:21 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1982 And this is classic DZ overreaction. Gutless, stupid, whatever else he called it. Worst decision ever. C'mon. It's a play before the half that didn't work. Another yard to the right and you can't say shit. - J.C. Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:13:42 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1981 I think if you polled 100 NFL Fans about what distance is more manageable, an overwhelming majority would vote for 54 as manageable whereas 57 would poll much lower. If the pass is incomplete then the kick is definitely short. If he picks up a few yards (Brady gets 5-7 on that play sometimes) it's a manageable kick. - J.C. Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:11:45 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1980 I will say this about arguing with you, Guy. You don't wuss out. I applaud you for that. - DZ Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:07:15 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1979 I admire your dedication. http://leech.tenyardtorrents.com/ sign up for a free account and you can bit torrent the game. It's a great site in general - DZ Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:05:44 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1978 It was a bad call if the odds of the pass play + the shorter FG were greater than the odds of just a 54 Yard FG. That's what I can't prove. IF the numbers were against it, then it was a bad call. - DZ Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:03:52 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1977 If you can give me a link to download the game, I will do it. I just can't find one. - Guy. Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:03:17 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1976 As for your find with the Colts running the successful play: who cares? Just proving that it's possible doesn't mean the call on the field was incorrect. I've already admitted that they COULD have tried the pass. But, like I said twice, they tried that already on first down. It didn't work, so they just wanted a few yards. It wasn't a BAD call. Not even close. - Guy. Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:02:06 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1975 Also in the 2006 NE game, it took the Colts 7 seconds to run a 32 yard pass play to Fletcher that started at the 2:08 mark and he went OB at 2:01. 5 seconds is a long time in the NFL. - DZ Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:01:33 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1974 What I would like you to admit is that you may be wrong that it was short. As I remember it, it was long enough. I remember specifically thinking to myself that he had the distance. I was rooting for the Broncos, so I had my eye on it. You telling me that your memory is better without having proof is pissing me off. Find the video and we can continue discussion. Otherwise, this is just pointless. But when you really think about it... who cares if he WAS short? 54 is not an unthinkable distance for an NFL kicker. Kickers make that all the time. One short kick does not make 54 an unmakeable distance. So I'm not sure how you think that makes any difference. - Guy. Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:59:14 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1973 Oh, by the way... I did find this: # 3-10- (Eight seconds) (Shotgun) 18-P.Manning pass deep left to 44-D.Clark ran ob at MIA 30 for 20 yards. # 1-10-MIA 30 (:02) 4-A.Vinatieri 48 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-48-J.Snow, Holder-1-P.McAfee. Apparently it took the Colts just 6 seconds to run a 20 yard play against Miami. There was certainly time then to run 5-10 yard play for Denver in 5 seconds. - DZ Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:57:39 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/minor-annoyances.html#comment-1972 I've already stated that I can't prove my point. I'm not sure what else you want me to say. You certainly haven't said anything to prove yours, but I admitted the burden of proof is on me, and I couldn't meet it statistically, and I'm not going to download an entire game just re-watch that one play. In the end, we are left with you saying it was a makeable field goal and me saying, "No, not really". That makes for a boring argument. - DZ Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:52:13 +0100