My Oakland Raiders looking great in preseason. - Page 12

stevew · 10-15-2006, 09:58 PM

13 penalties. I doubt most good teams get that many in 4 games.

Izulde · 10-15-2006, 10:19 PM

I wonder what jbmagic's going to have to say after this game.

Desnudo · 10-15-2006, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izulde

I wonder what jbmagic's going to have to say after this game.

:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbmagic

Your such an asswhite cyberbully that never predicted anything wrong.

Your so perfect.

Experts on Sports TV or radio never predicted anything wrong before???

Pumpy Tudors · 10-16-2006, 07:20 AM

Lamont Jordan's tantrum after his 4th quarter fumble was awesome. That was passion! The Raiders have passion now! Apparently, passion still doesn't win football games!

stevew · 10-16-2006, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Lamont Jordan's tantrum after his 4th quarter fumble was awesome. That was passion! The Raiders have passion now! Apparently, passion still doesn't win football games!

lol, yeah, but he's trying so hard. Look at the fire in his belly.

Raiders Army · 10-16-2006, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Lamont Jordan's tantrum after his 4th quarter fumble was awesome. That was passion! The Raiders have passion now! Apparently, passion still doesn't win football games!

What's really funny is that I told my wife that Jordan is a pussy since he ran out of bounds in the first quarter without getting hit...and then John Madden mentioned the same thing (great minds think alike...yea right).

Anyhow, it's like that tantrum made a difference. Jeez. It was disgusting to watch. Get your team fired up...if I were his teammate that wouldn't fire me up. I also think that Terdell Sands' penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct near the 2 minute warning sealed the deal.

Another thing: the penalty called on Barry Sims for a false start was not him. Denver's LDE moved first on the other side of the line before he moved.

Ksyrup · 10-16-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Another thing: the penalty called on Barry Sims for a false start was not him. Denver's LDE moved first on the other side of the line before he moved.

Which isn't a penalty on the defense unless he's in the neutral zone or touches the offensive player and causes the offensive player to move. And even then, unless he touches him, it's rarely called on the defense.

TroyF · 10-16-2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Which isn't a penalty on the defense unless he's in the neutral zone or touches the offensive player and causes the offensive player to move. And even then, unless he touches him, it's rarely called on the defense.

Actually any flinch by the D, even if they don't hit the neutral zone, can be called on the defense. I've seen it happen a lot more this year than it has in the past. FWIW, I agree with Raiders on this one, I think it should have been a defensive penalty.

But with the Raiders, does it really make a difference?

Have you ever seen in NFL team decide to sit on a 10 point lead in the second quarter? Denver didn't try another deep pass after the one to Walker to give them their first TD. They just ran the ball and punted it. I know the Broncos offense isn't that good, but it's really not hard to stop when Shanahan decides to call it a night in the second quarter.

If the Raiders win a game this year, I'll be stunned.

Ksyrup · 10-16-2006, 08:30 AM

I haven't noticed an increase in those calls on the defense this year. It's still almost always called on the offense when it's close. And like you said, it's not like mattered much to the game.

wade moore · 10-16-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroyF

Actually any flinch by the D, even if they don't hit the neutral zone, can be called on the defense. I've seen it happen a lot more this year than it has in the past. FWIW, I agree with Raiders on this one, I think it should have been a defensive penalty.

But with the Raiders, does it really make a difference?

Have you ever seen in NFL team decide to sit on a 10 point lead in the second quarter? Denver didn't try another deep pass after the one to Walker to give them their first TD. They just ran the ball and punted it. I know the Broncos offense isn't that good, but it's really not hard to stop when Shanahan decides to call it a night in the second quarter.

If the Raiders win a game this year, I'll be stunned.

I'm going to try to look it up, but my understanding of the rule was also that the defense had to be in the nuetral zone for it to be called.

albionmoonlight · 10-16-2006, 08:35 AM

Just Win1 Baby!

1 For contests occurring on or after August 6, 2006, "win" is defined as (1) any preseason contest in which a team is "looking great;" (2) any regular season contest in which a team "beats the spread;" (3) any regular season contest after which a team has not been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs; (4) any regular season contest during which no players on a team openly laugh at the team’s quarterback while the contest is ongoing; or (5) any regular season contest whose conclusion brings the 2006 season one game closer to completion.

Raiders Army · 10-16-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroyF

But with the Raiders, does it really make a difference?

It definitely did not in that game. That was just one of those things I could cling to to show "The refs screwed us!"

albionmoonlight · 10-16-2006, 08:53 AM

Joking aside, I hope that this is a one year blip for the Raiders and some positive housecleaning occurs after this season.

No team's fans deserve to watch a team with no hope whatsoever for a decent season.

It's not just that they are losing; it's that they are losing in a way that gives no confidence that things can be corrected.

Ksyrup · 10-16-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wade moore

I'm going to try to look it up, but my understanding of the rule was also that the defense had to be in the nuetral zone for it to be called.

That's my understanding. I do think there's a rule that you can't flinch to purposely draw the offense into a false start, but if you move toward the line and the O lineman starts before you've come into the neutral zone, I believe technically that's an offensive penalty.

Ksyrup · 10-16-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

No team's fans deserve to watch a team with no hope whatsoever for a decent season.

With all due respect... the Raiders' fans do.

wade moore · 10-16-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's my understanding. I do think there's a rule that you can't flinch to purposely draw the offense into a false start, but if you move toward the line and the O lineman starts before you've come into the neutral zone, I believe technically that's an offensive penalty.

Yeah.. unfortunately I'm finding it VERY difficult to get any detailed descriptions of penalty rules.

Izulde · 10-16-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Just Win1 Baby!

1 For contests occurring on or after August 6, 2006, "win" is defined as (1) any preseason contest in which a team is "looking great;" (2) any regular season contest in which a team "beats the spread;" (3) any regular season contest after which a team has not been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs; (4) any regular season contest during which no players on a team openly laugh at the team’s quarterback while the contest is ongoing; or (5) any regular season contest whose conclusion brings the 2006 season one game closer to completion.

This post needs more credit.

EagleFan · 10-16-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wade moore

Yeah.. unfortunately I'm finding it VERY difficult to get any detailed descriptions of penalty rules.

Call the Raiders. They seem to have a detailed playbook of how to get called for every penalty in the game. On the bright side, they have really nailed that.

stevew · 10-16-2006, 09:16 AM

Is the penalty in question called a neutral zone infraction? Or is that merely a fancy way of saying offsides?

SunDevil · 10-16-2006, 09:18 AM

No offense to Bronco fans, but your team is horrible to watch. If the Bronco's offensive gameplan is not cut back to the level that Cutler could understand it by now, I really do not see how much more of it they can take out. What is really sad is that this is all for Jake not to screw up and lose the game. I honestly believe this is his last year.

Pumpy Tudors · 10-16-2006, 09:19 AM

It was a little hard to tell because of the uniforms and padding and all that, but I'm ready to announce that my wife actually took eight snaps in the second half for the Broncos last night. She had her own #16 jersey, and she allowed Plummer to get a little extra rest.

She did a good job on handoffs, but she had one pretty bad throw. I hear that she'll be running a couple of bootlegs when the Broncos meet the Raiders in Oakland later this year.

wade moore · 10-16-2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

Is the penalty in question called a neutral zone infraction? Or is that merely a fancy way of saying offsides?

Neutral Zone Infraction, I believe, is designed for when a player sets up in their stance in the Neutral Zone and is there when the ball is snapped.

Edit: Although what we're talking about may fall in that rule also.

Bee · 10-16-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunDevil

No offense to Bronco fans, but your team is horrible to watch. If the Bronco's offensive gameplan is not cut back to the level that Cutler could understand it by now, I really do not see how much more of it they can take out. What is really sad is that this is all for Jake not to screw up and lose the game. I honestly believe this is his last year.

I think Jake is likely to be the starting QB for the Raiders next year.

edit: Or maybe Pumpy's wife after reading his post.

Pumpy Tudors · 10-16-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunDevil

No offense to Bronco fans, but your team is horrible to watch. If the Bronco's offensive gameplan is not cut back to the level that Cutler could understand it by now, I really do not see how much more of it they can take out. What is really sad is that this is all for Jake not to screw up and lose the game. I honestly believe this is his last year.

I find the Broncos difficult to watch, but I don't think they're trimming the gameplan to make it easier for Cutler. Is that the word going around? They're just taking things out of the offense so they can play Cutler this year? They've won four games in a row. I've seen coaches do crazy things, but I don't think anybody in the NFL would change quarterbacks when the team is winning.

Plummer's only good game this year was against New England, but you can see the difference in the team's performance when he's simply not making mistakes. Against the Rams, he was terrible, and the Broncos lost. Since then, he's not losing fumbles, and he's keeping the interceptions down. That's all the offense requires of him.

The Denver offense is ugly this year. There's no doubt about that. Still, it's a pretty nice situation when you're confident about winning with a quarterback who passes for only 100 yards, as long as he's not turning the ball over. Other teams have to worry about their offensive lines, their defenses, their running backs, receivers dropping passes, the kicking game, the special teams, etc. So far, the Broncos have shown that they can win as long as the quarterback doesn't give the ball away. The rest of the team is doing its job. If Plummer gets back to where he was last year, the team should be pretty much unstoppable.

stevew · 10-16-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

It was a little hard to tell because of the uniforms and padding and all that, but I'm ready to announce that my wife actually took eight snaps in the second half for the Broncos last night. She had her own #16 jersey, and she allowed Plummer to get a little extra rest.

She did a good job on handoffs, but she had one pretty bad throw. I hear that she'll be running a couple of bootlegs when the Broncos meet the Raiders in Oakland later this year.

She really needs to shave that beard though.

stevew · 10-16-2006, 09:33 AM

Here it is.

Quote:

Jerry Markbreit's answers
Have a question about the rules of football? Our expert, former NFL referee Jerry Markbreit, will have the answer.

December 9, 2004, 11:37 AM CST

Would you please explain to me what exactly is the difference between offsides, encroachment and a neutral zone infraction? I don't think they are interchangeable terms, but the referee uses the same signal for all three calls. --Jeff Jhee, Chicago

A player is offside when any part of his body is beyond his line of scrimmage or free kick line when the ball is put in play. Encroachment is when a defensive player enters the neutral zone with any part of his body and makes contact with an opponent prior to the ball being snapped. This play is killed immediately. A neutral zone infraction occurs whenever a defender enters the neutral zone, causing the offensive player in close proximity to react immediately (move). This play is shut down immediately, and no snap is allowed to occur. All three of these fouls carry a five-yard penalty and a replay of the down.

wade moore · 10-16-2006, 09:36 AM

Sweet, thanks stevew!

Although I don't know that necessarily answers whether something can be called if a defender causes the offensive player to move when not in the neutral zone, but i dont' think there's a rule against it.. otherwise you could call ar ule for a linebacker making a run at the line and stopping up short, which is just dumb.

Ksyrup · 10-16-2006, 09:40 AM

So the play in question could still have been an offensive penalty had the O lineman moved before the D lineman entered the neutral zone. That's what I thought. Now, whether that actually happened or not, I don't know. But I rarely see the D line called for a penalty on that when it's close.

Pumpy Tudors · 10-16-2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

She really needs to shave that beard though.

I've been telling her that for about a month now.

jbmagic · 10-16-2006, 10:02 AM

You guys that predicted 7-9 and 8-8 can kiss my white ass too. Your just as wrong than I was on my predicition.

Pumpy Tudors · 10-16-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbmagic

You guys that predicted 7-9 and 8-8 can kiss my white ass too. Your just as wrong than I was on my predicition.

I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say this.

Bee · 10-16-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say this.

I assume you are referring to him using "white ass" instead of "asswhite"?

TroyF · 10-16-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunDevil

No offense to Bronco fans, but your team is horrible to watch. If the Bronco's offensive gameplan is not cut back to the level that Cutler could understand it by now, I really do not see how much more of it they can take out. What is really sad is that this is all for Jake not to screw up and lose the game. I honestly believe this is his last year.

Agree with the first part, do not agree with the second part at all. They are horrible to watch and they do have game plans in where they are telling Jake not to lose the game. No doubt about it. They need to take the noose off Jake and let him go. As great as the D is (and it's really, really good), they aren't winning a title with an offense this bad.

But they aren't shrinking the gameplan because of Cutler. They don't want to play Cutler this year. They are trying to make sure Jake doesn't lose them football games, that's the reason, plain and simple.

As for next year, the job is Cutler's. Barring a freak injury before game 1, I'd be stunned if anyone other than Jay Cutler took the opening snap of the year for Denver next season.

bulletsponge · 10-16-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroyF

Agree with the first part, do not agree with the second part at all. They are horrible to watch and they do have game plans in where they are telling Jake not to lose the game. No doubt about it. They need to take the noose off Jake and let him go. As great as the D is (and it's really, really good), they aren't winning a title with an offense this bad.

But they aren't shrinking the gameplan because of Cutler. They don't want to play Cutler this year. They are trying to make sure Jake doesn't lose them football games, that's the reason, plain and simple.

As for next year, the job is Cutler's. Barring a freak injury before game 1, I'd be stunned if anyone other than Jay Cutler took the opening snap of the year for Denver next season.

agreed with the Cutler part. they have to know Jake the mistake will screw up in the playoffs, giving them a perfect excuse to dump him and start Cutler next season

Oilers9911 · 10-16-2006, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbmagic

You guys that predicted 7-9 and 8-8 can kiss my white ass too. Your just as wrong than I was on my predicition.

Is it even worth trying to explain your vs you're?

Oilers9911 · 10-16-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbmagic

You guys that predicted 7-9 and 8-8 can kiss my white ass too. Your just as wrong than I was on my predicition.

Dola: Actually since you predicted 10-6 you are 3 games worse than the 7-9 guys and 2 games worse than the 8-8 guys.

wade moore · 10-16-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

Is it even worth trying to explain your vs you're?

This is a rhetorical question, right?

Butter · 10-16-2006, 10:56 AM

Maybe by next year, the Broncos will have a running back worth a crap too.

Oilers9911 · 10-16-2006, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wade moore

This is a rhetorical question, right?

Yes but I expect a retort from jb that contains the following words in some combination. white, bully, ass, cyber, your.

Pumpy Tudors · 10-16-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Maybe by next year, the Broncos will have a running back worth a crap too.

Tatum Bell is second in the AFC in rushing, and he's 35 yards behind McGahee (who's played one more game). I'm not sure where your comment is coming from.

TroyF · 10-16-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Tatum Bell is second in the AFC in rushing, and he's 35 yards behind McGahee (who's played one more game). I'm not sure where your comment is coming from.

Ditto. Tatum is playing fantastic. The offense isn't throwing the ball at all which is allowing defenses to stack the line and Tatum is running very well. He run on 3rd and 8 against the Ravens, when he carried Ray Lewis the final four yards set up the game clinching TD last Monday night. He ran for over 90 yards against the Ravens D.

He's averaging 4.7 yards a carry.

Maybe I missed some sarcasm here, but I don't get it. He's the very least of our problems on offense.

Izulde · 10-16-2006, 11:50 AM

I wonder if jbmagic will go insane if the Faiders end up 0-16

Pumpy Tudors · 10-16-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izulde

I wonder if jbmagic will go insane if the Faiders end up 0-16

I can't wait for Week 16 when jbmagic predicts that the Raiders will go 0-16, and then they'll win their season finale and finish 1-15.

Oilers9911 · 10-16-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I can't wait for Week 16 when jbmagic predicts that the Raiders will go 0-16, and then they'll win their season finale and finish 1-15.

Then we'll get a thread titled My Raiders Looking Great in Off-Season

Dawgfan1980 · 10-16-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroyF

Agree with the first part, do not agree with the second part at all. They are horrible to watch and they do have game plans in where they are telling Jake not to lose the game. No doubt about it. They need to take the noose off Jake and let him go. As great as the D is (and it's really, really good), they aren't winning a title with an offense this bad.

But they aren't shrinking the gameplan because of Cutler. They don't want to play Cutler this year. They are trying to make sure Jake doesn't lose them football games, that's the reason, plain and simple.

As for next year, the job is Cutler's. Barring a freak injury before game 1, I'd be stunned if anyone other than Jay Cutler took the opening snap of the year for Denver next season.

As a Bronco fan, I have to say I love the gameplan this year for the Broncos. Against teams that have little to no offensive punch (read the Chiefs with Huard, the Ravens, and the Raiders) why do anything to screw up the game? It isn't about playing a "pleasing" style of football. It is about winning. Denver's defence is its strength (as it has been for about three years now), so why not play to that?

Plummer can make plays, but he also can make mistakes, so why not run the ball, and punt if you have to? Last night, did anyone really think the Raiders were going to score more than 13 points? Once Bailey makes the pick near the endzone, that is game.

Are the Raiders really an 0-16 team? If they don't get the penalties and turnovers figured out, then yes. I like them playing Walters, but they do have a legit back-up in Tuiasasopo, who didn't even get a sniff, which begs to question why have him on your team. The Raiders are a team in trouble, lacking identity on either side of the ball. The LB's are decent, but that's about it. Really, its a sad state of affairs.

As for Cutler next year, I think it will be an open competition going into the season. This could be a draft though we look back for Denver and all go "wow". Cutler in the 1st round, Walker for a second rounder, Dumervil (who I think could be a Leonard Little type of rusher) in the 4th, and a future center in Greg Eslinger in the 7th round from Minnesota who won the Rimmington award as best Center last year, but slipped because he was undersized (see Tom Nalen).

Besides, would you rather have Art Shell, or Mike Shanahan?

TroyF · 10-16-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawgfan1980

As a Bronco fan, I have to say I love the gameplan this year for the Broncos. Against teams that have little to no offensive punch (read the Chiefs with Huard, the Ravens, and the Raiders) why do anything to screw up the game? It isn't about playing a "pleasing" style of football. It is about winning. Denver's defence is its strength (as it has been for about three years now), so why not play to that?

Plummer can make plays, but he also can make mistakes, so why not run the ball, and punt if you have to? Last night, did anyone really think the Raiders were going to score more than 13 points? Once Bailey makes the pick near the endzone, that is game.

Are the Raiders really an 0-16 team? If they don't get the penalties and turnovers figured out, then yes. I like them playing Walters, but they do have a legit back-up in Tuiasasopo, who didn't even get a sniff, which begs to question why have him on your team. The Raiders are a team in trouble, lacking identity on either side of the ball. The LB's are decent, but that's about it. Really, its a sad state of affairs.

As for Cutler next year, I think it will be an open competition going into the season. This could be a draft though we look back for Denver and all go "wow". Cutler in the 1st round, Walker for a second rounder, Dumervil (who I think could be a Leonard Little type of rusher) in the 4th, and a future center in Greg Eslinger in the 7th round from Minnesota who won the Rimmington award as best Center last year, but slipped because he was undersized (see Tom Nalen).

Besides, would you rather have Art Shell, or Mike Shanahan?

Shanahan in a walk.

My problem with the gameplan is twofold:

1) You keep teams that don't belong in a game long enough, they sometimes end up beating you. The KC game went to OT. We let the Raiders hang in there way to long.

2) Eventually, we are going to have to score points and if we are used to holding back, we may not be able to just turn it on like a light switch. Do you think 13 points beats the Colts in two weeks or the Steelers on the road in 3? I don't. We need to turn it up a notch.

As for next year, I don't think it'll be a competition at all. In fact it wouldn't shock me to see Plummer traded prior to training camp. I'd bet a very large sum of money that Cutler is not only the #1 guy next year, but that he heads into training camp as the number 1 guy. You can tell Shanahan doesn't trust Plummer. Plummer doesn't have the mental makeup to be a backup.

Cutler will be the number one guy next year.

albionmoonlight · 10-16-2006, 12:32 PM

The Raiders can't even beat the Broncos in being the main topic of conversation in a thread about the Raiders.

Dawgfan1980 · 10-16-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroyF

Shanahan in a walk.

My problem with the gameplan is twofold:

1) You keep teams that don't belong in a game long enough, they sometimes end up beating you. The KC game went to OT. We let the Raiders hang in there way to long.

2) Eventually, we are going to have to score points and if we are used to holding back, we may not be able to just turn it on like a light switch. Do you think 13 points beats the Colts in two weeks or the Steelers on the road in 3? I don't. We need to turn it up a notch.

As for next year, I don't think it'll be a competition at all. In fact it wouldn't shock me to see Plummer traded prior to training camp. I'd bet a very large sum of money that Cutler is not only the #1 guy next year, but that he heads into training camp as the number 1 guy. You can tell Shanahan doesn't trust Plummer. Plummer doesn't have the mental makeup to be a backup.

Cutler will be the number one guy next year.

No one in Bronco nation trusts Plummer, myself included. He is a better version of Trent Dilfer. He manages the game well. I think though that Shanahan is playing to our strengths right now, which are defence and the ground attack.

Will this be the game plan against the Colts and Steelers? Not the Colts (who were tested by the Titans two weeks ago) but maybe the Steelers (The Chiefs finally had their blow up game last week, I don't still think the Steelers are all that great right now). We all know what wins in football, defence, running the ball, and one or two big plays in the passing game. Isn't that what we are doing right now?

And yes, we do keep teams in games too long, but we also stay in games too long. We shouldn't have been near in the Rams game, but we were close at the end. If we control turnovers (see limiting the gambling big plays) we have a great chance in any game. Would you have rather seen Jake go out there and crap himself and we lose to Oakland?

As for next year, I think they shop Plummer and get very few bites on the open market, since trades are always undervalued (although, Bailey for Portis and a 1st rounder is looking good, as is Walker for a second). The competition is open in training camp, Plummer gets it to start, but is always looking over his shoulder, Sunday night Sportscenter have the second story being "Is it time to play Cutler?" for about three weeks and then Plummer pukes on himself in a game and the Cutler era begins. I think alot has to do if the O-Line all comes back next year, or if we have some drop-off there.

mckerney · 10-16-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

Here it is.

There's also movement unnatural to the game that can be called when a player makes a non football move in an attempt to draw an offensive lineman into a false start, which does not require going into the neutral zone.

Bee · 10-16-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The Raiders can't even beat the Broncos in being the main topic of conversation in a thread about the Raiders.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

10-15-2006, 10:19 PM	#552
Izulde Head Coach Join Date: Sep 2004	I wonder what jbmagic's going to have to say after this game. __________________ 2006 Golden Scribe Nominee 2006 Golden Scribe Winner Best Non-Sport Dynasty: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty) Rookie Writer of the Year Dynasty of the Year: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty)

10-16-2006, 07:20 AM	#554
Pumpy Tudors Bounty Hunter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Pittsburgh, PA	Lamont Jordan's tantrum after his 4th quarter fumble was awesome. That was passion! The Raiders have passion now! Apparently, passion still doesn't win football games! __________________ No, I am not Batman, and I will not repair your food processor.

10-16-2006, 08:30 AM	#559
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	I haven't noticed an increase in those calls on the defense this year. It's still almost always called on the offense when it's close. And like you said, it's not like mattered much to the game. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

10-16-2006, 09:19 AM	#571
Pumpy Tudors Bounty Hunter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Pittsburgh, PA	It was a little hard to tell because of the uniforms and padding and all that, but I'm ready to announce that my wife actually took eight snaps in the second half for the Broncos last night. She had her own #16 jersey, and she allowed Plummer to get a little extra rest. She did a good job on handoffs, but she had one pretty bad throw. I hear that she'll be running a couple of bootlegs when the Broncos meet the Raiders in Oakland later this year. __________________ No, I am not Batman, and I will not repair your food processor.

10-16-2006, 09:40 AM	#578
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	So the play in question could still have been an offensive penalty had the O lineman moved before the D lineman entered the neutral zone. That's what I thought. Now, whether that actually happened or not, I don't know. But I rarely see the D line called for a penalty on that when it's close. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete." Last edited by Ksyrup : 10-16-2006 at 09:40 AM.

10-15-2006, 09:58 PM	#551
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	13 penalties. I doubt most good teams get that many in 4 games.

10-16-2006, 08:35 AM	#561
albionmoonlight Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Carolina	Just Win1 Baby! 1 For contests occurring on or after August 6, 2006, "win" is defined as (1) any preseason contest in which a team is "looking great;" (2) any regular season contest in which a team "beats the spread;" (3) any regular season contest after which a team has not been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs; (4) any regular season contest during which no players on a team openly laugh at the team’s quarterback while the contest is ongoing; or (5) any regular season contest whose conclusion brings the 2006 season one game closer to completion.

10-16-2006, 08:53 AM	#563
albionmoonlight Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Carolina	Joking aside, I hope that this is a one year blip for the Raiders and some positive housecleaning occurs after this season. No team's fans deserve to watch a team with no hope whatsoever for a decent season. It's not just that they are losing; it's that they are losing in a way that gives no confidence that things can be corrected.

10-16-2006, 09:16 AM	#569
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	Is the penalty in question called a neutral zone infraction? Or is that merely a fancy way of saying offsides?

10-16-2006, 10:02 AM	#580
jbmagic Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2004	You guys that predicted 7-9 and 8-8 can kiss my white ass too. Your just as wrong than I was on my predicition.

10-16-2006, 10:56 AM	#588
Butter Coordinator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Dayton, OH	Maybe by next year, the Broncos will have a running back worth a crap too. __________________ My listening habits

10-16-2006, 11:50 AM	#592
Izulde Head Coach Join Date: Sep 2004	I wonder if jbmagic will go insane if the Faiders end up 0-16 __________________ 2006 Golden Scribe Nominee 2006 Golden Scribe Winner Best Non-Sport Dynasty: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty) Rookie Writer of the Year Dynasty of the Year: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty)

10-16-2006, 12:32 PM	#597
albionmoonlight Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Carolina	The Raiders can't even beat the Broncos in being the main topic of conversation in a thread about the Raiders.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)