Pathetic
S.T.
system. Don't care about the niners or the colts, just got stuck with it as
the only game on...
Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
Colts fans - bummer to be you right now. You got robbed. I think Debartolo
is gonna face a grand jury for ref tampering this time. On the plus side,
at least you don't have to listen to local SF dribble, with ex-niners
talking about the niners 'sheer will to win' ad nauseum. You'd really be
sick if you were hearing this stuff.
Sorry to invade your space, just couldn't let that garbage go without
voicing an opinion.
Steve
Jason Tcheng
: That was sad, illustrated everything that is wrong with the current NFL
: system. Don't care about the niners or the colts, just got stuck with it as
: the only game on...
: Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
: cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
: spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
Questionable calls: interception callback at Indy Goalline, def. holding
on Colt's 5. IMO, the push out-of-bounds (Stoke's TD) was the correct
call. Stokes was almost vertical in vector.
BTW, holding and PI calls are not subject to the phrase ' After further
review'.
: Colts fans - bummer to be you right now. You got robbed. I think Debartolo
: is gonna face a grand jury for ref tampering this time. On the plus side,
: at least you don't have to listen to local SF dribble, with ex-niners
: talking about the niners 'sheer will to win' ad nauseum. You'd really be
: sick if you were hearing this stuff.
Well, I don't think the best calls werer made. However, you should give
credit where it's due. The niners *didn't* give up when they were down
by 21, or down by 14. I guess hearing the same stuff on the radio
*would* get tiring after a while. I've had to put up with some whining
from the Canucks (NHL) up here.
: Sorry to invade your space, just couldn't let that garbage go without
: voicing an opinion.
No invasion of space, your feedback is welcomed.
Jason
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Tcheng <jgtc...@unixg.ubc.ca>
-= UBC Chemical Engineering =-
A friend is someone who knows your faults but likes you anyways.
bambam
S.T. wrote in message <70dtvs$2b4$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>...
>That was sad, illustrated everything that is wrong with the current NFL
>system. Don't care about the niners or the colts, just got stuck with it
as
>the only game on...
>
>Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
>cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
>spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
>
>is gonna face a grand jury for ref tampering this time. On the plus side,
>at least you don't have to listen to local SF dribble, with ex-niners
>talking about the niners 'sheer will to win' ad nauseum. You'd really be
>sick if you were hearing this stuff.
>
>voicing an opinion.
>
>
>
how right you are!!!
bambam
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
> Niners were deep in Indy territory. Steve Young threw a short pass to JJ
> Stokes, but the pass was picked off by an INdy defender (don't know
> who) who returned it to the SF 30 or so (tackled by Young). Stokes and
> the DB were hand-fighting each other, the call was holding. IMO, there
> was no holding (bad call). Possible swing of up to 14.
I agree that this was a bad call. But: it's no worse than PI's that
have been called against the 49ers against Washington, New York, and
Buffalo. PI/Defensive holding seems to be being called awefully tight
this year. I don't like it. I wouldn't throw the flag on this play.
But, given what's been called this year, it's not an absurd call.
> Next play, Young throws a TD pass to Stokes
> in the corner of the endzone. Stokes is pushed such that he can only get
> one foot inbounds.
>
> Initial call from the official is incomplete, but after a conference, the
> call is overturned, SF TD. Correct call, you'll probably agree if you
> see the replay.
The refs conferencing to make the right call is not indicative of them
trying to turn the game in teh niners favor.
> Second bad call is on the Niner's nextpossession. Third down. They're
> deep in the Indy zone, and Young throws a pass near the Indy goalline.
> An Indy DB
> makes contact with Stokes (a light, non-impeding grab at best). Flag
> goes up for holding. Niners go on to score a TD. Possible swing of
> four. (niners in FG range).
Again--I might not call this, but this sort of thing has been being
called this year.
I don't know why the holding and PI rules were tightened up. But I've
been blinking at a lot of calls this year. Again, here, maybe I don't
throw the flag. (Although it wouldn't have taken much for Stokes to be
in position to catch the ball here--he did have a hand on Stokes' hip,
and a little contact there can make a bid difference.) But, is this out
of line with the way we've seen games reffed this year?
Not particularly.
I understand if Indy fans are upset with this call, but it (more than
the other one) seems to be indicative of the way defensive backs are
being asked to play this year. Lord knows we've had plenty of these
flags tossed at niner DBs.
-Ron
Thom Hickey
Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> Spike wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:32:02 -0700, "S.T." <rev...@fan.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
> > >cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
> > >spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
> >
> > Didn't see the game here. What did the refs do? I mean, obviously bad calls, but
> > what specifically?
>
> Watch Primetime tonight, they showed them all.
And two key calls went the 49ers way, no doubt about it. I'm not going to say they
didn't, and I'm not going to say I wouldn't be pissed if those same calls were the other
way around against the 49ers. A win's a win.
Don't try and tell me ESPN is always pro-49er, either. That Primetime spot was definitely unbiased.
Cheers,
Thom
Thom Hickey
Jason Tcheng wrote:
> Second bad call is on the Niner's nextpossession. Third down. They're
> deep in the Indy zone, and Young throws a pass near the Indy goalline.
> An Indy DB
> makes contact with Stokes (a light, non-impeding grab at best). Flag
> goes up for holding. Niners go on to score a TD. Possible swing of
> four. (niners in FG range).
I didn't see that one as so bad. He definitely impeded Stokes in my mind.
You might argue that it was uncatchable, but that's not usually how they
call that one. If the receiver is impeded before the ball arrives, uncatchable
is rarely called. They just don't know what today's athlete is capable of.
Anyway, the refs were involved in the game more than I liked.
Cheers,
Thom
Edward Derson Hou
> Danny Sanders wrote:
> > If this is the way the Niners Defense plans on defending the likes of Favre
> > and Bledsoe later on this season it will be a quick exit come January.
>
>
>
> A beacon of sanity........
>
>
I am in NO WAY saying that the 9ers played well today, nor that the Colts
didn't get robbed today with bad calls, but let's get honest about it.
The 9ers problems basically stem from Langham. Sure, everyone else played
pretty badly as well, but Langham gave up 3 TDs, and along with Walker
allowed anything and everything.
I think the 9ers need to overhaul their corners- the most reasonable thing
to do now IMo is to start Pope and McQuarters, and have Walker alternate
with whoever is doing worse every week.
If they can perform reasonably well (as in average), then I think the 9ers
will not only compete, but compete well with the NFC elite.
-Eddie
Edward Derson Hou
> Danny Sanders wrote:
> > Must suck to lose to a 1-5 team.... of course the Niners fans wouldn't know
> > about that.
>
>
> No, but they know plenty about losing to an 0-3 team.....
>
>
Now 3-3 after defeating the Jags, smart one...
-Eddie
Thom Hickey
Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> The 9ers problems basically stem from Langham
Come on. A little pressure on the QB takes a lot of pressure off Langham.
They definitely exploited him most, but any CB can look bad under those
circumstances.
Cheers,
Thom
Thom Hickey
Edward Derson Hou wrote:
circumstances, especially a rookie.
Cheers,
Thom
Edward Derson Hou
Well, I'm not giving Langham ALL of the blame, but its a major weakness
that we can't depend on the DL or blitzing LBs to compensate for. Let's
say Pope or McQuarters had started today instead of Langham: Langham was
so far removed from the 3 TD's he was directly related to, that it wasn't
even funny. I'm willing to speculate
that the Colts only would have scored 14-21 pts today if Pope had
started the game, even less if we had a premier corner like Deion.
But enough ifs... We played poorly against a fired up, improving Colts
team, and shot ourselves in the foot with turnovers and sloppy OL play as
well.
-Eddie
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thom
>
>
>
Ryan
Thom Hickey <th...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<362ABE44...@pacbell.net>...
>
>
> Edward Derson Hou wrote:
>
> > The 9ers problems basically stem from Langham
>
> Come on. A little pressure on the QB takes a lot of pressure off Langham.
> They definitely exploited him most, but any CB can look bad under those
> circumstances, especially a rookie.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thom
>
On the Colts last couple possessions... the corners played them about 2
yards away from the line of scrimmage--that was key in my opinion on the
defensive stops (plus the Niner's D-line started putting pressure on
Manning). Why was Langham laying of for like 8-10 yards?? That is beyond
me... that didn't even give the Niner's D-line enough time to get to
Manning because Harrison only had to run a quick out, and the ball was
there... Something has to give here other than the Niner's secondary! It
seemed to me that Pope did pretty decent... anyhow, I'm just happy that the
Niners won this game while only playing in the 2nd and 4th quarters... but
if that happens while playing a Green Bay, New England... heck, even the
Falcons, then it would be a sure 49er loss... well, that's my 2 bits on the
game
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
> No, but they know plenty about losing to an 0-3 team.....
That loss is hurting less and less as the Bills win three in a row and
knock off another undefeated team.
-Ron
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
> and the other holding call on the endzone INT was
> another bull call because the ball was tipped anyway.
>
That rule applies to Pass interference, not to defensive holding.
There's a difference. The hold--which was questionable, but not the most
questionable hold I've seen this year--happened before the tip.
-Ron
Adam Small
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> Danny Sanders wrote:
> > Must suck to lose to a 1-5 team.... of course the Niners
> > fans wouldn't know about that.
> No, but they know plenty about losing to an 0-3 team.....
Check that...a 3-3 team, who have beaten two of the elite teams
in football so far...
-Adam
Adam Small
On 19 Oct 1998, DEnge1 wrote:
> > Niners got<BR>
> > spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.<BR>
> thats right!
> Eddie must have gotten down to the field to pay off the
> refs--- thats the only way for the 49ersd could have won
> the game!!!
Need some cheese to go with that w(h)ine?
> sorry colts you played one hell of a game
They did play one hell of a game, and deserve congrats for
putting aside every reason they could've had to be intimidated,
and play the 9ers extremely well.
> but the refs couldn't bare to see the 49er's to lose again
> esp at home so they step in and made horrable calls
Yeah, doesn't it always happen that way?
-Adam
Thom Hickey
Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Thom Hickey wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> >
> > > The 9ers problems basically stem from Langham
> >
> > Come on. A little pressure on the QB takes a lot of pressure off Langham.
>
> > They definitely exploited him most, but any CB can look bad under those
> > circumstances, especially a rookie.
>
> Well, I'm not giving Langham ALL of the blame, but its a major weakness
> that we can't depend on the DL or blitzing LBs to compensate for. Let's
> say Pope or McQuarters had started today instead of Langham: Langham was
> so far removed from the 3 TD's he was directly related to, that it wasn't
> even funny. I'm willing to speculate
> that the Colts only would have scored 14-21 pts today if Pope had
> started the game, even less if we had a premier corner like Deion.
>
> But enough ifs... We played poorly against a fired up, improving Colts
> team, and shot ourselves in the foot with turnovers and sloppy OL play as
> well.
The turnovers were gross. Horrible football. Young was on the turf for most of
the first half. I'd like to see Langham out of there too, though, don't get me wrong.
Cheers,
Thom
Edward Derson Hou
> Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> >
> > > Danny Sanders wrote:
> > > > Must suck to lose to a 1-5 team.... of course the Niners fans wouldn't know
> > > > about that.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, but they know plenty about losing to an 0-3 team.....
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Now 3-3 after defeating the Jags, smart one...
>
>
>
> but Grasshoppa.............they were 0-3 WHEN they beat SF.
>
>
no Grasshoppa, the Bills played as well against the Niners as they did
against the Jags! Not like the Bears, who will probably lose 5 more after
they enjoy their win against Dallas!
-Eddie
Edward Derson Hou
> Thom Hickey wrote:
> >
> > Edward Derson Hou wrote:
>
>
>
> I just hope the Niner defensive coaches are like you and think Langham is the
> only thing wrong with the defense.
No, of course not.
But the corners are 75% of the problem, wouldn't you agree?
-Eddie
>
>
> Go Cowboys!!!
> Monte
>
>
Edward Derson Hou
> Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> > I am in NO WAY saying that the 9ers played well today, nor that the Colts
> > didn't get robbed today with bad calls, but let's get honest about it.
> > The 9ers problems basically stem from Langham. Sure, everyone else played
> > pretty badly as well, but Langham gave up 3 TDs, and along with Walker
> > allowed anything and everything.
> > I think the 9ers need to overhaul their corners- the most reasonable thing
> > to do now IMo is to start Pope and McQuarters, and have Walker alternate
> > with whoever is doing worse every week.
> > If they can perform reasonably well (as in average), then I think the 9ers
> > will not only compete, but compete well with the NFC elite.
>
>
>
> You may want to re-think starting McQ. I saw the Colts tight end Dilger beat
> him today.
>
>
yeah McQ got beat a lot today, but I think he plays much smarter than
Langham does, and is overall more solid. Walker is probably better now,
but I think mcQ can improve gradually.
-Eddie
John W. Walsh
instant replay? When it was in effect more often then not the catch was
ruled a TD when the reciever caught the ball and was pushed by the
defender. Owens' right foot was clearly in and the defender pushed him
laterally. Whether you like it or not the catch would have stood,
especially with instant replay.
Sorry for invading their space? Why did you come there when you could
have come right here and posted it, ya coward!
S.T. wrote:
>
> That was sad, illustrated everything that is wrong with the current NFL
> system. Don't care about the niners or the colts, just got stuck with it as
> the only game on...
>
> Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
> cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
> spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
>
John W. Walsh
it ain't so Spikey!
Spike wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:32:02 -0700, "S.T." <rev...@fan.com> wrote:
>
> >Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
> >cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
> >spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
>
John W. Walsh
Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
>
> Spike wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:32:02 -0700, "S.T." <rev...@fan.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
> > >cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
> > >spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
> >
> > Didn't see the game here. What did the refs do? I mean, obviously bad calls, but
> > what specifically?
>
John W. Walsh
waiting for you!
John W. Walsh
interference called looked sketchy but what was the other one?
Edward Derson Hou
> The linebackers are average at best
In your estimation. Tubbs has been mediocre so far, but Norton and Woodall
are above average on the run, about average against the pass.
and the pass rush sucks when there isn't a
> blitz on.
We'll see what happens by the end of the year.
-Eddie
>
> Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> >
> > > Thom Hickey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
Edward Derson Hou
> Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> > yeah McQ got beat a lot today, but I think he plays much smarter than
> > Langham does, and is overall more solid. Walker is probably better now,
> > but I think mcQ can improve gradually.
>
>
>
> Seriously though, since the Niners signed Langham to a five year $17 million
> deal, what are the cap ramifications if they cut him loose.
>
Well, they're not going to do that, considering that they have no depth at
CB. He'll just be demoted to ST or nickel situations, and be cut at the
end of the season .
-Eddie
John W. Walsh
to ask Antonio Langham for an opinion. ;)
S.T.
>instant replay?
Umm... I don't think so. Let's see though:
>When it was in effect more often then not the catch was
>ruled a TD when the reciever caught the ball and was pushed by the
>defender.
Oh, so that statement is "NFL history"? Sounds a little vague and opinioned
to me, but thanks for the 'history' lesson. You may or may not be right,
neither of us really know the answer (and I know there's no stat to verify
that little gem of an analysis)
>Owens' right foot was clearly in and the defender pushed him
>laterally. Whether you like it or not the catch would have stood,
>especially with instant replay.
Actually the in-bounds/out-of-bounds call wasn't that big a deal. Could make
an argument either way, but niners still had a play or two left if that was
called incomplete, and odds were they would have scored anyhow. It was the
PI calls that were crap, but as someone pointed out (and I forgot) PI isn't
reviewable. So... instant replay wouldn't have made much difference in this
game, would have required competent reffing.
>Sorry for invading their space?
You missed the paragraph break. Was no longer talking solely to Indy fans,
but to both groups when I apologized.
>Why did you come there when you could
>have come right here and posted it, ya coward!
What the hell does that mean??
I posted to both simultaneously, in no particular order. Should I post here
again, am I to do so to the niners group first, then wait five minutes and
post to the other team?
Like I said, I could care less about either team (I'm a pit fan). I just saw
some truly poor reffing, and shared my opinion. Had I known about 1/2 the
niner fans, most Indy fans, and the cast of ESPN (plus one crazed Dallas fan
named Monte) would post similar, probably wouldn't have said anything.
Relax John, you got through that non-conference game. It's back to the other
mighty contenders of the NFC West. I don't see many more close games for you
til the playoffs.
Don't mean to sound like an ass, just bitter cause my weekend is over once
again, and I still haven't seen a Steeler game. Take all the above with a
grain of salt.
Steve
DEnge1
>spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.<BR>
thats right!
Eddie must have gotten down to the field to pay off the refs--- thats the only
way for the 49ersd could have won the game!!!
sorry colts you played one hell of a game but the refs couldn't bare to see the
Jason Tcheng
: On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:32:02 -0700, "S.T." <rev...@fan.com> wrote:
: >Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
: >cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
: >spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
: Didn't see the game here. What did the refs do? I mean, obviously bad calls, but
: what specifically?
Two *really* bad ones come to mind. Both led to Niners TDs.
Niners were deep in Indy territory. Steve Young threw a short pass to JJ
Stokes, but the pass was picked off by an INdy defender (don't know
who) who returned it to the SF 30 or so (tackled by Young). Stokes and
the DB were hand-fighting each other, the call was holding. IMO, there
was no holding (bad call). Possible swing of up to 14.
Next play, Young throws a TD pass to Stokes
in the corner of the endzone. Stokes is pushed such that he can only get
one foot inbounds.
Initial call from the official is incomplete, but after a conference, the
call is overturned, SF TD. Correct call, you'll probably agree if you
see the replay.
Second bad call is on the Niner's nextpossession. Third down. They're
deep in the Indy zone, and Young throws a pass near the Indy goalline.
An Indy DB
makes contact with Stokes (a light, non-impeding grab at best). Flag
goes up for holding. Niners go on to score a TD. Possible swing of
four. (niners in FG range).
So there ya have it Spike. I give the Colts credit for taking advantage
of SF mistakes, and not getting fazed by the bad calls (after seeing
their 21 point lead go down to 4, they went out and promptly scored 10
more), but their inability to hold a 14 point lead shows they
still have work to do. The fact that the Niners should have lost this
game, based on how they played, shows they have MUCH work to do too...
Jason
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Tcheng <jgtc...@unixg.ubc.ca>
-= UBC Chemical Engineering =-
A friend is someone who knows your faults but likes you anyways.
Monte Whisenhunt
>
> On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:32:02 -0700, "S.T." <rev...@fan.com> wrote:
>
> >Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
> >cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
> >spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
>
> Didn't see the game here. What did the refs do? I mean, obviously bad calls, but
> what specifically?
Danny Sanders
Niners fan. It was also the worst half of football that the Niners have
played this season (Buffalo game included). I feel for every Indy fan in
the land and feel like this game was stolen from them.
The holding call on the INT was bull, the in-bounds judgement on JJ's TD was
just that;"judgemental", and the other holding call on the endzone INT was
another bull call because the ball was tipped anyway.
Mooch ought to have his defensive coordinators head on a platter, because it
surely wasn't in this game. You can blame Langham and whoever else you want
but John Marshall is the worst excuse for a defensive coordinator I have
ever seen for the Niners. Peyton Manning has thrown the most INT's in the
NFL (with the exception of that other guy that was drafted behind him) so
what do you think you ought to do for a defensive scheme when he comes
calling on SF? You lay back and and let him dink and dunk you to death over
the middle with short passes to RB's and TE's without any pressure on him
whatsoever.
If this is the way the Niners Defense plans on defending the likes of Favre
and Bledsoe later on this season it will be a quick exit come January.
S.T. wrote in message <70dtvs$2b4$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>...
>That was sad, illustrated everything that is wrong with the current NFL
>system. Don't care about the niners or the colts, just got stuck with it
as
>the only game on...
>
>Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
>cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
>spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
>
Danny Sanders
Monte Whisenhunt wrote in message <362A8FE1...@home.com>...
the
>> >cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
>> >spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
>>
calls, but
>> what specifically?
>
>
>Watch Primetime tonight, they showed them all.
They also showed all them wonderful Cowboy highlights....and the lowlights.
Must suck to lose to a 1-5 team.... of course the Niners fans wouldn't know
about that.
And before you reply Monte....Yes, It was a very poorly officiated game that
was earned by the Niners after the officials brought them back from the
dead.
Gotta love the "Niner huddle" :))
Monte Whisenhunt
> If this is the way the Niners Defense plans on defending the likes of Favre
> and Bledsoe later on this season it will be a quick exit come January.
A beacon of sanity........
Monte Whisenhunt
> Must suck to lose to a 1-5 team.... of course the Niners fans wouldn't know
> about that.
Monte Whisenhunt
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
>
Monte Whisenhunt
>
> Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
>
> > No, but they know plenty about losing to an 0-3 team.....
>
> knock off another undefeated team.
If that makes you feel better, so be it.............
Monte Whisenhunt
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
>
> > Danny Sanders wrote:
>
> > > Must suck to lose to a 1-5 team.... of course the Niners
> > > fans wouldn't know about that.
>
>
>
> in football so far...
Yeh buddy, they beat the Colts and Jags on consecutive weeks. You're
right.........they have beaten two elite teams.
Go Cowboys!!!
Monte
Monte Whisenhunt
Monte Whisenhunt
>
> Edward Derson Hou wrote:
I just hope the Niner defensive coaches are like you and think Langham is the
only thing wrong with the defense.
Go Cowboys!!!
Monte
Monte Whisenhunt
blitz on.
Edward Derson Hou wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
>
> > Thom Hickey wrote:
> > >
> > > Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I just hope the Niner defensive coaches are like you and think Langham is the
> > only thing wrong with the defense.
>
Monte Whisenhunt
Thom Hickey
Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> Ron Moskovitz, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> >
> > > No, but they know plenty about losing to an 0-3 team.....
> >
> > That loss is hurting less and less as the Bills win three in a row and
> > knock off another undefeated team.
>
> If that makes you feel better, so be it.............
Much better, thank you.
Thom
Monte Whisenhunt
the win so maybe you have seen the calls and aren't taking off your maroon and
gold glasses during the slow motion replays.......
John W. Walsh wrote:
>
> Obviously bad calls? Coming from you, the leader of the Boys? Tell me
> it ain't so Spikey!
>
Monte Whisenhunt
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> and the pass rush sucks when there isn't a
> > blitz on.
>
If you're unlucky enough to have an injury or two..........it COULD be worse.
Monte Whisenhunt
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
>
> CB. He'll just be demoted to ST or nickel situations, and be cut at the
> end of the season .
So, what kind of cap hit would that include?
Thom Hickey
I didn't see the interference on the pick nor the interference on the
game tying drive. You know, I think it was Stokes, might have been
Owens. That was incidental contact.
Thom
John W. Walsh wrote:
> Tell me which two calls your referring to, Thom? I know the
> interference called looked sketchy but what was the other one?
>
> Thom Hickey wrote:
> >
> > Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> >
> > > Spike wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:32:02 -0700, "S.T." <rev...@fan.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Rarely blame losses of refs, but come on... this game will be used as the
> > > > >cornerstone for the argument to bring back instant replay. Niners got
> > > > >spanked, plain and simply, til the refs got involved.
> > > >
> > > > Didn't see the game here. What did the refs do? I mean, obviously bad calls, but
> > > > what specifically?
> > >
> > > Watch Primetime tonight, they showed them all.
> >
some dude
Now 3-3, better than the 1-5 bears and the crappy raiders... in your face,
baby.
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> Danny Sanders wrote:
> > Must suck to lose to a 1-5 team.... of course the Niners fans wouldn't know
> > about that.
>
>
> No, but they know plenty about losing to an 0-3 team.....
>
>
============================================================================
Ramesh Srinivasan "It is difficult to get news
Stanford University from poems yet men die
hi...@leland.stanford.edu miserably for lack of what
is found there"
-William Carlos Williams
Monte Whisenhunt
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
> If that makes you feel better, so be it.............
Of course it does, Monta, and you know it. Nobody minds losing to a
good team--okay, nobody likes it, either, but we know that it happens.
Even undeniably great teams lose games.
And the Bills have looked like a damn good team in their last three
games. They looked like a horrible one in their first three. What's the
difference? I don't know. Did they get people back from injury? Did
something just "click?".
Obviously, I'd rather we'd have won. But the Bills have shown that
they're a good team.
At this point, I'd rather have lost ot them than to the Bears.
-Ron
DEnge1
>didn't, and I'm not going to say I wouldn't be pissed if those same calls
>way around against the 49ers. A win's a win.<BR>
but that the only the 49 can win is by having the refs in there corner
Edward Derson Hou
> Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> > and the pass rush sucks when there isn't a
> > > blitz on.
> >
> > We'll see what happens by the end of the year.
>
>
>
> If you're unlucky enough to have an injury or two..........it COULD be worse.
>
>
What, you're saying that Gabe Wilkins and Bonham weren't injured before
this week? Could have fooled me... ;-)
-Eddie
Mike Wenthold
> Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> >
> > > > Must suck to lose to a 1-5 team.... of course the Niners fans wouldn't know
> > > > about that.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, but they know plenty about losing to an 0-3 team.....
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> but Grasshoppa.............they were 0-3 WHEN they beat SF.
>
more cowboys fans logic.
Mike Wenthold
> Apparently you haven't seen the calls in question. Your also bragging about
> the win so maybe you have seen the calls and aren't taking off your maroon and
> gold glasses during the slow motion replays.......
>
you haven't really whined yet monte.. but your on thin ice with that one.
Mike Wenthold
100...@elaine1.Stanford.EDU>, ed...@leland.Stanford.EDU says...
> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > only thing wrong with the defense.
>
>
> No, of course not.
> But the corners are 75% of the problem, wouldn't you agree?
>
> -Eddie
>
>
our only shutout and really good defensive game plan was when we got tons
of pressure on danny waffle and harrassed him all day long.
Mike Wenthold
100...@elaine1.Stanford.EDU>, ed...@leland.Stanford.EDU says...
> In your estimation. Tubbs has been mediocre so far, but Norton and Woodall
> are above average on the run, about average against the pass.
>
>
tubbs has been average, not mediocre. langham has been mediocre, and the
pash rush is downright pathetic. if we could get more pressure more
consistently, langham would look significantly better (maybe not up to
par but better).
Mike Wenthold
> Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> > > blitz on.
> >
> > We'll see what happens by the end of the year.
>
>
>
> If you're unlucky enough to have an injury or two..........it COULD be worse.
>
hate seeing people injured, but watch the defense play better.
I think he'd be riding the pine anyway, regardless of the injury.
Mike Wenthold
> Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> >
> > > > yeah McQ got beat a lot today, but I think he plays much smarter than
> > > > Langham does, and is overall more solid. Walker is probably better now,
> > > > but I think mcQ can improve gradually.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Seriously though, since the Niners signed Langham to a five year $17 million
> > > deal, what are the cap ramifications if they cut him loose.
> > >
> >
> > Well, they're not going to do that, considering that they have no depth at
> > CB. He'll just be demoted to ST or nickel situations, and be cut at the
> > end of the season .
>
>
> So, what kind of cap hit would that include?
>
not much, I don't recall him getting a big signing bonus.. it would be
ugly, but not really destructive.
I think they will give him another year though. look at pope.. he played
almost as bad and turned out to be good (had a near-pro bowl one year).
now if he could just get that injury thing out of the way.. we would be
halfway solid at one CB position. Walker has been good, but lacks
physically against the bigger stronger recievers.
Mike Wenthold
> Ron Moskovitz, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > Monte Whisenhunt wrote:
> >
> >
> > knock off another undefeated team.
>
>
>
>
a loss is a loss.. why do you hang on to the one niners loss this year?
I'd be more worried about the cowboys losses this year. not terribly so,
but still...
I guess if fixating on the niners loss makes you feel better.. so be it.
John W. Walsh
but it doesn't change reality one bit, does it? If life was fair your
team or whatever team you care to mention would never lose and all the
calls would be fair.
Are you saying this never happens to any other team? That all the other
games are fairly called? That only the Niners are favored simply
because the Commissioner sent the refs a message to go easy on the
Niners? That would be nice if it were true .... however, we both know
life doesn't work that way.
Nate Walker
> Next play, Young throws a TD pass to Stokes
>in the corner of the endzone. Stokes is pushed such that he can only get
>one foot inbounds.
>
>Initial call from the official is incomplete, but after a conference, the
>call is overturned, SF TD. Correct call, you'll probably agree if you
>see the replay.
That is the only questionable call that the Niners can make a case
for. The rest of the questionable calls were just awful. It almost
reminded me of NBA officiating.
>So there ya have it Spike. I give the Colts credit for taking advantage
>of SF mistakes, and not getting fazed by the bad calls (after seeing
>their 21 point lead go down to 4, they went out and promptly scored 10
>more), but their inability to hold a 14 point lead shows they
>still have work to do. The fact that the Niners should have lost this
>game, based on how they played, shows they have MUCH work to do too...
Yeah, if the Colts were a Bronco caliber team, they would have put the
9ers away. The refs didn't cost the Colts the game, but they sure
gave the Colts an extra obsticle(sp?) to deal with.
JayMagic
Congeniality compared to the AFC, they are barely even with the non-elite
AFC teams (like Buffalo and the Colts).
It won't matter which NFC comes out to play, come January, the roles have
reversed and the AFC is now the much stronger conference.
JayMagic
Go World Champion Broncos!!!
Mike Wenthold
>
> not much, I don't recall him getting a big signing bonus.. it would be
> ugly, but not really destructive.
>
> I think they will give him another year though. look at pope.. he played
> almost as bad and turned out to be good (had a near-pro bowl one year).
> now if he could just get that injury thing out of the way.. we would be
> halfway solid at one CB position. Walker has been good, but lacks
> physically against the bigger stronger recievers.
>
I correct that, he had a pretty healthy 3 million signing bonus. I guess
we try to get to try to rebuild his confidence for a couple more
years....
Mike Wenthold
says...
Navin Sharma
>
> The first thing to remember is that the`"NFC Elite" is now like Miss
> Congeniality compared to the AFC, they are barely even with the non-elite
> AFC teams (like Buffalo and the Colts).
>
> It won't matter which NFC comes out to play, come January, the roles have
> reversed and the AFC is now the much stronger conference.
>
> JayMagic
> Go World Champion Broncos!!!
That is why NE needed a last second field goal to beat the Saints, right?
--
Navin Sharma
remove SPAMSTOP
http://www.duke.edu/~ns7/
jest...@my-dejanews.com
Monte Whisenhunt <mon...@home.com> wrote:
> Danny Sanders wrote:
> > Must suck to lose to a 1-5 team.... of course the Niners fans wouldn't know
> > about that.
>
>
How overrated do you think the Jaguars are now that they lost to the same
team, redneck?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own