If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Seahawks QB and apparent Jedi Russell Wilson says Seahawks, not refs, responsible for win   (espn.go.com) divider line 246
    More: Unlikely, Seahawks  
•       •       •

1368 clicks; posted to Sports » on 25 Sep 2012 at 12:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



246 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-25 02:43:42 PM  
At least one fun thing came out of the games this weekend. This quote:

"The rules of this game is, 'Do whatever you gotta do, by any means necessary.'"

-Ray Lewis


//Stabby stab
 
2012-09-25 02:46:03 PM  
i1151.photobucket.com



Not exactly sure what I'm seeing here, but it looks like equal control before the downed ball. Just saying....
 
2012-09-25 02:46:26 PM  

HeathenHealer: This weekend I plan on coming home from the bars at 4am reeking of PBR and Astroglide. When my wife questions me i'll just say "I don't know what you're talking about".


My god man, that plan is crazy enough to actually work!
 
2012-09-25 02:47:51 PM  
Lots of butthurt fans out there. They called it a TD, reviewed it and still called it a TD. New rules say that you have to have control once you hit the ground. Both players had control hitting the ground so catch goes to the offense.

Get over it and stop whining.
 
2012-09-25 02:48:00 PM  

Treygreen13: Rent Party: They have won 2 games. They beat the Packers hands down. Without the assistance of the referees, the Packers score 3 points last night. That is how good that defense is.

And without the assistance of the referees, the Seahawks won. At least the Packers were "helped" into scoring position. The Seahawks were literally gifted a win. Not to mention the referees swallowing the whistle on that little smug prick Golden Tate's fail for the 2nd straight week.

I'm already sick of talking about this. The refs need to come back so we don't have to argue who was helped more prominently into the position to win.


I don't understand the Tate hate.
 
2012-09-25 02:48:26 PM  
That, and...



i1151.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-25 02:51:29 PM  

Alphakronik: [i1151.photobucket.com image 327x212]



Not exactly sure what I'm seeing here, but it looks like equal control before the downed ball. Just saying....


Lets ignore offense vs defense for a second. let's imagine you don't know who was supposed to catch the ball.

Which guy has 2 hands on the ball and has it cradeled in his chest? Which one looks like he is trying to strip the ball?
 
2012-09-25 02:51:55 PM  

Treygreen13: Rent Party: They have won 2 games. They beat the Packers hands down. Without the assistance of the referees, the Packers score 3 points last night. That is how good that defense is.

And without the assistance of the referees, the Seahawks won. At least the Packers were "helped" into scoring position. The Seahawks were literally gifted a win. Not to mention the referees swallowing the whistle on that little smug prick Golden Tate's fail for the 2nd straight week.



The Seahawks had to overcome bad refs to win that game. You can cry all day about the 7 that the refs spotted the 'Hawks, but how come you aren't shedding any tears for the 9 they spotted the Pack?

Take away all the gifts, and that game is a 7-3 win for the Seahawks.
 
2012-09-25 02:52:53 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Rent Party: They have won 2 games.

Yep. That's it.


And in both of them they absolutely dominated top shelf offenses.
 
2012-09-25 02:56:12 PM  

seumasokelly: Treygreen13: Rent Party: They have won 2 games. They beat the Packers hands down. Without the assistance of the referees, the Packers score 3 points last night. That is how good that defense is.

And without the assistance of the referees, the Seahawks won. At least the Packers were "helped" into scoring position. The Seahawks were literally gifted a win. Not to mention the referees swallowing the whistle on that little smug prick Golden Tate's fail for the 2nd straight week.

I'm already sick of talking about this. The refs need to come back so we don't have to argue who was helped more prominently into the position to win.

I don't understand the Tate hate.


Tate is a farking Superhero. After blowing up Sean Lee last week, his miracle catch this week, combined with his Reganesque "I can't recall" answers to how Sam Shields ended up on his face, I believe there is nothing that this man can't do.
 
2012-09-25 03:04:45 PM  

Rent Party: Treygreen13: Rent Party: They have won 2 games. They beat the Packers hands down. Without the assistance of the referees, the Packers score 3 points last night. That is how good that defense is.

And without the assistance of the referees, the Seahawks won. At least the Packers were "helped" into scoring position. The Seahawks were literally gifted a win. Not to mention the referees swallowing the whistle on that little smug prick Golden Tate's fail for the 2nd straight week.



The Seahawks had to overcome bad refs to win that game. You can cry all day about the 7 that the refs spotted the 'Hawks, but how come you aren't shedding any tears for the 9 they spotted the Pack?

Take away all the gifts, and that game is a 7-3 win for the Seahawks.


The problem is there were so many bad calls you can't even say what the outcome should have been, except for the final play. I have a hard time even remembering all the awful calls, and that's a bad sign.

* Bogus PI call on Chancellor, extended GB drive for TD.
* Some people hate the hands to the face call, but he did have his hands in the face. Whatever. I forgot the game situation here.
* Bogus PI call on Sam Shields when Rice was all over him. Converted 1st and forever, affected field position later.
* Bogus roughing the passer call because the refs don't know that the low-hit protection doesn't apply to a QB outside the pocket. Negated interception.
* Charles Woodson got away with DPI on the second-to-last play.

It really sucks that there's so many wrong calls, even ignoring the final play. My point, though, is as soon as even one play is changed everything after that is changed. You can't say "Packers drive should have stalled, so take away 6 points and the rest of the game plays out the same". No, all the play calls change, all the field position changes. What we CAN say for sure, though, is how the final play definitively affected the game, because it is final.

The Seahawks defense is for real. But no one really talks about that, because of this B.S.
 
2012-09-25 03:07:14 PM  

BGates: Both players had control hitting the ground so catch goes to the offense.


Assuming you are saying that this is a "simultaneous catch" and "the tie goes to the runner":

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012% 2 0-%20Rule%20Book.pdf

Page 47 of the Adobe, Page 39 of the actual document, Item 5. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.

if they both come down with control it means nothing. Who has possesion first is all that matters in that situation. People want to debate if the Seahawk had possesion first? That's cool. I personally think it's obvious the Packer does.

My opinion aside, anyone who says "they both came down with it so it's a tie" and uses THAT as their defense, is unfortuanetly 100% wrong accoring to clearly stated NFL rules.
 
2012-09-25 03:10:06 PM  

seumasokelly: I don't understand the Tate hate.


Him blowing up Sean Lee was a Hines Ward-esque cheap shot of a player that couldn't see him, and then he crawls around on the ground celebrating while the play is still live. He was fined appropriately.

This week he commits egregious PI (that the league acknowledges was totally missed) on a play and then is incorrectly awarded a TD and he's walking around with a shiat-eating grin about how he got away with PI and how that travesty of a call was just him "making a play".
 
2012-09-25 03:11:36 PM  

Rent Party: Jim from Saint Paul: Rent Party: They have won 2 games.

Yep. That's it.

And in both of them they absolutely dominated top shelf offenses.


Hey, if they keep it up for 20 weeks, sign me up. How about you win a SB because of your defense like those 85 Bears before you start throwing that comparison out? Or troll on, if you prefer.
 
2012-09-25 03:14:06 PM  

SkittlesAreYum:
The Seahawks defense is for real.


And they have 13 more weeks to continue to prove that.
 
2012-09-25 03:14:50 PM  

SkittlesAreYum: Rent Party: Treygreen13: Rent Party: They have won 2 games. They beat the Packers hands down. Without the assistance of the referees, the Packers score 3 points last night. That is how good that defense is.

And without the assistance of the referees, the Seahawks won. At least the Packers were "helped" into scoring position. The Seahawks were literally gifted a win. Not to mention the referees swallowing the whistle on that little smug prick Golden Tate's fail for the 2nd straight week.



The Seahawks had to overcome bad refs to win that game. You can cry all day about the 7 that the refs spotted the 'Hawks, but how come you aren't shedding any tears for the 9 they spotted the Pack?

Take away all the gifts, and that game is a 7-3 win for the Seahawks.

The problem is there were so many bad calls you can't even say what the outcome should have been, except for the final play. I have a hard time even remembering all the awful calls, and that's a bad sign.


My metric is really simple: Did the bad call lead to an extension of a drive that ultimately scored? For the Packers, this is "Yes, twice, for 9 points."

If the bad call led to an extension of a drive that ended up in a punt or a turnover, then I call that the universe evening things out.
 
2012-09-25 03:15:53 PM  

Rent Party: My metric is really simple: Did the bad call lead to an extension of a drive that ultimately scored? For the Packers, this is "Yes, twice, for 9 points."

If the bad call led to an extension of a drive that ended up in a punt or a turnover, then I call that the universe evening things out.


I kept wondering why you were so adamantly defending something so very, very wrong. And then I looked at your profile.

Location: Seattle

Well, that explains it.
 
2012-09-25 03:17:25 PM  
Eh, the hands to the face one wasn't THAT bad of a call. The guy was pulling Rodgers down and had a hand on the inside of his helmet, while he was being pulled down. Live-action that does look like a face-mask, even though the mask wasn't being used to pull him down.

The others were bad, though. Funny how the only ones saying it was the right call are Seahawks fans, and the occasional Bears/Vikings fan.
 
2012-09-25 03:17:56 PM  

Treygreen13: seumasokelly: I don't understand the Tate hate.

Him blowing up Sean Lee was a Hines Ward-esque cheap shot of a player that couldn't see him,


Lee needs to keep his eyes on where he's going, not on where he's been. Lee has 4 inches of height and 40lbs of mass over Tate. There is no way Tate could have blocked him without some helmet contact. That Lee couldn't see him is Lee's fault, not Tate's.

What's he supposed to do, say "Hey Mr. Linebacker, would you please kindly look over here so I can interfere with your ability to tackle my ball carrier?"

That was a brutally clean block, with your standard pantswetting reaction from the league.
 
2012-09-25 03:18:54 PM  

Treygreen13: Rent Party: My metric is really simple: Did the bad call lead to an extension of a drive that ultimately scored? For the Packers, this is "Yes, twice, for 9 points."

If the bad call led to an extension of a drive that ended up in a punt or a turnover, then I call that the universe evening things out.

I kept wondering why you were so adamantly defending something so very, very wrong. And then I looked at your profile.

Location: Seattle

Well, that explains it.


It's not wrong. The refs spotted Green Bay 9 points, and not one single tear was shed over it.
 
2012-09-25 03:21:40 PM  

Rent Party: Treygreen13: seumasokelly: I don't understand the Tate hate.

Him blowing up Sean Lee was a Hines Ward-esque cheap shot of a player that couldn't see him,

Lee needs to keep his eyes on where he's going, not on where he's been. Lee has 4 inches of height and 40lbs of mass over Tate. There is no way Tate could have blocked him without some helmet contact. That Lee couldn't see him is Lee's fault, not Tate's.

What's he supposed to do, say "Hey Mr. Linebacker, would you please kindly look over here so I can interfere with your ability to tackle my ball carrier?"

That was a brutally clean block, with your standard pantswetting reaction from the league.


He made slight helmet contact, which on a technical level is illegal and worthy of a flag/fine. He tried to make a clean block and just missed it.
 
2012-09-25 03:21:46 PM  

machoprogrammer: Funny how the only ones saying it was the right call are Seahawks fans, and the occasional Bears/Vikings fan.



I haven't seen one of us call it the right call. We are just HAPPY with the call. Totally different dude.
 
2012-09-25 03:22:27 PM  

Rent Party: Lee needs to keep his eyes on where he's going, not on where he's been. Lee has 4 inches of height and 40lbs of mass over Tate. There is no way Tate could have blocked him without some helmet contact. That Lee couldn't see him is Lee's fault, not Tate's.

What's he supposed to do, say "Hey Mr. Linebacker, would you please kindly look over here so I can interfere with your ability to tackle my ball carrier?"

That was a brutally clean block, with your standard pantswetting reaction from the league.


Tate went away from the direction the runner was going to deliver a blindside helmet to helmet hit against a player that was pursuing the play. This is one area where I'm not willing to even listen to other arguments. There's no way it was a block to extend that play, otherwise Tate would have gone up-field and blocked the guy who forced Wilson out of bounds. It was an attempt to make a big hit, and he did, and after the hit (while the play was still live) he celebrated his cheap shot.

And he got fined for it, so you can't go and re-write that to be a totally legal hit. It wasn't. Deal with it.
 
2012-09-25 03:23:59 PM  

seumasokelly: Rent Party: Treygreen13: seumasokelly: I don't understand the Tate hate.

Him blowing up Sean Lee was a Hines Ward-esque cheap shot of a player that couldn't see him,

Lee needs to keep his eyes on where he's going, not on where he's been. Lee has 4 inches of height and 40lbs of mass over Tate. There is no way Tate could have blocked him without some helmet contact. That Lee couldn't see him is Lee's fault, not Tate's.

What's he supposed to do, say "Hey Mr. Linebacker, would you please kindly look over here so I can interfere with your ability to tackle my ball carrier?"

That was a brutally clean block, with your standard pantswetting reaction from the league.

He made slight helmet contact, which on a technical level is illegal and worthy of a flag/fine. He tried to make a clean block and just missed it.


There is no possible way for Tate to make a block on a guy four inches taller than he is without some helmet contact. Find a guy four inches taller than you. Run into him. Does your head make contact? Of course it does.
 
2012-09-25 03:24:04 PM  

seumasokelly: He made slight helmet contact, which on a technical level is illegal and worthy of a flag/fine. He tried to make a clean block and just missed it.


Wrong. It's just wrong.

I understand and lament the incidental helmet contact call when I see it. But it wasn't. He went head-hunting and got the fine for it.
 
2012-09-25 03:24:59 PM  

Rent Party: There is no possible way for Tate to make a block on a guy four inches taller than he is without some helmet contact. Find a guy four inches taller than you. Run into him. Does your head make contact? Of course it does.


He could extend his arms and push the player away. Or he could run towards the play and block the guy who actually runs Wilson out of bounds. But he doesn't. You're wrong.
 
2012-09-25 03:25:55 PM  

Treygreen13: It was an attempt to make a big hit, and he did, and after the hit (while the play was still live) he celebrated his cheap shot.


Perhaps Lee told him a rather off-color yo mama joke that Tate didn't appreciate on the play before. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THIS??
 
2012-09-25 03:26:34 PM  

Treygreen13: seumasokelly: I don't understand the Tate hate.

Him blowing up Sean Lee was a Hines Ward-esque cheap shot of a player that couldn't see him, and then he crawls around on the ground celebrating while the play is still live. He was fined appropriately.

This week he commits egregious PI (that the league acknowledges was totally missed) on a play and then is incorrectly awarded a TD and he's walking around with a shiat-eating grin about how he got away with PI and how that travesty of a call was just him "making a play".


He attempted to hit Lee legally and just made slight helmet-helmet contact. It was therefore illegal and the fine was proper, but he did not go head-hunting on that play. The first few times I saw the replay, I and many other people thought, "clean, hard hit". When it was slowed down even more, you can see the slightest helmet contact. The fine was correct, but Tate shouldn't be villified for that hit.

I can't think of a single WR in the league that wouldn't have commited that OPI and hoped it didn't get called. Game is on the line and Shields was in position to bat/intercept the pass. I also can't think of a single player that would've admitted to the uncalled penalty while still on the field after the game or in the locker room. No one asked the Packers O-Line about all of their uncalled holding in the 2nd half, but if they had I'm sure one of them would've said "I don't know what you're talking about."
 
2012-09-25 03:27:46 PM  

Killer Cars: Treygreen13: It was an attempt to make a big hit, and he did, and after the hit (while the play was still live) he celebrated his cheap shot.

Perhaps Lee told him a rather off-color yo mama joke that Tate didn't appreciate on the play before. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THIS??


I hadn't. THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I can't decide what's more surprising - that people are actually defending Golden Taint or that they're SHOCKED that I'm not a fan of that little prick.
 
2012-09-25 03:29:39 PM  

seumasokelly: He attempted to hit Lee legally and just made slight helmet-helmet contact. It was therefore illegal and the fine was proper, but he did not go head-hunting on that play. The first few times I saw the replay, I and many other people thought, "clean, hard hit". When it was slowed down even more, you can see the slightest helmet contact. The fine was correct, but Tate shouldn't be villified for that hit.

I can't think of a single WR in the league that wouldn't have commited that OPI and hoped it didn't get called. Game is on the line and Shields was in position to bat/intercept the pass. I also can't think of a single player that would've admitted to the uncalled penalty while still on the field after the game or in the locker room. No one asked the Packers O-Line about all of their uncalled holding in the 2nd half, but if they had I'm sure one of them would've said "I don't know what you're talking about."


So to recap:
He went for a hard hit on a player that couldn't see him instead of blocking downfield and got fined, intentionally committed pass interference on a play where he was awarded a TD he doesn't deserve, and I'm supposed to *like* him?
 
2012-09-25 03:29:57 PM  

Treygreen13: seumasokelly: He made slight helmet contact, which on a technical level is illegal and worthy of a flag/fine. He tried to make a clean block and just missed it.

Wrong. It's just wrong.

I understand and lament the incidental helmet contact call when I see it. But it wasn't. He went head-hunting and got the fine for it.


You're wrong. Plain and simple.

The intent was to make a hard, clean hit and Tate misjudged it very slightly. He led with the shoulder into the chest and just hit helmet with his crown. He did not lead with his helmet or raise his arms to hit in the head/neck area. He was just unlucky enough to tap Lee's facemask when Lee's head came forward due to the hit in the chest.
 
2012-09-25 03:30:48 PM  

Treygreen13: Rent Party: There is no possible way for Tate to make a block on a guy four inches taller than he is without some helmet contact. Find a guy four inches taller than you. Run into him. Does your head make contact? Of course it does.

He could extend his arms and push the player away. Or he could run towards the play and block the guy who actually runs Wilson out of bounds. But he doesn't. You're wrong.


Lee is a pu&&y and Jerry Jones' biatching is the only reason Tate was fined.
 
2012-09-25 03:31:06 PM  

Treygreen13:
Tate went away from the direction the runner was going to deliver a blindside helmet to helmet hit against a player that was pursuing the play.


Horseshiat. Lee was in pursuit of the ball carrier, QB Russel Wilson. Tate laid him out. Here's the video. You can see Wilson run out of bounds about four yards in front of the block. Lee is looking behind him to try to find Wilson, but that is Lee's problem, not Tate's.

Tate provides a lesson in how not to pursue.

This is one area where I'm not willing to even listen to other arguments. There's no way it was a block to extend that play, otherwise Tate would have gone up-field and blocked the guy who forced Wilson out of bounds.

Whether you listen to them or not doesn't change a thing. Lee was in pursuit of Wilson, and Tate blocked him.



And he got fined for it, so you can't go and re-write that to be a totally legal hit. It wasn't. Deal with it.


Tate's appeal is coming up. But that is entirely besides the point. The NFL can wet it's pants all it likes over every hard hit, and it doesn't change the fact that it was a clean hit.
 
2012-09-25 03:32:33 PM  

seumasokelly: He was just unlucky enough to tap Lee's facemask


community.us.playstation.com

Let's just drop it. We're not going to agree on anything about the Seahawks. I'm done trying to argue with two Seahawks fans about how awesome Golden Tate is.
 
2012-09-25 03:32:58 PM  

Treygreen13: Rent Party: There is no possible way for Tate to make a block on a guy four inches taller than he is without some helmet contact. Find a guy four inches taller than you. Run into him. Does your head make contact? Of course it does.

He could extend his arms and push the player away. Or he could run towards the play and block the guy who actually runs Wilson out of bounds. But he doesn't. You're wrong.


Had Tate not made that block, Lee would have been the guy to run Wilson out of bounds.

I've provided the video, and it shows in no uncertain terms that you are unequivocally wrong.

I realize you are all butthurt over the Seahawks manhandling the Cowboys, but that's just what happens sometimes.
 
2012-09-25 03:33:08 PM  

Treygreen13: Killer Cars: Treygreen13: It was an attempt to make a big hit, and he did, and after the hit (while the play was still live) he celebrated his cheap shot.

Perhaps Lee told him a rather off-color yo mama joke that Tate didn't appreciate on the play before. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THIS??

I hadn't. THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I can't decide what's more surprising - that people are actually defending Golden Taint or that they're SHOCKED that I'm not a fan of that little prick.


But please continue to share your butt hurt.
 
2012-09-25 03:33:20 PM  

Treygreen13: I can't decide what's more surprising - that people are actually defending Golden Taint or that they're SHOCKED that I'm not a fan of that little prick.


I think "Taint" is more of your run-of-the-mill young hot-head, in the sense he certainly doesn't mean harm in what he does but can get carried away in the process.

Personally, I didn't have a problem with his block on Lee (though he deserved a fine 'cause of the helmet contact). I DID NOT like him hot-dogging it after when Lee clearly was on the ground for a few seconds. Make your block and either head to the huddle, sidelines, or help the dude up.

The Patriots have a guy in Julian Edelman that's kinda the same way. He'll make legit plays, but he practically can't do anything positive w/o excessive trash-talking or something after and it pisses me the f*ck off as a Pats fan. If a corner is talking shiat and you burn him for a long pass, that's one thing; catching a five-yard out and talking sh*t to the opposing sidelines is absolutely retarded.
 
2012-09-25 03:34:47 PM  

Rent Party: Treygreen13:
Tate went away from the direction the runner was going to deliver a blindside helmet to helmet hit against a player that was pursuing the play.


Horseshiat. Lee was in pursuit of the ball carrier, QB Russel Wilson. Tate laid him out. Here's the video. You can see Wilson run out of bounds about four yards in front of the block. Lee is looking behind him to try to find Wilson, but that is Lee's problem, not Tate's.

Tate provides a lesson in how not to pursue.

This is one area where I'm not willing to even listen to other arguments. There's no way it was a block to extend that play, otherwise Tate would have gone up-field and blocked the guy who forced Wilson out of bounds.

Whether you listen to them or not doesn't change a thing. Lee was in pursuit of Wilson, and Tate blocked him.



And he got fined for it, so you can't go and re-write that to be a totally legal hit. It wasn't. Deal with it.

Tate's appeal is coming up. But that is entirely besides the point. The NFL can wet it's pants all it likes over every hard hit, and it doesn't change the fact that it was a clean hit.


I'm willing to disagree respectfully with seumasokelly but I've never spoken to you and can't relate in any way with a single opinion you have. You're so hilariously wrong on everything that I can't even relate to anything you're saying. We have zero common ground due to your rampant homerism and I frankly wonder if you have brain damage.
 
2012-09-25 03:38:03 PM  

Treygreen13: seumasokelly: He attempted to hit Lee legally and just made slight helmet-helmet contact. It was therefore illegal and the fine was proper, but he did not go head-hunting on that play. The first few times I saw the replay, I and many other people thought, "clean, hard hit". When it was slowed down even more, you can see the slightest helmet contact. The fine was correct, but Tate shouldn't be villified for that hit.

I can't think of a single WR in the league that wouldn't have commited that OPI and hoped it didn't get called. Game is on the line and Shields was in position to bat/intercept the pass. I also can't think of a single player that would've admitted to the uncalled penalty while still on the field after the game or in the locker room. No one asked the Packers O-Line about all of their uncalled holding in the 2nd half, but if they had I'm sure one of them would've said "I don't know what you're talking about."

So to recap:
He went for a hard hit on a player that couldn't see him instead of blocking downfield and got fined, intentionally committed pass interference on a play where he was awarded a TD he doesn't deserve, and I'm supposed to *like* him?


I didn't say that you're supposed to like him, but your level of vitriol is a little surprising based on the evidence available. He made play last night that any player in the league would make with the game in doubt, then didn't admit to an uncalled penalty within minutes of committing it. THAT MOTHERF*CKING LITTLE PRICK. How dare he do things everyone elsein his profession would do.

Not sure how you expect Tate to magically get in front of Wilson on the Lee play. He hit a guy who was pursuing a runner from within 5 yards of said runner, barely made helmet contact and is also a horrible prick for it, as if players don't make hard hits every week. IIRC, everyone was hanging on James Harrison's prick last season for getting fined when he was legitimately head-hunting. Tate went outside the bound of a legal hit by the tiniest of margins on Lee and made no intentional attempt to hit his head/neck area.
 
2012-09-25 03:38:39 PM  

Treygreen13:
I'm willing to disagree respectfully with seumasokelly but I've never spoken to you and can't relate in any way with a single opinion you have. You're so hilariously wrong on everything that I can't even relate to anything you're saying. We have zero common ground due to your rampant homerism and I frankly wonder if you have brain damage.


Right. I provide you the video demonstrating that every single thing you think about that block is wrong, and I'm the homer. Cowboy fans are all alike. They don't know shiat about football, but whine like biatches every time they lose.

Your butthurt amuses me.
 
2012-09-25 03:38:55 PM  

Treygreen13: seumasokelly: He was just unlucky enough to tap Lee's facemask

[community.us.playstation.com image 456x297]

Let's just drop it. We're not going to agree on anything about the Seahawks. I'm done trying to argue with two Seahawks fans about how awesome Golden Tate is.


You're going to have to point out where I said he was awesome. I'm thinking you'll have a little trouble.
 
2012-09-25 03:39:02 PM  

seumasokelly: Not sure how you expect Tate to magically get in front of Wilson on the Lee play. He hit a guy who was pursuing a runner from within 5 yards of said runner, barely made helmet contact and is also a horrible prick for it, as if players don't make hard hits every week. IIRC, everyone was hanging on James Harrison's prick last season for getting fined when he was legitimately head-hunting. Tate went outside the bound of a legal hit by the tiniest of margins on Lee and made no intentional attempt to hit his head/neck area.


And then crawled around celebrating his illegal hit next to his opponent, who was laid out. That's why he's a prick.
 
2012-09-25 03:40:00 PM  

seumasokelly: You're going to have to point out where I said he was awesome. I'm thinking you'll have a little trouble.


The "Awesome" thing was Rent Party.
 
2012-09-25 03:40:17 PM  
Jesus Christ, defending Tate's horrible helmet-to-helmet hit? We get it, you're blind homers. No need to keep driving the point home.
 
2012-09-25 03:40:52 PM  

Killer Cars: Treygreen13: I can't decide what's more surprising - that people are actually defending Golden Taint or that they're SHOCKED that I'm not a fan of that little prick.

I think "Taint" is more of your run-of-the-mill young hot-head, in the sense he certainly doesn't mean harm in what he does but can get carried away in the process.

Personally, I didn't have a problem with his block on Lee (though he deserved a fine 'cause of the helmet contact). I DID NOT like him hot-dogging it after when Lee clearly was on the ground for a few seconds. Make your block and either head to the huddle, sidelines, or help the dude up.

The Patriots have a guy in Julian Edelman that's kinda the same way. He'll make legit plays, but he practically can't do anything positive w/o excessive trash-talking or something after and it pisses me the f*ck off as a Pats fan. If a corner is talking shiat and you burn him for a long pass, that's one thing; catching a five-yard out and talking sh*t to the opposing sidelines is absolutely retarded.


Especially when the play is called back for OPI as it was Sunday night.
 
2012-09-25 03:41:29 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Jesus Christ, defending Tate's horrible helmet-to-helmet hit? We get it, you're blind homers. No need to keep driving the point home.


yer i idot.
 
2012-09-25 03:41:57 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Jesus Christ, defending Tate's horrible helmet-to-helmet hit? We get it, you're blind homers. No need to keep driving the point home.


Seumasokelly gets a break for otherwise being a rational human being, but Rent Party is now on the ignore list for being a way-over-the-top homer.
 
2012-09-25 03:42:24 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Jesus Christ, defending Tate's horrible helmet-to-helmet hit? We get it, you're blind homers. No need to keep driving the point home.


i2.cdn.turner.com

Helmet to helmet hit.... Lawlz.

Someone is blind, that's for damn sure. Tate would have to get on a step ladder to make helmet to helmet contact.
 
2012-09-25 03:42:55 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Jesus Christ, defending Tate's horrible helmet-to-helmet shoulder-to-chest hit on which he made slight contact with Lee's facemask? We get it, you're blind homers. No need to keep driving the point home.


If you've ever seen me post you know that I'm not a blind homer.
 
2012-09-25 03:43:34 PM  

Treygreen13: tallguywithglasseson: Jesus Christ, defending Tate's horrible helmet-to-helmet hit? We get it, you're blind homers. No need to keep driving the point home.

Seumasokelly gets a break for otherwise being a rational human being, but Rent Party is now on the ignore list for being a way-over-the-top homer.


Oh boo hooo. Someone lost an arugment on the internetz and has me on ignore!

Whatever shall I do!?
 
Displayed 50 of 246 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report