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  
•       •       •

1367 clicks; posted to Sports » on 25 Sep 2012 at 12:21 PM (1 year 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 03:45:34 PM

seumasokelly: 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.


So you honestly believe that Golden Tate wasn't just looking to lay a big hit, but was trying to help his team advance the ball?

If you can honestly say that, then we just have a difference of opinion and I'll drop it. I'm still going to hate Taint for celebrating like a goon for the hit but I can at least respect you if you really believe that it was a block to extend that play.
 
2012-09-25 03:46:18 PM

Treygreen13: seumasokelly: 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.

So you honestly believe that Golden Tate wasn't just looking to lay a big hit, but was trying to help his team advance the ball?

If you can honestly say that, then we just have a difference of opinion and I'll drop it. I'm still going to hate Taint for celebrating like a goon for the hit but I can at least respect you if you really believe that it was a block to extend that play.


i2.cdn.turner.com

Yeah, Lee was no where near the ball carrier.

Moron.
 
2012-09-25 03:47:19 PM
Rent Party: You do know that he can't see that, right? Frankly, even I have to disagree with your assessment of just about everything football related that I've seen you post on today. Tate made helmet contact on that hit. Your single still frame does nothing to prove anything other that at some point in time, Tate's head was not in contact with Lee's. Rodgers made that 1st down last night.
 
2012-09-25 03:51:05 PM

seumasokelly: Rent Party: You do know that he can't see that, right? Frankly, even I have to disagree with your assessment of just about everything football related that I've seen you post on today. Tate made helmet contact on that hit. Your single still frame does nothing to prove anything other that at some point in time, Tate's head was not in contact with Lee's. Rodgers made that 1st down last night.


That's why he's getting the block. If he was someone I knew who I agree with sometimes and disagree with other times, I listen to it and disagree and don't mind arguing about it.

Sort of like Colin Cowherd. He might annoy some people (he annoys me a lot of the time) but I feel like even when I disagree I can respect where he's coming from. I'd buy Cowherd a beer and shoot the shiat with him even if we'd just argue most of the time.
 
2012-09-25 03:51:07 PM

Treygreen13: If you can honestly say that, then we just have a difference of opinion and I'll drop it. I'm still going to hate Taint for celebrating like a goon for the hit but I can at least respect you if you really believe that it was a block to extend that play.


If Tate's helmet was just a few inches lower and made no contact with Lee's, and Lee got up from it right away, would you still have a beef with the kid? Not trying to agitate you further, it's just that in almost any game you see someone get blown up when plays break down and get extended by scrambling QBs, interceptions, long fumble recovery returns, etc...and you end up with a bunch of guys like WRs running around, who usually don't get the chance to "hit" people very often, and the opportunity presents itself.
 
2012-09-25 03:52:52 PM

Treygreen13: seumasokelly: 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.

So you honestly believe that Golden Tate wasn't just looking to lay a big hit, but was trying to help his team advance the ball?

If you can honestly say that, then we just have a difference of opinion and I'll drop it. I'm still going to hate Taint for celebrating like a goon for the hit but I can at least respect you if you really believe that it was a block to extend that play.


What I can say is that Tate led with his shoulder into Lee's chest and made unfortunate helmet contact when his intention was simply to lay a hard block and not to go head hunting a la Hines Ward. The celebration was over the top and unnecessary, but you can't honestly claim that it's out of the ordinary for NFL players to celebrate big hits. I see where you're coming from, but I disagree that that hit makes him a bad person and a dirty player.

Point: The hit was illegal and looked dirty on first glance, but the replay shows that the initial contact was directed legally to Lee's chest area and the helmet contact was unintentional and occured only when Lee's head came forward due to the chest blow. It was illegal, I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that it was "dirty".
 
2012-09-25 03:53:41 PM

seumasokelly: Rent Party: You do know that he can't see that, right? Frankly, even I have to disagree with your assessment of just about everything football related that I've seen you post on today. Tate made helmet contact on that hit. Your single still frame does nothing to prove anything other that at some point in time, Tate's head was not in contact with Lee's. Rodgers made that 1st down last night.


I'm aware he can't see it. I don't care. If he wants to run and hide because I have unequivocally proven him wrong, he's more than welcome to. He's still a moron and completely wrong on every assertion he's made about that block. All his high falutin' talk of his undying love for you doesn't change that. He's wrong, and you know it. He's a Cowboy homer, like most Cowboys fans.

The image proves that it wasn't a "helmet to helmet" hit, that Lee was in pursuit of the runner, making the block legit, that it extended the play, and it wasn't just "head hunting." The video shows the same thing.
 
2012-09-25 03:54:12 PM

Killer Cars: Treygreen13: If you can honestly say that, then we just have a difference of opinion and I'll drop it. I'm still going to hate Taint for celebrating like a goon for the hit but I can at least respect you if you really believe that it was a block to extend that play.

If Tate's helmet was just a few inches lower and made no contact with Lee's, and Lee got up from it right away, would you still have a beef with the kid? Not trying to agitate you further, it's just that in almost any game you see someone get blown up when plays break down and get extended by scrambling QBs, interceptions, long fumble recovery returns, etc...and you end up with a bunch of guys like WRs running around, who usually don't get the chance to "hit" people very often, and the opportunity presents itself.


I could understand the "he just wanted to get a big hit and missed" thing. I just don't think safety was his main concern and that he just tried for a big hit instead of a clean one. Whether or not he meant to hit him in the facemask with his helmet is kinda irrelevant, though - he did and then he celebrated.
 
2012-09-25 03:56:44 PM

Rent Party: seumasokelly: Rent Party: You do know that he can't see that, right? Frankly, even I have to disagree with your assessment of just about everything football related that I've seen you post on today. Tate made helmet contact on that hit. Your single still frame does nothing to prove anything other that at some point in time, Tate's head was not in contact with Lee's. Rodgers made that 1st down last night.

I'm aware he can't see it. I don't care. If he wants to run and hide because I have unequivocally proven him wrong, he's more than welcome to. He's still a moron and completely wrong on every assertion he's made about that block. All his high falutin' talk of his undying love for you doesn't change that. He's wrong, and you know it. He's a Cowboy homer, like most Cowboys fans.

The image proves that it wasn't a "helmet to helmet" hit, that Lee was in pursuit of the runner, making the block legit, that it extended the play, and it wasn't just "head hunting." The video shows the same thing.


Your pic shows that at one point during the hit, Tate was not making helmat contact. That is all it shows. Your definition of "unequivocally" needs work.
 
2012-09-25 03:56:58 PM

seumasokelly: It was illegal, I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that it was "dirty".


I do have to agree that it's impossible for me to determine Tate's intent. Maybe if he just stands up and walks off the field I'm here arguing that it was unintentional and that we should lay off him. The celebrating (and the way it just looks to me on the replays) just make me think that he wasn't exactly worried about trying to hit legally. He could have certainly blocked Lee without leaving his feet.
 
2012-09-25 04:03:26 PM

seumasokelly: Rent Party: seumasokelly: Rent Party: You do know that he can't see that, right? Frankly, even I have to disagree with your assessment of just about everything football related that I've seen you post on today. Tate made helmet contact on that hit. Your single still frame does nothing to prove anything other that at some point in time, Tate's head was not in contact with Lee's. Rodgers made that 1st down last night.

I'm aware he can't see it. I don't care. If he wants to run and hide because I have unequivocally proven him wrong, he's more than welcome to. He's still a moron and completely wrong on every assertion he's made about that block. All his high falutin' talk of his undying love for you doesn't change that. He's wrong, and you know it. He's a Cowboy homer, like most Cowboys fans.

The image proves that it wasn't a "helmet to helmet" hit, that Lee was in pursuit of the runner, making the block legit, that it extended the play, and it wasn't just "head hunting." The video shows the same thing.

Your pic shows that at one point during the hit, Tate was not making helmat contact. That is all it shows.


Well, here's the rule. I'm not even sure Tate was in violation.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/29969/nfl-rulebook-unnece s sary-roughness

They fined him based on the "defenseless player" section.

The rule is

"(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/"hairline" parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily."

He hit him hard with his shoulder. The helmet contact you note was incidental to that.

The "defenseless player" is defined as

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

I don't see any of that applicable to "Line backer in pursuit of a ball carrier."

Your definition of "unequivocally" needs work.

I think you should stop trying to defend your internet buddy when he is clearly wrong.
 
2012-09-25 04:05:08 PM

seumasokelly:
Your pic shows that at one point during the hit, Tate was not making helmat contact. That is all it shows. Your definition of "unequivocally" needs work.


I'm certain, then, that you can show us imagery of the helmet to helmet contact that was so egregious as to warrant a fine,and your Cowboy homer buddy's outrage?
 
2012-09-25 04:08:33 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.


Sorry man that was way too obvious a foul. He goddamned launched himself into the defender's dome. Well worth the 21k fine. You find any non-Seattle fans defending that one? If dude's not being blinded by homerism, then not sure what he's possibly being blinded by. Love for Golden Tate? I guess there's a first time for everything.
 
2012-09-25 04:29:23 PM

Rent Party: seumasokelly: Rent Party: seumasokelly: Rent Party: You do know that he can't see that, right? Frankly, even I have to disagree with your assessment of just about everything football related that I've seen you post on today. Tate made helmet contact on that hit. Your single still frame does nothing to prove anything other that at some point in time, Tate's head was not in contact with Lee's. Rodgers made that 1st down last night.

I'm aware he can't see it. I don't care. If he wants to run and hide because I have unequivocally proven him wrong, he's more than welcome to. He's still a moron and completely wrong on every assertion he's made about that block. All his high falutin' talk of his undying love for you doesn't change that. He's wrong, and you know it. He's a Cowboy homer, like most Cowboys fans.

The image proves that it wasn't a "helmet to helmet" hit, that Lee was in pursuit of the runner, making the block legit, that it extended the play, and it wasn't just "head hunting." The video shows the same thing.

Your pic shows that at one point during the hit, Tate was not making helmat contact. That is all it shows.

Well, here's the rule. I'm not even sure Tate was in violation.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/29969/nfl-rulebook-unnece s sary-roughness

They fined him based on the "defenseless player" section.

The rule is

"(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/"hairline" parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily."

He hit him hard with his shoulder. The helmet contact you note was incidental to that.
The "defenseless player" is defined as

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the ...


I would doubt he would have nailed him that way if his helmet wasn't damn near bulletproof.
 
2012-09-25 04:34:11 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: I would doubt he would have nailed him that way if his helmet wasn't damn near bulletproof.


And the reason I will continue to hate Golden Tate is because you know he heard and felt that helmet-to-helmet smack and still celebrated.
 
2012-09-25 04:43:32 PM

poughdrew: At least Green Bay has plenty of cheese to go with all this whine.



Are the Packers whining? Rodgers' response was that sucked but they shouldn't have let themselves be in that position

The outrage at the refs seems to be pretty universal regardless of team affiliation or support. Bullshiat is bullshiat, no matter what team you favor.
 
2012-09-25 04:44:13 PM

Rent Party: seumasokelly:
Your pic shows that at one point during the hit, Tate was not making helmat contact. That is all it shows. Your definition of "unequivocally" needs work.

I'm certain, then, that you can show us imagery of the helmet to helmet contact that was so egregious as to warrant a fine,and your Cowboy homer buddy's outrage?


Pretty obvious in the video
 
2012-09-25 04:46:22 PM
Looking at my name, you can figure where I stand on this.

Regarding the last play - who cares. There were so many screwed up plays in that game, so many non-calls and calls that shouldn't have been, who knows what would have happened? If Cam Chancellor doesn't get called for pass interference, the Packers may not have scored in the first place.

Regarding Tate and Wilson saying it was a great play - what do you expect? You think they are going to sign a petition to give the game to the Pack?

Packers fans, if I cried and tiddled in my diaper over the Steelers Superbowl as much as you are now, I apologize profusely.
 
2012-09-25 04:46:57 PM
How many bullshiat calls and dubious shifts in big-time games have we seen with the old officiating crews? Like every week.

The Super Bowl with the Cards and Steelers, where the Steelers get to run a fumble back 99yds at the half, with four blocks in the back clearly visible for all of TV Land to see, and the refs act like nothing happened.

Old refs worked for Vegas, new refs are just not that good yet.
 
2012-09-25 04:51:16 PM

Publikwerks: 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


That's the main problem with the scab refs: nobody knows what is going to be called, so everything is a go. The refs have lost control of the game, it was clear last night with all the flags, the players have zero respect for the scabs.
 
2012-09-25 05:36:34 PM

machoprogrammer: To me, as a Packers fan, the worst part is Tate and Wilson acting like they actually made the play and the play was not made by the refs. At least make a statement like "It was a close call and we got the benefit of the doubt", not one saying you made the fantastic play.


Agreed. As a non-Packers fan that made me sick last night. The classy thing to do at that point is to say how happy you are you got a W and that you're now focused on next Sunday or something. Not sit there with a shiat eating grin saying that you just never gave up and the refs made a good call. Karma's a biatch and there are a lot of people hoping the Seahawks feel the full force of it later this season.
 
2012-09-25 05:48:12 PM

Girl On Couch: machoprogrammer: To me, as a Packers fan, the worst part is Tate and Wilson acting like they actually made the play and the play was not made by the refs. At least make a statement like "It was a close call and we got the benefit of the doubt", not one saying you made the fantastic play.

Agreed. As a non-Packers fan that made me sick last night. The classy thing to do at that point is to say how happy you are you got a W and that you're now focused on next Sunday or something. Not sit there with a shiat eating grin saying that you just never gave up and the refs made a good call. Karma's a biatch and there are a lot of people hoping the Seahawks feel the full force of it later this season.


WTF are you talking about? Wilson should not be included in your comments. He was interviewed before the game even ended and had only seen the play from his back 40 yards down field. All he knew at that point is that it was ruled a TD. IDK how you expect Seattle to have changed the outcome there (thus saving themselves from Karma). The call is made by the officials, not the Seahawks.

I can see how Tate's comments could be inflammatory, but what would you expect him to say? He thought he made a simultaneous catch, which is awarded to the offense. Not admitting to the OPI that didn't get called is certainly some kind of reprehensible action. The amount of times a player has said something to the affect of "They didn't call it did they? Guess I didn't commit a penalty." is too numerous to try to figure out.
 
2012-09-25 05:55:15 PM

seumasokelly: Girl On Couch: machoprogrammer: To me, as a Packers fan, the worst part is Tate and Wilson acting like they actually made the play and the play was not made by the refs. At least make a statement like "It was a close call and we got the benefit of the doubt", not one saying you made the fantastic play.

Agreed. As a non-Packers fan that made me sick last night. The classy thing to do at that point is to say how happy you are you got a W and that you're now focused on next Sunday or something. Not sit there with a shiat eating grin saying that you just never gave up and the refs made a good call. Karma's a biatch and there are a lot of people hoping the Seahawks feel the full force of it later this season.

WTF are you talking about? Wilson should not be included in your comments. He was interviewed before the game even ended and had only seen the play from his back 40 yards down field. All he knew at that point is that it was ruled a TD. IDK how you expect Seattle to have changed the outcome there (thus saving themselves from Karma). The call is made by the officials, not the Seahawks.

I can see how Tate's comments could be inflammatory, but what would you expect him to say? He thought he made a simultaneous catch, which is awarded to the offense. Not admitting to the OPI that didn't get called is certainly some kind of reprehensible action. The amount of times a player has said something to the affect of "They didn't call it did they? Guess I didn't commit a penalty." is too numerous to try to figure out.


Then after the game ended Wilson was interviewed and gave the aw shucks crap answer I'm referring to. By the time that interview happened, everyone knew something had gone horribly wrong. This twit just grins like an egg suck dog whose shiat don't stink.

I agree - this was definitely not the "fault" of any Seahawk player. However, it was the way they chose to react to this mindboggling inept "stroke of luck" that has a majority of the country calling them out as the classless dolts they are.
 
2012-09-25 06:07:04 PM

Girl On Couch: seumasokelly: Girl On Couch: machoprogrammer: To me, as a Packers fan, the worst part is Tate and Wilson acting like they actually made the play and the play was not made by the refs. At least make a statement like "It was a close call and we got the benefit of the doubt", not one saying you made the fantastic play.

Agreed. As a non-Packers fan that made me sick last night. The classy thing to do at that point is to say how happy you are you got a W and that you're now focused on next Sunday or something. Not sit there with a shiat eating grin saying that you just never gave up and the refs made a good call. Karma's a biatch and there are a lot of people hoping the Seahawks feel the full force of it later this season.

WTF are you talking about? Wilson should not be included in your comments. He was interviewed before the game even ended and had only seen the play from his back 40 yards down field. All he knew at that point is that it was ruled a TD. IDK how you expect Seattle to have changed the outcome there (thus saving themselves from Karma). The call is made by the officials, not the Seahawks.

I can see how Tate's comments could be inflammatory, but what would you expect him to say? He thought he made a simultaneous catch, which is awarded to the offense. Not admitting to the OPI that didn't get called is certainly some kind of reprehensible action. The amount of times a player has said something to the affect of "They didn't call it did they? Guess I didn't commit a penalty." is too numerous to try to figure out.

Then after the game ended Wilson was interviewed and gave the aw shucks crap answer I'm referring to. By the time that interview happened, everyone knew something had gone horribly wrong. This twit just grins like an egg suck dog whose shiat don't stink.

I agree - this was definitely not the "fault" of any Seahawk player. However, it was the way they chose to react to this mindboggling inept "stroke of luck" that has a majority of the country call ...


They may have known it was controversial, but no replay was shown in the stadium. None had seen it, especially if they were still on the field. I didn't see a 2nd interview after the initial one done after the play was upheld as a TD, but before the game was over. If you researched Russell Wilson, you'd find that he's one of the better people anyone in his life has ever met. He blows the doors off anyone who talks to him, including John Gruden and both of his college coaching staffs. He certainly wasn't playing dumb or anything.
 
2012-09-25 07:57:15 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: 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.


Your point is moot with the new rule. You can have all the possession you want in the air, that does not show a catch via the new rules for a catch. You have to have 2 down and take a step or hot the ground and maintain control. If they both hit the ground and were both in control of the ball, then the catch goes to the offense.
 
2012-09-25 08:00:21 PM
hot = hit
 
2012-09-25 08:02:37 PM

SnarfVader: Marcus Aurelius: You could argue that Green Bay shouldn't have won the game with just 12 points.

But you would be wrong.

True, but Green Bay should have only had 9 points.


And that's all there is to it. Anything else is bullshiat.
 
2012-09-25 08:25:30 PM

DamnYankees: tallguywithglasseson: Also feel kinda bad (and kinda lulz) for people playing against Golden Tate in their fantasy leagues, who lost because of that call.

I had the Packers defense. That call was a 4 point swing (instead of +2 for the pick, -2 for allowing 14 points instead of 7). I won the week by 1 point, so it very, very, very easily could have killed me.


Well thank god for that, we were all very worried.
 
2012-09-25 08:33:25 PM

Ozarkhawk: There were so many screwed up plays in that game, so many non-calls and calls that shouldn't have been, who knows what would have happened?



And isn't this the problem? The actual play did not determine the outcome. The bad officiating did. An occasional bad call will happen. Even the best refs are only human. However, that game last night was such a clusterfark that it's impossible to really say who won.

It doesn't matter whether or not your team "won." If you're a Seahawks fan, you should be just as pissed that the bad officiating tainted your "victory."

It's not acceptable for
 
2012-09-25 09:38:34 PM
Gotta admit, I never thought Tiger Woods had that good an arm.

/Russell is his 'football name'
//incognito
///hotter chicks than golf
 
2012-09-26 09:36:20 AM

Girl On Couch: Karma's a biatch and there are a lot of people hoping the Seahawks feel the full force of it later this season.


HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH

Did you honestly just say that karma's going to get the Seahawks for this one? Motherf*cker, karma is finally catching up and benefitting the Seahawks after years of getting f*cked by the regular refs, from Vinny Testaverde's head counting as the ball for a game-winning TD that kept the Seahawks out of the playoffs, from the Ravens being awarded four timeouts against the Seahawks, from Super Bowl XL...FFS, it's about time Seattle gets ONE f*cking questionable win (which was taken from a game where the refs had given their opponent the lead first). Aside from the replacements having no clue what they're doing (though they have enough of a clue to ensure that there are lots of 4th quarter comebacks and the games are exciting, if not fairly officiated), I'm loving the fact that they're not under the former refs' mandate to f*ck the Seahawks in favor of more popular teams every time they play.

Also, considering that the play, slowed down and frame-by-frame, indicates that Jennings had the ball possibly two frames before Tate had it, so less than 1/10 of a second, I don't see how Tate wouldn't think he had simultaneous possession and simply wrestled the ball away from Jennings. I don't see how you'd expect Wilson to have checked the frame-by-frame review from 40 yards away on his back. All he knew at the point was that he threw the ball and it was ruled a TD. Not sure he's supposed to assume that it was a negative.
 
2012-09-26 10:32:54 AM

IAmRight: Girl On Couch: Karma's a biatch and there are a lot of people hoping the Seahawks feel the full force of it later this season.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH

Did you honestly just say that karma's going to get the Seahawks for this one? Motherf*cker, karma is finally catching up and benefitting the Seahawks after years of getting f*cked by the regular refs, from Vinny Testaverde's head counting as the ball for a game-winning TD that kept the Seahawks out of the playoffs, from the Ravens being awarded four timeouts against the Seahawks, from Super Bowl XL...FFS, it's about time Seattle gets ONE f*cking questionable win (which was taken from a game where the refs had given their opponent the lead first). Aside from the replacements having no clue what they're doing (though they have enough of a clue to ensure that there are lots of 4th quarter comebacks and the games are exciting, if not fairly officiated), I'm loving the fact that they're not under the former refs' mandate to f*ck the Seahawks in favor of more popular teams every time they play.

Also, considering that the play, slowed down and frame-by-frame, indicates that Jennings had the ball possibly two frames before Tate had it, so less than 1/10 of a second, I don't see how Tate wouldn't think he had simultaneous possession and simply wrestled the ball away from Jennings. I don't see how you'd expect Wilson to have checked the frame-by-frame review from 40 yards away on his back. All he knew at the point was that he threw the ball and it was ruled a TD. Not sure he's supposed to assume that it was a negative.


ALL OF THIS!!
 
2012-09-26 11:12:33 AM

Primitive Screwhead: IAmRight: Girl On Couch: Karma's a biatch and there are a lot of people hoping the Seahawks feel the full force of it later this season.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH

Did you honestly just say that karma's going to get the Seahawks for this one? Motherf*cker, karma is finally catching up and benefitting the Seahawks after years of getting f*cked by the regular refs, from Vinny Testaverde's head counting as the ball for a game-winning TD that kept the Seahawks out of the playoffs, from the Ravens being awarded four timeouts against the Seahawks, from Super Bowl XL...FFS, it's about time Seattle gets ONE f*cking questionable win (which was taken from a game where the refs had given their opponent the lead first). Aside from the replacements having no clue what they're doing (though they have enough of a clue to ensure that there are lots of 4th quarter comebacks and the games are exciting, if not fairly officiated), I'm loving the fact that they're not under the former refs' mandate to f*ck the Seahawks in favor of more popular teams every time they play.

Also, considering that the play, slowed down and frame-by-frame, indicates that Jennings had the ball possibly two frames before Tate had it, so less than 1/10 of a second, I don't see how Tate wouldn't think he had simultaneous possession and simply wrestled the ball away from Jennings. I don't see how you'd expect Wilson to have checked the frame-by-frame review from 40 yards away on his back. All he knew at the point was that he threw the ball and it was ruled a TD. Not sure he's supposed to assume that it was a negative.

ALL OF THIS!!


It all goes to what teams sell the most apparel and which ones make the most money for the NFL. I knew something was amiss when columnists, in the buildup to Super Bowl XL, started referring to Seattle over and over as a "small market team," the first time I'd heard that term applied to them in a sports column in a dozen years. The only difference is that the replacement refs didn't get the memo that the questionable calls should go toward the team that sells more jerseys.
 
2012-09-26 11:16:13 AM
I'll add that it's not even game affecting stuff. When Seattle was getting blown out in Green Bay in the playoffs, Favre started throwing snowballs at his own players AND (though this wasn't shown on TV) toward the Seahawks bench. If Seattle did that? Taunting, 15 yards. Favre does it? "He's just a kid out there having fun!"
 
2012-09-26 12:36:08 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.


Yeah he went head hunting and he caught a linebacker.

I love what Pete has done with this team. Holmgren had a finesse team. This team will beat the sh*t out other teams. This is a team that eats soft teams. The Legion of Boom will hit WRs at the line then play man coverage while the DL beats down opposing QBs. When the Seahawk defense gets down mauling the other team then Beast Mode gets to punish the opposing defense.

Love what my beloved Seahawks have become. They're nasty.
 
2012-09-26 01:01:11 PM

Zoophagous: The Legion of Boom will hit WRs


Amazing how I never see any Seahawks fans squawking when they're terrible, but when they're 2-1 the team is the new '85 Bears and the secondary has a legendary nickname.
 
2012-09-26 01:27:41 PM

Treygreen13: Amazing how I never see any Seahawks fans squawking when they're terrible, but when they're 2-1 the team is the new '85 Bears and the secondary has a legendary nickname.


It's amazing how people don't talk sh*t when they have nothing to talk sh*t about, then do talk sh*t when their team does have something to talk about. It's just crazy.

/oh wait, that's what you're supposed to do
 
2012-09-26 01:30:36 PM
Also, you might not have noticed because it's the Pro Bowl and all, but three of the four members of the Seattle secondary went to the Pro Bowl last year, and the one who didn't go was probably the best one of the four (he only started starting mid-season, though, as a rookie). So they merit a sweet nickname.
 
2012-09-26 02:12:08 PM

IAmRight: Also, you might not have noticed because it's the Pro Bowl and all, but three of the four members of the Seattle secondary went to the Pro Bowl last year, and the one who didn't go was probably the best one of the four (he only started starting mid-season, though, as a rookie). So they merit a sweet nickname.


Oh yeah, back then when you were calling them the Legion of Boom, right?

/or are they only called that after a win?
 
2012-09-26 03:43:03 PM

Treygreen13: Oh yeah, back then when you were calling them the Legion of Boom, right?


I'm not much for calling people by nicknames. Hell, I still type out Roethlisberger rather than Ben or Big Ben or Rapey Ben (okay, sometimes I use the Rapey one when discussing him in anger).

As for not calling them the Legion of Boom last year...Thomas and Chancellor were both in their second seasons, Browner's first NFL season (where he got to play - he was on the Broncos' roster in '05-'06 but on IR with a broken arm), and Richard Sherman's rookie year. I'm not sure how you could expect them to have a nickname before they'd ever played together or done anything.
 
2012-09-26 03:59:06 PM

IAmRight: Treygreen13: Oh yeah, back then when you were calling them the Legion of Boom, right?

I'm not much for calling people by nicknames. Hell, I still type out Roethlisberger rather than Ben or Big Ben or Rapey Ben (okay, sometimes I use the Rapey one when discussing him in anger).

As for not calling them the Legion of Boom last year...Thomas and Chancellor were both in their second seasons, Browner's first NFL season (where he got to play - he was on the Broncos' roster in '05-'06 but on IR with a broken arm), and Richard Sherman's rookie year. I'm not sure how you could expect them to have a nickname before they'd ever played together or done anything.


Well you could have called them that when three of the four of them went to the Pro-Bowl. I've just never heard any nickname for them and think it's silly to give them one *now*. Maybe at the end of the year, if they make a ton more plays and look dangerous I'll agree that they should have a nickname. But for now they're "the seahawks secondary".
 
2012-09-26 04:27:43 PM

Treygreen13: Well you could have called them that when three of the four of them went to the Pro-Bowl.


So we were allowed to call them that for what, that month where they're at the Pro Bowl, then they can't have a nickname any more? They're called that because they're a big group of badasses who look like four strong safeties but can cover like corners.

BTW, they've currently given up 39 points on the season, fewest in the NFL.

/goddamn Kevin Kolb drive is pretty much their only sh*tty moment of the season
 
2012-09-26 04:34:34 PM

IAmRight: So we were allowed to call them that for what, that month where they're at the Pro Bowl, then they can't have a nickname any more? They're called that because they're a big group of badasses who look like four strong safeties but can cover like corners.


Since you're asking my permission for some reason, you can never call them that. Ever. So sayeth I.
 
2012-09-26 04:48:59 PM

Treygreen13: Since you're asking my permission for some reason, you can never call them that. Ever. So sayeth I.


I'm not big on nicknames anyway, as I've said. It's just weird. I also hate using first names - I don't know them, so I'm not going to pretend like I know them. Now, the guys I do know? Sure, I'll refer to them by first name. But they're in the AFL or CFL. Or backups in the NFL. One is a Cowboy as of this season but I never actually talked to him for any articles so last-name only (Matt Johnson).
 
2012-09-26 10:19:41 PM
This must be a really fun week for you, IAmRIght. I cherish times like that. Enjoy them, because they are never permanent.
 
2012-09-27 09:31:29 AM

jaylectricity: This must be a really fun week for you, IAmRIght. I cherish times like that. Enjoy them, because they are never permanent.


Oh, it's been fairly enjoyable. Kinda ruined everything when it had to happen on a Tuesday where I actually had work to do in the afternoon so I was left out of several hours worth of the conversation.

Well, now that the regular refs are back, it's time to start getting treated like red-headed stepchildren of the league again. Should be fun when the Raiders' penalties start going back up.
 
Displayed 46 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 »






Report