Quantcast
ResurrectionSong.com
Crushers, Feeders, Conveyors, and More

Magazines.com, Inc.

Syndication

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Raiders v/ Broncos: Just a Question

Why aren’t the Raiders starting Culpepper today? Their banged up quarterback doesn’t have the legs or the talent of a healthy Culpepper--and, from all reports, Duante is healthy.

Seriously, I don’t get it.

Update: I’m betting that Darren will have more to say on the game as it progresses.

Comments & Trackbacks
The trackback URL for this entry is:

Because they knew that there was lightning in the area and Daunte is a bigger target.

Other than that, I have no clue, but I like it.  6 passes and two picks..nice

on Sep 16 2007 @ 02:03 PM

Indeed.

Heh.

on Sep 16 2007 @ 02:12 PM

I don’t know why, but that’s still fun for me.

on Sep 16 2007 @ 02:13 PM

As long as the Raiders lose, who cares?

on Sep 16 2007 @ 02:33 PM

That would be the most important bit, wouldn’t it?

on Sep 16 2007 @ 02:51 PM

I’m feeling the “not so fast my friend” vibe coming on strong.  Yikes!

on Sep 16 2007 @ 03:54 PM

What Darren said.

on Sep 16 2007 @ 03:58 PM

Well, that’s two games that the Broncos did not deserve to win.

And, frankly, after that ending, from now on I’m rooting for whichever team is playing against the Broncos.

on Sep 16 2007 @ 04:58 PM

Well, that’s two games that the Broncos did not deserve to win.

I’m not going to go that far (and I’m definitely not going to start cheering for opposing teams, but I definitely think they’ll need to play better to beat Jacksonville (not to mention teams like San Diego, Indy, and the Patriots).

That said, neither of the games would have gone down to that last kick if Jason Elam were kicking better. Three misses in two weeks isn’t just unusual, it makes you wonder if he’s coming to the end of his career. He doesn’t have the distance that he used to have and now the accuracy is starting to slip.

Anyway, the Broncos are making a lot of mistakes, but they’re doing good things, too. I think they deserved both wins--they worked hard enough to put up more points than the opponents. But they have a ways to go before they are a “good” team.

on Sep 16 2007 @ 05:19 PM

You have to admit that they did not deserve to win against the Raiders, needing a sneaky trick to keep the Raiders from winning with the overtime field goal.  Still leaves a taste in my mouth.

on Sep 16 2007 @ 06:30 PM

It’s all part of the game--doesn’t bother me a bit. The Raiders used a sneaky trick to try to help get back in the game earlier (the onside kick in the 3rd quarter) and, while it didn’t score any points, it sure helped put the Broncos a little off balance for a while.

And is it really that sneaky? The ice-the-kicker timeout is called by most of the teams on a pretty regular basis on longer kicks. What surprised me was that it worked.

on Sep 16 2007 @ 07:21 PM

All I know is I now know what Redd Foxx was feeling all those years.

“This is the big one!”

on Sep 16 2007 @ 07:34 PM

An onside kick is playing the game, it takes place on the field between the players.  The timeout at the last second of a snap is not in my opinion.

on Sep 16 2007 @ 08:14 PM

If you think calling a timeout before the kick was sneaky, then any time a qb calls a timeout as the clock is running down to zero must also be sneaky. 

According to NFL rules, either team may call a timeout at any time as long as the ball is dead.  The snap is what makes the ball “live.” Oakland had not snapped the ball when the timeout was called.  The whistle blew, but they continued with the play anyway. 

This is, and has been, part of the game for years.

There have been many instances when a defensive player notices a problem with his team, i.e. not enough men, and calls timeout. 

In fact, this is not the first time this has happened in Invesco.  In the 2006 CU v CSU game, CU had a field goal negated by a timeout from Sonny Lubick.

Shanahan has done some sneaky things, but the timeout wasn’t one of them.

on Sep 17 2007 @ 10:16 AM

Darren, a timeout by offense called when in possession of the ball is not the same as a timeout designed to spoil timing of a kicker.  It is not a convincing equivalent.

on Sep 17 2007 @ 11:45 AM
Post a Comment
TimeLife.com
 
 
© 2005 by the authors of ResurrectionSong. All rights reserved.
Powered by ExpressionEngine