What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Game Thread W9 - Baltimore V Cincinnati (1 Viewer)

Good luck today, Cats.

Ngata's out, which doesn't help the Ravens' run D. The Bengals seem to get under the ratbirds' (tm, roadkill) skin & Palmer often plays really well against them. Benson lighting them up last time worries me that Baltimore is going to sell out to stop the run, leaving Bengals WRs running free downfield.

All that said, I'm picking the Ravens 27-17. Baltimore's basically got a 9 game playoff run in front of them & this is one they have to win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Baltimore's basically got a 9 game playoff run in front of them & this is one they have to win.
Okay, but are they really a playoff team? They have been awfully inconsistent this season so far to just assume that they will the game they need to to get to the playoffs.
 
Baltimore's basically got a 9 game playoff run in front of them & this is one they have to win.
Okay, but are they really a playoff team? They have been awfully inconsistent this season so far to just assume that they will the game they need to to get to the playoffs.
I read this twice and am still not sure what you mean. My point was that the Ravens have no margin for error, given their record and the records of their peers - so that every game going forward is a playoff game for them.
 
This is the worst half of Ravens football all season.

Where's McGahee, Cincy is on to Rice, time to reciprocate and show them our bruising back.... Harbaugh, are you listening?

 
Baltimore's basically got a 9 game playoff run in front of them & this is one they have to win.
Okay, but are they really a playoff team? They have been awfully inconsistent this season so far to just assume that they will the game they need to to get to the playoffs.
I read this twice and am still not sure what you mean. My point was that the Ravens have no margin for error, given their record and the records of their peers - so that every game going forward is a playoff game for them.
I just meant that it seems like people sometimes take the use the "they need to win this game, so they will" reasoning as a reason why a team will win a game. My point was, Baltimore hasn't looked like a playoff team this year so far, so I wouldn't assume that they will win a game they apparently need to to increase their playoff chances (like today, as a loss will put them basically three back of the Bengals).
 
Baltimore's basically got a 9 game playoff run in front of them & this is one they have to win.
Okay, but are they really a playoff team? They have been awfully inconsistent this season so far to just assume that they will the game they need to to get to the playoffs.
I read this twice and am still not sure what you mean. My point was that the Ravens have no margin for error, given their record and the records of their peers - so that every game going forward is a playoff game for them.
I just meant that it seems like people sometimes take the use the "they need to win this game, so they will" reasoning as a reason why a team will win a game. My point was, Baltimore hasn't looked like a playoff team this year so far, so I wouldn't assume that they will win a game they apparently need to to increase their playoff chances (like today, as a loss will put them basically three back of the Bengals).
I'm very surprised seeing something like this coming from a Broncos fan...
 
It was one game. To make the playoffs, you generally have to play consistently good, and the Ravens have not done that this season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chad Johnson had a dollar in his hand during that review? At what point did he think that was a good idea. He was hovering around the refs with money.

 
Serious question. Ocho Cinco had a foot down and then a heel down in bounds. His toes came down out of bounds after his heel hit inbounds. So he had a foot and a heel in bounds.

 
Serious question. Ocho Cinco had a foot down and then a heel down in bounds. His toes came down out of bounds after his heel hit inbounds. So he had a foot and a heel in bounds.
Please state your serious question.
Just saying shouldn't it have been a catch? Lol didn't realize I didn't ask a question.
You didn't. You made a statement. And no that's not a catch. 2 WHOLE footies need to be in..
 
Serious question. Ocho Cinco had a foot down and then a heel down in bounds. His toes came down out of bounds after his heel hit inbounds. So he had a foot and a heel in bounds.
Please state your serious question.
Just saying shouldn't it have been a catch? Lol didn't realize I didn't ask a question.
You didn't. You made a statement. And no that's not a catch. 2 WHOLE footies need to be in..
Then how is it different than a receiver dragging their toes?
 
Serious question. Ocho Cinco had a foot down and then a heel down in bounds. His toes came down out of bounds after his heel hit inbounds. So he had a foot and a heel in bounds.
Please state your serious question.
Just saying shouldn't it have been a catch? Lol didn't realize I didn't ask a question.
You didn't. You made a statement. And no that's not a catch. 2 WHOLE footies need to be in..
So if a receiver taps his toes in the back of the endzone but doesn't get his whole foot in-bounds, it's not a catch? :confused:
 
Serious question. Ocho Cinco had a foot down and then a heel down in bounds. His toes came down out of bounds after his heel hit inbounds. So he had a foot and a heel in bounds.
Please state your serious question.
Just saying shouldn't it have been a catch? Lol didn't realize I didn't ask a question.
You didn't. You made a statement. And no that's not a catch. 2 WHOLE footies need to be in..
Then how is it different than a receiver dragging their toes?
Toes count as whole footies..Heels don't..
 
Serious question. Ocho Cinco had a foot down and then a heel down in bounds. His toes came down out of bounds after his heel hit inbounds. So he had a foot and a heel in bounds.
Please state your serious question.
Just saying shouldn't it have been a catch? Lol didn't realize I didn't ask a question.
You didn't. You made a statement. And no that's not a catch. 2 WHOLE footies need to be in..
So if a receiver taps his toes in the back of the endzone but doesn't get his whole foot in-bounds, it's not a catch? :confused:
Yea I stated that wrong. Toes count as whole feet kinda like knees count as feet.
 
Actually, heels do count as whole footies...

If he had landed on his heel then picked up his foot and put his toe down OOB then that is a foot in....

 
Serious question. Ocho Cinco had a foot down and then a heel down in bounds. His toes came down out of bounds after his heel hit inbounds. So he had a foot and a heel in bounds.
You can tap your heels and it counts too. It's not "toes are whole feet and heels aren't." If the heel is all that touches, and it's in, you're in. If the toe is all that touches and is in, you're in. If part of the foot comes down OOB, you're out. If he had tapped his heel in and didn't put his whole foot down, leaving his toe out it would have been good.
 
Actually, heels do count as whole footies...If he had landed on his heel then picked up his foot and put his toe down OOB then that is a foot in....
and how many times to you see that happen? If he comes down on his heel the toes are gonna come down with it and most likely OOB if it's close to the line.
 
Serious question. Ocho Cinco had a foot down and then a heel down in bounds. His toes came down out of bounds after his heel hit inbounds. So he had a foot and a heel in bounds.
You can tap your heels and it counts too. It's not "toes are whole feet and heels aren't." If the heel is all that touches, and it's in, you're in. If the toe is all that touches and is in, you're in. If part of the foot comes down OOB, you're out. If he had tapped his heel in and didn't put his whole foot down, leaving his toe out it would have been good.
Technically yes that's correct, but as I stated in my other post, you never see someone just "tap" their heels down and manage to keep their toes in the air.
 
Serious question. Ocho Cinco had a foot down and then a heel down in bounds. His toes came down out of bounds after his heel hit inbounds. So he had a foot and a heel in bounds.
You can tap your heels and it counts too. It's not "toes are whole feet and heels aren't." If the heel is all that touches, and it's in, you're in. If the toe is all that touches and is in, you're in. If part of the foot comes down OOB, you're out. If he had tapped his heel in and didn't put his whole foot down, leaving his toe out it would have been good.
Technically yes that's correct, but as I stated in my other post, you never see someone just "tap" their heels down and manage to keep their toes in the air.
Yes you do.
 
SAAHHHWEEEET play by Ed Reed. Ocho stiff arming Reed onto his backside and while going down, Ed removes the ball, picking it up after both players roll over, then returning it for 20 yards or so.

 
Bengals are blowing this game. Need a FG miss here to save their skins.
Not really. That strip by Reed was pretty amazing, and a somewhat dumb play by Chad. Before then their O had a nice sense of urgency.Their secondary continues to own Baltimore. Too bad their LBs aren't containing the checkdown to Rice in the second half.
 
These refs are terrible.

I am a Cincy homer and I think they are seriously blowing some calls.

That spot is terrible.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top