Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Phil Snow interview..


Ivan The Awesome
 Share

Recommended Posts

On the bomb to Cooper the players screwed up the blitz. The players had busted coverages in the secondary, sometimes Dak saw it, and sometimes we got lucky and he didn't see it.

To make matters worse Dallas came out holding in the run game for their first TD drive which is why they looked so awesome running the ball on that drive.

Both the coaches and players need to share the blame and I think they're doing that well.

There were times when I wanted 4 LBs out there against Dallas, or damn do something to stop the rushing. We looked helpless at times when massive rushing lanes and our players could get off blocks. We need a better plan in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harbingers said:

Well that’s literally what he said, he just made himself the forefront of that comment. 

He literally did not say that.

he literally said, “a lot of it is on me.”

And when I say “literally,” I actually literally mean it in the literal sense of the word.

  • Pie 5
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Khaki Lackey said:

He literally did not say that.

he literally said, “a lot of it is on me.”

And when I say “literally,” I actually literally mean it in the literal sense of the word.

And he did jack poo to execute any game plan worth stopping a moderately good offense for a good part of the first half and all of the second half. Execution is not exclusive to players. If he didn’t call the right plays, he didn’t execute properly. 

Edited by Harbingers
  • Poo 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

And he did jack poo to execute any game plan worth stopping a moderately good offense for a good part of the first half and all of the second half. Execution is not exclusive to players. If he didn’t call the right plays, he didn’t execute properly. 

I’m not interested in your opinions. I just wanted you to know what the word “literal” meant in the off chance that you might stop making poo up then saying that others “literally” said it.

  • Pie 3
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...