dc.

Well either Joe didn't know the safety was there and it was a bad throw into the safety or he did know and it was a bad throw into the safety. It's a fine throw if there is no safety. But you could say that about 95% of the picks and defended passes in the game

Found it.

Any one watch The Newsroom on HBO? This year has a funny side bit in one episode in which they bring a climate scientist into the studio for an interview. It's a long story why he's there. But he keeps pretty much saying that we are all dead. I think my favorite is the analogy, "it's like you got in your car and turned it in the garage... And you did that 20 years ago... And the car is still running. And now you're dead." The first asks if someone could come turn off the car and open the door. He is pretty much like, "yes. But you've been dead for twenty years."

I want no part of either Shanahan. Question: how does Kubiak demand everything when there's no competition for the job?

Side note: I totally agree about abandoning the run in general... Sigh

I will be the bold voice that says Kubiak bails on the job...

The Dumervil incentive stipulations are hysterical.

I don't entirely disagree. I just can't get on board with the "don't score now" movement. If points are there, you take them. If that Torrey play had a 100% chance of working, what is so you give the O to score the remainder of the drive if they don't take those points? It certainly wouldn't be 100%. Obviously that play and no play is 100%, but I'm just not convinced as everyone else that we would have so easily be in the end zone in five plays... There were obviously several points in the last few series where we stalled, including near the goal line

See, I disagree on the premise here. You're saying give up $1m now for a chance at $1m one the course of however many other plays. If the points were there, you take them. I am also not sure that the play was designed to be a big one, but you can't keep every one short. Torrey went deep not because we wanted to go there, but as a part of a play designed to get as many guys open as possible. Joe made the decision to go to Torrey, in error, not thinking the safety was there (or could get there). I don't blame the play call - even if it were designed to score, I would not blame it. Joe made a bad read. I'm done with this play. Apparently it alone decided this game, which I can't get on board with.

Throw missed or Joe missed the read. Torrey missed several plays he could have made.

It will be a point of emphasis, not a change as nothing illegal was done. But like with the hurry up changes over the last few years, and allowing time for subs, this will get some attention. It was smart, legal and even if the D knew it was coming, it would be hard to adjust to - Verneer even though ineligible ran a few play action moves towards Brady, when if the DB knew not to cover him, how does the DL or LB crew not bite in the fake in the moment? - but that doesn't mean the way it was executed was in the spirit of the substitution rules.

New challenge: what does Kubiaks decision say about Harbaugh? There are some here that love to trash John - and sometimes with good reason. But he is frequently painted as a lame duck, a mouth piece, little knowledge or strategy, all smiles... Doesn't the fact that a guy like Kubiak sees promise in this team (and its leader) say a lot about the quality of work they are doing? At least, it should say that regardless of Harbaugh's public persona - which I frequently think is intentionally broad, congenial, generic - he has some recipe for what happens behind the scenes that others like our believe in. Some have laughed similar statements off as coming from players who "have to" say nice things... Actions speak louder.

. Is there benefit to extra hours? Yes. Will qbs still make bad throws? Yes. Is there any way to know which throws are "wrong page" and which are just misses? Not for a lot of them.

Reported by Ravens - declines interviews and says he wants to build something great with Harbaugh and the organization.

Doesn't that zone assume our safeties can read a play or make a play? Because all I see from our safeties is misreads, late arrivals or downright running the wrong way...

I actually just watched the video of Harbaugh answering questions on this - available on The Sun and ESPN. The report on ESPN at first made this sound like Harbs was really whining. But he actually was not only incredibly calm (I mean, not an ounce of worked-up - just matter of fact) but also was not really calling out the Pats for it. He actually had practically the whole convo we just did. "This is what they did - I think we deserved some time to figure out who was actually eligible" was pretty much the gist of his gripe. His one shot was a no comment to, "would you consider this cheap or dirty?" "I'm not going to comment on that."

Announced or not, it's about the quick snap. Each time, they only checked in as ineligible and announced it after breaking the huddle - not before. So they bring in six eligible players, the Ravens bring in a corresponding package ( or try, because it doesn't exist, because it's illegal to have six eligible players), then as the approach the line one player is - at random to the D- declared ineligible and the ball is snapped within a few seconds... There's a gap there.

I agree and I thought he could have done more. I just meant, he went hard at the player as he caught it. Just thought he made the wrong choice as to where to put his energy.

He gave the guy as good a shove/body check as any of or dbs do in that situation ( which might not be saying much)

The refs did announce it, though it didn't get as much attention as some other games. The bigger issue to me was the quick snap to follow - not allowing any adjustment.

I agree it (they, technically there were three) was a great design. But I still agree that just like when the hurry up became popular and some times were tweaked/emphasized, we will see the same thing here. Just seems weird you can line up six normally eligible guys - all as wide outs - murmur that one is technically ineligible, and then quick snap. And I think the fact that this is about the only time it's ever been done gives some evidence to how shady a move it is. Brady's response echoes that to me.

I generally hate the whining but I think Harbs has a point. The sub rules say you can't have more than five eligible players on the field and that when there are subs of any kind, the D has the right to adjust/sub on its own. The strategy on those plays clearly picked on both of those rules a little. Legal, but I bet there will be some specific timing adjustment in the future, just like with any other hurry-up sub. Brady's response was read the rule book. This is also what Harbaughs bench personal foul was for. He didn't think the refs were totally understanding how that subbing should be dealt with in terms of allowing D adjustment. I'm still wondering where Brady's PF for practically spitting on the ref when screaming was? Almost any other player gets that in the gave of an official and gets flagged.

Torrey gave a good effort to knock it loose... I just think he could have actually gone for the ball, not the man

Wish we could rewatch all those scrambles and see our receivers (and their dbs)... Just doesn't add up. But when you put up 31, it's hard to blame the O.

Smith has to go for the ball not the hit... Bah