Not Again Mr. Silverstein

[pbmax]

Not again Silverstein:

Tom Silverstein, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, posted 9/21/2009[/url]]But if he is, he and Perry will have to pick their two starters from Aaron Rouse, Jarrett Bush and Derrick Martin. Rouse started in place of Bigby and had nine tackles, mostly in run support. Bush came in for Collins and played solidly.

However, it's not a total coincidence that two plays after Collins went out, the Bengals converted a third and 34 with a screen pass and on the next play completed a 44-yard flea-flicker to receiver Chad Ochocinco down the middle.

First, if Bush played solidly as you claim initially, what is your definition of solid when in the next breath you lay responsibility for a 44 yard completion at his feet? Can we have some examples, please?

Furthermore, Bush was the single deep safety and Ochocinco was not behind him. That is fundamental #1 taken care of. He made the tackle, fundamental #2 taken care of. Now he could have reacted quicker, perhaps made it a more difficult catch or a shorter completion (by 5 yards or so) but this would seem to be play where at least the deep safety didn't get torched, the definition of barely adequate.

Worst of all, despite, I think, YOU writing an article laying responsibility for the screen on Chillar, now you tell us it was the result of two new safeties. Which is it Mr. Silverstein?

[red]

no no no

your anger and fury is directed at the wrong people here

we should all be pissed at the team, players, and coaches

not the beat writers

[Patler]

I only watched the play once, but if the ball had not been fumbled forward an additional 10 yards or so and recovered by the Bengals, didn't it look like the Packers would have stopped the play short of the 1st down? If not for the fumble, no one would even be discussing the play, would they?

Maybe I'm wrong about it. I really have no desire to go back and look for it. What do others think?

[PlantPage55]

no no no

your anger and fury is directed at the wrong people here

we should all be pissed at the team, players, and coaches

not the beat writers

Maybe so, but the beat writers ALSO suck.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I only watched the play once, but if the ball had not been fumbled forward an additional 10 yards or so and recovered by the Bengals, didn't it look like the Packers would have stopped the play short of the 1st down? If not for the fumble, no one would even be discussing the play, would they?

Maybe I'm wrong about it. I really have no desire to go back and look for it. What do others think?

Totally agree. This wasn't the 4th and 26, it was an advanced ball on a fumble. Those things happen and unfortunately we didn't cover it up for great field position.

[swede]

I thought that an offensive team team could not take advantage of a ball fumbled forward. Wasn't that the Dave Kasper rule?

[pbmax]

I only watched the play once, but if the ball had not been fumbled forward an additional 10 yards or so and recovered by the Bengals, didn't it look like the Packers would have stopped the play short of the 1st down? If not for the fumble, no one would even be discussing the play, would they?

Maybe I'm wrong about it. I really have no desire to go back and look for it. What do others think?

No, you are correct, it wasn't a first down until after the fumble yardage.

[pbmax]

no no no

your anger and fury is directed at the wrong people here

we should all be pissed at the team, players, and coaches

not the beat writers

Certainly. But writers should at least remember what they have previously reported. If its wrong, then we should know how and why.

[hoosier]

I only watched the play once, but if the ball had not been fumbled forward an additional 10 yards or so and recovered by the Bengals, didn't it look like the Packers would have stopped the play short of the 1st down? If not for the fumble, no one would even be discussing the play, would they?

Maybe I'm wrong about it. I really have no desire to go back and look for it. What do others think?

It looked to me like the RB fumbled about 5-7 yards short of the first down, and then the loose ball rolled over and got recovered. But even without the fumble--and assuming the RB goes down exactly where he fumbled, which is by no means certain (it got knocked out from behind, if I remember correctly)--the D is still giving up a 25+ yard gain in a situation where the offense is very likely to call something safe like a screen or draw. That's either terrible defense or brilliant execution on offense. Without putting myself through the agony of watching the replay, but considering who's involved, I'm betting it was the former.

[Patler]

I only watched the play once, but if the ball had not been fumbled forward an additional 10 yards or so and recovered by the Bengals, didn't it look like the Packers would have stopped the play short of the 1st down? If not for the fumble, no one would even be discussing the play, would they?

Maybe I'm wrong about it. I really have no desire to go back and look for it. What do others think?

It looked to me like the RB fumbled about 5-7 yards short of the first down, and then the loose ball rolled over and got recovered. But even without the fumble--and assuming the RB goes down exactly where he fumbled, which is by no means certain (it got knocked out from behind, if I remember correctly)--the D is still giving up a 25+ yard gain in a situation where the offense is very likely to call something safe like a screen or draw. That's either terrible defense or brilliant execution on offense. Without putting myself through the agony of watching the replay, but considering who's involved, I'm betting it was the former.

Who are you blaming? Capers? Chiller?

[Pugger]

I thought that an offensive team team could not take advantage of a ball fumbled forward. Wasn't that the Dave Kasper rule?

I asked this question on another forum and that Kasper rule, if I'm understanding it correctly, the offense can't take advantage of a ball fumbled forward to the end zone? Can only the player who fumbled on offense can recover the ball in the end zone or else it is a touch back? I hope someone here fills us in...

[Zool]

I think also in the last 2 minutes of the game it cannot be fumbled forward?

[swede]

I thought that an offensive team team could not take advantage of a ball fumbled forward. Wasn't that the Dave Kasper rule?

I asked this question on another forum and that Kasper rule, if I'm understanding it correctly, the offense can't take advantage of a ball fumbled forward to the end zone? Can only the player who fumbled on offense can recover the ball in the end zone or else it is a touch back? I hope someone here fills us in...

It would be great if we could get an NFL official to join the forum and answer questions like this, but braille keyboards are pretty expensive.

[MJZiggy]

I thought that an offensive team team could not take advantage of a ball fumbled forward. Wasn't that the Dave Kasper rule?

I asked this question on another forum and that Kasper rule, if I'm understanding it correctly, the offense can't take advantage of a ball fumbled forward to the end zone? Can only the player who fumbled on offense can recover the ball in the end zone or else it is a touch back? I hope someone here fills us in...

It would be great if we could get an NFL official to join the forum and answer questions like this, but braille keyboards are pretty expensive.

[pbmax]

I thought that an offensive team team could not take advantage of a ball fumbled forward. Wasn't that the Dave Kasper rule?

I asked this question on another forum and that Kasper rule, if I'm understanding it correctly, the offense can't take advantage of a ball fumbled forward to the end zone? Can only the player who fumbled on offense can recover the ball in the end zone or else it is a touch back? I hope someone here fills us in...

It would be great if we could get an NFL official to join the forum and answer questions like this, but braille keyboards are pretty expensive.

Skinbasket should put a pretty picture of another Unicorn here just for you and that joke.