bullets13

As good as he's looked, that's a mistake born of inexperience.

Ducks better figure out a way to stop the qb scramble or they're in big trouble.

Another awesome run!

Awful drop!!!!

What a run!

Well, all in all, Oregon made that look easy

He's down, but they better start taking better care of the ball

First championship game I've been interested in watching for several years

none of know if it was a stretch or not. I wasn't saying he forced anything, just giving an allusion. but he MIGHT have forced it on them. I have no clue. Whether you feel forced or not might also depend on who your boss is and the relationship you have with them. I generally felt forced in years past to make a pretty good donation to the United Way every year because we were strongly "encouraged" by our school board to meet a goal as a school. but because of the way our school board functioned (or didn't), the majority of us gave when we couldn't afford it or gave more than we wanted to out of fear of possible consequences. were we forced? Technically not. but realistically, yes. Now, all that having been said, that isn't the real issue on this particular case, and I've stated that I agree with y'all that he should not be fired. but I did want to provide an example that I personally have experienced where my boss(es) forced me to do something unrelated to my job that I did not want to do.

70's, Vegas... it wasn't an earthquake, it was the brownies... ;)

but on the brown side your season was basically done by week 12, and you didn't get to the playoffs or win a playoff game. you can keep your higher draft pick. maybe you can draft the 2012 version of Clowney with your first round pick.

My dad felt one of them. I got to experience one my only trip to California, and it was a pretty neat experience (because it wasn't a strong one)

His career is over if he wants it to be over. He's still better than most of the qbs in the league. He might not be good enough to win a Super Bowl, but I guarantee you the broncos will take him back, and 15 or more teams on top of that.

I'm no JJ fan, but he fielded a team this year that was good enough to win the Super Bowl. Not the favorites, but they should've won this game and had a shot at going next week. Would they have beaten Seattle? I doubt it, but they did it in Seattle once already this year.

The inferior complex is what has brought texans fans out of the woodworks to gloat now that Dallas' far superior season has come to an end... ;)

Peyton always seems to start sucking around week 14. Anyone else notice that?

Peyton could've crawled for 15 yards on that play!

My wife to Aaron Rodgers on the TV when he said he thought it was the correct call: "I'm sure you did, you fudge packer." I married well ;)

Not the case. Because it wasn't a matter of breaking the plain or not, it was a matter of maintaining control all the way to the ground, whether that ground was in the end zone or not. The ruling had everything to do with possession of the ball through the catch, and nothing to do with location on the field, because it was based on whether or not he maintained the reception to the ground. The ground can cause an incompletion, but not a fumble. This means if you fumble after crossing the goal line, it's a touchdown, but if you lose a reception after hitting the ground while crossing the goal line, it's still an incompletion.

No. Because by their interpretation he didn't maintain control of the ball while going to ground. So it would be different than if a running back had crossed the plain and done the same thing. Although had he lunged a little farther and reached it, they might have given it more consideration as a football move and let the play stand....

The only positive for the refs in this game is that the replay at the end completely took the focus off of the obvious blown replay in the 1st half that went a long way to helping the packers put up three at the end of the half. If they don't get three there, the play to dez would've never happened. Still, all that said, despite one blown call that MIGHT have led to Green Bay points in the first half (they still might have gotten there to kick it anyway), and another questionable call that cost the boys 7, had Murray held on to the ball and scored his 60 or 70 yard touchdown (10 point swing), and had romo or the coaches or bailey (take your pick) executed at the end of the first half (6 point swing), and had the defense been able to get a stop out of 3 or 4 chances in the late 3rd and 4th quarter, all this would've been a moot point. I thought the cowboys outplayed GB, and that GB caught several breaks, but still the boys should've been able to put this one away, with or without the dez play.

It is a stupid rule, but by the rule, it wasn't a catch... Unless its deemed he made a natural football move. I personally (as a blatant homer, I'll admit) would argue that when he 1) turned after catching the ball, 2) took two or three steps, and 3) made a notable effort to stretch to the endzone made arguably at least one, if not THREE different football moves before going to ground and losing control of the ball.

After seeing that call, as debatable as it was, what did you even bother coming on here for. You knew what you'd see. Because you wanted to be a hater? Yeah, that's what we figured.

But maybe it wasn't so bad from the side view?

I'm not sure if I know what roughing the kicker is anymore. I haven't seen it called in so long. I would assume hitting the kickers leg while its 5 ft off the ground and spinning him over to land on his back might be it. Maybe you have to rip them down by the facemask or horse collar them now?