Jump to content

Burke


Adrenaline_x

Recommended Posts

he didn't really throw him under the bus... he mentioned bad punting ,  missed int opportunities (suber and demond) and the offense as a whole.  

 

I thought Brown was just being a tool and enjoying watching us lose.     

 

Mitch Z was just a ding dong thinking that this game was a positive... it took every ounce of restraint from Irving to not call him an idiot.   

 

I think of the three Irving was the most right on guy... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he didn't really throw him under the bus... he mentioned bad punting ,  missed int opportunities (suber and demond) and the offense as a whole.  

 

I thought Brown was just being a tool and enjoying watching us lose.     

 

Mitch Z was just a ding dong thinking that this game was a positive... it took every ounce of restraint from Irving to not call him an idiot.   

 

I think of the three Irving was the most right on guy... 

 

I enjoy listening to Irving .. but Brown was the one guy on the panel who thought the Bombers were playing not to lose rather than playing to win .. what happened last night in the fourth quarter was absolutely gutless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. But much like disagree with a lawless article doesn't mean he's a fat bald ugly stuttering hack with no writing ability, calling Burke a **** idiot coward is emotional. Does anyone truly believe Burke the man is a coward? Or that he knows nothing about football.

I guess I much prefer the intelligent football discussion that this board was created to promote not the name calling.

Having said that, if he bombers had won in overtime I do believe people would still be upset with the knee. But Burke isn't paid to "go for it". He's paid to win and he felt the knee have them the best chance. I don't agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. But much like disagree with a lawless article doesn't mean he's a fat bald ugly stuttering hack with no writing ability, calling Burke a **** idiot coward is emotional. Does anyone truly believe Burke the man is a coward? Or that he knows nothing about football.

I guess I much prefer the intelligent football discussion that this board was created to promote not the name calling.

Having said that, if he bombers had won in overtime I do believe people would still be upset with the knee. But Burke isn't paid to "go for it". He's paid to win and he felt the knee have them the best chance. I don't agree

Well that was good...you just did to Lawless what you're telling us not to do to Burke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. But much like disagree with a lawless article doesn't mean he's a fat bald ugly stuttering hack with no writing ability, calling Burke a **** idiot coward is emotional. Does anyone truly believe Burke the man is a coward? Or that he knows nothing about football.

I guess I much prefer the intelligent football discussion that this board was created to promote not the name calling.

Having said that, if he bombers had won in overtime I do believe people would still be upset with the knee. But Burke isn't paid to "go for it". He's paid to win and he felt the knee have them the best chance. I don't agree

 

Even the best people get upset sometimes, it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fans and objectivity are not synonymous. Hence the derivation of the term fan. Burke's argument was he had an ill prepared QB with just above zero playtime in the game with 25 sec. He made an objective decision. No one has commented on Burke's decision to play defence first in OT? A decision I am sure was also objective providing his QB more time to prepare. Perhaps the counter argument could easily be he should have rested and calmed the D after giving up the td for the tie. Isn't hindsight from an armchair wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fans and objectivity are not synonymous. Hence the derivation of the term fan. Burke's argument was he had an ill prepared QB with just above zero playtime in the game with 25 sec. He made an objective decision. No one has commented on Burke's decision to play defence first in OT? A decision I am sure was also objective providing his QB more time to prepare. Perhaps the counter argument could easily be he should have rested and calmed the D after giving up the td for the tie. Isn't hindsight from an armchair wonderful.

 

The decision to play defence first is because it gives you a huge advantage in the overtime format.  If you go offence first and find yourself on 3rd down, you pretty much have to kick a field goal.  By going offence second, you already know what your opponent did, so if they scored a TD, you have the luxury of knowing you have to go for it on 3rd down.  If they went FG, then you know you can kick the FG.

 

Has nothing to do with resting defence or preparing your QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fans and objectivity are not synonymous. Hence the derivation of the term fan. Burke's argument was he had an ill prepared QB with just above zero playtime in the game with 25 sec. He made an objective decision. No one has commented on Burke's decision to play defence first in OT? A decision I am sure was also objective providing his QB more time to prepare. Perhaps the counter argument could easily be he should have rested and calmed the D after giving up the td for the tie. Isn't hindsight from an armchair wonderful.

 

Burke's argument was he had an ill prepared QB with just above zero playtime in the game

 

 

Which is precisely why guaranteeing overtime against a hot QB with all the momentum was the worst decision  he could have made,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...