Originally Posted by spkb25 (Post 440588)

I have always felt that the Colton fumble was negated by the blocked punt. I can almost bet that most of those yards were gained when the games were getting away from us. We had some trouble moving against the panties. I was there. We started out good, but after that we had trouble. Then toward the end we started moving it again, it was an improvement over Washington, but we still didn't look as fluid as we should. Plus I will say we had some drops too. I hope you're right man. Really do. I said that about the 49ers. Matter of fact I said outright that the game came down to protecting the ball because the only reason they were winning was short fields. Not that I am some genius because everyone knew we had to protect the ball in that game. It was how they had built their wins that season

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 440648)

The way I look at it is that Colstons fumble was a gift to the Skins... The blocked punt, was earned...

Gifts do negate gifts, but not earned plays... just the way I look at it.

Originally Posted by Budsdrinker (Post 440652)

I agree with you on that if the fumble had happened with more time on the clock. Being that the fumble and the block punt both happen with less than 2 minutes in the half makes it a wash. Saints were not going to score twice before the half anyway. Colston doesn't fumble and we score on the next play and kickoff, skins take a knee and it's halftime. Don't believe we onside kick in that situation. It's over so it doesn't matter anyway but my point is you can't blame Colston's fumble on that lost because points were scored. Now if we didn't block the punt and it was 20-7 at halftime then it would have been a different story.

Originally Posted by Shoe. (Post 440636)

and if there was ever a quarterback who could give us our first INT of the year, it's Cassel.

Who else does he have to throw to besides Bowe downfield? I don't think Breaston is even on the field much anymore but I haven't seen the games