2023 Season | Week 13 | Thursday Gameday Chatter Thread | Seahawks @ Cowboys | 11/30/2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see anything hardly worth watching today except San Fran v Philly. My money is on the Eagles. Not just being a home game, but I think they're the best team in the league. Which makes next week's game so big. I'm not worried about our defense being up for it. But our lack of a solid running attack really concerns me. It's something we didn't address in the off-season and I think we're really going to regret it.
 
I don't see anything hardly worth watching today except San Fran v Philly. My money is on the Eagles. Not just being a home game, but I think they're the best team in the league.
I'll take the other side. Except for a couple weird weeks, SF has been far more impressive than Philly. I think the Eagles get spanked two weeks in a row starting today.
 
4. It's not the injury, he was never that good to begin with.
Maybe, but his first 3 years, especially season 2, he was a good WR2.

I would expect struggles if he were WR1, but I still feel it is injury or rehab related. He just fell off a cliff production wise. He can't even do shit as WR3.
 
Maybe, but his first 3 years, especially season 2, he was a good WR2.

I would expect struggles if he were WR1, but I still feel it is injury or rehab related. He just fell off a cliff production wise. He can't even do shit as WR3.


But we seemed to be running him a lot on either sideline routes or 50/50 balls with him. I don't ever remember him being a dynamic receiver where there were a lot of things we could do with him. And his numbers were declining long before the ACL injury.
 
Anyone else ready for this "Give them their flowers" phrase to hit the dustbin of history?


Yes, very much. :lol

It doesn't even make that much sense. How many times have you ever gotten flowers for doing something well? Never? Oh. Me either.

Just another lazy trendy saying where it was maybe clever the first time someone said it but then instantly died and became stupid and lazy when copied.
 
Just another lazy trendy saying where it was maybe clever the first time someone said it but then instantly died and became stupid and lazy when copied.
I don't know the source, but it feels like a malaprop that caught fire on social media and now people think it's legitimate. :doh
 
Maybe, but his first 3 years, especially season 2, he was a good WR2.

I would expect struggles if he were WR1, but I still feel it is injury or rehab related. He just fell off a cliff production wise. He can't even do shit as WR3.
A good WR2? Maybe a pretty good 3.

What irritates me with him is the lazy routes, which causes breakups and interceptions. I get that it's not the most fun thing to run 30 routes a game hard when you only get a target or two, but that's life for that position. That guy needs to always play hard and do the dirty work, which I don't think Gallup is suited for. That's why I like Brooks. He does strike me as that guy.
 
No it wasn't. Somebody posted a clip where they stated that the throw was probably meant for Gallup. Go back and watch the play again. Gallup had posted up the CB and was facing the QB. Turpin had to jump pretty high to make the catch. If the ball made it past him, it would have still been waist high or better when getting to Gallup.
so I did, and you're right. The camera angle allows you to see that the trajectory would carry the ball far enough to reach Gallup.
A different camera shot facing the endzone from behind Turpin made it look like there's no way the ball makes it to Gallup.
 
Today is a perfect Red Zone day.

There's not a single "must watch" game in the 1:00 window.
 
  • Props
Reactions: p1_
They just showed a pretty surprising stat on NFL Network.

The 49ers under Kyle Shanahan are 0-37 when trailing by 8+ points entering the 4th quarter.
 
Last edited:
They just showed a pretty surprising stat on NFL Network.

The 49ers under Kyle Shanahan ae 0-37 when trailing by 8+ points entering the 4th quarter.
Probably from having relatively spare QBs? And because they're so dependent on play action and the threat of a running game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom