Giving it away, two times
This is pretty certain to fall along party lines, and it's a sure thing that more Baltimoreans are tuned in on this blog than are Washingtonians. But having been to both games, the question immediately came to mind (and it came to the minds of everyone in the press box who attended both games, as well as anyone who knows the details of them):
Which way of losing was more painful? The way the Redskins lost to the Bills Sunday, or the way the Ravens lost to the Patriots Monday?
To recap:
* The Redskins played with all the baggage of Sean Taylor's death and his funeral the next day, led the entire way, then blew it when Joe Gibbs called two timeouts in a row and handed the Bills a game-winning field goal from 15 yards closer in.
* The Ravens were within minutes of pulling arguably the greatest upset in NFL history, but called a stupendously bad timeout of their own that negated the defensive stop that would have clinched the win. Then they committed two costly penalties, including one on another fourth down, then killed their last chance to win with two unsportsmanlike conduct flags in a row on Bart Scott.
I can't say if I've ever seen two games total with endings like that, and I know I've never seen two on back-to-back days, and I have to believe there never have been two that happened within 40 miles of each other. And two where inexplicable timeouts have cost both teams the game.
As I mentioned in my column for later this morning, this game will never be forgotten here in town, but for all the wrong reasons.
Comments
This area NEEDED that game last night. It wouldn't just have been fun to win, we all needed it. And the Ravens brain-locked it away the same way Joe Gibbs did Sunday. Un. Be. Lievable.
Posted by: Sammy Maudlin | December 4, 2007 6:10 AM
I have two comments:
while I agree that you need to let the players play, the pass interference call at the goal line on the Pats tight end was so obvious, it had to be called because it prevented the receiver from running his route and the opportunity to make a catch.
My other comment is that the use of the term "boy" is completely out of line. Is it different coming from a black official? I wonder just what SR actually said to this official, who I understand played in college, and in the NFL..... the use of the term does indicate that the game became personal at that point. I don't know how anyone who is being verbally abused could act without malice. that was a wild scene there at the end of the game, unlike I've ever scene.
Posted by: George Gagalis | December 5, 2007 12:32 AM