Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 28
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,010
    Blog Entries
    1

    For those arguing about the Clayton TD



    Here you go:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...erbrook/080909

    Sweet Play of the Week No. 2: Baltimore ran a flip reverse on which Derrick Mason did a full-speed no-look flip to Michael Clayton, who went 42 yards for the touchdown. (Announcers of course called the play a "double reverse"; the ball only changed direction once.) Ravens coaches might be hesitant to radio in this play again, though. Clayton took the reverse 13 yards behind the line of scrimmage; the play could have backfired in a major way.




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perry Hall
    Posts
    2,869

    Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    Michael Clayton. Wow, the national media sure does their research before writing these pieces.




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bel Air, MD
    Posts
    1,146

    Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    Can't wait til some talking head calls Harbs "Jim Harbaugh".......Just Win Baby!!!


    My youngest son Kyle w/ Michael Phelps after the Browms game 12/24/11

    Season Ticket Holder Since 96,
    Loud, Proud & Purple in Section 504. GO RAVENS, all the way to Indy for the Lombardi!!!




  4. #4

    Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    I suppose we're lucky they didn't call him John Clayton or Clayton Manning...LOL

    UNLEASH THE BEASTS!!!!




  5. #5

    Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    Gregg Easterbunny is wrong (and not just with Clayton's name). It actually was a double reverse. Flacco started going to the left, it was reversed to the right by mason, then reversed again to the left with clayton. Most so-called double reverses aren't double reverses because the QB just hands off for the "end-around", but Flacco actually started moving left so the initial give to mason was a reverse.




  6. Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    Are we still on this??

    I call it a TD and that is what it will stay!




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    2,126

    Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    I really don't care if it was a Reverse, Double Reverse, or the oft talked about but rarely seen Iron Lotus. All I care about is that it was a TOUCHDOWN!!!

    BTW, Clayton Manning... Hilarious, thanks for the laugh!
    • Section 133 for eternity!
    • I know... The family resemblance is uncanny.
    • START WEARING PURPLE!!!!





  8. #8

    Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    WOOHOO! A whole new thread to discuss the same debate ad nauseam! DOUBLE REVERSE LIVES ON!
    I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,010
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiesty Ravens Chic View Post
    Are we still on this??
    It's fun to restart amusing debates.

    I think Easterbrook had a point about the distance behind the LOS, you try that kind of play against a D with some hussle and you're gonna get stopped well behind the line.




  10. #10

    Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    I love me some double reverse, that is not a double reverse, that is indeed... a double reverse.
    I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!




  11. #11

    Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    Concerning the risk: The Raiders tried a similar play last night and it backfired on the exchange at the back end. Lost 15 yards.

    What Clayton should have been told is, and what the Raiders receiver forgot was, if you are 15 yards behind the LOS and aren't getting anywhere, throw the ball away.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  12. Re: For those arguing about the Clayton TD

    Quote Originally Posted by festivus View Post
    Concerning the risk: The Raiders tried a similar play last night and it backfired on the exchange at the back end. Lost 15 yards.

    What Clayton should have been told is, and what the Raiders receiver forgot was, if you are 15 yards behind the LOS and aren't getting anywhere, throw the ball away.

    Ive wondered this for years...on a reverse or handoff behind the line of scrimmage going no where, throw the ball out of bounds....no loss. this is of course barring you are out of the pocket but after a handoff can you still get called for intentional grounding?
    Season ticket holder since 1996 Section 148 Tailgate Lot H
    See my photos and video at www.bmoreravens.com




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland