Alphadawg7

Thats not an advantage IMO, goal is always a TD because you know the other team can score the TD and win. If first team scores a FG, second team still has a goal of a TD. If first team doesn’t score, then that’s on them. They had a shot. So I will respectfully disagree that there is any real advantage to the second team if both teams have a shot at having the ball. You could say the opposite too and say second team has more pressure on them if first team scores. I think they should just guarantee one possession to both teams in OT. Giving the ball first to a Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, or a young explosive team like Rams and Chiefs is a massive advantage in OT. Just balance it and say both teams get the ball once, at least in the playoffs. Now both teams have to field both an offensive and defensive unit in OT to decide a winner. Makes no no sense to me to do it the way they are, just my 2 cents. And I have said this for over 20 years, has nothing to do with yesterday. I would support this too. Or play a shorter full period like 8 minutes so you could essentially do two if necessary before going to another arbitrary mechanism.

Whats advantage for second team? I don’t get it. Both teams have equal shot to score, so how does 2nd team get an advantage in this case if both get chance tonhave the ball?

Best outcome is still minimally better than the alternate outcomes. They are not risking a $100B corporation to insignificantly add a teeny bit more ratings/profits on a single game. Talk about terrible risk vs reward. Let’s gamble a $100B company to charge a few hundred thousand more per commercial in one game. That’s literally the only thing to gain, and honestly I highly doubt it’s even that much, if any at all. And it impacts NEXT years Super Bowl commercial rates, not this years which were locked in and paid for already. They base rates off expected ratings and the previous years game factors into that. Ratings were gonna be strong no matter who made it, all teams had popular and great storylines, all teams had exciting teams. Rigging the Rams and Pats has almost no value other than hoping Rams sell more tickets. And again, they aren’t risking a $100B league, that’s owned by all 32 owners to help one team sell a few more tickets.

Again, not going to risk a $100B corporation for a couple thousand ticket sales. And the NFL owners own and run the league, not the commissioner is just an employee.

And the NFL is 100 times bigger than the LA market. They aren’t going to risk their $100B business to keep Brees from the SB. Rams making or not making the SB makes no difference to the “market”. The fact people think the NFL would risk $100B business to rig a game is silly. No one is rigging anything lol

You didn’t actually discuss anything I just said though. You’re just whining about people you perceive to be whining

I do agree both teams should get the ball once. Teams win and lose games, not half of a team. And when Pats won the coin toss, they got to put their best unit (offense) on the field against the Chiefs worst unit (defense). And with a TD, Chiefs don’t get the same opportunity to put their best unit (offense) against Pats worst unit (defense). So is it really fair that a coin decides how much of an advantage or disadvantage each team has in a game this important? Shame Mahomes doesn’t get a chance to dual Brady in OT after such a great game.

If it was rigged they would have helped Brees and Saints get there. More people care about him than Rams. Who comes up with this nonsense? Sounds like Jack Daniels theories

Defense matters. No defense, no super bowl. Chiefs defense didn’t make a play. Chiefs went home.

Yup, Super Bowl is about friends and partying. I don’t understand “whose gonna watch” threads. F the Pats but game was epic

Great post and the same way I would approach it too. Yeah I had more choices at first, but ultimately wanted a more cut and dry yes/no answer to inspire more discussion on those who wanted to expand on the answers.

I get it if people aren’t interested, however your recap of the event feels to be quite a stretch of the facts considering he neither hit nor beat her.

Thats a fair point

Exactly how I feel too

Yes even though it’s a lose lose game because I love football and should be two fun games today. We all hate the Pats, so them winning would suck. I have nothing against Chiefs, enjoy watching them play too. But I have a feeling some posters are gonna be unbearable around here if Mahomes makes the SB too. So lose lose lol, but still GO CHIEFS as I would rather deal with obnoxious posts/threads than another Pats SB.

No shock to me, I was pretty sure he would be back in 2019. NFL investigation expected to conclude in March and likely suspended for some games to start season. Chicago and has already openly said they haven’t ruled out signing him and Nagy coached him a year in KC and has stayed in contact with him. If he’s got multiple suitors, I think he likely signs somewhere with a less crowded backfield than Chicago though. I know its a divided TSW on this, so do you hope Beane tries to sign him or hope we stay away? https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2816700-kareem-hunt-rumors-rb-expected-to-sign-with-team-sooner-rather-than-later UPDATE 2/11/19 - SIGNED BY BROWNS

I’m all for drafting OL too, but we need a lot of OL help, not one guy. So I want some veteran help, not all rookies. But to be fair, Bills have been drafting OL, including 2 somewhat relevant ones with this regime in Dawkins and Teller. OL is clearly a FO priority this season, and I expect a combo of draft and free agency to address it.

Yeah, you’re an honest poster. I have a feeling some will have a different take

Yes, I think trade down is very much in play and someone like Washington makes perfect sense wanting to get ahead of Denver for a QB

2 pages ago called and wants their joke back lol. You’re late to the party with this angle

What’s even better is that this draft is deep at the top on defense. So that means QBs will slide to our pick too most likely putting us in a really good spot for teams (like Washington) to move up and get their QB without giving up an RG3 or Wentz like Bounty. So I think we will potentially have a lot of interest in our pick, and as I sit here now I think there is a strong chance we trade with Washington.

In fairness...one played his whole career with a HOF QB, the other mostly had his career wasted by an inept organization. I saw them both play, and I think Moulds has a HOF resume too if had played his whole career with a Jim Kelly in his prime. Moulds skill set I think translates a little better today, although I love Reed and have no issue with someone taking him either.

We still miss the playoffs if he makes that catch though

Staying at 9 and trading back into the first is certainly a possibility as we already know Beane isn’t afraid to make moves to get guys they covet. However, I think the potential Washington trade down is a more likely possibility where we add some more assets as I expect Washington to go after a QB. And with a defensive heavy draft, our slot could be a great fit for them and also not break the bank like trading up for RG3 did. Wouldnt surprise me to see Beane trade down to 15 picking up more draft assets like a 2nd and maybe a 3rd or 4th, then try making a splash trade for someone like Brown or Julio and still having plenty of draft assets to filll out roster needs. Thats what is so exciting about Beane, nothing is off the table and will be fun seeing this all unfold through out the offseason.

Interesting as I would have thought Rueben Brown would be the next OL taken after Hull given how bad our guards and interior line is.