D. L. Hot-Flamethrower

It appears either that some didn't read the whole post, or some of the post, or none of the post. And, it also appears some seem perfectly happy with the current system of multiple stoppages to the game flow and loss of a timeout. My only thing is, and I may be in the minority, but I believe challenges are for big, epic game changing, season changing calls. I'm not a fan of, as I said in the OP, the first quarter 3 yard out-did he juggle, lining up Offside by a knuckle, toenail touching the OB line in the second qtr for a 2 yard gain for a FD. I know some think the game can be decided then and there, but really was replay ever intended as a super slo mo, microscopic, second chance. I agree with using it, especially on scoring plays that really matter, and I don't want teams to get screwed. But, It seems from some of the posts that people think you couldn't challenge the above. You could still challenge them but it's your decision to risk something. I stridently believe that a timeout is not enough, coaches are making the cheap challenge all the time. I agree we need to get the central, unbiased panel type thing going. It appears as if there is some other kind of agenda at work there.

cro·mu·lent /ˈkrämyələnt/ Learn to pronounce adjective HUMOROUS acceptable or adequate. "the continental breakfast was perfectly cromulent"

You had to go there didn't ya!

Likely because the rules are too technical, the refs suck, or the refs have an agenda.

Nonsense, you imply the reverse doesn't happen. It is very clear from your posts that you want to be able to spew pessimism unchallenged. I've been on this board awhile too, and the problem is just the opposite of what you say. That problem is of course too many negative trollers.

Well, I do think as I stated, that the total body of work matters. I do think playing better defenses are a good test. But, just throwing out random games because the opponent is deemed unworthy is assinine. These are NFL teams. And, the poster you think is being fair, complains incessantly every time I make a positive Allen comment Win, Lose or Draw. But, if your good with it so be it. Personally, I'm sick of the negative trolling on here.

That's funny, so the other games this year compared to last year mean nothing. It's laughable that you can't seem to see that many unbiased , expert observers have taken notice. Try googling it. You're another Debbie Downer who's been pissing on Allen at every positive comment made about him. You're totally biased against Josh Allen.

Personally, I don't think it's enough. I guess a lot of posters are really happy with the way things flow. JEEZ

Was he going to tell him to slide and get out of bounds?

Didn't you even read the post? In no way would what I described create what you did.

You aren't kidding. That clown seems to be on his own train...hopefully out of town.

Now there's a novel idea! Even on scoring plays?

I doubt that could be sold.

Could what you describe happen? Yes. However, I think you would find that only egregious calls would be challenged. The ones that the league would understand that if its challenged, then it must be worth it to the team. Therefore, we need to take a better look at it. No argument from me. I would also like to see a review of overly technical rules, which cause problems for the officials.

Neither. The NHL has achieved a positive result by letting you challenge as much as you want, but with consequences when it is not crystal clear and worth it to you. The flow of the game is better than trying to achieve the perfection standard of officiating.

The NHL has a new approach to challenges this year. You can challenge as much as you want, with the caveat, when you are wrong, you get a 2min penalty the first time and 4min double minor after that! What this has done is eliminate many frivolous reviews and stoppages. The game as a result is at 2:28, the shortest in years, and some games have no challenges. It has largely reduced the nasty Offside reviews in super slo-mo after a goal and goalie interferences. In short, if its not important and crystal clear enough- it isn't being challenged. How about something similar in the NFL? And, I'm not looking for football is different than hockey. Honestly, Do you think it has potential to solve some issues? I do! Now I'm old enough to remember the Mike Renfro non-catch for the Oilers against the Steelers in the championship game. This would be an example of a scoring play well worth the challenge and end result. Given the score and situation, we can all come up with dozens of plays that were worth a challenge and perhaps the consequences perhaps a 5 yard pen and loss of TO, 10 yard pen, 15 yards , etc. (this can be worked out easily enough). What I see and hear is "we just want to get it right" . Well excuse me, but does anybody really see that things are better. We have review and challenges that everyone in the world can see and still get it wrong. Furthermore, I'm sick of the first quarter 4 yard out pass for a first down and review (sarcasm). If its crystal clear and worth it, then go for it and suffer the consequences, if not, let's not interrupt the flow of the game. Could the call in the Saints/Rams game have been corrected? Sure, I don't see why not, and these are the ones that really matter. NFL football was better when you had to overcome some of the minute in game calls, and you just played on. An example might go something like this. You are called for lining up Offside on third down, it keeps a drive going in the second quarter, you have a 50/50 chance of being correct from your video guy upstairs. Is it worth it? Or, is it damn, it went against us , the refs aren't always right. Play on. My personal caveat is, I don't want a team to get screwed when it really matters, like Mike Renfro, and the Saints. And, they wouldn't. Why shouldn't it cost you to challenge the officiating? Let's improve the flow of the game, and reduce the number of frivolous challenges.

Can he return to NE? If so, I will vomit in my mouth.

They should be able to scheme some to help him with Chubb out. I don't see it as an enormous problem until it is. Honestly, I would worry more with him playing full time snaps into the fourth quarter and playing from behind. Getting ahead and running the ball late, with Ryan Bates perhaps getting a series or two, may not be the worst idea.

I've been harping on the spread it out and let Josh operate bandwagon for awhile. It should be their primary MO until it isn't.

You can't be serious. If you are- you know nothing about reading body language

Can someone please shut Booger up with his Rivers ass kissing!!!

This has much to do with it.

I really feel like for Josh to take another step which is beating the top teams, we will need more playmakers. I think as the receiving group goes this year, so goes Josh. I want to see our receiving group consistently get separation against a team like Baltimore or NE. There are not many, if any, QBs who can beat the top teams without enough playmakers. John Brown is one and Dawson Knox may become one. I just wonder what our receivers will do in 2 weeks if John Brown is shutdown.

We need more playmakers that is undeniable. Against the really good teams that have multiple DBs like (Balt, NE etc.) guys who can smother a receiver group we are in trouble. As our receiving unit goes.. so goes Josh Allen. Not many if any QBs who can win against a really good team without multiple playmakers. I mean a couple years ago, the Packers had a group who couldn't get open, and whenever they played a shutdown team even Aaron wasn't enough. John Brown has been great, but don't for a minute think when we play Baltimore, we will have receivers creating separation like yesterday. Even yesterday early in the game, before a couple injuries, our guys were getting little separation.

He has been impressive. I still think he'll have adjustments that will need to be made because you know...defensive coordinators will eventually wise up and put a different challenge in front of him. Much rather have him than guys like Trubisky, Goff etc. though.