Shaw66

The NFL needs to modernize how games are officiated. They need officials looking at monitors correcting calls regularly. It isn't right that the Bills had no more challenges based on that play. It was a.good challenge, and in fact a challenge shouldn't have been necessary. It should have been reviewed automatically. As I've said before, it makes no sense that TDs and takeaways a automatically reviewed, but plays that WOULD be takeaways or TDs aren't reviewed.

Wow. Didn't realize watching on TV that inside the stadium was such a mess. I thought this thread was going to be about the noise. Watching the Lions Sunday night, I was envious that they have a roof, because those people, so starved for a winner, made a lot of noise and it all stayed inside. I thought that there was no way the Bills fans could be that loud. Did anyone notice that Nantz and Romo were actually shouting some of the time so that they could be heard over the noise from the crowd? People really showed up, in the way they often have, to give real support to the team. It was amazing. Looking forward to the Chiefs!

I have a different take on Elam. I think he's a project, and his best games are ahead of him. We all know he struggled as a rookie. But plenty of players struggle as rookies. Bernard, for example. Dotson. Spector. Williams. All of the looked liked liabilities as rookies, and all of them have been valuable contributors in the last few games. Yes, Benford stepped in and played early, but he was a guy accustomed to playing in a complex defensive backfield scheme in college. I expected Elam to contribute this year, but then he got hurt and was unavailable until a month ago. In meantime, as we would expected, he hasn't been sitting at home watching cartoons. He's had his entire rookie season and most of this season to sit and study. He has the physical tools, and it isn't surprising that with a chance to learn and understand concepts better, he could be put on the field on he could perform. As someone pointed out, the play he got run over on was an obvious mismatch as it was happening. I didn't know who was out there, but I knew he was about to get blasted. It was ugly, but it wasn't surprising. A tackle there would have been a great, great play, and a missed tackle was the likely outcome for most corners. The interference call, as someone else said, was a good play. Every corner gets beat sometime. Every single one. Everyone holds. Elam's play saved a touchdown. The INT was an important play at a key point in the game, for sure, but what I liked about it better than the INT was, along with the other INT, how good his coverage was. In BOTH cases, his coverage was excellent, he was in position to make a tackle or a play on the ball, AND he showed the athletic ability actually to make a good play on the ball. Elam's a good example of what perhaps is McDermott's greatest talent - player development. His system is complex and demanding, on both offense and defense. You don't play until you can play within the system. He creates an environment for people to learn and grow within the system, to become "the best version of themselves." I'd forgotten that Isabella was on the team. They signed him and put him in practice for how long - three months? - before he was called on to contribute. In McDermott's system, no one is plug and play - you have to learn and develop. But his system works, because he creates a TEAM, a group that works together, and together they are better than as individuals. It wasn't just Elam yesterday. It was Klein and Williams and Dane Jackson and Cam Lewis and Damar Hamlin and Isabella and who knows who else. The Bills had a lot of guys ready to play, and they without them, there probably would have been a different outcome.

Not necessary. With that lead, just get out of the half without giving up points.

Why Brady? Doesn't the HC tell th OC about clock management issues? I'd think McD would be on the line to Brady telling him to run the clock.

Bass is probably the backup

Right. Romo was right. Up by 21, keep the clock running by running on second down. Force Steelers to use time outs. And you're right about the field goal. No need for it there. McDermott really does have clock issues.

Well, given that the guy was headi g toward thw back of the end zone, yes. But my point was that I think most coaches' modern take, just like going for it on fourth down and going for the 2 point conversion, is that an INT is an opportunity to make a big play. I think players are no longer taught to automatically knock down a fourth down throw.

Wow! Thanks for the still. Completely obvious how far open Kimcaid will be in a step or two. Thanks.

I've thought about this before, and I don't thing you guys are right about this. Players do what they're coached to do and don't make decisions on the field based on their contracts. I mentioned Taron Johnson bringing it out against the Ravens. The DB took it out after Josh's other int Sunday. DBs do it a lot. Why not take the touchback? I think the modern thinking is offenses aren't taught to defend against punt returns, so coaches see INT returns as big play opportunities. That's why we see many guys go for the interception 4th down and on any down take INTs out of the end zone.

Thurm I haven't watched he'd the all 22 but completely accept your analysis and others that Josh had Kincaid for the first down. If I had to guess, he saw and misread something that made him uncomfortable and decided to go away from that throw. You're right, what I said is correct only once he's closing in on the sideline and has limited options. Early this season I got grief around here because I kept saying Josh has to learn to take the short gain high probability throw rather than the 50 50 throw downfield. It's a west coast concept - make every play a positive play, which is always better than a loss, an inompletion, or a turnover. Positive play, every down. Josh was doing that in the big wins early in the season, and he's regressed to the way he likes to play.

But there's only a 1 in 8 chance it would three times in a row.

There are only 5 active coaches with at least as many playoff appearances and a better won loss percentage. Every other head coach either has been to the playoffs fewer times or won less or both. There are more measures of success than winning a Lombardi. He was a good hire, both for the regular seasons and the playoffs. Every team wants to win the Super Bowl. Do you really think any team with an opening would not hire McDermott be ause he hasn't won one? Any team? You're being unhappy doesn't mean McDermott hasn't been a success to date.

This is a thread about history, not the future. The history is simple: over his tenure, McDermott isnone of the most accomplished coaches in the league. I'd say, if you want to talk about the future, start your thread.

So hiring McDermott was a bad decision?

Well, two things about this: First, as good as a punt is ONLY said when there actually WAS an interception. No one says it on an incompletion. Second, a fourth down throw into the end zone has a significant upside - a touchdown. There's a much greater possible reward on the throw than the punt.

Thank you for responding. I knew my post would generate these negative posts, and I have trouble keeping my cool responding to them. If the Bills fired McDermott today, how long would it be before New England hired him? Seattle? It's absurd to demean a guy with his regular season record AND his playoff record, as you point out.

I liked him once I heard his first press conference. It was pretty clear he knew what he was doing. Of course, his press conferences have gone downhill ever since!

Man. Talk about a good decision. Seven years later, four straight division titles. Playoffs six times. After all those years of failure.

Well, I continue to think there are opportunities to game the system. One problem is the arbitrariness of the time these rules apply. Why is this rule and the out of bounds rule a 5-minute rule but the 10 second runoff is a 2-minute rule? If the Dolphins were getting the benefit of the clock stoppage, why not also offer the Bills a 10-second runoff? I agree with Gunner that the rule probably is designed to give an advantage to the team trying to come back, but why should that be? If my running back gives himself up and passes up chance get more yards so he can keep the clock running, why should my opponent be able stop the clock by committing a penalty? Whatever. It should be rationalized some way. If you can stop the clock in the final 5 by going out of bounds, fine. But committing a penalty?

Bills were great on that play at the end of half. Diggs or Josh or both recognized that the Dolphins were giving them the first down, so they took and got out of bounds. Real smart football.

Yes. Congratulate everyone every day they're sober.

Why is that the rule? What's the rationale. Once the penalty is enforced, why shouldn't the game be put back in the same position it would have been if no penalty had been called? If you're winning and on offense, the rule denies you an opportunity let the clock. If you're losing, while the penalty is being enforced you're calling the next play and getting up to the LOS. Only thing I can think is that they want to advantage the losing team, so they can have a more exciting finish.

Pics or it didn't happen!

I agree. Someone throws a flag, and at the end of the play the clock stops. I get that. Officials need time to sort out and enforce the penalty. But once that's done, why shouldn't the game resume in the same posture it was. If the clock was running when it was stopped for the penalty, it should restart with a 25-second play clock. Why should a team get the benefit of a clock stoppage when EITHER team is flagged?