Rew

They could have spent more than 5 minutes preparing the announcement, given a brief prepared statement at a press conference, and given complimentary thoughts about some of Sean's contributions, wished him well, and moved the conversation to excitement for the future. This could have all been done in an afternoon and onto hiring cycle instead of damage control.

This is my take too. In retrospect, Beane's WR frustration could be interpreted as "The WRs are as good as I can find for what the coach wants. I don't agree with what he wants but I'm doing it anyway and not airing the laundry but will still be all pissy about the whole subject".

Terry's statement combined with some of the rumors over the years really starts to put some pieces together. There had to have been some significant friction behind the scenes with McD and Beane not being in lockstep. McD either had a larger say in personnel decisions or refused to utilize players that were "Beane guys". Terry being on the inside was better positioned than any of us to evaluate fault. For me this really highlights some of Beane's frustration that leaked during interviews this year. I would guess the questions he was getting asked were the same questions being discussed internally. Were his answers so vehement because he was "walking the company line" in support of the "team decision", or was he pushing back because he felt like no matter what he did the personnel wouldn't be utilized how he thought they should? In retrospect, the frustration he showed should have been a clear indicator of the underlying friction (instead it was interpreted through of lens of "he's cocky for no reason")

Jeremy White was also talking about this earlier. https://heavy.com/sports/nfl/seattle-seahawks/klint-kubiak-sean-mcdermott-news/ Cart before horse. No interview seems to have happened yet, White's report of "at the top of the list" seems far more likely to be a current status than "about to hire".

My take on this is that it was based on failing of McD as a manager, and not as a leader. We needed to turn over both coordinators again. As leader of an organization, building your team is a critical responsibility. Performance of coordinators under McD has been problematic throughout. It was the right mover for us right now. Sadly he will go somewhere for else and we'll be playing against him in the playoffs by 2027.

Taron's call was ridiculous. Nothing that I saw there. Tre's call was legit, but no worse that what they had let go all day (like the PI that should have been called in our final drive to Cooks).

Josh played good enough to win today. He also played good enough to lose today. The rest of the team played good enough to win. Allen's great play, combined with a couple killer mistakes by him and cook only turned it into a 50/50 game. After watching that, we beat the broncos 7/10 times in this spot. Sadly today was the 3/10.

Not really sure on this. We've moved the ball at will essentially. Defense has been "okay". Turnovers are the only reason this feels bad.

Yes, more often than most teams do.

After the expansion in the last few years there are a bunch of things that replay assist can bring up. Gene was incorrect that the play could not be helped by replay assist. The spot of the ball and the correctness of the down are reviewable. The goals for replay assist is that it is supposed to only provide input on objective calls where clear and obvious evidence exists. Unfortunately, this still creates ambiguity in when they get involved. If you have 5 people look at a video and 4/5 feel something happened, is it objective or subjective? What if you can get 9/10 in agreement? What if you can only get 7/10? If 10/10 would agree, but it takes 6 camera angles in slow motion is it still "clear and obvious"? Other than turnovers and scoring plays they don't really want anything other than immediate corrections. Anything that takes extensive review is "let the call on field stand". I can't really think of any plays outside of score/turnover that went to "the previous play is under review". On this play, my guess on the rational used by replay during the game was that it was not clear and obvious without extensive review. In live action it looked like the calf "may" (or "probably") have touched, but for me to be certain that it touched it required them to come back from commercial break and show the correct angle in slow motion. I'm not sure if 30 seconds is a reasonable or unreasonable time with the tools they have to find clear and obvious on this play.

Teams with bye have a huge advantage. Id rather play the Texans or Pit after they beat each other up with 6 days of rest than play the fresh broncos on 5 days of rest

The penalty on the Bills stops the clock as soon as it is snapped.

Who had Allen with the game winning drove and our secondary with the game ending turnover?

That drive was all Hancock.

The other team's offense had 10 points through 3 quarters. Wouldn't that indicate the Jags are definitely losing? Seriously, try reading what you're posting sometimes.