Chaos
-
Posts
5,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Chaos
-
-
10 hours ago, BillMafia716ix said:
I know we all want to address the WR position but I still think the main priority for the team going forward is to re-establish the defensive front around Oliver. To beat Mahomes, You gotta affect the QB. It’s not the sexy pick but you have to keep investing in the D line. We just watched Mahomes win another SB and this time he didn’t have a single 1,000 yrd WR…
3 times vs. Mahomes in the playoffs and I don’t think we have one sack against him. I definitely think we need to add a WR but I don’t believe we should be putting all our chips in that basket. I think Brady is going to have to develop an offense that can get more out of the passing game and Diggs.
You stop Mahomes by scoring more points that his team. The strategy of holding him to fewer points in the playoffs seems to be a fail. Lets build the offense that scores 35 against Mahomes, and hope and pray the defense doesn't give up 36. WR is a priority over Dline.
-
1
-
-
Bills are a perennial top 8 team. Beane and McDermott are both well on the path to be in the Hall of Very Good.
There is no dramatic shortage of talent on the Bills. Condemning the individual selections seems foolish.
I do think its a mistake to try to build the mythical "complimentary football team", with no holes, and resources committed to huge rotations on the dline and resources purposely limited to special teams.
I think the Bills would be better served to focus on building an offensive juggernaut around Allen. They are actually at a pretty good starting point. Good line. Great TE1 in Kincaid. If the WR room can be built into something a bit better than it is now, it should be good.
One more element of being an offensive Juggernaut : Its not clear McDermott/Dabol, McDermott/Dorsey or McDermott/Brady are the right leaders to for this effort. A change here would like be more impactful, than any personnel changes. (impactful does not mean better) -
39 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:
Almost like there has maybe been some inflation the last 4 years since the pandemic?
Shrinkflation from Bass and Miller. Same price, smaller performance.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Reks Ryan said:
They didnt lose the turnover battle, it was 2 - 2. in fact the 49ers muffed punt was a unforced error that turned the momentum of the game
I am aware. I acknowleged the error twice previously in this thread. Thank you for your further assistance.
-
27 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:
Maybe we can draft someone with a late pick.
this creates a small possibility of that person developing into a tradeable asset for some reason. Kyle Allen and Mitch Trubisky never will be that.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, FireChans said:
I already did. The Ravens.
just not true true. Bills were far bigger favorites going into the season every year for the last five years than the Ravens.
-
14 minutes ago, McBean said:
Awesome post.
Read it folks. Then read it again.
McClap. Has. To. Go.
I made a mistake in the original post regarding super bowl turnovers. but the fact that the chiefs have won 13 in a row where the lost the turnover battle means they are better than anyone at overcoming adversity, or the turnover battle is over rated as mattering.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Shortchaz said:
Each team had 2 turnovers yesterday
Thank you. change the numbers in your head in my previous post to 13.
-
1
-
-
The Chiefs lost the turnover battle in yesterday's super bowl. That was the 14th game in a row, where the chiefs lost the turnover battle, and the chiefs still won the game.
The Bills head coach leans on "its hard to win when you lose the turnover battle", as a reason for losing games.
McDermott's statement is probably true. Here's the rub:
It would appear the Chiefs have won 14 games in a row, "where it was hard to win". I think there is a mental toughness exhibited by winning games that are hard to win, that the Chiefs have and the Bills do not seem too.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, FireChans said:
The Ravens are far more disappointing in the playoffs, not sure where you got your “most disappointing” stat.
Aside from winning a championship, they are a failure because they didn’t win championships?
it’s time to start defining words here.
If your team sucks and doesn't make the playoffs , you can't disappoint in the playoffs. Name one team with a more disappointing playoff record than the Bills the last five years.
-
47 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
Yup. That's why the rule change in NFL achieved nothing.
Sudden death is an old school concept. Back in day, games were slugfest. Low scoring. Lots ended in ties. Even OT could end in ties. How many games really go to OT anyway and end in ties. Few.
Just play it out like basketball. The games will end. No new coin toss.
Just starting quarter five handing the transition exactly the same as the transition form quarter 3 to quarter 4,
continuous play would also be my pick,
-
1
-
-
he gets to super bowls and does not win super bowls. This is not as good as coaches who win super bowls. It is better than coaches who don’t get to super bowls
-
2
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, BillMafia716ix said:
I called it. Now it’s coming out that the players didn’t even know the rules. What a failure by the coaching staffThe college rules keep alternating possessions. It never converts to sudden death. College rules are irrelevant due to that difference.
-
1
-
-
Chiefs scored 19 points on offense, and lost the turnover battle. Is that really "firing on all cylinders'.
I think the chiefs chiefs got to overtime only because of two phases of the game.
-
Below is the complete set of scenarios for the recieve and kick team:
- There are 22 permutations of outcomes on the first two drives. Not all are equally likely. But aside from a safety it covers all possibilties.
- There are seven scenarios where the receive team scores first. Six of the outcomes are favorable to the recieve team. One of the seven is score FG, other team scores TD. Its is not obvious that this 7th scenario is so much likelier than the other 6 combined that it is a compelling reason to not receive.
- There are 15 scenarios where the receive team does not score. Six of those scenarios are result in the receive team losing. If the receive team does not score on its first possession, the odds of them winning drop significantly. In this sitution, the scenario of the kick team kicking a FG strikes me as a bigger possibility than all of the other scenarios combined. But it is not inevitable.
My personal conclusion is that it is a push to receive or kick. Which is as it should be. In a game where the opponent has been held to 19 points through 4 quarters, and my team had only scored 19 point I probably would lean towards receive.
My other conclusions are that if you don't score on your first possession, whether you are the receive team or kick team you are likely to lose the game. And if you score a TD on your first possession as the receive team, you are very likely to win the game.
Note : the grey scenarios would never happen, because they would be same as simply conceding the game.
-
1
-
34 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:
Jesus Christ. just because we shoot ourselves in the foot doesn't mean we aren't better. Both 13 seconds and the playoff game against them this year would have been ours if a few plays go different. How many teams can say they went into Arrowhead 3 years straight and beat them? Not many
The OP clearly is speaking to the current roster. Where do you disagree?
-
1 minute ago, Rocbillsfan1 said:
To all the people talking about the third possession, while it is an advantage that is such a slim advantage. The obvious big advantage is getting the ball second and knowing what you have to do every step of the way. In a game of inches where scoring is at a premium this is a huge advantage to have so you know how to call 3rd and 4th down plays. It’s borderline criminal to take the ball first. You never give the GOAT the psychological and competitive advantage of getting the ball 2nd and knowing what you have to do. I don’t think it’s been talked about enough but you are putting immense pressure on your offense by taking the ball first and even if you score the TD you still give the other team 4 downs with their attempt. So dumb.
If the niners scored a td, the biggest advantage at that point is first crack at sudden death. Since TDs are inevitable when you go for it on all fourth downs (as I have learned in this thread) the niners simply needed to go for it on fourth down and get the inevitable TD.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, NewEra said:
Another version of a lucky bounce for KC. This was the dumbest decision in the history of football imo. Lots of benefit to kicking off to start OT. I don’t see much of an advantage for receiving.
Maybe ST should fire shanahan? 😂 no.Going first means first crack at sudden death if the first two drives end in a tie. This is not a trivial benefit of going first.
-
19 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:
This is not super obvious. If you get the ball second you know what you need that is an advantage. On the other hand if both teams kick a FG or score a TD then you get the ball on the third drive for true sudden death which is an advantage.
I think the niners also had another option, as a benefit of going first:
They had third and four from the nine. They passed on third down, and kicked the field goal. The pass on third down was more likely to get a TD than a run on that down.
However, if they decided they would run on third and fourth down in that situation, they might have gotten a first. Or they might have gotten the ball closer to the five. Turning the ball over that five, means that instead of stopping a Chiefs TD starting from the 25 (with the knowledge they need a TD), the defense has to prevent the field with KC knowing that if they go for it on fourth down, in their own end of the field they will almost certainly lose the game if they don't convert. So punting comes back on the table. -
2 minutes ago, VaMilBill said:
I understand your sentiment. But tbh, there weren’t a ton of drives that ended in scores yesterday. So the defenses definitely had the upper hand most of the game to make me want to kick it.
That being said, Pat Mahomes is on the other sideline. It’s hard enough to stop him on three downs, four downs is borderline impossible. I would much rather take the ball second, because if the chiefs score a TD, I’m going for a TD and a 2-pt conversion to end it so I don’t give it back. If the chiefs score a FG, I’m still going for a TD, unless it’s fourth and forever, to end the game and not give it back to their offense.
If it was borderline impossible the Chiefs would never punt. it’s not borderline impossible. Even it it was, the niners were allowed to use all four downs to get a TD on the first possession if they possessed true knowledge that it would be impossible to stop Mahomes.
-
6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
My strong suspicion is as this system beds in the analytics will end up saying there is an advantage in going second. Knowledge is power. The team going 2nd knows what it needs. The only scenario in which the team going 2nd can't win the game when it receives the ball is the team going first going for and scoring a 2 pointer. That knowledge is worth a couple of percentage points advantage IMO.
Knowledge can be power. In this case, the knowledge was "If my defense, who has held the chiefs to 2 TDs in 10 Drives (20%) can hold the Chiefs to a field goal for one drive, my team gets first crack at sudden death, even I only get a FG on my first possession. Plus if I get a TD on the first possession, I have the chance to win outright with a stop on the second possession.
I don't think Analytics is ever going to show an expected value of greater than 50% of scoring a TD starting at your own 25, in the situation last night. Only the emotional "OMG we held Mahomes to two TD's on 10 drives, but we will never stop him again, because he knows he has to go for it on fourth down".-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:
But the Chiefs are only kicking a FG if they are in 4th and long. Because again they have the advantage of knowing what they have to do at every point. I don't think if KC gets to where the 9ers ended up.. 4th and 4 inside the 10 they would kick a FG. Because they have the advantage of knowing what they have to beat. In that situation KC would go for it even in FG range. The team who goes first can do that but the risk for them if they don't make it is bigger because team 2 is then playing 4 down football until FG range and then chip shotting for the win.
Thats the point. The teams have fairly even chances to win the new rules. The simple fact that there is a debate about recieving or kicking means the rules accomplished the goal.
Chiefs would have failed to score a td on fourth and goal from the 4 yard line just as often as they would have scored. We know this because otherwise, the Chiefs would always go for 2 on extra points.-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, VaMilBill said:
I have no idea why any coach would take the ball first in overtime in the playoffs.
If the score is tied after each team has possessed the ball, the next score wins and the game becomes sudden death.
This is why one takes the ball first. If the niners deferred, and the chiefs scored a FG, then the niners scored a field, the chiefs only needed to get in field goal range to win the game. In the scenario fans would be writing threads "how can you concede the Chiefs first crack at sudden death"
The failure of the niners was NOT scoring the TD on the first possesion. The problem was not recieving first. -
During the normally useless in-game interviews Reid made this comment yesterday "we just need to adjust to ebbs and flows of the game". He is very good at that.
-
1
-
Multiple people shot at KC parade.
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Over 332 million Americans have never shot anyone. So there is that bit of good news.