Einstein

I was screaming this during the game, and it is BY FAR what I believe we should be criticizing. It is crunch time. The game is on the line. You have a superstar QB. And you WASTE AN ENTIRE PLAY by running the ball, which hadn't been working in over a quarter! Our last 3 runs prior to that call went for a grand total ZERO yards. After the 1st down run, Cook had 5 rushes for -2 yards in the 4th quarter. Why are we running him there??????

I love this line of thinking. Yes, in a world where a first down there means automatic winding of clock and a walk-off TD with no time remaining, then yeah, Josh should have thrown to Diggs. But in the real world, where we don't know what will happen after that first down, Josh made the right call to go endzone. For example, what if Diggs gets that first down, and then we fumble on the next play and KC gets it? Or we get called for holding on the next play and all of a sudden the drive falters? Or a pass gets tipped and KC intercepts? You always go for the endzone (if it's open) in that situation because you have NO IDEA what is coming after you get the first down. But i'm not sure why i'm wasting my finger breath, you're just a troll.

Completely disagree and I'll show you why below. This is where having only a 17 game sample size can increase the odds that an outlier affects the data. - The Dolphins defense held their opponent to 17 or less points, 7 times this season. We did it 6 times. (Dolphins did this 5 times last year) - They Dolphins defense held their opponent to 21 or less points, 12 times this season. We did it 9 times. (Dolphins did this only 6 times last year). The Dolphins DOUBLED the amount of games they held their opponent to 21 or less points this year, than they did last year. But they had 2 outlier games that skewed the small 17 game sample. A 56 point drubbing by Baltimore and 48 to us. The Dolphins gave up an average of 19 points in the other 15 games. That would skyrocket them to 6th in points allowed. So they were top 10 in points allowed for 15 of the 17 games and literally dead last in 2 of their games. You may be thinking "well you could do that for any team", but you actually can't. Because not every team got drubbed in 2 games and played well in the rest of them. For example, take the Bills. Removing the Bills worst two defensive outings drops them only 1.9 points in average. But removing the Dolphins 2 horrible defensive outings brings them down FOUR average points. That's a ton. Summary: For the vast majority of the season, the Dolphins defense played much better than their aggregate statistics show and held teams to 21 or less points more times than we did, and twice as often as they did last season.

You seem to be under the impression that 1 game makes a coaching career. Name a coach in NFL history that hasn’t been pummeled in a game numerous times.

Apologies. When you wrote “if it's not Allen, which at one point I sort of felt, but no longer do, it's Sean”… I thought you meant you thought Allen was the problem but now think it’s Sean.

No offense, but how did you ever think Allen was the problem with this team? That is mindblowing to me

Ditto. As much as Chiefs fans (and even some ‘fans’ on this forum) refuse to admit, Allen would be everything Mahomes is thought of now, and more, if the roles were switched. It’s why I don’t care when they throw the whole “you traded Mahomes to us” attempted mocking at me. I think we got an equal, if not better, QB. Plus Tre White. That being said, Mahomes would be successful here as well. Just like Allen.

Fangio is an excellent defensive mind. Miami lost a lot of players on defense.

Best angle yet of Dawkins affecting Allen’s endzone throw. This was a TD if Allen had a fraction of a second more.

See, THIS is why it's harder for me to accept the losses. Before, we had below average rosters and journeymen QB's. I expected us to lose. Now we have a superman at QB, with a solid roster, and we are in very game. That causes me to be more invested and more desiring all those factors to lead to a win.

The alleged rib injury came in the Steelers playoff game. He was dropping balls for a month and a half before this.

This was my thought too... but this should only apply to routes. He shouldn't be dropping balls that hits him in the hands because he has a nagging hamstring (for example).

I feel the opposite. The losses are getting harder. I was able to deal with the losses during the drought much more easily.

See, I wouldn't call McDermott "dreadful" in the playoffs. To me, assessing his coaching does not have to be binary. It doesn't have to be awesome or dreadful. It can be in the middle. It can be "good but not good enough", without being dreadful. PS, I wouldn't want John Harbaugh or Tomlin as our coach.

I might be inclined to agree with you if the Chiefs had not been beaten in the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years (Bengals, Bucs). And it could become 3 of the last 4 if they lose to the Ravens on Sunday. Point being: It’s not as if the Chiefs are just winning against everybody every year. They lose… just not to us. This must be what it felt to be a Dolphins fan in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

That may be part of the reason for the phenomenon that I mentioned in a thread earlier this year. Only 5 coaches in the past 40 years have made their inaugural Super Bowl appearance after 7 seasons of head coaching (which is where McD is now). For anyone wishing to revisit that data, here is the thread: https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/248039-how-long-does-it-take-an-nfl-head-coach-to-reach-his-1st-super-bowl/

It’s been quite frankly forgotten about, but we were a fumble at the goal line away from being down two scores with around 10 minutes left in the game. And the reason for that is because McD decided to try a fake punt at our own 30-some yard line, needing way too many yards. It was a truly awful decision. That being said, I liked the aggressiveness. But I would have rather left your All-Star QB run that 4th down play than Damar friggin Hamlin. I guess my point is that we were about an inch in butt-to-turf space from being in another two score loss to KC in the playoffs.

People always like to draw this comparison but the big difference between the Reid and McDermott situations is that Reid had FAR more postseason success in Philly than McD has had in Buffalo. Therefore, it was easier to imagine Reid finally getting over the hump than it is to imagine that McD does the same. For example, McDermott just finished his 7th head coaching season. He has been to 0 Super Bowls and 1 AFCCG. By the end of Reid’s 7th season, he had been to 4 Championship games and a Super Bowl. Thats a big, big, big difference. Reid had proven by this point that he could make the Championship game with relative ease, and he had already been to a Super Bowl. McD has not shown that. That being said, I really like McD as a human. He is a good man. I truly believe that. And I believe the team respects him. But I can’t help but fear that he just doesn’t have it in big games.

About 500 (to make a living that is greater than the average American annual income). Judging by his traffic, Id guess he probably has 2x or 3x that many subscribers (that’s why I was curious if you had a reason to think the site was failing). I do find the whole thing to be pretty weird. He is a well respected journalist and was never known to be a hit piece writer in the past.

Do you have proof of this?

It actually pisses me off that we didn’t reach even a single Super Bowl during his tenure. Couldn’t have asked for better safety tandem. Sorry for swearing.

Bernard is the real deal. What a player. Listen to this story. He tried so hard to play in the Chiefs game that he cried when the Doctors told him he couldn't play:

You're clearly lost in this conversation. My "new age" comment was not in response, or in regards, to WhoTom or is his WW2 vet Dad. Tom and I were not even conversating in this thread until AFTER I wrote that post. You are confused. This also never happened. I said you don't condone switching teams just because times got hard. That once you pick a team (which the kid obviously did), you remain loyal to your commitment. Again, you are very lost in this conversation and are responding to items that you have a great misunderstanding of. Also worth noting that OP, who made this thread, greatly thanked me for my comments.

So you ignored what I actually wrote (in detail) about, because I started with "new age horse manure" and it "set the tone". Ok... I don't think it's intellectually honest to appeal to a concept that a poster did not advocate for, especially when you know that person clarified what they meant in the very same post that you're quoting, but I can understand the temptation. I've been there. Glad you're Dad taught you well. He sounds like a great man. I don't want to litter this thread with a debate though, so I'll allow you the last word.