Ralonzo

Queen has been noticeably dirty all game

Queen looks like he's on something, apart from that being pretty late and OB, that first drive there was a blitz where Queen had a free gap to Stroud but instead decided to blindside the guard who was engaged with the defensive tackle.

The Chiefs will play quite close because their main secondary technique is holding. Can the refs spot the holds on both teams is the question.

Even factoring in injuries... ehhh? Allen <-> Mahomes Cook <-> Pacheco Kincaid <-> Kelce Diggs <-> Rice Brown <-> Taylor Torrence <-> T Smith Morse <-> Humphrey McGovern <-> Thuney Dawkins <-> D Smith Looks like a push unless you want to really red-n-yellow shade it. If you want Humphrey over Morse I'll claim Brown over Taylor because Taylor is flat awful. Rousseau <-> Danna Oliver <-> C Jones D Jones <-> Nnadi Floyd <-> Karlaftis Dodson <-> Gay Bernard <-> Bolton T Johnson <-> Chenal Douglas <-> Sneed Benford <-> McDuffie Poyer <-> Reid Hyde <-> Edwards Subject to injury depletion but to me still looks like it's... kind of even.

Better: from Marv Levy.

You know why Hitler lost the war? Because he couldn't win on the road!

I try to do Romo's job, like I try to do every other color man's job. 20% of the time, Romo gets to an insight before I do. In my book that makes him top tier.

Did anyone catch Brandt on GMFB drawing the Mahomes v Allen analogy to Brady v Manning? The reputation was sealed when Brady beat Manning the playoffs the first 2 times he faced him - with the caveat that both were at home. The next 3 times they faced off in the playoffs, it was Manning at home and he went 3-0 vs Brady. Still the reputation persists falsely to this day that Brady owned Manning.

My body is a machine that turns pre-playoff-game anxiety into diarrhea.

"Live with me if you want to come"

He is a disaster, he managed to lose at least one game and tried like hell to lose a couple others his last season with the Bills.

I ***** hate that guy. I'd almost rather have Bass punt and dress a position player that isn't terrible at his job.

DVR is my friend... After the ref scrum Cheffers exact quote was "the ruling on the field is a fumble forward and out of bounds" On the challenge Cheffers said "Buffalo is challenging the ruling on the field that the ball was not recovered in bounds" Steratore is the one who interpreted that as follows: "Carl Cheffers just announced that the ruling on the field was a fumble that was recovered out of bounds" Then Romo postulates the following in the discussion: "Gene, I got a question from what Jim said... if you initially called it out of bounds but you didn't say it was because of Freiermuth, can you go back and change it if you can't see it?" Steratore: "No, I don't think so, I think Carl's just being rather descriptive" Not to be overly defensive but if I've got the wrong idea I ain't alone and the group includes the NFL's rules analyst flack. Filling in the blanks, it's reasonable to assume McD asked the specifics of the ruling, to which Cheffers responded precisely that the man recovering the fumble did not complete the recovery in bounds, since that was the phrasing of McD's challenge - which he went ahead with when his film guys (another assumption, also not a reach) confirmed that Spector had clearly gained possession in bounds.

Aren't all those Kansas City bundles of sticks still crying about Toney wasn't really offside and even if he was, who ever throws a flag on that, and besides, don't you know what team we are?!

Be that as it may, did you see anything that would conclusively confirm that the ball hit the helmet? If the ruling was that the ball was live when being recovered but was "recovered out of bounds" (the announcement), the implication is that it wasn't made dead before the attempted recovery. So the ruling on the field must have been that it hadn't been touched by an out of bounds player. When the replay showed that the ball was cleanly recovered inbounds, they decided to also overturn the prior ruling that the ball had it fact been contacted by an out-of-bounds player despite the angles of that contact being entirely inconclusive. To let the "ruling on the field" stand, when it was a clear overturn that the Bills player did in fact recover it inbounds and then stretch to make an "entire play" ruling that isn't supported by the video, is just convoluted bull####.

If anything, the preponderance of evidence was that the ball wasn't touched by the helmet, which was the question everything was asking watching at home - but which wasn't what the refs were reviewing. The call on the field was that the Buffalo player didn't possess the ball inbounds, and the replay showed clearly that he did. It was a miscarriage to let the call stand, and if the excuse is "it might have nicked the helmet" when that wasn't what was under review, then it's more than incompetence.

That's a lazy retort, but so was mine... It's the logical corollary of getting two feet inbounds on a catch. If you have a toe OB, you're OB. If you have a toe OB already and touch the ball then the ball is OB and the play is dead by the same reasoning.

It's always been the rule. And that Steeler was smart.

Hurt myself laughing at this one

Chase Daniel? You mean the guy that's been 3rd string for almost as many teams as Ryan Fitzpatrick started for?

Ooh pulling the points off the board is going to be real popular among that felonious fanbase

Philly Tush gets pushed in on a 2 point conversion from the one, try failed

I dunno, as long as we're commenting on things that didn't happen maybe you can comment on whether I was justified in kicking Taylor Swift out of the hotel room for leaving cracker crumbs on the sheets.