Tyrod Taylor on goal line pass in Jacksonville

[wppete]

Please stop posting these article we can’t read! 

[JaCrispy]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

KB got the offensive interference call.   If he hadn't committed the penalty, the Bills would still have been on the one yard line. 

 

 

No one is debating this...my point is that it was a poorly thrown ball by Tyrod...should not have led him as much and should have been more of a back shoulder fade imo...that’s the whole point of having a 6’5” 240 pound receiver that can box out...but I do blame Dennison for thinking Tyrod had the football IQ to understand that, much less execute it.

Edited February 3, 2018 by JaCrispy

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

KB got the offensive interference call.   If he hadn't committed the penalty, the Bills would still have been on the one yard line.

 

With at least 2 more chances to punch it in

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

With at least 2 more chances to punch it in

And, of course, run it, which is the right call.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

No one is debating this...my point is that it was a poorly thrown ball by Tyrod...should not have led him as much and should have been more of a back shoulder fade imo...that’s the whole point of having a 6’5” 240 pound receiver that can box out...but I do blame Dennison for thinking Tyrod had the football IQ to understand that, much less execute it.

 

You seem to keep moving the target.  First it's Tyrod's fault for sailing the ball over KB's head.  Then folks point out KB's bread-and-butter his entire career has been catching poorly thrown Cam Newton jump balls over his head.  So it shifts to discussing whether Tyrod led him too much or should have thrown a different pass.

 

Since we don't know exactly what the route was and whether Benjamin and Tyrod were on the same page (and if not which one was off) I'll hold off on the blame.

 

I think the points remain:

1) if you want a run there, call a run, don't call an RPO

2) the QB's job is not to make a judgement call, it's to read the D - they do A, you pass they do B, you run.  Likewise if pass, make the throw the play calls for

3) whatever your opinion of the specifics of the throw, the real problem was the push-off and OPI which took them out of position for 2-3 more shots from the 1 yd line

[Kelly the Dog]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

 

I think the points remain:

1) if you want a run there, call a run, don't call an RPO

2) the QB's job is not to make a judgement call, it's to read the D - they do A, you pass they do B, you run.  Likewise if pass, make the throw the play calls for

3) whatever your opinion of the specifics of the throw, the real problem was the push-off and OPI which took them out of position for 2-3 more shots from the 1 yd line

1) Yessest.

2) Yesser. 

3) Yes. 

[dave mcbride]

Thanks to the OP for posting. I hadn't checked the main site today and I had missed this excellent piece. People who get into high, self-righteous dudgeon over paying a nominal charge for something that is practically free (which is what $2.99 per month IS) need to get a grip.

[Rubes]

2 hours ago, wppete said:

Please stop posting these article we can’t read! 

 

Of course you can read them. If you don't want to pay a ridiculously low charge for someone's work, then just go to another thread.

 

Just because an article is behind a paywall doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't discuss it here. That's what the board is for. People didn't get nearly this uptight about ESPN Insider article discussions, they just ignored them or moved on.

 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

13 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Thanks to the OP for posting. I hadn't checked the main site today and I had missed this excellent piece. People who get into high, self-righteous dudgeon over paying a nominal charge for something that is practically free (which is what $2.99 per month IS) need to get a grip.

 

yeah, they should be more like you and pay for the "excellent piece" instead of making the choice not to while sharing criticism as to why they choose not to pay a practically free fee of $2.99 a month. did you ever think that it has nothing to do with being self righteous and everything to do with choice?

 

you seem like the self righteous one here.

Edited February 3, 2018 by DaBillsFanSince1973

[Wayne Arnold]

17 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Thanks to the OP for posting. I hadn't checked the main site today and I had missed this excellent piece. People who get into high, self-righteous dudgeon over paying a nominal charge for something that is practically free (which is what $2.99 per month IS) need to get a grip.

 

You know what's more free than $2.99 per month? $0.00 per month.

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

yeah, they should be more like you and pay for the "excellent piece" instead of making the choice not to while sharing criticism as to why they choose not to pay a practically free fee of $2.99 a month. did you ever think that it has nothing to do with being self righteous and everything to do with choice?

 

you seem like the self righteous one here.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying information wants to be free and that the creators of said information should do it gratis? Why is it OK to criticize a media outlet for this sort of thing given that it has to pay its employees every week? Bear in mind that we're talking peanuts here. In other words, what's the logic behind the criticism? No one is forcing you to pay for it. 

[Kelly the Dog]

2 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

You know what's more free than $2.99 per month? $0.00 per month.

Freebies die in darkness. 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

20 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I don't understand your point. Are you saying information wants to be free and that the creators of said information should do it gratis? Why is it OK to criticize a media outlet for this sort of thing given that it has to pay its employees every week? Bear in mind that we're talking peanuts here. In other words, what's the logic behind the criticism? No one is forcing you to pay for it. 

 

I never complained about said fee personally yet think of the bn as a not so great source,  so I wouldn't subscribe to begin with.

 

if you want to pay, read and praise bn that's your prerogative. meanwhile why the need to call some out as angry or resentful saying they need to get a grip was my initial complaint about your post but maybe you felt the need to do so.  

 

no one should be expecting anything to be free and I agree that they have to pay employees some chump change for their work, no problem there. I just think if you're going to share anything from a pay source, make it clear in the thread title "bn article, must subscribe and pay a fee to read" and that may save from the backlash in the future?

 

 

 

 

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

I never complained about said fee personally yet think of the bn as a not so great source,  so I wouldn't subscribe to begin with.

 

if you want to pay, read and praise bn that's your prerogative. meanwhile why the need to call some out as angry or resentful saying they need to get a grip was my initial complaint about your post but maybe you felt the need to do so.  

 

no one should be expecting anything to be free and I agree that they have to pay employees some chump change for their work, no problem there. I just think if you're going to share anything from a pay source, make it clear in the thread title "bn article, must subscribe and pay a fee to read" and that may save from the backlash in the future?

 

 

 

 

I get your point -- sort of. The thing is, there are nearly zero posters here who aren't aware of the News's policy already. And it IS a good piece. Pretty revealing actually. Nice interview by Vic C.

 

Also, the thing that bugs me isn't so much what you're saying but the out-and-out venom directed at the paper because they now require what amounts to chump change. Their coverage really has gotten better since they instituted it too, fwiw.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

I get your point -- sort of. The thing is, there are nearly zero posters here who aren't aware of the News's policy already. And it IS a good piece. Pretty revealing actually. Nice interview by Vic C.

 

Also, the thing that bugs me isn't so much what you're saying but the out-and-out venom directed at the paper because they now require what amounts to chump change. Their coverage really has gotten better since they instituted it too, fwiw.

 

 

you can speak of others on that but long before the subscription fee ever came to be I had nothing to do with the bn. just a matter of freedom of choice and I chose not to read certain sources out there, bn being one of them.

 

as for them getting better, that may be from a personal stand point and I wont doubt your judgement on that. who knows down the road they may gain my interest as it had nothing to do with the little chump change they ask for and everything to do with poor reporting, imo.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Nobody would expect OPI. You'd think the worst result would probably be 2nd down at the same LOS.

 

Yes, agreed.  Well, the worst result would be a turnover, I suppose.  But the expected outcome was "take a shot, and if it doesn't work take 2 more shots"

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

I get your point -- sort of. The thing is, there are nearly zero posters here who aren't aware of the News's policy already. And it IS a good piece. Pretty revealing actually. Nice interview by Vic C.

 

Also, the thing that bugs me isn't so much what you're saying but the out-and-out venom directed at the paper because they now require what amounts to chump change. Their coverage really has gotten better since they instituted it too, fwiw.

The part is disliked the most about the OP is that I assumed, poorly, that because he works for the BN that this post would be available to everyone as a teaser for some of the content we can expect during the offseason since that was the basis of some of the questions he originally fielded. A way to lure in new folks to pay the fee. And I believe if that was what he did it would've been a great move, but it wasn't what he did. What actually happened had the distinct taste of clickbait with an aftertaste of paywall. I respect his previous contributions and willingness to respond to criticisms, but I wasn't a fan of this move whatsoever.

[Juice_32]

16 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:

So frustrating to click on what sounds like a great article, only to get redirected to the paywall.  I get why newspapers are doing this, I just think it’s a faulty model that will likely drive away viewers that would normally click on the link

 

It is definitely a faulty model, just a slower death.

[JaCrispy]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You seem to keep moving the target.  First it's Tyrod's fault for sailing the ball over KB's head.  Then folks point out KB's bread-and-butter his entire career has been catching poorly thrown Cam Newton jump balls over his head.  So it shifts to discussing whether Tyrod led him too much or should have thrown a different pass.

 

Since we don't know exactly what the route was and whether Benjamin and Tyrod were on the same page (and if not which one was off) I'll hold off on the blame.

 

I think the points remain:

1) if you want a run there, call a run, don't call an RPO

2) the QB's job is not to make a judgement call, it's to read the D - they do A, you pass they do B, you run.  Likewise if pass, make the throw the play calls for

3) whatever your opinion of the specifics of the throw, the real problem was the push-off and OPI which took them out of position for 2-3 more shots from the 1 yd line

No target moving here...simply a poorly thrown ball by the QB and a bad idea by the OC...the KB PI, while negative for the team on future plays, is a moot point to me because I am only referring to the call and execution of that play only.

Edited February 3, 2018 by JaCrispy

[jlgarsh]

I just think in that situation, you run on 1st and 2nd down to chew up more clock, then play action on 3rd down.  If they had done that, most likely they go into half time up 3-0 in worst case scenario.

[JohnC]

42 minutes ago, Juice_32 said:

 

It is definitely a faulty model, just a slower death.

How is it a faulty model? What other option do these newspapers have now that the era of paper is sliding into antiquity and oblivion? I recently signed up for the digital NY Times. It took me quite some time to make the decision to pay a price (reasonable in my opinion) for what  I used to get free. If a person doesn't want to pay for the service because there are plenty of alternative sources for the material one is interested then  that is a personal decision. But it is clear that the trend of paying for digital services is becoming very mainstream. The business model is changing as it is for many other businesses. 

 

This is separate observation from the above post but I thought too many of the comments directed toward JoshBarnett were unwarrantedly harsh. It was depicted as if he was hustling people for clicks. I didn't see it that way. It's not surprising to me that a number of the media who have participated on this board have been driven out by uncalled for rudeness. Engaging doesn't require insulting.

[Scott7975]

7 hours ago, JaCrispy said:

Ok I’ll buy that...but I wouldn’t say KB didn’t do his job, as the ball sailed over his head.

But it would have been pass interference whether the ball sailed over his head or the ball was perfect placement.  

Edited February 3, 2018 by Scott7975

[Hapless Bills Fan]

30 minutes ago, JohnC said:

How is it a faulty model? What other option do these newspapers have now that the era of paper is sliding into antiquity and oblivion? I recently signed up for the digital NY Times. It took me quite some time to make the decision to pay a price (reasonable in my opinion) for what  I used to get free. If a person doesn't want to pay for the service because there are plenty of alternative sources for the material one is interested then  that is a personal decision. But it is clear that the trend of paying for digital services is becoming very mainstream. The business model is changing as it is for many other businesses. 

 

This is separate observation from the above post but I thought too many of the comments directed toward JoshBarnett were unwarrantedly harsh. It was depicted as if he was hustling people for clicks. I didn't see it that way. It's not surprising to me that a number of the media who have participated on this board have been driven out by uncalled for rudeness. Engaging doesn't require insulting.

 

I believe both the NY Times and the Washington Post allow a certain number of free articles a month (no registration), which might possibly be a better model.

I know TBN has a 2 week free trial, but when one must register and provide a credit card (then remember to cancel) the follow-through might be lower, than just allowing a certain amount of free content.

 

The other thing that bothers me about TBN business model is providing a $10 gift card that represents a significant price break for a year subscription - but only if you're local and use that store.  I'm sure they have some sort of sponsorship deal that makes it a good value both ways, but only for locals, so that's an opportunity lost.

 

I agree that news outlets have to figure out a way to make digital readership profitable in order to stay in business.  I, too, find some subscriptions worthwhile.

 

I agree some of the critique here was over the top.  I provided mine in PM initially.  Of course, rudeness is sometimes a thing here.  I cherish the time I was told I was "sucking Ryan Fitzpatrick's d*ck" because I argued against the over-the-top proposition that he was absolutely the worst QB anywhere ever.  Sriously peeps?  Like, Sriously?  I think the bottom line is to participate in any message board long-term, one has to cultivate a certain amount of callus.  If you take it too seriously or personally you wear down.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Schmuggs]

Lame.  Op pays to read that garbage. Lol. 

 

Some people just waste and waste and waste. 

 

No wonder.  

[JaCrispy]

33 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

But it would have been pass interference whether the ball sailed over his head or the ball was perfect placement.  

I actually wondered this because I don’t remember the play so clearly...I just remember the pass was wildly inaccurate...but was pass interference committed because he was trying to get to the ball or was it more of a push off?

[3rdand12]

7 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yep.  People forget that it was 1-1 from the 1, and if the PI had not been called, the Bills had 2 or 3 more chances to punch it in from the 1.

Don't get the offsides, don't get the PI in that situation - bzzzzzzt

 

Not to mention all the plays and playcalls the rest of the game.

 

Darell Bevell has never wavered from defending his Superbowl pass call that resulted in NE Int, and interestingly, I read a piece where they interviewed 32 coaches and while some critiqued the specific pass call, NONE of them said they would have run against the defensive alignment NE was in (they had Beastmode.  Run it).

KB should have known PI was the  very worst thing that could happen in situational ball. He should have let it sail and run the receiver off. Tyrod was throwing to the spot KB was supposed to have stopped or held ground at. He over ran the play and then made it much worse with the bone headed push off.
Criticise anything you wish. and you can of course blame TT and or Dennison.

I put it on Benjamin.  Not the first time he has missed a route. should have made the play.

[Shaw66]

15 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I actually wondered this because I don’t remember the play so clearly...I just remember the pass was wildly inaccurate...but was pass interference committed because he was trying to get to the ball or was it more of a push off?

It was a push off.  Benjamin interfered before he looked for the ball.  

Just now, 3rdand12 said:

KB should have known PI was the  very worst thing that could happen in situational ball. He should have let it sail and run the receiver off. Tyrod was throwing to the spot KB was supposed to have stopped or held ground at. He over ran the play and then made it much worse with the bone headed push off.
Criticise anything you wish. and you can of course blame TT and or Dennison.

I put it on Benjamin.  Not the first time he has missed a route. should have made the play.

I think it was also the result of the fact that Taylor and Benjamin were née to each other and Benjamin was limited in practice and limited physically. It wasn't the first time this season that they hadn't been on the age page. 

[3rdand12]

7 hours ago, JohnC said:

I don't see what was wrong with the call. The qb went to the line with options depending how the Jaguars would line up. Based on the read the qb decided to throw a pass. There was nothing wrong in making basically a jump ball pass to KB whose forte was beating the defender in those types of high/ for grab throws. I'm not criticizing Taylor for the throw. The killer mistake was not the play but the blatant push off by the receiver. That was the glaring mistake that dramatically altered the situation. 

 

I'm not a harsh critic of Dennison nor am I a supporter of him. If you want to find things to criticize him over his play calling there are plenty of selections to choose from. On this particular play I don't see why he should warrant any criticism. 

I cannot fault the play call. i would have preferred a heavy package and run once or twice!

 Not a Dennison fan. that was a risk play when one was not needed??

7 hours ago, JohnC said:

I don't see what was wrong with the call. The qb went to the line with options depending how the Jaguars would line up. Based on the read the qb decided to throw a pass. There was nothing wrong in making basically a jump ball pass to KB whose forte was beating the defender in those types of high/ for grab throws. I'm not criticizing Taylor for the throw. The killer mistake was not the play but the blatant push off by the receiver. That was the glaring mistake that dramatically altered the situation. 

 

I'm not a harsh critic of Dennison nor am I a supporter of him. If you want to find things to criticize him over his play calling there are plenty of selections to choose from. On this particular play I don't see why he should warrant any criticism. 

I cannot fault the play call. i would have preferred a heavy package and run once or twice!

 Not a Dennison fan. that was a risk play when one was not needed??

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

How is it a faulty model? What other option do these newspapers have now that the era of paper is sliding into antiquity and oblivion? I recently signed up for the digital NY Times. It took me quite some time to make the decision to pay a price (reasonable in my opinion) for what  I used to get free. If a person doesn't want to pay for the service because there are plenty of alternative sources for the material one is interested then  that is a personal decision. But it is clear that the trend of paying for digital services is becoming very mainstream. The business model is changing as it is for many other businesses. 

 

This is separate observation from the above post but I thought too many of the comments directed toward JoshBarnett were unwarrantedly harsh. It was depicted as if he was hustling people for clicks. I didn't see it that way. It's not surprising to me that a number of the media who have participated on this board have been driven out by uncalled for rudeness. Engaging doesn't require insulting.

excellent post in regard to Mr Barnett's position in this matter.
and to take a stake in the matter of his intent is a bit crass.
I take no issue here.

[3rdand12]

14 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It was a push off.  Benjamin interfered before he looked for the ball.  

I think it was also the result of the fact that Taylor and Benjamin were née to each other and Benjamin was limited in practice and limited physically. It wasn't the first time this season that they hadn't been on the age page. 

I agree Shaw. Injury and reps hurt his( their ) game this year. I hold out hope for next season. But not sold on KB yet.

 

bolded
yes, that is why i suspected he was not tight with the play call's options. he seemed to be running his guy off.

 But it has been awhile since the game and i may be biased lol

Edited February 3, 2018 by 3rdand12

[Rubes]

40 minutes ago, Schmuggs said:

Lame.  Op pays to read that garbage. Lol. 

 

Some people just waste and waste and waste. 

 

No wonder.  

 

Awesome perspective.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I believe both the NY Times and the Washington Post allow a certain number of free articles a month (no registration), which might possibly be a better model.

I know TBN has a 2 week free trial, but when one must register and provide a credit card (then remember to cancel) the follow-through might be lower, than just allowing a certain amount of free content.

 

The other thing that bothers me about TBN business model is providing a $10 gift card that represents a significant price break for a year subscription - but only if you're local and use that store.  I'm sure they have some sort of sponsorship deal that makes it a good value both ways, but only for locals, so that's an opportunity lost.

 

I agree that news outlets have to figure out a way to make digital readership profitable in order to stay in business.  I, too, find some subscriptions worthwhile.

The NY Times allows for 10 free articles a month. There is no registration for that free service. If you decide to subscribe the basic service is for $9.99 a month the first year and it will go up to $15.99 a month after that. You pay either by credit card or pay pal. 

 

My understanding is that the Buffalo News charges $2.99 a month. I don't understand why so much energy is expended on criticizing a service that is so inexpensive. If a person doesn't want to subscribe to the service then don't. But what is there to complain about. If you don't want it---don't get it.  

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I agree some of the critique here was over the top.  I provided mine in PM initially.  Of course, rudeness is sometimes a thing here.  I cherish the time I was told I was "sucking Ryan Fitzpatrick's d*ck" because I argued against the over-the-top proposition that he was absolutely the worst QB anywhere ever.  Sriously peeps?  Like, Sriously?  I think the bottom line is to participate in any message board long-term, one has to cultivate a certain amount of callus.  If you take it too seriously or personally you wear down.

I can handle the ruggedness associated with participating in a message board. That's part of the landscape. When the deflategate issue happened I strenuously argued that Brady and the Pats were treated unfairly by the unscrupulous commissioner. That drew plenty of scathing responses. In this SB I'm rooting for the Patriots. So I'm sure that is going to draw some charming responses. 

 

 

[Scott7975]

3 hours ago, JaCrispy said:

I actually wondered this because I don’t remember the play so clearly...I just remember the pass was wildly inaccurate...but was pass interference committed because he was trying to get to the ball or was it more of a push off?

Personally I thought the call was weak but I think they called the push off. 

[Shaw66]

35 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

Personally I thought the call was weak but I think they called the push off. 

It was weak.  A push like that often goes uncalled.  

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

 

 

My understanding is that the Buffalo News charges $2.99 a month. I don't understand why so much energy is expended on criticizing a service that is so inexpensive. If a person doesn't want to subscribe to the service then don't. But what is there to complain about. If you don't want it---don't get it.  

 

My complaint isn't about the service or the price.   They can publish what they want and charge what they want.   My problem is some guy from the News coming to this forum and starting a thread that is a teaser and nothing more.   He tempts you with an interesting title, then gives you no information other than a link to an article we have to pay for.   He didn't come to the forum to talk about the Bills or add anything.  He came solely for the purpose of getting people to buy his online service.  

 

That's trolling and nothing more.   

 

Look at the OP.   It doesn't create a discussion topic, it doesn't discuss the Bills in any meaningful way.   It doesn't link to an article that's available to all of us.  

[JohnC]

23 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It was weak.  A push like that often goes uncalled.  

My complaint isn't about the service or the price.   They can publish what they want and charge what they want.   My problem is some guy from the News coming to this forum and starting a thread that is a teaser and nothing more.   He tempts you with an interesting title, then gives you no information other than a link to an article we have to pay for.   He didn't come to the forum to talk about the Bills or add anything.  He came solely for the purpose of getting people to buy his online service.  

 

That's trolling and nothing more.   

 

Look at the OP.   It doesn't create a discussion topic, it doesn't discuss the Bills in any meaningful way.   It doesn't link to an article that's available to all of us.  

There is a simple solution: Don't respond to him! If he was trying to get people to buy his online service why do you find that so disturbing? There are others who have promoted their twitter or personal sites regarding football. That's not a crime that needs to be policed by self-appointed authorities.

 

Why do you think people like Warrow or another BN sports reporter came here before being driven out? It's certainly not to be around convivial people. They do it to engage and also to enlarge their own followers. That's the world we live in. 

 

The notion that in order to post you have to add something of value is a crazy notion, especially on this board. If that was the case many posters would be banned for criminal stupidity. 

 

The person in question here could have something to offer. He has responded to questions about stories such as the Watson column. You may not consider that interesting or useful but maybe some others do. This is an open forum. As long as anyone is willing to abide by the TOS then they should be allowed to participate without being rudely harassed. 

[Schmuggs]

3 hours ago, Rubes said:

 

Awesome perspective.

Thanks Rubinski. Your tactics are useless here...

[3rdand12]

no it was a blatant push. To help leverage himself and get back to the ball.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

It was weak.  A push like that often goes uncalled.  

My complaint isn't about the service or the price.   They can publish what they want and charge what they want.   My problem is some guy from the News coming to this forum and starting a thread that is a teaser and nothing more.   He tempts you with an interesting title, then gives you no information other than a link to an article we have to pay for.   He didn't come to the forum to talk about the Bills or add anything.  He came solely for the purpose of getting people to buy his online service.  

 

That's trolling and nothing more.   

 

Look at the OP.   It doesn't create a discussion topic, it doesn't discuss the Bills in any meaningful way.   It doesn't link to an article that's available to all of us.  

 

FWIW, I think it may have been well intentioned and just thoughtless.  

I was thanked for my PM suggesting in future, indicate that the article requires a subscription, and provide a few sentences summary and a quote.

 

Once is a occurance.  If it becomes a pattern, then your diagnosis will gain cred.

 

I don't think it will, but I've been wrong before.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[BillsfanAZ]

14 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yep.  People forget that it was 1-1 from the 1, and if the PI had not been called, the Bills had 2 or 3 more chances to punch it in from the 1.

Don't get the offsides, don't get the PI in that situation - bzzzzzzt

 

Not to mention all the plays and playcalls the rest of the game.

 

Darell Bevell has never wavered from defending his Superbowl pass call that resulted in NE Int, and interestingly, I read a piece where they interviewed 32 coaches and while some critiqued the specific pass call, NONE of them said they would have run against the defensive alignment NE was in (they had Beastmode.  Run it).

People ignore the fact that even though Taylor decided to throw it instead of run it, he threw a terrible pass that wasnt even close to Benjamin. So if your not going to run it from the 1 yd line to take the lead, at least throw a ball that has a chance of being caught.

[Rochesterfan]

11 hours ago, JohnC said:

There is a simple solution: Don't respond to him! If he was trying to get people to buy his online service why do you find that so disturbing? There are others who have promoted their twitter or personal sites regarding football. That's not a crime that needs to be policed by self-appointed authorities.

 

Why do you think people like Warrow or another BN sports reporter came here before being driven out? It's certainly not to be around convivial people. They do it to engage and also to enlarge their own followers. That's the world we live in. 

 

The notion that in order to post you have to add something of value is a crazy notion, especially on this board. If that was the case many posters would be banned for criminal stupidity. 

 

The person in question here could have something to offer. He has responded to questions about stories such as the Watson column. You may not consider that interesting or useful but maybe some others do. This is an open forum. As long as anyone is willing to abide by the TOS then they should be allowed to participate without being rudely harassed. 

 

The issue is that this was being discussed in another thread - with the article already linked. 

 

The OP did not like the way that was going because once again the BN released a very poorly worded teaser tweet and that caused issues.

 

Josh should not create a thread linking a pay article for his own company.  That would be like cover1charging for his service and then linking his coverage - it should be against the terms of service.  If someone else wants to link the article or if Josh wants to defend the writers that is fine, but do not link a pay article with no discussion- that is slimy.

 

My biggest issue is this is not the first time a BN article has a teaser sent out that then Josh has to come and defend the coverage because the teaser makes it sound worse and does not meet the point of the article.  The issue is they need to do either a better job of tweeting out teaser material or accept the criticisms that come with poorly worded tweets.

 

It happened with the race article and with a McCoy article where the tweet made it sound like a major issue and Josh had to provide better contents to understand it better - to me that is a huge part of the problem - they send out click bait leads and then get upset when people have not read the article get mad.  We saw it with Hap just a week or so ago.  Maybe the BN needs to do a better job at the click bait or maybe they need some new writers that are not so cynical and already leave a bad taste in people’s mouths.

 

 

[Maine-iac]

8 hours ago, BillsfanAZ said:

People ignore the fact that even though Taylor decided to throw it instead of run it, he threw a terrible pass that wasnt even close to Benjamin. So if your not going to run it from the 1 yd line to take the lead, at least throw a ball that has a chance of being caught.

https://youtu.be/YdS-UVVRHqA?t=1m4s

Just because you are so wrong I figured maybe you hadn't seen the play.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Maine-iac