Is the MLB Competition Over Before It Started?

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

It IS inconceivable.  McBeane didn't think they needed more help in the middle.  How do we know?  Because they didn't go get any help.  None in the draft and none in free agency.  They drafted a project in Williams, not to start this season.  

 

Beane has ALWAYS gotten help in places where the Bills believed they had holes.  The fact that they didn't get any help at all means they've always been willing to go with the four guys they had on the roster and PS  last season.  

 

 

 

 

Have to disagree with this, though. 

 

Not getting any help doesn't mean they didn't think they needed any more help. Might easily mean instead that they didn't think circumstances / available players were right to pick up anyone else. Or it could mean they have a couple of guys in mind who are still out there in case things go bad.

 

They might have hoped to draft Jack Campbell by trading up in the 2nd or back in the first (if Kincaid had been gone) if Campbell was still available, which he very much wasn't. Or they might have had discussions with a free agent or two they thought might fit nicely and found they wanted too much money and ended up getting it.

 

And there's no way to say that we always got help where we needed it. None of us know where Beane might have wanted to get help at various positions over the years and decided circumstances weren't right.

 

They're between $25.5M and $41M above next year's cap right now according to OvertheCap versus Spotrac. That might easily have made them feel like they couldn't bring in guys they otherwise would like to have had.

 

Also, though I agree with you about Williams, as noted above, Beane might feel that he did address MLB by bringing in Willams even if he doesn't play this year.

 

Not inconceivable.

 

Beane is a sensational GM. Doesn't mean he hasn't had to leave some fairly weak spots at various places over the years. Damn strong rosters after the first couple of years but there have been a few weak spots.

 

See you around the boards. Today is going to be a busy day.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Thurman#1

[PBF81]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Your question: Allow me to ask you a question.  Is this situation (MLB) deliberate, or not?  

 

My answer:   ... they chose where they are at ... 

 

OK, hedge it however you want, but your answer is essentially that yes, they did choose it.  Correct?  

 

No one cares about circumstances that every other team is subject to as well.  At the end of the day they are where they are due to the way that the roster has been managed.  Would you agree with that?  

 

It sounds as if you're trying to suggest that they chose it, but it's not because it was planned that way, which seems to be contradictory.  Choosing something ("chose") implies that there were other options.  

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by PBF81

[newcam2012]

3 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

Well then, I suppose it's time to start questioning Beane's regimen and decision making.  

 

We must assume then as well by implication, that he's also thought that our OL has been fine in his five seasons to date since likewise, because he didn't go get any significant help.  ... or what he did get sucked.  You can choose.  

 

Same for WRs?  

 

RBs to date?  

 

If that's your logic then it's only honest and consistent to apply it across the board to the entire team.  

 

Heaven knows we've drafted enough DL-men.  

 

 

Great post! I myself am perplexed by the Bills situation at the MLB position. Not one of those guys looks to be remotely close to starter material. 

 

Hard to believe Beane can't see that. Hard to believe they are going to trot out such an inferior player. 

 

Maybe I'm wrong here. Sure seems like a big hole in the middle of the Bills D. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by newcam2012

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, PBF81 said:

 

OK, hedge it however you want, but your answer is essentially that yes, they did choose it.  Correct?  

 

No one cares about circumstances that every other team is subject to as well.  At the end of the day they are where they are due to the way that the roster has been managed.  Would you agree with that?  

 

 

I have answered in the affirmative with sufficient clarity. You are the only one acting as if there is something sneaky in what is lucid communication.

 

Hedging is a term with pejorative connotation. I don't agree with "no one cares." I surmise there are plenty of folks who recognize the legitimacy of managing assets and that sometimes difficult decisions are necessary. You think the current MLB situation is a culpable failure by this front office. I suppose it a rational gamble that invested elsewhere. Naturally, if they had omniscience, they would never take on a bad contract or draft an inconsequential player. Given that they are ordinary humans, I believe on balance the FO has done a good, but not perfect job of roster construction.

 

Personally, I do not expect deficiency at MLB to be a reason the defense plays poorly. I believe a stacked secondary, the return to health of Tre White, and a solid DL with several upgrades is going to result in a very good defense. I hope that McDermott is more attacking. When you have Josh Allen as your qb, you don't need to play as if you can't overcome giving up a quick TD because an aggressive play on D backfired.

 

 

[Buffalo716]

5 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

Great post! I myself am perplexed by the Bills situation at the MLB position. Not one of those guys looks to be remotely close to starters in material. 

 

Hard to believe Beane can't see that. Hard to believe they are going to trot out such an inferior player. 

 

Maybe I'm wrong here. Sure seems like a big hole in the middle of the Bills D. 

Tyrell Dodson will not be the worst starting MLB in the league come December 

 

He always had talent 

[oldmanfan]

2 hours ago, Chaos said:

Bet he knows more about when to squib kick. 

Squib would not have done squat.  They down it right away and lose no time.  Fraser and McD should have had guys tackle their WRs and Kelce to keep them from the ball

[newcam2012]

3 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

I quoted what you said, I think it speaks for itself.  If not, choose your wording more carefully.  Here it is again;  

 

 

If you want to backtrack, feel free.  Honestly, I don't care, I'm not in this to make you look bad.  But YOU said what I just quoted.  LOL  

 

You also jumped into the middle of an exchange where someone was defending Williams' ability to play MLB, in defense of the person making that claim.  Honetly, what do you expect readers to think.  

 

Absolutely no one's going to read your statement and think that you don't think that at some point Williams is capable of playing MLB.  

 

Again, all I'm pointing out is that these opinions that he can are unique to Bills fans, much in the same way that they are for many of our draft picks that never own up to expectations of McBeane.  No one else out there in NFL circles, at least no one that I've seen, including numerous NFL scouts and GMs having commented on Williams, even if only anonymously as they do for draft profiles, agrees with that sentiment.  

 

Why is that so painful for people to accept?  

I'm not getting it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Again, entirely not the point.  Go back and carefully read what I said.  Getting tired of restating it over and over.  It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation when you're not even responding to the actual points that I make and instead respond to implications that you seem to think stem from those even when I plainly state that they're not the case.  

 

Have a great evening Shaw. 

 

 

 

And I'll tell you what, I'll ask you the very same question that I asked Dr. Who above;  

 

Is this situation (MLB) deliberate, or not? 

Put another way, is the current situation planned by Beane?   

Put yet a third way, is THIS what they wanted re: our current MLB situation?  

 

It's a yes/no question.  

 

 

The MLB position is a huge concern. They all look like backups to me and some not even be quality backups. 

[oldmanfan]

44 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

From what I can see Dodson had three starts last year, against Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit. Detroit's decent, but that was not Murderer's Row.

 

Against Pit, he had 84% of defensive snaps. Against Cle, 100%. And against Detroit 14%, which is just not much.

 

He only played more than 20% of snaps against three teams, including Minnesota, and the Bills looked like a different and much worse defense with Edmunds out after his injury.

 

So when Dotson played more than 20% of snaps, it looked like this:

 

Pittsburgh 9-8 W (84% Dotson)

Minnesota 13-4 L (64% Dotson)

Cleveland 7-10 W (100% Dotson)

 

Also worth noting that they easily handled the Steeler offense, allowing only three points, but that the Vikes scored the most points of any one against our defense last year and the Browns tied for 5th highest points against us and the Vikes ran up the most yards against our D and the Browns the 4th highest. And the Steelers the 6th highest.

 

And that in the first half of the Minny game, they scored 10 points, and 20 in the second half with Edmunds out plus the 3 in OT. 151 yards in the first half on six drives and 273 yards in the 2nd half on six drives and 60 on the one drive in OT. They were a different defense with Dodson in.

 

Not saying we're doomed. Not at all. But the change in MLB will have a real impact. Can they make it up elsewhere?

 

 

 

 

That seems a very reasonable guess.

 

 

I think they will be OK with Dotson.  My gut is : 1.  McD will be more aggressive in play calling than Fraser and 2.  As mentioned previously they’ll play a lot of 6 DB/1 LB format with Rapp and Milano on the field.

[PBF81]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

You think the current MLB situation is a culpable failure by this front office.  I suppose it a rational gamble that invested elsewhere.

 

I would in fact call the current situation a failure in the sense that it wasn't addressed in a timely manner.   I mean is it a success?  I don't see how.  

 

If it works out well for us this season, then it will make a huge difference.  It will also make a significant difference if it doesn't work out well.  Who knows which will happen.  

 

I do think that this is a key season for exactly things such as that.  Once we play the season we'll find out.  Frankly, I think it would be kinda cool if, for instance, they could figure out a D w/o a prominent role for a MLB.  I wouldn't bet that it will happen, but I think it would be cool if it did.  

 

We'll soon find out.  Let's just hope that it doesn't cost us dearly, as I would suspect that it will.  Suspecting that it will does not equate to that's my hope.  

 

 

[newcam2012]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Tyrell Dodson will not be the worst starting MLB in the league come December 

 

He always had talent 

He will be near the bottom. He's just not that good in my eyes. 

[Buffalo716]

2 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

He will be near the bottom. He's just not that good in my eyes. 

Every single team in the NFL has holes on the roster 

 

Lorenzo Alexander was a castaway bum afterthought before rex ... Every player has talent 

 

Some just need a chance ... He certainly knows the defense and is physically ready

[PBF81]

13 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

The MLB position is a huge concern. They all look like backups to me and some not even be quality backups. 

 

Well, considering that the options, as stated by McD, are Dodson, Bernard who's now injured, Specter who's 3rd on the depth chart, and Klein, it definitely isn't inspiring.  

 

IMO it's going to be a significant issue.  Whatever "workaround" they find that'll be interesting as well.  I'm not saying that it's going to be an epic failure, but I wouldn't want to have to work with that roster and find a solution at MLB and have as a contingency some unknown plan-B.  

 

Definitely going to be interesting.  

 

IMO the halos that many perceive McD and Beane as having are going to get at least a little tarnished during/after this season.  Hopefully not, we'll see.  

 

 

[newcam2012]

13 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I think they will be OK with Dotson.  My gut is : 1.  McD will be more aggressive in play calling than Fraser and 2.  As mentioned previously they’ll play a lot of 6 DB/1 LB format with Rapp and Milano on the field.

Another words, cover up for the weakness at MLB. 

 

Good teams in the playoffs will absolutely exploit the weaknesses of another team. You can run but you can't hide. 

2 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Well, considering that the options, as stated by McD, are Dodson, Bernard who's now injured, Specter who's 3rd on the depth chart, and Klein, it definitely isn't inspiring.  

 

IMO it's going to be a significant issue.  Whatever "workaround" they find that'll be interesting as well.  I'm not saying that it's going to be an epic failure, but I wouldn't want to have to work with that roster and find a solution at MLB and have as a contingency some unknown plan-B.  

 

Definitely going to be interesting.  

 

IMO the halos that many perceive McD and Beane as having are going to get at least a little tarnished during/after this season.  Hopefully not, we'll see.  

 

 

Luke Kuechly where are you?

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Have to disagree with this, though. 

 

Not getting any help doesn't mean they didn't think they needed any more help. Might easily mean instead that they didn't think circumstances / available players were right to pick up anyone else. Or it could mean they have a couple of guys in mind who are still out there in case things go bad.

 

They might have hoped to draft Jack Campbell by trading up in the 2nd or back in the first (if Kincaid had been gone) if Campbell was still available, which he very much wasn't. Or they might have had discussions with a free agent or two they thought might fit nicely and found they wanted too much money and ended up getting it.

 

And there's no way to say that we always got help where we needed it. None of us know where Beane might have wanted to get help at various positions over the years and decided circumstances weren't right.

 

They're between $25.5M and $41M above next year's cap right now according to OvertheCap versus Spotrac. That might easily have made them feel like they couldn't bring in guys they otherwise would like to have had.

 

Also, though I agree with you about Williams, as noted above, Beane might feel that he did address MLB by bringing in Willams even if he doesn't play this year.

 

Not inconceivable.

 

Beane is a sensational GM. Doesn't mean he hasn't had to leave some fairly weak spots at various places over the years. Damn strong rosters after the first couple of years but there have been a few weak spots.

 

See you around the boards. Today is going to be a busy day.

 

 

Well, you can say all of that, but I still say it means they're confident they can play with what they have.   They already had McGovern, and they trust Bates at guard (except they wanted an upgrade) so if they really wanted a linebacker they had a second-round pick to get it done, somehow.   They didn't do that.  They didn't go after any quality talent in free agency.   That's simply uncharacteristic of Beane.  He wouldn't sit still if McDermott needed a linebacker.  He always does something.   

 

Beane's got a Super Bowl contender.  No GM in that position is going to do nothing about getting a middle linebacker, unless he knew he didn't need one. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Shaw66

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

14 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

 

The counterpoint to my argument seems to be "we had a top 5 defense with Edmunds, but let's spend the money elsewhere and worst case still have a top 10 defense with a backup. It's not that much of a difference." I think it will be a very noticeable difference. We saw it last year when Edmunds was out.

 

Yes but think they're much improved on D line from last year. That alone will make up a lot of what is lost in Edmunds. D line last year was good as long as no injuries or nicked up starters. This year have better depth plus a stronger secondary that barring multiple injuries should be stronger overall.

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Squib would not have done squat.  They down it right away and lose no time.  

 

In the rematch… 16 seconds left on the clock… Bills squib kicked it.

 

Took 4 seconds off the clock.

[Buffalo716]

6 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

In the rematch… 16 seconds left on the clock… Bills squib kicked it.

 

Took 4 seconds off the clock.

Yeah and Kansas City March down in 16 seconds and kicked a field goal in October

 

It's inconsequential in October

 

If you squib kick that in the playoffs they're falling on it , downing it and no time is coming off the clock

 

There's no point in falling on it week 6 in the 2md quarter..  do or die you stop the clock 100%

 

If the bills squib kicked in that playoff game they're falling on it and stopping the clock without a doubt 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Buffalo716

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

Yeah and Kansas City March down in 16 seconds and kicked a field goal in October

 

It's inconsequential in October

 

If you squib kick that in the playoffs they're falling on it , downing it and no time is coming off the clock

 

There's no point in falling on it week 6 in the 2md quarter..  do or die you stop the clock 100%

 

If the bills squib kicked in that playoff game they're falling on it and stopping the clock without a doubt 

 

 

You are arguing with Einstein you know.  He’s infallible...

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

If the bills squib kicked in that playoff game they're falling on it and stopping the clock without a doubt 

 

You can pretend that you know it to be true. But you don’t actually know that. You’re guessing.

To act as if their design to win changes because the game is in October vs January requires some proof.

[Buffalo716]

44 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

You can pretend that you know it to be true. But you don’t actually know that. You’re guessing.

No I'm not guessing I've been coaching for 30 years and I' can Count on 1 hand the amount of teams I've seen that fielded a squib kick at the end of the game without falling on it unless they needed a TD... If You need a field goal and you have 15 seconds.. stats say fall on it

 

You can fall on a squib kick at the 30-35 yard line.. and no time comes off ... 20-25 yards gets you in long fg range

 

That's the smart move if you're down by one or two

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Buffalo716

[oldmanfan]

8 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

What's funnier is you posturing to suggest that I said something that I didn't say or think.  

 

I said the entire football media questioned him.  Take it up with them.   I am merely doing the same as them, pointing out the inconsistencies in his statements.  Take that up with him.  

 

I'm relying on what numerous other NFL scouts, GMs, and others perhaps even more knowledgeable than McD, despite the fact that I realize many here think that there isn't a coach out there that's smarter than McD besides Reid, have said.  Pardon me for doing that.  LOL  

 

Honesly, some of you ... 

 

Can't even have a simple discussion without middle school inuendo.  

 

 

 

And here's what Shaw "clearly said;"  

 

 

Pretty clear.  I'm not sure he needs you to defend his statements.  

 

 

The entire media did not do what you are saying.  If you honestly think you know more about NFL defenses than McD you need to quit smoking what you’re smoking or drinking what you’re drinking.  You and others are under the mistaken impression that NFL teams can have All Pro talent at all positions.  It does not work that way.  If Beane and McD thought they absolutely had to have a replacement for Edmunds that was not on the roster they would have either drafted one round 1 or done so in FA. Instead, they felt they needed to upgrade spots on the offense, so they got a guy to work the middle of the field in Kincaid, and fortified the interior of the O line with McGovern and Torrence.  This is exactly what many were calling for.  How many people bitched about it being an offensive league, and Beane and McD focusing too much on defense?  But as soon as they do this, it’s suddenly abandoning the defense that’s an issue.

 

What’s going on in this message board is there are a handful of folks who are here to do nothing but criticize no matter what the team does.  If that’s what gets some people off, fine.  It seems a bizarre way to get your jollies to me, but if that’s what floats your boat so be it.  But the bottom line is the team has added a lot more pieces to try and improve that they’ve lost this past offseason.  They’ve upgraded both lines, where games are actually won or lost in my opinion.  Rapp is a solid addition in the D backfield.  Hardy and Sheffield upgrade the WR spot.  The only notable loss was Edmunds, the guy so many for years picked out as the guy to rag on constantly.  And to step in they have a guy in Dodson who has been there several years, knows the D, and has earned a shot. They have Klein who is a capable backup. We will see how things work out.  But assuming the sky is falling is just silly.

Edited August 12, 2023 by oldmanfan

[Buffalo716]

13 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You are arguing with Einstein you know.  He’s infallible...

I forgot more about the game of football than he will ever know

[Buffalo716]

4 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

With all due respect, pee-wee and high-school coaching is not the same. You have never coached at the NFL level nor are you on the Chiefs staff.

 

You are guessing as to what they would have done.

 

And considering that the Bills fired/allowed Farwell to leave for a lateral position, PLUS their decision to squib kick it in the same situation in the rematch, leads to circumstantial evidence that Bills agree with me - they should have squibbed it.

You just like to argue and I forgot more about football than you know

 

I've been on college staffs... And a regional scout

 

Football is still my job.. not an accountant..  theres a reason why I understand X's and O's like some people know algebra

 

Football has been my life for 30 years

Edited August 12, 2023 by Buffalo716

[Einstein]

36 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

You just like to argue and I forgot more about football than you know

 

I've been on college staffs... And a regional scout

 

Football is still my job.. not an accountant

 

Sorry but appeal-to-authority fallacies don’t work with me.

 

There is no proof that the Chiefs would have fell on it. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. 

 

The only evidence we have is:

 

1) When given the opportunity, the Chiefs did NOT fall on it. They ran with it. 

 

2) The Bills fired/let Farwell leave for a lateral position.

 

3) The next opportunity they had, the Bills squib kicked it.

 

All evidence points to my being correct. Despite your incredible acumen as high-school or community college football coach.

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Einstein

[Buffalo716]

3 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Sorry but appeal-to-authority fallacies don’t work with me.

 

There is no proof that the Chiefs would have fell on it. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. 

 

The only evidence we have is:

 

1) When given the opportunity, the Chiefs did NOT fall on it. They ran with it. 

 

2) The Bills fired/let Farwell leave for a lateral position.

 

3) The next opportunity they had, the Bills squib kicked it.

 

All evidence points to my being correct. Despite your incredible acumen as high-school or community college football coach.

 

PS, statisticians and former NFL players also agree:

 

 

 

 

 

I don't care what those pundits say

 

I know for a fact you could fall on a squib kick at the 30 and no time will come off and the same thing could have happened...that ls a fact it could happen 

 

You could also pooch it high.. and guess what the ball could still run into the end zone and you get it at the 25 with no time off

 

Your handle might be Einstein but you're not a football guru

 

Play that scenario at 100 times... Pat mahomes can still get that field goal if you squib kick it... Just because we squibbed it in week five doesn't mean we would in the playoffs

 

It's the perfect time to try something new since we lost the other way... And guess what they still scored so no difference

 

How about play defense? That's the solution Einstein

Edited August 12, 2023 by Buffalo716

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Einstein said:

 

Sorry but appeal-to-authority fallacies don’t work with me.

 

There is no proof that the Chiefs would have fell on it. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. 

 

The only evidence we have is:

 

1) When given the opportunity, the Chiefs did NOT fall on it. They ran with it. 

 

2) The Bills fired/let Farwell leave for a lateral position.

 

3) The next opportunity they had, the Bills squib kicked it.

 

All evidence points to my being correct. Despite your incredible acumen as high-school or community college football coach.

 

PS, statisticians and former NFL players also agree:

 

 

 

 

 

And if they had fallen in it then your experts would have been wrong.  The Bills lost that game because they did not do whatever to stop their receivers from catching the ball with 13 seconds left.  They could have held them, taken a couple 5 yard penalties, and game over.  Instead Kelce did what he wanted. And that’s on Frazier and McD.

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, Buffalo716 said:

I don't care what those pundits say

 

Do you care what the Chiefs Special Teams coordinator says?

 

Considering, ya know, it’s HIS special teams.

 

Because he said they planned to advance it, likely taking 4 seconds off the clock.

 

 

Quote

I know for a fact you could fall on a squib kick at the 30 in no time will come off and the same thing would have happened..

 

We are not talking about the rule. Of course a team *can* do that. But the Chiefs would not have done that. They would have advanced it. Burning clock.

 

Which is why McDermott squib kicked it the next opportunity he had.

[Buffalo716]

15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The entire media did not do what you are saying.  If you honestly think you know more about NFL defenses than McD you need to quit smoking what you’re smoking or drinking what you’re drinking.  You and others are under the mistaken impression that NFL teams can have All Pro talent at all positions.  It does not work that way.  If Beane and McD thought they absolutely had to have a replacement for Edmunds that was not on the roster they would have either drafted one round 1 or done so in FA. Instead, they felt they needed to upgrade spots on the offense, so they got a guy to work the middle of the field in Kincaid, and fortified the interior of the O line with McGovern and Torrence.  This is exactly what many were calling for.  How many people bitched about it being an offensive league, and Beane and McD focusing too much on defense?  But as soon as they do this, it’s suddenly abandoning the defense that’s an issue.

 

What’s going on in this message board is there are a handful of folks who are here to do nothing but criticize no matter what the team does.  If that’s what gets some people off, fine.  It seems a bizarre way to get your jollies to me, but if that’s what floats your boat so be it.  But the bottom line is the team has added a lot more pieces to try and improve that they’ve lost this past offseason.  They’ve upgraded both lines, where games are actually won or lost in my opinion.  Rapp is a solid addition in the D backfield.  Hardy and Sheffield upgrade the WR spot.  The only notable loss was Edmunds, the guy so many for years picked out as the guy to rag on constantly.  And to step in they have a guy in Dodson who has been there several years, knows the D, and has earned a shot. They have Klein who is a capable backup. We will see how things work out.  But assuming the sky is falling is just silly.

It's funny because his whole schtick is to argue with people

3 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Do you care what the Chiefs Special Teams coordinator says?

 

Considering, ya know, it’s HIS special teams.

 

Because he said they planned to advance it, likely taking 4 seconds off the clock.

 

 

 

We are not talking about the rule. Of course a team *can* do that. But the Chiefs would not have done that. They would have advanced it. Burning clock.

 

Which is why McDermott squib kicked it the next opportunity he had.

You could say anything in hindsight...

 

And squib kicking it wasn't the right answer the second time so you're wrong

 

The right answer is to play defense

 

And he said returned a short squib if they could get it to at least the 40... He wasn't going to return a squib on the 10 yard line

 

Taking a short squib.. burning 4 seconds off the clock won't matter cuz you're on the 40... You can't take a squib on the 10 with 14 seconds left

Edited August 12, 2023 by Buffalo716

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, Buffalo716 said:

You could say anything in hindsight...

 

You took a mighty hard loss here tonight. A better man admits it and moves on. Sigh.

 

1 minute ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

And squib kicking it wasn't the right answer the second time so you're wrong

 

McDermott disagrees with you.

 

He’s an NFL coach ya know…

[Buffalo716]

5 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

You took a mighty hard loss here tonight. A better man admits it and moves on. Sigh.

 

 

McDermott disagrees with you.

 

He’s an NFL coach ya know…

So NFL coaches are infallible? Can't make mistakes?

 

Yeah there's no winners or losers but you could play whatever game you want

 

He said a short squib that they could get to the 40 ... So it wouldn't matter if 4 seconds were burned off if they were on the 40

 

He wasn't taking a squib kick on the 10 yard line.. he was willing to take a SHORT squib.. 25 yard line with 13 seconds... Is the same as the 40 with 9 seconds 

 

You're not guaranteed to knock off four seconds and keep them on the 20 yard line... If they're returning it it's because they're close to midfield

Edited August 12, 2023 by Buffalo716

[Einstein]

23 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

He said a short squib that they could get to the 40 they would return... So it wouldn't matter if 4 seconds were burned off if they were on the 40

 

He wasn't taking a squib kick on the 10 yard line.. he was willing to take a SHORT squib

 

He said anything less than a squib caught at the 40, they were going to return. So… yeah, they were returning it.

 

The 40 was their goal line.

 

But sure, keep moving the goal posts in an attempt to save what’s left of your dignity after going off about forgetting more than i’ve ever known about football. I let you do it just long enough while holding the Chiefs own ST’s coach card in my pocket. So far we have:

Bills coach disagrees with you. Former NFL players disagree with you. Chiefs coach disagrees with you. But you’ve coached high school football! How dare they? Thanks for the laughs. I’m going to bed. Goodnight

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Einstein

[GunnerBill]

How has a threat about MLB competition descended into yet another re-run of 13 seconds?

 

Yet more proof that some people just can't get past that moment and it will forever colour everything else this regime does for them. 

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Do you care what the Chiefs Special Teams coordinator says?

 

Considering, ya know, it’s HIS special teams.

 

Because he said they planned to advance it, likely taking 4 seconds off the clock.

 

 

 

We are not talking about the rule. Of course a team *can* do that. But the Chiefs would not have done that. They would have advanced it. Burning clock.

 

Which is why McDermott squib kicked it the next opportunity he had.

Was that a short squib or not.  Because a short sequin as the KC coach said you take 4 seconds and run it to the 40.  From there one play gets you in FG position.

 

Your problem is you have no understanding of variables.  You want everything black and white in a world of greys.

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

How has a threat about MLB competition descended into yet another re-run of 13 seconds?

 

Yet more proof that some people just can't get past that moment and it will forever colour everything else this regime does for them. 

 

Chaos (perhaps inadvertently) started it.

 

Until we win a Super Bowl, I doubt 13 seconds ever goes away.

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

He said anything less than a squib caught at the 40, they were going to return. So… yeah, they were returning it.

 

The 40 was their goal line.

 

But sure, keep moving the goal posts in an attempt to save what’s left of your dignity after going off about forgetting more than i’ve ever known about football. I let you do it just long enough while holding the Chiefs own ST’s coach card in my pocket. So far we have:

Bills coach disagrees with you. Former NFL players disagree with you. Chiefs coach disagrees with you. But you’ve coached high school football! How dare they? Thanks for the laughs. I’m going to bed. Goodnight

 

I'm not moving the goal posts

 

kicking it out of the end zone was not a bad call

 

Every single person on this site knows you're here to argue

 

Nothing says squib kicking it would have won us the game. Especially if they took it to the 40 yard line

 

And Yes I will run circles around you in any form of football talk.. I don't care what kind of backward psychology you use

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

Was that a short squib or not.  Because a short sequin as the KC coach said you take 4 seconds and run it to the 40.  From there one play gets you in FG position.

 

Your problem is you have no understanding of variables.  You want everything black and white in a world of greys.

His username is Einstein...

Edited August 12, 2023 by Buffalo716

[Einstein]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

KC coach said you take 4 seconds and run it to the 40.  From there one play gets you in FG position.

 

The discussion wasn’t where they would run it to or how many plays until field goal range. The discussion was wether they would have immediately downed the ball. The goals posts are swaying strong tonight.

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

The discussion wasn’t where they would run it to or how many plays until field goal range. The discussion was wether they would have immediately downed the ball. The goals posts are swaying strong tonight.

No your wrong

 

I said you can get a squib kick and there's no reason to advance that... Because it's disadvantageous.. you can get a squib kick at the 20 yard line... There's no reason to burn clock off then

 

You put up a clip that said the Chiefs coordinator thought they could get to at least the 40 on a squib... That's completely different than taking a squib kick at the 20 with 14 seconds left

 

And if they got to the 40... Even after 4 seconds off the clock that's not a big deal because they're on the 40

 

I said no team will take a squib kick which could be fielded if you need to conserve clock... If you're already on the 40 10 seconds is plenty of time... 10 seconds is not plenty of time if you're on the 23

 

You're the one who threw out the arbitrary number of the 40 yard line with a tweet  which changed our discussion

Edited August 12, 2023 by Buffalo716

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

The discussion wasn’t where they would run it to or how many plays until field goal range. The discussion was wether they would have immediately downed the ball. The goals posts are swaying strong tonight.

And that has to do with where the ball was squibbed as the KC coach indicates.  Your ability to grasp variables is stunningly absent.  And it does not change that the D crapped on itself, which is the main reason they lost.

 

And it doesn’t not change the fact that Dodson will be MLB which is what this thread was about until you decided to argue another unrelated point.

Edited August 12, 2023 by oldmanfan

[Einstein]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

I said you can get a squib kick at the 20 yard line and there's no reason to advance that... Because it's disadvantageous

 

Your exact words were:

 

“If the bills squib kicked in that playoff game (the Chiefs are) falling on it and stopping the clock without a doubt”

 

No mention of scenarios where they would or wouldn’t have downed it. “without a doubt”, they would have downed it. That’s what you said.

 

But I don’t want my opinion on this to be seen as crusading, so i’m stopping here. Good night!

 

.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Einstein

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

You’re*
 

 

Your exact words were:

 

“If the bills squib kicked in that playoff game (the Chiefs are) falling on it and stopping the clock without a doubt”

 

No mention of scenarios where they would or wouldn’t have downed it. “without a doubt”, they would have downed it. That’s what you said.

 

But I don’t want my opinion on this to be seen as crusading, so i’m stopping here. Good night!

 

You Already said you were done and you are crusading... 

 

Yeah falling on it at the 25 30 and 35 yard line make sense for the Chiefs... I just didn't specify yard lines.. sure if the up man at the 40 caught it he could rumble for a few yards and it wouldn't hurt.. I'm not having someone scoop it at the 20-25 and return it and kill clock

 

I'm falling on it...Because it stops the clock and they have plays and timeouts 

 

That makes sense...  It's not a crazy concept.. 

 

No timeouts ? sure do something crazy... 

 

Two timeouts with Pat mahomes? Yeah I'm trying to keep as much time on the clock

 

Regardless... The only real option is to play defense because the game isn't over... Can you agree to that yes or no?

 

That the defense not special teams let the Buffalo bills down

 

You act as though if they did return the squib that it's a guaranteed bills victory... I don't see that 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Buffalo716