Calling out alphadawg and every other skeptic

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Buildup was a 10 but the confrontation was a 2.

 

We expected better, guys. 

[dave mcbride]

I mean, LITERALLY the same thing happened as in the Cooks play yet the Rams/Adams got the call.  I therefore don’t want to hear anyone quote the rules in defense of the refs’ decision on that play. I will continue to believe that the league decided they weren’t overturning it because it would have basically ended the game in the visiting team’s favor in front of a rabid home crowd.

Edited January 19 by dave mcbride

[LetJamesCook]

8 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Buildup was a 10 but the confrontation was a 2.

 

We expected better, guys. 

It’s like the Star Wars sequels all over again!!

[Alphadawg7]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

Sorry to be so harsh! Referring to this: 

And this:

 

 

Ok - lets get some things clear first:

1. I didn't watch football yesterday after the Bills and Niners games Saturday and instead spent the day with my wife, kids and dog out doing hikes, playgrounds, and dinner and enjoyed our life and moved on - and it was glorious.  So this is the first time I have seen this play.
2. I said many times I felt Cooks SHOULD be a catch, but I said the BIGGER issue is the RULE not the refs in that moment.  I said that however the refs ruled it IN GAME meant it was probably NOT being over turned because there was not definitive evidence to overturn regardless of the initial call.  Unfortunately, the initial call was an INT instead of a Catch.
3. I said that there was not indisputable evidence to show that per the rule, Cooks maintained control through the contact of the ground to establish the catch per the rules, and a rule I said that I hate and is the bigger problem on the play.
4. But this is clip is NOT the same.  This is not apples to apples...the video you just posted 100% confirms no ball movement, full possession when his knee hits the ground and the ground never causes the ball to move, it was the defender that rips the ball out after the fact.  If Cooks had that, then he would have kept possession, instead, Cooks video is less conclusive, so per the rules, they can't overturn the call without indisputable proof the call was wrong.  

So not sure why that take has drawn so much ire from you, but its the facts without the emotion about what happened.  Its 100% why the call was not over turned when it WAS reviewed by NY during the game, something even McD confirmed happened in his presser.  

 

Do I hate the call yes.  Do I think the call should have gone to Cooks...yes.  Do I think the refs screwed the Bills on this play...no.  BUT I do 100% think the refs screwed the Bills on the Tre White PI call after and no PI call on Cooks in the endzone earlier in the game.

 

PS:  I also hate the pass from Allen there.  On 3rd and 10 and a MUST get yards play to avoid 4th and 10 for your season, Allen heaves a 50/50 jump ball down field (his least accurate type of throw that already led to another INT earlier in the game) to an over the hill small WR who isn't a jump ball WR and has already failed to make this play SEVERAL times since becoming a Bill that lost us games.  It was a bad decision from the get go, Cooks either wasn't open, or Allen threw a poor ball to allow the corner to close - regardless of which, it doesn't make the pass a good choice.  

 

You want to be mad at someone about the game because they talk about facts without emotion and bias, then all good I get it. Not sure it needed its own thread, but you do you boo.  

 

GoBills!

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Ok - lets get some things clear first:

1. I didn't watch football yesterday after the Bills and Niners games Saturday and instead spent the day with my wife, kids and dog out doing hikes, playgrounds, and dinner and enjoyed our life and moved on - and it was glorious.  So this is the first time I have seen this play.
2. I said many times I felt Cooks SHOULD be a catch, but I said the BIGGER issue is the RULE not the refs in that moment.  I said that however the refs ruled it IN GAME meant it was probably NOT being over turned because there was not definitive evidence to overturn regardless of the initial call.  Unfortunately, the initial call was an INT instead of a Catch.
3. I said that there was not indisputable evidence to show that per the rule, Cooks maintained control through the contact of the ground to establish the catch per the rules, and a rule I said that I hate and is the bigger problem on the play.
4. But this is clip is NOT the same.  This is not apples to apples...the video you just posted 100% confirms no ball movement, full possession when his knee hits the ground and the ground never causes the ball to move, it was the defender that rips the ball out after the fact.  If Cooks had that, then he would have kept possession, instead, Cooks video is less conclusive, so per the rules, they can't overturn the call without indisputable proof the call was wrong.  

So not sure why that take has drawn so much ire from you, but its the facts without the emotion about what happened.  Its 100% why the call was not over turned when it WAS reviewed by NY during the game, something even McD confirmed happened in his presser.  

 

Do I hate the call yes.  Do I think the call should have gone to Cooks...yes.  Do I think the refs screwed the Bills on this play...no.  BUT I do 100% think the refs screwed the Bills on the Tre White PI call after and no PI call on Cooks in the endzone earlier in the game.

 

PS:  I also hate the pass from Allen there.  On 3rd and 10 and a MUST get yards play to avoid 4th and 10 for your season, Allen heaves a 50/50 jump ball down field (his least accurate type of throw that already led to another INT earlier in the game) to an over the hill small WR who isn't a jump ball WR and has already failed to make this play SEVERAL times since becoming a Bill that lost us games.  It was a bad decision from the get go, Cooks either wasn't open, or Allen threw a poor ball to allow the corner to close - regardless of which, it doesn't make the pass a good choice.  

 

You want to be mad at someone about the game because they talk about facts without emotion and bias, then all good I get it. Not sure it needed its own thread, but you do you boo.  

 

GoBills!

It’s the same - as apples to apples as can be, and I don’t think it’s arguable (although apparently it is …). That’s all I can say.

[Alphadawg7]

15 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Buildup was a 10 but the confrontation was a 2.

 

We expected better, guys. 

 

Hahaha sorry to disappoint

 

I have already mentallly moved on from the game and just enjoying life with the fam that I don't care enough to really react, plus I get it, not everyone has moved on and seeing that play live was probably triggering for those watching it.

[Buffalo Junction]

11 hours ago, Sojourner said:

I

Doesnt Dave McBride star in the adult movie, Big Head… ?

No. He does “reimaginings” with Brandon St Randy. 

[Alphadawg7]

Just now, dave mcbride said:

It’s the same - as apples to apples as can be, and I don’t think it’s arguable (although apparently it is …). That’s all I can say.

 

Its not really the same in terms of how the call was confirmed.  Definitive evidence confirming the result of the play for Adams and the ability to confirm it was a completed catch prior to the strip.  Cooks, no definitive evidence to OVERTURN a call.  The rules are you need 100% definitive evidence to OVERTURN a call.  So even if a ref thinks it MIGHT be a catch, they by rule can NOT over turn it unless they can definitively say it was a catch.

 

So for the Rams, regardless of the call on the field, the video evidence can 100% confirm the result of the play.  For the Bills, no such evidence was there, therefore the call was not overturned.

 

Its really not anymore complicated than that.  And once again, I feel the Cooks play should have been a catch, but I also understand why it was not OVERTURNED.  If it had been ruled a catch and then the refs overturned it to an INT, I would then be saying that is bullsh*t and a screw job because the evidence is not there to overturn it had it been first ruled a catch either.