Alphadawg7

Stephen has been complimentary to him, just isn’t going to anoint him over part of a regular season the way people did Wentz. He just wants to see him have success in playoffs and sustained success before he officially gives him that elite status. But he does admit he’s playing at elite levels now. I don’t see anything wrong with that take at all. Nick, Keyshawn and Skip are all still stupidly doubters and haters.

Ah just read the crazy scenario online, didn’t realize that would be the case. My bad, thanks for clarity. Obviously we are not going to be the number 1 seed, but now I see why your post was laid all that out.

Im not really interested in Minshew, I think the real Uncle Rico is more appealing personally. Minshwer is Fitzpatrick without the talent...and Fitzpatrick is Farve without the talent. So you are basically saying you want a very poor mans version of a poor mans Farve on the roster. This is not the way. Im all for competition to Barkley, but I think Fromm should get a chance before we start making trades for guys.

I didn’t realize the season ended today.

Yeah, I mean they had the video ready, Nick even said he hopes they could show it for this "bit". So yeah was all pre planned ahead of time and agreed to before going on air. But Nick Wright is a joke. He is basically just a clown trying to emulate Skip Bayless kind of loud shock statements to get a career.

This was sick...After JuJu danced on the Bills logo...Josh had this to say to the team. Every time I think I cant love Josh more than I already do he goes and ups the ante! LFG!

NOTE: I agree maybe my initial response sounded too snarky, so I went back and edited it. I like the OP @Beerball overall and didn’t mean it to sound snarky. I just feel like there are plenty of times where Beane doesn’t get enough credit or McD doesn’t get enough credit. I mean people were talking about firing McD and/or Beane multiple times this year after a loss, even the AZ loss. So when I saw this poll my reaction was more about they both deserve the credit as they were each critical to getting us to where we are today.

I already said that a HC has more influence to a degree, and the ceiling in that is low. Changing the culture is hugely important, but it only gets you so far if the talent and right players aren’t in the locker room. The question was about getting the Bills to this point. IMO we are far beyond an “over achieving” team and have a very talented roster that McD is also developing and coaching well. That takes a GM getting the right pieces. Not every situation is the same. What if a new HC comes in along with a GM and that team already had a strong roster and had been underachieving? Well then, clearly the coach would be more impactful as the rosters was largely there and needed a coaching change. But we were a total rebuild both with roster and the cap. And that is a different animal. It took both great coaching and a great GM to get to where we are. And I don’t think Buffalo is where it’s at if you remove either one of Beane or McD and to do so is marginalizing the other which I don’t think is fair. So still stand by my original answer that both had a huge impact and it’s not really possible to quantify whose was bigger. We don’t know how much influence McD had over roster decisions, draft picks etc. What we are told is that they worked as a team every step of the way in shaping this roster, creating the right culture, etc...and again points to both being equally important.

Guess I just don’t respond to waste of time questions then very well. And given the amount of answers saying both, I think the proof is in the replies and the OP is getting their answer.

Overrated. He is not a bad coach, but also not a great coach. Id say he’s somewhere between solid and good, closer to good. But he is too often talked about as a great coach. He’s actually always been pretty terrible at managing a game clock and made so many head scratching decisions in game for me to ever be in the elite category. Just my 2 cents

But I said any poll that doesn’t have both as an option, which “All of the above” Is always an option in a poll like this, is not with discussing. And you literally just said that in your reply to me when you said “That doesn’t necessarily mean that one is more influential than the other. Just who WE THINK is.” So you are acknowledging that clearly both is a viable answer, which is the very thing I took exemption to with this poll. And you and I both know “both” is the real answer and anything other than that is just splitting hairs to answer an incomplete poll. We don’t have the same success without Beane and we don’t have the same success without McD. To quantify who is more important or played a bigger role is not really possible given the roles are completely different. So I stand by my original answer that both have been equally important to our success. I do agree, that a HC could make a bigger impact in terms of what he gets out of the roster, but he also won’t get very far either and will have a low ceiling if the roster isn’t good enough. Is McD capable of winning with a mediocre or worse roster? Yes, and probably more so than most coaches, and he proved that his first year here. But ultimately, he won’t get far either with said roster and to take the next step the GM is equally important to the teams success by building a roster that supports the coaches plan, system, scheme, attitude, etc.

Any poll like this doesn’t have both as an option is not worth discussing IMO.

Literally one of the worst takes and posts I’ve read all year. It’s in contention for worst take of the year IMO, and that’s quite an accomplishment considering what gets said around here in hot take moments. I don’t even know how it’s possible to write something this long and have none of it really reflect things accurately.

So well deserved, easily one of the top GMs in the league and one of the best coaching and GM pairings in the league.

This thread didn't age well...as expected by anyone who paid attention.

I thought Butler played quite well last night

HAHAHA LOVE THIS

@SDS One more point: Position was a major and primary factor here. 53o one spot before the button is late position. Only the button (if he calls) would have position on him. If only the SB or BB calls, or both, Gus has position moving forward. And position is what wins you the most money over time. Being able to make decisions last with the most amount of information by being last to act is the most valuable position in poker. Gus would not ever try and steal blinds here if he was UTG (under the gun, first player to the left of the button who acts first) or in early position with 53o at a full table. He has to get through most or all the players without a call and will be highly likely be out of position every street after if he is called as the only people he has a chance to have position on are the blinds if either of them were the only ones to call.

@SDS One more note: Gus is like I said, hyper-aggressive...very talented but still very aggressive. This makes him seem reckless to a lot of lesser players. But just because he is capable of playing anything at any time if he sees an opportunity to isolate a weaker player, it doesn't make him easy to beat. When at a cash game, you will see players who play anything, have a hard time folding, etc. That doesn't make them a talented or dangerous player, even if they are having a big night. Cards are cards, they can hit anyone on any given night and I have seen terrible players make horrible call after horrible call and keep winning. Most nights they would lose big because of this. So don't be fooled by a super loose player who is sticky and never folds as if they are suddenly a Gus Hansen clone. Those are the players I try and isolate because I know I can get paid on my strong holdings because they will keep calling me. I do have to pay attention to board texture against them, like say river brings a 4th card to a flush and this person called my set all the way down. They are fully capable of still just having a top pair weak kicker for example even then, but also, they could have a weak flush now too and just got lucky. But players like Gus, they are sticky, meaning they are hard to make go away, not because they are weak, but because they know if certain cards come they will give him the chance to bluff his weaker opponents out on 4th or 5th street. This 53o is an example of a hand he could do that with too. Lets say Gus misses the flop, but he continuation bets anyway and gets called. The turn brings an inside straight draw. This is a terrible hand to "draw" to going into the river with only 4 outs to come. You will never be getting the right pot odds here to make this the right call on just the purpose of making your hand. But lets say the board texture now is a bit scary, the right card comes on the river and he could bluff his opponent off a solid hand. Or maybe the turn card was already that scary card. Gus can again aggressively lead out here again and put pressure on his opponent solely on his read of the player, his position, tournament stage, his reputation, etc. Maybe there is a 9-8-2-A board now. Gus can easily have 2 pair, set, flush draw or a straight draw here based on what he can open raise with. Sure Gus has an inside straight draw with 53o to make the best hand, but the pot odds are terrible to be the correct call just on trying to make the hand. However, if he put his opponent on something like 10-9, that Ace is already a scare card to his opponent. And maybe the flop brought a flush draw too, Gus will also know a river 3rd card to flush would also be a bluff card along with any card that makes the 9-8 into a finished straight as Gus can easily be sitting on J10, 78, etc too. Or already have 2 pair with 98 or a set. If you are Gus though, what you don't do is make these kinds of plays against STICKY players who don't fold a lot (regardless if its because they are talented or weak). You can't push out a player who doesn't fold. That is the MISTAKE people make most often when looking at making moves. They don't take into consideration who is in the hand, their hand history enough, and ESPECIALLY what your table image likely is to everyone else based on how you have played and what you have showed. So just again, more insight on Gus table image and his read at the table and who he is playing. He knows enough that he realizes they are not likely going to be "sticky" in this situation and only likely call or raise with strong holdings. So the chances of him picking up blinds is strong from late position. Same goes for hands with flops, turns, and rivers. Too often people keep checking it down just to lose to a hand they would have folded had someone bet. Thats a mistake 100% of the time, because your stack got smaller when it should have gotten bigger, and in a tournament with rising blinds and antes this is costly mistake. And it wont always work, someone may call you still with Ace high and win, or bottom pair. But it doesn't have to work 100% of the time to be profitable overall.

@SDS This is a great one to examine. First, for future reference when you send me problems/questions, whats your experience level? Have you played both cash and tournaments? And if you have played a tournament, have you ever played a larger tournament like at a casino or are they just small ones in a home game with friends? Now to the hands you posted. In a cash game, your blinds are permanently fixed, they never go up and never include antes either. That means you can see many rounds at the table without negatively impacting your stack, or get "blinded out" by the blinds. In a tournament, ONLY the early rounds of the tournament have smaller blinds like this as they increasingly and aggressively increase throughout the tournament. For example, lets say you play a tournament with 3000 in starting chips. Blinds say start at 10/20. Well, the blind structure in that first round and first couple rounds represents a small amount compared to your chip size, so if you don't get any cards and just fold, you aren't doing too much damage. But each round those double and increase. After not too long, the blinds will be 100/200 each round. Lets say you have barely played and only picked up a couple of small pots along the way until then and still are at 3000 in chips at the point. That means each time the button goes around the table (where you play one SB and one BB hand) you will lose 300 chips, which at that time represents 10% of your stack the first time, now 300 of your remaining 2700 represents over 11% of your stack, and so on. Plus, the round after that, the blinds will increase again, probably to 150/300 or 200/400 or will just add an ante EACH HAND. So now, those blinds will be a massive part of your hand. So if you are not increasing your chip stack aggressively, you will be blinded out to nothing. Weak tournament players will be scared to play when their stack gets small unless they get at least a solid starting hand too often and will keep folding. Lets say the blinds are at 200/400 and they kept folding hands like A2s, 67s, QJo, etc waiting for a more premium hand. Now they pick up JJ and go all in, but ONLY have 700 in chips left. That means if they get called by someone, and still win, they still have a tiny stack left and are in danger in being blinded out soon again. This is the difference with Cash vs Tournament. If you are too passive in tournament, you can see the blinds and antes substantially dwindle your chip stack to where you quickly get below 10 BB left, and once you are there, you can't play poker any more and are just in an ALL IN or nothing position. Table dynamics: Now on to Gus. Don't know how much you know about Gus Hansen before this book, but his reputation is that he is very talented, dangerous, hyper-aggressive and high stakes poker player. He can be holding anything at any time, so its hard to play with him because not only is his opening range of hands wide (because he will play position, the player, and situation more than he will play his cards in these moments), but he also plays them aggressively when he is in a pot. So people sitting at that table know if they get into a hand with him, he is not likely to let off the gas regardless if he hits the flop or not, and you won't be able to know if he did, because even rags can hit his holdings big because of how wide of a range of hands he will play compared to most players. Tom Dwan is another player like this. Second, as Gus stated, they are a day away from making the money cutoff. Large scale tournaments with big buy ins and large prizes like this are multi-day tournaments because the field is so big. As the cutoff gets closer to finishing "in the money" a lot of players will tighten up and play less hands to survive into the money. This tourney was probably a $10,000 buy in tourney and the money cutoff is probably $20k. So as people get close to that, they tend to play to survive more than they do to play to "win" the tournament because the money is a big deal to them. Third, on this particular table, the chip stacks are not all that big, this table of the tournament doesn't have a lot of chips on it, so that again lends to these players likely tightening up more because they can't afford to get into many pricey pots and still easily suruvive to the money cut off. Putting it all together: So what you have here, is a talented and experienced player with a what less skilled players see as a reckless image, making him dangerously expensive to play back at without a premium holding. Gus recognizes that, so when he is in later positions and everyone has folded to him, he has a very strong chance to steal the rather sizable blinds here. He is getting 4:1 odds, all this has to do is work one out of 3 times to be profitable, and the reality is, the odds are much greater that he will successfully steal here at a rate better than that given what we know about the: Chip stacks, tournament stage, his table image, and the reads he has on the players at that table. Gus is not playing his "cards" here, he is playing the situation when he is one off the button with 53o. His opening of the hand at that moment means he only needs to get through 3 remaining players who are likely going to avoid playing back at him without a premium holding. Again, this is a flat out steal attempt to pickup some blinds. And if someone calls him, he can still hit a flop that plays well and comfortable for Gus as he is comfortable playing hands like that post flop. Lets say he gets called by AQo but the flop comes 9-5-2. Gus is going to feel really good about his hand there and not be afraid to play it strongly. Now his opponent isn't going to be able rule out Gus has no part of that because he is capable of opening pre flop with a much wider range of hands than any other player at that table. He could have 9-7s, 5-8s, 67o, etc. Gus could pick that pot up right there as well. And if Gus was to get re-raised, he probably folds that 53o unless he has a good read on that player and sniffs out that he was bluffing and decided to 4 bet him pre-flop, something else Gus is capable of even with a weak hand. And honestly, if you are going to play a pot with a player like Gus in a situation just like this one in this example, your better play is to re-raise him pre-flop and see how strong his hand is or fold. I probably never smooth call here unless I just have a drawing hand I love but don't want to play a big pot with. Like say 78s or something. And as you can see in his chip total, in 3 hands he added about 4K in chips picking up the blinds and antes uncontested, which at this stage is another 10 BB worth of chips. That is significant in a tournament with ever increasing blind and ante structure.

One of my favorite books. And this hand spurred a great convo and as we discussed, the outs and cards to come were accurate and correct in the book.

You people realize that it’s rare to play a perfect game. One bad or unfortunate play doesn’t automatically decide the outcome. I mean we were still winning at that point, wasn’t even a game losing play. I swear, feels like no one here watches any other football and doesn’t know that good teams make these kinds of plays all the time and still win the game. KC turned the ball over a couple times late too against TB, and after dominating TB most the game allowed them to come back and make it close finish...but KC still won. The focus and over reaction around here on individual plays or even individual games is always so over the top.

No offense but your original comment and your edit are just fan mythology and has no basis in reality or merit to the discussion. Pitt and KC are completely different teams, different styles, etc. You cant say "well if we played this way, we would not have beaten so and so." It doesn't equally translate over. And sorry, you clearly have not watched many KC or Pitt games this year, because they have each played several games this year where they were not very impressive and played at a level they could have easily lost to a lesser team, especially Pitt. So to answer your question, YES, we could have beat either of those teams having played "this" way even though its not a really an accurate thing to compare. In fact, if we played at the level we played today, we would have beaten KC the first time. We were within one score at the end of the game while literally playing one of our absolute 2 worst games of the year, and todays performance was substantially better than we showed against KC the first time. I mean Dallas almost beat Pitt and so did a couple other really bad teams. Again no disrespect, but your post is ridiculous.

You clearly haven't watched a lot of the Steelers play this year. The only undefeated team has done all this stuff too, but also doing enough to win. Same goes for Green Bay, Rams, Seattle, Arizona, Titans, Colts, Saints, and even KC at times. I mean this is the story of just about every team out there. What matters is how the team responds in those moments, and outside the Ten game and KC game (which the whole team was off from start to finish in those games), Bills have always responded this year. And it took a 1 in 200 chance play for AZ to steal a win from us after we responded and drove the field for what should have been the go ahead TD after some miscues in the 4th. I have actually really liked how resilient we have been and how we have responded after mistakes. And lets not forget, we were again missing John Brown who has been proven to be very important to the flow of the offense.

Yes you are correct, interior OL issues as well.