NoSaint

Walking in yesterday, he should’ve had it a must win game and it should’ve factored into every decision accordingly. You can’t coach that game not to lose.

If he was content playing for a tie yesterday because he believes we will win out... well, count me out. more than likely he’s just a product of decades of poor decision making across the nfl in that very scenario. Coaches are so programmed not to lose that they often forget to go win the game. Nor do you bet that you are more likely to win out than convert a 4 and 1.... and might I throw in that missing it doesn’t mean you lose this one either. also punting comes with risk of bad snap, missed handle, shanking, or putting in the endzone and suddenly you’ve pushed them back 20 yards instead of taking a shot at keeping the ball (an AWFUL trade)

The only metric that mattered was our odds of scoring. A tie is as good as a loss. That’s exactly the issue here- you have to play yesterday to win. Not losing isn’t good enough. If you think it was the right call to punt you are arguing, essentially, that punting made us more likely to score. If true I’m curious how far we have to get for that to tip. We weren’t kicking a fg at the 35, so do you still punt there, for instance? Anything across the 50 seems a no brainer to go for it to me.

So, for those that think the odds of being the next to score went up when we punted... where is the tipping point for you? The 35? Do you punt from closer than that?

Those are guys that tend to be very scheme specific and we swap schemes every three weeks the last decade. Makes sense few contribute here but some have elsewhere. Seymour is contributing in Carolina, won’t be shocked if Jon Williams does, Karlos for a stretch, NRC is making plays in LA. Cockrell in Pittsburgh

Ah- I’ve never actually seen a formal list of what’s included Hes defending proper medical and legal terminology use primarily You can get a quick diagnosis wrong without it being malpractice or illegal or even negligent. my impression was that someone in the booth watching the game could pull a guy not that the doctor was required to watch video before clearing. Odds are they cleared the test and then in reviewing the film pulled him back out. Just a guess. And like I mentioned, I’m not familiar with the formal protocol. If you have a link that’d be cool for discussions sake.

Obviously the lotto is longer odds. Which is why I used it to highlight how silly “it worked so it wasn’t lucky” sounded

Unless you are arguing that you were in favor of a move that made you less likely to win, you agree with me. Throw any window dressing on it you want—- but you thought the right choice to win was go for it.

All that matters today was winning. Slightly lessening your chance to win is the wrong choice when a loss or tie is catastrophic in your season.

If if I decide to dump my retirement fund into lotto tix it’s still incredibly lucky if I win. We’re talking odds not outcome.

Or he passed a quick sideline evaluation but the league caught what happened shortly after?

Tell us why you’re really upset, joe? What happened to you in LA?

City in the middle of major fires, and the teams been back and forth with the city. imagine if if the bulls moved to LA and then we got them back a decade later (and throw in the browns for good measure too) think wed immediately be filling the stadium?

That celebration with the whole stadium throwing snow was fantastic

Go post this in the 100 page thread of people saying backup RB isn’t important and those unhappy with how it was handled were being dramatic

And some guys do fall out of day 2 with injury. Each injury, player and gm is different even a minor slide from 5 to 7 on a handful of qb boards can bounce you pretty far (or change nothing in other cases) Its a fair debate. two equal prospects and one makes business decisions and the other runs through brick walls every Saturday simply because he loves the game- which do you take? how far does the other one drop? A couple slots? Pull him completely? I think the guy that sits ends up losing all “tie breakers” but wouldn’t drop him behind clearly lesser players

Im not opposed to Tyrod the player being here. I also think hes cheaper than Bradford plus the dead money from moving on from him My concerns would obviously be scheme, and if the relationship is totally trash at this point (hate to see a rookie walk into a toxic room)

It seemed so obvious, and the resistance to the reality helped make this a tough board to read in the offseason. 1) Tyrod is not a bum but he is a limited player. A system qb if you will (normally used for heady but weak armed guys but just as easy to apply to a gifted athlete that has troubles with reads and decision making) 2) Dennison runs a system that plays to his weaknesses and avoids his strengths how anyone thought it was a great pairing beyond “well, I hope one of them surprises us” I am not sure. Both have a spot in the league, but they shouldn’t be together.

If you think you have a shot at a real qb, the answer to nearly any nfl question is take the qb and sort the rest out later. when you start talking fix the OL or take a flyer on a long shot qb that obviously changes

Im into playing smart but with nothing left to lose - I wouldn’t have been that upset today if one of our guys missed a game for it too

All I will add is that it’s amusing that many fans will find the shot as out of control but loading the guys like cattle to be shot up on painkillers galore to be completely normal

Right? You have to be really digging deep to create a narrative to wax about how respectful Bills mumble was

Wait, that was some sort of high respect?

Thats pretty bold to say he produces through AT LEAST 33, if not longer. And he needs far less than 4-5 years of that to be hall of fame. if he does that next year he’s roughly top 20 yards, 2 years is top 10

Define good?