Shaw66

Exactly. Ask Mark Andrews. 90sBills is correct; it wasn't an easy ball to catch. But pretty much any tight end in the league will tell you that it was a catchable ball, and that he should make the catch. The Bills have a 35-year history of not making the play to win the game. Start with wide right, and go forward from there. Make a play in the Music City Miracle. Make a play in the Cowboys Monday night game. Make a play in 13 seconds. Make a play against the Chiefs in the playoffs last year. Make a play against the Chiefs in the playoffs this year. Think about all the clutch catches you've seen in big games. That guy for the Steelers in the Super Bowl with the incredible two toes inside the line for the touchdown. Edelman picking the ball of the ground. That guy for the Giants pinning Manning's desperation throw against his helmet. You have to make plays to win big games. Josh made the play against an incredible rush and put a catchable ball out there, a pass that would have put the Bills in position to tie or win the game. Kincaid has to make the play if the Bills want to win.

It's a good point. There is no question that players need to make plays to win games, and Kincaid didn't make the play. However, if the Bills had been properly prepared for that blitz and had called the right protection, Allen would have had time in the pocket and would have thrown a ball that didn't require Kincaid to stop all of his momentum and come back for the ball. My reaction during the game was that the Chiefs were better prepared, and these comments seem to support that.

The thing that is really revealing to me in this excerpt is that the players are essentially saying that they got outcoached. Why? Because they keep saying "we didn't see that on film," and they went against their tendencies. Well, that's what scouting and coaching is all about. If you're self-scouting your own team, you know what your tendencies are and you design plays to go against your tendencies. You save those plays for when you really need them. And you prepare your players BOTH for the other team's tendencies and for what they might do to beat you by going against tendencies. What these players are saying is that the Chiefs were better prepared than the Bills were, and I believe that is true.

Well. I'd like to agree with you, but he didn't show me much during the season. There was a good discussion of him here a week ago or so. I said he needs to get stronger and show some real fight for the ball. Gunner and others said he needs some training in his footwork and other things getting into and out of his breaks. Whatever it is, he has to develop something that we didn't see this season.

Very good. Yes. I have this odd feeling of anxiousness but not worry. Whatever happens, will happen. I can't imagine losing, but I'm not counting on winning. For me, some of it is old age. And some of it is just how long I've live with this.

Thanks for this thread. It's interesting to think about that evolution.

Thanks for this, and I agree. I don't know the technical aspects that good coaches and trainers might teach to getting separation, and I'm sure there are things he can learn about it. So, I hear you. However, in my mind, he's never going to be a great separator, because he doesn't have the foot speed and he just doesn't look to me like a guy who can make the sharp cuts and the stop-go moves that are key to separating. Yes, he can improve, but he isn't naturally gifted in the way that Shakir is, so there are limits to what he can do. That makes me think a lot of his catches are going to be in close quarters. If he can't win in those situations, his future will be limited, because he's not likely to become elite at separating. To make contested catches, he needs to be stronger and to fight harder.

Of course, you're free to disagree, but your your disagreement is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules. You are correct that if this were basketball (and if we ignore all the earlier contact by White), what happened looked like a charge on Coleman. White occupied the position, and in basketball Coleman is not permitted to run through him. Charge. However, in football, who got there first has nothing to do with the play. The question is whether White interfered with Coleman's opportunity to make a play. It may be just a coincidence, but I like to think that is why they call it pass "interference." White got in position, stopped running, and interfered with Coleman's ability to run to the spot where he might catch the ball. (Is there any question that if White hadn't gotten to that position, Coleman would have a good chance to catch it? I don't think so.) It would not have been interference if White himself were making a play on the ball. Neither play is deemed to have interfered with the other if they're both trying to catch the ball. On this play, however, White wasn't trying to get in position to play the ball - it's obvious, because he stopped running to the place where the ball was coming down. It's even easier to understand by considering how offensive interference has been called for the past several years. One receiver cannot occupy a space, remain stationary, and get in the way of a defender trying stay with another receiver. That is a completely legal pick in basketball - it's a basic basketball play But it's a penalty in football because the offensive player is interfering - there's that word again - with the defender's opportunity to make a play. As for Coleman's acting job, if you want to call it that, I was glad to see it. Earlier in the season on a few similar plays, Coleman just stopped when the defender got in the way, and he didn't get the call. To get the call, it's necessary to show the officials that you're making a play on the ball, and at this crucial time in the game, Coleman did exactly what he was supposed to do. White interfered with Coleman, and Coleman made the play that left the official little choice but to throw the flag. . I've been meaning to say this for weeks now, and this is as good a place as any. A week after the season ends, Coleman has to get himself in the weight room to build upper body strength. He may be good at high pointing the ball, but he doesn't win fights for the ball in close contact. He would do well by watching a week's worth of Mike Evans video. He could be a version of Evans, but he needs to learn to win when the ball arrives.

Excellent. Right on the money. They want to beat opponents with the run or the pass - whatever the opponent gives them. They failed a bit against the Ravens - didn't get the passing game going as the running game got stuffed.

Me too. What I was saying was that if the ball had been spotted at the one after Cook's run on second down, then on third down they could have run the quarterback sneak and probably gotten the touchdown or at least have left themselves so close to the goal line that they would have a realistic chance on fourth down to go for it. I didn't have a problem with the spot after Josh's third down run.

I sort of agree. A lot of it is tough to make simple, but I think there are some things that could be done. First, as to what's a catch, I've actually stopped worrying about it, because I don't see too many plays where a real injustice has been done. We all know what a catch looks like and when a ball has been caught. It's easiest to think about a second baseman taking the relay from the shortstop, or even an outfielder dropping the ball after hitting the wall - we know what's a catch and what isn't. The problem is to describe that in words, because replay is going to be looking at it, and they need to know what the rules are that they should apply. In Ultimate, the rule is that the player caught the disc when it's in their possession and the disc has stopped rotating. That's pretty good, and maybe that plus two feet down would satisfy you and me. Actually, as we saw this year, I think maybe it should be two feet down or one foot down twice. Someone this season caught a ball and the end zone and for some reason hopped - he took two steps, but they were with the same foot. It was called incomplete. What about three hops? Four? At some point, it's completely clear that it's a catch, and two feet is just too restrictive. I think two things have to be done. First, they need more quick replay reviews. The face mask call that wasn't actually a face mask could have been overturned very quickly with quality reviewers in the press box. There are multiple mistakes a game, not anyone's fault, just mistakes, and they should be fixed within a minute. If it's at all unclear, it stays as called on the field, but when you can see, obviously, that the call was wrong, it should be fixed. Second, they need to do something about the ticky-tack stuff. Ineligible player downfield rule has to be made simpler, or has to be called only when it has an impact. Teams are getting flagged for that when it had nothing to do with the outcome of the game. Maybe the line has to be three yards instead of one yard. Something, but those calls are screwing up the game. The officials who call offside and illegal formation should be telling the players in advance of the play that they're lined up wrong. In basketball, the ref doesn't toss the ball for a jump ball until he's verified that all the other players are outside the circle. They don't see a guy on the line, toss the ball, then call a violation for being on the line. Third, they need to get electronics involved in first down measurements, and ball spotting. My impression was they spotted the ball wrong on Cook's second down run before Josh was stopped on third and goal from the two where a touchdown would have put the game away. Looked like it should have been at the one. If it had been at the one, the Bills probably run the sneak, and the game is over. It all happens so fast in that situation, and it's so hard for the head coach to see it from the sideline that the coach is not going to challenge. My two and three would get rid of a lot of the officials' responsibilities on stupid stuff and allow them to focus more on the true, tough judgment calls.

This the fundamental rule that differentiates good officials from bad ones. Good officials have the discipline to call only the fouls they actually see. It happens in basketball all the time, and it drives me crazy. Ref on the baseline looking at the back of a player posting up, guard comes down and swipes at the ball and the ref calls a fall. How can he possibly see through the big man to have seen the actual foul? Impossible. This weekend there was a phantom face mask call. Defender grabbed the far shoulder and pulled with force and at the right angle so the ball carrier whipped around, including his head. Flag. Granted, it all happens so fast it's hard to see, but the refs have to be as skilled as the players, and for them the skill is to call the face mask only when you actually see the hand on the face mask. On this play he couldn't have seen it, because the hand never touched the face mask. What's so galling about the Dawkins call is that the officials must have been instructed about this play after they called it on Dawkins incorrectly a couple of weeks ago. They should have been looking for it, and they still missed it.

This goes to the point that is obvious but many fans refuse to see. Players AND coaches improve year to year. Players stop improving after a while because although their mental skills continue to grow, their bodies begin to slow down. For coaches, if they're good at what they do, they keep getting better. This is particularly true for McDermott because he consciously has committed to continuous improvement. That's what the growth mindset is about. So, McDermott may have been too conservative in earlier years, but he is a continuous learner. He has learned that by preparing his team the right way, he can be rewarded by being aggressive. The people who want to boot McDermott don't understand that he's a better coach today than he was five years ago, and he'll be still better five years from now.

As for the Dawkins call, I saw it once on replay in the stadium, and it's the same bad call that's been made against Dawkins a couple of times in the past few weeks. As someone said, it's surprising that the refs haven't been educated about this move. And they called it on Torrence earlier this season, too. And it was a big play. Score tied 7-7. Second and 11 at the Baltimore 47. Allen completes and 8 yard pass to Samuel, to make it third and 3. Instead, the Bills lose 10 and it's second and 21. Bills punted two plays later. Bills quite probably would have gotten the first down, and they probably would have gotten 3 or 7 points.

This. Plus, Coleman did what he wasn't doing earlier in the season, which was to finish the play by going after the ball and running through White. At that point, White clearly was simply in the way of the receiver trying to make a play on the ball. Of course it's DPI. The defender is not permitted to get into the path that the receiver is running and stop the receiver from continuing his route. He just can't do that.

Not to get into a long debate about this, but I completely disagree. True story: After the Packers beat the Chiefs in Super Bowl 1, an NFL owner said to an AFL owner something like, "I told you our league was better. Your best couldn't beat the Packers." To which the AFL owner said, "Well, no one in your league can beat the Packers, either." There's no shame in not having beaten the Chiefs, because no one else is beating them, either. The Chiefs have a great, great coach and a top 5 all-time QB. The Chiefs have been dominating in some ways that are greater than what the Patriots did - not for so long, but actually more dominant over five or six years than the Pats were. If memory serves, there has been only one season when the Bills were the preseason favorite to win the Super Bowl, and that was the year of Tops, Kim, the blizzard and Damar. So, if they've been favored to win it only once, and if they've had the Chiefs to deal with every season, it's hard to claim that McDermott has been some kind of failure. McDermott is a great coach already on his way to the Hall of Fame. Every season he does a stellar job, this season maybe more than most. The fact that he hasn't won a Super Bowl yet hardly tarnishes his record at all. Andy Reid was a head coach for 20 seasons before he won a Super Bowl, at age 61. Belichick was 49 and coached for 7 seasons when he won. McDermott is 50 and has coached for 8 seasons. It is way, way too early to give up on McDermott.

I like Knox, but he is not a playmaker with the ball in hands.

Same horrible thought I had.

I know you're not attacking me. We're just talking. Suppose KC's best corner back had a concussion on Saturday, just like Benford on Sunday. You don't think that extra day couldn't be a big deal? I do. Every KC player who got dinged on Saturday has an extra day to recover. That's real. Again, my real point only is that the cumulative benefit of the number 1 seed is too much and should be adjusted.

Well, I'm not going to try to figure out the schedule. My point is that the current system creates multiple benefits to the team with the bye, and I think it's too much. By the time you get to one versus two, the only benefit should be home field.

Has anyone commented about the Bills and the NFC East? If the Bills beat the Chiefs, it will mean that for fifth time, the Bills will be playing an AFC East team in the Super Bowl.

That's all great. I appreciate it. I was just reporting on what I saw, because it looked odd. As for the bye schedule, they'd have to adjust the first week, too. It just shouldn't be the case that the #1 seed gets an extra day's rest against the #2.

I haven't watched the replay of the onside kick, but I don't think it happened on that play. It happened sometime earlier, around the Bills 40 yard-line, near the Ravens' bench. I don't recall the hit, but I saw him getting up after a play and he didn't look right at all. He seemed to be unsure himself, stood up, and made sure he had his balance before he started walking back to the huddle. Breaking the huddle, he was hesitant, as though he wasn't sure where he was supposed to go. I was surprised that when he got up some official didn't send him off the field, or someone watching it in the booth. I didn't go back to watching him after that. It's one of the benefits of the bye. The bye is a huge benefit. First, you get a week off. Then, you're likely to get one of the weakest teams in the bracket, the #4 seed or lower, while the #2 seed has to play #3. Then, you get an extra day's rest. There shouldn't be that much benefit to getting the bye. This past weekend, the AFC should have played two games on the same day, and the NFL played two on the other day.

And it's not even big chunk yardage. It's just enough so that the ball is moving downfield and often your getting the first down with one or two plays, not having to constantly convert third downs. The Ravens obviously knew the Bills would run a fair amount, and they were ready. And they knew the Bills like those short passes that really are extensions of the run. The Ravens were ready. And the Ravens were ready to tackle Shakir quickly after a catch. They get credit for all of that. The Bills just had to punish them for focusing on those portions of the Bills offense. And Allen threw poorly. Just off the top of my head, he missed Cooper badly on one play, and he had someone - Kincaid? - going deep and overthrew him. Allen threw one of his line drives instead of getting air under it. The bold part is most important. McDermott's teams are almost always well prepared, and they have reasons for what they did. Listening to him in his presser, he didn't sound like he thought the Bills got lucky. He said the Bills did a lot of what they thought they could do and the Ravens did a lot of what they thought the Ravens could do. Most telling was what he said about turnovers. He didn't want to put the Ravens down, but in so many words he said "my team is good at the fundamentals, and if your team isn't, well we just saw happens." I haven't wanted to jinx him, but Cook isn't fumbling any more. Josh isn't making dumb plays with the ball any more. Receivers don't fumble. Players don't take dumb penalties. The Bills won because they play football better than the Ravens, and they do it by doing the most important things right, over and over.

Well, I don't recall that there are "this team feels different" threads every year - I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday, but if there are, they aren't necessarily threads started by the same person. It may feel different to me one season and different to someone else the next season. And I'm not sure why we have to be careful about people expressing their feelings. I actually do think this team feels different. I think that several things happened this season to cause this team to be the first team that approaches the game completely within McDermott's vision. It's a true team, and it's realizing the benefits of team play, the synergies. 11 players doesn't give you 1+1 plus plus =11. In McDermott's vision, 1+1 plus =12 or 13. In order to play McDermott's way, every player has to give up a bit of himself and let himself become integrated into the team. It's happening this season, and that's why the team feels different. I thought the first half was remarkable. They did give up the opening drive, but then the Bills were about perfect. How would you like a perfect half to end? By having a lead already, running out the clock, scoring a touchdown, the opponent takes a knee, and they receive the second half kickoff. Perfect. And there were no stars in that performance - just a team making plays.