Buffalo03
-
Posts
5,618 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Buffalo03
-
-
12 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
What? No one is saying that.
You haven't been seeing the people on here talking about how they're thinking we can take the division because the Pats schedule gets tougher down the road? They aren't losing any more than 2 games. The division isn't happening for us
-
Can we stop with this pipe dream of taking the division now? Unless we go 15-1 or 14-2 it is not happening. We're getting 5th place at best
-
10 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:
I met him at a Bills game years ago...
Nobody recognized him but me...
I walked up and said Shoooterrr! I eat pieces of ***** like you for breakfast...
He smiled and said, "you eat pieces of ***** for breakfast"?
?
You should have said "Shooter, it's great to hear from you, wanna go to the Sizzler and catch some grub?" And when he says no thanks say "There's a Red Lobster near by. My treat" and then we he says no thanks again say "Shooter, I thought we were gonna be friends"
-
1
-
3
-
-
He was punished for not wanting to cheat
-
2 minutes ago, row_33 said:
of course, and they STILL biff it 100% quite often at Replay Central
in every sport
pro sports gave us replay so we could stop being bored (to be honest) and get our pee all hot over bad calls and even worse replay decisions.
It's needed to get the calls right, plain and simple. There were to many outcomes of games not going the way they should have before they brought replay back. I remember in '98 the year before they brought back replay when Vinny Testaverde was clearly tackled like a full yard short of the endzone against the Seahawks and the ball was never even close to the goal line and they called it a touchdown. Had replay existed there is no way in hell that was ruled a TD. The Seahawks had a shot at the playoffs before that game and that game pretty much sealed their fate because of a horrendous call that couldn't be reviewed. Of course all scoring plays are reviewed now but back then they weren't and I believe that was the turning point to bringing replay back. If it's really clearly a no brainers, they will get the call right majority of the time
-
11 minutes ago, row_33 said:
it is inconsistently applied and they often make a ruling that is not remotely close to any of the angles we are shown
so you are convinced that the NFL is now far more likely to get the call correct and games aren't affected by bad calls?
(getting ready to laugh...)
Can you not tell by a really good camera angle whether or not a player's knee is down when they fumble? Can you not tell from a really good camera angle that a ball clearly hits the ground when they say a player intercepted it? Sure, some camera angles might suck and you can't really tell but if it's blatant and they have a clear view (non pass interference because they aren't overturning those anyway) it does get overturned quite frequently. Not sure why you would start laughing. It makes no sense
-
We still need replay to get calls right. Granted some of them will be missed but we still need it. I'd hate to lose a game because of a fumble while the knee was down that couldn't be reviewed. We need replay. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people whine about replay extending games. I'll never be able to understand that. So, let's not take some time to get the call right on the field because you don't want to watch a game you've already spent 3 hours watching for an extra 15 minutes? It's just stupid. Replay is needed. They just need to be more accurate all around.
-
I love the reds. Only one game a year though
-
I actually think Vegas's prediction of 6.5 wins for this team was actually kind of ignorant. They didn't look at the bigger picture. They just basically looked at it like "oh, the Bills, 6 wins". I get it based on past experience but it was clear to see with the talent they brought on and the schedule that this was at least a 9 win team. They're gonna lose some money on that and I love it
-
2 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:
This has been college OT rules for a pretty good amount of time
After the 3rd OT you must go for 2 also
I just read an article that this is a new college rule just put in place for 2019.
-
5 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:
Yes I have.
Ties have been an acceptable result in football since it's inception and the current rules in the NFL has reduced them to an average of 1 a season.
I see no reason to change it.
agree
Just because it's been that way forever doesn't mean it shouldn't be eliminated. Ties suck honestly and while the NFL has made it more fair by giving each team at least one possession in OT. They have reduced the OT quarter from 15mins to 10 mins which has actually increased ties quite a bit the last few years. The 10 minute quarter is stupid in my opinion to. That last 5 mins would have no bearing that the other 70 minutes of play had on player safety
-
1 minute ago, ColoradoBills said:
I think the NFL format is the best. It's fair and if the game ends up in a tie so be it.
Have you watched the new college OT format? And, why would you be ok with ties? If it can be eliminated, I'd say do it
-
6 minutes ago, JR in Pittsburgh said:
Sounds like you haven’t watched a college football game since 1996– I think that’s when they adopted their OT format!! ?
No, there's a brand new format. I knew about the one they implemented in 1996. They just made a new OT format this year
-
28 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
Don't they have to go for a TD too at a certain point?
This was just clarified for me. Yes, they do. If both teams are tied after 2 OTs then it goes to a 3rd where each team gets just one play from opponents 2 yard line like a two point conversion. If one team scores on their play then then other team gets one play. If they don't score, the other team wins. I love this idea
-
1 minute ago, Augie said:
Would you not give each team a chance for a possession? That puts a lot of weight on a coin toss. I know, you can say “play defense and stop them”, but it still doesn’t feel right. Again, I don’t have a solution, only concerns.
I agree with you here. I like the way the NFL does it now where one team each gets a possession but the way this new college rule does it seems like it's more entertaining and better because it eliminates ties completely
-
2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:
The change this year is, apparently, that after the second overtime period, all succeeding overtimes are only one play for each team, a two-point conversion. So it's like a shootout. No more starting at the 25 after the second overtime. That's a good idea.
Oh ok. This game only made it to a 2nd OT so I wasn't able to see how it works past that but I really loved watching it. It was really interesting
-
I'm not sure. This game went into a 2nd OT and each team got a possession and both missed field goals in the first OT and then South Carolina made a field goal in the 2nd OT and the Georgia kicker missed his field goal in the 2nd OT so South Carolina ended up winning the game
-
So, I just watched the South Carolina vs Georgia game and I was not aware that college changed their OT rules. It's been set up almost like the NHL does their shootouts in hockey. The game goes into OT and each team gets one possession at the opponents 25 yard line and has four downs to either get a first down and drive the whole 25 yards for a TD or kick a field goal to try to take the lead. The other team then gets their chance to do the same. If both teams don't score after each of their possessions then it goes into a 2nd OT and the same rules apply. There is a game clock but not a time clock. Each team just gets one possession in each OT until one team finally scores and the doesn't. It's very interesting. I really enjoyed watching it. Would anyone be interested in the NFL implementing the same thing? I hate ties so I personally would love it.
-
This is just coach speak to me. If the right offer comes along, they will trade him. What's he supposed to say? "You're all right, we're gonna start fielding offers for our all pro WR right now. Everyone, have at it". No, almost all coaches say the same thing. Some players get traded and some don't but I believe it will come down to what other teams are offering
-
I will admit, I was born a Bon Jovi fan. I was born in 1986 and my Uncle who's also a Bills and big Bon Jovi fan got me on them at the age of 2. I would rock out with him to "Bad Medicine" and then came the Keep the Faith days and then These Days days and I listened to them straight through until 2005 when they made Have a Nice Day and that was it. Their music became trash to me after that.
So, I had already gotten to the point of I didn't care about them anymore when rumors spread about him Jon Bon Jovi buying the Bills and moving them to Toronto. It felt kind of odd knowing that I grew up loving this band so much and now the singer of the band was going to move my favorite football team away. I wasn't having that. I took the Bills over Bon Jovi anyday. I grew a hatred for him for a while and wanted nothing to do with him or the band for at least a solid year afterward. Then one day driving home from work I couldn't help it, "I'll Be There For You" came on the radio and I told myself I couldn't do it. It couldn't be done but I gave in. I poured my heart and soul singing that song in my car driving home from work and those fuzzy Bon Jovi memories of childhood came back. All is forgiven. So now, I do listen to them but only the good stuff. The all the way up to 2005 Bon Jovi stuff. Not the John Shanks produced garbage they have made ever since then. One thing Is for sure. That band was so freaking good back in the day, I don't care what anyone says. If anyone tells you Bon Jovi sucks you can say that now they do but not back then. They had some of the best songs ever made and if anyone says otherwise, they're a darn fool.
That's it. Carry on. Go Bills
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, MJS said:
Because they didn't win their division. They got in with a wild card.
Not a valid reason but ok.
-
2 hours ago, r00tabaga said:
It's been like that for 100 years and you wanna change it now cuz NE is in our division? Ok......
I don't wanna change it because NE is in our division that's so far from the truth and I didn't think it became that way until they did the realignment and it makes no sense
-
8 minutes ago, row_33 said:
the rules are set up before the season starts and the division winner is the division winner
(like the Electoral College determines the President, not the Popular Vote...)
happens in all sports..... it does seem unfair after the fact sometimes.
I get that's how it works but that doesn't mean it's right
-
3 hours ago, MJS said:
I agree with it. If you get in with a wild card you should have no special treatment. Want a home game? Win your division.
Keeps teams playing hard at the end of the season even once they have clinched a playoff spot.
That's easier said than done though. If a team goes 12-4 but is in a division with a team that goes 14-2, why should that team get to lose out on a home playoff game to an 8-8 team that shouldn't be there and got lucky enough to win a really crappy division? They should make it to where if you win your division, you get a wild card but the home game is decided by record
3 hours ago, r00tabaga said:You win your division you SHOULD be hosting a playoff game.
A 7-9 division winner shouldn't be in the playoffs much less hosting a playoff game. I will never understand this sort of view point
R Talbot (via ESPN) - bills on the hunt for a WR
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
How about Keenan Allen instead?