Kelly the Dog

Looks like the ingrate may have been 15 minutes late to a practice he wasn't supposed to participate in. There is no coming back from that.

Until they played the Bills they were playing great football. If they started that stretch before they played the Bills it would be different. So you're saying that the Bills shouldnt get credit for beating three or four different teams that were playing good to great football because sometime between their last strong win and the opening kickoff against the Bills they became bad?!

Got it. You're right. Thanks. i didn't know about the week one thing.

But once you put him on IR you can bring him back. They changed that rule last year or two years ago that you can bring anyone back from IR and don't have to designate him. I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to figure it out for my own understanding of the rules. They said they did it because of the numbers game (meaning they had three others). But if they have injuries to one or two and have given up on one or two they could change their mind.

There are only three teams in the league that have done that. So no team out of 32 gets any credit for any win that was not against the Patriots, Eagles or Saints?

I don't think it's happening either. But it's still possible six weeks after they put them on IR, which is in a few weeks.

How so? We get no credit for beating teams that were totally hot at the time because later they werent, we get no credit for beating teams that were once hot because they weren't hot when we played them, and we get no credit for beating teams that were hot at the time AND are good now and good overall. How does that make sense?

Yeah they said that at the time, and it may be true, but they also didn't predict this was going to happen to their team. I think each team now can bring back two players after being on IR for six weeks (or something like that). So it's not inconceivable that they let him play a game or two at the end of the season if he is healthy enough and they are out of it and have some injuries like now. Who knows if that is even a chance.

Well, to be fair, we don't get credit for beating the previously undefeated Broncos because they have sucked since then even though they were playing quite well until we played them. We don't get any credit for beating the previously undefeated Falcons, because they went into a tailspin for a few games after we beat the, although they are 7-4. We don't get any credit for beating the Raiders even though they were flying high when they came in because they floundered after we beat them. And we don't get any credit for beating the Chiefs even though they are winning the division because they weren't playing good when we beat them. Sure, it makes no sense, but it's true.

That could never have happened though. No defensive minded coach like Rex would let another guy run a completely different scheme than he runs.

They already IR'd him and it's not been enough weeks to bring him back. So no.

I know this is a Tre thread but reading it reminded me of something. I love Poyer but couldn't believe he tried to dive and intercept that fourth down pass that would have cost us about 25 important yards. Just knock it down. (I think it was Poyer, could have been Hyde).

More like an 80s TV show.

You are correct. Only guaranteed against injury. We can release him if we wish. Doubt it happens but possible.

Wow. That complete lack of homerism was refreshing.

Different scenario though. The Rams had a lot of good players on their roster, especially defense. He did bring in three new WR and a top level LT to the offense, which, along with his own real talent, transformed the team overnight. You're right in one respect though: If we hired him instead of McD we may have been able to transform the team quicker and had Wade as DC and McVay running the O.

I think he did, and I think he has one. McDermott apparently just said he thought he heard torn ligament when asked earlier and said report was inaccurate. Probably out this week.

Excluding numbers, simple addition and subtraction, jmc has a terrific math game.

How does "really hard to play clean football" translate to "You have to rely on your qb to throw the team to victory?" That's quite a stretch. Did you use an English-Non-Sequitor, Non-Sequitor-English Dictionary?

So you prefer to keep bad coaches? The answer is to hire good ones not keep bad ones.

No, because they are playing not to lose and not playing to their own players strengths like the previous coaches did. They are hurting their own team. You said yourself you hated that philosophy and then complimented these coaches for doing the exact opposite.

It was incredible that the Chiefs didn't try to exploit our coverage deficiencies. They all but ignored Hunt and Kelce in the passing game, who were the two guys most likely to kill us. They just looked completely rattled and not sure of what they wanted to do, which is what we looked like a lot lately.

Except these coaches are reeling him in even more than the previous coaches did. They aren't aggressive on offense one bit. They are much more conservative and 1950s so you're not making any sense.

It's not debatable. I remain surprised that so many people don't understand or want to see this, even if you hate TT as a QB or think he is a terrible passer who cannot lead us. It's so ridiculous.

Unless you watched how defenses actually defended us. A large part of the reason that the OL was able to be so powerful in the power running game and huge holes were often open on the edges was that they were not 100% concerned with stopping McCoy or Gillislee when they crowded the line. They were there but not really charging and much easier blocked. It was like 65 on the run game and 35 on Tyrod beating them himself. A lot more contain than stop. They took most of that away from him this year.