Brand J

So your take on why the riots started is simply because “black men shot and killed 10 white men.” That’s laughable. I don’t know you personally, but your bias is obviously skewed. Let’s forget that those white men (as usual during those times) were the aggressors towards the blacks. The crux of the matter is that whites weren’t happy with black prosperity during that time and were looking for a reason to take down that little section of Tulsa. When the Black boy was accused - with little to no evidence - of raping a white girl in an elevator I believe it was, the white mob got what they were looking for - a reason to annihilate that town. That’s why some here are calling you racist because you’re spewing bias as facts.

Where’d you get your information from? After reading your take on the Tulsa race riots you lost all credibility. How did it really begin? Here you go: Quite a different depiction of how the riots started, no?

It’s not about hurting anyone’s feelings. If that demographic took those illegal guns, then infiltrated white communities and started killing those people at a rate they kill their own color, I do think there would be an immediate response. Three inner cities with strict gun laws Chicago, DC, and Baltimore, are bordered by states with lax gun laws - Indiana and Virginia. It’s not tough for these kids to get their hands on a weapon. If you say, “the government hasn’t done anything about mass shooters, what makes you believe they’d do something in that situation?” Compare the numbers. As of 2016, roughly 75 people die each year from mass shootings. The government has made it clear through that the 2nd amendment is more important than that amount of lives lost. It’s a cost they’re willing to pay. But if those inner-city kids started shooting up white communities? I’m pretty certain they wouldn’t accept those thousands of lives lost every year. They’d have to do something about firearms, 2nd Amendment be damned.

Firstly, I applaud you for being open and willing to listen. Whenever race is brought up on these boards it’s often met with roll eye emojis from individuals who don’t care or are unwilling to hear the other side. The pervasive attitude is, “slavery was almost 150 years ago, that has nothing to do with the people of today.” Which of course is incredibly short-sighted. I also sympathize with how you’re viewed by those of another color, when you’ve had absolutely nothing to do with the horrors of the past. After all, your great grandparents may have immigrated much later, or maybe were from the north and had zero connection to it, but alas, skin color is what we first use to judge. When I read the bolded, I saw a poster who wasn’t too informed with the efforts these communities put forth to curb the violence. Chicago for example, arguably the worst of the offending cities, has a number of outreach programs in place to educate youths and lessen gun violence - you can google for proof - but how well are those initiatives working? The complaints I see from program organizers is that other skin colors don’t concern themselves with what’s happening in the hood, which makes their job more difficult. A ridiculous amount of youths are killed every year, but that doesn’t make national news. Mass shooters on the other hand… I told a story about my experience as a black man - getting racially profiled in Staten Island many times - and got a bunch of roll eyes on my post. As if I was embellishing my experience or lying about it. I’m not a defender of black criminals in any way, I think they’re idiots who need to be locked up, but I can also recognize they’re a product of their environment. Environments that communities ARE trying to change, but to little or no avail. I liken these programs to learning Spanish in a classroom setting, but then going home and speaking English, never getting to practice with those around them. That’s probably a crude way to describe the efforts, but I think it has some merit. Everyone needs to be all in to make real change happen, total immersion, but I feel like that’s an unrealistic ask so the cycle continues.

“Sins of past is not an excuse to endlessly continue this cycle.” Sins of the past is exactly why so many Black people are stuck in this cycle. The second bolded point touches on this. You’re talking about centuries of oppression, where a certain race wasn’t even allowed to read and write. The vast majority were free laborers and didn’t own anything. They didn’t have money. When they were granted 40 acres of property (and later a mule), President Andrew Johnson rescinded Field Order 15 and gave that land back to the slave owners. Reparations of any kind were never given, it was determined that Black folks should simply be happy being free. https://www.history.com/news/40-acres-mule-promise Stopping violent crimes in an inner city starts with parents, true, but when those parents are a product of the same faulty upbringing, how can the cycle be broken? Having access to better education would be my first vote, which would then open a gateway for purpose in many of those youths. But you can’t get that in an impoverished ghetto, so the cycle continues. The only way out of it is an unrealistic option, which would be to take every kid born into that situation - starting now - and immediately transport them to an environment more conducive to success. One with better parents, schools, and an absence of gun culture.

I’m in favor of dismembering something at the start of their time, making life more uncomfortable for ”lifers” in some way. They used to take a hand if you got caught stealing, take something from these idiots and force them to live that way. The worst I can think of is eyes or hearing. Death is an easy way out, I think living uncomfortable is worse.

If I had a direct line to Wilks, I would’ve told him to tell his players to watch out for the Mahomes keeper on the crucial 4th down in OT. Since it had gained so much yardage earlier in the game, I had a sneaky suspicion they’d go back to it. Turns out I would’ve got that one right and 9ers would’ve won the Lombardi.

Selfishly, I wish he didn’t love golf almost as much as he loves football. Time spent practicing that sport would be spent elsewhere and some of that “elsewhere” would trickle down to his number one sport in some way or another.

I think Van Demark has looked very promising every time he’s been on the field and for a cap strapped team he’ll soon be starting at one of the spots, but he’s a better LT than RT.

Mahomes was puffing his chest out saying (paraphrasing) “they changed the OT rules because of us, now we used that change to win again. What are they going to change next?” Guess he has the right to be cocky.

And like all QBs Josh has missed some wide open players. It isn’t “everybody else but Allen” like I’ve seen on this board.

Man, rewatching that last two minutes, there were plenty of opportunities to send the Chiefs home and prevent their back to back titles. Game of inches, whether it’s a foot that gets stepped on, a missed read, a throw just off the mark, we had our chances like always.

It’s the same motion Brady called that got Khalil Shakir a crucial first down - on 4th down - against the Chiefs.

Well yes, that was my second point. If that same scenario comes up again I’m pretty sure the approach will be different because now McD has lived it and dwelled on it. He doesn’t think quick enough on his feet to realize what’s best in situational moments. After the 2:00 min warning it was 4 down territory and they should’ve been bleeding clock. The moment he decided on a FG with 1:54 remaining the game was lost, no matter if Bass hit it or not. If you asked him again today if he'd do anything different that drive, regardless if Bass made or missed the FG, I’m sure he’d have another strategy in mind.

Should’ve been a Bill!

If Josh had flamed out at Wyoming, like most QBs who took his path, no doubt he’d be a farmer today.

Similarly I knew our game was lost when I saw Bass jogging out on the field. Not because I thought he’d miss the kick, but because I knew we had no chance stopping Mahomes with 1:54 left. If McD had that drive to do over again, maybe he goes for it on 4th, bleeds the clock, and plays for a TD or bust.

Need to take a flyer from the 5th+ on a Purdy-like prospect. Someone who had success at the collegiate level, but isn’t highly thought of for whatever reasons. Last took that chance on Fromm. Maybe Spencer Rattler in the 6th?

@BeavercreekBillsFan didn’t think the 9ers would lose one game all year. I tried to tell him! The Bills only scored 7 points the entire second half versus the Chiefs. Yes, there were drops and a missed FG that factored into that, but they also lined up to punt more times than the Chiefs, so Spags did his job. Hopefully Joe Brady will spend the offseason studying tendencies of certain DCs.

No other team has benefited from such fortuitous circumstances like the Chiefs. Remember last year when they were getting dominated by Philly and then Hurts fumbles for 6? Or when the refs called a ticky tack hold on the Eagles defender to seal the game for KC? Or the game before that where the Bengal defender shoved Mahomes late out of bounds to put them in FG range? I can’t really explain how the bounces always seem to go their way. The one time it didn’t - last night where the 49ers were gifted a fresh set of downs after a defensive hold - they still come through with the TD to steal it in the end. They’ve got a knack for winning even when they should lose. Gotta give it to them.

The fact that it is a debate in strategy proves they got the OT rules correct. Neither team is at a significant disadvantage like before.

If I was the first team to possess and scored a TD, no way am I going for 2! If I was the 2nd team that needed a TD, strong chance I’d go for 2 to end it and not send it to a 3rd series.

Again, there’s far more variables in a football game that will have it end in another scenario, so having knowledge of what you need on the first two (guaranteed) drives trumps a hypothetical sudden death third drive.

And generally, there’s a lot more factors at play that says the teams wouldn’t get there. A lot more outlets for the game to go another way if you will. Kicking off has more advantages per the first two (guaranteed) possessions.

That’s why I’d kick off. If your defense gets a stop, ANY stop that first possession, all you need is a FG to win. If they can’t get a stop, you get 4 downs to match. The ONLY advantage the receiving team has is the third possession, assuming both teams scored equally on their touches.