Big Turk

Always a downside of wasting a challenge because you never know when you might need them. I've seen back to back plays get challenged. You don't challenge plays when they are obviously not going to be overturned. As a fan watching it was obvious both were correct calls. McD has an ex NFL official and long time referree telling him whether to challenge or not. Pretty sure he has a much better handle on this than any posters. Nah. The ball is moving out of bounds. That's not a catch. Have seen this reversed numerous times when ruled a catch on plays where the movement was far less obvious than that. The only way that play would have stood is if he regained control in bounds,got two feet down and then fell to the ground

Only ones open to interpretation maybe. There is no interpretation involved when a player is clearly out of bounds.

C'mon man, this is not Madden. The Kincaid play would have been overturned if it was ruled a catch on the field and Houston challenged. It wasn't "close", the ball was clearly moving as he went out of bounds and that is not going to be ruled as a catch.

You aren't agreeing with McD, you were actually agreeing with John Parry, a long time ex NFL official including 11 years as a ref that included 2 super bowls. He is in charge of telling McD when to challenge and when not to.

On the Cook play? That was so obvious I cannot believe anyone would even bring up that we should have challenged it. Like a 5th grader could have told you he didn't make the catch in bounds.

The odds weren't small, they were zero. In fact, If the officials ruled Kincaid's play a catch and Houston threw a challenge flag, it likely would have gotten overturned in their favor. Obvious the ball moved and there was no way that was going to be called a catch.

His "people" being John Parry, an NFL official for 18 years, including a referee for 11 years. He was the referee in 2 SuperBowls as well. Pretty sure he is far more qualified than anyone on this board as to what should be challenged.

Well he had to be cleared by both an independent neurologist and team doctors and the fact it was done so quickly makes it pretty clear he wants concussed. Didn't seem concussed post game in the interview either.

You realize we employ an ex NFL referee with many years of experience as the person who identifies what and what not to challenge? Pretty sure he has a good grasp on what to challenge and what not to. Both those were obvious "no's" in terms of challenging.

I mean theoretically if you are blitzing aren't you leaving the middle open? From what I have seen they are mostly simulating pressures and dropping people out while overloading one side like the Baltimore game which means you still don't have the right numbers to block them properly or simply winning with 4 and dropping 7 with one player spying Allen. That's how they are taking the middle away mostly and funneling things outside.

I think the goal is to maintain the ability to be competitive all the time but within that you will have pockets of time when you really go for it...this is not one of those years, IMO, and would just set them back for future years when they will have improved chances.

C'mon now...this is recency bias. The man was at a 75% completion percentage and had 9 TDs thru 3 games with 0 INTs and was going ham in both the Arizona and Jacksonville game.

Perhaps they know internally they are far more than 1 WR away from being a SB contender this year? And if that's the case, then I don't really see what the point is of winning the division again and making the playoffs when you know you have no shot...get a higher draft pick and reload with higher end talent.

Typically what we have is an Allen leading us to a late score to take the lead and the D/ST giving it up problem. That's at least 5 of those games.

Got to the point Allen was bailing in anticipation of getting pressure or releasing the ball early even when it didn't materialize. They got to do something to shore that up. No real excuse to be that bad in pass pro, especially since they are normally pretty good.

Allen almost always does too and is let down by his D and special teams. How many times have they lost in instances where we needed a TD late in the 4th quarter to win the game and then the D to shut the door and we get the TD from Allen but then the D not slamming the door? I can think of 5 right off the top of my head at least and I am sure there are more. IMO, Mahomes should be thanking Chris Jones for a lot of those victories.

I can agree with that...looked like he had some easy completions short on the first throw to Hollins... Allen was seeing ghosts yesterday towards the end...he was under pressure so frequently, he was expecting it even he it didn't materialize.

Where are the screens to slow down the pressure? That's how you force them to stop...invite the blitz then throw a screen right behind it for huge gains

have you watched Mahomes over the last year and a half? He is downright bad in many games.

Bills O has looked bad on the road the last 2 years against them.

Offensively played about as bad as you'll ever see and still almost won the game against a team that is supposed to be a top-tier team but honestly doesn't really look like one. The offense needs to come up with a better plan. Not sure what it is, but whatever they have done the past 2 weeks clearly isn't working. It might be even worse next week. The Jets defense is no joke and full of studs.

But he is also the reason they are in a $70 million handicap with the contracts he doled out.

If Beane isn't willing to surround Allen with top tier talent then he needs to be fired. This is ridiculous. We watch the Bills not be able to do anything against Baltimore and then watch Cincinnati and Burrow carve them up like a Thanksgiving turkey thru the air with Chase going off on them twice for long TDs.

I agree, but there was no "right" answer that was going to get them out of that situation and end result short of getting a first down. IMO, maybe the thing that would have helped most is josh running out of the pocket and launching the ball as far and as high as he could throw it downfield which would mean that the clock doesn't stop til the ball hits the ground. The Hollins throw took about 8-10 seconds off the clock...they might have been able to get down to around 5 seconds left before punting if they did that

Why are you assuming they would have gained yards? They just as easily could have been stuffed or lost yards. The run game was NOT effective most of the 2nd half and that wasn't even when the Texans assumed it was coming like they would have down there. Also, if they didn't get a first down, they are handing the Texans an additional 10-15 seconds of clock time since running plays are only 2-3 seconds most of the time. The Bills weren't fighting the timeouts, they were fighting the clock. They needed to get a first down. Doesn't matter what they did, unless they got a first down the outcomes would have been the same.