Tyrod Taylor on goal line pass in Jacksonville

[wppete]

Please stop posting these article we can’t read! 

[JaCrispy]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

KB got the offensive interference call.   If he hadn't committed the penalty, the Bills would still have been on the one yard line. 

 

 

No one is debating this...my point is that it was a poorly thrown ball by Tyrod...should not have led him as much and should have been more of a back shoulder fade imo...that’s the whole point of having a 6’5” 240 pound receiver that can box out...but I do blame Dennison for thinking Tyrod had the football IQ to understand that, much less execute it.

Edited February 3, 2018 by JaCrispy

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

KB got the offensive interference call.   If he hadn't committed the penalty, the Bills would still have been on the one yard line.

 

With at least 2 more chances to punch it in

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

With at least 2 more chances to punch it in

And, of course, run it, which is the right call.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

No one is debating this...my point is that it was a poorly thrown ball by Tyrod...should not have led him as much and should have been more of a back shoulder fade imo...that’s the whole point of having a 6’5” 240 pound receiver that can box out...but I do blame Dennison for thinking Tyrod had the football IQ to understand that, much less execute it.

 

You seem to keep moving the target.  First it's Tyrod's fault for sailing the ball over KB's head.  Then folks point out KB's bread-and-butter his entire career has been catching poorly thrown Cam Newton jump balls over his head.  So it shifts to discussing whether Tyrod led him too much or should have thrown a different pass.

 

Since we don't know exactly what the route was and whether Benjamin and Tyrod were on the same page (and if not which one was off) I'll hold off on the blame.

 

I think the points remain:

1) if you want a run there, call a run, don't call an RPO

2) the QB's job is not to make a judgement call, it's to read the D - they do A, you pass they do B, you run.  Likewise if pass, make the throw the play calls for

3) whatever your opinion of the specifics of the throw, the real problem was the push-off and OPI which took them out of position for 2-3 more shots from the 1 yd line

[Kelly the Dog]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

 

I think the points remain:

1) if you want a run there, call a run, don't call an RPO

2) the QB's job is not to make a judgement call, it's to read the D - they do A, you pass they do B, you run.  Likewise if pass, make the throw the play calls for

3) whatever your opinion of the specifics of the throw, the real problem was the push-off and OPI which took them out of position for 2-3 more shots from the 1 yd line

1) Yessest.

2) Yesser. 

3) Yes. 

[dave mcbride]

Thanks to the OP for posting. I hadn't checked the main site today and I had missed this excellent piece. People who get into high, self-righteous dudgeon over paying a nominal charge for something that is practically free (which is what $2.99 per month IS) need to get a grip.

[Rubes]

2 hours ago, wppete said:

Please stop posting these article we can’t read! 

 

Of course you can read them. If you don't want to pay a ridiculously low charge for someone's work, then just go to another thread.

 

Just because an article is behind a paywall doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't discuss it here. That's what the board is for. People didn't get nearly this uptight about ESPN Insider article discussions, they just ignored them or moved on.

 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

13 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Thanks to the OP for posting. I hadn't checked the main site today and I had missed this excellent piece. People who get into high, self-righteous dudgeon over paying a nominal charge for something that is practically free (which is what $2.99 per month IS) need to get a grip.

 

yeah, they should be more like you and pay for the "excellent piece" instead of making the choice not to while sharing criticism as to why they choose not to pay a practically free fee of $2.99 a month. did you ever think that it has nothing to do with being self righteous and everything to do with choice?

 

you seem like the self righteous one here.

Edited February 3, 2018 by DaBillsFanSince1973

[Wayne Arnold]

17 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Thanks to the OP for posting. I hadn't checked the main site today and I had missed this excellent piece. People who get into high, self-righteous dudgeon over paying a nominal charge for something that is practically free (which is what $2.99 per month IS) need to get a grip.

 

You know what's more free than $2.99 per month? $0.00 per month.

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

yeah, they should be more like you and pay for the "excellent piece" instead of making the choice not to while sharing criticism as to why they choose not to pay a practically free fee of $2.99 a month. did you ever think that it has nothing to do with being self righteous and everything to do with choice?

 

you seem like the self righteous one here.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying information wants to be free and that the creators of said information should do it gratis? Why is it OK to criticize a media outlet for this sort of thing given that it has to pay its employees every week? Bear in mind that we're talking peanuts here. In other words, what's the logic behind the criticism? No one is forcing you to pay for it. 

[Kelly the Dog]

2 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

You know what's more free than $2.99 per month? $0.00 per month.

Freebies die in darkness. 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

20 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I don't understand your point. Are you saying information wants to be free and that the creators of said information should do it gratis? Why is it OK to criticize a media outlet for this sort of thing given that it has to pay its employees every week? Bear in mind that we're talking peanuts here. In other words, what's the logic behind the criticism? No one is forcing you to pay for it. 

 

I never complained about said fee personally yet think of the bn as a not so great source,  so I wouldn't subscribe to begin with.

 

if you want to pay, read and praise bn that's your prerogative. meanwhile why the need to call some out as angry or resentful saying they need to get a grip was my initial complaint about your post but maybe you felt the need to do so.  

 

no one should be expecting anything to be free and I agree that they have to pay employees some chump change for their work, no problem there. I just think if you're going to share anything from a pay source, make it clear in the thread title "bn article, must subscribe and pay a fee to read" and that may save from the backlash in the future?

 

 

 

 

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

I never complained about said fee personally yet think of the bn as a not so great source,  so I wouldn't subscribe to begin with.

 

if you want to pay, read and praise bn that's your prerogative. meanwhile why the need to call some out as angry or resentful saying they need to get a grip was my initial complaint about your post but maybe you felt the need to do so.  

 

no one should be expecting anything to be free and I agree that they have to pay employees some chump change for their work, no problem there. I just think if you're going to share anything from a pay source, make it clear in the thread title "bn article, must subscribe and pay a fee to read" and that may save from the backlash in the future?

 

 

 

 

I get your point -- sort of. The thing is, there are nearly zero posters here who aren't aware of the News's policy already. And it IS a good piece. Pretty revealing actually. Nice interview by Vic C.

 

Also, the thing that bugs me isn't so much what you're saying but the out-and-out venom directed at the paper because they now require what amounts to chump change. Their coverage really has gotten better since they instituted it too, fwiw.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

I get your point -- sort of. The thing is, there are nearly zero posters here who aren't aware of the News's policy already. And it IS a good piece. Pretty revealing actually. Nice interview by Vic C.

 

Also, the thing that bugs me isn't so much what you're saying but the out-and-out venom directed at the paper because they now require what amounts to chump change. Their coverage really has gotten better since they instituted it too, fwiw.

 

 

you can speak of others on that but long before the subscription fee ever came to be I had nothing to do with the bn. just a matter of freedom of choice and I chose not to read certain sources out there, bn being one of them.

 

as for them getting better, that may be from a personal stand point and I wont doubt your judgement on that. who knows down the road they may gain my interest as it had nothing to do with the little chump change they ask for and everything to do with poor reporting, imo.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Nobody would expect OPI. You'd think the worst result would probably be 2nd down at the same LOS.

 

Yes, agreed.  Well, the worst result would be a turnover, I suppose.  But the expected outcome was "take a shot, and if it doesn't work take 2 more shots"

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

I get your point -- sort of. The thing is, there are nearly zero posters here who aren't aware of the News's policy already. And it IS a good piece. Pretty revealing actually. Nice interview by Vic C.

 

Also, the thing that bugs me isn't so much what you're saying but the out-and-out venom directed at the paper because they now require what amounts to chump change. Their coverage really has gotten better since they instituted it too, fwiw.

The part is disliked the most about the OP is that I assumed, poorly, that because he works for the BN that this post would be available to everyone as a teaser for some of the content we can expect during the offseason since that was the basis of some of the questions he originally fielded. A way to lure in new folks to pay the fee. And I believe if that was what he did it would've been a great move, but it wasn't what he did. What actually happened had the distinct taste of clickbait with an aftertaste of paywall. I respect his previous contributions and willingness to respond to criticisms, but I wasn't a fan of this move whatsoever.

[Juice_32]

16 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:

So frustrating to click on what sounds like a great article, only to get redirected to the paywall.  I get why newspapers are doing this, I just think it’s a faulty model that will likely drive away viewers that would normally click on the link

 

It is definitely a faulty model, just a slower death.

[JaCrispy]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You seem to keep moving the target.  First it's Tyrod's fault for sailing the ball over KB's head.  Then folks point out KB's bread-and-butter his entire career has been catching poorly thrown Cam Newton jump balls over his head.  So it shifts to discussing whether Tyrod led him too much or should have thrown a different pass.

 

Since we don't know exactly what the route was and whether Benjamin and Tyrod were on the same page (and if not which one was off) I'll hold off on the blame.

 

I think the points remain:

1) if you want a run there, call a run, don't call an RPO

2) the QB's job is not to make a judgement call, it's to read the D - they do A, you pass they do B, you run.  Likewise if pass, make the throw the play calls for

3) whatever your opinion of the specifics of the throw, the real problem was the push-off and OPI which took them out of position for 2-3 more shots from the 1 yd line

No target moving here...simply a poorly thrown ball by the QB and a bad idea by the OC...the KB PI, while negative for the team on future plays, is a moot point to me because I am only referring to the call and execution of that play only.

Edited February 3, 2018 by JaCrispy

[jlgarsh]

I just think in that situation, you run on 1st and 2nd down to chew up more clock, then play action on 3rd down.  If they had done that, most likely they go into half time up 3-0 in worst case scenario.