Why don’t the Bills DB’s “chuck” receivers?

[NewEra]

3 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yup. You're nice enough to do his googling for him and then you see the weird interpretations that follow.

Series of events after he asked me to find the link:

 

- Typed out - Google is your friend.

- Thought to myself, it’s probably not his friend.

 

- Thought about the great response I’d be missing out on if I didn’t find the video for him.

 

- I didn’t want to miss out. 
 

- He didn’t disappoint. 
 

- Now it’s time to sit back, relax and watch the show.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

So you’re ignoring what Levi actually said in favor of what you think he meant?

 

 

He said he ran it the way the coaches drew up, but if he had looked at Poyer he would have altered.

 

 

I did google. I googled “levi wallace admits he played assignment incorrectly”. What DID come up is Levi Wallace saying be played it the way the coaches wanted him to.

 

 

 

That’s a good idea. Especially if you’re going to ignore Levi Wallace saying he did what the coaches told him to do.

 

“Let me ignore what Levi Wallace actually said in favor of an obscure video from 8 months ago where he talks about not looking at Poyer”

.

[Einstein]

10 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Series of events after he asked me to find the link:

 

- Typed out - Google is your friend.

- Thought to myself, it’s probably not his friend.

 

- Thought about the great response I’d be missing out on if I didn’t find the video for him.

 

- I didn’t want to miss out. 
 

- He didn’t disappoint. 
 

- Now it’s time to sit back, relax and watch the show.

 

Series of events:

 

- NewEra assumes everyone has seen some obscure podcast video.

 

- Then realizes that googling “Levi Wallace admits he played assignment incorrectly” isn’t enough to find a video where Levi Wallace allegedly admits to playing the assignment incorrectly.

 

- NewEra find the video but it turns out Levi doesnt really take blame.

 

- Einstein found an article with Levi specifically stating that he ran the play the way it was called.

 

- The article says he doesn’t want to throw McD under the bus, but…

 

- Said he only wishes he looked at Poyer so he could have altered the play

 

- New Era then freaks out realizing that he had it wrong 

 

- Does what every wrong person on the internet does and posts a gif 

 

Sigh.

 

.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Einstein

[Thrivefourfive]

Tre is a stick guy. I hate when he plays off and has to react. He’s so good when he dictates the dance between him and his WR. He did this much more the past two games. His first game back was not good, I think because he started ten yards off. That’s not him.

[Thurman#1]

On 1/3/2023 at 1:46 AM, Einstein said:

 

So you’re ignoring what Levi actually said in favor of what you think he meant?

 

 

He said he ran it the way the coaches drew up, but if he had looked at Poyer he would have altered.

 

 

I did google. I googled “levi wallace admits he played assignment incorrectly”. What DID come up is Levi Wallace saying be played it the way the coaches wanted him to.

 

 

 

That’s a good idea. Especially if you’re going to ignore Levi Wallace saying he did what the coaches told him to do.

 

“Let me ignore what Levi Wallace actually said in favor of an obscure video from 8 months ago where he talks about not looking at Poyer”

.

 

 

Folks, see what Einstein did here? He yet again repeated his own summary of one sentence that Wallace said, all the while ignoring the rest because it doesn't suit his narrative. He ignored part of the direct translation that I posted which showed where he is wrong.

 

Which is what someone who is an absolute slave to confirmation bias would do.

 

Even his google search, "... admits he played assignment incorrectly" is a drastic result of his own confirmation bias, and will therefore produce results twisted by Einstein's own perceptions. The search which would have helped him, then and now, is - to boringly repeat - "Levi Wallace 13 seconds." This one doesn't enforce his own beliefs on the search. The one he used does.

 

Again, he's the one ignoring what Wallace said. I'm transcribing it.

 

 

On 1/3/2023 at 12:41 AM, Einstein said:

Thanks for finding the video. It seems to echo what he said in the article above. Only thing he took blame for was being too deep because he didn’t look at Poyer. I thought by your comment earlier that he admitted more than that.

 

As the article above stated, he says he played it as the coaches drew up and he only wishes he looked at Poyers depth.

 

Gotta be impressed by someone willing to double down on dumbness.

 

The article doesn't say what he apparently thinks it does. The article says that if he had looked at Poyer's depth, he would have played it differently. In other words, he had some freedom within the play, as does Poyer, and they have worked extensively on working together within that play, but because he didn't check Poyer's depth he stayed further outside than he should have.

 

Right play. Bad communication by the players within the play allowed a result that they would have avoided if they had communicated better.

 

But Einstein was and appears to still be too full of communication bias to look any further by, say, looking at all of Wallace's words. He found what he wanted to hear and didn't bother to check any further. Typical. And revealing of his motives.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Thurman#1

[NewEra]

10 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I see you yet again repeated your summary of one sentence that he said, all the while ignoring the rest because it doesn't suit your narrative. You ignored part of the direct translation that I posted which showed where you are wrong.

 

Which is what someone who is an absolute slave to confirmation bias would do.

 

Even your google search, "... admits he played assignment incorrectly" is a drastic result of your own confirmation bias, and will therefore produce results twisted by your own perceptions. The search which would have helped you, then and now, is - to boringly repeat - "Levi Wallace 13 seconds." See the difference? This one doesn't enforce your own beliefs on the search. Yours does.

 

Again, you're the one ignoring what he said. I'm transcribing it.

Can’t suck blood from a stone thurm.  

[Thurman#1]

9 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Can’t suck blood from a stone thurm.  

 

 

You're so right.

 

* sigh *

 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Thurman#1

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Folks, see what Einstein did here? He yet again repeated his own summary of one sentence that Wallace said, all the while ignoring the rest because it doesn't suit his narrative. He ignored part of the direct translation that I posted which showed where he is wrong.

 

Which is what someone who is an absolute slave to confirmation bias would do.

 

Even his google search, "... admits he played assignment incorrectly" is a drastic result of his own confirmation bias, and will therefore produce results twisted by Einstein's own perceptions. The search which would have helped him, then and now, is - to boringly repeat - "Levi Wallace 13 seconds." This one doesn't enforce his own beliefs on the search. The one he used does.

 

Again, he's the one ignoring what Wallace said. I'm transcribing it.

 

 

 

Gotta be impressed by someone willing to double down on dumbness.

 

The article doesn't say what he apparently thinks it does. The article says that if he had looked at Poyer's depth, he would have played it differently. In other words, he had some freedom within the play, as does Poyer, and they have worked extensively on working together within that play, but because he didn't check Poyer's depth he stayed further outside than he should have.

 

Right play. Bad communication by the players within the play allowed a result that they would have avoided if they had communicated better.

 

But Einstein was and appears to still be too full of communication bias to look any further by, say, looking at all of Wallace's words. He found what he wanted to hear and didn't bother to check any further. Typical. And revealing of his motives.

 

 

 

No amount of semantics will get you out of the fact that Wallace said he lined up the way he was supposed to line.

 

It is here. In print. Black and white. English language. Even highlighted.

 

”this was how we was supposed to line up”

 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Einstein

[BillsBytheBay]

watch tape of this method being used on Diggs.

some wide receivers will make you pay dearly for this technique.

[Evansfan322]

The last corner we had that did that was Nate Clements...been a while 

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

No amount of semantics will get you out of the fact that Wallace said he lined up the way he was supposed to line.

 

It is here. In print. Black and white. English language. Even highlighted.

 

”this was how we was supposed to line up”

 

 

 

 

Does Einstein crack you up, or what? This is so hilarious I just can't help pointing out what a shambles it is.

 

Does the poor sap even know who he is quoting there?

 

The only three links he posts are incomplete, unable to be duplicated (how convenient ...). Not links, in other words.  They're actually semi-links, only partially there. He actually posted about half of a link to his own google search and two other semi-links, not whole and thus unable to be followed, to pages somewhere in TBD.

 

Like that proves anything.

 

And then he keeps posting the same link-less copy, the gray stuff he highlighted in orange, without the slightest apparent clue who wrote it. Did you notice that? There's no author. I seriously suspect he might have written it himself. If not him, though, apparently someone who apparently typed his opinion and is thus to be taken seriously.

 

Einstein doesn't even appear to know that the stuff he highlighted in orange is almost 100% not Wallace. I mean, the education system these days is bad, but I'd argue the great majority of it would flunk work that bad. He has a couple hundred words there, and he highlighted 50 of the words.

 

49 of the 50 words there are the unknown writer's. He has orange-highlighted one word that Wallace said, the word, "Yeah."

 

And he thinks he made a point that supersedes my own transcript of what Wallace actually said in the video. The two disagree, and he thinks Wallace's own words hold less weight.

 

If he's a troll it wouldn't be all that funny, but I actually have a feeling that he really believes it. It's a tire fire in progress where the tires are going, "No, it's clearly not hot, I saw on the internet somewhere that the temperature was just fine.

 

 

 

He could check Wallace's own words. But he won't. Fascinating to me.

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Thurman#1

[Einstein]

47 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Does Einstein crack you up, or what? This is so hilarious I just can't help pointing out what a shambles it is.

 

Do the poor sap even know who he is quoting there?

 

The only three links he posts are incomplete, unable to be duplicated (how convenient ...). Not links, in other words.  They're actually semi-links, only partially there. He actually posted about half of a link to his own google search and two other semi-links, not whole and thus unable to be folllowed, to pages somewhere in TBD.

 

Like that proves anything.

 

And then he keeps posting the same linkless copy, the gray stuff he highlighted in orange, without the slightest apparent clue who wrote it. Did you notice that? There's no author. I seriously suspect he might have written it himself. If not him, though, apparently someone who apparently typed his opinion and is thus to be taken seriously.

 

He doesn't even appear to know that the stuff he highlighted in orange is almost 100% not Wallace. I mean, the education system these days is bad, but I'd argue the great majority of it would flunk work that bad. He has a couple hundred words there, and he highlighted 50 of the words.

 

49 of the 50 words there are the unknown writer's. He has underlined one word that Wallace said, the word, "Yeah."

 

And he thinks he made a point that supersedes my own transcript of what Wallace actually said in the video. The two disagree, and he thinks Wallace's own words hold less weight.

 

If he's a troll it wouldn't be all that funny, but I actually have a feeling that he really believes it. It's a tire fire in progress where the tires are going, "No, it's clearly not hot, I saw on the internet somewhere that the temperature was just fine.

 

 

 

He could check Wallace's own words. But he won't. Fascinating to me.

 

 

More Ad Hominem.

 

It was an exclusive interview with Levi Wallace with the information coming directly from Wallace with quotes from Wallace.

 

https://www.golongtd.com/p/dont-let-the-smile-fool-you-why-levi

[Straight Hucklebuck]

On 1/1/2023 at 9:09 PM, JayBaller10 said:

Why play our first round CB when we can continue to see Dane Jackson get cooked down after down? 

Or keep giving Tre 100% of the snap count. 

[Thurman#1]

 

 

7 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

More Ad Hominem.

 

It was an exclusive interview with Levi Wallace with the information coming directly from Wallace with quotes from Wallace.

 

https://www.golongtd.com/p/dont-let-the-smile-fool-you-why-levi

 

 

Nope, you appear not to understand the meaning of ad hominem. That wasn't ad hominem. It was based directly on your process and your words. That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem means saying it must be wrong because it's Einstein. I didn't say that at all. I said look at this gigantic mess from Einstein. His lack of logic, lack of responsiveness and apparent lack (still) of listening to the actual quotes from Levi in that interview say some sad and pitiful things about him, don't they? That's not ad hominem.

 

It's the result of how you went about this whole thread.

 

At long long long long last you've finally posted a link. At least that's a tiny step in the right direction. But now that you have after an excruciating attempt to delay and pretend, posted it, it's clear why you didn't want to do so.

 

First, about the article, it's a good one. Dunne is an absolutely excellent writer. And Levi, as he always does, comes across as classy, as accountable, and also as really smart and hard-working. I didn't know that about him losing his father to ALS in college. Jeez, that's sad, and it makes your root for him even more. I can't even imagine that. And the reset of the story about his charity endeavors also really hits home. Just a hell of a good man. I already really liked him, and now I'll root for him every Sunday except against the Bills.

 

But you have the same problem now that you did before you posted this. Levi never says what you say he did. The reason you couldn't highlight in orange any of Levi's words beyond, "Yeah," is obvious here. You say that the information comes "directly from Wallace with quotes from Wallace." Well, yeah, it has quotes from Wallace. But no, the 13 seconds info there comes from Dunne, without any evidence in this article that backs you up at all.

 

The closest he comes is for Dunne - not Levi - to say, "He thought his position was sound."

 

"Thought." Past tense. Not present. Because that's not what he thinks today. Dunne says that Wallace "did not go rogue." As if anyone says he went rogue. But there was failure in communication within the framework of the play, and Wallace just admits it, here and in the podcast video you seem so unwilling to look at, for obvious reasons.

 

 

Dunne says: "He thought his position was sound. After all, this is how the play was designed. In retrospect, however, Wallace wishes he would've turned his head around and noticed that safety Jorday Poyer was lined up so far back. If he did that, he would've adjusted his alignment. Instead, for a split-second, he admits the two friends took their four years of communication for granted and were not on the same page.

 

" 'Rarely,' he adds, 'do me and Poyer ever bust.' "

 

Pretty clear here what Wallace thinks, and it's not that the play was the problem. He goes on to talk further about the problem in the next paragraph, saying "It was in the gameplan," but, as Dunne says, "[Wallace] puts it on the players to realize KC only needed a field goal and believes guys were too caught up in the emotion of the offense scoring a touchdown."

 

Exactly.

 

Dunne goes on to go just that bit further: "What stung most was that players felt like they let each other down." And his evidence for that is the Wallace quote, "The 11 guys on that field let each other down."

 

Precisely.

 

I'll always be a Wallace fan. Great article too. I'm thinking right now of looking up his foundation and contributing. Sounds like it does spectacular work. But Wallace knows, and he said it. Both here and in the video.

 

EDIT: I sent $50. Felt good.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Thurman#1

[BobbyC81]

On 1/1/2023 at 5:04 PM, JimmyNoodles said:

They should. They’re risk averse. 

And that worked so well vs KC in the playoffs. 

[Royale with Cheese]

21 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

No amount of semantics will get you out of the fact that Wallace said he lined up the way he was supposed to line.

 

It is here. In print. Black and white. English language. Even highlighted.

 

”this was how we was supposed to line up”

 

 

 

Even at the HS level, you adjust alignments.  

 

So you're saying that whatever alignment is called, you go to the alignment and never, ever adjust.  

McDermott/Frazier call a play, the offense lines up in something different and you don't make any changes on defense?

 

He admitted that if he took a look at how far back Poyer was playing, he would have changed his alignment.  He was supposed to change his alignment and he didn't.  

[Einstein]

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Nope, you appear not to understand the meaning of ad hominem. That wasn't ad hominem. It was based directly on your process and your words. That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem means saying it must be wrong because it's Einstein. I didn't say that at all. I said look at this gigantic mess from Einstein. His lack of logic, lack of responsiveness and apparent lack (still) of listening to the actual quotes from Levi in that interview say some sad and pitiful things about him, don't they? That's not ad hominem.

 

No.  Ad Hominem is not only saying “you must be wrong because you’re Einstein”, although that can be ONE way to create a personal attack that is ad hominem, it is not even remotely close to the only option.

 

 

An attack on the perceived failings of an adversary. Both of these quotes by you are examples of Ad Hominem, and are typically used when someone (you) is losing a discussion:

 

“Does Einstein crack you up, or what? This is so hilarious I just can't help pointing out what a shambles it is.”

 

“Do the poor sap even know who he is quoting there?”

 

Both of these are irrelevant digs at another person in order to gain favor in a debate. They don’t further the discussion or help anyone learn. They’re just insults and nothing morse. Educated people see them for what they are, so I did. It weakens your argument.

 

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

l You say that the information comes "directly from Wallace with quotes from Wallace." Well, yeah, it has quotes from Wallace. 

The information in the article came directly from Wallace. You’re attempting to move the goalposts by saying that because the bits I used aren’t all direct quotes that they aren’t from Wallace. 

 

But that’s how every good article in the history of mankind has been written. It would be a terrible article if it was just quote after quote after quote.

 

The writer with an exclusive interview gathers all the information directly from the player and relays that information. Sometime in quotes and sometimes in elegant writing from the writer. The non-quote parts are equally from Wallace as the quoted parts, as Wallace is who gave the writer the information.

 

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

"Thought." Past tense. Not present. Because that's not what he thinks today.

 

Past tense doesn’t indicate a change of mind…

 

“Thought” in common vernacular is often referring  to what a person was thinking at the time but does not mean the person has changed their thinking. 

 

“I thought it would be a good idea to check my tire pressure before the long road trip.”

 

Does that mean I changed my mind and now it’s not a good idea to double check tire pressure?

 

Of course not. But it sounds stupid to say “I think it would be a good idea” when referring to something months ago.

 

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 here and in the podcast video you seem so unwilling to look at, for obvious reasons.

 

I did look at it. It doesn’t say what you think it does - at least in the portions that have sound.

 

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Dunne says: "He thought his position was sound. After all, this is how the play was designed. In retrospect, however, Wallace wishes he would've turned his head around and noticed that safety Jorday Poyer was lined up so far back.

 

Hint: This is likely Wallace passing some of the blame onto Poyer.

 

Like: ”why did Poyer line up so far back?”

 

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

Pretty clear here what Wallace thinks, and it's not that the play was the problem. He goes on to talk further about the problem in the next paragraph, saying "It was in the gameplan," but, as Dunne says, "[Wallace] puts it on the players to realize

 

Yes, it is very clear. Wallace thinks:

 

1) Poyer went too far back

2) He takes the blame for not noticing Poyer went too far back 

3) He alludes to the coaches not coaching at the right moment as he said the players should have realized (which means the coaches didn’t relay that information) that they need to  adjust for the Chiefs only needing a field goal

All comes back to coaching, and it happened on 2 consecutive plays which is why Kelce noticed it and told Mahomes.

 

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

EDIT: I sent $50. Felt good

A whole $50? Good for you.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Einstein

[Rigotz]

Their draft pick of Kaiir Elam tells you exactly what they want to do.

 

6'1, 191, with 30 7/8'' arms.

Excels at stuffing releases and wins with physicality

4.39 40 yard dash

 

We drafted this guy in the 1st partially in the response to Levi, Dane, and other CB's not being able to disrupt route trees early and not being able to recover once they were beat.

 

I wouldn't say it's "not something we wanted to do" .... more that we didn't have the right guys to do it. The right guys are rare because they have to be big, fast, and able to quickly transition from a Man concept to Zone. If Elam works out, we now have that guy. Tre will also be that guy if/when he fully recovers.

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Even at the HS level, you adjust alignments.  

 

So you're saying that whatever alignment is called, you go to the alignment and never, ever adjust.  

McDermott/Frazier call a play, the offense lines up in something different and you don't make any changes on defense?

 

He admitted that if he took a look at how far back Poyer was playing, he would have changed his alignment.  He was supposed to change his alignment and he didn't.  

 

Yeah he was passively putting some blame on Poyer for going too deep. 

 

On the fateful Kelce catch, Levi and the other CB on the opposite side of the field were lined up almost exactly the same. The CB on the other side was maybe a yard or two more outside (which is worse) than Levi. This tells me that they both played it the exact same way based on the play called.

 

 

But that’s not all!

 

A minute before this happened, the Chiefs were about to run a play from the same yard marker and McD called timeout.

 

When McD called timeout, Levi was in the EXACT SAME SPOT as the fateful play.

 

 

If the coaches didn’t want him there, they had a chance during that timeout to move him. They didn’t.

 

You know who did move though? The other CB. On the opposite site. They moved him further back. See the photo above. 
 

The entire formation stayed the same pre and post timeout EXCEPT for the CB on the opposite side of the field.

 

Now let’s flash forward to this years game, in nearly the exact same situation (12 seconds left and Chiefs looking to get a field goal before the half).

 

The Bills coaching staff calls for press coverage across the board. No cushion.

 

 

 

Did they change the way they defend the last second field goal because they called perfect coverage against the Chiefs last year and 1 player (Wallace) screwed it up?

 

Or maybe, just maybe, did they play it completely different because Wallace was not to blame and it was a terrible coverage to be in at that moment?

 

Im going with the latter. And I think other people would too if they weren’t so stuck in their mindset. Oh well.

[Royale with Cheese]

39 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Yeah he was passively putting some blame on Poyer for going too deep. 

 

On the fateful Kelce catch, Levi and the other CB on the opposite side of the field were lined up almost exactly the same. The CB on the other side was maybe a yard or two more outside (which is worse) than Levi. This tells me that they both played it the exact same way based on the play called.

 

 

But that’s not all!

 

A minute before this happened, the Chiefs were about to run a play from the same yard marker and McD called timeout.

 

When McD called timeout, Levi was in the EXACT SAME SPOT as the fateful play.

 

 

If the coaches didn’t want him there, they had a chance during that timeout to move him. They didn’t.

 

You know who did move though? The other CB. On the opposite site. They moved him further back. See the photo above. 
 

The entire formation stayed the same pre and post timeout EXCEPT for the CB on the opposite side of the field.

 

Now let’s flash forward to this years game, in nearly the exact same situation (12 seconds left and Chiefs looking to get a field goal before the half).

 

The Bills coaching staff calls for press coverage across the board. No cushion.

 

 

 

Did they change the way they defend the last second field goal because they called perfect coverage against the Chiefs last year and 1 player (Wallace) screwed it up?

 

Or maybe, just maybe, did they play it completely different because Wallace was not to blame and it was a terrible coverage to be in at that moment?

 

Im going with the latter. And I think other people would too if they weren’t so stuck in their mindset. Oh well.

 

Geezus dude.  Wallace said specifically that if he turned his head and saw how deep Poyer was playing, he would have realigned.  You don't know anyone's assignment but Wallace told you what he should have done but instead of listening to him, you're going to post screen shots of how you think they should have aligned.  I guess in your mind, if one corner presses or plays off, so does the other like they have to be in unison?  They don't press one side and off the other?  Are you sure?  

 

 

He absolutely wasn't passively throwing blame at Poyer.  

 

Then you get arrogant with if we weren't so stubborn, we would see you're probably right.  Are you seriously saying you aren't stubborn?  You are one of the most argued against posters on here dude.  

 

The only factual statement is Wallace saying he would have realigned if he saw Poyer deep.  That's it.  Speculate all you want, we have one factual statement.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Royale with Cheese

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 Wallace said specifically that if he turned his head and saw how deep Poyer was playing, he would have realigned. 

 

Yes, he was saying if he saw Poyer line up deeper than he should have, then Wallace would have changed his alignment to fix Poyers mistake. That’s exactly what he was alluding to even if you don’t want to believe it.

 

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

You don't know anyone's assignment but Wallace told you what he should have done

 

What I said above. Wallace is telling you should he have changed his alignment if he knew Poyer made the mistake of going too deep.

 

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

m to post screen shots of how you think they should have aligned.

 

This comment indicates to me that you didn’t actually read what I wrote, but instead just skimmed it.

 

I didn’t post screen shots of how they should have aligned, I posted screenshots of how they DID align. On multiple plays. And even after a timeout where the coaches had the opportunity to fix Wallace’s alignment if they didn’t like it.

 

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 I guess in your mind, if one corner presses or plays off, so does the other like they have to be in unison?  They don't press one side and off the other?  Are you sure?  

 

That can happen, of course. But the reason we know it didn’t happen in this situation is because of 3 straight plays of the same alignment. If Wallace (or any other defender) was off, then they were off for 3 straight plays. And the Bills called a timeout and apparently didn’t feel like fixing it?

 

We have the evidence! We have 3 straight plays of the same defensive lineup, with a timeout inbetween, and they never changed. The only player to change after the timeout was the CB opposite the field.

 

The proof is there. In full color.

 

I’ll go back to what I said before.

 

In this years game, in nearly the exact same situation (12 seconds left and Chiefs looking to get a field goal before the half). The Bills coaching staff calls for press coverage across the board. No cushion.

 

 

Did they change the way they defend the last second field goal because they called perfect coverage against the Chiefs last year and 1 player (Wallace) screwed it up?

 

Or maybe, just maybe, did they play it completely different because Wallace was not to blame and it was a terrible coverage to be in at that moment?

 

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Then you get arrogant with if we weren't so stubborn, we would see you're probably right.  Are you seriously saying you aren't stubborn?  You are one of the most argued against posters on here dude.  

 

That’s a bit ironic considering you are constantly going around the board looking for “gotcha” moments. 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Einstein