Not challenging Dalton sideline catch or Cook TD

[Freddie's Dead]

1 minute ago, Einstein said:

 

There ya go.

 

Now how many times has he challenged 3? (Meaning won 2 and used the 3rd)?

 

Never.

[strive_for_five_guy]

6 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

There ya go.

 

Now how many times has he challenged 3? (Meaning won 2 and used the 3rd)?

I never said he’d need 3 😎

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

9 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

Many posts in this thread use only one criteria for a challenge, whether or not the challenge will succeed.  That's faulty thinking.  On Cook's catch, you don't challenge that, he's clearly OB.  But Reuben?  You challenge that all day.  Why? 

 

It's a critical play, a 3rd down catch for a first down, when we're trailing by a lot and nothing is going right.  NFL referees do weird stuff all the time (this ####### thought we were playing basketball).  The ball can move as long as you have both hands and never lose control.  He never lost control.  As many have said, even the announcers thought it was a catch.  It was certainly worth challenging, since we're punting anyway if we lose the challenge.

 

It was worth the risk.  Sometimes you have to throw the flag, even if you don't see a replay.  Unfortunately, McDummy throws the flag for 9 yard incomplete passes on first down.  He needed a guy like Perry, but Perry let him down here.

That’s not at all the only criteria for the other side of the argument haha what.  the criteria is if your offense gets another shot with limited time in the half, having an extra timeout is massive.  Throwing timeouts away on frivolous challenges frequently costs teams points in scenarios like that. Teams are driving to close out a half all the time and run out of time and are forced to settle for 3.   in fact, we correctly criticize McDermott for making the OPPOSITE decision from what he did from time to time 🤣.  He absolutely made the right call there 

if we didn’t get the stop and people complained we saved the timeouts and our offense didn’t even get a shot, I’d understand it a little more 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Generic_Bills_Fan

[78thealltimegreat]

McDermott already called a timeout he literally had no downside to challenging the Cook catch and to me it looks like his elbow was in. It may have been ruled a call stands play but

 

McDermott not challenging it shows the guy doesn’t think through game situations. 

[Freddie's Dead]

2 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

That’s not at all the only criteria for the other side of the argument haha what.  the criteria is if your offense gets another shot with limited time in the half, having an extra timeout is massive.  Throwing timeouts away on frivolous challenges frequently costs teams points in scenarios like that. Teams are driving to close out a half all the time and run out of time and are forced to settle for 3.   in fact, we correctly criticize McDermott for making the OPPOSITE decision from what he did from time to time 🤣.  He absolutely made the right call there 

if we didn’t get the stop and people complained we saved the timeouts and our offense didn’t even get a shot, I’d understand it a little more 

 

 

 

Dave Mason time.

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

4 minutes ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

McDermott already called a timeout he literally had no downside to challenging the Cook catch and to me it looks like his elbow was in. It may have been ruled a call stands play but

 

McDermott not challenging it shows the guy doesn’t think through game situations. 

A lot of his body came down at the same time his elbow did and his elbow didn’t even look like it was completely in bounds…I at least get the concern with the timeout and such on the cook play but there’s still a 0.0% chance that’s overturned and im assuming we didht know the timeout would be needed on that next play?  I get the concern though strategically 

 

the Kincaid no challenge questioning from a game strategy perspective is insane 

Edited 3 hours ago by Generic_Bills_Fan

[Einstein]

7 minutes ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

I never said he’d need 3 😎

 

I know you didn’t.

 

I was leading you to water.

 

If he has never needed more than 2, and has only used 2 in 0.02 games. Why would anyone be worried about him using 1?

[strive_for_five_guy]

1 minute ago, Einstein said:

 

I know you didn’t.

 

I was leading you to water.

 

If he has never needed more than 2, and has only used 2 in 0.02 games. Why would anyone be worried about him using 1?

Sorry Einstein, it’s still a downside of wasting a challenge in the earlier part of the game.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

3 hours ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

It was worth a shot on the Kincaid as the announcer stated

 

 

And the announcer also criticized the Bills for going for it on 4th and 5 and they then had the 49 yard TD to Coleman.

 

I  heard the announcer say that to, and wondered what he was looking at as from the replay clearly could see Kincaid bobble it a bit and seemed like the ball even hit the ground.  Highly doubtful the Bills would have won that challenge

[Beast]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

And that’s OK.

 

This is a point that many people miss. It is okay to challenge a call pivotal call in the first half when your offense is reeling even if you think you’ll lose it.

 

Why? It’s simple logic.

 

The upside is that you get a key first down in field goal territory. 

 

The downside is you might lose a timeout that you didn’t use (we had 3 timeouts left with only a few minutes remaining in the half). 

 

It’s OK to take that risk there.

 

 

It wasn’t a risk. A risk is when something could possibly turn out to be in your favor.

 

There was absolutely no evidence to overturn that call. None.

 

If McDermott challenged that he’d be called dumb for doing so by many and you know that’s true. 
 

The Bills hired a guy to sit in the booth to review these things and let McDermott know. I’m pretty darn sure he let McDermott know the call would not be overturned. 

[The Jokeman]

4 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

The announcers agreed Kincaid one was a catch and should McDermott should have thrown the flag

 

There was ball movement after Kincaid and the ball hit the ground it wouldn't be over turned unless the ball didn't move.

Edited 2 hours ago by The Jokeman

[Zag20]

The Kincaid play is a catch all day. He gets two hands on the ball, with feet and bounds, and then he brings it into his body. It moves a little bit as he brings it into his body and lands, but they give those catches to players hundreds of times per season. Not challenging that is insane.

The Kincaid play is a catch all day. He gets two hands on the ball, with feet and bounds, and then he brings it into his body. It moves a little bit as he brings it into his body and lands, but they give those catches to players hundreds of times per season. Not challenging that is insane.

The Kincaid play is a catch all day. He gets two hands on the ball, with feet and bounds, and then he brings it into his body. It moves a little bit as he brings it into his body and lands, but they give those catches to players hundreds of times per season. Not challenging that is insane.

[Big Turk]

3 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

Many posts in this thread use only one criteria for a challenge, whether or not the challenge will succeed.  That's faulty thinking.  On Cook's catch, you don't challenge that, he's clearly OB.  But Reuben?  You challenge that all day.  Why? 

 

It's a critical play, a 3rd down catch for a first down, when we're trailing by a lot and nothing is going right.  NFL referees do weird stuff all the time (this ####### thought we were playing basketball).  The ball can move as long as you have both hands on it and never lose control.  He never lost control.  As many have said, even the announcers thought it was a catch.  It was certainly worth challenging, since we're punting anyway if we lose the challenge.

 

It was worth the risk.  Sometimes you have to throw the flag, even if you don't see a replay.  Unfortunately, McDummy throws the flag for 9 yard incomplete passes on first down.  He needed a guy like Perry, but Perry let him down here.

 

No he didn't, it clearly wasn't a catch and no amount of mental gymnastics people want to do would have magically transformed it into one.  It was clearly NOT a catch, the ball moved far more than is allowed for it to be considered a catch when falling to the ground out of bounds.  There has to be clear evidence to overturn it.  If anything, the overturn would have happened if it was ruled a catch and then challenged by Houston.

 

45 minutes ago, Zag20 said:

The Kincaid play is a catch all day. He gets two hands on the ball, with feet and bounds, and then he brings it into his body. It moves a little bit as he brings it into his body and lands, but they give those catches to players hundreds of times per season. Not challenging that is insane.

The Kincaid play is a catch all day. He gets two hands on the ball, with feet and bounds, and then he brings it into his body. It moves a little bit as he brings it into his body and lands, but they give those catches to players hundreds of times per season. Not challenging that is insane.

The Kincaid play is a catch all day. He gets two hands on the ball, with feet and bounds, and then he brings it into his body. It moves a little bit as he brings it into his body and lands, but they give those catches to players hundreds of times per season. Not challenging that is insane.

 

It is not a catch. If he was in bounds then yes. But the rule is NOT the same when he falls to the ground out of bounds.  He has to maintain control without it moving significantly...it moved significantly to the point it went between his legs and he pinned it to his legs. Again...that's fine if he was in bounds, but that's not OK when he lands out of bounds.

Edited 54 minutes ago by Big Turk

[Big Turk]

4 hours ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

Although I see no chance that the Cook one would have been overturned, I said to the group I was watching with the same thing DMA034 was saying. I'm going by memory, but there was around 3:30 left in the 4th quarter, meaning we had around 90 seconds to use our challenges. We had used 0 challenges up until then. McD. called timeout. I understand what you're saying but to think we were going to want to use another two challenges in the next 90 seconds seems so unlikely that I thought, "why not challenge?" We'd still be left with two timeouts and we'd have one more challenge in case something did come up in the next 90 seconds.

 

Why not challenge? Because it was obvious the call on the field was correct as much as some want to argue it wasn't. the only chance of an overturn, which likely would have happened if it was ruled a catch and Houston challenged.

Edited 47 minutes ago by Big Turk

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

LOL. Now that’s funny. I’ve seen far worse calls. 

 

What you have seen worse calls where clearly the right call was made on the field and replay overturned to a clearly wrong call? I haven't. 

[Bermuda Triangle]

4 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

It actually didn’t move at all as he went out of bounds. It shifted when he hit the turf. Either way, probably not getting overturned.

 

Speaking of Kincaid, he kinda sucks.

 

Woofta that feels good to finally let that out. I’ve bottled that up for a year now. He is super underwhelming as a first round pick. He has dropped or bobbled multiple balls that hit his hands, and he sucks major donkey cahones as a blocker.

 

Multiple times we have plays set up that would go for big gains, but Kincaid gets beat.

On this play, Cook has a legitimate chance of scoring if Kincaid doesn’t get suplexed. He would have had to make 1 defender miss. 

 

 

And here is another screen where Allen gets sacked because Kincaid gets beat so bad that Curtis Samuel would have been crushed if Allen threw it. Lucky he didn’t get called for holding to boot.

 

 

He’s been quite underwhelming for a 1st round pick (ignoring the fact that Beane traded up for him).  

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

1 hour ago, Zag20 said:

The Kincaid play is a catch all day. He gets two hands on the ball, with feet and bounds, and then he brings it into his body. It moves a little bit as he brings it into his body and lands, but they give those catches to players hundreds of times per season. Not challenging that is insane.

The Kincaid play is a catch all day. He gets two hands on the ball, with feet and bounds, and then he brings it into his body. It moves a little bit as he brings it into his body and lands, but they give those catches to players hundreds of times per season. Not challenging that is insane.

The Kincaid play is a catch all day. He gets two hands on the ball, with feet and bounds, and then he brings it into his body. It moves a little bit as he brings it into his body and lands, but they give those catches to players hundreds of times per season. Not challenging that is insane.

It’s a catch maybe if it’s ruled a catch on the field…that’s the hugeeeeeee difference.  No shot there’s enough there to overturn the incompletion and we see that all the time in the nfl too. Refs kind of boned us on that one…genuinely don’t think they saw it well and it was a bit of Houston home cookin 

 

if that’s ruled a catch and Houston challenged it’s probably 50/50 it holds up 

Edited 19 minutes ago by Generic_Bills_Fan

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

McDermott already called a timeout he literally had no downside to challenging the Cook catch and to me it looks like his elbow was in. It may have been ruled a call stands play but

 

McDermott not challenging it shows the guy doesn’t think through game situations. 

 

If it looks to you like his elbow was in I recommend a trip to your local optician. It was clearly out. 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If it looks to you like his elbow was in I recommend a trip to your local optician. It was clearly out. 

Not only was his elbow out it looked like a lot of his body hits out of bounds right when that elbow hits anyway.

Edited 17 minutes ago by Generic_Bills_Fan

[GunnerBill]

4 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

It actually didn’t move at all as he went out of bounds. It shifted when he hit the turf. Either way, probably not getting overturned.

 

Speaking of Kincaid, he kinda sucks.

 

Woofta that feels good to finally let that out. I’ve bottled that up for a year now. He is super underwhelming as a first round pick. He has dropped or bobbled multiple balls that hit his hands, and he sucks major donkey cahones as a blocker.

 

Multiple times we have plays set up that would go for big gains, but Kincaid gets beat.

On this play, Cook has a legitimate chance of scoring if Kincaid doesn’t get suplexed. He would have had to make 1 defender miss. 

 

 

And here is another screen where Allen gets sacked because Kincaid gets beat so bad that Curtis Samuel would have been crushed if Allen threw it. Lucky he didn’t get called for holding to boot.

 

 

 

I think sucks is harsh but underwhelming? Definitely. And you are right what he is offering as a receiver has to be better to accept his failings as a blocker. Ertz was my comparison coming out. He was always utter garbage as a blocker too. But he being a receiver level talent as a pass catcher meant it was worth the trade off. It is true to say teams are defending the Bills at the moment by trying to take the middle of the field (where Kincaid works) away because they have nothing outside and that hurts him, but he needs to do more with his opportunities too. Too many mistakes so far this year.