Quote:I get your point...but to play Devil's Advocate, given the team's lack of success over the years, have they earned the benefit of the doubt?
Everyone is free to question whatever they'd like, the team certainly gives them/us lots of ammunition, but my point was the amount and on any and every subject, even to the uniform.
Quote:I think he's insinuating that we would have utilized a timeout under either scenario. As a result, we would have no timeouts left when we went on offense.
If we would have called timeout "under either scenario," why did we still have the timeout left on our next drive? Obviously the type of kickoff had nothing to do with when we used our timeout.
Quote:Myers can barely handle PATs. Can't trust him with onside kicking
I only remember one missed PAT try all season - the first one in his career.
In nine weeks, 31 PAT attempts were no good. The accuracy rate dropped about four percent. Give the man a break.
Also, when was the last time you saw a successful onside kick? It rarely happens because almost all of them are expected.
Quote:Yeah, because they're exactly the same thing.
What are you referring to?
Quote:
What are you referring to?
Do me a favor? Stop responding to my posts unless I address you.
Quote:Do me a favor? Stop responding to my posts unless I address you.
There is no reason to do that. Posters are allowed to reply to anybody they want.
Quote:There is no reason to do that. Posters are allowed to reply to anybody they want.
OK...don't expect replies.
You had to rewatch the game to notice the onside kick?
:ermm:
The decision to go for the onside kick was not a bad call.
If we decided to not go for the onside kick, that also would not have been a bad call.
In the situation we were in at that point, either option was fine, we needed a 3 and out if we didn't get the turn over. Gambling or not gambling in that scenario would not be something I'd hold over Gus.
Quote:The decision to go for the onside kick was not a bad call.
If we decided to not go for the onside kick, that also would not have been a bad call.
Yes it would. If we'd not gone for the onside kick and the Jets had picked up two first downs, the same people complaining about the decision to make the onside kick would be complaining about the decision not to go for it. "Why did we just lamely give them back the ball so that they could win the game with two first downs? Why didn't we at least take a shot at winning the game?" they'd be asking. "#becausegusbradley" they'd be replying.
Watching that Jets-Bills game just shows me Gus Bradley can't coach worth a damn. We played them both back 2 back and almost blew a game where they were up big against an injured team without their quarterback, and then another team who continually shoots themselves in the foot trying to blow games. Just goes to show how many winable games we have blown this year because of coaching, and should be at the top of the division. But some want this guy back next year.
And here I thought all games were 'winable'.