OK, this really bothers me. Browns fans are arguing that this was a game changing call and that one called back TD was the difference in a 5 point win. OK, fair point. Not calling helmet to helmet may have been a miss.
The biggest game changer as we all know wasn't the fumble, it was mahomes getting injured. Mahomes was throttling the browns and probably would have kept doing it. Would mahomes have still gotten a concussion if the browns scored? I mean, cmon.... Probably not. Here's a more likely scenario. If browns score 7, chiefs get the ball back and score 3.chiefs go into halftime 19 - 10. Browns down 9 (instead of 16) have to claw from behind
Unless people think the browns run the same exact plays in that scenario, baker throws that same exact pick, then the Chiefs run the same exact plays with the same exact outcome its very unlikely mahomes gets knocked out of that series. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DCTwister:
On this, I would scientifically invoke the grandfather paradox from Back to the Future or Infinity War. If they penalized Dan, let’s say go into the half 16-10. Changes the sequence of plays the entire rest of the game. Hence, Mahomes freak choke-out/concussion play never happens. KC dominates the rest of the game with Mahomes.
This is easily the most important what if scenario. [Reply]
If you're going to play the what-if game here, the question is more properly, "what if the ball carrier hadn't tried to stick the ball over the goal line?" The browns were moving the ball and the ball carrier had already gotten the first down. If he had just taken the tackle they would have had a first and goal very close to the goal line. This Browns team with the great running attack surely would have been able to push it across, so why would he feel the need to stick the ball out where it was vulnerable? [Reply]
Originally Posted by RedinTexas:
If you're going to play the what-if game here, the question is more properly, "what if the ball carrier hadn't tried to stick the ball over the goal line?" The browns were moving the ball and the ball carrier had already gotten the first down. If he had just taken the tackle they would have had a first and goal very close to the goal line. This Browns team with the great running attack surely would have been able to push it across, so why would he feel the need to stick the ball out where it was vulnerable?
Stefanski specifically said he coaches his players not to do it. He politely defended Higgins, but it showed he understands the rules and realizes his guy took a huge risk. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 2bikemike:
You see running backs do it all the time. They drop their head and plow ahead.
Exactly! Why is only one considered dangerous...
Again, they can play what if on this play all they want, I believe their was a huge holding call not called on the OL that should have brought the play back. So the what if machine could have called both penalties, it would have been a wash... [Reply]
Originally Posted by morphius:
Exactly! Why is only one considered dangerous...
Again, they can play what if on this play all they want, I believe their was a huge holding call not called on the OL that should have brought the play back. So the what if machine could have called both penalties, it would have been a wash...
IN your scenario if both were called as penalties, the Browns still would of had the ball however. But its cool. The better team won regardless. Just please beat the Bills. I cant stand them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mav:
IN your scenario if both were called as penalties, the Browns still would of had the ball however. But its cool. The better team won regardless. Just please beat the Bills. I cant stand them.
But then we have no idea if you score at all... [Reply]
When the offensive player is diving running into the end zone and the defender dives running at him perpendicular, I’m not sure what people think is going to happen. This is typically the result for diving offensive players (getting helmet to helmet contact) [Reply]