2023 NFL Thread v Super Bowl matchup: Chiefs vs. 49ers

[hefdaddy42]

Steve Wilks fired as San Francisco DC.

WTF

[bosk1]

Well, when you go from the #2 defense to the #26 in a year (and with an arguably better roster than the year before), and lose the big game when you are expected to win largely due to breakdowns on defense, that kind of thing is bound to happen.

EDIT:  To clarify, because someone reached out to me via PM and correctly challenged me on those numbers, that was their rank in run defense specifically, so sorry if I wasn't clear.  In overall defensive efficiency, I believe they slid from #1 to #12, and in DVOA, from #1 to #4.  But I know run defense was a BIG issue for Shanahan, and that's what I was intending to hit on.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

Steve Wilks fired as San Francisco DC.

WTF

Those blitz calls on that final KC drive lost the game for the Niners.

[hefdaddy42]

Steve Wilks fired as San Francisco DC.

WTF

Those blitz calls on that final KC drive lost the game for the Niners.

That blocked extra point lost the game for the Niners.

[Indiscipline]

Little more than a casual football aficionado here, but can it be said that gaining 0 yards in a whole quarter lost the game for the 49rs?

[hefdaddy42]

Little more than a casual football aficionado here, but can it be said that gaining 0 yards in a whole quarter lost the game for the 49rs?

Indeed.

Plenty of blame to go around. 

[Stadler]

Shooting at the KC parade. At least ten injured, one dead.

Just me, or was the news coverage of that event HORRIBLE?  I've heard anywhere from 9 to 22 injured, and anywhere from 2 to 22 injured by the actual shooting (the rest injured in the resulting stampede).  There was an interview (on ESPN, of all places) with a couple that had been at the rally, went home, then returned to pray with the victims and they were pretty clear that the people they were with were injured not by gunfire but by the crowd (one girl allegedly broke her leg).   I've also heard that anywhere from 6 to 22 of the injured were children.

Maybe there's a more cohesive, cogent summary of what happened, but I haven't seen it yet.

[hunnus2000]

Shooting at the KC parade. At least ten injured, one dead.

Just me, or was the news coverage of that event HORRIBLE?  I've heard anywhere from 9 to 22 injured, and anywhere from 2 to 22 injured by the actual shooting (the rest injured in the resulting stampede).  There was an interview (on ESPN, of all places) with a couple that had been at the rally, went home, then returned to pray with the victims and they were pretty clear that the people they were with were injured not by gunfire but by the crowd (one girl allegedly broke her leg).   I've also heard that anywhere from 6 to 22 of the injured were children.

Maybe there's a more cohesive, cogent summary of what happened, but I haven't seen it yet.

Yesterday I heard it was 22 injured.

Then one died later that night from her wounds and they revised the figure to 1 dead and 21 injured.

[lonestar]

Shooting at the KC parade. At least ten injured, one dead.

Just me, or was the news coverage of that event HORRIBLE?  I've heard anywhere from 9 to 22 injured, and anywhere from 2 to 22 injured by the actual shooting (the rest injured in the resulting stampede).  There was an interview (on ESPN, of all places) with a couple that had been at the rally, went home, then returned to pray with the victims and they were pretty clear that the people they were with were injured not by gunfire but by the crowd (one girl allegedly broke her leg).   I've also heard that anywhere from 6 to 22 of the injured were children.

Maybe there's a more cohesive, cogent summary of what happened, but I haven't seen it yet.

I haven't heard any answers, and the media has already moved on since the GA trial is taking center stage. Based on the fact that 3 people are of interest, this screams gang violence, similar to the shooting in downtown Sacramento.

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

Shooting at the KC parade. At least ten injured, one dead.

Just me, or was the news coverage of that event HORRIBLE?  I've heard anywhere from 9 to 22 injured, and anywhere from 2 to 22 injured by the actual shooting (the rest injured in the resulting stampede).  There was an interview (on ESPN, of all places) with a couple that had been at the rally, went home, then returned to pray with the victims and they were pretty clear that the people they were with were injured not by gunfire but by the crowd (one girl allegedly broke her leg).   I've also heard that anywhere from 6 to 22 of the injured were children.

Maybe there's a more cohesive, cogent summary of what happened, but I haven't seen it yet.

i agree it was awful. for what it's worth, the thing i read (on the New York Times) actually had a note about this. they claim that they get their info from the Police Department, so the Times was implying the large discrepencies of the counts as it unfolded was due to the KCPD giving them differing values. unsure if i buy that, or buy that it's the full story, but i did notice this too

[hunnus2000]

Shooting at the KC parade. At least ten injured, one dead.

Just me, or was the news coverage of that event HORRIBLE?  I've heard anywhere from 9 to 22 injured, and anywhere from 2 to 22 injured by the actual shooting (the rest injured in the resulting stampede).  There was an interview (on ESPN, of all places) with a couple that had been at the rally, went home, then returned to pray with the victims and they were pretty clear that the people they were with were injured not by gunfire but by the crowd (one girl allegedly broke her leg).   I've also heard that anywhere from 6 to 22 of the injured were children.

Maybe there's a more cohesive, cogent summary of what happened, but I haven't seen it yet.

i agree it was awful. for what it's worth, the thing i read (on the New York Times) actually had a note about this. they claim that they get their info from the Police Department, so the Times was implying the large discrepencies of the counts as it unfolded was due to the KCPD giving them differing values. unsure if i buy that, or buy that it's the full story, but i did notice this too

Just curious, when and where did you find out this information. I ask because the radio station I stream and the local news got right and accurate. We

[Stadler]

Shooting at the KC parade. At least ten injured, one dead.

Just me, or was the news coverage of that event HORRIBLE?  I've heard anywhere from 9 to 22 injured, and anywhere from 2 to 22 injured by the actual shooting (the rest injured in the resulting stampede).  There was an interview (on ESPN, of all places) with a couple that had been at the rally, went home, then returned to pray with the victims and they were pretty clear that the people they were with were injured not by gunfire but by the crowd (one girl allegedly broke her leg).   I've also heard that anywhere from 6 to 22 of the injured were children.

Maybe there's a more cohesive, cogent summary of what happened, but I haven't seen it yet.

I haven't heard any answers, and the media has already moved on since the GA trial is taking center stage. Based on the fact that 3 people are of interest, this screams gang violence, similar to the shooting in downtown Sacramento.

There's a press conference on now with the KC police department and they've effectively ruled out any extremist behavior or terrorism, and seemed to indicate that initial read is interpersonal dispute (which doesn't at all rule out "gang violence"). 

[Stadler]

Shooting at the KC parade. At least ten injured, one dead.

Just me, or was the news coverage of that event HORRIBLE?  I've heard anywhere from 9 to 22 injured, and anywhere from 2 to 22 injured by the actual shooting (the rest injured in the resulting stampede).  There was an interview (on ESPN, of all places) with a couple that had been at the rally, went home, then returned to pray with the victims and they were pretty clear that the people they were with were injured not by gunfire but by the crowd (one girl allegedly broke her leg).   I've also heard that anywhere from 6 to 22 of the injured were children.

Maybe there's a more cohesive, cogent summary of what happened, but I haven't seen it yet.

i agree it was awful. for what it's worth, the thing i read (on the New York Times) actually had a note about this. they claim that they get their info from the Police Department, so the Times was implying the large discrepencies of the counts as it unfolded was due to the KCPD giving them differing values. unsure if i buy that, or buy that it's the full story, but i did notice this too

Just curious, when and where did you find out this information. I ask because the radio station I stream and the local news got right and accurate. We

I don't know where you live, but a combination of ESPN, local CT news, and the blurbs I get on my phone from the major outlets (CNN, NY Times, Fox).

Based on what the KC police are saying now - that we don't know the details yet and it's an on-going investigation - I'm not sure what that radio could have said that was "right and accurate".   They still haven't broken down the 22 injured as to what caused the injuries, though they did say the range in ages was 6 to 41.  They did say that the woman who died DID die from gunfire.  They also seemed to confirm that the two people being held are juveniles.

EDIT: NYT is now reporting ages 8 to 41, and THREE people are being held, two of whom are juveniles.

[lonestar]

Shooting at the KC parade. At least ten injured, one dead.

Just me, or was the news coverage of that event HORRIBLE?  I've heard anywhere from 9 to 22 injured, and anywhere from 2 to 22 injured by the actual shooting (the rest injured in the resulting stampede).  There was an interview (on ESPN, of all places) with a couple that had been at the rally, went home, then returned to pray with the victims and they were pretty clear that the people they were with were injured not by gunfire but by the crowd (one girl allegedly broke her leg).   I've also heard that anywhere from 6 to 22 of the injured were children.

Maybe there's a more cohesive, cogent summary of what happened, but I haven't seen it yet.

I haven't heard any answers, and the media has already moved on since the GA trial is taking center stage. Based on the fact that 3 people are of interest, this screams gang violence, similar to the shooting in downtown Sacramento.

There's a press conference on now with the KC police department and they've effectively ruled out any extremist behavior or terrorism, and seemed to indicate that initial read is interpersonal dispute (which doesn't at all rule out "gang violence").

I guess interpersonal dispute is the nice way of saying gang violence. Definitely seemed a 'rapidly emptying the clip without giving a fuck who got in the way' type of shooting, which is very gang like.

[Dream Team]

Very sad. When I first heard about it I was certain it might be an unhinged member of a rival fanbase but it sounds like that wasn't the case, not that it makes it any better. Every time this happens someone brings up alcohol and drunk-driving deaths, completely missing the point that they HAVE taken huge strides in curtailing that as much as possible. Raising the drinking age, lowering the BAC limit, harsher sentences, MADD and Designated Driver initiatives. Ubers and Lyfts encouraged. That's as far as I'll go since it's not the P/R section and you guys are free to debate it there. I imagine KC will be all the more determined to get the threepeat now and will probably dedicate the season to Lisa Lopez-Galvan and her family.

[bosk1]

Very sad. When I first heard about it I was certain it might be an unhinged member of a rival fanbase but it sounds like that wasn't the case, not that it makes it any better.

I had the same initial concern.  And, yeah, that doesn't make it any better.  But I'm still glad it wasn't that.

[lonestar]

Very sad. When I first heard about it I was certain it might be an unhinged member of a rival fanbase but it sounds like that wasn't the case, not that it makes it any better.

I had the same initial concern.  And, yeah, that doesn't make it any better.  But I'm still glad it wasn't that.

I honestly can't remember a time that rival fan BS went to gunshots...beatdowns yes, even fatal sometimes, but gunshots?

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

Shooting at the KC parade. At least ten injured, one dead.

Just me, or was the news coverage of that event HORRIBLE?  I've heard anywhere from 9 to 22 injured, and anywhere from 2 to 22 injured by the actual shooting (the rest injured in the resulting stampede).  There was an interview (on ESPN, of all places) with a couple that had been at the rally, went home, then returned to pray with the victims and they were pretty clear that the people they were with were injured not by gunfire but by the crowd (one girl allegedly broke her leg).   I've also heard that anywhere from 6 to 22 of the injured were children.

Maybe there's a more cohesive, cogent summary of what happened, but I haven't seen it yet.

i agree it was awful. for what it's worth, the thing i read (on the New York Times) actually had a note about this. they claim that they get their info from the Police Department, so the Times was implying the large discrepencies of the counts as it unfolded was due to the KCPD giving them differing values. unsure if i buy that, or buy that it's the full story, but i did notice this too

Just curious, when and where did you find out this information. I ask because the radio station I stream and the local news got right and accurate. We

i'm trying to find it but can't now. it was on the "developing story" thing on the NYT yesterday when it was happening (where multiple reports put out shorter length updates in a timeline). one of the updates mentioned how they get/update the shot/hurt/dead numbers and mentioned full reliance on the relevent PD (which i mean makes sense lol)

[bosk1]

I mean, I'm not sure what the issue is either way.  As these stories develop, there is often lot of reporting on the fly, so it's common for there to be inconsistencies.  I guess I'm not understanding what the issue is. 

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

from my end, it's not a huge issue or anything, it was just something i noticed. we've all become accustomed to so many (nearly weekly) news stories about mass shootings and in this case it seemed that the initial reports were far more inconsistent than they usually are. i'd chalk most of that up to the circumstance (huge uncounted crowd in an outdoor public place) where usually these kinds of events happen indoors and in a more controlled/bound environment

[Stadler]

I mean, I'm not sure what the issue is either way.  As these stories develop, there is often lot of reporting on the fly, so it's common for there to be inconsistencies.  I guess I'm not understanding what the issue is. 

For me, you're right, the initial reports are all over the map, but they quickly converge on a fact pattern (or narrative, depending on the incident ).  This never converged.  Even within the last couple hours, there's pretty meaningfully different information from the KC police, ESPN, and NY Times.  That's unusual after 24 hours for an event like this.

[lonestar]

I mean, I'm not sure what the issue is either way.  As these stories develop, there is often lot of reporting on the fly, so it's common for there to be inconsistencies.  I guess I'm not understanding what the issue is. 

For me, you're right, the initial reports are all over the map, but they quickly converge on a fact pattern (or narrative, depending on the incident ).  This never converged.  Even within the last couple hours, there's pretty meaningfully different information from the KC police, ESPN, and NY Times.  That's unusual after 24 hours for an event like this.

I'd say that's because this particular shooting didn't follow the token media narrative, that there seems to be multiple gunman and a massive crowd isn't the usual, targeted lone shooter mad at the world scenario.

[hunnus2000]

I mean, I'm not sure what the issue is either way.  As these stories develop, there is often lot of reporting on the fly, so it's common for there to be inconsistencies.  I guess I'm not understanding what the issue is. 

For me, you're right, the initial reports are all over the map, but they quickly converge on a fact pattern (or narrative, depending on the incident ).  This never converged.  Even within the last couple hours, there's pretty meaningfully different information from the KC police, ESPN, and NY Times.  That's unusual after 24 hours for an event like this.

In bold is the key. The situation is fluid so nobody really knows the scoop until hours later and maybe the next day. I live in Mid-MO and I thought the reporting was pretty consistent on how things went down. No need to blame the media for this one.

[bosk1]

Yeah, exactly.  And I wasn't trying to call anybody out.  Just wanted to point that out and get clarification myself.

[hunnus2000]

So a new show about the Patriots is debuting on Apple TV and it's not gonna be very complimentary in some parts to BB.

But it's streaming. I HATE STREAMING!!! 

[hefdaddy42]

So a new show about the Patriots is debuting on Apple TV and it's not gonna be very complimentary in some parts to BB.

But it's streaming. I HATE STREAMING!!! 

What did streaming do to you?

[hunnus2000]

So a new show about the Patriots is debuting on Apple TV and it's not gonna be very complimentary in some parts to BB.

But it's streaming. I HATE STREAMING!!! 

What did streaming do to you?

Fair question: there are certain shows that you can only see if you stream certain channels (look up Geddy Lee). I'm trying to downsize my subscriptions only to be pulled back in! Think of the KC game on Peacock. There was no way I was going to sign up for Peacock. I read an article that Peacock left like 10 or 20 millions viewers because of streaming. People just didn't sign up and I refuse to. Eventually, everything will be a subscription. Kind of like software. Do you remember when you could walk into a store and buy MS Office or AV? Those days are gone and that's why I get irritated.

Now let me hear from certain members on how I am just wrong about everything in life. 

[El Barto]

So a new show about the Patriots is debuting on Apple TV and it's not gonna be very complimentary in some parts to BB.

But it's streaming. I HATE STREAMING!!! 

If you actually want to see it it's not very hard to find. Took me about three minutes.

[Stadler]

So a new show about the Patriots is debuting on Apple TV and it's not gonna be very complimentary in some parts to BB.

But it's streaming. I HATE STREAMING!!! 

What did streaming do to you?

Fair question: there are certain shows that you can only see if you stream certain channels (look up Geddy Lee). I'm trying to downsize my subscriptions only to be pulled back in! Think of the KC game on Peacock. There was no way I was going to sign up for Peacock. I read an article that Peacock left like 10 or 20 millions viewers because of streaming. People just didn't sign up and I refuse to. Eventually, everything will be a subscription. Kind of like software. Do you remember when you could walk into a store and buy MS Office or AV? Those days are gone and that's why I get irritated.

Now let me hear from certain members on how I am just wrong about everything in life. 

Well, you are wrong on a lot of things, but not this one.  I think there's going to have to be some continuity, some consistency on the streaming or it's going to be a short-lived phenomenon.  There are too many ways around it at this point and revenues are going to diminish if there's not some "agency" (in the sense of an agent or clearinghouse) here.  Rag on the cable companies all you want for the high prices, but it was a one-stop shop (they just went too far the other way, in terms of bundles you don't need). 

[El Barto]

So a new show about the Patriots is debuting on Apple TV and it's not gonna be very complimentary in some parts to BB.

But it's streaming. I HATE STREAMING!!! 

What did streaming do to you?

Fair question: there are certain shows that you can only see if you stream certain channels (look up Geddy Lee). I'm trying to downsize my subscriptions only to be pulled back in! Think of the KC game on Peacock. There was no way I was going to sign up for Peacock. I read an article that Peacock left like 10 or 20 millions viewers because of streaming. People just didn't sign up and I refuse to. Eventually, everything will be a subscription. Kind of like software. Do you remember when you could walk into a store and buy MS Office or AV? Those days are gone and that's why I get irritated.

Now let me hear from certain members on how I am just wrong about everything in life. 

Well, you are wrong on a lot of things, but not this one.  I think there's going to have to be some continuity, some consistency on the streaming or it's going to be a short-lived phenomenon.  There are too many ways around it at this point and revenues are going to diminish if there's not some "agency" (in the sense of an agent or clearinghouse) here.  Rag on the cable companies all you want for the high prices, but it was a one-stop shop (they just went too far the other way, in terms of bundles you don't need).

You mean another middleman, right?

This whole thing was amazingly predictable. And in the meantime the cable-cos are offsetting their losses by raising rates for the bandwidth. Not only do you pay more for six different packages but you're still paying for 20 down 1 up.

[Stadler]

So a new show about the Patriots is debuting on Apple TV and it's not gonna be very complimentary in some parts to BB.

But it's streaming. I HATE STREAMING!!! 

What did streaming do to you?

Fair question: there are certain shows that you can only see if you stream certain channels (look up Geddy Lee). I'm trying to downsize my subscriptions only to be pulled back in! Think of the KC game on Peacock. There was no way I was going to sign up for Peacock. I read an article that Peacock left like 10 or 20 millions viewers because of streaming. People just didn't sign up and I refuse to. Eventually, everything will be a subscription. Kind of like software. Do you remember when you could walk into a store and buy MS Office or AV? Those days are gone and that's why I get irritated.

Now let me hear from certain members on how I am just wrong about everything in life. 

Well, you are wrong on a lot of things, but not this one.  I think there's going to have to be some continuity, some consistency on the streaming or it's going to be a short-lived phenomenon.  There are too many ways around it at this point and revenues are going to diminish if there's not some "agency" (in the sense of an agent or clearinghouse) here.  Rag on the cable companies all you want for the high prices, but it was a one-stop shop (they just went too far the other way, in terms of bundles you don't need).

You mean another middleman, right?

This whole thing was amazingly predictable. And in the meantime the cable-cos are offsetting their losses by raising rates for the bandwidth. Not only do you pay more for six different packages but you're still paying for 20 down 1 up.

That's what I'm suggesting, but that's not the only way it can be done, I just don't have the innovative answer.  I'm sure it can be done in other ways.   But not all middlemen are bad; we celebrate record stores all the time here, and that's essentially a middle man.