GaryPinC

Defensive coaching improvement is going to be a tough one early in the season, I think we have to be patient and look closely right now. Sean already said to start the year the defense will be a work in progress due to new and inexperienced players. So I think they would try and keep his system as simple as possible now, until the unit starts to come together. https://www.si.com/nfl/bills/onsi/sean-mcdermott-explains-bills-curious-personnel-decisions-in-week-4-vs-saints “Just looking at different players,” said McDermott, explaining why Codrington did not play. “Seeing how the game day roster looks with different players up, different players down. With the goal of making sure we have our best guys out there as we head down the road here.” On Strong getting playing time: “Just looking at a young player,” explained McDermott. “Giving him some experience and some valuable reps. It wasn’t anything that Tre didn’t do. That was the plan going into the game.” This is new to me and exactly what I want to see from him with the defense. I don't want incompetent players being given minutes, but if Hairston and/or Hancock are doing well enough in practice, I hope they get the same treatment. Push their development because they could really help the team, especially in an injury situation. So signs are looking good to me here. My second component would be customizing the defense for the opponent. Even down to specific plays. I haven't seen much change here, and we've seen some attempts at man coverage, but we would really need Hairston at a minimum for that, IMO. But given the unsettled status of the D, I think that is why we are playing such soft zones and unimaginative pass rush again. Maybe coming off the bye, but I think around our 10th game (Tampa) will be where they start creatively tasking the defense. Which means we may play infuriating D against KC and take a lot of fan grief for it, but I'd rather play vanilla and save it for the playoffs. Mahomes is still very good but IMO has lost his elite quick-decision-making edge and I think we can take them in Jan/Feb this year if the D comes together.

All or none. So many want to only look at it this way. McDermott has needed to change his approach to defense. Too many marginal starters entrenched until the backup shows out in practice. An inflexible defensive system that can't adjust to Pat Mahomes end-arounds in the AFCCG. Let's be patient with McDermott. McDermott warned us before the season the D would be a work in progress early season due to all the rookies and inexperienced playing. Rookie D-linemen typically take 2-3 years to develop. I think anyone can see Deone Walker's development needs to be pushed as he will be a difference maker for us. According to McDermott, he sat Codrington and gave Strong (Benford's backup) some game reps instead of Tre this week, even letting Tre know in advance. Said he wanted to give the backups a chance to compete, make sure the starter is still our best option. This is the type of continuous improvement I want to see out of McDermott. When our suspended D-linemen come back, does Walker continue to get significant snaps? He damn well better, push his development to be a difference maker in the playoffs. As the D settles in, does he get creative with stunts and blitzes in big moments of close games? If he does all this and our D fails, then we point the finger at Beane and the scouts. But I'm very happy to see the changes this season already with McD.

The new cardinal on the helmet reminds me of woody woodpecker

7-9000 calories a day to bulk up to O-line status! Inaniamte objects or not, I still feel sorry for the toilets that had to host that aftermath. Someone should ask him how many flushes per sitting were needed?

Yeah, you also think about how McD and Daboll butted heads over the offense and how Josh only really began to become a complete quarterback at the end of and after Daboll's tenure. I hope one day a reporter does a piece on how Josh was developed.

Yeah, seemed like Daboll got a lot of credit for developing Josh, but you have to wonder if it was misplaced.

Then there's the Browns who are still sticking with Flacco. Every time that guy goes to pass, he has a far higher % of negative plays than positive.

I agree about Bishop and Rapp, I suspect Hamlin did a better job of running the show than either of these guys and it helped Rapp's positioning and ability to play faster. D-line will certainly get better and we need to stop having Bosa play like 80+% of snaps. I think at a minimum coaches need to do everything they can to get Hairston as at least a solid backup by the playoffs. Pushing Hancock to see if he can replace Rapp would be great too. Of equal importance to any of this will be our coaching staff coming up with new looks and pressures not on film and targeted to our specific opponents' weaknesses in the playoffs. Thinking outside the box.

Ok, that's cool, we can agree to disagree. For sure the defense needed to make a stop in any scenario, but what was the optimum scenario for them to maximize their chances? When our timeout strategy actually unfolded on that 2nd and 5, I felt it was a little too much hubris and extra time opportunity that a touchdown became significantly more likely. My greater point is that McDermott's choices aren't necessarily the only "correct" way to handle that situation and IMO given everything, not the best way. It's been a good, respectful discussion and I thank you and Rochester 4 that! 👍

Because Mike McDaniel has issues at times with his clock management and anticipating ahead when to use timeouts. Additionally, if we have our timeouts still in pocket we can use them to reset the D if needed on those last plays. If the ball had been back at the 35-45 or inside the 15 with 55 seconds left, sure, try and preserve time for Josh. Instead, if we let Miami play it out, it's not unreasonable to assume that Miami converts the third and 7 but has 15- 20 seconds on the clock and burned at least one timeout. Now we have better control of that situation than what occurred. McDaniel is under more pressure to take the FG and we didn't give him two timeouts up front to help settle him and make plans.

I believe control is relative and based on perspective and I feel we ceded any chance of a waning clock forcing a field goal. I understand what you and GunnerBill are saying, but for me in this scenario of a one score game, an inconsistent defense and being just outside the red zone with 55 seconds, my priority is to let a waning clock squeeze Miami. I prefer our defense and the clock pressuring Miami into the field goal instead of just our defense. Getting Josh the ball before halftime wouldn't be my priority because preserving the lead will give the opportunity after halftime to extend to a two possession game, and that is of added magnitude in a tight game like this. Don't get me wrong, I certainly favor using our timeouts to get Josh the ball back if the situation were more favorable. I respect your perspective on it except for the part where yours was the only correct solution. Sure, but I'm not understanding your point? We gifted them two timeouts and a significant amount of game time, making it easy to hold back that last time out until they exhausted all the extra opportunities at the touchdown.

Sheesh. Of course there is a way it's correct. Functionally Miami has 2 timeouts with one saved to kick the FG. I don't give a crap if we end the half with extra timeouts, this is a nonsensical factor when you're trying to avoid surrendering the TD at all costs in a tight game. If the Bills let the clock run it either forces Miami to burn those two timeouts instead of us, or let the clock run. Dolphins don't want to give Josh time, so they let the clock run on second and 5. The play takes 8 seconds so probably it's third and seven and the clock has 25 or so seconds left If Miami takes the TO it leaves them with one more disposable timeout. With one timeout we gifted them around 20 seconds of game time and disrespected them when even McD admits our D will be suspect at times with all the youth and injuries. We took all the pressure of the clock off of them. After this, the scenarios are too variable to debate but the bottom line is Miami got the TD with 8 seconds remaining.

I have no problem with utilizing our timeouts to try and double dip before the halftime IF the situation is right. But the situation was not right. I agree the defense let us down in that situation. But our entire gameplan was to play a grind-it-out possession game, and in a close game with a struggling Miami offense just outside the redzone with about a minute to go, you don't start handing them timeouts and chances to catch their breath and plan their next plays. For me, you let them spend their resources first, let the clock pressure a struggling offense as much as possible and see how things play out. As Simon mentioned, if they quickly get it to a first and goal situation, then you can try to preserve Josh an opportunity. Otherwise, pressure them with the clock to preserve a lead. Instead, you gave a struggling team hope and additional motivation as handing them extra time outs up-front bordered on arrogance. Complementary football. Every coach likes to discuss it, but they never include the coaching in that. It was disappointing to me we never took advantage when their secondary took two more hits or pressured the O-line more right out of the gate. Tua was holding the ball too long at the outset but they found their rhythm in-part thanks to our conservative defense. It put more pressure on Cook and the running game and took away opportunities for our receivers to hone their game against a very weakened secondary. And it again demonstrates a lack of situational coaching/gameplanning. Which is a big part of what ends our playoff runs. I can only pray that this improves as our defense gains confidence and consistency.

The Lamar stuff at the end was my favorite

NSFW! NSFW! Source: YouTube https://share.google/otWtjh6mYTMKnEfQI

Yeah, I felt those late first half timeouts were really arrogant and enabled the TD over the field goal. Miami was methodically moving the ball in a one score game and that entire sequence gave them momentum and a chip for their shoulder.

I'm glad you brought this one up. Classic example of the media over-reacting to initial facts and in the end (investigation and in court) Brandt was lying about Ellingson being a right wing extremist and why he was run over. They didn't discuss all of it, but Brandt's autism played a central role in why he ran down Ellingson. Neither man was markedly political. So this example was not an example of political activism and thus was not included in the study. All the other data is cited names, dates. They're not invalidated because one may be missing, that's classically ignorant. The data and study remain valid. https://apnews.com/article/bismarck-north-dakota-c6a2c46243e6655dd71a47b7df55087e North Dakota Highway Patrol Capt. Bryan Niewind said Friday that authorities have talked to dozens of witnesses and plan to talk to more as they try to get a better picture of exactly what happened before the crash. “I can’t get into details about what the witnesses are describing to us. But what I can tell you is that this is not political in nature at all,” he said, adding: “There is no evidence to support Brandt’s claim on the 911 call that Mr. Ellingson was a Republican extremist. There is no evidence to support that all through our continued investigation.” https://kfgo.com/2023/09/08/885613/ A psychological exam of Brandt and subsequent report by experts was central to both the prosecution’s and the defense’s arguments, as well as the judge’s decision. Cruff spent a significant portion of his sentencing addressing Brandt’s autism diagnosis, which the experts said impacted his ability to interpret social situations and prompted an exaggerated reaction and response to the confrontation with Ellingson. Cruff faulted Brandt for consuming alcohol which the judge said Brandt knew amplified his reactions. “You didn’t intentionally run him over. I acknowledge that. I understand what the experts in this case are saying about how your mind works. And you didn’t intentionally kill Cayler. But he did die. And that’s a result of your alcohol consumption. You recklessly pushed Cayler to the ground with your SUV, you recklessly ran him over, and you recklessly killed him,” Cruff said.

Your daughter, you, your family, and medical staff will be in my prayers. Hope you two can somehow watch the game together tonight and just enjoy that opportunity. Bills therapy!

So tough for you to scroll on page 14.😩

Right in my other post to Bundy. A nice table all listed and labeled real nice for ya. Google will help you tie the two names together.

I don't know what he's referring to, but my research says INCORRECT. Michael Reinoehl, August 29, 2020. But keep posting your X BS.

https://www.alexnowrasteh.com/p/deadly-politically-motivated-violence Since 2020, 12 right wing incidents, 9 left wing. 44 right-caused deaths, 18 left-caused deaths. I can't hold your hand any more than this. Even since 2020 the right still holds the edge, since you want to keep score. And yeah, incidents of left leaning violence has been on the rise as historically, (except for the mid-eighties) right wing violence has been dominant. But you keep trying to pretend one side is more sane than the other. It's not helpful to addressing the problem.

The paper's from 22, the first from 24. But you keep pretending political violence isn't a big problem on the right as well.

😂 Ugh, the right wing bubble. https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/comparison-political-violence-left-wing-right-wing-and-islamist-extremists-united " In this research we address these gaps by comparing the use of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and worldwide using two unique datasets that cover real-world examples of politically motivated, violent behaviors. Across both datasets, we find that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. In the United States, we find no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing and Islamist extremists." So no X ramblings here. Just another academic research paper that again doesn't support your statements.

what matters to me is that politically motivated shootings are on the rise. I'd rather not see the right wingers try and score some points to balance the trend. Simply put, the politically motivated violence needs to stop. There are plenty of examples from both sides and the fact that you feel the need to try and equivocate to pick a side means this country really needs to move on without YOU.