Thurman#1

They brought in Crowder. A very good slot. They thought between McKenzie, Crowder and Shakir they'd find somebody. And Crowder was supposed to be the safety blanket in case the other two don't work out or need more time. Unfortunately, he's injured.

Think Peterson's going to cover a guy who's been out of bounds and thus can't be first to touch the ball when he comes back in? Interestingly, the play he should have made there was to (unobtrusively) pull Peterson out of bounds with him so he also can't be first to touch the ball. I hadn't thought of that, but JT O'Sullivan pointed that out about McKenzie on this play during this video about Allen's problems and how he works even better when he can throw within the play design.

Nah. He doesn't need an offensive innovator, he needs a good offensive coach. Which Dorsey may well be, though you can't be sure yet, either way. And he certainly doesn't need an offensive innovator or a good offensive coach as head coach. At head coach, he needs a good head coach. Period. Was Brady handicapped because Belichick was a defensive specialist? More, there's no reason to think that McDermott isn't a great head coach. At the end of his fifth year as HC, Belichick was getting fired. As we know, it wasn't because he was incapable as a head coach. Oh, and his defense stopped them at the one-foot line. That's not crapping the bed. Anything but. And they did that despite about five starters being out. Sorry, that's absolute nonsense. They sure weren't perfect. That play where Lewis went for the INT rather than the knock-down sure was absolutely awful. But it wasn't a failure of coaching. Players make mistakes sometimes too. And yet the D played pretty well despite missing Edmunds (anyone else notice that things went downhill after he went out? 10 points, 151 yards, an INT, two punts and a turnover on downs in the first half when he was on the field), Poyer, Hyde, of course White and also Rousseau being out. I don't doubt they want another receiver. Nobody should doubt it. But you can't get everything you want. It doesn't work that way. Every team makes trade-offs. We've got a terrific roster. Oh, and Shakir may be that third pick-your-poison guy. Can't be sure but he looks good for how young he is.

It doesn't tell the defense when you are going to snap the ball. Gives them a general idea, but equally the receiver could settle, take off left or right in motion ... there are a million possible variations. Sometimes it tells, sometimes it's a fake, sometimes the crosser is going to catch a pass, it goes on and on. Defenses get some tendencies. Then you use the tendencies on them and do something else. It's not the same guy each time who pushes. Nor do they push every time. Nor do they push straight forward each time, sometimes Allen steps to either side. And again, the problem on that goal line play wasn't the play. It was the mishandled snap. Period. The middle of the line moved the pile pretty well, actually. I just watched the All-22 and Allen was going to have to get through a charging LB who had to leap into the air to reach the area. He does that with no problem if he actually had the ball.

You want to find somebody who's full of it? Look for someone using the tactic you're using here, admitting the other guy's argument is a winner by ignoring what he actually said and throwing out a straw man to distract. He didn't "compare Devin Singletary to Alvin Kamara," as you claim. He destroyed your dumb contention that the fact that Singletary hasn't cleared 1K means anything by pointing out another very good RB who also has not cleared 1K. There are many very good RBs who he could have also cited. Ekeler. Tony Pollard, Edwards-Helaire. Guys who are good but are in situations where they don't get a lot of carries. Yeah, you seem to be looking at the wrong team.

Yeah, Dorsey's doing a bad job. I personally find an offense that is #1 in the league to be abhorrent. Almost as abhorrent as an offense that is #2 in scoring. We've got to improve!! But clearly this tire fire is all Dorsey's fault and no blame can be laid elsewhere.

"Pretty much all of them won a SB within their first 5 years with the team," you say? Not Andy Reid. Not Cowher. And out of all of the SB-winning coaches mentioned there, nearly all proved teams stupid for firing them too early. Nearly all of the others were fired from one team before they won one. Clearly they were good enough to win a Super Bowl or were developing towards being good enough. Yet they were fired before doing so. Stupid mistakes by stupid teams. Firing a guy who eventually wins a Super Bowl is a mistake. It clearly wasn't him that was the problem. It was the roster, the locker room, the organization ... something. But Belichick in Cleveland wasn't incapable of winning a Super Bowl. Cleveland thought so, and was wrong. The problem was elsewhere. Same with Reid in Philly. And Carroll with the Jets and Pats. Arians, Gruden, Coughlin, Kubiak and Dungy. Having a short leash was butt-stupid by the eight teams that fired those eight coaches forcing them to win a Lombardi elsewhere. That's excellent evidence that the teams simply didn't have much of a clue about what their teams' problems were. Bad teams, bad thinkers really, love to find scapegoats. Hint: Belichick wasn't the reason the Browns couldn't win a Super Bowl when he was the head coach there. Reid wasn't the problem in Philly. Any thoughtful person could go on and on with the examples.

They didn't have a shot at stability. Daboll left. Allen lobbied hard for Dorsey. And you say that "The question should no longer be “is Ken Dorsey a good OC?” Frankly, yes it should. That's the question. Dorsey has had some problems, but also some terrific things. He's presiding over a 6-3 team that has the #1 offense and the #2 scoring offense. Is he responsible for that success? No, not he alone, certainly, but he's done his part. He's responsible for his share of their problems but also his share of their successes. Hunh. I could not have named Kubiak if you'd asked me who had coached that team. Interesting. Kubiak was never a guy who ate up much press time or ink, did he?

Good stuff, man.

The rare triple negative. I believe you're saying it was all lies. Is that what you think?

I thought it would take longer but I thought Daboll had a great chance to be a good coach. He was undervalued on these boards where people don't have an emotional stake in the play caller but they do with the players and especially the QB.

Two guys open right in front of him. Singletary blocked a guy and released, he was a fine safety valve and was wide open. He was open before Allen threw, and there was no pressure on Allen yet, he had time to check down. When you have three guys open, two of them wide open and your QB picks the hardest throw of the three and throws behind the WR, it ain't the design. It's the throw. Someone up above said he forced it in, wanting Diggs or Davis. That sounds maybe right to me. The injury happened with about two plays left last week. He'd had the same problem for a game and a half before that. Periodic bad decisions and throws though most were good. I don't think the injury had much impact there. The throw before, to Knox, was right on target, though very well-defended.

I politely disagree. Even as Allen gets ready to throw, he can see that Davis comes underneath and in that case the DB's move will always be to cut underneath. If you throw this you have to make it high and to the left. Two guys open on the play. It wasn't the call.

The throw is already behind Davis. If he flattens the route the throw is just even further behind him.

For most QBs that's a bad decision. But I understand why with Allen's arm he's confident he can get it there. But it has to be an absolutely beautiful throw. But there's a guy on a shorter throw who's much more open, right down the center of the field. I wish he'd taken that one instead. But I agree, not a bad decision, just a bad throw. IMO that shorter route would have been a better decision. Allen isn't quite right just now. Dunno what they can do. Thanks for posting it, OP. Yeah, this. It had to be thrown early. This isn't one of those routes where Allen can wait and see which way the guy goes. The receiver has to run where they tell him Josh is going to throw it. Allen was throwing it pretty much as Davis made the cut.

False. And irrelevant. Yes, the U.S. controls it. No, not exclusively. Which is why there is a locally elected mayor and a local government. The locally elected government is intended to serve the interests of the people of the District. Not the interests of the people of, for example, Wyoming.

Hope you're trolling. If you actually meant this, it'd be pretty sad.

It's not even a question. He improves each year. Has had an injury this year, so people forget. But the answer is yes, depending on salary agreement.

You don't decide this on who would be better against Minnesota. You decide it on what would be better for Brown's recovery. Let the doctors and the physios decide. My guess is they'll give Brown as many reps as they think they can while keeping the risk minimal.

Yeah, it said something completely and entirely unrelated to my post you are replying to. Something I didn't refer to in any way. Whether it said it perfectly I'll leave to the judgment of others. But thanks for answering my post by referring unclearly (which post? the one just before me? What?) to something irrelevant to it.

You can get into game shape in practice. Not in walk-throughs, obviously, but in contact practices and drills. That's what training camp is for. And I'm a lot less worried about getting in game shape and a lot more worried about being fully recovered from the injury, completely rehabbed and having not just the injured tissues in great shape but the surrounding complementary and oppositional muscles tendons and ligaments all in equally good shape to reduce the risk of reinjury as much as reasonably possible.

"Off the table"? Seriously? It really is not a fair bet in any way shape or form. This early the idea is dumb. We're still in #1, actually. Allen might still play. We might win, with or without him. If we lose, KC might lose too, and one or more of the other competitors for #1. Zero reason to think we don't still have a good chance to see things go our way. It certainly could happen that we don't win the #1. Or not.

You are desperate to lose here. Unwilling to wait, so hungry to assume we'll look like trash. I'd hate to live like you are. It "is" not only a direct indictment yadda yadda. Nonsense, of course, but aside from that, the key word there is "is" as Bill Clinton said. No, dude. Not "is." "Would be." It hasn't happened yet, no matter how much some of you folks are clearly aching to see it. "A loss will reshape ..." you say. Wrong again. A loss could reshape ... or a loss might reshape. Or a loss might possibly reshape. All of these are reasonable ways to look at things. Better yet, "If we lose, it would reshape ..." But no, you're happier assuming we'll lose and assuming that when we lose the worst will happen. You're craving all of this. So glad I don't live in your world.

Very little. Every great QB covers warts. It's the nature of the beast. Every roster has warts. This Bills roster is constructed extremely well. Any team going from a great QB to it's backup is vastly less good.

It's only "not how many points they scored" because you're desperately trying to spin things. It really is how many points they scored. The Bills offense scoring 17 points was the problem. 17 points is a horrible offensive output. 20 points is a pretty damn good score for a defense to hold a team to. The offense's worst of the year in both points and yards. The D allowed 310 yards (which would be 7th in the league in yards allowed per game) and 12th in the league in points allowed per game. The O racked up 317 yards (which would be 7th WORST in the league in yards allowed per game) and 17 points would have put them at 6th worst. And they didn't "allow Wilson to go up and down the field." They allowed Wilson to go up and down the field sometimes. Which is how defense works. Again, the Jets' yardage gained would have put them 7th worst in the league. That's just not going up and down the field all the time or even close. If they had actually just gone up and down the field all the time they'd have piled up yards and points. They didn't. You're only thinking about the parts of the game that back up your point, and it's causing you to miss what happened.