Thurman#1

Lemme get this straight, he forced his way out of Minnesota because he became angry with how they used him ... and we should use him more like Minnesota did? And the reason is because we could reap the benefits of earning some of the 160 yards he made in runs over the course of his five years in Minny? Where his big year he earned 62 yards in running? 1535 yards says we used him just fine last year, just fine. And as for getting hurt, you don't encounter quite as many 300 pounders, or even 250 pounders, downfield after catching passes as you do when you get the ball handed to you by the QB behind the line. We're using him better than Minnesota did.

It really does not mean anything. If asked how many of the 22 SB teams who played at home in Week 1 had lost in that week, you'd probably guess two, three or maybe four. Probably two or three. This is a seriously unsurprising stat. You're right that we have to change a stat set by that game. That stat, the one we have to change, is our 0-1 record. We'll have a chance to do that in two days. It's one loss, against an excellent team. While not thrilling, it's not a big deal.

A more specific look at this question ... How many of the 55 Super Bowl champions had a home opener as opposed to an away opener? You'd guess around 27, 28, right? Wrong-o. Only 22. So now the pool of teams you're looking at is already down to 40% of all SB champs. The 66 Packers 67 Packers 73 Fins 74 Steelers 76 Raiders 85 Bears 87 Redskins 90 Giants 91 Redskins 92 Cowboys 94 Niners 97 Broncos 98 Broncos 99 Rams 02 Bucs p 04 Pats 05 Steelers 08 Steelers 09 Saints 12 Ravens 15 Broncos 18 Pats Those are the winners who had home openers. So, we played a team that looks to be a very good team this year. If Roethlisberger's arm wears away as the year goes on the way it did last year, things will look different, but that was a very good-looking team we just played. So out of the 22 SB winners that played home openers, how many played tomato cans? 67 Packers played the 5-7-2 Lions 73 Fins played the 5-9 Niners 74 Steelers played the 2-12 Colts 85 Bears played the 2-14 Bucs 05 Steelers played the 4-12 Titans 09 Saints played the 2-14 Lions 15 Broncos played the 5-11 Ravens Out of the 22 teams, seven played teams that just sucked. That leaves 15 left. How many of those 15 teams were mediocre, and thus quite a bit less difficult opponents than the Steelers? 87 Redskins played the 7-8 Eagles 92 Cowboys played the 9-7 Redskins 94 Niners played the 9-7 Raiders 98 Broncos played the 9-7 Pats 99 Rams played the 8-8 ravens 02 Bucs played the 9-7 Saints 08 Steelers played the 8-8 Texans Seven of the 15 were just mediocre. Leaving only eight SB teams that had opening day home games and played good teams. 66 Packers played the 9-5 Colts 76 Raiders played the 10-4 Steelers 90 Giants played the 10-6 Eagles 91 Redskins played the 12-4 Lions 97 Broncos played the 13-3 Chiefs 04 Pats played the 12-4 Colts 12 Ravens played the 10-6 Bengals a 18 Pats played the 11-5 Texans And while there are a few scary teams there, there are also a bunch of pretty good ones that would be respected but not frightening. So out of eight tough games how many would you expect a Super Bowl winner to lose, on average, at home? One? Two? Three? Four? In other words, the results are pretty much what you would expect. And all of those SB winners lost games. Specifically 2 (out of 14 that year), 1 (out of 14), 3, 2, 4, 2, 6, and 5 losses. What week they happened in doesn't much matter. And the odds of it happening on opening week at home are just about what you would expect. It happens. Super Bowl winners lose. Just not too many.

Heh heh. I like this. It clearly tells everyone that history is against us. Nor has a team playing at a stadium named Highmark Stadium ever won one. Nor has a team QB'd by Josh Allen ever won one. We're doomed!!! The original stat is one of those types of things that people love to talk about. It looks impressive at first, until you realize that it's just not surprising at all. When you throw a bunch of conditions on a likelihood, you will get lower and lower results. The low results are more about the conditions of the problem than any kind of meaningful result.

Probably not. Luckily, they have one. Killer instinct isn't a problem. Roster strength, matchups, scheme matchups, there are plenty of real concerns to worry about. ... and the desperate search for scapegoats continues. Nonsense.

Our receivers were all injured at that point. They weren't getting open, and the refs decided not to call pass interference in the championship game. And controlling them was easier due to their injuries. And while the offense wasn't great against Indy, they certainly weren't bad and pretty decent in the second half. Four drives for a TD and two FGs. The problems were more serious in the last two games, against two good Ds, with injured receivers. If we continue to have problems, that will indeed signal that the system needs some fixing. Right now it's not clear there are any problems beyond Pittsburgh's being really good and needing to learn to handle what they did against our route combos. If they do at some point switch play callers, that would be fine with me. It hasn't yet, IMO, been shown to be necessary. But bigger changes could be indicated if the returns continue to come in negative.

That headline overstates what Graham did. He didn't suggest it. What you could say is something more like ... he brought up the possibility and discussed it, along with McDermott's history of doing things like that. In fact he goes pretty far out of his way NOT to suggest it. "One then could fairly deduce the Bills’ message about improving their run game meant they needed to adjust the way Daboll calls their plays," he said. "... one might wonder if it’s time for passing-game coordinator Ken Dorsey to get a shot to see what he can do," he said. "One might wonder." That is not the language you use when you suggest something. Bringing up a possibility, for the sake of discussion, maybe. About as far he goes towards any kind of assertion is, saying, "Lombardi Trophies won’t be lifted without significant adjustments from what we witnessed." He absolutely did not suggest demoting Daboll, much less doing so this week.

Yup. Folks may have seen this, but it's a thoughtful breakdown of the Steelers DL vs. the Bills OL, with video breakdowns. He even had video of Bobby Johnson at a coaching clinic he attended.

This. Blame goes to nearly everyone on the offensive side, including Allen, Daboll and the OL as the largest parts, but Simms' point here is that Pittsburgh crossing us up and really using smart anticipatory strategy was a big part of it. QBs have to get confused along the way. It is part of the process. Seeing new things, getting confused and beaten, looking at it on film and figuring out what they did and how to counter ... this is what turns guys into Peyton Mannings and Tom Bradys, in terms of veteran smarts. It's part of the process, but it's a painful part of the process. We'll see other teams trying to ape this strategy. Most of those teams won't have a defensive front four like the Steelers do, so they won't do it as well, but it will be tougher unless/until we figure out how to successfully counter.

How is he going to better anticipate his opponents strategy when it's week one and when the opponent totally switches the strategy they've used for years. When you always expect your opponent to switch things up, you'll be wrong most of the time. Most teams make small changes, occasionally bigger. It's not possible to correctly predict big changes any more than very occasionally. Expecting Daboll to correctly anticipate what the Steelers were going to do is ridiculous. What you hope your coaches do is perceive and adapt. Easier said than done, but it's far more possible than correctly anticipating major changes in strategy, especially in week one. That's where blame should be applied. I hear you, but watching the eyes is what defenses do. Nearly always. And Allen does a good job these days in looking them off. But yeah, pressure always makes things tough. For any QB.

Sure, there are advantages and disadvantages to deactivating anybody. That includes Moss. But deactivating him didn't create problems that were a serious part of losing this game. Nobody was injured. Nobody wasn't fresh. The Steelers had done all their game planning before knowing Moss wouldn't play. And yeah, the Steelers game plan was based on our not making significant changes to the pass game. So were the game plans of the 13 teams we beat in the regular season last year and the two we beat in the playoffs. We make changes each game. We did for this one. When they adjust to this, it might involve running a bit more. But it won't involve running so much that we wear down front fours. And teams have tried to wear out Cam Heyward and TJ Watt before. It hasn't worked. They handle it. They're great players and they're in good shape. But it does take the ball out of the hands of your quarterback, which in our case means taking it out of Josh Allen's hands, not something we'll want to do a lot of. Wouldn't mind them running a bit more. I've said so in several threads. Wouldn't have turned this game around, though. And like you, I would love to see them go back up to last year's levels of play action (which worked great last year even without us running a lot). But no, we're not going to turn into a run-heavy team. Wouldn't make sense.

They're perfectly capable of pounding the rock with Singletary. Moss is better, but Singletary runs through the middle productively all the time. Hell, he did it in this game. The problem wasn't who they sat, it was the plays they called, and that the Steelers had a terrific game plan to handle our passing game. And that our OL couldn't handle the Steelers 4-man rush. Of course they didn't start the game with 15 runs. We've been successful passing. We were successful passing against the Steelers. The game AFTER someone does what PIttsburgh did is the game you consider running more and crossing things up.

Interesting. I especially like when he says Pittsburgh knew Buffalo's rules. Other teams were watching. We'll have to make some changes. The way to beat that was for Beasley to fake inside and go long down the sideline. But the Steelers knew that's not the way his rules run on plays like that.

Yes, agreed, and the Steelers really did play damn well. Wonder if Roethlisberger's arm will wear down as the year goes along, as it did last year.

Certainly we missed some opportunities. More on offense than defense. But missed opportunities happen in every game. The other teams make some plays and humans aren't perfect so we miss opportunities. You'll never eliminat them but you have to minimize them.

Next year, we have about $20M left on the cap. $20.39M, to be specific. (Spotrac) 23rd in the league. We are not going to be able to do much about bringing in FAs next year. If those three guys you mentioned, (and it's an if, especially with Star), are off the team, we would soar all the way up to $24.6M. That would vault us all the way up from 23rd to, oh, um, still 23rd. And if they're gone, those three, they would need to replace probably two of the three if they carry one less DL next year. Beane has shown he's an intelligent handler of cap, conservative and he will keep money available for the future. But the COVID cap cuts came at the worst possible time for this team, leaving us with little money to work with in the last two years before Josh's major cap hits start.

I politely disagree. There's not much to analyze there, not when you're only able to look at five games, and they went 3-2 in those games. That's as close to no pattern as you can get in five games without having a tie involved. You're right the Jets were involved, but that only means that there's even less useful data. You can only play who you're scheduled. We lost two of the first three, when we were a bad team in the process of a rebuild. Won two of the last three when we're a good team. No real info there. We did what we were expected to do up until this year.

Singletary's a very good back. Not a bell cow, but he can be a #1 back, which is why he is one and why he was one his rookie year as well. And you're exaggerating about his catch percentage. His two seasons he's never averaged below 70%. Totalled around 72.9, and improved last year to 76%. Daying he will probably catch 60 - 75% is misleading. It's true, but actually he will probably catch 70 - 75%, which isn't awful, though it's not great either. If he wasn't a threat he wouldn't have killed them on those two runs late, and he wouldn't have averaged 6.5 YPC, and he wouldn't be averaging 4.8 YPC for his career.

Quick question ... how many people run 25 times a game consistently. Answer: nobody. Nobody runs 25 times regularly. Last year's carries leader was Derrick Henry with 23.15. And he had more than 60 carries more than the next hardest-worked RB. You're living in the '70s. Alright, it happened more recently than that, but that's not how things go today. If you're asking whether we win last week if we run him that much, no, I don't think so, but it would have helped. Would've opened up the play action game too, though they did much less play action this week than they averaged last year, according to Joe B. We had some terrific games last year throwing without establishing the run. I'd like to have seen them do that against the Steelers, but I don't think that alone would have made the difference.

There's no reason to think Gabe is faster than Sanders. They certainly weren't based on their 40s, and yeah, Sanders may have slowed up, but not a lot, and there was a major difference. Gabe is good, but he's no burner.

Strongly disagree about your conclusion about Sanders. They threw long to him all game, and he was really open. He's a guy who can get open short or deep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR6QtSjNwEQ Look at 1:07 and 2:01 Love the 2nd one where he destroys his guy with a route and then throws the safety away, subtly enough to not get caught at it.

Davis isn't as fast as Sanders. Even after Sanders may have slowed up a bit with age, he looks significantly faster than Davis. And yeah, Josh threw it too far, but when a guy has five yards, you have to put more arch on it and put it shorter. Yes, timing was a problem. But it was a bad pass. Agreed they should get better with time together.

They like Sanders better. And if the two throws that Josh missed to Sanders had been on target, he'd have been close to 150 yards. He deserves it. Gabe is very good, but they think he's the 4th best on the team. I agree, personally. In any case, at the Bills site, he's listed on the depth chart directly ahead of Davis. https://www.buffalobills.com/team/depth-chart Agreed. He might have held onto it, but it would have been a terrific play. A play few WRs would have made.

Not at all. A negative test would prove you're not going to give it somebody, but wouldn't show you as any less likely to catch it inside and then over the next days till you started feeling bad or got a positive test, give it to others at that point. I wish we were far enough along to not have to do things like this as a society. But we're not. The pandemic is still surging along and we're not close to herd immunity. It's a shame, but it makes sense. This. It's not experimental. Nice post. Football relevance, hunh? Will anti-vaxxers with tickets sell to opponent fans? Could this tip the balance at the stadium by allowing more opponent fans in? That's all I got.

I agree with your main point, I think. But not at all concerned? The Chicken Littles are over-reacting, but I'm a bit concerned. A blessing in disguise? Disguise or not, a loss isn't a blessing. It's a problem. They shouldn't have needed this. Overall, as I say, I agree that this isn't cause for major worry, or at least not until/if they lose a few more. But it shouldn't be something we shrug off and say it's a wakeup call. They should've woken up before the first game, not after it.