Thurman#1

It's anything but insane. It's completely sensible. That's why Pittsburgh is doing it. It's simple risk/reward. The same risk as usual but for much less reward. And your week 1 comparison is utter nonsense. The reward is different. The risk is the same, but the reward is different early. The biggest advantage they could possibly get is the possibility of a home game for the second game, and even that would only happen if the Steelers win this week behind Mason Rudolph and then both the Steelers and Bills win the first playoff game. The odds are pretty decent that at least one of those three events won't come true, particularly the Steelers winning today. And the odds of the Bills winning that first playoff game would be gravely decreased by a crucial injury or two. Correct. And that includes the teams that sit the starters. That's not fear. It's sense. It's playing the odds. It's being smart. It's heeding what the risk/reward ratio tells you.

Yeah, I'd expect them to do just as they did last year, play 'em for a series or two. I wouldn't even do that, but I'm not the coach.

It is an interesting stat, but it doesn't tell the whole story. That's only true if by "rested," you mean that they didn't play a single play. That was Flacco. But three of the others played but didn't play much. That's four out of ten SB winners. And plenty of the other SB winners might easily have been playing for a week off, which we aren't.

This. Precisely. So, you figure the reason we lost to the Texans was because we rested the starters? That doesn't hold up in any way. If anything we came into that Houston game on fire. In no way were we stale or rusty. They just weren't good enough. This year, they are.

It isn't fear of injury. That's just spin. Taking care and being fearful are not the same thing. It's simply a matter of the risk/reward ratio. What you gain here if you play them all game is far less than what you are risking. That's correct, anytime a player steps on the field they risk injury. But no, not warmups, not any significant chance. Yes, it's happened, it's happened from walking on a rubber mat, but you don't keep guys off mats. With relatively little to gain, you keep them out of dangerous situations, and games are by far the most dangerous situations guys face. How would we feel if, say, Diggs gets injured and is out for the season and the Browns win, which is the likely ending of that game anyway? Or if the Steelers win and the Bills lose, and then someone beats the Steelers in Wild Card weekend. Winning tomorrow would affect only the home stadium of the Divisional Weekend, and matchups if there are some upsets, which can't be planned for anyway. It's much more important to work on being healthy and rested, which will affect every game the Bills play in the playoffs this year.

Appreciate your kindness. As to my point, it's just the obvious. QBs aren't responsible for wins or losses. Teams are. Was Rob Johnson responsible for the loss in the Music City Miscarriage of Justice? Is a QB whose team wins 7 - 0 with the score coming on a pick-six responsible for the win? No. Everyone is. Even when the QB plays lights out, he doesn't get the win. If his OL hadn't blocked well, if his receivers hadn't got open and made the catches, if his defense hadn't held the other team to that amount of points and if the STs hadn't done a great job (as the Bills STs have this year), he doesn't get the win. And yet over and over again people want to use this stat to show things about the QB. Doesn't make sense in any way. If you want to show things about Allen, look at how well he himself played. Nobody should say something like, "last second kick, it's a 35 yarder for the Fins, and the Bills line up to block it, an LBs sneaks through the line, it's blocked ... and Josh Allen wins the game, conclusively proving Josh Allen is a winner." That's what you do when you use wins as a QB stat. It really is that simple. Wins is NOT a QB stat. It is a team stat. The QB is part of the team, so he gets his share of the credit/blame, but no more. In any case, again, thanks for your consideration and kindness. It is greatly appreciated.

I was curious about your assertion that he can't throw anywhere but the middle of the field, so I went and checked. Just not true. https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/charts/player/season/lamar-jackson/JAC323395/2020/all/qb-grid Below average to the left flat, awful beyond twenty yards on the right side, but everywhere else he's at least average. If anyone can do a good job shutting him down, it's McDermott. But how much effort will he put in to stop them throwing? My guess is that they will be worrying more about the run game.

They did look physical in those two games. But I think they had in both games advantages that allowed them to leave large areas of the field relatively unprotected against the pass and to concentrate hard on the run. The Niners without Garoppolo are not much of an air threat, and the Steelers had had very little long-distance success in the weeks before our game. We looked like we were confident we didn't have to worry too much about Roethlisberger going long. Do you think playing the Ravens you have a similar automatic scheme advantage in being able to not worry about the long ball? That's a real question, I don't know the answer, but my personal guess is that while Lamar's throwing isn't nearly where it needs to be, that he's still good enough that they need to protect long, and they need to worry about him attacking outside. Will the Bills be able to be so physical when they have to protect every yard of the field? My guess is no. If they play the Ravens and get a real early lead, it should be academic, as the Ravens don't seem able to come back well. But if the Ravens get ahead early, I would really worry.

Nearly anything by the godlike band Low. Wait, mellow, but cheerful? I'll go with the crooners, instead. Der Bingle. Dino!! Oughta hold up well at the Ralph in January. We know he loves Sinatra, so ... Nancy!!!!

Just wanted to point out that while Rayray McCloud ran 4.53 at the combine, he ran as fast as 4.44 elsewhere. He can fly. http://draftscout.com/dsprofile.php?PlayerId=1002683&DraftYear=2018

We want the two seed. But we want a rested healthy team much much more. Agreed the Ravens would be one of the toughest matchups. Health is far far more important for us than matchups. Try to imagine this coach's pre-game talk: "Thank goodness we avoided facing Baltimore. Great win, fellas. Of course, now that Allen's out for the next three weeks with a knee tweak he got so we could avoid Baltimore, we should be fine with Barkley the next three weeks. Allen will be back for the Super Bowl." There's no team we need to avoid in the sense that we can't play them with a good chance to win. ... IF ... we're healthy.

For the billionth time, wins is not a QB stat. It's a team stat. Josh Allen hasn't beaten anybody. The Buffalo Bills have beaten some teams with Josh Allen playing quarterback. You used Pro Football Reference to gather your stats. They will tell you the same thing. You used their stat "QBRec" to gather your data, right? Well, go to the page for Allen or any other quarterback, and check the QBRec. Now go to the top of the table and click on the actual letters "QBRec." Hell, you don't even have to click. Just put the cursor on the letters. Doing that will show you the actual name of that stat ... ... which is "Team record in games started by this quarterback (regular season)."

No football related excuse for him missing his kids birthdays? So, you know the Patriots practice schedules? You know the various travel problems he might have encountered getting from his place to his kids place? You know whether he might have a relative at home with a pre-existing health condition of some kind, and what doctors might have told him about whether he could possibly catch the new strain even though he's had the old one? Sorry, man, assuming there's no reason for him to miss an event when all the info you have is their game schedules, is acting on info that goes way way beyond incomplete. And the thing about grown men is that some care what they wear and some don't and when you pick through any list of people who are wildly successful, you'll find plenty of both. I didn't like the guy much early in his career either. But in New England he's really bought into their attempt to win through team-first ball and attitude. I'm a lot happier to see him losing there than winning, and his throwing has gone to hell, but he's been a good guy there from what I can see.

Reading through it, it says that it was a tough year for him and that going through it made him more resilient. What in the world is wrong with a word of anything he said? Nothing. He's not throwing anyone under the bus, he's not blaming anyone else. He's just saying it's been a tough year. Fair enough you don't want him near us. I don't either unless they fix his mechanics somehow. But what he said there was all just fine.

In the article it said if two minorities from your team get those promotions, you get three 3rds. Nothing said beyond that.

No it isn't. What the Bills did there was an amazing achievement. It was absolutely not "relatively meaningless." Those were four great years and a great period in franchise history. Yeah, clearly it could have been better, but what they accomplished was still fantastic. And clearly the SB losses didn't have anything to do with whether or not they had rested players in the last week of the regular season. They came into the playoffs all four years ferocious and ready. If only they'd had a Ted Washington type at NT, they'd have racked up an SB win or two.

Your first sentence is dead on. You can't assume the Steelers will lose even while not playing their best. Same with us, though. And the importance of being as healthy and rested as possible for the whole playoffs trumps home field for what will almost certainly be one extra game ... assuming we even win the first playoff game. The focus should be on winning all of them, not worrying where game two will be played. Particularly as we already beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh.

Sure home field matters. But much less than going into the playoffs with few key injuries and not banged up. Sit 'em.

OK. Personally, my bet on the odds of going TE in the 1st or 2nd round next year, when we seem very unlikely to be able to fill many holes in FA due to our bad cap situation ... roughly 5%. And I have the urge now that I've typed that to lower it. Disclaimer: I'm not Beane, obviously. But that's my guess. While I agree with your overall sentiment here, there are definitely a bunch who fit in between elite and mediocre and are somewhere in the good to very good range. Who would the elite guys be? Kelce and Kittle, certainly. Waller, maybe? Those three? Guys like Gesicki, Hockenson, Fant, Hunter Henry, Hurst, Goedert, Engram, Hooper, the aging Gronk and probably a few more ... they aren't mediocre. But your point stands, I think. How would a GM feel having spent a 1st rounder and gotten a guy like most of these in my second group? IMO there are two or three who you might be pretty happy with, especially if your pick was in the 20s or 30s. Not more, though. How about the 2nd round? Would all of these guys look like good picks in the 2nd? Several more, probably, but I personally wouldn't trade a 2nd for many of them, even if they were coming in on rookie contracts that lasted four more years. On a team that's going to have a few holes and three guys already on the roster that they would love to re-sign but might well not be able to get all three with the cap the way it is, I don't see them picking a TE early. Maybe another shot at a guy like Knox himself, in the mid-rounds? Yeah, I could definitely see that. We'll see.

Yup. That's what you said. But don't feel bad. People say stupid things all the time. It's a human thing.

Good guess.

IMO it's less that they're fine coming here and more that they figure they'd rather come here with a healthy and relatively rested team than play anywhere with an exhausted team that has possibly suffered a crucial injury or two. Playing everyone this game simply doesn't offer a good risk/reward ratio. Same for us, IMO.

Rest 'em. Maybe a series or two, but basically, rest 'em. As for rhythm, were they out of rhythm after the bye?

Yup. Saw this earlier elsewhere. I love that the Pats reporters noticed this. The Bills just had no fear. Agree with TH3 above that it probably wasn't called, just a reaction play, but it still applies. No fear. We constantly hear that McDermott always plays conservative, that he won't take risks. This shows it. When it's smart, he'll take risks. And Lorax tweeted they've been practicing that play all of last year, waiting. Love it.

I can't answer for him, but I think the main thing they use for MVP is how well a guy plays compared to other candidates that same year. Just the stats: Mahomes 66.3% completions, 4740 yards, 38 TDs to 6 INTs and 108.2 passer rating Rodgers 70.3% completions, 4059 yards, 44 DTs to 5 INTs and 119.4 passer rating. Again, Allen's playing at an elite level right now, but this year has produced a lot of insane offensive statistics. It's not fair to compare this year's stats with other years without accounting for that.