Thurman#1

You can if it's the best thing for the offense. You can if it maximizes the effectiveness of the offense. You can and you should, in that case. In some games I would guess it would be different. But his money isn't for catches. It's for doing whatever he can do to make the offense function better on each play. Sometimes that will be blocking. No. Lee Smith's blocking and effectiveness is greatly affected by the fact that there's only one thing he can do really well. The fact that the D has to respect Dawson's pass catching ability is an extra weapon even when he's just blocking. He could always block for a second and then just go. You don't have that threat with Lee Smith. He's being paid for the whole package. Which absolutely includes his blocking abilities.

I know. Many here have made it clear that he should be on the hot seat if he doesn't win the SB.

I think it is treated the same as any other catch. Any catch completed in bounds is complete and any catch completed out of bounds is considered incomplete.

No, a loose ball is what any pass is called till it is ruled incomplete or possession is secured by the catch being finished. "ARTICLE 4. LOOSE BALL "A Loose Ball is a live ball that is not in player possession, i.e., any ball that has been kicked, passed, or fumbled. A Loose Ball is considered to be in possession of the team (offense) whose player kicked, passed, or fumbled it. It is a Loose Ball until a player secures possession or until the ball becomes dead. If it has not yet struck the ground, a Loose Ball is In Flight."

You're right. I'm wrong. Sorry. I was looking at an old rulebook, I find. Sorry!!! Thanks for the correction. Removing the post. However, saying that what Poyer did was taking a step is not clear at all. It could just as easily be called hitting the ground with your foot as you fall, a reflexive attempt to avoid falling, or something else along those lines. IMO not clearly and definitively a football move by any means.

You might think he had possession in bounds. According to the rules, he didn't satisfy the requirements for that from what I see. There are two rules involved: Item 3: Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his boty, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession. Your foot hit the ground a third time inbounds as you fall, IMO, does not fit the "act common to the game" idea. It's not juking, changing direction, reaching the ball forward towards an area that would reward him in the context of the game or whatever. It's just part of falling, generally.

Is it not a catch, you ask? Dunno. Depends whether he made a football move and finished the catch inbounds or if it moved when he hit the ground. If the guy made the catch but hadn't completed the catch and his teammate swatted it out that would make him the stupidest teammate in the world, in bounds or out of bounds. If he completed the catch and then went out of bounds, it's a catch and the teammate slaps it out it's a catch. If he didn't complete the catch and went out of bounds, it's not a catch. The swat doesn't matter if he goes out of bounds first. Poyer had not completed the catch till OOB.

It moved when he was out of bounds. Only after that he got control. If he'd been in bounds, it would have been a catch if it didn't hit the ground. The comparison to a spike doesn't hold water. Reaching to cross the plane is a football move, proving possession. Poyer didn't make a football move so he hadn't showed possession when the ball moved when he was already out of bounds.

The runner is presumed to have possession, unless he's fumbled. The receiver has not yet attained official possession. Makes sense to me, personally. Wouldn't be surprised if many disagree, with some justification, but I'm OK with it.

Sully is a terrific writer. But he's happy to write positive when things go well. Here's an excerpt from his story on the Browns win: "But as Buffalo fans who traveled to Michigan en masse contemplated the horror of a third straight defeat, the Bills shook off the dust (or was that a dusting of snow?) from a lost practice week and seized the game by the throat. "Stefon Diggs, who hadn’t been targeted once, broke open for a 5-yard TD strike from Allen just before halftime. Despite their horrid start, the Bills somehow led at half, 13-10, and you figured that it was only a matter of time before the Browns went away. "It was the latest example of a Sean McDermott team rising up in a perceived crisis for a much-needed win. A year ago on this very date, the Bills fell to 6-4 after a bad home loss to the Colts. They eventually dropped to 7-6, two games back of the Patriots in the division. Then they ran the table and won the AFC East. "They’re now 7-3, tied with the Dolphins in the division and a game ahead of the Pats and Jets. Miami has the tiebreaker at the moment, but Dolphins fans might want to look back at what happened to New England last season before assuming they have a significant edge on the Bills in the division." Sully's far better than some of the mopes on here.

Fair enough, but they don't usually run guys much in both STs and offense. It's usually one or the other with maybe a dabble here or there on the other. Perhaps they might take him off STs, or perhaps he'll be an exception to their trend. I personally wouldn't bet on it, though.

If he does demand his own top market value, I agree he'll likely be gone. IMO he'll take a bit of a hometown discount because he'll still be getting well into eight figures in AAV. He, like most of this team, really likes it here. But we'll see. You could be right, clearly.

Calling it like you see it isn't anything to be proud of. Pretty much everyone does, including folks who are wildly wildly wrong. And if he were really out of position or late often he wouldn't be here. He's here and he's captain and he's a three-time Pro Bowler and they picked up his option because he does what they want him to do a very large percentage of the time. Maybe not what you want and expect. But what they want and expect.

Most teams can't. One that could was the one that our head coach and general manager come from. They paid Davis and Kuechly very handsomely. Which positions did Davis and Kuechly play again? Oh, yeah, same ones Milano and Edmunds do. It's not a sure thing of course, but very possible. Edmunds is great against the pass because he's fast, pretty quick particularly for his size, and really heady. His long arms help. They also help him get off blocks. Yes, yes, yes. It's not a coincidence that his best years were the early ones where Lotulelei was playing well and this year when he's behind Settle and Jones. Very true. That's part of McDermott's scheme, but really every LB behind a good big DL is vastly helped. Even Ray Lewis was suddenly average after Siragusa and before Ngata. Davis and Kuechly were much the same, better behind some really big tough DTs.

Fair enough. Your crow will come after the season. He's likely to stay.

I don't think he's even saying that. There are talents on the offense that are indeed above average beyond Diggs and Allen. Hell, even the offensive line is playing overall at a slightly above average level, though Quesenberry at LT with a sprained ankle certainly didn't look terrific. Yet we ran the ball down the throats of a pretty good DL on a defense that is well above average both at run defense and overall. Is Gabe disappearing for periods of time? Yeah. But that happens with #2 WRs. It's kind of why they're not #1s. Fair enough on discussion style. There are a lot of trolls / wild-eyed pessimists on here. Particularly for a 9-3 team that's ranked very high on offense.

Going into the future, yes. Are our needs so serious that we aren't going to be able to compete very seriously for a Super Bowl? No, not at all. Not at all.

The Bills don't appear to want him back. Who cares what he wants. He isn't what he was. For several years he was excellent at handling both zone and man. Then his ability to handle man took a massive dip. It's not a mistake that his yards per reception took a massive drop, and was even lower in Tampa, though sample size makes his Tampa work statistically insignificant. That's even before getting into his constant willingness to be a distraction and to break team rules.

Yup. The most common formula for winning an SB is to have a great QB and a really good defense. There are other ways but that's the most common. You can't have a really bad group surrounding the QB. And we don't. They've got no other superstars than Diggs and Allen but the rest are good or better. It'd be nice if you could have sensational players at every position, but it's not realistic.

Didn't look that way to me. He [Smoke] couldn't stay healthy. And he was paid a lot for a guy who was unavailable as much as he was. He was actually pretty productive that year when on the field. 458 yards on 453 snaps.

Hell, no! His injury was a big one. Left us with Shakir and McKenzie at slot and neither has seized the spot. He's also the slot guy with the most work outside in case of injuries there. Come back, Jamison!!

129 degrees on the field beat the Bills in that game. Wearing dark blue while the Fins wore white. I think we're going to see a very different game up in Orchard Park, even if the temps are not a factor.

There's no right time to stack your roster. Anytime is good. Von Miller was our main move, and he was a terrific one, far better than any made by the Chiefs. We're fine.

Strong disagree here. If you're going to have luck it doesn't have to be through the season. More through the playoffs. Late in the season almost as much. And some teams are just good enough to make luck incidental. Nor does past bad luck affect luck going forward. It's more interesting than a concern.

This is a really good point, and one we (specifically me) don't think about often enough.