starrymessenger

I guess God is not a fan.

Mahomes on ***** Street.

Amazing wardrobe though.

McLeod Jr had the angle. Decided not to run fast.

Browns miss Cooper.

His 40 was slower than Garrett's.

That was last year.

I doubt KC's offence is now capable of having big blowout performances. They will go only as far as their D can carry them and when the going gets tough it won't be far enough. Too many injuries on O and questionable OTs. Kelce is slowing down.

There will be edge rushers available in FA and the draft. I would look to FA or possibly a trade to fill that need(s). The reason is that there doesn't seem to be anything of interest in the way of FA DTs so I would burn an early pick on one in the draft. Mason Graham would be a dream but is likely a top 5 pick. His teammate Kenneth Grant is for now seen as a late first/early second so he would be within reach if the Bills like him.

Except for the bomb to Puka the Rams receivers are not college ball open like they were against us.

Samuel wanted the ball and he sucks tonight.

McV sticking with the run.

Difference is that SF have no problem taking everything away underneath when Rams owned that part of the field Sunday night. SF playing more man tonight even though they are a better zone D. I guess the message is don't stay in zone versus the Rams.

In fairness to Stafford that weather is not conducive to the passing game. Not like the ideal conditions last Sunday night.

We should not equate aggressive play just with blitzing. Playing to confuse the opposition is "aggressive" because it carries with it an element of downside risk. For example without working a man scheme as such you can have your CBs line up in press or nearly so (as opposed to 10-12 yards off the line). As they are responsible for deep coverage they need to be able to backpeddle quickly, flip their hips and change direction in response to the route concepts, but lining up in this way can confuse the QB regarding the coverage. Or you can run stunts bearing in mind that the opposition can counter with a run having the potential for a big play or you can rotate your safeties post snap or set up trap coverages. All of these devices carry more risk than the base D. I know our blitz rate is low but I'm not sure to what extent McD statistically employs any of the other techniques. My impression is that it's more plain vanilla. Watching Rams/ 49rs Stafford & Co have four consecutive 3 & outs to start.

Bills 38 Leos 23

The game of football is merciless. Get well soon kid.

True but if you are going to run stunts you had better be good at it because otherwise it opens up opportunities in the run game that we already have a problem stopping.

I don't think much will be available in the way of disruptive 1 tech in FA. Lots of edge rushers tho. As for trades that is anyone's guess. Early days but Kenneth Grant (Michigan) might be someone they could consider in the draft if they opt for a run stuffing DT who can occupy 2 offensive lineman. Would likely cost a late first or move up in the second.

At least Elam is big and fast.

I dont know that taking the penalty was a mistake if you trust your D to make a play. If the Rams wind up out of FG range or muff the attempt that leaves open the possibility of kicking a tying field goal on your next possession (assuming you have one) even if you fail to hit paydirt to close out the game. But taking the penalty and then setting up against Kupp, Puka and Stafford in a soft zone accomplishes nothing except handing Stafford an extra rep and more time to burn. Idk that McD’s D is good/adaptible enough to address all reasonable contingencies. And I dont know either whether the problem is the coach or the scheme. His great Ds in Carolina seemed to me more aggressive (Keuckly, Thomas Davis, Shaq Thompson) but maybe I’m misremembering. We obviously dont have that kind of leadership amongst the players. Von got hurt. Milano got hurt.

I'm sure Bills were counting on pressuring the non-mobile Stafford. But McV knew what the Bills were about. Apparently all he had to do was give his non-mobile quarterback a moving pocket or roll him out of it and that was enough to flummox the Bills D-line. Groot and AJ looked completely lost at times.

I also thought Bills were looking to add man coverage in an attempt to diversify the scheme, which was topical at the time. And many good Ds are able to transition seamlessly between man and zone coverages. Indeed I thought we sometimes switched into man even after presenting a zone alignment in appropriate circumstances. So what I have difficulty understanding why we stick with soft zone when it's clear it cannot work - like yesterday. We made life very easy for Stafford. To me it looks like a conservative coach's mindset that is patently risk averse. After all no risk= no reward.

I do feel that Bill knows D but are people forgetting what a mess he made of the Pats O when last in the saddle?

Somebody said it's the first time it ever happened