uncle flap

I'm wondering why Easley hasn't gotten out there. Especially once EJ went down. SJ was already out and Tuel seemed to have developed a good rapport with Easley in the preseason. There's your big body right there.

Dennis Dixon should be added to that list. The only other guys besides Dixon that I'd want to see are Freeman or Tuel. And that was poor phrasing, because I don't want to see Tuel, but since he already knows the offense and the team has a long week to install a game plan for Tuel, he might actually be the best option depending on when they bring someone else in. Dixon can run the read option, has plenty of arm strength, and I'm not sure that he's ever gotten a fair shake in the NFL thus far. The rumors surrounding Freeman make me a tad skeptical about bringing him in, but Buffalo may be a good spot for him since he won't be expected to be the savior going forward. If he manages to put a stranglehold on the starting spot, it's a win-win. He can parlay his good play into a juicy FA contract after the year is over with someone else, or re-sign with the Bills and lead the charge the next few years. I'd still rather see Dixon tho, because his career trajectory so far lends itself to eventually being the backup and being ok with that. Freeman could be be disgruntled and IMO more likely to create a QB controversy once EJ is healthy.

Ok yeah the analogy isn't perfect. But my point is not really about the cumulative effect, but that driving (like football) is so inherently dangerous that cutting back on driving, or running fewer plays, doesn't make each instance any safer. And I wonder if the additional experience/practice actually would make it safer. A more experienced driver is actually less likely to be in an accident, and perhaps a better conditioned football player is less likely to be injured. In other words, even if playing hurry up "causes" more injuries (cumulatively or in isolation), the fact that they are playing football at all is what's really dangerous. Player X played in an uptempo offense for 7 years and when he retires he develops CTE and his joints are non-existent. Well, Player Y played in an offense for 7 years that milked the clock the entire game. Guess what? Player Y retires with CTE and no joints either. I'm not saying you're wrong that more opportunities for injury cause more injuries. I'm just saying that players are injured so often, and for all types of reasons, that a player is already so likely to get injured anyway, that the additional opportunities aren't all that significant.

More opportunities for injury would logically lead to more injuries, but I find it interesting that the article doesn't compare how many actual injuries the hurry-up teams suffer vs "regular" speed teams. I realize it states that there were more head impacts, which may lead to post career problems, but nothing saying "Team X's players suffered more concussions than Team Y because Team X played more snaps per game." Unless I'm missing something there. I think perhaps teams that run and practice hurry up offenses are might be in better shape and therefore less susceptible to injury; That is, better conditioning may lead to stronger players who aren't fatigued and don't get injured as often as players sucking wind and struggling to keep up. At least in the short term, I would assume there are enough teams that have played hurry up for long enough of a time to make statistically significant observations. And over the long term, regarding post career conditions like CTE, I think playing football at all is so risky that the additional risk of playing in an up tempo offense probably isn't significant enough to warrant some type of rule change or even cause for concern. IMO, it's like driving a car. Sure, the more you drive, the more likely you are to get into an accident. But the fact still remains anytime you get into a car, you run the risk of getting into an accident. Instead of trying to drive 10-15% less of the time to be "safer," the powers that be should be trying to make driving- or in this case, football - inherently safer. TLDR- Don't play football less because it's dangerous, make football safer. Oh, and as far as the Bills injuries, I don't think they have any additional injuries bc of the hurry up. They have a ton of injuries every year, just like most teams that incorporate every type of offensive philosophy.

So, I didn't want to be that guy, but it's "trough," not "troth." The grammar police are really losing their edge here, huh? I mean, it's been two days! Anyway, that was absolutely disgusting. Walking into the game they had a kid with a mop - maybe he was 18, but didn't look a day over 15- trying to stop hundreds of people from walking through the area near the rockpile. Since you're walking down from the outer concourse to the inner portion, it takes a second for your eyes to adjust from the bright sun to the dimmer "inside" area. So plenty of people were walking through an inch or two of nasty water before they even realize it. I realize the timing must've played a part, but what's more egregious IMO is that they didn't have a battalion of employees directing traffic and explaining what was going on. I overheard something about flooding, which is way less alarming than WATCH OUT FOR SEWAGE. Throw up some signs or something. I don't know why people weren't informed as soon as they started walking in that direction. There were a handful of guest services people at the top of the concourse and they didn't seem to alert anyone. Once I was down there, I saw dozens of concession employees just standing there in front of their stands. I think they should've had them at the top of the concourse directing traffic or at least providing a clear warning. Oh well, I was buzzed enough to not really care at the time, and it wasn't really that big of a deal. However, I do think it could've been handled much better, and maybe I wouldn't have had to throw my sneakers out yesterday. Or walk halfway around the stadium to buy a freaking bottle of water in an extra long line.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I said as much, but maybe I wasn't clear. I agree that EJ was told to look to the go route automatically when facing a single high or cover zero coverage. However there were two problems with that, even tho it is the "textbook" approach: 1. EJ can't make that throw under pressure (real or perceived). Whether or not the pressure actually gets there, the d line was coming so fast and so often that EJ wasn't getting set, and throwing wildly off his back foot because he felt rushed. 2. Hackett, and by extension EJ, didn't adjust to what the D was giving them. This is doubly worse when Hackett doesn't consider that EJ is less likely to step into a deeper throw because he looks rattled back there from all the pressure. You're right that the ultimate is culprit is coaching, but coaching became an issue because of the poor line play, which caused EJ to hurry his throws. I haven't re-watched the game because it was so pitiful overall, but I seem to recall later in the game when EJ was throwing over the middle more, he still was hurrying his throws and was still inaccurate. If they did indeed adjust, it was too late, as EJ was already too rattled from having his protection blown up all game. Good coaching would've provided a variety of hot reads in different situations- including the screens and hitches that we are all clamoring for- early in the game, and perhaps EJ could've gotten into a rhythm, instead of putting all the pressure on him with a 3rd and long after predictable runs for basically nothing on 1st and 2nd down. Yeah, those are my thoughts exactly from another thread: I think it ultimately falls on Hackett. He has to either tell EJ what to do, or allow him the freedom to audible to what the D gives him. If EJ does have the authority, but is making the wrong call, or failing to adjust, then Hackett has to make sure he is calling plays to help EJ out. He didn't seem to be doing so, or I suspect he might've but it was too late in the game to make a difference. Also, as mentioned above, it could be that Hackett is intent on "dictating" to the D, and might feel that adjusting is some sort of admission of defeat. I applaud the moxie, if that's the case, but I wish he'd realize when changes are needed. Exactly. Right on, as usual.

The overarching problem was a combination of the o line getting eaten alive, and as a result, EJ having happy feet even when the protection held up. That led to EJ making hurried decisions. I don't think EJ has an inherent accuracy problem, he just couldn't get his feet set and step into his throws. I also don't think the hot reads were a big problem in a vacuum, but since the o line played poorly, EJ wasn't able to execute. That said, the Jets were giving the Bills quick hitters on most first and second downs with the DBs giving the WRs a healthy cushion. For all the talk about "packaged plays," EJ and the WRs should have realized they could have hit those hitches or slants until the D was forced to adjust. EJ needs to make that call at the line, or Hackett needs to anticipate that and bring it EJ's attention from the booth. So, yeah, I'd say it was due to EJ being impatient, but I wouldn't totally blame him since the line played so poorly.

I've got a theme here:

Dallas is going down to Applebee's from inside the 40.

There are plenty of good points made here in defense of Hackett, but I don't understand how - especially from his view in the skybox - that he was unable or unwilling to take what the Jets D was giving him. It made me wonder if Hackett is stubborn and determined to win his way, and not adjusting to what was open on the field. Most first and second downs, a hitch or bubble screen was open. Can EJ not make that throw? Is he not allowed to audible to that? I don't get that, and was screaming at the TV for EJ to just take a 4 yard or so completion when the corner was playing 8-10 yards off the line. There was a serious lack of curls/comeback routes and back shoulder throws. Even tight coverage can be beat by changing up routes on similar looking plays. As mentioned, screens and draws sprinkled in could've helped the o line and perhaps neutralized the d line. I'm far from giving up on Hackett three weeks in to his first season, but I have to admit I was somewhat discouraged by the lack of adjustments. Let's hope he learns from this and perhaps becomes more comfortable making adjustments on the fly. Plenty of good coaches come into games with two distinct game plans- even if Plan A is working early, the defense may adjust at half or whatever, and you better have a competent Plan B. This concept seemed apparently lost on Hackett last Sunday.

Here's a closer look:

Totally agree. I've been playing this at the tailgate since the preseason, and every week I've had a number of people stop by and ask about this song. All my friends love it, too. I can understand if someone doesn't like it, or rap is just not their cup of tea, but that doesn't mean "it sucks," it just means that person doesn't like it. Forgive me for speaking for the artist; I don't think his goal in writing this was to win a Grammy, but to make a song for Bills fans to enjoy. Mission Accomplished. You can't please everyone, but I think he did a pretty good job.

Rick Reilly's defense of the name: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds and Dave Zirin's (of The Nation) response: http://www.thenation.com/blog/176260/rick-reilly-and-most-irredeemably-stupid-defense-redskins-name-you-will-ever-read#

A more apt comparison would be Aaron Williams to Jairus Byrd. Or rather the question, is Aaron Williams an adequate substitute for Byrd? I don't know the answer to that. Obviously Byrd is much better all around, and I think the ideal situation would be Byrd and AW in the backfield and Searcy in the box. Searcy has played a lot better than I expected, but as the OP mentioned, his strength is downhill against the run. Searcy's role is more akin to Scott's last year as the LB/SS hybrid in the box. Except Scott was better vs the pass than the run. What we've seen a lot of so far is Leonhard playing what I would assume is Byrd's role, with AW playing the other safety role (FS and SS has seemingly become interchangeable in Pettine's pass defense packages), and Searcy playing a more aggressive in the box position. Then again, we've also seen a lot of basically the entire defense in a wide variety of roles. So, to answer the OP's question, yes, I do care about Byrd and I think he'll play well when he comes back. I could be wrong but I don't really expect him to sit out the entire season. In a "what have you done for me lately?" league, he's gonna have to play a good chunk of the season to maximize his value by the end of the season. What would make me a lot more confident about the defense going forward without Byrd would be Duke Williams making some plays and getting pt over Leonhard. So far Duke hasn't done much to establish himself. If it turns out that Duke can play, I won't be so worried about the back end. Aaron Williams looks like he'll be alright, and I think Searcy isn't as much of a liability as long as he's attacking the ball and not dropping back in coverage.

I love where he laughs at Bucky asking about the crowd being quiet- he basically says "Duh, we were on offense." (It's about 5:30 in) Bucky was fishing for quotes relating to his article that discussed in this thread: http://forums.twobil...ure-of-failure/ , asking EJ about the loser mentality, etc. and EJ is like "I just got here and I'm used to winning."

Are those fans sitting on their hands because of the reasons Bucky suggested? Sure, plenty of people agree with him, and have low and/or cautious expectations of the Bills, but I don't think those same fans are the ones going to the games just to sit and be quiet. Of course it's louder when they're winning (and I don't mean in general, but leading on the scoreboard during a particular game), but the past however many years of losing in general doesn't have anything to do with it, IMO. Bucky is suggesting that the fans have a loser mentality and that is why they weren't cheering. I say that's doubly false. The fans were cheering, and cheering loudly. Having once cheered louder or whatever doesn't really have to do with last Sunday. Did anyone scream at, oh let's say, 75% capacity when Woods caught his TD because the Bills were 6-10 last year? That's a ridiculous insinuation. You either scream and shout, or you don't. Or is Bucky saying people were in the stands with their arms folded and silent because they just knew Brady was goingto come back like he has for a decade? The stadium was basically full. Club seats notwithstanding, Bills fans go to the game to cheer their butts off. What kind of clown goes to a NFL game to pout in the stands because Kelly Holcomb sucked in 2005? Give me a break. Bucky should realize how insulting his piece is to fans who pay their hard earned money to go the games and root for their team. Yeah, yeah, I know he's just trying to get a reaction- mission accomplished, buttwipe.

Wow the crowd stuff is way off base. There were times Sunday where the Ralph was as loud as it's been in years. Searcy's run back likely caused some seismic activity and permanent ear drum damage for most people in attendance. Off the top of my head, the only times I've heard the place as loud in recent years was during the win against the pats, the cowboys MNF game, and the opener against Seattle a few years ago. I'm sure there are other times I'm forgetting, but the point is Sunday was as loud as it gets. I've got season tickets but I've sat all over the stadium. The club seats have a nice view, but the atmosphere is terrible. To each their own, but it's a mistake to extrapolate the behavior of those fans onto the rest. Plus, even when you are in the club seats, you can still hear the rest of the stadium resonating, so I don't get some of the comments made above.

My mistake!

I know no one here likes tj graham but what about when he roasted his man and was wide open for a TD (or at the very least a first and goal) and EJ threw it about three yards out of bounds? That one play had the potential to change the game more than any other missed opportunity or mistake. But choosing any one of those reasons doesn't make any sense. It's like a choose your own adventure book. If Spiller balls out, or they don't commit all those penalties, or Stevie makes the catch, etc., does that automatically mean the Bills win? No, it just creates a different set of circumstances. Maybe Brady makes an even more incredible comeback. Let's say Stevie makes that catch. Maybe Manuel makes a rookie mistake. Maybe CJ fumbles again. Maybe they run out the clock, maybe not. Overall, the D played great. But their inability to make a clutch stop on the final drive had more of an impact than any other factor. Despite all the "reasons" listed, the Bills were in a position to win until about a minute left. So let's not harp on all these negatives and instead focus on the fact despite their shortcomings and miscues, the Bills had the pats on the ropes. I'm not big on moral victories, and a loss is a loss, but yesterday's performance was a hell of a lot better than the drubbings the Bills have suffered the past few years.

Geno hasn't looked good period. He's been terrible across the board. Maybe EJ didn't do anything spectacular vs the ones, but he certainly didn't look bad at any point.

Lots of funny takes here on the topic of the team's name: http://deadspin.com/why-your-team-sucks-2013-washington-redskins-1257835174 As usual, the reader emails are hilarious as well.

This sucks across the board. I have to think Parker has been trying to orchestrate a trade for some time now, and if there was an offer with adequate compensation out there, Byrd would've already been dealt. So, I'm picturing a lose-lose scenario. The Bills lose an excellent player, and likely won't get sufficient compensation. No matter how you slice it, the odds are against any draft pick becoming a Pro Bowl impact player. There aren't any teams really desperate for safety help, especially considering the cost. The best hope for the Bills, as mentioned in the TBN article, is if a top tier team loses a safety to injury early on. Otherwise, teams know that the Bills are in a bind, and I don't expect a bidding war to drive up Byrd's trade value.

Good answers. I'm going to go with EJ on offense. If he doesn't make any costly mistakes, like an untimely turnover or failing to connect on a wide open WR deep, then I'd say that greatly evens the odds. The defense is going to have their hands full, and they certainly don't need any offensive miscues to further set them back. On defense, I'm going to say Kiko. BB and Brady are going to test to see if the Bills have solidified the middle. Why make high risk throws to unproven receivers if the middle of the field is there for the taking? If Kiko (and the rest of the LBs) can at least put up a fight against the RBs and TEs, it'll go a long way toward making this a contest.

I'm impressed. And even more fired up now for Sunday.

Time will tell, but I think Brooks's lapses have been akin to making rookie mistakes, not some fundamental flaw or lack of talent. He's fast, physical, and hits hard. When he's been "burned," it's been due to biting on a double move, or making a mental mistake w regard to the coverage assignments. Guess what? Gilmore did the same stuff early as a rookie too, and most are very high on Gilmore now. I'm not saying he's as good as Gilmore or will be, but I think if as Brooks gets some more experience, we'll see him develop into a solid contributor. The book is far from closed on Brooks.