hondo in seattle

I think the Ravens O completely outclasses our D. If someone put a gun to my head and demanded my honest, most rational prediction, I'd say the Ravens by two scores. But there are no guns to my head: Bills: 32 Ravens: 17

Signing Gabe to the PS only makes sense if they're planning to elevate him when healthy. Otherwise, some other team will sign him to their 53 when he recovers. So who gets demoted? Shavers? Though maybe one of the wideouts will get hurt by the time Gabe recovers, making the decision easy.

There are a lot of football fans in the world who can't name their favorite team's starting lineup. I appreciate TBD where posters know the roster, and care about it, all the way down to the PS.

I want you to be right!

In two games last year, the Ravens outgained us 878 yards to 677. Their D was good enough to get us off the field sometimes Our D pretty consistently failed except for the take-aways in the playoff game. As an agile defense that typically runs a 4-2 and is built to defend the pass first, we don't do well against power backs like Henry. What makes this game more challenging is that the Ravens can throw, too, so we can't sell out to stop the King. And I agree with other posters who say the Ravens may have the best overall roster in the league. They're well coached, too. If the D doesn't stiffen, and the O starts rusty, this game could get away from us much like last year's regular-season contest. I hope for the best while fearing for the worst.

I agree with this. Back in the 1960s and 70s, the best athletes - guys who could run, cut, and jump - often became running backs. RB may have been the most glamorous position in all of sports. In the 60s, for example, five #1 overall draft picks were RBs. Only one was a QB and one was a WR. But the last time a RB was picked #1 overall was 30 years ago. Nowadays, the best athletes become WRs or, maybe, corners. Still, I think generally speaking that a RB who gains 1,000 yards on 5 ypc is as valuable as a WR who gains 1,000 yards on 12 ypr. Both are moving the ball equally. Both efficiently.

I don't know why RBs get paid less per yard than receivers... The top five backs last season got paid $7,949 per yard contributed to the offense. The top five receivers got paid $24,276 per yard. I think the RBs have a point.

Just having some variants/fakes of the tush push would maybe stop our opponents from committing all out to defending the tush push, thus making the tush push more successful. Though it's already highly successful.

At the time of our first Super Bowl, I was with a Cavalry unit deep in the Arabian Desert for the First Gulf War. Kickoff was at something like 2:30am local time, but I was far out of TV or radio reach. The only thing we could weakly pick up sometimes on a shortwave radio was the BBC World Service, which didn't usually cover American sports. Nonetheless, I asked the soldiers on radio watch that night to wake me up if they heard anything. Just before dawn, one of my soldiers shook me violently as I lay asleep, "Sir! Wake up! The Bills won! The Bills won!" I jumped out of my cot and asked him the final score. But he seemed confused. When I pressed him, he admitted the signal from BBC World Service was full of static and he wasn't sure what the announcer actually said. Something about a last-second field goal. Frantic, I called higher headquarters on the army FM radio but they hadn't gotten an update. So I glued myself to the shortwave radio, listening to the BBC. There was so much hissing and crackling, I only understood maybe 1 word in 10. But finally, hours later, came the crushing disappointment. To this day, I've never watched a replay of that game and never will.

The realist in me says the Bills go 12-5. Then the optimist takes over and says we go on a run that leads to a Lombardi and the wildest victory parade the league has ever seen!

Funny how some want McD fired if we don't get to the SB when the pundits don't seem to think we have much player talent. Then again, these pundits don't seem to think we have much coaching talent either.

To me, a great team means an elite roster and a Super Bowl appearance. We've never had one of the top two rosters in the league and haven't quite made the SB - yet.

Like most years in the Beane/McD/Josh era, I see a good team, not a great one. My optimism is rooted in maybe's - maybe our receiving corps is better this year, maybe Bosa makes a difference, maybe this season we stay healthier than other teams, maybe balls bounce in our favor during a playoff run, maybe decisive borderline ref calls go our way in key moments. The average team has a 1-in-32 chance of winning it all. We're good enough to be 1-in-10 or something like that. With a little help from Lady Luck and the Gridiron Gods, this could be our year.

When we first signed Forrest, I thought he'd make the squad though camp reports later made me reconsider. And I thought Shenault had a shot as a returner because he offered more skill as a wideout than Codrington offered as a DB. But none of the cuts were a real surprise.

I asked AI, how many players will play for the Panthers at some point in their careers, given that players bounce around a lot. AI (Copilot) estimated that it was about 10-15%.

You have to give KC credit even if you don't like them. They have the Big Four: strong front office, strong head coach, strong coordinator for the other side of the ball, and great QB.

Name any defensive player in the NFL and you can find video of them making bad plays. You can't judge any player on their worst plays; it's the totality of their work that matters. And according to PFF, which admittedly is flawed but does evaluate every play, Poyer had a better season last year than any safety currently on our roster. In any case, Poyer's role is not to be a starting safety. His role is primarily to be a positive presence in meeting rooms, on the practice field, in the locker room, and on the sideline. He'll excel in that role while also being a break-in-case-of-emergency backup.

I'm with the folks who don't get the negativity. The naysayers tell us that Poyer is "washed." Yet, Poyer played 90.6% of the defensive snaps with the Fins last season. Apparently, as bad as he might have been, he was better than their other safeties. PFF ranked Poyer 97th of 171 safeties who played enough snaps to qualify. In other words, of the safeties who suited up and played, Poyer was roughly average. In short, he's not godawful horrible. Plus, he was signed to the practice squad. Assuming no catastrophic injuries to our safeties, he's not going to see the game field very much. Instead, his teammates will see him on the practice field, in meeting rooms, and in the locker room where he will be a positive addition. Especially because he's a true believer in The Process, knows McD's system inside out, and has more NFL experience than our top four safeties combined.

I always feel bad for the players who make the 'final' cut only to be cut a couple of days later when we sign castoffs from some other team.

I suppose it's time to come clean. I took a big hard-covered book like this out of a local library back in the 1970s without, you know, officially checking it out. I loved facts and stats in those days and couldn't resist. I didn't return it for maybe 7 years.

I could. Two lottery tickets double your chance of winning, and we really needed to find someone to pressure the pocket. I just couldn't understand Basham. He seemed more like an edge-setter type than a bend-around-the-tackle-and-knock-the-QB-on-his-ass type.

Well, I think that's mostly true. Most of us don't go to camp and only watch the preseason games. The coaches are at camp every single day. They have a far more complete and holistic view of the player than we do. It wouldn't surprise me if Shavers got cut just because I have little idea of how he performed in camp and how that performance stacked up against Moore, Samuel, et al.

Rice once said that he never trained for the 40 like modern football players do. So I'm guessing he didn't have a good start when timed. But when I watched him play, if I remember correctly, he had good acceleration and enough top-end speed that he was rarely caught from behind. And Pete is right, there's an art to route running. Sure, you need the quickness in and out of cuts, good footwork and speed. But some receivers seem to have superior vision and a better understanding of what their CB is doing, when he's turning, where the other DBs are doing, etc. - and use all that to their advantage. Jerry was good at the athletic part but really shone at the other part.

I agree with your basic premise but not Jerry's 40 time of 4.71 which is probably an urban myth. Yes, you see 4.71 on the internet but no credible sources say he ran that slow. Gil Brandt (then an exec with Dallas), said they timed Jerry 9 times and his best time was 4.55. Or to be more precise, he said, “We timed Jerry in the 40 nine times, and he never got under 4.55.” Bill Walsh said in an interview that Rice ran a 4.59. Rollie Dotsch, then a coach in the USFL, may or may not have known what he was talking about when he said Rice runs a 4.45. To support your general point, Rice once said, “The 40 is overrated. I never ran a good 40, but they couldn’t catch me.”