Jump to content

Wayne Cubed

Community Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,844

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Wayne Cubed

    Josh Allen injury update(officially questionable - expected to start per Ian Rappaport)

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    Just now, transplantbillsfan said:

     

    If they don't activate Barkley we can all rejoice because we know Allen isn't merely playing but is close to 100%.

     

    However, if they do activate Barkley it really doesn't say anything about Allen's status other than what we already know: that he may or may not play.

     

    You guys are acting like the PS elevation should be treated like a precious gem. And frankly... activating Barkley despite an Allen who is expected , but not certain to start, is extremely valuable.

     

    Here I am now wishing my Saturday would go by faster just to get past all this nonsense.


    There’s nothing nonsense about it. 
     

    They have injuries elsewhere with Poyer/Rosseau not playing and the possibility of Elam not playing.

     

    They only get 2 PS elevations. They may need an extra DL and possibly a CB if Tre still isn’t ready to go.

     

    Playing games and wasting that spot on Barkley, if Allen is fine, makes no sense.

    Josh Allen injury update(officially questionable - expected to start per Ian Rappaport)

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

     

    Barkley is getting elevated.

     

    That's not an indication of whether Allen plays or not. And for all those decrying the "why would we waste a PS call up???" ... how often are we calling up PS players and how would this be a waste?

     

    If Allen can play Barkley would just be inactive and it wouldn't be a wasted spot, anyway 


    Sorry but they don’t activate Barkey every week. If Josh’s elbow is fine and he can play, there is literally no reason to activate him.

     

    And you can say precaution but again, Allen could be injured any week and Barkley isn’t active. 
     

    If they activate Barkley, Allen is less likely to play. If they don’t, he’s playing. 

    4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

     

    You know what I always wonder with these stories, how did your brother know it was Josh Allen's cousin? Does the guy walk around with a big sign around his neck announcing his familial relationship to an NFL star? Is he well known as Josh Allen's cousin around town? Enlighten me.


    Haha. Had the same exact thought.

     

    And then also thought, does Allen share his health with the whole family? Or just immediate family and then they leak it out?

    Josh Allen injury update(officially questionable - expected to start per Ian Rappaport)

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

     

    If we have to elevate Barkley more than 3 times over the final 9 games we have bigger problems. Unless they are 100% confident Allen can play tomorrow, and there is no indication that they are, Barkley will be elevated. It doesn't mean for sure that Allen is going to be out, it's just the smart thing to do.


    Right I don’t think it means he’s out but I think it’s more telling to where the injury is at.

     

    If the elbow is good to go, there is no need to activate him. So if they don’t, that’s a good sign he’s playing. If they do, I think it’s much more in doubt.

    Josh Allen injury update(officially questionable - expected to start per Ian Rappaport)

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    13 hours ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

     

    There is no longer a "doubtful" designation. There is "questionable" and "out". And, of course Josh is currently questionable. Looked for the link to show the rules, couldn't find it. But, I know I heard it on WGR the other day and looking at the injury report, those are the only two used anywhere so I'm quite sure it's correct.


    Think you are confused.

     

    The designation the NFL got rid of was “probable.” Pre 2017 there were 4 designations a teams could use:  probable, questionable, doubtful, out. Belichick used to be the master of the probable designation, to keep teams guessing. 
     

    Now teams only have 3 designations to use but doubtful is definitely still one.

     

    https://operations.nfl.com/media/2683/2017-nfl-injury-report-policy.pdf

    Josh Allen injury update(officially questionable - expected to start per Ian Rappaport)

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

    Okay probably was an overstatement. It AT LEAST needs proper rest that it won't get in season and it might need surgery. I just don't see a way we get an uncompromised Josh Allen the rest of the year. 

     

    Hard to know really. Like I said, Josh was a different thrower of the ball in 2018 and a different QB in general. I don't recall thinking he was limited throwing, ie couldn't make the throws, back then. Though that's just my memory. 

     

    All the whispers seem to indicate this is less severe than 2018? 

    Josh Allen injury update(officially questionable - expected to start per Ian Rappaport)

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    30 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

     

    I think a torn UCL even a relatively minor tear is likely to affect Josh's play moving forward. And I don't think we can win a Superbowl with a compromised Josh Allen.

     

    Maybe I am being too defeatist. But to my mind our Superbowl hopes are basically done. Not saying we won't win another game or anything but he probably needs surgery and rest to be at his best and that is not happening until the offseason

     

    Eh?

     

    He had a Grade 2 UCL sprain his rookie season, rested 4 weeks and then came back. He didn't require surgery, so I'm not sure where you are getting that from for a Grade 2 sprain. Grade 3, yea then we are probably talking Tommy John's Surgery but literally no one is saying that or speculating that.

    Will he be at his best if he rests it a bit and wears the brace like he did his rookie year? Hard to know, he was a completely different thrower and player back then. 

    Coordinators not adapting schemes

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Billz4ever said:

    Considering they weren't even really trying to pass, saying the Bills were really good in Nickel is a stretch.  And the times they did, they burned the nickel. So, it's probably not as great as you're saying it is. 

     

     

    Obviously you are just being ignorant now. The Bills are good in Nickel, that isn't arguable. It's their base defense, the Bills are a good defense. Both facts. Therefore they are good in the Nickel.

     

    They weren't trying to pass because the Nickel makes it hard to do it. They were able to beat it 2 times for a TD because they still have a HOF Qb playing for them.

     

    This hill you want to die on is just nuts.

    Coordinators not adapting schemes

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted · Edited by Wayne Cubed

    9 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

    So if Rodgers could still beat the Nickel anyway (like you said) AND they are gashing the D on the run, why are you running Nickel again?

     

    And if GB actually thought they were beating the Nickel with the pass, why did they stop?  You just said they could beat it anyway.

     

    And what does it say about our nickel D if they were still getting beat by the pass (your words) anyway when GB's weakness is their receivers?

    Mate, can you read?

     

    I said when presented. No where in my post did I say Rodgers was consistently beating the Nickel. He beat it twice, because GASP the Bills are really good in the Nickel.

     

    But obviously the Bills should have given up that Nickel, to protect aginst the run... which was working, your words, when it wasn't because they ran out of time and lost the game.

     

    And this amazing hypothetical change of defense, we will never know would have actually worked... but we don't need to know because the Bills in fact won the game.

     

    4 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:

    You've picked such a weird hill to die on.   

     

    Rodgers scored on big plays to WRs. Scoring fast is literally the only way they could get back in the game.  

     

    How do you score fast? You make big plays to WRs, like the TD passes to Doubs. 

    How do you make it less likely for the WR to make a big play?  You play with 5 DBs on the field. 

    What happens when you take away the ability to make a downfield big play?  You check into the run because there's a light box. It looks like "gashing" but really it's just wasting away precious clock, because you're down 17 points.

     

    Conceptually this isn't hard to understand.  I have no idea how you're still railing against very obvious football logic. 

     

    Thank you.

    3 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

    So you're saying the Nickel didn't stop them and also allowed them to run the ball.  Gotcha.  Sounds like they should've switched it up.

     

    No ones saying that. You are saying that.

    • Like (+1) 1

    Coordinators not adapting schemes

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    Just now, NoSaint said:


    yes, he’s arguing we should’ve aggressively pursued a scheme that catered to the only route that could’ve realistically given the packers a chance to win because of…. Principles? Pride? 

     

    And we should also completely ignore the fact that, when presented with the opportunity to hurt us with a big play, Rogers was STILL able to do it. That was with the Bills defense playing Nickel. 

    But we should have abandoned Nickel defense to stop the run, which was working... even though it wasn't cause they lost, to let Aaron attempt to beat us throwing, which he showed he could still in fact do.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Thank you (+1) 1

    Coordinators not adapting schemes

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

     

    Dude, you are hilarious.

     

    It worked so well the Pack were down by double digits all game! What a plan! Man, did Frazier get out-schemed!

     

    Doing what worked and losing the game. You can't make this stuff up. 

    The Bills just took the ball out of the reigning back-to-back MVPs hands, and let's be honest he still is the best player on that team, and turned them into a running team.

     

    But, it's what they do best 🙄

    • Like (+1) 1

    Defense vs Green Bay and their performance

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

    I agree with a lot of this but the game reminded me the New England game last year.  As for a defensive game plan wouldn't it have been smarter to go 4-3-4 instead of the base nickel in order to take away the run and force Rodgers and the Packers to pass?  Why allow them to control the ball and control the clock and basically execute the offensive game plan they developed for the game.  Their WR group is limited in both talent and experience.  Its rule number one of defensive game planning try to take away what the opponent does best?  Instead they allowed the opponent to do what they do best given the circumstances the Packers faced.  They won because the offense was just too much for the Packers, and likely any NFL, defense to contain.  Even on what you can argue was an off night for Josh Allen.  They need to be sharper and cleaner against the Jets next Sunday.  

     

    You don't go to a 4-3-4 because Taron Johnson > Tyrel Dodson. However bad the GB wide recievers are there's a major difference between this and the New England game and that's the guy throwing the football. You can talk about how bad the WR group is, and they are bad but it's still Rodgers dealing the ball, not Mac Jones. And Rodgers 2 touchdowns show you that he can still throw it. He can still read the defense and pick you apart.

     

    They allowed the Packers to "do what they do best' and that still wasn't enough to beat the Bills. In fact it pretty much played them out of the game. Their best player on offense is still Aaron Rodgers and the Bills took the ball out of his hands. Just like with the Bills when you take the ball out of Josh's hands, it's a win for the defense when the Bills are running the ball more than throwing.

    1 hour ago, Billz4ever said:

    I wouldn't exactly call ripping off 10, 20+ yards runs dink/dunks. A fairly weak OPI call and a missed FG were the only thing keeping this game from being tied.

     

    GBs weakness is their receivers.  You make them beat you, not give up the equivalent of long pass plays on the ground because your play calling is too rigid.  There as no reason to be in nickel all night, especially when the other team isn't passing much and their formations show run down after down.

     

    What we saw last night was a form of prevent defense, except they were giving up huge chunks of yards on the ground instead of through the air.

     

    Yea I wouldn't call that dink/dunk either but what I would call dink/dunk are the short throws and screens... which the Packers were running a lot of. They also ran the ball, which I said is what you do against Cover 2.

    • Agree 1

    Defense vs Green Bay and their performance

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    I’ve got to slightly disagree with this.

     

    Frazier refused to bring a safety down into the box and refused to sub off Taron Johnson for a LB. The Pack did exactly what you are meant to do against the cover 2 shell, you run into it and dink/dunk your way down the field.  And that’s going to happen against that alignment. The issue is, can you sustain that many plays in a drive without committing an error.  And when the field compresses as you get towards the goal line can you punch it in for 7? The Pack couldn’t do it. 
     

    That’s an effective defensive game plan. Sure, the rush numbers look high but does that matter if they aren’t converting any of those drives? You also have to say that had the offense not laid an egg in the 2nd half, this outcome would have been very different.

    • Like (+1) 11
    • Agree 7
    • Awesome! (+1) 2
    • Thank you (+1) 2

    Are Bills fans expectations too high????

    in The Stadium Wall

    Posted

    I don’t think it’s doom and gloom to point out the Bills looked pretty flat/bad in the 2nd half. That’s just being observational.

     

    It was a combination of things, thought the offensive play calling was pretty bad. Josh made mistakes and was trying to force it. Mental errors that led to penalties.

     

    Not as worried about the run defense, I think there was no way Frazier was going to bring an extra safety into the box or bring an extra LB on the field. All those yards on the ground and time used up, the Pack sort of played themselves out of the game.

    • Agree 1
×
×
  • Create New...