fridge

Rex Ryan was in vacation mode when he coached the Bills, so I doubt it would have worked out for the better. The real question is -- how different would the last couple years have gone if the Bills replaced McDermott with Daboll after 13 seconds?

Fred Taylor in the hall of fame? What am I missing here...

80% of the perfect wing is the blue cheese. Many well meaning people have devoted plenty of time making a good wing, but have fallen short by not understanding this one simple thing.

I think both are true. I think McDermott deserves the backlash he is getting. I also think that Dunne sounded... questionable on the radio.

I don't understand this mentality. He admitted to some of this stuff. He's very clearly lost the good will of a lot of people in that building. Blaming the journalist is wild to me.

Are there actually lunatics here that don't think Josh Allen is the best QB in franchise history? I'll just add this to the list of reasons why I only browse this site every few years. It's just inmates running wild and free with scissors in their hands.

If Dorsey was the actual problem — then the Miami game and similar beatdowns last year sure seems like a strange outlier. While we are rampantly speculating, I think McDermott put the leash on Josh running this season and lifted it in desperation. It’s too convenient to point to Dorsey when the catalyst is our game choking HC. Two of the dumb losses this year with Dorsey were with Josh trotting off the field with the lead.

The irony of you talking about things that are simple.

Allen was incredible on the road against the 9-1 super bowl favorites under the lights with the rain. Basically no one is playing better than how he played in that situation. Either you're just being difficult, have an axe to grind, or simply are not watching other NFL football. Every team except one or two would kill to have Allen, and the Eagles are possibly one of them.

I agree completely. McDermott's scheme works well against bad QB and dysfunctional offenses, but it's the lack of adjustments that is the real concern. Complain about his scheme all you want, but it did in fact fluster Hurts. The issue is that after listening to his OC scream in his ear for 3 quarters about finding the soft zones, it was clear Hurts figured out the mission. Everyone without McDermott's ego could tell that they had that figured out. Logically you would think we would pivot into either a press man D or shake it up in any way, but we didn't. We sat back again. We left the flat open in OT. We essentially forced Hurts to beat us and he did.

He's done it twice to the Ravens and once to Mahomes. Other than that his defense has essentially rolled the red carpet out when the game is on the line.

McDermott has never won any trust back for me after 13 seconds. Games like the one on Sunday just continue to show me that he's a liability with game managing. Could it be worse? Sure, Nathaniel Hackett exists. But, for everything that McDermott has proven as both a leader and a defensive genius, he has shown to simply lack when it comes to crucial in-game decisions. He makes blunders that we have to overcome, especially when he decides to be conservative despite having one of the more explosive QB's in NFL history.

i have more issue with the punt itself.

i was not worried about the opener all offseason, but for some reason i feel nervous about the game.

The sheer hypocrisy of stating this now, and not after the absolute pillaging we witnessed during the Trump administration.

It really is hilarious how much they have moved the goal posts in the last five years.

As I've stated earlier in this thread -- the focus I have on this issue is related to how the Buffalo Bills should handle it. I still believe that they should cut this player. That being said... this lawyer is losing his mind. He released an unprompted statement and dropped "Punt God" in his first paragraph. He cited Court TV. It reads like a 9th grader scrambling to finish the essay the night before it's due.

The Buffalo Bills in their own statement stated that the have conducted (PAST TENSE) an investigation. Are you suggesting that in the next 2-5 days the team re-open it's investigation and attempt to contact additional people pertinent to the case? Because that begs for some follow ups, namely: Why would the team state publicly that they did a thorough investigation only to re-open an investiation? Also, while your burdeon of proof seems to be simply witness testimony, I feel that even that is pretty light. Some people here are suggesting that the team needs to wait for the DA to indict or not. Some are claiming the team needs to wait for the civil suit to be conducted (settlement or otherwise). Basically what I am getting at is -- unfortunately for this punter if he is later found to be innocent -- it's in the best interest for the team to simply move on. There are so many factors at play, but essentially this allegation is too difficult for such a public facing corporation to simply wait out. It's just ugly and the brownie points of moving away from an alleged rapist are too important for the team to ignore. We can argue ethically what the team should do (stand by the player or not) forever. It's just that I took specific note of you claiming "a few days" because I do think this isn't as rushed a decision as you're assuming.

Genuine question -- what do you envision changing over the next "few days"?

Why would you even compare our justice system to Twitter? Bizarre. Yes, it's obviously flawed. Your blanket statement was worth pointing out because there are a multitude of mainstream examples for why having faith in the justice system is not a good excuse for inaction.

Is this comedy?

Baseless is more like -- it's verifiable that he wasn't at the same party as her. The point I was making and what I responded to was the poster's fear that anyone's career could be derailed because of baseless accusations. What you've described is why the burden of proof exists. It's different for criminal and civil cases, and if I own a football team, it's different for what I determine means you are hurting the team more than helping it.

Hey man, I get it. It's annoying. HOWEVER -- there's a difference between a baseless accusation and one that has legs. If this were a baseless wild claim, then sure. You don't get to just ruin a man's life without evidence. That's not exactly the case here. I do agree that there is some skepticism in the way that Doe's lawyer has been handling this with the media. This is why I think it's wildly important to separate #1 and #2 in my post. As a football team, given the circumstance, this is a fairly simple solution that works on several levels. It's not setting a precedent. It's just solving a problem that has risen.

Well it clearly doesn't matter. Imagine being worked up over this.

There are two separate things at play here: 1. How the Buffalo Bills, a football team, should handle this 2. The legal implications (both criminal and civil) that Matt, the person, faces. #1 should be easy. Cut him. Will there be a wrongful termination lawsuit if he's innocent? Sure. Cost of doing business for a billionaire with a football team. A punter's potential lifetime salary that they would be suing for isn't going to cripple the organization. #2 is more complicated. So far the lawyers have done a horrible job discussing the case with the media. It also is completely irrelevant to how the team should handle this. If you believe that the kid deserves his day in court, you can still accept that the team should release him to avoid the problems.