eSJayDee

I tend to think that we have superior talent on defense & it's just that we have (very) poor strategy/playcalling. I think this cuz it seems when we face an inferior team, be it poor line or QB, we abuse them, indicated by our sterling statistical rankings over the season. However, when we face a good offense, whether they're good at throwing or run, it seems that we crap the bed. Related to this, I'll say that I'm surprisingly okay w/ today's outcome - not depressed & just acknowledge that we were beaten by a superior team. But what really galls me is that we let them drive the length of the field in 13 SECONDS for the tying FG! How? Why? Anyway, ignore that 2nd thought, that's just me venting. Whaddaya think of the 1st part?

Let him return kickoffs. He's too scary fielding & returning punts - and NOT in a good way.

You make an important point stating that the most important factor is how good of a chance you have in converting. (To a lesser extent, it's also dependent on what sort of chance you think you have of stopping them, or alternately how much is the 40+ yds a punt should yield to your defense (Good punters probably net close to 50 when they're "kicking away"). But, another thing you have to take into consideration is what if you're successful? Having a 1st & 10 from your own 30 is only going to result in points maybe 50% of the time. It all depends on the utility (economic concept) of the various outcomes & their probability. I think in most situations, even a 50% conversion rate (which still only yields limited utility), would dictate that the prudent course of action would be to surrender the ball 50 yds farther down the field, ie punt.

I was thinking I think at 1/2 time about the 51-3 Raiders playoff game. Don't think this was as dominating of a game, but gosh darn it was AWESOME!!!

It certainly wasn't fulfilling, but it did have merit. I'd say it was "Shakespearian", and appropriate. As for this one... ummm ... just lacking in a few regards.

Okay, w/o giving anything away, I just gotta say that it outdid itself. If this was indeed the end, this ending was WORSE than the original!

I believe compensation is based on how much they sign for & how much they play. Of course, you need to have a net loss, too. I think the latter will be the case. I think we will retain one of Addison or Hughes, presumably for much less than they're currently making based on their performance & age. The other will sign for a "reasonable" contract. I'd like to see us retain Wallace & indications are that his contract, too, will be "reaSONBALE", ie ~$5m/yr. I can see Trubisky potentially signing a "big" contract & starting somewhere, especially if Dabol gets a HC job & takes him w/ him. This could be worth like a 3rd rounder. Boettger, , Phillips & maybe Zimmer might get modest contracts, which might yield like a 7th or so. The rest are basically near minimum wage type guys & won't yield anything (except in making us a net loss player-wise)

Notice how %age is inversely correlated to yds/catch? Beasley & McKenzie catch very short passes so the expectation is that you should complete them a high %age of the time. Kumerow doesn't have enough to mean anything. The other 3 have longer yds. To me, the interesting thing to note is that Davis avges (significantly) more per catch at Sanders AND a higher completion %age. I think Davis' outperforming Diggs can be explained by Diggs being the center of attention of the defense, whereas all others are secondary considerations.

Look at it this way... You've got 7 games that have to fall one way. If there's a 50-50 chance of each outcome that's 1 in 128 or slightly <1%. If you include the Raiders over Colts too, that 1 in 256 or about 0.4%. With the exception of our 2 games, you want the team to win that is presumably weaker & therefore should have < at 50% chance of winning. In this case, 0.2% seems roughly right depending on where you set those probabilities.

LOL. I read "make" as "Mark" & thought holy ... how old is he?

You're confusing cause w/ effect. We're a pass 1st team. I think you'll find most instances of us outrushing our opponents are either due to them being unable to run, us seriously kicking their butts so they choose not to run, &/or we're doing so well we choose to run more.

I don't think it's so much that JA is a better runner than Singletary or others, it's primarily the fact that w/ a QB run, you effectively have 1 more blocker. On most runs, the QB takes himself out of the play, whereas w/ the QB running, the RB is now a blocker. I think perhaps another factor is that QB designed runs are sufficiently unusual defenses aren't as prepared/used to defending them. Sorta like jet sweeps/end arounds. IMO, the latter no where near as important as the former, but it might still be a factor.

Why, so we can have 4 RBs getting 9 yds on 3 carries each rather than 3 RBs getting 12 yds on 4 carries?

I'm kinda torn on this cuz the circumstances seldom (practically never) occur. Ordinarily, yielding over 200 yds rushing is a bad effort. But, they did only yield 14 pts, didn't substantially lose TOP, and had good 3rd down results. They did yield numerous 10+ yard runs, but considering they faced 46 rushes, is the 10 or whatever that bad a %age? IDK. That said, it was apparent early on that pass defense was irrelevant. They weren't going to throw. Knowing this, yielding almost 5 yds per carry (if you discount much of the yardage on the long TD run) is probably pretty poor, but again, since this situation virtually never occurs, one doesn't really have a comparison.

Other than Sanders over DAvis, I really don't have a problem w/ the offense snap counts. Sanders is a better deep threat, but Davis is still a competent receiver who causes concerns/respect & is the FAR better blocker. As for not going heavy, an argument can be made (which I subscribe to), if we go heavy, we're still not going to be able to run effectively. We need the fear of the pass to have any hope of a competent running game. I was pleasantly surprised that we actually had a somewhat effective passing game. As for the defense snap counts - WTF. So many times, you saw 180 lb DBs being blow up by 300 lb pulling linemen (as expected). Midway through the 2nd quarter, it was apparent that they weren't going to be throwing much unless that absolutely had to. Why not use some of these 9 or however many DL we had active more than 4 at a time? Christ, let Boogie play CB. Our defense was probably giving up like 500 lbs to their offense. Yes, we were able to shoot some gaps & make some tackles for loss, but not as many as 10+ yd runs we surrendered.

Yes, they technically not eligible, but if one or more ineligible linemen were to go down field, it would add to the confusion of the defenders. Who am I supposed to cover? Having them have to locate which one is eligible would give the offense an (unfair?) advantage.

I think the Colts would have beaten us if they had Zippy the Simian playing QB!

A couple of things come to mind - 1) So if this is the value of losing an NFL franchise, this should influence how much NYS & Erie contribute to keeping the Bills in Buffalo. 2) I assume the St Louis area is (far?) more than 1M people. Is less than $1000/head really worth losing your football team? (I realize govt cost/revenue doesn't get apportioned that way, but I live ~300 miles from Buffalo & I certainly don't want the Bills living & would consider that remuneration pittance.)

NO, I'm not sure, I'm just inferring from a couple things I've read. References made to people "checking up on him", along w/ "could be worse". If he was fine, shouldn't be a need to "check up on him" just cuz he's "lonely". (& he presumably needs to remain isolated regardless).

Just cuz he's designated to return, doesn't mean he has to. Maybe they just want a better opportunity to "kick the tires" on him & see how he's progressed, or perhaps as motivation for McKenzie (though I don't think effort/motivation is an issue w/ him, it's ball security, or perhaps just securing it). If they decide he's not worth activating, doesn't he just revert back to season long IR?

From what I've seen, he actually is symptomatic, so I believe he needs 2 negative tests & no symptoms, so no real time table.

Those were the exact 3 I thought of. For duds, I'll say Feliciano, Haack, and ... Ford or Davis. The 3rd dud was kinda tough as I think Davis' problem is more a lack of opportunity. As for Ford, were we really EXPECTING that much? hoping yes, expecting no.

As others have said, I'd think it should be a pass. Only reason I can possibly think it might be called a run is if Allen was deemed not to have possession (he didn't have the ball for long) so it would be deemed a fumble that McKenzie recovered, or alternately that it was essentially a direct snap to him. If it really was counted as a run, that's the only reason I could think of. As others have said, I'd think it should be a pass. Only reason I can possibly think it might be called a run is if Allen was deemed not to have possession (he didn't have the ball for long) so it would be deemed a fumble that McKenzie recovered, or alternately that it was essentially a direct snap to him. If it really was counted as a run, that's the only reason I could think of.

If it really was true, I was somewhat (pleasantly) surprised that he was so anxious to re-sign w/ Buffalo. Here, he's like the 5th option. You'd think based on his production, given such limited opportunity someone would be willing to throw more $ at him than we were willing to and that they would give him the opportunity to be a far greater contributor. Both of which are good incentives. Glad he did opt to stay.

A couple of things stood out to me as "peculiar". 1 The Jets had like 22 1st downs! I thought we dominated them & you don't usually give up 22 1st downs then. 2) We only had 1 3rd down attempt in the 2nd half (3-6 conversions in 1st 1/2, 1-1 in 2nd)!! That much success results in poor ball control, which was the reason the Jets were so "successful" on Offense. Much like our Defense of the SB era, they were much more successful/good than stats would indicate.