timekills17

I like lamp.

But what if he's a priest?

After the first fumble and then the Gabe drop to INT - I completely agreed. After the fumbled handoff, which everyone seems to attribute to JA17, I thought "If I were Cook, I would have been looking that ball into my stomach so hard that I might take a loss before I let it go." And then he fumbled on the 41 yard play, which thankfully (although ultimately didn't matter) bounced right back to him. So yeah - it was probably a little drastic at the time. But maybe the coach(es) were concerned that Cook is more prone to "bad fumble days"; i.e. he is always really good at ball control except those rare days he isn't. And that was one of those days. At the time he went back in it wouldn't really have mattered if he fumbled again. We needed his offense and could risk the TO because they were going to lose without his skillset. And lo and behold it happened twice more that day to the guy who had "only fumbled twice in 27 games." Now back to Josh and Mc'D's comments: just like the Cook benching, I'm reserving judgement until I see a result. I won't need to wait long, but not going to judge his comments based on what I *think* (unlike most talking heads who seem to know what Diggs is thinking better than Diggs does.)

Mitch goes to NY Giants, and Davis Webb returns to the Bills.

This defense is built on playing the teams we have to beat, and how our offense is designed. If our offense is playing anywhere near their potential, they can score quickly. So another quick-strike offense is the most likely to cause us challenge. If we give up time-consuming short/medium passes and runs - that's fine. Even if occasionally (~45% of the time) when they get to the red zone they score a TD. Because it usually took a long time to get there. Tthe expectation - and the reality across the past three seasons - is that our offense will return fire, but faster. That also means they take a few risks across the middle to try and make a turn-over, because they can afford to let the play be executed. When they get into the red zone, they take less risks, and play tighter rather than taking guesses on plays vs. formation and scheme they've seen. We see it in the results of the red zone defense. Not to mention our defense is lateral quickness rather than straight-line speed so as the field length compresses it plays into their hands. It's frustrating watching teams make play after play, especially on 3rd and 7+. But if you understand that is how the defense is designed, it is a bit less stressful. You can actually get excited waiting for either the turnover, or the move into the Bills' side of the field past the 30-yard line - because then you know the heat is on, and it's playing into the defense's strength. This isn't homerish; look at the long term results and play style rather than any single play. The risk is a player who can get that intermediate play and quickly - and repeatedly - turn it into TDs, especially on a day when our offense isn't playing well. But every team has to play a risk vs. reward game in the NFL.* *It's the reason the playoffs often look so different. A scheme that works 75% of the time - including keeping players fresh and healthy - is successful across a season, but might not be in any one game. Teams talk "one game seasons" and players have to play that way, but coaches have to play the long game... Until the playoffs.

I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word "objective". Based on W-L record, they're objectively 2nd. Based on head-to-head they're objectively first. Based on strength of victory they're objectively first. Based on point differential they're objectively first. Based on Johnnyp566 subjective rankings, they're third.

Yes. Either it catches you and kills you quickly, or it catches you and plays with you for a while before killing you. It's about 50/50 which of those happens.

I might go so far as to say the CBA could include some verbiage connecting salary to allowed practice time. That might help temper some of the salary inflation. If you want to be paid top 10%, be prepared to commit extra mandatory time practicing with the team to earn it.

I'd rather see them move Taiwan Jones to safety. I mean - that's crazy, right? He's a "running back". But he has the straight line speed, he has the build, he has the agility, and he has the open field tackling from years of special teams play...

Somewhat coincidentally, he goes on to execute said idea after suffering an injury...

Especially when they do their 3/11th.

In my vast legal experience (I've watched A Few Good Men a bunch of times), I'd say that is a much more appropriate and viable legal case than the one the idiot is bringing against Wagner/Rams.

This was answered by both Josh after the game and McDermott later. The gist of it was Allen was concerned that the referees would see it as either a fumble or at best call it grounding. The rules allowing a spike are specific and that play would normally be an "intentional grounding". So JA17 made a snap decision to try and get something out of it rather than risk a loss of down and 10 second runoff of clock. McDermott later said that he thinks the referees would have had some leniency and recognized it wasn't an intentional try to fake spike and then actually spike - but I'm not sure JA17 isn't right in his assessment. Either way, it was *intended* to be a spike to stop the clock.

I kind of like (anybody) when they've had too much wine and are cracking on the Dallas Cowboys...

Even if true - and I think most of the additional depletion you speak of was temporary/heat exhaustion, not injury/long-term - 'm not sure it answers the question. I'd say the Chiefs loss was less expected and raises more questions about the team due to the poor offensive showing than did the Bills' loss. However, the Bills was against a conference *and* division opponent, so that is critical. If the Dolphins end up playing well ala the Pats last year, this game could make a difference even in the AFCE race. (I don't think it will, but from a "how important a loss" perspective, it could be.)

At this point he probably has a better chance of becoming an orthopedic surgeon than an NFL starter.

This is probably the closest to the reality, assuming Lewan isn't completely talking out of his a$$. I.E. I could see the "publicity" portion of PFF working with players - or more specifically, their agents - to increase a player's inclusion in Twitter polls, comments on line and other media, etc. While I doubt teams use the grading as any basis for retention or pay, the agents certainly use it in the court of public opinion which can influence the team to some degree. This wouldn't result in any change to the objective data provided to teams - or even really to the public. It might influence how certain data is "evaluated" for the somewhat more subjective grades. Such as an aggressive, tight pass vs a "near-interception."

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/01/31/rams-bengals-super-bowl-nfl-fmia-peter-king/ I've always liked Peter King. And I respect Sean Payton as both a head coach, and an offensive mind. So this quote of his - although not surprising to we fans here - was music to my ears. Or eyes, I guess since I read it. The young quarterback he’d pick to build a franchise around today: “We just saw them duel. Josh Allen or Patrick Mahomes. A tie. When everything isn’t perfect, and there are many times in a game when things aren’t perfect, they’re the best two in the game at the off-schedule throws. “I like Joe Burrow. I love Joe Burrow. I just trust the other guys to run it better. But that’s like, I like vanilla and pistachio, you like butter pecan. All good choices.” He had some other comments I also found interesting... Changing overtime rules: Payton: “We’ve hit the threshold. There has to be some change. At least for the postseason, each team should get a possession, and if it’s tied after those two possessions, the game continues, and it’s sudden death starting with the third possession.” and (sorry in advance for this one): Situational football - Buffalo up three on Kansas City with 13 seconds left and kicking off: “A lot of it depends on my kicker. If I’ve got a young kicker I’m not sure I can trust, I will not squib kick. You can’t risk the kick going out of bounds, or being recovered at the 40. I also don’t like trying a pop-up kick to land at the eight- or 10-yard line. I’m not asking a kicker to use a technique, seldom-used, to place a kick somewhere that might determine whether you go to the championship game. I’m probably just kicking the ball deep into the end zone and giving them the ball at the 25, like Buffalo did." “The crime that is committed comes after that. We are playing football still—you can’t be defending the sidelines at all costs, like Buffalo was. You see when Travis Kelce catches that long pass to put them in field-goal range, a cornerback is defending an area of the field near the sidelines he doesn’t need to defend. Kansas City’s got two timeouts left—they don’t need to get out of bounds. Everything about what Buffalo did defensively is flawed. We would play outside man technique with a three-man rush, funneling balls to the middle of the field and contesting outside technique.”

Per NFL Rules technically (heh) it is with a big BUT: What has changed since 2020, is teams can no longer block a member from interviewing for a "lateral" move to a coordinator for other teams. NFL ANNOUNCES NEW STEPS TO ENHANCE DIVERSITY (nflcommunications.com)

I...don't really want Cinci to beat KC. There. I said it. I want KC to be afraid of one team, and one team only. The Bills.

Each time I hear this, I feel like we're using either revisionist history or significant "hindsight being 20/20." -After the 2019 season, the Bills #1 need was improving scoring; an improved offense. The Bills tried to fix this by bringing in the best FA WR on the market - in exchange for our 1st round pick. Whether you agree with the cost or not, can't argue that 2020 and 2021 the offense was SIGNIFCANTLY improved. -After the 2020 season, the Bills determined from the loss to KC that they needed to improve the pass rush. Our offensive line wasn't #1, but it was settled with AT THE TIME a good RT in Williams, and some high potential in guards including starters and practice squad. So they doubled down on their biggest area of need. You don't pick a player you don't think you need just to keep another team from getting him. Did we need a (potential C/)G over a second shot at a good pass-rushing DL? That's certainly an argument you could make. But I don't fault Beane for going after what was our weakness rather than getting what AT THE TIME would have been a position of significantly lower need. -- And P.S. the Bills led the league in QB pressures this year, so you could argue he succeeded again in greatly improving the critical problem. Let me ask this - after how our OL and RB ended the year, what position do you think would have made, or will make, the biggest difference in another KC matchup? I'd still say a DL rusher that scares opponents' OC and QB over OL. Immediacy bias says a good CB, but I'd have to see what medical says about White.

Hell, it happened to the Falcons in their OT loss to the Patriots in 2017. Chiefs lose AFCC to Pats on a coin flip... Falcons lose SB to Pats on a coin flip... Damn Pats still winning.

I'm not going to click it. -------------------------------- 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact ngedit@niagara-gazette.com or call (716) 282-2311. -------------------------------- Ok, I clicked it. Doesn't matter anyway.

Thank you. *break* Regarding OT rules, I get the concern that letting both teams play could lead to a never-ending story. Much like the soccer analogy that was used, that's why they give one additional period and then penalty kicks. Besides the fact scoring is less likely in soccer, they've already been running for 90 minutes before OT. In football, have to consider most times the players that have extended physical abuse/chance for injury, have to play the next week. So there needs to be a limit. I'd ask for one minor change. Both teams get a shot. If it's still tied after that, go to the current rule. (Next TD or defensive score ends it, or FG if the other team doesn't score.) Very possibly it doesn't change the Bills-Chiefs game. Chiefs score a TD, Bills score a TD. Game still tied, so reverts to current rule...Chiefs score a TD, game over. But at least both teams get a chance.