TheWei44

At the time, I saw 4th and 3 on the field/live game and 4th and 2 on my phone (checking other scores during commercial, I think) - I said to my son something like "if it's really 4th and 2, maybe we'll go for it" and then saw it confirmed for sure 4th and 3 on the field.

Rough start but a lot of positives by the end of the game. One thing is clear - We have a lot of receivers now with "good" hands (and Von is back).

I'm strangely sensing that too, HBS! Hope we're right! Go Bills!!

Rousseau on D and Cook on O.

Straight sets! First semis in a grand slam!

Bills 31 Cards 20

I heard Tiafoe and Jess are friends and sometimes hit with each other

Great post! And it's exciting to think about what we'll write about 2024 in 2025 - Too early to make that prediction!

Or how about Vincent Lombardi? Couldn't hurt to have a guy that's an amazing coach too!

And to think I just ponied up for a signed M Milano football - It was from a charity auction at least. Ugh!

Not what I want to happen but here goes: Bengals lose to Lions in Super Bowl Bills lose to Bengals in AFCCG in Cincinnati Cook does not drop any easy catches for TDs Von plays in less than 12 games this year

I've said it before - Part of the important context with Brady/late last season is that our backs were against the wall. That's when we've always unleashed Josh more as a runner. So I think that was a big factor in any observed shifts to favoring the run//less passing. My hunch is that early next season, Josh will run less (but hopefully still be allowed to "be himself", which is a dual threat and able to run at times).

To be clear, I am not "supporting" TM. But offering some econ insights that are relevant. Monopolies or near monopolies can exist for several benign reasons. For example, growing super fast b/c you're more efficient than your competitors; natural monopoly where scale economies favor just one competitor. So if we observe a monopoly, near monopoly, duopoly, etc., and nothing nefarious has occurred in terms of achieving that status, the "high" prices are what we'd expect and are not "anti competitive" - If the company does "bad things" to achieve or try to achieve a monopoly, then that's completely different. And if the monopolist does things to harm the competitive process, that's a huge problem too. But my basic point is that we shouldn't just simply equate "high prices" to "monopolist" to "bad actor" without delving into the details.

Food for thought: Pricing in a competitive market with 100 pizza joints will be competitive. Pricing in a (legal) monopoly will not be competitive. So the question is not "Are TM's prices too high"? but rather "Are TM's prices higher than they should be in a monopoly or similar setting?" Another issue is whether the monopolist has engaged in conduct that has harmed the competitive process.

This highlights whether we're taking WR/TEs/RBs only or those+QB. Totally fine to focus on the former, but the latter is obviously critical too and a different question. Since we have a "top 2/3" QB, we don't necessarily need the absolutely most elite set of WR/TE/RBs. And we have a very good offensive line too.

My son is starting a caddie job for the first time - None of us in the family really play golf - But I love that movie and was fun to see that my son needed to be dropped off at the caddyshack for training! You scratched my anchor!

Like one person wrote, I was thinking NE @ home @ 1 pm for the opener. I'd love that as our first game. My hunch is division rival at home. If not NE, then maybe Miami.

Like last night when I had AA and opponent had A10 and flop had both an A and 10 in it!! Good times for me!

One thing to watch this season with Brady is how he runs things when we are not in "do or die" mode (i.e., in a position where we're willing to let Josh run loose if necessary b/c our backs are against the wall re making the playoffs). As with many things, it'll be about finding the right balance with Josh (don't reign him in too much but don't let him take a lot of hits running the ball). I'd like to see a diverse, creative, unpredictable attack tailored to the opponent . . . But I guess that pretty much goes without saying! Go Bills.

And we're . . . still waiting!!

As much as I liked how Brady did, those bubble screens to Diggs behind the LOS made no sense to me. Diggs has never been a "yards after catch" guy for the most part, and he's not built nor is he comfortable being essentially a running back in my view. He is not always averse to contact but there are plenty of plays where he avoids it. I'm guessing one or more drops on those screens was hearing the footsteps of the defenders. I am all for trying new things, but I was never a fan of those bubble screens to Diggs.

The more interesting question, perhaps, is what did Tampa/Brady/defense do to beat the Chiefs with Mahomes in the Super Bowl?! Maybe a blueprint for us? I'm mostly kidding, but it's one stark example of Chiefs with Mahomes failing/having a bad game in the playoffs!

Completely agree! But that's also besides the point. There's a tendency to focus on one or two plays and say if such and such had happened or didn't happen, then the outcome of the game would have been different. Except for the literal last play of the game, when the result may determine the game, all other individual plays are just part of the mosaic of the game, if you will. It's a little pet peeve of mine when someone says (not you specifically) essentially that if the 21nd play of the game had turned out differently, then we would have won (where that play might have been a pick six or just a pick or a missed FG). But the rest of the game from that point forward would have been different too so you can't assume everything else would have stayed the same . . .

All the plays in a game by both teams determines the winner. Sure, some plays matter more than others, but wins and losses generally cannot be distilled to the result of one or two plays. For example, when Mahomes threw a TD pass to a wide-open Kelsey in the endzone, was that the reason we lost? Of course not. But it didn't help either and the ease with which the Chiefs moved the ball was a big reason we lost the game. We lost because the sum of their plays was a little bit better than the sum of our plays.

Realize this is probably not a serious idea, but it'd be like asking the former CEO of Coca Cola (who was in charge when the stock went up 100X) if he'd be interested in being the CFO or COO of Pepsico. Why would anyone ever make a move like that? Or asking a former US president to be a VP. Has never happened and would basically never happen.