Reader

Sadly though, losing to the Patriots at the last second because of a poor play call is still an improvement for how we did this year

I agree with you Mead. Well, I guess the question is how much of your happiness depends on the Bills winning versus having a football team to root for and a community of (most) posters to discuss strategy, be excited or discuss personal decisions, and simply enjoy the game of football.

I'm sure I am in the minority, but I don't think Jauron was awful. Rolling out players like Keith Ellison, Ko Simpson, Anthony Thomas, Coy Wire, JP Losman, Robert Royals, Tutan Reyes, etc... with marquee FA signings of a washed-up Peerless Price and somehow managing to finish 7-9. I think it is his teams that cause me to think one could do worse than Doug Whaley as GM.

Romo does a great job explaining what some of the strategy of the game. For example: "Jacksonville is playing cover 4, therefore the Bills will want to look for an out-pattern". Maybe you all feel differently, but it seems to me that Romo wants to see the Bills do well.

I don't know enough about football to know exactly how much of our problems are Dennison and how much are Tyrod. To have Romo pointing out open receiver after open receiver suggests Dennison might be better than he seems.

For me it's not either I'm upset or I'm not. Any time the Bills lose it's a disappointment. I hold that with if the Bills lose at any point in the playoffs I'll be proud of them for making it as far as they did. I think the biggest determining factor is whether or not they lose in a Billsy way.

Exactly! The Bills can't invest 15+ million into a player like that and expect to be successful.

Would you say Tyrod is almost an anti-Fitz? Fitz would get rid of the ball quickly, but not deal well with an immediate rush. Tyrod gets rid of the ball slowly, but is able to be Russell Wilsonesque when it comes to poor o-line play.

That statement is on the opposite end of the pendulum of the statement before it, "at this point Tyrod is a more athletic version of Smith for similar money. I'd keep Tyrod if that's the direction we're going." Tyrod is WAY more athletic than Smith. Smith is athletic. Smith is the better quarterback and a better fit if we continue to run a WCO.

We have always been at war with Eurasia!

It varies season to season depending on the players on other teams. For example, it is a lot easier to like the Bengals when Burfict isn't on the news, while Dalton is one of the most likable people in the league. Probably San Diego, Detroit, Cleveland, Minnesota. Teams I believe (and could be wrong) are most similar to us, that I feel are underdogs.

I feel like Shady has to be the answer. The secondary and H$ might seem tempting to pick, but Shady has made something out of nothing and chunks of yards out of small openings so many times.

Yeah, the 2014 team was better on paper, the 2017 team is better as a team, if that makes sense.

A lot of defensive highlights

Exactly, to a certain extent turnovers are luck. On the other hand, I expect that if Tyrod is starting next year (here or elsewhere) that team will have a positive turnover differential.

Then again, who would have thought the AFC west would be relatively easy this year?

Ducasse is probably average (or slightly below average). He will be serviceable most games, but when outmatched we'll really notice.

He seems serviceable in that regard, (It's not Tolbert's fault Tyrod checks down to him as if Tolbert had a red target on him) although perhaps I'm just comparing that to his sweep calls earlier in the season.

Could you please explain to me how I couldn't get the hint as I never participated in that thread? Is that a personal attack? Honestly, I don't think it is, but where do we draw the line? At what point s reprimanded the bullies a form of bullying?

The point I am trying to make isn't whether or not people should be rude to him. Obviously, they shouldn't. What I am trying to figure out is, how and in what ways is the original poster responsible for the situation. You could be completely correct in that irregardless of the post no one should bully/be made to feel like they were bullied. My point is, upon reading the post, that the poster messaged the board in a way that if he/she received criticism, they would take it more personally than other posters due to the person's emphasis on themselves having knowledge about RI.

Thank you NoSaint, for pulling that up. That is vague, and the post seems to be about him/her as much as the information they are telling us. I don't know if that justifies the degree that this person has been blasted, supposedly, but they don't seem to fall in to the Lori camp of posters who are trying to provide credible information to us.

I guess I wonder how much familiarity with scheme (shouldn't matter with Ryan coming in) and other players strength's limitations (chemistry) affect a players quality. How much better would a Kyle Williams who knows how MD and MW play be compared to an identical one signed from another team?

I guess the question is where do we draw the line between responsibility of the poster to understand this is a message board where people will be blunt with their opinions as there are very low consequences versus the responder who at times will say offensive responses that can get them banned? I didn't read the original post, but based on reactions it seemed the poster made it personal with the lead of "guess what I know..." if I started a thread like that I would be much more sensitive to criticism than a "take it for what it's worth, but I have a source that says...." That and people are jerks

Agreed, maybe it was mentioned earlier, but aren't Wood and Incognito friends? That should help their chemistry.

So what you're saying is...that if T.J. Graham had played 25 years ago and used stickum he could have been awesome? (more awesome depending on the poster's opinion of T.J. Graham)