MPT

"We can't let anyone see this screw job we're about to pull on this non-catch. Cut the feed."

In general I agree with this but that was about as obvious of an example of failing to control the ball through the ground as you can get.

He toe dragged and went straight to the ground. He may have gotten one step as he was falling but he did not maintain control through the ground.

That is obviously not a catch by the rules they've established with controlling the ball through the ground.

You're right! 14 fumbles is still a ***** ton of fumbles though.

I mean... He fumbled 14 times last year and lost 10. That is a ***** ton of fumbles. It's not really a secret that he has major ball security issues. If you disregard the fumbles and the two easy TDs he air mailed, he had a great game. If you don't disregard those, well then we're lucky it was against the Jets.

26/39 329yds 3TD 0INT

Yeah I posted that right before he missed the second one. Doesn't mean the first one wasn't called incorrectly though.

I don't know why they keep showing the field goal replay from the skycam. When they showed the replay from right under the upright before the commercial break it was clearly within the upright.

If you gave Foster Duke's hands & toughness (and height probably) you'd have a HOF'er in the making. Problem is, players don't all have the best attributes combined into perfect packages. Boldin also had almost 600 targets by age 26, so it's hard to compare his 4600 yards to Duke. If you want to extrapolate based on yards/target, Duke would actually have slightly higher yards in the same number of targets. I realize that his lack of speed and separation doesn't lend to a lot of targets, but it's really hard to argue with the results. When Josh throws him a good pass, he almost always catches it. Watching those two connect on critical downs in the playoff game was awesome. IMO, it was the second best offensive performance to Singletary's.

There's a very clear distinction between the thud of pads and the crack of helmets. In all three of the cases mentioned by the OP, it was obvious by sight as well.

I appreciate your time in evaluating these guys and writing up a thorough post, but I think you're missing a big element: coaching. I'll admit I could not name the Bills' OL coach nor do I have the expertise to determine whether they're doing the best with what they have. However, when you watch teams like the Patriots consistently giving Brady a clean pocket regardless of the personnel (we've seen Patriots OL backups neutralize our pass rush many times), I have to conclude that coaching and scheme play a bigger role than the players themselves. We signed a few guys this past off-season who had a reputation for being solid in their former roles, yet our protection throughout the year was inconsistent at best. This was supposed to be a vastly improved line in terms of talent and experience, but we didn't see many results. I know a big part of this has to do with Allen holding the ball longer than any other QB in the league (this is fact, not speculation) but when our line gets absolutely manhandled twice in a row in a playoff game that results in losing 30+ yards and field goal position, I wonder how their assignments were completely blown. And I go back to thinking about those well-coached teams who pick up the stunt or cross with practiced ease, or chip the extra man with an RB or TE. When the game mattered most, our line was a confused sieve. So my question to you, as someone who clearly puts time and effort into evaluating offensive line performance, is: does it matter if we upgrade the line with more "talent" or could it merely be that we haven't had a proficient OL coach in a long time?

That's exactly what happened to Jerry Hughes. He had some discipline problems early in his career and now he's allowed to be held every play and they'll call a personal foul on him for breathing too close to somebody. He's been one of the best edge rushers in the league for the past 4 years but no one will ever know because he isn't allowed to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Read the rule. If he's planted and crouched, it is impossible for him to be the one who initiates contact. He moved into the path of the defender and let the guy run into him. That clearly does not meet the standard set in the rule.

The rule actually says anywhere between facing the goal line and parallel to the goal line. So it meets that criteria. The problem is that it doesn't meet any of the other criteria stated in the rule. It's absurd that even when the highest NFL authorities on the rules get something right, they manage to stumble onto it for the wrong reasons.

The rule says he has to initiate contact and it has to be forcible contact. Neither of those was true on this block, so the direction does not matter.

No, the ref knew the rule and was acting accordingly. That's not really disputable. It's written down and very clear. You can debate whether it should be the rule or whether you'd be okay with winning because of an opposing team's mental mistake, but the rule itself says that the player failed to down the ball for a touchback and that was a live ball. The fact that the league sent alternate officials onto the field to reverse the correct call doesn't change that, nor does any "common sense" that he gave himself up.

As bad as this play design was, Allen still made a really bad decision. Brown had tons of space in the middle when the LBs collapsed to McKenzie on the pump fake, and Singletary was wide open with room to run on the sideline. Daboll should never have DiMarco lined up wide, and Allen should never throw it deep to him into double coverage. They are both to blame on that one.

He is facing the wrong way, but he doesn't initiate the contact nor is it "forcible" by any stretch. He moves into the defender's path and lets him run into him. This rule is designed to protect players who can't see a block coming, not to make offensive players get out of the way of a defensive player.

You mean the play where several of our players were pointing at the play clock at zero? Probably should have stopped it anyway, but it's just another in a long list of ways the referees bent the rules for the Texans. Our guys were probably a little distracted thinking it would be called. There is no argument. The rule says you have to down the ball in the endzone for a touchback. There is nothing about "giving yourself up" so that is a meaningless point. "Giving yourself up" refers to plays in between the endzones only.

No, it literally never happens. Because teams know that you have to down the ball. He screwed up, and we got screwed.

The play in the endzone was immediately after he got hurt and he was hit in midair and upside down. The other one was just a really good play by the defensive back to knock the ball out. He had at least 4 contested catches tonight that no other receiver on our team has made all year. He was our second best offensive player behind Singletary. His lack of speed and separation limits his upside as a WR but I'd like to see them try him as a tight end. He couldn't block any worse than Kroft and he has great hands in traffic.

Or Allen getting tackled late on a false start dead play.

2-9 for 24 yards with a fumble is as good as any QB? I mean, it was good enough to tie. But how can you possibly think that was the pinnacle of QB play? Many QBs, including Josh himself, have scored touchdowns to win in that situation. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a worse looking field goal drive. I'm not saying Allen was all bad, or even our worst problem, but let's chill with the "best any QB could have done" BS.

Haha not blaming the refs by any means but here are two things they did in immediate succession that completely changed the outcome of the game.