MAJBobby

Yep 56.2% Catch rate is Horrible for a guy that gives a 93.8% Catch-able Target Rate https://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/dawson-knox/ Now his True Catch rate is a little higher at 60%

Weather is just an excuse IMO. The Bills are more talented so like the Browns did to them (who are more talented to the Bills) they should walk into MIA and win going away. I hav Zero confidence in that happening though

hmmm lets see maybe the Blocked Punt. You know SOMETHING that is inexcusable? Now with 3 picks the Bills also missed a FG (But always defend Hausch see this week) Barkley's Pick from the NE three probably more impact in the loss. Barkley's Pick on NE 39 at end of game Probably a little more impact than Picks in the first half With all Josh's Interception down by 3. Hmmm yeah I can find many more

Only matters if it is a lost fumble

Did we lose to the Patriots because he tossed a Pick? Where is that direct correlation.

What are we looking up?

Good thing is we are having a little cold snap down here this week. Temps likely going to be 73-76 on Sunday and low humidity of 66%

Is he going to allow the Cap Circumvention on his Contract for us like he does for NE? If So Yes. If not Nope

Their Other Article I posted above addresses that. You run well when you win nor Win because of Running well. And they are not skewed I suggest reading the Article. You will start to see the effectiveness of play action has little Correlation to effectiveness or running th ball

Just showed you how Analytics do not prove that out. Also Another one people wont like teams are 4 Parts Offense 3 Parts Defense 1 Part Special Teams Play-action works regardless of the effectiveness of the Run game. That has also been proven. Conclusion We have an ever-growing body of evidence that teams don't need to run often -- or run well -- to set up play-action. Play-action works for teams that run frequently, infrequently, well, or poorly. For the vast majority of teams, it just works. From 2011 to 2017, 196 of 224 team-seasons had higher yards per play on play-action dropbacks than on non-play-action dropbacks. This includes teams like the 2017 Lions (9.4 yards per play-action play, No. 30 in rushing DVOA) and 2015 Jaguars (1.7 more yards per play on play-action dropbacks despite being No. 28 in rushing DVOA and only running 31 percent of the time). For every team observed to have a strong play-action game and strong rushing attack, I can find an example of an effective play-action team that has a weak rushing attack. For every play where a successful play-action pass followed a series of runs, I can find a play where play-action succeeded despite not recently running. There just doesn't seem to be anything there . Finally, there's no evidence of teams using play-action a lot seeing any less benefit to play-action. Coaches treat play-action as a fragile toy that can only be brought out under certain conditions -- only after running, and only if it hasn't already been used it too much -- but it's more like the tennis racket I've had since high school: always ready, and always effective. https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/situational-play-action-passing-nfl https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/further-research-play-action-passing

No

You hang 30 how much actual running is the other team going to do. Yep Hang 30 and be able to run to close out the game STOPs the Run and your Defense didn't have to do a thing. You run when you win, not win when you run. The first article ever written for Football Outsiders was devoted to debunking the myth of "establishing the run." There is no correlation whatsoever between giving your running backs a lot of carries early in the game and winning the game. Just running the ball is not going to help a team score; it has to run successfully. There are two reasons why nearly every beat writer and television analyst still repeats the tired old-school mantra that "establishing the run" is the secret to winning football games. The first problem is confusing cause and effect. There are exceptions, usually when the opponent is strong in every area except run defense, like last year's Green Bay Packers. However, in general, winning teams have a lot of carries because their running backs are running out the clock at the end of wins, not because they are running wild early in games. The second problem is history. Most of the current crop of NFL analysts came of age or actually played the game during the 1970s. They believe that the run-heavy game of that decade is how football is meant to be, and today's pass-first game is an aberration. As we addressed in an essay in Pro Football Prospectus 2007 about the history of NFL stats, it was actually the game of the 1970s that was the aberration. The seventies were far more slanted towards the run than any era since the arrival of Paul Brown, Otto Graham, and the Cleveland Browns in 1946. Optimal strategies from 1974 are not optimal strategies for today's game. A sister statement to "you have to establish the run" is "team X is 5-1 when running back John Doe runs for at least 100 yards." Unless John Doe is ripping off six-yard gains Jamaal Charles-style, the team isn't winning because of his 100-yard games. He's putting up 100-yard games because his team is winning. A great defense against the run is nothing without a good pass defense. This is a corollary to the absurdity of "establish the run." If you don't believe us, meet our good friends the 2006-2007 Minnesota Vikings (or, for a more recent example, the 2014 St. Louis Rams). With rare exceptions, teams win or lose with the passing game more than the running game -- and by stopping the passing game more than the running game. The reason why teams need a strong run defense in the playoffs is not to shut the run down early, it's to keep the other team from icing the clock if they get a lead. You can't mount a comeback if you can't stop the run. Note that "good pass defense" may mean "good pass rush" rather than "good defensive backs." https://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics

In what world would they have to pay him 12Mil? 981K for a look at a 1st round talent.... https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/houston-texans/vernon-hargreaves-18959/

Easier way (well not for Bills). SCORE MORE POINTS. Offense can stop the run much faster and effective by SCORING MORE POINTS

Sitting here at my Desk getting paid working while football stuff on one of my 4 computer screens. Defense Contracting PM work gets slow at times, Government doesnt move to fast

Chris Brown Publishes what the Bills OK

They really have not drafted well, and Grier has been there now a bit, so why would anyone think that would change

While I get what you are saying, how many bad teams have we played this year and yet to have Dominate?

Nope. I have given up looking for a statement Dominating win. they AVG 19 points a game they are not going to move too far from that number.

Browns Currently sit at 8% to make the playoffs Steelers sitting at 60% tied with us to make the playoffs You want a Steelers Loss and a Raiders and Colts loss this weekend Raiders are at 41% playing the Bengals (Raiders likely win with) Colts at 37% playing the Jags https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/upshot/nfl-playoff-picture.html

Bills Win against MIA, Broncos and Steelers and they are really just a lock for the WC without needing any help.

And yet with the Turning the Ball over a ton as you say was driving for the go ahead TD

We want Browns to win that would be a Slight help to the Bills. A Steelers win is a slight hurt to the Bills https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/upshot/buffalo-bills-nfl-playoff-picture.html

I have Just pointed out what happened during the game. And also pointed out Proof that he is a different QB in the 4th QTR. it is OK though you refuse to accept anything that doesnt fit your box. But I bet you believe the Bills will fix their Run Defense because well that is what McD tells you to believe

Sure How many times has Josh Allen been stopped from the 3 on goal to goal situations? They were moving the Ball that game until Matt Barkley came in. Should we also mention yet another missed FG by our two year Downward Trending Kicker that we extended?