Last Guy on the Bench

It was just so strange. I still have a bad hangover from that game - I'm not as into the draft as I usually am, I'm following the news less avidly. I'll spring back, I'm sure. I love this effing team too much. But it was almost inexplicable. Not losing. Just the way they lost. I can see why Taiwan is baffled. I'm sure a lot of the players are. Humans are complicated. Human collectives are even more complicated. I do think there is something to the fact that the year finally caught up with them and against a team that was primed and energized and a bad matchup anyway. It happens in sports. It happens in life. I expect them to come out swinging again. McD has his weaknesses, but leaning into adversity and jumping back up off the canvas is not one of them. So I'm very keen to see how they respond and what their vibe is to start the year.

One of the silliest things I've ever seen. And it shows how easy it is to manufacture conspiracy theories. Point: NFL is selling tix for Atlanta and has to return the money if the game doesn't go ahead. Counterpoint: as many people have pointed out, they are selling tix for all possible playoff hosts and have to return the money for all of those that don't go ahead. Point: When Cheffers refs the Bills have a great record over the last few years. Counterpoint: When anyone refs the Bills have a great record over the last few years. Point: When Cheffers refs, home teams win 60% of the time. Counterpoint: Home teams win 55% of the time anyway, so he would be a small outlier. And normal distribution would typically include small outliers - it's not like every single ref would have exactly 55% as their home team winning percentage. Not to mention that even if Cheffers is slightly more influenced by the home crowd than others (debatable - he gives an anecdote about one game where the visiting team was penalized a lot after a bad call against the home team - fantastic "proof" - you can find any pattern of calls you like if you only need to offer one game as "evidence") then that's just part of the home field advantage the Bills earned by only losing 3 games, unlike the Bengals. I'd like to say this video is unusually dumb, except we see this kind of weak sauce conspiracy weaving out of cherry-picked, out-of-context facts all the time in politics, culture, internet "science," etc.

You could be right. That does sound like someone from the Bills side.

Not saying it wasn't some Bills official or other, though I tend to doubt it, given the culture there. But that quote really doesn't have the vibe of Bean or McDermott anyway. I would be completely shocked if it were one of them. Can't see them sounding off to a reporter in that tone. Way out of character.

Yes, this is most likely - that the broadcast team was talking to the refs, who in the absence of any direction (yet) from the league, just told them what the normal rule was for restarting after an extended injury timeout. It's very hard to believe the league office called and told them to start the game back up after a five minute warmup. I think it was just the refs and the coaches in discussion - the refs saying this is the usual procedure, the coaches responding by saying they needed to go discuss things with their teams, and the refs (and league at some point) agreeing. But the conspiracy theorists are out in force tonight.

Doesn't seem that the article is saying cold weather gets you sick by itself. It is proposing a mechanism explaining why you might be less able to fight off an early infection in cold weather. You would still have to have gotten infected by something else, e.g., the proximity explanations you note above. If the authors are right, then cold weather would both increase your exposure to others (your explanation) AND lower your initial immune response, both of which would contribute to higher sickness rates in Winter.

?? There are only three games based on the previous year's finish aren't there? 14 are predetermined and have nothing to do with your previous record. Each team plays 6 in their division, 4 from the conference division they are matched up with that year (rotating, predictable, same for everyone in your division), 4 from the non-conference division they are matched up with that year (same thing), and then the three finish-dependent games - the team who finished in equivalent position in the two conference divisions you are not playing, and then the equivalent team in one of the (rotating) non-conference divisions - which is the new 17th game.

No chance we sit guys with a loss. We would still have a shot at the one seed with a Bengals loss and a Chiefs loss either this week or next. Imagine sitting guys, losing to the Pats, and then that happens. McD would be run out of town.

I like him a lot as a guy, but I don't think he's ever had a good feel running the ball. He's fast and can find a crease now and then. But he just doesn't have that sense of flow and he gets tackled really easily. Many, many times over the years I've thought he had room to gain a lot more yardage than he ends up gaining on a given play. Can't really put my finger on it. But after five decades of watching good runners flow through traffic, you just get a sense when it's there to be had. And I think he's left a lot of yards on the field over the last few years.

Not a chance. It would be pure insanity.

Yes, your mean-spirited, third-grade name calling is definitely an important part of the "checks and balances" that will help Beane and McDermott make the right personnel decisions so we can finally win the Super Bowl. Thank you for your service. I wish you had made up an equally clever name for Norwood in 1990 so we could have won SB XXV as well.

Yikes! It's pretty amusing to watch, though, now that we know how the story turned out (i.e., we seem to have one of the greatest players in the history of the NFL on our hands).

From the Ringer: Buffalo can go light with three and even four receivers on the field at once. They can put multiple backs in the backfield or multiple tight ends on the line of scrimmage. They can line up under center or in the gun. They can dial up old-school, downhill-run plays, or call more modern option plays designed around the QB. Allen has become a surgeon on underneath stuff, but he’s still throwing rockets to the deep and intermediate parts of the field. And he’s as comfortable throwing to the middle of the field as he is outside the numbers. This offense can do anything at any time, and it does it all at a high level. This isn’t just the best offense in the NFL today. It’s one of the most comprehensive attacks this league has ever seen. 5 Takeaways from The Bills Win

That's where I disagree. If a defender catches a ball in the field of play, he can't run into the end zone and claim a touchback. He has to be in the end zone already, or I think his momentum can take him there. But even then he still has to go down or give himself up somehow. If a defender is running around with the ball in the end zone looking to escape and make a big run back, he is fair game for a strip.

This dude: And I saw a few people on a Steelers board. Totally agree. I think it was correctly called all along. But even if it were called the other way - still our TD. With different stats, as you say.

I've seen a few people online and on TV kvetching about the length of time Fitzpatrick seemed to have possession of Gabe's 2nd TD before Gabe ripped it back. Their argument is that Fitzpatrick had already intercepted it fully and it should have been ruled accordingly. I was wondering about this live, while I nervously waited for the extra point to be kicked before a red flag could be thrown. But then I thought about it more. Even if Fitzpatrick had it and it was an interception, the ball is still live. If a defender has a ball in the end zone, it is live until he is tackled or gives himself up, right? Totally different than an offensive player - if an offensive player has or establishes full possession in the end zone, it's a TD and the play is over. But if a defender picks it and starts running around back there, an offensive player can still strip him of the ball and it's live. So seems to me that at worst, that play is an interception and then a fumble in the end zone recovered for a touchdown by Davis. Am I crazy? The one counterargument I can see is if Fitzpatrick had possession and they ruled he was down by forward progress - but that would be whack - he wasn't being pushed "backwards" - he was running full speed in that direction. In any case. I don't think Minkah every really established full possession in the first place - they were wrestling for it, and Gabe won. But either way, it's a TD to my thinking. Also, the reason Gabe caught it one-handed is that he had to because Minkah was holding his other arm - so it could also have been Pass Interference. Strange and exhilarating play. Just want to make sure my reasoning is correct if I start arguing with a whiner.

Not sure he makes it that far.

Agreed. I thought Knox pulled away from the ball on purpose. Wasn't that other receiver Diggs? I'm not even sure that Josh wasn't throwing to him - he was just past the first down marker, if I recall. Hard to tell where he was throwing, given the tip. Weird play all around.

Agreed. If I was neutral, that game would tell me that in the long run the Bills are the stronger team, probably by a good amount. BUT, I give Miami's defense a lot of credit. They were on the field forever and they still really played tough all day. They were hitting, covering. They made life difficult for Josh who gutted it out but clearly didn't have his usual magic. Miami is going to make some noise. They seem like a scrappy wild card team to me. And they deserve a lot of credit for hanging in that game and making plays. Sure the Bills missed some opportunities. But so did the Dolphins. They dropped a few potential interceptions. Anyway, very difficult to watch. Can't say I enjoyed it. But it was just one of those weird games that happen pretty regularly in the NFL. Too bad we couldn't get a chance for a kick at the end. But given the week we've had, kind of fitting. I plan to forget this past week immediately.

Good points about the defense, but I can't see Miami holding us to 28 points. You never know, but the way their defense plays, injury to X, Josh and Co's current form, etc. make it hard to picture. They could beat us, but I think they'll have to score 30+ to do it. I like our chances a lot more than theirs, even with the injuries.

Don't forget "Shout" - the day that came out (Thursday?) was the most exciting day of the week. I especially loved the training camp notes you could get there. It's crazy how thin those were compared to what our many resident dedicated posters give us, not to mention all the media types observing practices. But it was gold back then.

It's not just for the male. You made that up.

Cool. Let's say you're right in your analysis of SB XXV. (There are a lot more variables at play in a complex phenomenon like a football game than your simple reduction can possibly do justice to, but for the sake of argument, let's say you're right.) You are holding up one bad decision or failure against the LONG pattern of success that @folz outlined. And to you, that means he's a bad coach and can never be "forgiven." You completely erase all the decisions he made along the way to get them to that Super Bowl. I just can't think that way. If you want to argue that Marv wasn't perfect, I'm right there with you. But of course no one is perfect, so that's not much of a discussion. If you want to argue that Marv's failings significantly outweighed his strengths, then I refer you back to @folz's original post.

This is my favorite post of the past five years. Thank you. You're fighting the modern current of smug opinion that labels anything with an imperfection (i.e., everything, eventually) as "trash" and that overlooks the many, many talents and character traits it takes to succeed in even the smallest way at the highest level. Marv had a number of remarkable qualities, and you do a great job showing how those qualities helped him win consistently in many contexts. And that's ignoring the other positive effects he undoubtedly had on many people beyond the football field. And sure the Bills were talented in the 90s, but it is no easy trick getting talents like that to align effectively for a year or two, let alone multiple years in a row. Marv is completely deserving of his HOF recognition, and we were beyond lucky to have had him as our coach.

Chelsea scum here. Good lord your boys waxed us. That was painful. Tip of the hat to you. Premium win. (And I was glad to see Aaronson looking feisty anyway. Took a bit of the sting out.)