Last Guy on the Bench
-
Posts
781 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Last Guy on the Bench
-
-
10 minutes ago, JohnBonhamRocks said:
McDermott did not look happyHe rarely looks too happy. Unless Kaiir Elam has his notebook out.
-
5
-
-
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.
-
6
-
15
-
2
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Process said:
Lmaooooooooo
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.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, strive_for_five_guy said:
I actually could totally hear Beane saying a lot of those things. I at least think it’s a Bills official, based on the following quote specifically:"We felt confusion and nonsense more than pressure," the team official said. "They were still discussing things. In our mind there was nothing to be discussed. ... If they would have said, 'If you leave you're forfeiting the game,' we're still leaving."
Leaving and forfeiting sounds to me like a Bills official, since they were the road team AND already behind. Plus, they’re the team who just watched one of their teammates get CPR on the field.
You could be right. That does sound like someone from the Bills side.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Billznut said:
Hopefully they won’t be able to determine who the source was, especially if it’s a Bills source, which I think most likely it was. Beane was standing directly behind McDermott when he was doing the phone call with Aponte and Zac Taylor in the tunnel when they kept showing video of that on MNF that night. I don’t want the Bills to have to fear retribution from the league or Vincent because of them doing the right thing that night when the league was clearly pushing otherwise.
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.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:
Yes - I think the league was quite busy dealing with other things associated with the events.
At no time did they state the NFL told them it would be a five minute warmup. They did say they heard from the people on the field - so was the NFL decision makers on the field.
I am sure the sideline reporter talked to the head of officiating who quoted standard SOP - a five minute warmup and then the game resumes and that is what Buck and Aikman quoted. That is also where Van Pelt got his info from the broadcast.
I do not for a second believe anyone at ESPN was in contact with high up league officials during that break.
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.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:
Simon:Im not starting a dialog on this as silly, but that’s an article and there are hundreds refuting these exact points.
I work in anti infectives and specialists.
I enjoy speaking with these specialists that it’s about close proximity,
close quarters like the winter up north, not washing hands, people transferring viruses and bacteria through touching things. The easiest way for me is at my gym I’m touching things others have touched in a recent period of time and need to constantly wipe crap stuff done.
Being in cold or wet weather won’t get you sick. Being in a plane is about touching bacterial/viral stuff and air borne pathogens.
if you disagree, I respect but disagree with you.
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.
-
5
-
-
7 hours ago, BRH said:
One more thing. Think about how much harder it is now than it was in the ‘90s. Back then there were 16 regular season games, two byes and just five playoff teams. Plus the scheduling was more random - we had eight division games (six of them against patsies), four non-conference games, and just four other games that depended on where we finished the previous year. Now it’s six division games (and the AFCE is stronger now than it was then), four non-conference games, and seven games that depend on the previous year’s finish. Those extra games in the last category are likely to make the schedule harder for a good team. And the last game of the season now is usually a divisional matchup instead of a mail-in non-conference game. Given that and everything else that’s happened this year, 12-3 so far is pretty damned impressive.
?? 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.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:
A loss all but guarantees every single key guy will sit vs NE.
Win out and finish strong!
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.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, redtail hawk said:
on rewatching the game, I was surprised he didn't get more out of the reverse. Watching tyreek hill return that fumble, i wonder what he would have gotten out of that play. maybe mckenzie is not as fast as he thinks.
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.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, LeGOATski said:
Hopefully it's not like the LA super bowl parade....
Not a chance. It would be pure insanity.
-
2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:
Clutch your pearls if that suits you. Bad players getting jeered is part of the checks and balances of pro sports.
As a consumer, if you stand for nothing you'll fall for anything and I don't think anyone wants to see would-be SB season come to a halt because a bad player just kept getting reps.
Bill Polian was criticized for not replacing the increasingly weak-legged Scott Norwood after the 1989 season. He was then terrible in 1990.........bottom third of league in fg % and atrocious on kickoffs. But Polian was stubborn and Norwood was his find. He left an unnecessarily very weak link in the lineup and lost a SB because of it.
Maybe you will drive in from Cheshire for the post SB loss parade where the crowd cheers for the cryin' Lil' Dirty at the podium after he drops the winning pass.........I'd prefer we bypass that and get a W instead.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
1
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, thenorthremembers said:
I thought for sure they'd challenge it as it looked like Fitzpatrick had sole possession as they stepped into the endzone. I'd think that would make it a touch back as soon as the ball went over the goal line and anything Davis did after that point wouldnt matter.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, Ya Digg? said:
I haven’t seen or heard a single person say Fitzpatrick cleanly had that ball. Davis had it, they were then fighting for it, and Davis came away with it. I honestly have not heard one person say that it was a clean interception
This dude:
And I saw a few people on a Steelers board.
5 minutes ago, mjt328 said:Yes, I believe you are correct.
The only thing that could have changed was in the stat column.
- Josh Allen would have gotten an INT instead of a TD pass
- Gabe Davis would have gotten credit for a fumble recover TD, instead of a TD catch
- Minkah Fitzpatrick would have gotten credit for the INT.
I don't believe there was enough evidence to show that Fitzpatrick actually possessed the ball at any point though, since Davis had his hand on the ball and eventually was the one who came up with it. Ties also go to the offense.
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.
-
5
-
6
-
2
-
-
Just now, uninja said:
Hackett is getting canned at the end of this season. Book it.
Not sure he makes it that far.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, fergie's ire said:
It looked to me like because it was tipped and off target, Knox thought it was intended for someone else. So he started for it but stopped thinking, "No I don't want to deflect a ball headed for x." Not sure who it was but there was another receiver close by.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:
That was garbage. Means nothing about how good we are. But let's stop pretending Miami is trash.
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.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Fred Slacks said:
Few things:
1) our defense is good
2) we have given up zero points in the second half of both games.
3) I think people are underplaying how good our defense is.
4) our offense is better
5) our QB is better
I don't see this being a close game. Maybe the fins score a garbage TD late to make the score look closer than the game really is. I don't think either of our rookie corners change how we play defense in this game. Would be the same either way. Micah Hyde is the bigger missing piece this week and I still think we do okay without him.
28-17 Bills win. I wouldn't be shocked if we score more than 35.
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.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, wjag said:
It's the NFL and hope springs eternal for every franchise. I have no issue with the hype being shared. If the shoes were reversed, TBD would be sky high with hope and expectations. The cool thing is, they get to play the game. It will be settled on the field. And then just like that, it will be on to the next game. They don't call it over reaction Monday for nothing.
The thing I was musing about yesterday was the share depth of content available these days. With the advent of YouTube, AWS, etc, you can spend as much time as you want reading and listening. We are a long way from the 90s dearth of coverage/opinions where the only real content was the evening SportsCenter segment and the Buffalo News Sunday and Monday papers. I can remember reading everything on Monday if they won and nothing is they lost. Now it's all internet content, but the same rules apply. Watch everything I can if they win and internet hibernate if they lose.
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.
-
12 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:
Absolutely insane that state will allow for sex change hormones, double mastectomy, but two minors having consensual sex is a crime.... for the male... how?
It's not just for the male. You made that up.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Meatloaf63 said:
We lost to the Giants in the first super bowl because he couldn’t control Jim Kelly's ego and run the ball. Look at Thurman Thomases ypc and asked why he wasn’t used more to force the Giants out of their defense? I for one will never forgive him for that…
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.
-
1
-
1
-
NFL + Premium
in The Stadium Wall
Posted · Edited by Last Guy on the Bench
Yes. Very deceptive. I went in and signed up, as $10 would be an amazing deal. But when I checked my account status, it shows that it auto-renews at the regular $79.99 price on August 1st. So I just wasted $10, as there is no need for the subscription before August 1st for me. I was going to buy it anyway at the regular price, as I do every year. But that was some skeevy marketing.