Logic

I appreciate the letter and I like Brandon Beane. But as our former GM Foghorn Leghorn once said: I don't wanna hear about the labor pains, just show me the baby.

Agreed. It was, hands down, his best throw of the year. Defenders in his face, good pocket awareness, stepped up and threw a laser. Not only that, he THREW A GUY OPEN into double coverage. Money play.

I believe the contestants in the Super Bowl had more to do with it than the game itself. Most of the country is sick of watching the Patriots in the Super Bowl. Add to it the national disgust at the Saints being cheated and you have a recipe for low ratings.

I agree with Miller's take on Williams: He has a chance to be able to be a good tackle in the NFL, but he's likely an all-pro level guard right out of the gate. Think Zack Martin. As the best available offensive lineman in the draft, Bills would probably be wise to just take him and let the rest sort itself out...ESPECIALLY if the top of the draft plays out the way Miller's mock does, with all the blue chip defensive guys gone by 9.

That's not what I saw at all. The teams were so well prepared for the opposition and the defensive gameplans were so spot-on that neither offense could execute. Not due to "poor play", but due to excellent coaching.

Sneaky great way to end the NFL season: All the teams who tripped over each other to hire "The Next Sean McVay" watching the ORIGINAL Sean McVay coach his offense to a 3-point output on the game's biggest stage. Buyer's remorse, anyone?

And to add to that: Each offense came out for their next drive trying new personnel groupings and play concepts to counter the defense they'd seen up until then. Each defense then accordingly adjusted, both staying one step ahead of the opposing offense. It was move, counter-move all night long. A chess match. It was beautiful, and tense, and close, and awesome. Boring? Psssshhhh.

That was a defensive master class by BOTH coaches. Wade holding the Pats to 13 points on that stage was absolutely amazing. I'll tell ya something, though: I hate how predictable the Rams offense was. They called the same stuff they've been calling all year long. The Eagles game last year showed that the only way to beat the Pats (especially in a Super Bowl where Belichick had two weeks to prepare) is to show them things they've never seen before. The Rams didn't do that AT ALL. There wasn't even a little list of 5 trick or surprise plays or ANYTHING. Nevertheless, great defensive job by Belichick, and great job by Wade Phillips.

And one more thing: There's a difference between a game containing lots of punts because the offenses are inept and a game containing lots of punts because both defenses and defensive play callers are elite. Last night was one of the latter, not one of the former. Most fans don't like watching quality defense, I guess.

Just gonna copy and paste what I wrote in another thread below. And by the way, with as many BLOWOUTS as there have been in Super Bowl history, it's pretty much ridiculous that anyone would call this the most boring Super Bowl ever. A low scoring but close affair is more interesting than a high scoring blowout every time. Anyway: I hate the Pats as much as anyone on earth.But anyone who says that was the most boring Super Bowl ever must have been watching a different game than me.That was a master class of coaching, schemes, and in-game adjustments and counter-moves. It was a constant chess match all game long. An even battle between two excellently well-prepared teams. A slugfest between two of the NFL's all time greatest defensive minds. In the end, the game came down to tendency breakers and the 4th quarter discovery by the Patriots that forcing the Rams into their base defense would allow them passing game advantages, which led to the only touchdown of the game. There have been so many blowout or otherwise uninteresting Super Bowls throughout history. To say that tonight's game was the most boring ever just because it was not high scoring is just...yeah...I don't even know. I can't get on board with it at all. I completely disagree. Even WITH the Patriots being the victors, I found it to be one of the more tense and interesting Super Bowls I can ever remember watching.?‍♂️

I agree that it was not a game that most casual fans -- and CERTAINLY most "Super Bowl only" viewers -- would enjoy. Luckily I am neither of those things. I felt the game had a ton to offer for fans of Xs and Os, great coaching, scheme adjustments, and strategic nuance. In short, I feel it was a game that hardcore football fans couldn't help but love, while casual fans -- to whom only touchdowns equal entertainment -- were bound to hate. As for it being a "coma inducing defensive borefest": Speak for yourself. I found it to have more tension and to be of greater interest strategically and schematically than many of the no-defense shootouts that happened in the NFL this year. We can agree to disagree. It's fine.

I hate the Pats as much as anyone on earth. But anyone who says that was the most boring Super Bowl ever must have been watching a different game than me. That was a master class of coaching, schemes, and in-game adjustments and counter-moves. It was a constant chess match all game long. An even battle between two excellently well-prepared teams. A slugfest between two of the NFL's all time greatest defensive minds. In the end, the game came down to tendency breakers and the 4th quarter discovery by the Patriots that forcing the Rams into their base defense would allow them passing game advantages, which led to the only touchdown of the game. There have been so many blowout or otherwise uninteresting Super Bowls throughout history. To say that tonight's game was the most boring ever just because it was not high scoring is just...yeah...I don't even know. I can't get on board with it at all. I completely disagree. Even WITH the Patriots being the victors, I found it to be one of the more tense and interesting Super Bowls I can ever remember watching. ?‍♂️

The fact that Don Coryell continues to get passed up year after year is absolutely unfathomable, unconscionable, ridiculous. The NFL in 2019 simply would not be what it is without his contributions to the game. A travesty.

Just wanted to pop into say this: I LOVE the fact that Sean McDermott populated his staff with super-experienced veterans that he could lean on in his first two seasons, then replaced those experienced coaching vets with young, hungry, high energy up-and-comers once he had a handle on things. A great and methodical and totally logical approach. Love it.

Oh, is Robert Woods available and I missed it? If you don't like Williams, it's fine, but to say he doesn't have speed and agility? C'mon, man!

I agree that he'd be a good signing at the right price. He already knows the playbook, could provide depth, add a few interesting defensive sub-packages, and mentor our young linebacker duo. I would think that McDermott's presence as head coach would make Buffalo one of his top choices as far as places to finish his career. Just the leadership he could provide and knowledge he could impart to Edmunds and Milano ALONE would be worth the signing, even if he rarely sees the field. All of this, of course, is contingent upon him not wanting a ton of money. Paying a bunch for a 35-year-old with bad knees is never sound roster building strategy.

And also because Thomas Davis is less good at playing football than he used to be. There's that, too. We're talking about a 35-year old linebacker who has had 3 ACL tears.

He'll end up being the replacement for Alex Smith in Washington. Dan Snyder loves him some non-threatening, unexciting, milquetoast, game manager QBs in their 30s. They're PERFECT for risk-averse teams that just want to keep team revenues up despite a crappy on-field product.

I disagree. A poor result does not equal a bad move. With 20/20 hindsight, you can sit there and say "it didn't work out, so it was a terrible move". In my opinion, though, a player of Coleman's talent -- particularly given how the Bills' WR corps was lacking in talent at speed at the time -- was worth the gamble of a future 7th round pick. The fact that the move didn't work out does not mean that it was a risk not worth taking. I want my general manager doing everything he can to improve the team at all times -- with the full understanding that not every move he makes is going to work out. Not a single GM in the NFL has ever had a 100% success rate with personnel moves. Not one. And did Coleman's signing hurt the Bills long term? No, not at all. He has no salary cap implications on the team in 2019. It was a low-risk move that didn't pay off. That doesn't mean it was a bad swing to take, in my opinion.

If they "deserved" to lose, it doesn't affect me too much any more. If they lost because of a really bad call from the refs or because they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory (known in our household as "pulling a Bills"), then I'm in a pretty ***** mood for a few days. I tend to dwell on these types of losses until about Friday, when I can turn the page to the next game. Weirdly enough, a Bills WIN rarely affects the rest of my week at all. Losses hurt way worse than wins feel good.

Just bought a ticket to see RAW on Monday night here in Portland. I haven't been to a wrestling event in almost two decades, but the ticket was cheap and I thought it might be an fun trip down memory lane, since I was an obsessive wrestling fan as a kid. Watched Royal Rumble and the following night's RAW to get myself up to date on what's happening. Not sure if I'll be able to keep up with the wrestling crowds of today, what with their infinite number of chants and theme song sing-alongs. Should be a weird time.

Pats win it 28-20, and it only looks that close on the scoreboard because the Rams get a late garbage time touchdown. Sony Michel is named Super Bowl MVP. I turn the game off early in the 4th quarter in disgust and avoid ESPN until free agency begins.

It's a tie between this guy and Jamal Adams for "Hero of the Month".

He's not a free agent. You'd have to trade for him.

“I think if you look at the overall passing game, the statistic that stands out the most in terms of correlation is pressure. So pressure on the quarterback leads to more bad plays than sacks do, in terms of turnovers unless you have strip sacks, obviously. That’s the No. 1. After that, pressures cause bad throws and potentially turnovers.” - Bill Belichick