transplantbillsfan

If we beat the Steelers AND lose to the Patriots (of all scenarios and based on history... do we really disagree that's what's very likely to happen?), there's an EXTREMELY good chance we will be locked in at #5.

Considering where Buffalo stands right now, if we win either of their 2 upcoming games, we not only secure a playoff spot, but the #5 seed. No chance for any other seed, just the #5 seed. Yes, it's possible. Should we rest our starters? Will we?

I appreciate the analysis, but the way you're approaching this is that Allen is the same as he was when we drafted him and hasn't improved. Is that what you're saying? I believe he's already dramatically improved.

There have been a couple of those plays this year where Brown looked just lackadaisical on that exact pattern. I can't remember which games exactly, but it was like that exact same play we ran to John Brown and the DB did the exact same thing. I know I shouldn't read into body language or anything, but it also just looked like Brown didn't give a *****... he's been very good for us this year so I don't think it's fair to overly criticize him, but on that particular play and a couple early in the season running the exact same route, something is seriously missing. Those are the plays that make me desperately want a big WR and that make me wish we'd just have Duke Williams activated... I feel like he'd at least make an effort to reach out and grab the ball in mid-air.

https://theathletic.com/1445380/2019/12/10/bills-all-22-review-what-was-up-with-josh-allens-processing-time-and-that-final-fourth-down?source=shared-article 1) Allen’s processing time drifts back to early-season levels ... Allen salvaged his average processing time on the Bills’ final two offensive series. He looked more like the quarterback we saw in the team’s previous three outings and less like the player we saw in the first three quarters. Those first three quarters, however, are where the damage was done and the game was lost. The Bills were begging for anything from their passing offense. The Ravens caught Allen in a cycle of decisions that took far too long. Through the first three quarters, Allen took an average of 3.03 seconds to throw, run or get sacked on his first 33 dropbacks. Over his final 17 dropbacks on the last two drives, that time dropped to 2.71 seconds on average. ... 2) What went wrong on the final fourth down? Allen tried to force the ball into John Brown in one-on-one coverage, with cornerback Marcus Peters on Brown’s back running step-for-step with him. While there’s a slight case to be made for defensive holding here, it wasn’t blatant enough for the officials to make a potentially game-changing call. They had been letting that type of contact go all game long. What could have changed the outcome is Brown running a better route against man-to-man coverage. Brown is the best outside route runner the Bills have had since Stevie Johnson, but his execution on this play was lacking. Brown’s deception tactics — trying to get Peters to bite with three non-threatening stutter steps — were insufficient. ... Additionally, the offensive line protected well enough against an eight-man blitz that Allen had time to come off his first read. On the left side of the formation, the Bills used a route combination with Cole Beasley and Isaiah McKenzie to clear out the entire side of the field for Beasley. McKenzie took a deeper and delayed slant toward the middle of the field so that he wouldn’t infringe on Brown’s area and bring another defender with him, while also giving Beasley enough room to run his inside-out route. Beasley’s executed his route well against Marlon Humphrey. Beasley got Humphrey moving toward the middle, stuck his foot in the ground and cut back outside, giving him 2-3 yards of separation. Even though Allen thought he’d be under duress, more poise in that situation could have helped him get the first down, at least. If Allen sees he has time, spots Brown’s lack of separation and gets to his second read, an on-target throw likely has Beasley running into the end zone and a game heading into overtime. It was a massive opportunity for the Bills and they didn’t get the job done. 3) The unsung hero of the Bills defense vs. Lamar Jackson But one defender who made a ton of impact plays went relatively unnoticed. Cornerback Levi Wallace — and his run support, tackling and pass coverage — was one of the many reasons the Bills were able to limit Jackson’s impact. ... Some of his best plays were a result of his body positioning and taking away Jackson’s outside lane. While Jackson does his most damage as a rusher from the edge, Wallace helped redirect the quarterback inside to his teammates and limit the quarterback’s rushing yards. In pass coverage, Wallace didn’t fall for the receivers’ traps, even going move-for-move with Seth Roberts (sixth play in the video). 4) In one area, the Bills need more from Tre’Davious White the Bills needed more out of him in run support. There were too many instances when the Ravens got the ball to the edge and White effectively gave himself up to the blocking wide receiver. On a handful of those plays, White squared up against the blocker 15-to-20 yards down the field and didn’t make an over-the-top effort to get off the block or push the receiver back into the oncoming runner. ... To be a complete cornerback, especially in coach Sean McDermott’s scheme, White needs to pitch in on run support. Against Baltimore, he didn’t follow through on that defensive principle. 5) Dawkins’ season has been an overwhelming success The 2019 season is now 14 weeks old, giving us enough of a sample size to determine who is and isn’t having a good season. Through 13 games, we’re past the point of qualifying statements for left tackle Dion Dawkins, who’s completely turned around his career trajectory in his third year. ... On Sunday, he limited Matt Judon’s impact with his one-on-one blocking. The Bills feel comfortable enough with him in those situations that they can send help elsewhere. As a run blocker, Dawkins continues to show the ability to turn his opponent, which has led to some substantial gains on the ground. Dawkins will be entering the final year of his rookie contract next year, and with nearly a full season of assessment, the Bills shouldn’t delay. They should reward his great season with a long-term extension to make him the left tackle of the foreseeable future.

Disappointed... I really did think you had your smoking gun. Did we really need to do this ridiculous dance for the last 24 hours???? Good God man! You're so angry. I hope life gets better for you trying to ensnare posters into traps you think you've got them in. Oy. I'm going to go enjoy my evening now that that's settled. Go Bills!!!

I'm not going to call you a name. You guys throw out names here aplenty... I think you need some Aloha. I was being facetious.

An interview from William Barr??? You're using the President's lawyer here to prove something? This guy lost all previous credibility when he came out with his own summary that completely twisted the narrative of the Mueller report (which was obviously what happened, otherwise why the hell do you think Mueller would put out that public statement after as he did) waaAAaaayyy before it was released. Like how he doesn't know the difference between Wikileaks and Wikipedia, though.

I watched it. Nunes is just saying things I anticipate @Deranged Rhino believes is the smoking gun. Am I correct? If so, it's nothing I hadn't already read about. And I certainly don't think Nunes is the messenger you want here dishing out this kind of speculation.

That's exactly what this is. The hypocrisy here is so bizarre. Groundhog day I guess. I mean we get to see Trump voted out of office in 11 months, but he's done his damage to democracy, which is unfortunate. The Tribalism will continue.

End game, huh? Yep, no political bias drove the Investigation of Trump and that investigation was justified. End game it is, I guess

You say you're being objective here, but are you? So you trust Horowitz's findings that there were 17 blunders by the FBI... do you then distrust the underlying evidence that leads him to his ultimate conclusion that there was no political bias and that the investigation was justified? You're erring on the side of immediate distrust, admitting yourself that you haven't read the report. Don't you see the problem there? That's not objectivity. I haven't read the report and I won't. I applaud you for spending the time doing it. But the snippets of I've read along with what's reported tells me one simple thing: The OIG doesn't absolve the FBI of transgression NOR does it act as the smoking gun that Trump & Co. believed it would be in terms of showing an overt political effort by the FBI to oust an elected President... and so it continues.

When did I say it's not good evidence? I can't verify the veracity of it or not. I said I can't view it. You're portraying yourself as a very small man.

I'm telling the truth. No Youtube access. Get frustrated if you want, but that's the truth. Is Youtube really the place to go for this irrefutably sourced evidence?

No Youtube on my current server. What does it state?

What comments are those? Why are you running away from this? You clearly have plenty of time on your hands to educate me. So educate me. I don't have the time for this banter. I know who Joseph Misfud is. I'm not lying about that like you lied about what I said about only knowing about the guy from what I heard on Fox News. Don't know why you lied so blatantly like that. Disappointing. So, what am I missing? Please tell me what it is I need to know about him that will totally blow my mind and shift my perspective.

My comment is that you're making a lot of assumptions and are now trying to twist the narrative on a nearly 500 page report that spanned a very very long time and was advertised over here as an ultimate presentation in objectivity.

Can't? Not true. Won't? True. You clearly believe he's a smoking gun. Based off everything I know about him I think you're really reaching and making A LOT of assumptions. So I genuinely want to know what you know about him. Prove to me you aren't just trying to win an argument. Educate me and stop blatantly lying about things I say. Your anger is blinding you a bit.

What in the world is msm??? I read more news out there than the average Joe. Certainly more than 3 paragraph headlines. And I cross reference and triangulate between works. But I'm not reading 1100 pages of dryly written source material largely written in legal and political lingo. You guys are just better than me if that's what you enjoy doing.

You said it, not me.

Do you really think at this point I wouldn't have researched this? This game of cat and mouse you're playing might work with other posters, but while I may be many things, I'm not a sucker, so stop playin me like one. You clearly believe you know everything there is to know about Joseph Misfud and it has led you to certain conclusions regarding the OIG report. So what do you know and what are your conclusions? You're awfully disingenuous in the way you approach discussions here. Clearly you feel you know more than everyone else. Educate us then. Do it with your clearly-more-credible-than-anyone-else's sources, please. Honestly. Post your stuff about the guy that's sourced and not some thread on Twitter and I'll read it as long as it's not some 99 page PDF file. If it's a 99 page PDF file, what does it say and why is it significant? I question whether you read those yourself, but if you've read that 99 page file PLUS the Mueller report (you said you read that in its entirety, right?) PLUS the OIG report that came out today, then you should've just read the 1100+ page Atlas Shrugged. Rand's characters are about the flattest characters in all of literature, but at least you would have been entertained with some philosophies you would back. I make the request one more time before I concede that you'd rather win an argument than drop knowledge on those of us less knowledgeable than you: In 1,000 words or less, what do you know about Joseph Misfud and why does he matter?

Welcome to read several threads of yours for myself? Okay. I'm honestly a little disappointed. I thought you were different. I've read about Joseph Misfud. I'm not searching through "several threads" to find your own thoughts on him. @Buffalo_Gal asked me to do that once with a 75 page thread... massively wasted my time. I'm not doing that with one 200+ page thread, much less "several threads." It's honestly pretty scary that you think that's it's this forum that is required reading for contemporary political education. So same question again. Strange that you're resorting to namecalling. It just seems so unlike you. I am? I did? Where did I say he "only popped up on FOX News?" Are you angry? It's weird that you're reading comprehension has gone out the window so wildly. I hope it's that, because the alternative is that you're trying to put words in my mouth as though I said something I didn't say. Lord knows why you'd do that.

Wow. You cherry pick your information like there's no tomorrow and are about as passive aggressive as anyone could be. You understand a lot about what I know or do not know about Joseph Misfud based on the few times I've chosen to post or not post in response to you???? Incredible. I make my genuine request again, tell me what you know that's true about Joseph Misfud and how it's relevant to this story. Educate me.