transplantbillsfan

True. Heck, even in that excerpt I posted from the article, we learn that Daboll used a running play that lost 3 yards to set up that TD play. I definitely agree there's been an execution problem at points this year. Joe B at one point in one of his All-22s pointed to several plays in a single game where we were targeting Foster on a deep ball but we just couldn't execute for one reason or another. Allen actually hitting that pass was obviously huge. If he didn't hit it, we would have been looking at a 3rd and 13 and I'm sure a lot of us would have then questioned Daboll. So I'll agree that I've probably been too harsh on Daboll. I do think the changes in terms of going up top, running no-huddle and running out of the shotgun much more are great mid-season adjustments.

To be fair, I kinda think there was a huge shift for Daboll and the offense in the last couple of games. In the last 2 games alone in contrast to the rest of the season: -Daboll went into the box for a bird's eye view -The offense began running the no-huddle -"Over the last two weeks, partly due to the no-huddle, the Bills have jumped from 26th in the percentage of runs out of shotgun (16 percent), to the fourth-highest in the league (38 percent)." That last bit was also taken from the article posted in the OP. I was certainly one of the ones you're calling out here because I had issues with Daboll. Love what he did the last couple weeks. I hope he keeps this up and, as Turner indicates in his title, maintains this as the Bills' offensive identity.

Latest breakdown on The Athletic from Erik Turner is interesting because it sets up how the Bills essentially ran the same RPO play throughout the game. Then this: https://theathletic.com/1411252/2019/11/26/have-the-bills-found-their-offensive-identify-dissecting-the-fast-paced-game-plan-against-the-broncos/ The consistent use of this run concept paired with slant — flat and curl — combinations lulled the defense to sleep. The Bills attacked the Broncos with the run and dink, and dunked when they wanted to pass. But the tempo and somewhat simple play design helped the players and staff make easy in-game adjustments. Wide receiver John Brown took notes on Chris Harris throughout the game when he ran these combinations, and that intel led to a touchdown early in the fourth quarter. Daboll told the media that they “had run a similar formation three times, kind of the same route,” Brown “did a good job of communicating to Chad Hall,” and Hall relayed the message to Daboll. Brown told Hall that Harris was “jumping inside, preparing for the slant or curl route,” and you can see that happen on every single play above. So on the Bills’ second drive of the fourth quarter, they set up the deep shot to Brown with a run out of this 4-strong formation. The run lost 3 yards, but it had a significant effect on the next play. The staff “drew something up on there on the sideline off of what John felt out there,” Daboll said afterward. Since Harris was jumping the curls and slants, they threw in a “sluggo” route to push the ball down the field. As Brown glances at Allen, Harris quickly plants to drive on the apparent slant route. Allen executes the play fake, then a series of pump fakes, to get Harris to bite. The six-man protection holds firm and Allen hits Brown for a 34-yard touchdown. It was one of those plays that looked the same to the Broncos, until it didn’t, and it put the Bills up by three possessions. This was also Allen’s first completion over 30 air yards this season — a layup play design to help Allen get his confidence back.

Good point... Here's hopin for snow!

Well by concern you mean what? Concerned about us making the playoffs? I'd put that at about a 2. I'm pretty damn confident we're in the playoffs. Concerned about us being a legit contender and making noise against real teams in the playoffs? I'd put that at about a 5. I'm pretty positive this team fall somewhere between 10-6 and 12-4. If we're 10-6 going into the playoffs, I'm probably at about a 7. If we're 12-4, I'm a 2 and wishing I could muster up money and permission from the wife to travel to the Super Bowl Well by concern you mean what? Concerned about us making the playoffs? I'd put that at about a 2. I'm pretty damn confident we're in the playoffs. Concerned about us being a legit contender and making noise against real teams in the playoffs? I'd put that at about a 5. I'm pretty positive this team fall somewhere between 10-6 and 12-4. If we're 10-6 going into the playoffs, I'm probably at about a 7. If we're 12-4, I'm a 2 and wishing I could muster up money and permission from the wife to travel to the Super Bowl

1. GHG emissions continue to rise, despite scientific warnings and political commitments. ▶ GHG emissions have risen at a rate of 1.5 per cent per year in the last decade, stabilizing only briefly between 2014 and 2016. Total GHG emissions, including from land-use change, reached a record high of 55.3 GtCO2e in 2018. ▶ Fossil CO2 emissions from energy use and industry, which dominate total GHG emissions, grew 2.0 per cent in 2018, reaching a record 37.5 GtCO2 per year. ▶ There is no sign of GHG emissions peaking in the next few years; every year of postponed peaking means that deeper and faster cuts will be required. By 2030, emissions would need to be 25 per cent and 55 per cent lower than in 2018 to put the world on the least-cost pathway to limiting global warming to below 2˚C and 1.5°C respectively Figure ES.2. Top greenhouse gas emitters, excluding land-use change emissions due to lack of reliable country-level data, on an absolute basis (left) and per capita basis (right) 2. G20 members account for 78 per cent of global GHG emissions. Collectively, they are on track to meet their limited 2020 Cancun Pledges, but seven countries are currently not on track to meet 2030 NDC commitments, and for a further three, it is not possible to say. ▶ In contrast, seven G20 members require further action of varying degree to achieve their NDC: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, South Africa and the United States of America. For Brazil, the emissions projections from three annually updated publications were all revised upward, reflecting the recent trend towards increased deforestation, among others. In Japan, however, current policy projections have been close to achieving its NDC target for the last few years. 4. The emissions gap is large. In 2030, annual emissions need to be 15 GtCO2e lower than current unconditional NDCs imply for the 2°C goal, and 32 GtCO2e lower for the 1.5°C goal. ▶ Estimates of where GHG emissions should be in 2030 in order to be consistent with a least-cost pathway towards limiting global warming to the specific temperature goals have been calculated from the scenarios that were compiled as part of the mitigation pathway assessment of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C report. ▶ This report presents an assessment of global emissions pathways relative to those consistent with limiting warming to 2°C, 1.8°C and 1.5°C, in order to provide a clear picture of the pathways that will keep warming in the range of 2°C to 1.5°C. The report also includes an overview of the peak and 2100 temperature outcomes associated with different likelihoods. The inclusion of the 1.8°C level allows for a more nuanced interpretation and discussion of the implication of the Paris Agreement’s temperature targets for near-term emissions. ▶ The emissions gap between estimated total global emissions by 2030 under the NDC scenarios and under pathways limiting warming to below 2°C and 1.5°C is large (see Figure ES.4). Full implementation of the unconditional NDCs is estimated to result in a gap of 15 GtCO2e (range: 12–18 GtCO2e) by 2030, compared with the 2°C scenario. The emissions gap between implementing the unconditional NDCs and the 1.5°C pathway is about 32 GtCO2e (range: 29–35 GtCO2e). 5. Dramatic strengthening of the NDCs is needed in 2020. Countries must increase their NDC ambitions threefold to achieve the well below 2°C goal and more than fivefold to achieve the 1.5°C goal. ▶ The ratchet mechanism of the Paris Agreement foresees strengthening of NDCs every five years. Parties to the Paris Agreement identified 2020 as a critical next step in this process, inviting countries to communicate or update their NDCs by this time. Given the time lag between policy decisions and associated emission reductions, waiting until 2025 to strengthen NDCs will be too late to close the large 2030 emissions gap. ▶ Had serious climate action begun in 2010, the cuts required per year to meet the projected emissions levels for 2°C and 1.5°C would only have been 0.7 per cent and 3.3 per cent per year on average. However, since this did not happen, the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal. Evidently, greater cuts will be required the longer that action is delayed. 6. Enhanced action by G20 members will be essential for the global mitigation effort. ▶ This report has a particular focus on the G20 members, reflecting on their importance for global mitigation efforts. Chapter 4 in particular focuses on progress and opportunities for enhancing mitigation ambition of seven selected G20 members – Argentina, Brazil, China, the EU, India, Japan and the United States of America – which represented around 56 per cent of global GHG emissions in 2017. The chapter, which was pre-released for the Climate Action Summit, presents a detailed assessment of action or inaction in key sectors, demonstrating that even though there are a few frontrunners, the general picture is rather bleak. ▶ Based on the assessment of mitigation potential in the seven previously mentioned countries, a number of areas have been identified for urgent and impactful action (see table ES.2). The purpose of the recommendations is to show potential, stimulate engagement and facilitate political discussion of what is required to implement the necessary action. Each country will be responsible for designing their own policies and actions. 7. Decarbonizing the global economy will require fundamental structural changes, which should be designed to bring multiple co-benefits for humanity and planetary support systems. ▶ Climate protection and adaptation investments will become a precondition for peace and stability, and will require unprecedented efforts to transform societies, economies, infrastructures and governance institutions. At the same time, deep and rapid decarbonization processes imply fundamental structural changes are needed within economic sectors, firms, labour markets and trade patterns ▶ By necessity, this will see profound change in how energy, food and other material-intensive services are demanded and provided by governments, businesses and markets. These systems of provision are entwined with the preferences, actions and demands of people as consumers, citizens and communities. Deep-rooted shifts in values, norms, consumer culture and world views are inescapably part of the great sustainability transformation. Table ES.2. Selected current opportunities to enhance ambition in seven G20 members in line with ambitious climate actions and targets USA ● Introduce regulations on power plants, clean energy standards and carbon pricing to achieve an electricity supply that is 100 per cent carbon-free ● Implement carbon pricing on industrial emissions ● Strengthen vehicle and fuel economy standards to be in line with zero emissions for new cars in 2030 ● Implement clean building standards so that all new buildings are 100 per cent electrified by 2030 8. Renewables and energy efficiency, in combination with electrification of end uses, are key to a successful energy transition and to driving down energy-related CO2 emissions. ▶ The necessary transition of the global energy sector will require significant investments compared with a business-as-usual scenario. Climate policies that are consistent with the 1.5°C goal will require upscaling energy system supply-side investments to between US$1.6 trillion and US$3.8 trillion per year globally on average over the 2020–2050 time frame, depending on how rapid energy efficiency and conservation efforts can be ramped up. ▶ Any transition at this scale is likely to be extremely challenging and will meet a number of economic, political and technical barriers and challenges. However, many drivers of climate action have changed in the last years, with several options for ambitious climate action becoming less costly, more numerous and better understood. First, technological and economic developments present oppor tunities to decarbonize the economy, especially the energy sector, at a cost that is lower than ever. Second, the synergies between climate action and economic growth and development objectives, including options for addressing distributional impacts, are better understood. Finally, policy momentum across various levels of government, as well as a surge in climate action commitments by non-state actors, are creating opportunities for countries to engage in real transitions. ▶ A key example of technological and economic trends is the cost of renewable energy, which is declining more rapidly than was predicted just a few years ago (see figure ES.5). Renewables are currently the cheapest source of new power generation in most of the world, with the global weighted average purchase or auction price for new utility-scale solar power photovoltaic systems and utility-scale onshore wind turbines projected to compete with the marginal operating cost of existing coal plants by 2020. These trends are increasingly manifesting in a decline in new coal plant construction, including the cancellation of planned plants, as well as the early retirement of existing plants. Moreover, real-life cost declines are outpacing projections.

Did McDermott say it was a hammy? I figured it wasn't a cramp. Aren't you much more prone to getting those in the heat rather than the cold?

Wait... Foster is actually practicing? Sooooo... not a hammy???

Updated after week 12's completion

Isn't that just it? Blitz him and try to pressure him into making an errant throw while also hopefully sacking him and hitting him enough to make him a little shaky.

So what's the best way to beat Jackson and this Ravens offense? Zero blitz and press coverage the whole game? Run blitz every play with press coverage? Edmunds or Milano as a spy? Serious question because obviously there will be way to stop this team at some point.

Sure sounds like it. Certainly makes me feel better about that play. The other almost INT was a terrible throw... but it was because of his decision to throw it, not so much accuracy.

Allen was 7-for-8 passing on 3rd down with four passing first downs and three rushing first downs on 3rd down today. 12 total 3rd downs with 7 converted for a 58.3% conversion rate for Allen on those plays today.

Well... this maybe says something about his INT https://theathletic.com/1407189/2019/11/24/seven-observations-from-the-bills-win-ed-oliver-pops-off-the-screen-defense-borders-on-dominant-once-again/ 4. Allen, despite brief mistakes, shows poise and potential ... He wasn’t without his faults, as Allen committed his first interception since Week 5 — though the encouraging part is that there was a great deal of thought behind the interception. “The coverage that I thought they were in was quarters, and their safety was committing to the run. That’s our cue to kind of put it over the top, and my eyes were on (the safety) and I didn’t see the backside safety moving post high,” Allen said. “They disguised it well, they made a play. Obviously it’s one that I want back, but it’s one that I’d probably do again.” The interception isn’t the desired result, but that line of thinking shows the inherent progress Allen is making in diagnosing defenses — needing Denver to disguise it to make the error. It’s a negative and a positive play all at once because he’s thinking through the play at an advanced level, which will teach the quarterback to look for those coverages moving forward. Allen did have another turnover-worthy throw that he got away with but protected the ball otherwise. He continues to shows signs of improvement, even through errors, to help the Bills come away with a victory.

B+/A-. If his INT was because of a bad route by the WR, A-. If it was an errant throw, B+.

8-3 now

Wow what a game! Hopefully that deep TD to Brown is a sign Allen has resolved some of his deep passing woes.

Also... honest question for anyone on the East Coast... why are you still up and posting on a political message board at almost 3 AM on a Friday night/Saturday morning? Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who's about to go to bed at 10 PM on a Friday night

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-november-poll/ HOW THE RACE CHANGED Who gained (and lost) support Share of respondents who are considering voting for each candidate Despite Biden’s relatively mediocre marks for his performance, more than half of voters still said they were considering voting for him — and that number actually increased by nearly 2 percentage points post-debate. The biggest winner, though, was clearly Buttigieg, who gained just over 6 points in potential support. Only Sanders experienced a dip in potential support, and it was very small. ... Who voters think can beat Trump Respondents’ estimates of the likelihood, from 0 percent (impossible) to 100 percent (certain), that each candidate would beat Trump if they were the Democratic nominee Finally, we asked respondents to estimate each Democrat’s chances of defeating Trump, from 0 percent (no chance) to 100 percent (certain to win). Going into the debate, as in other general-election polls, Biden was the candidate voters thought was most likely to beat Trump, on average. He still leads on that question after the fifth debate, but, as you can see below, his average rating dropped by almost 2 points. Most other candidates, however, saw their average rating improve. Buttigieg, in particular, gained just over 3 points, while Klobuchar and Steyer saw smaller bumps.

@Deranged Rhino... I'm a little sad at your defense, which is of not just some random citizen, but of the President of our own USA who literally and admittedly withheld evidence and testimony in an investigation of him. Do you truly not believe our President should be held to higher standards that the citizens of our country? Innocent until proven guilty is good for our country because your average citizen citizen just doesn't have the power to withhold real incriminating evidence. Pretty clear Trump does... and did. Keep being fine with a corrupt President though

"Evidence to sustain it" I honestly hope you will think long and hard about that statement... Funny thing is... nothing was actually debunked... it's just a lie you're propagating from Faux News sister sites like Breitbart and the ilk. You read the report. Trump wasn't exonerated of ANYTHING, was he? Was there a moment that presented evidence suggesting that Trump colluded with Russia was impossible or even unlikely???? Post it. Please. No. Instead what we had were multiple accounts of likely Obstruction of Justice, likely one of the articles in the Articles of Impeachment almost certain to hit the floor in the next month or two. Trump wasn't exonerated of anything, he just withheld testimony and emails--among other things--so he couldn't be found guilty of conspiracy... just potentially obstructing justice. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and refer you to Malcom Gladwell's latest book: Talking to Strangers. What it posits is really the notion of how we read and trust or distrust people and the information we have on them. It brings in everyone from Hitler to Amanda Knox to spies from Cuba to Jerry Sandusky to Bernie Madoff. As I read it I'm constantly reminded of Donald Trump.

I could make a really long post in response to this, but all my feelings about Donald Trump boil down to one simple statement: The primary thing in Donald Trump's mind is what's good for Donald Trump. That should scare the utter crap out of anyone who has this guy as Commander in Chief.