Rochesterfan

Why is he the favorite? He might have been last year, but he chose Denver. Just think about this - he was fired half way through he season because he was getting less out of the Denver offense than Dennison did the year before. McCoy would be a major step in the wrong direction. How do you figure he is an upgrade - he got less out of Denver than Dennison did and was fired because of his pathetic offense. I do not see how he could be an upgrade at all - nothing suggests that in the least.

Has he really improved since the benching - KC we won and he almost threw for 200 yards and had a TD. The Patriots - once again he did not even hit 75 yards for the game before giving way to Peterman. Then out a game with injury and a good game against Miami. His last 3 starts are his career in a nutshell. 1 terrible game that he did nothing in - that was winnable with even a passable effort, but he did nothing. 1 very average game with no turnovers and 1 above average game. He is so inconsistent it is not funny. TT is what he has been and I will keep saying it. He is a below average QB that benefits from his athletic ability and the fact that he will not take a chance with the ball. There is a time and place for that, but TT has not shown that recognition yet and you still see him struggle late in games when we are down big (see NO or NE) to throw the ball into windows or speed up the progression or even speed up the offense and run something like a hurry up. This is multiple HCs and OCs with the same results - this is a player issue not coaching.

The WRs are fine - just as they have been the last 2 years. It is the QB that does not use the WRs that is the problem. Everyone complained about Watkins, Woods, Goodwin, etc. and yet now people think they were better because they have QBs that get them the ball. Get the QB and the receivers will look so much better.

Why put into context - they continued to throw the ball - including on first and second downs throughout the second half - the difference - they did not make the plays - the execution dried up in the second half. There were guys open that TT missed, their were great passes that were dropped, there were penalties, there was a huge sack on a first down screen pass, etc. the second half was about execution. The play calling and the going for the jugular were there with the 4th down attempts and going for the TD on 4th and goal. In fact although they only scored 3 points - they passed up on multiple long field goals because of where the score was and tried to get a TD rather than settle for the field goal. There are times to complain about conservative calls - this was not one - they were actually over aggressive at times - this is one to lay blame right on the players and execution.

Are you sure you watched the game? The second half - especially the 3rd quarter they ran the ball 7 times - passed the ball 9 times and had 1 TT scramble on a 10th drop back. They even went for it on 4th down once and were set for a 2nd attempt except for a false start. Not really conservative- the difference is the players both TT and the Receivers did not make plays in the second half. The 4th quarter they got a bit more conservative, but they were up by multiple scores and were running clock. They ran 6 times and had 3 pass and 1 scramble on a 4th passing attempt. This included a 4 minute drive to really run clock. So in the conservative 2nd half where they were up by 3 scores - the team ran 13 times, threw 12 times, and had 2 scrambles on additional drop backs. Seems pretty balanced to me. They also went for it on 4th down and were going to try and put the game away with a 4th and 1 on the goal line. The results seem conservative because of a lack of execution, but the team was balanced and they made plays. The running died in the second half with the Dolphins crowding the line and the passing being ineffective - even with throws on early downs.

I think it is unbelievable how good the TV camera coverage looks throughout the game. Being at the game - there were times we could not see the entire field and there was no way to see the other side. Watching the game when we got home - even in fast forward - it was clear and at times barely looked like it was snowing. I see the same thing with rain games - The primary cameras and crew do and amazing job and the angle works to limit reflection and it makes it look nearly clear. Then the show a shot from the roof and it looks like a monsoon.

McDermott said the same thing on WGR - there are parts of the game that are unwatchable from the game film - the cameras could not pick up players and the brightness caused distortion. Most of the film was just unusable, but they are going through to see if they can learn anything for when Miami comes in.

This I do not understand at all. Percentage wise - the Bills for the season have a 16% (1 in 6) chance of converting a 4th down - they are 2/12 on the season. They have been very bad at 3 and short on the season. Additionally on the day the Bills had 50% of their rushing attempts for the entire day end with yardage that may not have yielded a first down (2 yards and less). With all of that adding up I do not see going for it as a low risk/high reward move. I see it as a high risk/potential reward move because even if they get it there is no guarantee they get enough yards to score and if they do manage a field goal - Indy still gets the ball with a shot to win. If they do not get it - Indy is 30 yards closer - still have 4 minutes - so they can run more and if they score the game is over. The punt on the other hand was low risk/low reward - you basically gave them a shot with the ball in a game where there was no offense, but it might mean you have to go further if you stop them. The upside is if Indy wants to win - they probably need to pass - which in that weather gave chances for turn-overs and clock stoppages. I would prefer my coach want to maintain the pressure and go for the jugular, but the other side is acceptable also. In this situation there are multiple outcomes and multiple ways to play it. Defense was winning for the day - so I can accept the decision. If the score had been 30 to 30 like Rex's decision and the offense could not be stopped and the defenses were bad - then you look at the decision and you have to factor all of that in, but this game was unique and I do not consider his decision to be conservative even if I disagree. Coaches need to look at all outcomes and the situation and sometimes do things that we as fans disagree with - in the end - he has to defend his choices and if he felt punting was right and that was his conviction then it was his choice. My biggest issue was the timeout because that hurt and that kind of thing needs to get corrected this offseason.

That is the question though. What is the percentage chance that they get the 1st down in that situation? Using season averages on 4th down we were 2 for 10 on the season and then 0 for 2 in the game. That means at that point we had about a 16% chance based upon just our season average or about a 1 in 6 chance. Additionally - the Bills had 25 runs in the game of 2 yards or less - so nearly 50% of their runs in this game alone may not have gotten a first down just based upon the current conditions. So the Bills struggle on 4th down and had 50% of their runs stopped short throughout the game and in this 4th and 1 we are to assume that they have a suddenly higher percentage to get the first down because a study using all games and weather says it is 2% more likely they win before the punt. I want him to be aggressive and go, but based upon everything that had happened in the game to that point - I understand the decision.

Agreed - it is a common choice for defensive minded coaches and is frustrating. They typically play to their side of the ball and want to rely on defense and I hate that, just do not think it was not a methodical choice - I think he made a choice based upon his experiences throughout the year and the game. I expect a lot more of these questionable choices over the years.

I would disagree - I think this fits right into his methodical approach. If you analyze every potential outcome - you find the punt slightly lessens your chance to win, but it also significantly lessens your chance to lose in that game. Going for it and converting - increased your chance to win over punting, but getting stopped would have greatly increased your chance of losing and would have nearly eliminated a shot at winning. For the season - the Bills were 2 for 10 on 4th downs and were now 0-2 in the game so based upon probability they have been converting at a below 20% clip and they had a bunch of runs for no yardage throughout the game. I think if the game had been 40 to 40 and the Bills were 7 for 10 on the season and 3 for 3 in the game - maybe McDermont makes a different choice - maybe not, but his approach tells me all of those factors matter in the decision.

I don’t know AFL - I was shocked they did not call him for holding. Could not see it at the game, but watching it on the TV when we got home - that call has gone against him all year and probably should have this time also.

Because after the 2 runs - they were at their 25 with 3 minutes left - how many more runs until the game was over - not enough to get a win - so they had to pass. if they had been at the 41 - the 2 runs move them to the Bills 44 with 3 minutes left - plenty of time to continue to run. I do not believe they ever throw the ball in that case. It completely changes the mindset. Additionally - if they had been stopped on 1st and 2nd down - my guess is Indy runs it on third down - they wanted to chew a bit of clock and try to win. You see the same thing on the last drives in the first half. Teams do not get aggressive until they get that first 1st down - then they start to open up the play book.

Rex’s call was wrong because the offenses for both teams had been moving the ball all day. The Bills offense was their strength for season and in the game. For McDermont- the defense has been the strength and the offense has sucked. The game was 7-7 with almost no offense. What I hate about the call is that you are basically playing not to lose and we need the game in both cases, but for Rex you were going away from your strength and playing to your weaker unit. McDermont played to the stronger of his 2 units. Does not make it right - just different.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. - they ran the first 2 plays and got a first down. Then they threw the ball 3 straight times because they had to go 60 yards to win. Give them the ball at the 41 - the 2 runs that netted a first down - now puts them at the Bills 45. Instead of 60 - you now need about 30 with 2 time outs. Running the ball probably nets them enough yards and they do not need to throw it at all. I still hate the punt, but to think it did not impact the offensive mindset of the Colts is just wrong. The difference in field position was massive in the outcome of the game. It does not make the decision right, but it is a major part of the decision and something the goes into the call.

I will say this - there is a huge difference between having to stop them from the 10 and the 41 - HUGE! If Indy gets the stop and starts at the 40 - they are running the ball to try and win - something they had been effective at doing. When they got the ball at the 10 - Indy needed to throw to win a huge difference and what allowed the Bills to have time to win. It is not trusting them - it is that Indy had to do something they struggled doing all game if they wanted to win after the punt. If Indy had wanted to just tie the game - they could have just run it and the punt would have been even worse decision, but Indy wanted the victory and it cost them the game.

For me and with the Bills position relative to the playoffs - I would of loved to see him go for it, but I get the call to punt. He is going to be a conservative coach - we have seen that and it should be no surprise. Sometimes it it will work and sometimes it will fail - just like an aggressive coach that goes for it - sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. As a coach - you just have to be willing to stand up and answer the questions - so you better believe in what you are doing - live it and accept it.

I hate the punt, but this is not right. Punting was fine all day - no one had punting issue - whereas the Bills had already failed on 4th down twice in the game. It had been nearly 30 minutes since the last colts drive - so the tiring of the D was irrelevant. We punted and lost only a little distance - mostly caused by the 1st down as the two punts netted the Bills nearly 10 yards. If he believes his team can win - he believes his defense can make a stop and he can get the ball back and go for the win. If they do not get the first down - Indy has it near midfield and there is no way the Bills could win from there. Even if they get a stop - the colts punt and the Bills have 1:00 and 80+ yards Now those are to counter your points and I get it, but I do agree - with the playoff position and the need to win - I would of preferred to see them go for it, but choosing to punt puts faith in the side of the ball that has been better all year. It is similar to the Rex punt against the Dolphins- except the Bills strength had been offense and he choose to go with the weaker side of the team and lost. McDermont choose to have faith in the stronger side of his team and was rewarded with a stop and the win.

I think you are a bit high with 4 in the top 10, but I agree it has not changed much. If Darnold come out - I think you have 3 in the top 10 and 5 overall in round 1 with Jackson. They do tend to be overdrafted though - so maybe. If Darnold stays it lessens the class, but I still think you get 3 in the top 15 and 4 overall.

I do not see any way McCoy is hired as OC. He took Dennison’s Denver offense and made it worse and got himself fired first. If McDermont wants to bring him in at this point it will be for a position like QB coach. The only way I see Dennison gone is if they can get Ken Dorsey out of Carolina or another young Andy Reid guy that McDermont feels comfortable with. I feel the same way about Frazier on the defensive side of the ball - if they can get one of the younger Carolina coaches like the LB coach to jump ship and run the defense a change could be made. Just my opinion, but I do not see Dennison getting let go unless he gets someone he has worked with very recently - and I think he wanted Dorsey originally, but was blocked.

Landrys hit was not illegal because he was moving forward not peeling back. They could of called him for the hit to the head, but the hit and the play were all from the front of Williams. The hit by JuJu was illegal because exactly as you stated he was past the defender and came back upfield (toward his own goal line) to make the hit. The hit by JuJu was illegal and correctly called and was taken out to protect defensive players from this exact kind of hit and he will deserve the suspension that will come with it. For the guys thinking the players policed themselves - now Cincinnati has players that will want revenge and this is going to get worse. They need to get the union to get these players to respect each other and stop with the cheap shots and work to increase fines and suspensions before they kill each other for some perceived slight.

That is bull - maybe 20 years ago in hockey, but there are more cheap shots in hockey than most sports and the players do very little about it. You see guys get hit in the head and knocked flying or slew footed into the boards and the players do nothing. Guys hit defenseless players in the back and drill them into the boards and 5 minutes later 2 uninvolved players drop the gloves that does nothing - very rarely does the actual player involved get anything more than a glove to the face as players mill about. Later in the season a different player will take a run a the original player because the league did nothing and then you get these guys getting injured. It is dangerous and does nothing to police themselves because there are no lines or code. Therefore my question is do you want more Gronk like moves - because that move is exactly what you are advocating - a player taking care of a perceived slight (Gronk complains - I was being held trying to justify his actions) - or the league handling it. If the league and the players union worked together on this and Burfict had been suspended 4 or 5 games originally- then you see these things stop. Since the union fights all suspensions - the league gives smaller suspensions and you get more retribution. Additionally in football - you have 11 players of different sizes on the field and after each play several players come on and off the field - so fights can suddenly get out of hand quickly and as there is little to separate fans - if you allow fights - I could see an NBA situation where fans decide to take some vigilante justice if the fight escalates. I think fighting in hockey has become a useless part of the game and if you watch minor league or European/International hockey a former part of the game - it is not missed and there are no more cheap shots taken there than in Pro Hockey.

Absolutely not. The NFL unlike the NHL actually ejects and suspends players for these thing. The NHL does a poor job policing hits and now they have very little in the way of retribution- so players get away with cheap hits all the time with very little to show for it. First - I think the league needs to keep at it and get even a bit harsher, but more importantly the Union needs to step up and support suspensions rather than fighting them. The union does more damage to their own cause by always siding with the player getting suspended and fighting it even when it is something egregious against another union member.

I think TT is 100% gone - I think that decision was made before the SD game and the benching. Dennison - I think he will be back unless McD is able to lure a young guy like Dorsey from Carolina. I think that is someone he wanted last year that got blocked and it would not shock me to see if try to raid that staff this year. I could see the same thing on the defensive side where they bring in a Carolina coach to better run the defense and keep LF as more of a mentor.

I could not disagree more with this statement. The results have been the same for 3 years with different players all around. We have had a number of different WRs - several high draft picks - from Watkins, Woods to Benjamin, Matthews, and Jones. You have had Clay and McCoy, etc. They are not devoid of talent. The o-line has struggled, but they are forced to hold pass blocks longer than every other o-line in the league. I do not think TT masks the O-line deficiencies, but adds to them - because he takes a huge number of sacks and holds the ball so long. You could have a point if the passing attack was worse this year, but the passing attack is the same - the difference is the running game. I think missing Glenn has a lot to do with that.