Shaw66

Yeah, that's a fair assessment. In my mind, I compare him to Taron Johnson, and that's how I can see that Hamlin isn't as good as I think the Bills need. Johnson is solid, over and over. Tight on his assignments, and I don't mean tight on his man every time, but when he gets beat he still keeps himself in the play. Solid tackler. Smart. Hamlin has learned the position well and really applies himself, but I don't think he has the instincts. I think that's difference between him and Johnson. I'm excited about Dorian Williams. He has instincts and explosive quickness. He closes so fast, and he too is a sure tackler.

Congrats, Dawg! You and the whole family. Be kind to your wife - three men in the house is a handful.

I agree with those who he's a solid backup but not more. Aikman didn't explain properly what happened on a throw he got beat on over the middle last night. Hamlin should have been in tighter coverage than he was. The reason he wasn't in better position was because he hit hard on the play fake - stopped, turned, then turned back to his man, who had beaten him. He shouldn't be getting beaten like that, not at this point in his career. But having said that, I don't think he's an all-round liability, he just is going to get beat sometimes. And he's not going to make the big plays - the Hyde-esque pass breakups or INTs, the safety-blitz sacks. He's not that guy. What is is a guy who's on time, making plays, hitting people and, as the OP points out, making tackles. He goes after the ball carrier's legs really well, wrapping up. He looks like a classic old-time safety with those tackles. The safety's job, historically, was the last line of defense - make the tackle, for sure, when some of your teammates haven't. I'm still hoping Bishop takes his job in the coming weeks.

No loft on the deep balls

Havent seen Josh this bad in some time.

House, don't. Cute, but not everyone will get it. I am not Billy Shaw. Billy Shaw has died, and it saddens me deeply, as I'm sure many of you understand. But let's not pretend that Billy Shaw was posting here. I just happened to be using his name and number as a tribute to him and to the teams he played on. I'll probably say more later.

Well, I don't know if there is recency bias in the announcers or not. However in the case of Henry, I think that a guy who has had the incredible production that he has had for the past 6 years who then puts up 150 yards against the Cowboys is not an example of recency bias. The guy has had a long career of outstanding play and what is unusual for him this year is not the 150 yards against the Cowboys but the relatively small output in the first game of the season. As a result I think this is the wrong case to be talking about recency bias. This is a great player who once again this season is playing at a level that is rarely seen in the NFL.

So, if you're the coach, you're going to take snaps away from Benford to let Elam work on his skills? Or Douglas? I've always thought we should look at it from the players' perspective. If I'm Greg Rousseau, to pick a guy, or Ed Oliver, or Terrell Bernard, and I see Elam on the field instead of Benford (or even worse, Elam gets beat for a TD), I'm really unhappy with my coach. I'm working my butt off, every day, every play, to win football games, and my coach isn't putting the best players at their positions on the field with me? I think that's one of the surest ways for a coach to lose his team. Preseason, fine. Mop up time, but real snaps in real games, a coach is a fool if he puts a guy in the game who clearly is not as good as the guy who goes to the bench.

As to your first paragraph, I think the Ravens' offense killed us, not one person. They have an offense that features fast, shifty ball carriers, and they've had it for years. They've been tough to handle for years, because Lamar is a unique threat. Then they added Henry, which made the offense even more difficult to deal with. So, yes, Justice Hill killed the Bills, but in their offense it can be anyone. Put James Cook in that offense, and he'd be amazingly explosive. As for Henry, I think you're wrong. HE rushed for 150 yards against the Cowboys, 6 yards per carry. I watched that game, and he was the principal reason I was worried about the Bills playing the Ravens. He had 84 the week before. Henry was looking all world before he ever stepped on the field Sunday night.

This is really good. I agree with a lot of it: I agree that the defense drops the ball at key times. That is because, I think, McD builds his defense to be able to play every way imaginable. The result is they're very good at almost everything, but not truly great at anything. That's the wrong style when it comes to crunch time. McD likes a Rousseau over of a Chris Jones, because Rousseau can do all kinds of things. The result is that when you need a big play, you have Rousseau instead of Chris Jones. That means in crunch time, you don't have a playmaker to change the game for you. I'm not disagreeing at all; I'm just saying that is why they have let us down in critical moments. And it's not just the players - it's the coaches' style. I don't like it. Whereas, on offense, I always have the feeling that Josh will find a way, on defense, I expect them to give up 12 on third and 11 in the fourth quarter. I've been pleasantly surprised by Hamlin. Better than I expected, but I agree. The nickel? Well, if the linebackers get healthy and the Bills get the Ravens in the playoffs, I'm expecting we'll see a lot of Bernard-Milano-Williams, with Johnson subbing in somewhere. I mentioned in the Rockpile Review that I liked Williams on Sunday night. His tackling was superb and in particular, he tackled Henry like Henry was just any other running back. The thing about living and dying with the nickel is, I think, a question of the era in which McDermott learned defense. His entire career, the name of the game has been stopping the pass, so the nickel was the way to go. He's not the only guy who runs a lot of nickel, but he was among the first. If the pendulum really has swung and offenses are going to be more balanced for the next several years, then I expect we'll see McDermott change. 4-3 is the defense to run against balanced attacks. 4-2 is what McDermott chose to run because over the past ten years, very few teams actually were balanced - they all were trying to throw for 250 and run for 80-100. This is the only place where I disagree with you: First, other than his opening run, Henry averaged 5 yards a carry, which is a bit above his CAREER average of 4.7. He did it behind an offense line built to run behind - they've been building that line for years. He did with a spectacular runner in the backfield with him, a runner who demands that the defense respect him. And he did it against a defense that is intentionally (for better or worse) built to stop the pass first and to just do as well as you can stopping the run. If the Bills had held the Ravens to 100 yards rushing, instead of 270, the Ravens STILL would be the leading rushing team in the league. The Bills rushing defense was gashed by one of the best rushing attacks the league has seen in recent memory. The point is that I don't expect any other teams to run against the Bills like that, and I expect the Bills defense to be better against the Ravens next time. Because the Ravens are the only team that presents that kind of running threat, I don't think it's time to declare that the sky is falling. If the Bills need a better run defense, week in and week out, then I when Milano returns I expect we'll see the Bills in more 4-3.

I disagree with a lot of this. First, the D definitely is not "talentless." Benford, Douglas, Bernard, Williams, Rousseau, Miller, Oliver, Jones are all very talented players. And Milano, Bernard, and Johnson. They just don't fit the model that you seem to think the Bills need. As I said to you yesterday, I think you're wrong when you say what the Ravens do isn't difficult or progressive. They have two supremely talented backs, they have lots of motion, they use their offensive line creatively. They are going to be a headache for a lot of teams until coordinators begin to figure out responses. I agree that the Bills have had problems stopping the run. It's very much by design. Like it or not, McDermott's approach has been to stop the pass and do the best you can against the run. And teams around the league have copied that approach - they're playing two-deep safeties, sophisticated coverages, all the stuff McDermott's done for a while now. That's why running is up and passing is down around the league. McDermott's run defenses have been weak, but they've been pretty good inside the red zone. He puts his biggest boys on the field - still not as big as other teams have, but the biggest he has, and he challenges his smaller, quicker players to make plays. They've done that. I've never been convinced that McDermott is right about all of that, but that's clearly his philosophy, and it's worked pretty well. Now that the emphasis around the league has shifted to the run so dramatically, the Bills may be behind the curve. Other teams have bigger defensive lines, better attacking defensive linemen, because they foolishly wasted resources on them three or four years ago. I say foolishly, because those guys weren't the best guys to have three or four years ago. Now that the style of play seems to be changing so dramatically, those guys they may have taken "foolishly" three or four years ago are just right for the way offenses are forcing them to play now. All of that is to say that although the Bills have plenty of talent on defense, I think you may be right in one sense: The Bills may not have the right talent to play the way the league now demands. However, I think it's way too early to tell that. The Ravens really are a peculiar team; there isn't another team in the league that plays the way the Ravens do, and that's been true ever since Lamar got there. I really think the offense is a much bigger concern, which is where you said yesterday that we just have different views about what's going on. I'm concerned about the offense because the Bills should have had a pretty good sense of what they were likely to get from the Ravens defense, and the offense wasn't prepared for it. Lots of people, including me, have complained about that gadget play precisely because it played into the hands of the kind of defense the Ravens play. That's bad game planning. In other words, I think the offense needs better answers. You think the defense needs to have better answers, but I think the biggest part of the answer for the defense is don't play the Ravens every week, because it's a bad matchup for how the Bills are built.

Those aren't jump balls. That was a great thrower and a good receiver executing the back shoulder exactly the way it's drawn up. Both players expect that either (1) the receiver separates and the throw goes deep or (2) the receiver doesn't separate, in which he's going to have a defender right next to him. That's exactly what happened. The QB and receiver have a big advantage in that situation, because the receiver can stop and the defender can't afford to stop. If they execute correctly, it is far from a jump ball. On neither of the two to Coleman did the defender have a realistic chance to defend the throw, let alone intercept. Neither was jump ball.

I think the league is in transition, a big transition, and teams haven't adjusted yet. The change from passing to running is dramatic. One result is that, as you suggest, there aren't many great teams. Maybe there are some great teams, but we don't know yet who they are. KC is 4-0, but other than the W-L they aren't looking great. Ravens are dominant, but teams will catch up to them. Nobody really believes that the Seahawks, the Bucs, the Commanders, the Steelers, even the Bills, are all that good. Some of those teams are actually good; we just don't it yet. So, there are good matchups happening, but we don't understand yet which games they are. More importantly, the networks don't understand either, so they don't know which games to showcase. Wait six weeks. Then, there'll be a few teams with two losses, and we will know which games are the good ones. There's a good bet that three of the good games will be Bills-Chiefs, Bills-49ers, Bills-Lions.

I don't think so. I mean, yes, there's always going to be a guy who is 1+ of 11, the guy who is the guy you really depend on, or ideally two. The two would be Coleman and Shakir. I don't have any evidence the McDermott pulled him. The way the Bills' offense, and many offenses, operate is that the play they want and the formation they want dictate personnel packages. The receivers are running on and off the field all the time, depending on down, distance, play, and formation. Granted, there are some guys who get more snaps than others, and Coleman is not one of those yet, but like anyone else, he has to earn it. McDermott never puts guys on the field to let them grow into the position; everyone has to earn it. (For years now, people here have been saying, "Put Elam on the field and let him learn." It doesn't work that way.) Coleman's job is the same as MVS's job and as Hollins' job - run and off the field depending on whether your number is called, and NEVER make it about yourself. You're running on and off the field because the people running the team, the coaches, think that's the best way to win. His job is to be committed to doing his job, because that's being committed to winning; he shouldn't be worrying about how many snaps he gets. I actually don't think Coleman is going to be a problem. He's just immature. Like anyone else, he loves playing and making plays, so it was natural to be disappointed when, as you say, he was heating up and he had to go off. But making that gesture essentially said he was unhappy about having to do his job. His teammates saw the gesture when he did it, or they saw it on film. They don't want their teammate thinking about himself like that. I think he'll learn. Actually, I think that by now there's been a player or two who have talked to him about it. He's the kind of guy who learns and grows, and I don't think we'll see that from him in a year or two. I think that because almost everything I've seen from him has been really professional. Those two back-shoulder throws? Man, Josh knew he could trust Keon to make the right read - not to get all goofy thinking he's going deep. Josh made excellent throws in both cases, and Keon was just as good - looking for the ball at the time, having the ability to get his body in position to win over the corner, and then be sure-handed. That's high-level play from a rookie. Compared to that, learning to accept his role on the team is a pretty small item, so I'm not not worried about it. Still, it's something I saw and something he has to learn.

I just don't think you can expect to have a defense that can shut down the offense that the Ravens are running these days. It's a devastating combination to have those two guys in the backfield and to have effective passing, to boot. The defense certainly could have been better and they will learn some things from what happened last night, but if the offense had been able to stay on the field and put up some points, that alone may have been enough to help the defense survive the game.