Shaw66

I've read some of this thread, and I think people simply need to get in touch with reality. Receivers get injured, sometimes seriously, when they take big hits just as they're making plays on the ball. It's been a reality in pro football since the Raiders and others figured out that big-time violence as the ball arrives causes incompletions. The league finally got to the point in the past few years where it's said the dangerous hits will stop, and it's done so by putting in place the current rule. The current rule essentially is that dangerous hit will be punished with penalties, ejections, and fines. Faced with penalties like that, players will change their behavior, just like they changed their behavior about hitting QBs in the head. Forget the technicalities about whether the guy was hit in the head or whether he was actually defenseless. Forget that. The league has been clear that they're going to penalize dangerous hits. We've all seen dangerous hits on receivers and we all know what they look like. Hamlin's was one of those. It was obvious. The receiver could have been severely injured. There was no question a flag was coming, and there was little question an ejection was coming. The way the rule is being enforced is that they are over-penalizing until everyone stops with the dangerous hits. That's just the reality. A really quick-thinking football player put in Hamlin's situation, knowing that the hit was probably going to get flagged, would have made the hit just like Hamlin did. I don't know if Hamlin actually thought about it - I hope he did. It was the only way to stop the touchdown, and stopping the touchdown was important at that point in the game. As it turned out, it ended the game. Pats stalled, ran some more time off the clock, then kicked the field goal. And, yes, for those of you who are saying they're ruining football, turning it into flag football, all of them, wake up. This has been going on for twenty years, people whining about rule changes to make the game safer, but the NFL's popularity keeps increasing. Fans have not stopped watching games because defenders have stopped breaking the bones and scrambling the brains of quarterbacks and receivers.

I wasn't complaining about Q. He did what I could, but it's not often that you see an offensive lineman whiff on blocks over and over. My comment was more about the fact that Pats didn't attack him more. I was surprised the Bills didn't just go with Hart. One thing I really didn't notice was how Q did in the run game. I would guess that his problem was moving laterally, but that in the run game a lot of his assignments were moving forward and he could do that okay.

There are a ton of good posts here. Great stuff. And honestly, I think it's all of the above. I think Edmunds and White being back made a big difference on defense. They and Poyer seemed to settle everything down in the backfield. They needed Rousseau back just to help make up for the loss of Miller. Interesting theory about Josh getting his brains scrambled. Yes, I think Dorsey is learning. Third and one late in the game, Josh hit Diggs with a quick mini-post for the first down. Finally, a solution for short yardage. And they had a real commitment to running, and a commitment to getting touches for Cook. That's on film now, and teams have to prepare for it. I was worried going into the game, because they hadn't been playing well and because you knew Belichick would be prepared. What we saw was what I had hoped for: a team totally committed to winning December football games. Whatever it takes, find a way. After the game Allen mention "playoff caliber." That's not so much a reference to the quality of play as it is a reference to the intensity level necessary to win in December, January, February. This reminds me of Hamlin's play. I thought it was a great play. First, absolutely no question it was a penalty, and as the league wants to play, it absolutely deserved in ejection. But at that moment, it was a major play. It stopped a touchdown, and ultimately saved three points. It also forced the Patriots to run more time off the clock before they got the field goal. I have no idea whether Hamlin knew he'd get flagged and did it anyway, or if he thought he was making a clean play. Either way, losing him for a couple more plays was worth it to save the touchdown and run the clock. Point is, Hamlin played that play like Patriots were threatening burn down his parents' house. I think he showed the attitude that the Bills try to play with at this time of year, and it's what makes them such a tough out. Just like last season, I think we've gotten to the time of year when no one wants to play the Bills.

Yes, he was different last night, and it was impressive. When he's decisive and just goes, he get stopped sometimes, but everyone gets stopped. What was impressive was that sometimes he just zips through a pile or out of the grasp of someone who thought he had him, only to see him cruise by. I've dumped on McKenzie all season, too, in part for his refusing to turn it upfield and just go. Last night, receiving, he redeemed himself in my eyes. He had a really solid game - and I'm not talking about his status. I'm talking about his awareness, his ability to make catches with people around him and hits possibly coming. And, yes, Diggs has had a few losses where he's tried to make something by going laterally, but generally he has such elusiveness that he can get away with stopping and assessing before he goes. Most guys can't do that, but he has lateral quickness that is really amazing. He can burst in any direction almost instantly, and he's able to avoid direct hits from tacklers. The guy is a special talent.

That's pretty amazing, that all the teams the Bills care about have tough games on the road. We can probably expect that two games will go our way, and three's possible. Four would be great. Only an idiot would bet on a five-game parlay. Of course, I might fall into the idiot category.

Michaels really is horrible. All he says is biographical stuff that he gets right off his computer screen. "Hines, of course, came over from the Colts a month ago." "Cook, of course, is Dalvin Cook's brother." All season long he's complained about how boring the games are that they've broadcast. Hello? It's your job to make it interesting.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Cook waits to look over the scene before he makes a cut. That doesn't work, except maybe from Derrick Henry or Chubb. For most guys, like Singletary, the only way to succeed to take the ball upfield as soon as you can and then deal with whatever comes at you. And in Cook's case, that strategy is very important, because every once in a while that quick burst upfield will get him away from tacklers and into the open field. Once that happens, Cook's big-play ability will open up.

I've been down on Cook all season long, and I still have some complaints, but last night was the first time the Bills got good, consistent production from him, production that came from his particular skill set. He was hitting holes (at least most of the time) with authority, and he was breaking tackles not with power but with consistently good speed that caused him to run out of tackles before he could be wrapped up. He also made a couple of nice catches, the kind of catches he was supposed to be good at but we hadn't seen. He seems to be learning what Singletary always knew, which is that in this league you absolutely have to hit it upfield at the very first opportunity available, because running laterally looking for a better opportunity rarely works. Cook simply isn't fast enough - pretty much no one is - to be able to beat the pursuit going wide. He had some runs where he failed to take the upfield route, and he paid for it. But I was really pleased that on several others he DID just pound it into the first little bit of daylight he saw. And I think he'll learn, because the more he takes it upfield, the more he'll see that it doesn't work when he doesn't. I was really pleased. Last night I saw some consistent positive production that I expected earlier in the season. Last night was the first game where his production was better than what the Bills were getting out of Moss, which was more or less nothing. If what we got last night was what we will see in the coming weeks, then the Bills' running game will be a factor.

Actually, I don't think that's right. He developed, yes. He's gotten much better at attacking the run, and it's been a gradual progression, year after year. But what I think he brought right from the beginning was his impact on the pass defense. That's why he played every snap as a rookie. You could see the difference in the pass defense last night over the previous few games. He was around the ball on a lot of throws, whereas Klein was nowhere to be seen when he was playing pass defense. He has had major impact in the passing game for several years now. He got better at that, too, but he was a unique contributor from the beginning. I gotta say, however, that it wasn't just Edmunds. The whole pass defense tightened nicely last night, and it seemed pretty clear to me that it was the combination of Edmunds, Poyer, and White. They're just much better players than their replacements, and having all three guys on the field last night was one of the reasons Mac Jones couldn't do anything.

I think that's true EXCEPT for that group that handles the desk. I've never like Sherman, but all of them are articulate and have interesting things to say. I like Cowher and Esaison and some others, but the guys that Prime has actually are pretty good. The rest of the production - MIchaels, Herbstreet and the video, is second rate or worse.

I didn't watch Quessenbery all night long, but I don't think I've seen a lineman be so completely ineffective on a whole series of plays as he was last night. It's amazing that the Pats couldn't find a way to take better advantage. It did truly seem like 10 on 11.

I think you're correct. We didn't like last night but we like it if it's called against Kelce! I don't know the rule exactly, but what I think it should be is that if in order to catch the ball you had to put your body in a position where you're going to have to go the ground, then your control of the ball has to continue through your impact with the ground. That's what happened with Poyer - his play was so athletic that he had to give up his body to catch it, and he didn't control the ball through impact with the ground. Now, like you, I think they should change the rule a bit. I think there's a difference between the ball moving and losing control. Poyer never really lost control - he hit the ground, he knew he was going to hit the ground, the ball moved a fair amount about he continued to use his arms and hands to keep the ball under his control. It never touched the ground, it never popped up in the air, anything. And he clearly had caught it, had full possession and gotten two feet in bounds, three actually. Under the rules the way I think they should be, that should have been a catch.

I thought something similar. He turned it up a notch in the fourth quarter. Had a couple of amazing bull rushes, like Miller. He still needs to learn to finish like Miller does, but other than that, he's a force when he's on the field. The deflection of that pass to the right flat was a combination of his exceptional length and great eye-hand coordination.

Jerry never lost his ability to get to the QB. What happened was when McDermott arrived, he instilled his discipline and Jerry, being a good soldier, played the position the way McDermott wanted - set the edge, etc. That's why his sack totals went down. He wasn't quite good enough to play within the system and win one-on-one battles to get sacks. That's why Rousseau and Miller are there instead of him.

The point is that McDermott's philosophy is that your scheme changes as the talent changes. His approach is to put the best player on the field at each position, and then to adjust the scheme so that he is asking each player to do only things that that player is capable of. So, when Klein comes in for Edmunds, he doesn't ask Klein to play the position the same way Edmunds does, he asks him to play the way Klein can play it. But that, in turn, means that he has to go to Milano and the DBs and have each of THEM change how they're playing THEY'RE positions, because they're assignments had been designed around what Edmunds was going to do. Yes, if you don't have enough talent, at some point it falls apart, but even if you do have good talent in the backup roles, each time one of those key guys (think White, Poyer, Miller, Edmunds) goes down, several other positions get adjusted. This season has seen new adjustments of that sort happening almost every week. Adjustment after adjustment after adjustment. They're not playing the same defensive scheme today that was installed in August.

I was in a discussion with someone a few days ago, and he pointed out the real problem with the Bills' injuries on defense, beyond just the quality of the talent the Bills lost. The real problem is that the Bills play a complicated, team defense. It's built based on the talents of the players, and every player's role is designed both to allow him to play within his abilities and to benefit from the abilities of the players around him. In particular, the jobs of the average players in the defense are made easier by the quality of the best players around them. For example, with White in the lineup, the Bills can shift players around and make do with Levi Wallace or Dane Jackson at #2. With Hyde and Poyer in the lineup, the Bills can afford to let Edmunds roam in the passing zones, because the two safeties will help in the run defense. With Edmunds in the lineup, all of the defensive backs have smaller zones to cover. With Miller and Rousseau in the lineup, the defensive backs know they don't have to cover too long, and they can be more aggressive in man coverage. It all works together. So, what happened this season? They start without White, so they're man-to-man options are more limited with Jackson and the rookies at corner. They lose Hyde, so the run defense suffers, and Edmunds has to adjust to help against the run. Then Poyer is down, then up, then down, and the defense gets readjusted. Then Rousseau, then Miller. Pretty much every week, the Bills have been adjusting and readjusting the assignments of every player on the defense, because a different talented guy they rely on has gone down. They haven't played with the same defensive scheme for three weeks in a row, because they keep losing players who allow their current scheme to work. Think about it: every week or two the Bills were trying to work an average NFL talent into the lineup to cover for a quality NFL talent, and they were trying to figure out how to get that average talent to play well when some other high level talent disappeared. Every week they did that, they had to adjust their assignments, because the guy coming in couldn't do all the things the starter could do. The latest is the pass defense with Edmunds gone from the middle. With Klein playing, Milano and five DBs have to change how they play their position. An they've already changed when Hyde went down, and the changed when Poyer was out, and they changed when Milano was out. It's been nonstop adjustments. In some ways, they would have been better off if all the injuries had happened at the same time. At least then they would have had 11 guys developing together into the same defense. What the Bills need to have happen now is for everyone to get back into the lineup. Get White back, get Rousseau back, get Edmunds back, get Miller back, probably in that order. Hyde would be a huge bonus, but I don't think that's happening. If they could get those guys back in the next two or three weeks, then by the end of the season they'd be able to play the defensive scheme that they intended to play when the season began, instead of adjusting and readjusting, week after week after week to try to find ways that a bunch of ordinary players can play high-level defense.

The conference championship is the next hurdle they have to get over. Failing to win it means they haven't progressed. Granted, there have been a lot of challenges, but every team has challenges. It's time to win the conference championship.

These are great points. I agree, the announcers are given talking points, but I think either there's no script or Romo just ad libs. And he isn't very good at ad libbing. I find it hard to imagine that anyone asked to create talking points would flat-out make up stuff like Jackson is going to be a star in this league. What possible substantiation is there for that? Did someone with professional knowledge say it? I doubt it. I think it was Romo off script, and he wants to be enthusiastic and positive. He was poorly prepared, and he doesn't have the knowledge of the players that I'd like from my expert. I don't get the impression that Romo studies a whole lot of film. And your analysis of how the pass defense problem has morphed its way through the season as compensation is made for first one loss, then another, then another. The coaches have been adjusting defensive strategies throughout the entire season. No White and no Hyde. Then no Poyer, then two rookie corners, then Milano up and down, then Poyer again, then Edmunds, Rousseau, and Epenesa. And now Miller. And now work White back in, then Edmunds. It's been an incredible roller coaster for a team running a true team defense. The team defense can handle isolated injuries where the defense compensates for changes in skill at two or three positions, but it doesn't work as well when there's nearly constant substitution going on. This week they're trying to figure out a new D line strategy with Miller gone and not knowing whether Rousseau or Epenesa will be back. And what you're really hoping for is that you can get them all back on the field by the middle of December (save Hyde, whom I'm sure is out) and get them used to playing the scheme they started the season with. It's a real challenge.

Thanks for this. It's really good. I didn't mean to say Q was a star. I just think he's been about as reliable a backup tackle as you can expect to have. He may not have been perfect, but he wasn't a problem. As for the pass D, I think you're absolutely right about Jackson. Romo, because he just isn't very good, was talking about Jackson emerging as a star in the league, which was just absurd. He is, as you say, in a league with Wallace. He's a reliable number 2. I was surprised late last season when the Bills survived as well as they with Jackson and Wallace. I hear you, too, about the pressure from the front four. As we know, the Bills' approach is definitely a team approach, and they try to build on the skills of each other. Without Rousseau, and then without Miller, the Bills were without their two most versatile defensive linemen - guys who are problems whenever they're out there because they can win in a lot of ways. And Epenesa may actually be the third most valuable in that way. Without them, each of the other guys has to be able to win more on his own, because he doesn't have the more athletic guys to create problem matchups. And I hinted at (notwithstanding the possibility that we'd start the endless conversation), but I think the defensive backs really suffer without Edmunds on the field. My theory always has been that the entire defensive backfield gets a benefit from Edmunds, because his ability to occupy an unusually large zone in the middle allows everyone else to be responsible for a small zone. I don't understand the part-zone-part-man concepts, but it seems to me that if I have a wideout man-to-man and Edmunds is playing zone in the middle, I know that the inside routes are a problem for the offense. That is, if the wideout takes an inside release over the middle, he's going to find Edmunds there. And, in turn, it puts more pressure on Hamlin to be a factor in the pass defense, because he, too, ends up being responsible for more territory when Edmunds isn't there. So, I think Edmunds is another factor, along with the less effective pass rush, that has made it easier for the QB to attack the two corners. We'll be seeing more of White, which almost certainly will have an effect. If you're correct that they're playing more man, and may be forced to continue with that, then it will be interesting to see if Elam, or even Benford, takes over the other side, so that the Bills can have two guys being able to play press coverage. In a perfect world, the Bills would get at least Rousseau and Epenesa back (if Miller has to sit until the playoffs, so be it), and I think Edmunds back will make a big difference, too. The bottom line is that the success of the Bills defense relies on the unique skills of certain players (Hyde, Poyer, Milano, Edmunds, White, Miller, and Rousseau), and those are exactly the guys who have been out of the lineup.

I don't think that's exactly the case. I used to think so, but I don't any more, based on what I've heard Beane say in interviews. What he says is that he and McD talk every day about what McD thinks he needs, and Beane works hard to give McDermott what he needs. But Beane is also clear that the final decisions about whom to acquire are his, not McDermott's. In this case, whether or not McDermott said he's happy with Cook, Beane could very well have wanted Hines not only for his kick returning but also for his belief that Hines could challenge Cook for the job. You know McD loves competition at every position. He'd never say to Beane, "Don't get Hines because I don't want Cook to have competition. Beane traded away the presumptive #2 back in Moss; it would only make sense that he'd expect Hines to challenge for the #2 role. I'm not in practice. I don't know what they're seeing there. I don't know what Dorsey is thinking. Whatever they're seeing, they think Cook is the better option to spell Singletary. I don't get it, but I always start with the assumption that they know more than I do.

Well, as for receiving: If all you're going to use him for is to stand in the flat and wait for a pass, you don't need to burn a second-round pick to have someone to do that. You can turn Stevenson into a running back and tell HIM to go stand out there. There are plenty of fast guys around. More importantly in a quality offense, guys have to be able to do more than stand and wait. He's supposed to catch the ball on the run - he dropped on of those on Thursday. He's supposed to catch the ball without bobbling it, so he has time to take off, and he bobbled on easy one on Thursday. Those aren't skills a second-round pick should be developing over time. He should have those. Will he improve? Maybe. I hope so. As for running: Pretty much all he's shown between the tackles is if he has a good hole, he has the speed and acceleration to get through it. The problem is that in the modern NFL, no offensive line creates holes like that. Modern running plays often are designed with the expectation that the running back will actually beat a defender in the hole - he'll find a way to get past the unblocked linebacker or safety who's trying to fill the gap. SIngletary excels at that - that's where his yardage comes from, and Cook has shown no ability to do that. If he can't outrun a guy, he's going down. So, sure, on the one running play in ten where there's a big hole in front of him, Cook will get you more yards than Singletary, because Cook's speed will allow him to outrun a tackler that Singletary can't. But on the other nine, Cook gets stopped and Singletary gets a yard or two or five or ten more. The point is, Cook has to do SOMETHING that makes him a threat, and being fast isn't enough. And generally speaking, running backs tend to show that they can do SOMETHING pretty early in their careers. Shiftiness in the hole is something they come to the league with. Power in the hole is something they come to the league with. Catching the ball on the run and making a play is something they come to the league with. Willingness to take on tacklers is something they come to the league with. Something. It they're taken in the first couple of days of the draft, they come with something more than just speed and an expectation that they will learn something else. Cook seems to have come with nothing but his speed.

My memories of Spiller and his stats obviously are not consistent. He had 1000 yards one season (and Stevie had 1000 receiving, too), and his average per carry is impressive. That same season he also had average yards per reception, too. What I recall is that he never came close to carrying the team like I'd hoped. And then Freddie took his job. What I'd hoped for Cook was that he'd get 5-6 touches a game and make some explosive plays. Like Spiller, his stats look nice (5.6 yards per attempt and 12.2 yards per reception), but he's not doing anything that looks is either explosive or carrying the team. If he has a long run, it's because he's had a big hole and he used his speed to take advantage. Blackshear could have made those runs. And I think that's really my point - not so much that Cook is horrible (although sometimes he is VERY disappointing), but that a second-round running back should be someone who's making a splash, and he isn't.

Yeah. I found a replay. He was down in bounds. Thanks.

I believe Allen was out of bounds on his final run. Clock stopped. Bills then took the timeout to get organized.

Well, if you want to play, you have to perform. His nice runs this season have been runs that anyone could make, and his pass receiving has been practically non-existent. He plays one of the few positions where it's possible for rookies to step in and have impact. He hasn't. I may have said it before, but he reminds of CJ Spiller - he runs in more or less a straight line, and when he's hit he goes down. He hasn't shown any special skill with the ball, either between the tackles, running outside, or in the open field. I don't see what good another year's experience will do, but we will get a chance to see.