Shaw66

Yes, if you lose a coach who moves up a level in rank, you get comp picks.

Of course. Bills keep guys like Wallace if they're willing to take less. He's not a core player, so the Bills will be disciplined about what they pay him.

I don't mean to demean anyone by this statement, and I know there are some exceptions, but I think there are very few people outside of the football establish who really appreciate what's going on on the field. A geek here or there, guys who've played major D-I ball, maybe. But most of us, no matter how much we've been fans and listened and watch, most don't have much of a clue. For example: 1. What Kyle said. 2. That Buffalo Rumblings piece but how we don't really understand how detailed and regulated the officiating is. 3. I watched the last Monday night game on ESPN2 - the Mannings show. Aaron Rodgers was their fourth quarter guest. At some point, Peyton or Eli asks Aaron what he's looking for at this spot in the redzone, what kind of play he wants to be in, what are his keys. And Rodgers goes on for multiple sentences talking in jargon that I barely recognize, describing routes and reads, and man, it was clear that he's thinking about the game at a level way, way beyond me. And listen to the three of them talk about great plays or players - all this detailed knowledge stored away. 4. There was a play earlier this year, I think the Ravens: One score game, team with lead has the ball something like third and four from the seven in the red zone. TIme out, with 2:03 on the clock. Losing team, back's to the wall, has three time outs left. They come out on the field, line up for the third and four, and some guy on defense blasts across the line scrimmage way early. Announcers are saying it's a bonehead play. No, it turns out, it's not. By giving up a five yard penalty, they gave away the first down. But that meant that the last play before the two minute warning would be first down instead of third down. That meant that if they could make four stops they'd get the ball back. And it all worked and the Ravens came all the way down the field and Jackson failed on fourth down around the goal line. Turns out, if I have this right, the guy who jumped offside did the same thing two years ago in a similar situation. In other words, it's a known set of circumstances that demands a certain kind response that seems certainly wrong. I guess that's analytics. The point is that when you really look and think about it, you can see all sorts of things going on in the game that most of us rarely think about.

Right. I always remember Kyle Williams' response when someone asked him about his rating on PFF or some other source that claimed to analyze film and rank player performance. First, he said, "What's that?" He didn't even know that anyone out there was doing anything like that. So, the reporter explained it him. Then he said something like, "That's ridiculous? How do they know what the play was? How do they know my assignment? How do they know whether there was an audible? How do they know whether we installed an adjustment to my assignment during the week." Bottom line, he thought it was completely absurd that anyone outside the Bills organization could, in any meaningful way, evaluate and compare his performance to defensive tackles on other teams.

You know, I wasn't going to read until I saw this comment. So, I clicked on the article, and "very interesting read" is an understatement. It's really insightful analysis, both of the rules and officiating and of why the NFL is happy when fans blame the loss on the refs. Great stuff. And I've never known where to go to find the definitive rule on anything, and the link is there. My only complaint is that he doesn't address a few things that really do seem to be problems. Like, how badly the NFL screwed up the rules about what is and what isn't a catch, and why it took them so long to fix it which, mercifully, they did. Or, like how it can possibly make sense that if I'm running toward the goal line and fumble, if the ball goes our of bounds at the one-foot line, I get the ball back, but if it goes out of bounds a foot farther downfield, at or beyond the pylon, the other team gets the ball. Really? Or, like how if a guy catches a kickoff in the endzone and voluntarily tosses the ball forward it is not an illegal forward pass and a safety but instead, it's a touchback. Still, great article. It changes my opinion about things.

Thanks, but I'm sure I won't make it Sunday. I'm driving that day and won't have much time before kickoff. It's on my bucket list.

Trent's passer rating against the Browns was a blistering 52.

I'm on the road from Connecticut. You could just blow past Rochester and go back there after the game.

Here's a wikipedia article: Zero Great stuff. It lists every game through last season where a QB had a passer rating of zero. Among other things, it says these things: The Bills have held more QBs to a zero passer rating than any team in pro football. Only six QBs have had a passer rating of zero and won the game. Jack Kemp was the first to do it, when he and the Bills beat the Oilers in 1965. "Gary Keithley and the St. Louis Cardinals defeated Bob Lee and the Atlanta Falcons (1973)." Both QBs had a passer rating of zero. No one has won with a passer rating of zero since 1976, so Allen winning with a 17 is probably a pretty good number in the modern, passing era. Twice there have been some games where the QB had a zero, got benched, and his replacement also put up a zero. Namath and Bradshaw were the starters! "Twelve QBs have had a zero passer rating and also earned a perfect (158.3) passer rating during their careers: Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas, Joe Namath, Terry Bradshaw, Len Dawson, Bob Griese, James Harris, Bob Lee, Dan Fouts, Craig Morton, Eli Manning, and Peyton Manning."

Fan - Thanks. I think it's pretty clear from what you've posted that he was going to Diggs. You can see that Diggs was heading to the open spot in the end zone. Beasley was breaking open too, but he was in a more congested area. I think the real give evidence, however, is the trajectory of the ball. Where it was tipped, that ball was never coming down to Beasley. In fact, if Allen were trying to throw to Beasley, he would have put the ball and waist level, and this throw was nowhere near that. I think you other point, which is something I said elsewhere, is the important point. Allen connects on those miracle throws a lot. This would have been just one more highlight-reel throw. Josh just misjudged the defender, and the defender made a great play. What makes Josh so great is that he makes that kind of play a lot; the occasional INT is the price you have to pay to let Josh dazzle you the other times. Whether it's 95%, I don't know, but it's a lot. I said it in comparison to Brett Favre, whose game was marked by the same trait. He had a great arm, like Allen, and they share the same arm arrogance. The arm arrogance is what makes them great.

Sometimes I wonder if I could stand being in the guy's family. He's so constantly about doing things right, it's got to be intimidating, stressful, something. Then I remember that he applies the same approach to being a family man, so when it's family time, he's Ozzie Nelson. Now that we've seen him in action for several years and begun to understand what kind of guy he is, it's clearer that what he and Beane tell us about screening players is true. They start by looking for guys who want to improve, who are built emotionally to operate within an intense growth mindset. If the guy doesn't have that fire and intensity to live that life, the Bills don't want him, talent notwithstanding. So, you get a guy like Diggs, who when asked if losing the AFC Championship would motivate him this season, said "I'm as motivated as I could possibly be. I don't need to lose football games to be motivated." And then those guys get to Buffalo, and they see their leader living it every day in every part of his life, relentlessly becoming a better coach, a better husband, a better father, a better friend, a better man. Day after day. It encourages them, it motivates them, these guys who don't need any more motivation. He's an unusual guy. Thanks. As for the free ticket, one guy has expressed interest. There's a thread that says tickets are going for $8 on Stubhub. I don't get that. I don't care if it's January, I don't care if it's the Jets. I find it hard to believe that people in western New York aren't buying up every available ticket to go see their team. Maybe nobody wants to sit next to me.

Whoa, fella. Steve Young was really, really good. You may be right, and I might even be willing to take your side of that bet, but Josh has a ways to go before he's a winner like Steve Young.

Not only was it not one of his worst games, as I just said to Thurman, I think it was a good game for him. It's one thing for a team to win when they have four turnovers, three by your quarterback. But when your quarterback makes play after play that help you overcome the hole he created, that's pretty impressive.

Hey Thurm. Thanks for these replies. Really appreciate the explanation about Diggs and Beas. I didn't see good replays, but it looked to me like Allen was throwing up the line, and Beas was breaking toward the middle. That's why I thought Diggs may have been the target. Anyway, I appreciate your view on it. And although we both get that there's not necessarily a one-to-one correlation between passer rating and good play when you're talking about one game, I also appreciate your comment about Josh in this game. I guess the real point is that Josh's game is the proof that sometimes there's no one-to-one correlation, because that was the best game, by far, anyplace in the universe, that any QB ever had with 17 passer rating. I'd guess that almost any NFL talent evaluator, if the only film he had was Bills-Falcons, would say "I want that guy to be my QB."

I'm giving away one club seat for the Jets game. It's listed in the Tickets and Gear forum.

I think you are right on the money. In every game there are periods when the winner struggles, or almost every game, and in every game there will be plays that we can point to as mistakes that need to be cleaned up. That stuff infects our perceptions of the game and obscures the bigger picture. The bigger picture in this game was that the Bills handled the Falcons with a rough patch in the middle. The bigger picture in the season is captured in the thread where someone points out that if Josh gets the first down or the touchdown at the end of the game against the Titans, the Bills today would be one win away from the bye in the playoffs. From that perspective, are we really going to complain all that much that the Falcons hung around longer than we'd like?

There's a really good thread about how the Bills have started using gap schemes more successfully in recent weeks. It's here: Gap Schemes. As I understand it, the Bills are having success getting advantages at the point of attack by pulling linemen and bringing them across the formation. If you recall, we've seen more plays where Dawkins and Morse are leading around the right end, or Brown and Morse are leading around the left end. The play doesn't always follow them; sometimes the defense reacts to the motion of the pulling linemen, and their reaction creates space on the back side. Bills are running options off that motion, with Allen handing off or keeping it, and if he keeps it, he also run or pass options. That's why we see the occasional lineman illegally downfield. The development of the running game is really encouraging, not because the Bills are going to be able to run against everyone like they did against the Falcons, but because it's good enough that defenses have to respect it. If Singletary and Allen can get 120 yards a game, that will help the passing game a lot.

RJR - I knew some folks would pile on when they saw this post, but I have to admit that I didn't have a problem with it. I mean, I agree with others - what are you doing reading something that you don't like and then posting that you don't like it? Just walk away. To tell the truth, I think some of my reviews this year have been "stale and boring," including this one. So, I wasn't surprised to see your comment. At the end of the day, all I do is watch the game and then write what I think about it. It's just my thoughts, and if my thoughts were fresh and exciting every week, my hair would be on fire, or I'd be writing for SI, or something. Instead, it's just one guy's thoughts. What I like best about writing the Review is not writing it, but the discussion that follows it. I love it when Ayjent comes around, like he did this week, and adds his thoughts. He usually has interesting things to say. Plenty of other people, too. And I like it when someone like you posts and says what I've written is boring or dumb or stale, because then other people come on and say nice things about me. All's good. Go Bills!!!

You're saying some things that I've said - he still has to grow, he has to get over taking some of the chances he takes. But when I hear you saying it, I realize that to some extent it's wishful thinking. To some extent, yes, he'll continue to learn and to make better decisions. But many people have said, and I think they're correct, that Allen has the gunslinger mentality that Favre had. Allen thinks he can make every play, just like Favre thought he could, and the coaches never were able to coach it out of Favre. I think, in fact, that his coaches decided they didn't want to train it out of him. I think the reality of Josh Allen is that he can make plays that no one else can, so he goes for them. Coaches of other QBs tell them not to make those throws, and other QBs learn not to make them because they have a low probability of success. Favre was, and I think Allen is, different. I think the probability of success on Allen's crazy throws is pretty high. That's exactly why his highlight reel is so spectacular. Those late throws from the sideline into the middle of the field that the commentators say you shouldn't make? Well, Allen makes them and completes them. Favre's greatness was, and I think Allen's greatness is, precisely because what are low probability throws for everyone else are relatively high probability for Favre and Allen. So, when we see Allen force the throw to Beasley or Diggs (whoever the target was) and it's tipped and intercepted, we say to ourselves "Allen has to stop taking those risks." What we don't think about is the completions he gets (that no one else gets) by taking those risks. I have no idea how one would ever compile the stats, but it would be interesting to look at all of Allen's high-risk throws and look at his passer rating on them. That would be the real measure. What is his completion percentage? How many TDs is getting on high-risk throws? How many INTs? How many first downs is he getting? So, as much as we don't like those ugly turnovers, I would guess that it's part of his game that we really don't want to go away. Not because we like the turnovers, but because the only way to stop them is take part of what makes Allen great, put it in a bottle and put it on a shelf somewhere. Take away Allen's ability to make jaw-dropping plays and you have Kirk Cousins. I don't want to make that trade.

I'm giving away one club seat for the Jets game in the Tickets and Gear forum.

35 yard line. Covered and heated. I have given the ticket away.

This should be pinned somewhere. Outstanding capsule of what he has done. And Beane deserves his share of the credit, too.

Good description.

I think it's funny how people read posts and assume all kinds of things that weren't said. Where did I say there was no reason for concern? I was just pointing out an interesting stat about Allen and some all-time greats, and suggesting that the Bills ability to win that game was based in part on Allen's unique skill set. If you ask me, the Bills don't look like the best team in football. However, the way to win the Super Bowl is for your team to keep growing and getting stronger as the season and the tournament progress. I'm not counting the Bills out. Not yet. I know one thing. The Bills have a quarterback who can win any game, at any level.

That's a coaching failure. In my opinion, you do not run gadgets unless your guys are prepared. It was an easy read for Diggs, and he should have been prepared to check down to Josh.