Shaw66

That was just plain stupid, and I don't see that their record had anything to do with it. There was a ton of time left in the game, and the Bills weren't throwing points up on the board in big chunks. A field goal makes it a one-score game. At multiple times during the rest of the game I thought, "I'm glad they didn't kick the field goal." My rule is this: Take the points the game is giving you, unless there's an actual reason you need to risk giving up those points. The game was giving Lynn three points, and he essentially said to the game "I don't need your points." Then the game proceeded to slap him in the face, saying "here's what you get for not taking what I was giving you."

I think you misstate the proposition a bit, but you're generally correct about this. I for one haven't said they "found a way to win," I just said it was kind of ugly. I think you're correct, however, by encouraging we fans to look at the game for a minute and ignore the stretch from about 4 minutes left in the third quarter to until about 7 minutes left in the fourth quarter. That's about 9 minutes of clock time, or about 15% of the game. During that time, the Bills had a four-and-out and three turnovers - that was ugly. But if we ignore that for minute and look at the rest of the game, you're absolutely right - the Bills were solidly in control, outplaying the Chargers. Maybe not explosive or dominant, but the Bills won those 51 minutes, easily. Even in the nine-minute stretch, which featured not only the turnovers but several of the penalties, the defense (1) stopped the Chargers with a nice stand in Bills' territory (when the Chargers should have kicked a field goal), (2) held the Chargers to a field goal after the Bills lost a fumble, (3) forced a three-and-out after a second Bills fumble, and (4) intercepted after a Bills interception. Visually, that stretch of the game definitely was ugly offensively, but the defense held onto control of the game. It was what McDermott calls "complementary football." When one of your units is struggling, you need another unit to pick them up. In that stretch, the defense said to the offense, "we got your back," in the same way Allen and the offense have sometimes covered weak stretches the defense has had this season. I'm really glad you pointed this out. The Bills were better yesterday than I thought.

I agree about Bass. I thought the opening kickoff was a good sign. Bills had decided they could eat up the Chargers on kick coverage, so they called the directional kicker to corner. Bass executed, the Bills got a good stop. Then the penalty force the Bills to kick off again. Kickoff team had just sprinted the length of the field, so they told Bass to kick it out of the end zone. He did that (with the wind). The kick at the end of the game seemed routine for him. Just like the three fifty yard+ jobs two weeks ago. All good signs. Maybe I'll have to look for a replay. It looked very much like hero ball to me.

Yeah, I know. But if you watched the Chiefs today, they had absolutely no fear letting Mahomes when they were trying to run clock. By that point in the game, Allen had made enough questionable plays that I didn't want to see him throwing any more.

What bothers me about the officiating is the horrible inconsistency. A couple examples: Ending plays because forward progress has stopped. Today, in the Bills game and others I saw, sometime officials whistled plays dead when a running back was being held by two guys, but his legs were still moving. Other times, they let plays go with the ball carrier surrounded and unable to move at all, and all the officials just looked and watched. There is no consistency at all on how that is called. Illegal motion. Chiefs had two plays within about five minutes when they had a receiver in motion who turned upfield before the snap - no call. Then they had one where Hill seemed to continue parallel to the line of scrimmage, then step back, and they called it. It's ticky-tack stuff. I don't think they're always looking for it, and then they call when they think they saw it. Delay of game. We've all gotten used to the clock getting to zero and beyond before the call is made. Thursday, an instant BEFORE the clock hit zero, they called it. It's just dumb. If they can't get that stuff right, why should be surprised they get the harder stuff wrong?

Multiple body parts were hit. I suppose if his arm hadn't been hit, maybe it would have been a highlight reel play, with Diggs making the catch going to the sideline. Maybe we'd be pointing to that play as more Allen magic. That's not what I saw. I saw a QB in serious trouble, a QB who was supposed to be thinking that the only thing worse than a sack would be an INT. Take the loss and move. White's INT bailed him out. Want a sign of how bad it was? When the Bills got the ball back, Daboll called five straight running plays. The message to Allen? If we can't trust you with the ball, we're taking the ball out of your hands.

The Bills beat the Chargers on Sunday, 27-17, improving to 8-3 and staying a game ahead of the Dolphins and three games ahead of the Patriots. After a promising start to the game, the Bills finished ugly. For many fans, the operative word is ‘ugly.” For the Bills, the operative word is “finished.” With a 24-6 lead, the Bills had an opportunity to coast to an unusual easy victory. Instead, in a scene familiar to Bills fans this season, the Bills gave up a touchdown, went four and out and then turned the ball over on three consecutive possessions. Throw in a series of bad penalties and the second successful hail Mary in two games, and the game turned ugly and uncomfortably close. Forget that, or at least don’t obsess over it. The Bills are a Sean McDermott team, and Sean McDermott teams finish. He builds his teams to finish. He trains them to finish. He expects them to finish. Against the Chargers, the Bills finished. They closed the game with an interception by Tre’Davious White, a short drive (including a couple of penalties), a clutch Bass field goal, and excellent bend-don’t-break prevent defense (including the 4th and 27 hail Mary short of the end zone). On the final play of the game, the Bills stuffed a quarterback sneak, beating the spread. The Bills finished. The Chargers are one of the better 3-8 teams you’ll see. Justin Herbert has been having a lights-our rookie season at quarterback, and they have a credible defense. Against the Bills, both were no-go, more or less. The Bills harrassed and confused Herbert all game, and the Bills defensive backfield offered him few big throwing windows. Many of Herbert’s completions were close or contested catches. He finished the game with a passer rating of 76. In other words, the Bills pretty much stopped him. And by the way, the Chargers have a decent run game, but the Bills stuffed that, too. The Charger defense did okay trying to stop the Bills, but there simply was no way they could hold the Bills under 20. The Bills attacked relentlessly with their running game, and in the second half they began having more success. Singletary and Moss shared the load, each taking advantage of occasional seams to move the chains. Allen was efficient, when he wasn’t playing like a rookie. He mishandled a snap and lost the fumble, he made a foolish desperation throw under pressure for an interception, and he avoided near-disaster on a couple of other low-reward high-risk plays. He hasn’t learned that sometimes the right play is to take your lumps, even if it means you’ll punt. Unless you’re in the final minute, there’s always another play. Still, Allen was in control, made several good throws and managed the game. A few observations: 1. The Bills need to play under control. Poyer’s unnecessary roughness, Oliver’s roughing the passer, Allen’s unsportsmanlike conduct all hurt the team. There’s a difference between playing with an attitude and playing stupid. One of the problems with playing stupid is that the team develops a reputation with the officials. When the officials think your style is chippy, in-your-face, over-the-edge, you get calls like the taunting call on Moss – an obviously bad call except for the fact that Bills had spent the previous 20 minutes showing off their poor sportsmanship. It’s been aing problem with Poyer all season, and now he seems to be infect other players. The Bills need the officials to be on their side and not looking for flags to throw against them. 2. Stephon Diggs didn’t exactly light up the stat sheet, but that’s because they don’t keep stats about penalties drawn. The first-half pass interference that set up the Bills’ first touchdown was created by Diggs and Allen’s arm. Every bit as good as a completion. Through the second half, Diggs’s deep threat left him available to Allen repeatedly for easy five- to seven-yard gains. 3. Tremaine Edmunds continues to makes plays. He’s tackling more solidly, he’s getting off blocks, and he’s beginning to regain his form as an elite pass defender. He’s in on a lot of plays, and he’s around even more. He looks a lot better than six weeks ago. 4. AJ Klein, too. 5. I watched the game with my adult daughter, a good athlete but she’s never watched much football. She’s a Bills fan, but she probably can name only two Bills players other than Allen. When Lee Smith caught that three-yarder, she said “Who’s that? Do the Bills actually give that guy the ball?” Even my daughter could see that Smith is about as unlikely a tight end as you’ll see in the 2020 NFL. 6. Seems to me the Bills would have done better to pay a little attention to Joey Bosa. 7. Allen should have left the pocket more often. He got in trouble and sacked on a couple of occasions when he should have sensed that it was time to go. For many years during the drought, Bills fans asked that their team just play one meaningful game in December. Bills fans lived to see the Bills name and logo listed under “In the Hunt” when networks showed the playoff possibilities. We knew it was a matter of days or a week or two before the Bills fell off the list, but expectations were low. Just be in the hunt a week or two in December. Now, the Bills are looking at five meaningful games in December and January. The Bills are building for the playoffs. You can see it in the defensive backfield. Hyde, Poyer, White, and Wallace are getting stingier by the week. Edmunds and Taron Johnson are part of it. You can see it in the run defense - not dominant, but week after week the Bills seem to be plugging the leaks. You can see it in the defensive aggressiveness and disguises. The defense is getting tougher to handle. The run game is becoming more productive. Allen’s in control, except when he isn’t. The special teams are excellent, except when Bojorquez isn’t. This is the time Bills fans asked for: Meaningful games in December. We have a lot be thankful for. GO BILLS!!! The Rockpile Review is written to share the passion we have for the Buffalo Bills. That passion was born in the Rockpile; its parents were everyday people of western New York who translated their dedication to a full day’s hard work and simple pleasures into love for a pro football team.

Epenesa's coming out party.

I couldn't resist. I can't hear Graham's name without thinking about Wilson. And you're so right - the ain't nothing like it.

I remember watching the Stevie drop live on the TV. The first time they showed the replay, in my heart I was still expecting Stevie to catch it. I was thinking, "this time he'll catch it." He dropped it on the replay, too. That's when the reality of it sunk in. In no particular order, Stevie catch, wide right, music city miracle, hail Mary, Cowboys' field goal on Monday night. Each one left me with this horrible empty feeling the moment it happened.

Good point. I kept thinking about Jameis and didn't know who his coaches were. Jameis really should be better than he is. And maybe EJ Manuel never would have good anywhere, but the Bills certainly didn't do him any favors. On the other hand, substitute Mahomes or Allen for EJ, and the Bills would have been a lot better, almost instantly

Reading this story about Stevie makes me want to tell the story about Stevie and another epic loss. I've told this story a couple of times, and each time I tell it, people accuse me of blaming the loss on Stevie. I'm not. Well, sort of I'm not. It was November 3, 2013, and the undefeated Chiefs were at the Ralph. It was the second start in Jeff Tuel's career, and it would be his last. The Bills were up 10-3 at the half, and Tuel led the Bills on a great drive to open the third quarter. The Bills had the ball inside the Chiefs' five yard-line, about to go up by at least 10, probably 14. Tuel took the snap and immediately threw to Russell Wilson (no, just kidding) T.J. Graham on a quick, hard slant. Sean Smith stepped in front of Graham, intercepted on the goal line and went 100 yards the other way. The Bills later managed a third-quarter field goal and lost 23-13. Bills fans heaped it on Tuel. Johnson was wide open over the middle - why didn't he throw it to him? How could he possibly throw the ball directly at the defender? Didn't he see the guy standing there? No, he didn't. Quarterbacks look at the receiver, not at the spot where they want to throw the ball. Tuel's job was to see if Graham broke inside his defender, and once Graham did, Tuel, looking at Graham to time the throw, threw the ball to the spot where Graham would be in another step or two or three. The problem was that Smith was standing in that spot. What was Smith doing there? Ah, here's where Stevie comes in. Stevie was lined up in the slot on the right side, maybe seven yards inside the wideout. Smith lined up opposite Stevie, just off the line. Stevie burst off the line with a big, hard jab step to his right, then cut hard to his left into the middle of the end zone. He was open. The move was so big and so quick, it forced Smith into a quick back pedal and step to his left. In fact, Smith reacted so aggressively to Johnson's fake to the right that Smith stumbled and lost his balance a bit. By the time he regained his balance, Johnson was two steps ahead of him over the middle. Unfortunately for Tuel, the fake left Smith standing right where Tuel threw the ball. The play was designed for Stevie to take Smith with him, and I'm not sure that Doug Marrone considered the possibility that Stevie would come off the line so aggressively that the defender simply wasn't able to follow him. If Stevie just runs a straight, hard slant to the middle, Smith would have trailed him, and Graham would have had a touchdown. Give the Bills that TD, and take away Smith's TD, and the lowly Bills and Jeff Tuel beat the undefeated Chiefs. All because Stevie was too good.

Great story. Good for Stevie.

This is good stuff, Hap, and I'll go to one more: McDermott is growing, too. I'm sure Allen will be great. I think McD will be great, but he needs to develop. I simply dont know about Daboll.

What you say makes sense, but what about the guys at the other extreme, like maybe Rex and Marrone? I can imagine a young QB who needs work, like Allen, just running around like Allen did his rookie year and just never getting in the harness. In fact, I think guys are both extremes would have hurt Allen's development. He needed to be nurtured, and McDab were good for him. Still, I have to say it's an interesting question: Is Allen so good that whatever circumstance, whatever coach, he got drafted into, once he survived his rookie deal he'd turn into a great QB somewhere else? That's essentially what some people are saying about Mahomes, and I think it's probably true. Heck, his rookie year Favre went 0 for 4 passing for Atlanta (Jerry Glanville coaching and the legendary Chris MIller at QB), a 0.0 passer rating, and the next season he went 8-5 for the Packers in 13 starts, with a passer rating of 85, which was 6th in the league. One year in Atlanta didn't ruin him.

This is an interesting point. I think he is a generational talent. I've compared him to Elway and to Ben in terms size, strength, guts, pocket awareness. But he is a better student of the game. No back stories in his way. He is going to be field general to match Peyton. I believe it. As for coaches, I do think it is possible for a coach to screw him up, but it would be pretty hard to do. Rex might have just turned him loose without any quality coaching, let him run wild. That could have developed a lot of bad habits. But generally I'd say you're right - most coaches would have been fine for him. Still, I think Daboll has done a good job with him.

Would be interesting to know what the starting lineup would have been if Ford had been available, instead of down for the season. We were speculating earlier in the week about whether Feliciano was taking Morse's job. WIthout Ford, McDermott had little choice.

I think you're correct about these things. The level of stomach upset this article has caused, or this discussion, is really surprising to me. I read the article, quickly, I'll admit, and got no impression that it was any kind of hit job on Allen, McDermott or anyone else. It's just some history that Dunne wrote based on some conversations he had with guys who were involved with managing the team at what is now an interesting point in the history of the Bills. I agreed with the post that recited the Michael Jordan draft history. If you're a team that passed on Jordan and you sucked for the next ten years, well, yeah, then it's fair to sit around and talk about what a monumental screwup that was. But if you skipped Jordan and built a winner with other players, it's fun to talk about the what-ifs. We all can argue about whether the Bills have built a winner - some might say it's too early and some others might say it's only a matter of time, but the Bills are much closer to having built a winner than maybe any of us imagined. And I think that is exactly the perspective that the article takes. It's not suggesting the Bills are doomed because they passed on Mahomes; to the contrary, to the extent it talks about the present, it acknowledges that it looks like the Bills have something special happening. Mahomes looks like an extraordinary talent, once in a generation or once in a lifetime, maybe the absolute GOAT, and from that perspective, anyone who didn't take him blew it. But dozens of fan bases are in that situation with Mahomes or Jordan or Brady or name a few others. I really don't think that's the point. The only question is "how is your team doing," and in the case of the Bills, the answer is "just fine, thank you." It may be a Bills thing, borne of decades of failure, including the failure of Kelly's teams to take the final step, and even the failure of the Bills to make it to Super Bowl I. Even in the Bills' greatest eras, they didn't quite make it. Then, on top of all that history, we had the drought and the scorn of pretty much all NFL fans outside of Bills fans. Nobody treated the Bills like they were relevant, and it continues to be somewhat true with the Bills at 7-3. I think some Bills fans may have come to believe all that crap from around the country and from the press, and it shows up in threads like this. If the Bills are a top team for the next ten years, which I think they will be if McBeane stay, and if Allen is a top 5 QB for the next ten years, which I think he will be, and if the Chiefs and Mahomes are there, too, which also is a good bet, no one is going to be sitting around bemoaning the fact that the Bills didn't take Mahomes. No one. Do you think there are any Colts fans who, when they reminisce, are saying "Heck, the Colts should have passed on Manning and taken Charles Woodson instead, then taken Brady a couple of years later"? I mean, that's ridiculous. This is just an article about history, and interesting little period of history. It's not an article that is anything more than incidentally critical about anyone, including McDermott and Allen.

No need for a time machine. Just ask JoshAllenReceipts. The source of all truth.

I don't know that the Saints were going to take him. At the time of the draft, no one knew that. What the article says, and I think it's correct, that there was some expectation that he might fall. Not that he would, just some expectation that it could happen. The Bills didn't value him so much to take him at 10. They would have been willing to take him at the back end of the draft. That's all. They didn't care that he might not be there. He wasn't on their list of people they really wanted. How does that not make sense. Whether the Saints or the Chiefs were rebuilding has nothing to do with it. They were where they were in their team building activities; the Bills were in a different place. All this article says is that there were credible reasons why this organization chose to do what they did. The reasons make sense, those reasons were directly related to the plan that McDermott had to build the team, and the plan worked. It all makes sense.

That's right. Success isn't measured by your misses. It's measured by the hits. The object is to be successful. It's a fool's game to think the object is to be mistake-free.

That's really interesting. Hadn't ever thought about it, but I'd guess that tackles actually are less likely to get hit in ways that would cause concussions. He's gotta really want to play to take a big pay cut and move to tackle. His family could tell him to hang em up. Interesting thought.

That's interesting. You're right, he sat Mahomes. But the signal was absolutely clear from day one. No question. Smith was a lame duck the day they picked Mahomes. But Reid wasn't a rookie coach. He had a major reputation in the league, and most importantly, he was already with the team. He didn't have anything to prove to his players. McDermott was a rookie coach who maybe hadn't even MET all the players. I'm enjoying talking about this. I can't say I'm sure all of this is correct, but I think it's all plausible - the notion that McDermott had a plan and an order in which he wanted to do things. What's interesting, of course, is the case of Arizona, where you had a young, rookie head coach who wouldn't take the job UNLESS the team agreed to bring in HIS rookie QB. Now, there was no really established QB there, like Taylor was in Buffalo (established in the sense that he had the confidence of the team), but still, he took the risky path - he bet on the QB. McD isn't a risk taker like that. McD is a slow and steady wins the race kind of guy. Step by step, don't get ahead of yourself. It all makes sense to me.

Sure does sound that way. I never saw him as a physical stud. Not a road grader for sure, and not the most powerful pass protector at center. He is an excellent thinking center, and he had the speed and agility to get downfield. This sounds like the Bills have concluded they need more than that. Almost like the plan is to give Allen and Feliciano the rest of this year to get ready for the playoffs and next year, and in the off-season look for more help in the interior.

I don't think so. Watkins and Darby were different because of timing. McDermott had been with the team for two months when the draft happened. He'd had virtually no time on field with his players, no way to build relationships with them, no way to really convince them that he's the leader and they should follow him. By drafting a QB, he's saying that Tyrod's out, sooner or later, and in the NFL lately it's been sooner. Tyrod was a leader. He had plenty of friends on the team. Before McD had had a chance to build any relationships, he didn't want to take the risk that he'd lose the players' confidence by dumping their friend. By the time Watkins and Darby left, McD had had the time with the players he needed. He'd been very clear from the beginning that he's about a certain methodology, a methodology that requires total commitment to the game and to the team. He'd been clear that he believes that that kind of commitment is what makes football teams superior. By each guy committing to each other guy, they're stronger. So by the time he pulled the trigger on Watkins and Darby, McD had concluded that Watkins and Darby weren't that kind of player. And he'd concluded that he had several others who were the right kind, including, I think, Taylor. Taylor was really hungry. McD knew that the guys who understood and accepted the commitment would see why Watkins and Darby had to go, maybe even welcomed it. I don't disagree that he was clear from the beginning that he was going to rebuild. He and Beane kept saying how it was going to take three or four years to get the building full of the people they want. Rebuilding and win now aren't mutually exclusive. Everyone knew in the middle of the first season that a lot of changes were coming. McD wanted a culture with a winning attitude, and he knew that it was difficult to build a winning culture if from the get go he's saying to his team "you aren't the guys I'm gonna win with." He wanted to say to his players "we're going to win now," and he understood that he couldn't preach winning now by dumping his starting QB for an untested rookie. Instead, he gets a certifiably outstanding corner who will be crucial to improving the defense, and he spends a year pounding "commitment" and "winning" into their heads. He was, it turns out, exactly right. He leveraged the leadership of Kyle Allen - a guy who oozes "commitment" and a "winning" - and took the team to the playoffs. He said to his player, "we're going to win AND this team is going to build to be better," and they bought it. Throughout - not chasing Mahomes, the Watkins Darby moves, turning decades of losing into winning - McDermott was doing it by careful leadership and decision making.