Shaw66

Nice try, but that is not what he means when he says "Yes! And it counts!" If he meant what you say, then sometimes he would say "Yes, but it doesn't count." He only says it when it's a continuation play, the foul was called, and the shot goes in. What he means when he says "Yes, and it counts!" is "yes, and he was fouled!" So he's using words - "and it counts" to mean "and he was fouled," which doesn't make literal sense. But he's done it for so long, everyone knows what it means, and it's a signature call.

I can argue with a lot of them New England, Pittsburgh and Indy are the obvious mistakes. Drop them to where they should be and the Bills are #11. I think they'll do better than #11 over the next three years, but I agree that it's at least defensible to put them at #11. #14 is the middle of the pack. How do you put a team that went to the playoffs last season, is young and clearly improving (Allen's improving, and they added Diggs and they lost essentially no one) in the middle of the pack? It's just stupid.

Not worth responding to. So the principal problem with the Bills - #14 - over the next three years is at QB with Allen. And the Colts are #10, with Rivers, Brissett, Eason and Chad Kelly. Rivers, whose passer rating last year was 88, in the range of Allen's 85 and way short of what's necessary. With more or less no receivers. The same rules apply - the Bills only get respect for what they've done historically. They never get the benefit of the doubt in this kind of analysis. That's just the way it is. If we're betting on the three-year records of the 32 team over the next three years, if the over-under on the Bills is 14, I'm taking the over all day, every day. 9-7 three years in a row gets them over 14.

I find it quite remarkable that so many people are saying "Stand pat, the roster's good enough already." That's pretty much my view. I don't want them to buy a star like Clowney. His price tag will reflect that he's supposed to be a standout player, but McDermott wants blend-in guys, not stand-out guys. Players whose salary is at the franchise-tag level are usually overpaid, and they also often have inflated egos. If their current teams aren't willing to pay them at the level they want, it means that the player is contributing less to the success of the team than the player thinks he's contributing. In other words, the player thinks he's a star and his team doesn't. That's not a McDermott-kind-of-guy.

I hate "yes and it counts!" Makes no sense. Yes means "it went in," so of course it counts. Still, for Marv it's his signature call, and being known for a call is a cool thing. My favorite is "Shaw is right!" Don't hear that one very often.

Josh said Knox is too big for DBs to handle and too fast for LBs to cover. We'll see.

Thanks, John! Same to you and everyone here.

That's okay. As I said, you're obviously someone who is thinking about this stuff and examining his own thoughts. For me, something happened one day after George Floyd, and the light went on. Suddenly, I could see what many, many people have said for decades but that I kept convincing myself wasn't really what's going on. I hope the light goes on for you. Thanks for chatting. I enjoyed it. I care, but I separate them. It's like when the Bills send me survives about the fan experience at the stadium. My answers are all the same: give me a comfortable seat with decent sightlines, good video replays and a lot of functional bathrooms to minimize the lines. I couldn't care less about the entertainment. I care deeply about racism and social justice. I can have both my feelings about football and social justice without finding it necessary to mix them.

Well, I think you're wrong about this, but I also agree with some of it. I think, for example, and I'm sure you'd agree, that we have built a civil rights establishment in this country, and the civil rights establishment is a self-perpetuating bureaucracy like most bureaucracies. But that doesn't mean that the reason the establishment into existence didn't exist. It just means there's a problem with the bureaucracy. I mean, my blood boils every time I see Al Sharpton show up somewhere. The interesting thing to me about what's happening, and it's something that ought to give you at least a little comfort, is that a lot of white people like me are finally getting the message that we are the problem and we are the ones who have to fix it. The problem won't be solved by filling Congress with black people. It will be solved by white people talking to each other and agreeing that the society that we control really ought to be a free country to truly everyone. We all believe it; we just have been less than perfect in creating that free country. That's all.

No, Ham. As I suggested, start from the fact that all people should be free and have equal opportunity. Watch the video again. All it does is explain how the overt racism of earlier eras was built into our systems in ways that cause racism to continue today, even though people no longer intend to be racist. That's all the video says. It doesn't propose socialist or communist solutions. In fact, I think seeking political change is a mistake. A lot of my politics are like yours. More government control over how people behave is a solution of last resort, so far as I'm concerned. What we need is for white people to understand that the system operates just as it's described in this video. What we need is for good people like you just to see it, to understand that we have some people in this country who continue to get screwed just because we've developed some bad habits based on the color of their skin.

Ham - You seem like a smart guy, and you're part of the way to seeing what you need to see. You do not condone racism. That's a good and important first step. That means you're a man or woman of good will, and that's half the battle. I was exactly where you are just two months ago. I'd encourage to just look and listen. I'm not blaming you, saying your guilty of anything or anything like that. I'm just saying start for something you agree with - that all people should be treated equally and have equal opportunity. That's what you almost certainly believe, and it's part of what you mean when you say you don't condone racism. Okay, if you keep that frame of mine and look at the history of black people in this country for the past 400, you can see that we never stopped treating black people using the same treatment we used when they were slaves: Southerners beat, imprisoned, and murdered young black men to keep them subdued. We still do that in the U.S. Southerners kept blacks impoverished, with substandard housing, substandard food, and substandard medical care. We still do that in the U.S. Southerners kept blacks uneducated. We still do that in the U.S. Southerners made blacks live in fear. We still do that in the U.S. The point is, it IS systemic. You and I don't even mean to do it to black people, but our culture does. It's a bad habit that we learned over hundreds of years, and we've only barely begun to change our habits. Unless and you and I are actively working to change, you and I are part of the problem. Justice demands that we actually set these people free.

Me too. I've had similar personal experiences, and it's embarrassing to admit that it took me this long to see what we've done. It's time to fix it, not because anyone is guilty or should be blamed. It's time to fix it because we, Americans, actually believe in freedom and equal opportunity. We just have developed a bad habit of denying those things for black people.

There are a thousand important points in debate about racism in the U.S., and this is one of them. This is near the top of the list. This discussion isn't about politics any more than the discussion about wearing masks should be about politics. This discussion is about human beings and freedom. That's something I've always believed was at the core of our country. Human beings and freedom. The people in the United States have not, and still do not, accept black people as human beings and we do not accord them the freedom accorded to white people. We systematically deny black men their freedom by over-aggressive policing and administration of the criminal justice system. We systematically deny black people the opportunity to earn a living like white people by job discrimination and double standards. We systematically keep black people uneducated, including many who are functionally illiterate, by segregating and under-funding their schools. This is about getting white people to realize that the society white people built and continue to operate intentionally forces black people to be a permanent underclass. This isn't about politics. This is about doing for real what many white people thought we did with civil rights laws in the 60s. This is about changing how we all think about and behave toward black people. It's about treating all people like human beings. It's about letting all people be free. It's about the promise of America, a promise we've made to everyone except black people.

Very nicely said.

Thanks. Allen is a player who is improving. When he stops improving I will be more interested in discussions like this article provides. Everyone talks about him as though he's a finished product. He isn't.

here's a better link: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29376046/make-break-year-josh-allen-progress-report-bills-qb-ahead-2020

It's baseball or something. All three that you mention are naturally accurate. Brady seems to be disciplined accuracy. He has learned to do everything right mechanically, so he makes accurate throws when he's in sync. The other three are naturally accurate - they are exceptional athlete's who are always able to get some necessary part of their bodies in position to make the right throw. Hips open, hips closed, off the wrong foot, whatever, they get arm motion and release that makes for an accurate throw. Allen doesn't have that. I think Allen is a better natural thrower than Brady, but not on the same level as the other three. Allen needs to learn to be in sync more often - in sync, meaning understanding where the play is going so he has time to get his body in at least a decent throwing position. He doesn't always do that. Brady doesn't do it only when he doesn't have time. Maybe put another way, it's almost as though Mahomes, Wilson and Rodgers don't need any time to get ready to throw - they're always ready. Brady and Allen need time to get ready, and Brady buys the time by making quick decisions, deciding earlier than Allen allows him time to get ready.

That's an interesting point. There were an unusual number of high-wind games at New Era last year. That's another factor in QB maturation. Every time a young QB throws in that wind, he learns something. Over time, literally over years, he learns how to make throws under different conditions in the stadium. A veteran QB in his wind-challenged home stadium develops a real home-field advantage on windy days. Eli was tougher at home than away, because the wind in the old and the new stadium is tough, but he had learned it.

Another article mired in data analysis that, in my mind, is unwarranted. Using data the author concludes that Allen's deep balls are a key element to making him, perhaps, the top fantasy quarterback in the league. Now, maybe for fantasy purposes you can get there, but even I will admit that based on last season, ANY analysis that suggests the deep ball is one of Allen's strengths is suspect. Still, as the OP says, it's interesting to read an article that is thoughtful AND optimistic about Allen. The author doesn't get caught up in the conventional wisdom about Allen (he's "raw," he's a "project," he isn't accurate, he can't throw the deep ball, he has a long way to go) and instead sees what a lot of Bills fans see - a really talented quarterback who has made a lot of plays in two years and who seems to be improving significantly and continuously. For example, he admits to being surprised when he first saw that someone said Allen was an MVP darkhouse, but when he considered the idea, he realized the idea wasn't as absurd as national fans (and Bills fans who don't believe in Allen) seem to think. Thanks for posting.

This is all right on on the money. Belichick may have a top 10 offense with Newton. He may cut Newton and have a top 10 offense with Hoyer. Or anything in between. The only thing I'm confident of is that with Brady at QB, they were liable to do anything at any time. Newton does offer different options, but the offense will be more limited with him at the helm. He is not and never will be the master quarterback Brady is.

I agree. However, the Patriots have Belichick, and Belichick always finds a way.

The to the AFC East title, to any division title, is always hard. I don't care how good it Cam Newton is physically (and that assumes he's healthy). The combination of Brady's brains, determination, and perfectionism (all traits that Newton doesn't score well in) and the brilliance of his head coach and offensive coordinator put the Patriots offense in the top 10 every season in the last ten years, almost always in the top 5. In most years, that was with receivers (other than Gronk) who succeeded because of their QB and the system, with mediocre running backs. Over the same period, Newton's ability put Carolina in the top 10 twice. New England is a system team. They demand that their players fit the system. Brady fit the system perfectly. Newton never will play like Brady, especially in his first season in New England. Belichick can tweak the system and install some plays for Cam, and that will cause problems for defenses, to be sure. But on 80% of the plays, they're going to expect Cam to come to the line and make the kind of decisions Brady made. I don't see that happening. Brady may be the best pure thinking quarterback in the history of the league. He understood everything. And yet, he had his worst passing days against the McDermott's Bills' pass defense. He admitted that when he comes to the line of scrimmage he can't tell what the Bills are going to do. If McDermott can do that Brady, what do you think he will be able to do with Cam, a guy McDermott knows well. How's Cam going to like throwing to those fearsome Patriots receivers against a defense he can't understand? There's a reason Cam Newton wasn't signed until June 28, and the reason is no one who needed a QB thought he was a good bet to win. The league had to wait until June 28th until Cam and some team were desperate enough to agree to give it a try. It's a story made in heaven for the sports media. They have nothing to talk about, and all of a sudden their favorite team signs a larger-than-life player with a big smile and the Superman reputation. So the press is all over this. The actual story is that a QB that league views as past his prime, a QB who has never been good at running complex NFL offenses, just signed with the team that lost the best QB in history and has no legitimate candidate to replace him. They still don't.

I generally don't spend too much time thinking about who the opponent has. For me, it's all about the Bills, and the Bills are just as good this morning as they were on Friday. So I can't get too excited about Cam going to New England. Having said that, I do have some thoughts about this, mostly that I doubt Cam will have a big impact on the Pats: 1. I've never liked Cam. He doesn't have his emotions under control. The game is all about him and not so much about the team. He's never impressed me as a good decision maker. All of those things are 180 degrees opposite of Tom Brady is. The Pats have a complicated offense that changes from week to week and that relies on a fifteen-year playbook. Newton's has missed the spring and will have a short, weird camp. There's no way he runs the offense like Brady did, and that makes the Pats offense weaker, not stronger. 2. Belichick is a genius and he knows that Newton will never do what Brady did. Beliechick already has who knows how many creative ideas about how to put Newton's legs and arm to work. But to do that, he has to significantly retool the offense. He has to make it look more like Carolina's offense looked. The league knows how to stop the Newton-oriented Carolina offense. Hoyer knows how to run the Brady-oriented offense and can do it pretty well. Retooling the offense to fit Newton makes Hoyer a lot less valuable. 3. Newton has had a passer rating ABOVE 90 twice in his pro career. During the years Newton has been in the league, Brady had a passer rating BELOW 90 twice. Anybody who has watched pro football for the last ten years knows Cam Newton is not Tom Brady. 4. None of that even considers what seems to be true: Newton's body is pretty worn out. Relying on his legs to create a dynamic offense is probably a bad bet. 5. I never count Belichick out.

That's not my recollection of Spikes at all. He rarely was the super-stud in Buffalo that he had been in his first five seasons in Cincinnati. After five straight 100-tackle seasons in Cincy, he had one in Buffalo, got close his second season, then start having injuries. My recollection is that even his best years he wasn't the standout guy he had been - looking back at the stats, I gotta say that that recollection is a little clouded - he was All-Pro in 2004, with five INTs. Eventually he was just ordinary, but clearly the decline started after 2004. Did he tear his achilles in 2005? I had no trouble when management let him go. I see looking back at the stats that he had a couple 100 tackle seasons late in his career. Fletcher, on the other hand, was a big mistake, and I thought so at the time. Thanks for the comment and correction. This coaching comparison shines an interesting light on McDermott. He gets credit for figuring out how to get his team to the playoffs twice in three years, while Mularkey failed in his first season as HC and didn't make it until his fifth season. On the other hand, Mularkey has a playoff win and McDermott is 0-2. Puts in pretty clear perspective what McDermott's next hurdle is.

You're right. I didn't read the stats carefully enough. As Gunner said, he made the playoffs once, in his last season as head coach, went 1-1 in the playoffs and got fired.