Shaw66

Agreed, on both points. I live in New England, and I have an enormous dislike for many, many Patriots fan. But as a football fan, I have enormous respect for the Patriots. What they've done in era when parity rules is truly remarkable. And yes, the Bills could have won.

Pressure is more important than sacks. The Bills got three sacks but very few pressures. The Pats got double digit pressures. There's a big difference. But I agree with your basic point. The defense played well enough to win. Pass defense was better than the run defense. Pats completed several passes where you just had to shake your head at Brady's accuracy and the receivers', particularly Gronk's, ability to catch the ball every time. And even the run defense was pretty good except on the few plays where they totally lost containment. As has been the case often this season, the offense lost the game, not the defense. Yes. He's better than Peterman. Peterman is altogether too green.

Thanks. Spending the night in Binghamton, so I wrote while watching the Seahawks. To that particular point. It's something I talk about from time to time. You can only be good at taking risks if you learn how to do it. Only way to learn how is to take the risks. So that throw was part of Tyrod's education. But he should have made that mistake two years ago and learned from it. Highlight of the day was going to the CBS broadcast booth before the game and chatting with Jim Nantz for five minutes. Incredibly nice guy.

The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66 Pats Crush Bills Things we learned (or already knew) watching the Pats crush the Bills on Sunday, 23-3: 1. The Patriots are really good. 2. The Bills aren’t as good as the Pats, but they aren’t the abomination that took the field against the Saints and the Chargers. 3. The Pats are as fundamentally sound as any football in memory, and they’ve been that way for a decade and a half or more. 4. The Bills are not a playoff team and THEY’VE been THAT way for a decade and a half or more. 5 The Pats have a Hall of Fame quarterback, and the game looks easy when you have one of those. 6. The Bills don’t have a Hall of Fame quarterback. On Sunday, the Bills would have been in the game if they’d had an average NFL quarterback. They didn’t have one of those, either. In other words, it was a slow news day at New Era Field. Taylor’s interception on the first possession may have been the worst throw in Taylor’s professional career. Taylor’s made a career, so far, of not taking risks with the ball and avoiding interceptions. When you don’t take risks, you don’t learn the difference between good risks and bad risks. Taylor clearly didn’t understand the difference on that play. It’s a completely different game if the Bills score 7. Taylor made several poor throws to receivers who were closely covered. Accurate, well-delivered balls would have resulted in completions. His throws were at the feet of receivers, behind receivers, over receivers, just not good enough. Taylor was injured on the first offensive play. Did the injury impact his play later in the drive and later in the game? Maybe, but it doesn’t change the conclusion. Taylor had a bad day in a game that a good quarterback could have won. Could have won? You bet. That game was closer than the score. The Bills ran the ball effectively. The Bills were 15-34 passing, and with good quarterbacking could have been 25 for 34. It’s easy to see the Bills scoring a couple of touchdowns if their passing game had been as effective as their running game. Would the Bills have won with better quarterbacking? Probably not. Why? Because the Bills’ front five on offense and front four on defense just aren’t good enough. Brady had all day to throw, and the Bills’ quarterbacks were under pressure constantly, including on Taylor’s interception. It’s too easy for Brady when he can wait and wait and wait for someone to get open. And it’s too hard for anyone when he’s at risk of getting hit on most pass attempts. Among the things that amaze me about the Patriots are these two: 1. Patriots are always physically tough. They take hard hits on offense without fumbling. They take hard hits and break tackles. Over and over. Their offensive scheme involves a lot of finesse, but there’s no finesse involved when they hit you. They hit hard on defense, every play. 2. On defense, they rarely are out of position. They got fooled when Webb overthrew Cadet, but that was about it. Receivers may get open and make the catch, but the defender is in position to make the tackle. Running backs may find a hole, but they don’t find 30 yards of open field – a defender is always in position to make the tackle, to limit the damage. And these aren’t shoe-string tackles; these are straight on, drive the shoulder into the runner, wrap him up and take him down tackles. The Patriots are really good. They always are. A note about Gronk. The game was over, so an ejection wouldn’t have mattered. He’s probably correct that White was guilty of pass interference. That’s all beside the point. The point is simple: This is a violent game in which players are at risk on every play. In that environment, there must be zero tolerance for intentional violence inflicted on a defenseless player in a dead ball situation. Zero. Players trust their opponents not to do that. Gronk broke that trust. He could have broken White’s neck. He should be suspended for a game for the hit, and if White is injured or in the concussion protocol, he should be suspended for a second game. Gronk apologized, and I believe he’s sincere. That has nothing to do with it. Would Gronk accept the apology of a linebacker who took out Gronk’s ACL on an intentional late hit to the knee out of bounds? Zero tolerance. 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.

I'll let you know when you're slipping up. There are pluses and minuses everywhere. Forums have personalities and cultures that are defined by their users and their moderators. It was different at BBMB. Some people liked it better there, some liked it better here. I'm glad this place was here so that we had someplace to land.

I think they did it abruptly for a couple of reasons. First, if they'd given notice, they would have been getting phone calls and emails and stuff asking them to reconsider. They didn't want to waste any time on it. Second, I think they figured it was easier to just do it and live through the cries of outrage. They probably had a pretty good idea of how long the outcry would last, and then it would be over. Like a week. And there were only 2000 members, so what would you guess - 50 complained to the Bills. Maybe 100. No more. I didn't bother, and I think most other people didn't bother, either. So they got 50 irate emails and a few phone calls, then it was over. If they'd given notice first, they weren't going to change their minds, and then people would have been pissed that no one did anything about their complaints. SO they just pulled the plug. Is my life different today because of it? No, because I started coming here more regularly. I"d been a member for a while. And if this place pulled the plug? Then I'd have no place to go and I wouldn't waste so much time. I don't know if anyone cares. But it's something to talk about while we're waiting for the game. Better than some thread about whether McDermott should have started Peterman.

Nice story. I like it a lot. Still have to be able to coach. We'll see.

I won't argue with any of what you say.

This is mostly speculation but I think a reasonably good take at what was going on at OBD. Simply put, the message board generated no revenue for the Bills. The front office may or may not have liked what was said on the board, but I know for a fact that they paid attention to it generally only when a problem arose, like when someone who had been banned complained to OBD about it. And when that happened, OBD always stood by the fan, which wasn't good for mod morale. I'll give you some other speculation. I think there was a time last spring when someone, Russ or Terry probably, met with the publisher of the Buffalo News and told the News that it was time for them put a leash on Sully on the rest of those guys who were engaging more or less nonstop bashing of the Bills. I suspect the Bills made it clear to the News that certain companies that advertised with the Bills and also in the News didn't like having the Bills, their advertising partner, bashed by the News; i'.e, clean it up or some of your advertisers will leave you. The Bills and the NFL are more powerful, by a large measure, than the News. One reason I think this happened was that when Rex was being fired, Anthony Lynn had his famous press conference, all that, the News was ripping the Bills horribly. "Dumpster fire" was a frequently used term. I know for a fact that the Bills had plans at that time to deal with the News. The News did change. Some people left, others came in, and the reporting has been more balanced since the spring. The fact that it was around the same time that the BBMB went down that makes think that OBD was paying more attention to the negative content about the news that was appearing in their market.

I was a mod and I sometimes communicated with T&C because I thought his take on applying the rules was stricter than it needed to be. But I'll say this in his defense: He had principles and he stood by them. He had good reasons for why he saw it the way he did, and he stuck by his guns. He may have been the hardest working mod I saw on that board for the 13 years I was there. It wasn't an easy job.

Excellent, Fancy. I agree. Mod s did tend toward more of a hammer approach toward the end, and some posters didn't like it. They thoightnoy was necessary because of the Spanish, pbus, etc and it was. But some of it was just unnecessarily harsh. Being a mid is thankless. I always likened mod decisions to a nearsighted football ref making out of bounds calls without his glasses. If you went near the sidelines you were going to get some bad calls. But most of the posters anywhere stay near the middle ifnhe field and even nearsighted refancan tell they're in bounds. A lot of people were happy at bbmb. The quality of discussions was excellent several years ago. It deteriorated some I've the years but there still were plenty of good threads. This place is well run. Without the Bills looking over their shoulders the mods have more freedom to shape it the way they want. I have my quibbles with it, but that's just the near sighted ref problem - no place is.going to run exactly the way each member wants. I would bet that people aren't freer here. The fact that the Bills wouldn't give the mods the technical ability to truly ban bad actors meant that moderating over there was a constant guerilla war with some people who were just jerks. Here you have well behaved people posting - they feel free because they don't live in fear of being banned. At bmbb people were paranoid with good reason - the mods were tough. But you have to remember that the mods got rough because they were in this constant battle with a lot of.peoblem children they couldn't get rid of.

A guy named Gregg Pastore I think the other mods with Gregg's approval. They didn't care much. I think they considered it a nuisance. It just caused problems. Didn't earn any money. It varied overr time. Mods dropped out, became disinterested. I think once in a while Gregg wouldn't move a nod if he thought the mod wasn't doing a good job. I think they just got tired of it and someone decided it was time. I don't think any event caused it. Don't know who made the decision. I was a mod and wasn't notified. There was usually a volunteer mad who was in touch with Gregg more than others and whoever that was may have gotten advance notice. I don't know.

This is really the point. Unless Geno goes on a five-game winning streak, the Browns and Giants are both taking QBs. I'll trade up for the best QB in the draft, but not the third best. If he falls to me, fine. And I doubt that the Bills and Chiefs picks alone will get you up to 5. However, I keep Taylor until I have someone better. That's why benching him was so costly. It almost certainly means that he's gone after next season (because Taylor isn't going to stick with these coaches) and that, in turn, forces the Bills to find a QB in this off-season. That's why they may feel compelled to trade up, and trading up probably means using both first round picks and maybe a second or next year's first. If they hadn't burned bridges with Taylor, they would be much more comfortable taking a good QB when it was their turn and used other picks to fill holes.

Nobody's missing anything. This was reported last year when it happened. As I recall it: Rex, Terry and Doug were having their weekly call. Doug told Rex he wanted Taylor benched. It's never been disclosed whether Terry made that decision. The most credible speculation is that Whaley wanted to preserve his options under Taylor's contract, and if Taylor got injured in the last game, Whaley might have been stuck with Taylor long-term with no option to terminate his contract. Since the Bills were out of the playoffs, Whaley didn't want to take the chance of a Taylor injury. AFTER the phone call, Rex walked into Pegula's office and asked whether he would be fired after the last game. Pegula said yes. Rex said "then fire me now." Pegula said okay. I think what you infer from that is that if Pegula told Rex he'd be the coach in 2017, Rex would have been okay benching Taylor. But Rex wasn't going to bench Taylor, a guy he'd handpicked, if he was going to lose his job anyway. Then they offered the interim spot to Lynn and told him he couldn't play Taylor. Lynn didn't have the same commitment to Taylor, and the HC spot, even for a game, was much too valuable to his career to say no. Rex prides himself in being a players' coach. He stood up for Taylor. Rex effectively DID make them fire him.

I don't think there are many people around here who had expectations like that. There weren't a lot of people who thought when the season bean that the Bills would go to the playoffs. It's true that expectations rose when they went 5-2 to open the season. What you heard from me last week, and what you heard from a lot of people, wasn't disappointment from unreasonable expectations. It was reaction to the fact that the team was completely uncompetitive three weeks running. That shouldn't happen to any coach, rookie or not.

As I said, I wasn't defending Lawson so much as suggesting that that particular play may have been how the Chiefs would run it against most defenses because Tyreek Hill is THAT fast. Moving him to tackle is an interesting idea. The games about speed, and he'd be a quick tackle rather than a slow end.

Nice analysis. I agree. But I think the point is that the Bills went to all that trouble to complete a pass five yards behind the line of scrimmage. Taylor is standing all alone with a good deal of time to look downfield. Seven defenders are clustered in this picture. In other words, the Bills did a great job designing a play to get the defense out of position, and then threw the ball into the teeth of the defense. That play should have been designed to go down field. But these guys - Dennison and McDermott, are so run-oriented that even when they create motion that gives the wideouts a lot of open field to run in, they still want to throw the ball to the running back. More so than any other play (except maybe the 3rd and 6 run), this play demonstrates for me how run-oriented, ridiculously run-oriented, these coaches are. Think about it - this play design is to pull offensive linemen to the right, start McCoy to the right, intending to draw defenders. (And remember, these are defenders who've been prepared all week to go where Shady goes.) Then, when you've succeeded in getting three quarters of the defense to over-shift to the offensive right, you throw the ball there. Yes, maybe if that one defender isn't on top of the play you get Shady to the edge and up the sideline with a convoy. Yes, it's just a play that didn't work. But it's one of the more creative plays the Bills ran, and it's a play designed to complete a pass five yards behind the line of scrimmage. Well, in Lawson's defense on this play (not in general), if that's Tyreek Hill with ball, and I think it is, the play likely was designed to take advantage of Hill's speed more that Lawson's lack of it. The Chiefs didn't block him because they didn't have to. Practically no defensive end in that position has the lateral quickness and/or forward burst to hold the edge against Hill at full speed. NFL play design is all about getting mismatches at the point of attack, and the Chiefs got one here. One technique that seems to be used with increasing frequency is relying on tendencies and leaving guys unblocked. Lawson certainly isn't lighting it up, but I don't think this play demonstrates the problem.

They're juvenile. Self-absorbed. I thought the NFL ban was stupid, so bringing them back is a good thing. But these skits are stupid. Develop a simple, signature move, do it, and get off the field. Frankly, that's what I like about Gronk.

You properly separate two separate thoughts: 1. Conservative offense. 2. Bad offense. I put them together. I think McDermott is conservative. So is Dennison. But the offense still has to have plays that work, and they have to get called. That, as you say, is on Dennison.

The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66 Back on Track The Bills beat the Chiefs in Kansas City on Sunday. A win is a win, and there’s no need to complain about any win, but the big news wasn’t the win. The big news was the Bills returned to the NFL, at least for a week. The Bills had been totally uncompetitive against the Jets, the Saints and the Chargers, being essentially unable to do anything offensively and unable to stop more or less anything on defense. The Bills needed to prove, to their fans and most of all to themselves, that they actually deserved to be in the NFL at all. And prove it they did. For the previous three weeks, the Bills may have been the worst team in the league. For all we know, the Browns may have petitioned the league for a schedule change. Everyone wanted a piece of the Bills. Curiously, the Chiefs have suffered their own collapse, so the Bills had competition for the worst-team-in-the-league title. So a game that six weeks ago looked like a crucial matchup between two of the AFC’s best became each team’s best chance to stop a desperate slide out of the playoffs. The Chiefs were big favorites, in part because they were at home, in part because their losing streak was shorter and in part because the Chiefs’ early-season success looked to be sustainable, while the Bills’ success smelled and looked more like smoke and mirrors. Well, the Bills aren’t the worst team in the league. We still don’t know if the Chiefs are. The really good news is that the Bills’ defense showed up. The Chiefs’ vaunted running game has stalled over the past month, so the Bills stopping the Chiefs on the ground isn’t making any NFL headlines. Still, the Bills were stout up front. They weren’t getting pushed off the ball, they weren’t allowing backs a free pass to the second level. Linebackers ran to the ball and made sure tackles. The Bills forced the Chiefs to throw. Against the pass, the Bills didn’t break down. The pass rush certainly wasn’t devastating, but it often created pressure an Smith and got to him occasionally. More importantly, the defensive front generally contained Smith, making it tough for Smith to hurt the Bills with his legs. He had some nice runs, generally off scrambles, but as Bills fans know, when your QB running is your best offensive weapon, your offense is in trouble. Smith WAS their best weapon, and he didn’t have enough to win the game. On the opposite side of the ball, the Bills’ offense is maddening. It is hopelessly conservative. Maybe McDermott has no confidence in Taylor, which would be consistent with the Peterman debacle. Maybe he has no confidence in his offense generally. Maybe it’s just that his philosophy is that defense is more important, and he believes that in crunch time you put the game in the hands of your defense. A few maddening sequences: Second possession of the game. McCoy for minus 1, pass to Zay for 5, Cadet runs for 4. Punt. Really? Who runs on 3rd and 6? Well, it does happen once in a while, but it’s almost predictable with the Bills. Bills razzle-dazzle. Once, the Bills faked to McCoy going right, then faked the flanker reverse, leaving Taylor with the ball ten yards behind the line of scrimmage with no pass rushers in sight. What’s the play? Throw it BEHIND THE LINE, five yards behind the line. Think about it – they actually designed a play hoping defenders would bite on the fake to McCoy and then threw to him, surrounded by all the defenders who bit. The defense clearly reacted to the fake to McCoy and probably also to the flanker reverse. The whole point of a play like that is to throw the ball downfield. Not the Bills. Their idea of a big play is a screen pass. With a lead, the Bills were content to play for field goals. Up by 6 with 12 minutes left in the game, they were content to run the ball, wind the clock, and punt. Other than the completion to O’Leary, the wouldn’t throw the ball downfield. They punted and left it to the defense to win the game. Did the defense do it, or are the Chiefs helpless on offense? When the Bills next got the ball, still up 6, everyone knew they’d run twice and then let Taylor run. Three and out to give the Chiefs ANOTHER chance to win and to ask the defense ONCE AGAIN to win the game. Anyone watch the Rams beat the Saints today? Nursing a 10-point lead against an explosive offense, Goff was throwing the ball all over the field. Not the Bills. The hopelessly conservative offense, and consequently the hopelessly predictable offense, runs when it should run and runs when it should pass. When it passes, it passes to running backs. Taylor had another nice game. Not great, but enough to win. The Bills put him on the move more than in recent weeks, and as a consequence he wasn’t getting trapped in the pocket. He threw well, often with nice touch. He wasn’t as accurate as he should be; the poor throw to O’Leary cost the Bills a critical first down late in the game, and he missed some other throws over the middle. But as usual, his completion percentage was in the mid-60s, as usual he threw for under 200 yards and as usual, he had no giveaways. Can Taylor do more? I don’t know. The Bills don’t ask him to do more. Fun fact: Nick O’Leary uses the same hair gel worn by Johnny Miller. A few quick hitters: 1. Milano always seems to make a standout play. 2. The Bills linebackers struggle in pass defense. They held their own Sunday, barely. To their credit, and the coaches, Kelce didn’t kill them. 3. Zay Jones looks to be playing himself into the league. I like how he looks. 4. Colton Schmidt did a nice job. 5. Hauschka, too. Too bad his streak ended. 6. I thought White would fumble on his interception return. Gotta get down the minute someone gets close. 7. Shady does some amazing little thing every game. Or two, or three. Not necessarily spectacular, but amazing. 8. Anyone think Peterman gives the Bills the best chance to beat the Pats? 9. Bills could use Benjamin and Glenn in the lineup, but the Bills have nothing to complain about on the injury front. They’ve been remarkably injury-free. 10. Playoffs? Through week 12, the Bills are in. Beat Miami twice and Indianapolis once and they have a chance. Throw in a win over the Pats and they’re in. That would mean closing the season 5-1 after three totally embarrassing losses. Don’t bet the ranch. So, are the Bills back, the October Bills? Or are the Chiefs just that bad? Tune in when the Pats visit Orchard Park next week. Ball game or blowout? 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.

One decision caused me to change my view of what was going on. Benching Taylor means they've decided there's no hope for Taylor. It means they have to trade up in the draft to get a really good QB. I have two problems with that. One, I think it's foolish to give up on Taylor. I may be wrong. Two, it means it was really stupid to trade for Benjamin. If they're trading up for a qb, that pick they gave up is very valuable. Since those two moves are inconsistent with each other, it suggests to me that no one is actually thinking about the consequences of their decisions. Bottom line, if you've given up on Taylor, you don't trade your second round pick. If you haven't given up on Taylor, you don't bench him. I really think these people don't know what they're doing. And THAT's what made me pessimistic. I can't reconcile two important decisions they made about the QB position. And then you add to that the point that others have made here, that McD haas had no answer over the past three weeks for a totally failing offense and defense. The team has been completely uncompetitive, and McDermott apparently has no answer.

You're missing my point. It isn't about Peterman. It's about Taylor. I think you're absolutely wrong about Taylor. I think it's a 90% certainty that Taylor will not be a Bill in 2019, because all he's gotten since McDermott and Dennison arrived are votes of no-confidence. His head coach actually thought that Peterman was better than Taylor. I think Taylor is leaving as soon as he can. So your scenario where Taylor lights it up is a nonstarter. It doesn't matter if they reconsider; Taylor won't. So if Taylor lights it up the rest of this season and next, Taylor will get a five-year $125 million somewhere, and it won't be with the Bills. Why would he stay with the Bills? He can get the same money from some other team, and playing for another coach means he no longer have to worry about who McD thinks gives the Bills the "best chance to win." The problem here isn't how they handled Peterman. If Peterman is going to make it in the league, he'll make it. The problem is that they mishandled Taylor. Yeah, I know he's under contract. I'm guessing his agent asks for a trade, maybe already asked. If the Bills say no, they want to keep Taylor, he asks for along-term deal. They'll say no to that, too. So Taylor will play 2018 and exercise his option to get out. I just don't see him swallowing his pride after McD has made it so abundantly clear that he has no confidence in Taylor.

Two points. One is as Hapless says, what kind of evaluator is McD if he couldn't see Peterman wasn't ready and he couldn't see his defense was in trouble? The other is something that I haven't seen anyone talk about. When McD announced that Peterman was starting, someone in the press asked if the offense would be simplified for him, being a rookie and all. He said, admirably in one sense, that Peterman is a football player and the Bills are asking him to play the position as designed, not some subset. Do your job. Well, that's the same message as the Bills won't redesign the offense to Taylor's strengths. "We know what we want the players to do, and they have to do it." If you don't have players who can do what you want, doesn't it make sense to modify your approach?

Exactly. I've gone from very positive to very negative about this team in three weeks. The only hope is that McDermott has what it takes, learns from his mistakes, and rights the ship. Based on these things we've been discussing, I have serious doubts.

If that's their plan, okay, I get it. But if that's their plan, then you pick a point in time and start him every game and live with the consequences. You don't start him for a half and then go back to the other guy. McDermott was very clear. He said he played Peterman not because he's the future but because he gave the team the best chance to win. In other words, he wanted to win now. And that's consistent with what McD has done now. He put Taylor back in in the second half, and he's starting Taylor this week. What that suggests is that he no longer believes Peterman gives them the best chance to win, Taylor does. That suggests that your view is wrong - that they haven't decided to go with Peterman next year. My point is not about Peterman. It's about Taylor. He's your best QB right now, so he's the best option for winning. I think it's foolish to go away from him until you have someone better. Or, if you're following your plan, which is to cut bait and go with Peterman and draft another guy, then you don't make the Benjamin trade. You've got a good second pick, one that is getting better every week the Bills lose, and you're going to need that pick to move up in the draft. The Benjamin trade is much more consistent with trying to win now, and trying to win now means they play Taylor, not Peterman. So I think your plan is NOT the plan. And if it isn't the plan, then keeping Taylor as a viable option is what the Bills needed. This decision effectively takes Taylor out of the mix.