Shaw66

Well, yes, Belichick probably was wrong about Garoppolo. I think that's an open question, thought, because Garoppolo's failures in the league were based on his team's expecting him to be more than he was. Part of Belichick's gift was to win by building around guys who were good and consistent, and by not asking them to do things they couldn't do. There's no way to know whether Garoppolo would have succeeded under Belichick's tutelage. But my point wasn't that Belichick was right or wrong about Garoppolo. My point was that Belichick's system was to move on from talent a few years too early rather than a year or two too late. He did it with Gilmore and with the stud corner before him. Someone else, said that he also did it for cap reasons, which is true. But the point's the same - Belichick was willing to move on from talent before they were done. Look at Wilfork. They were paying him $7 million a year, declined their option for another year, and he signed with Houston for $4.5 million per year. So, they presumably could have kept him for $4.5 million and didn't bite.

Great stuff. The article doesn't quite say it, but I remember there was reporting at the time that Belichick wanted to move forward with Garoppolo. It was Garoppolo's contract year, and something had to be done. Bill wanted to go with his QB of the future, and Brady didn't want to go. Kraft decided Brady would stay. The year Jimmy left, the Pats lost the Super Bowl to the Eagles. The following year, still with Brady, they won it over the Rams. Now, some would like to say that history proved Kraft was right, but I think it's important to remember that Belichick had a long history of letting his top talent go after their peak but before they were ready to retire. Lawyer Milloy was the first, but there were a lot of guys along the way. Belichick was always moving younger guys into the lineup, and that's what kept him on top. He wanted to do it with Brady, because he thought he could get it done with Garoppolo, and maybe he was right. If he WAS right, the Pats would still have a franchise QB at the top of his game. (I know, Jimmy hasn't gotten it done elsewhere, but there are a lot players who played their best football when they played for the Patriots.) Thanks for posting this. It's interesting.

First, thanks for the analysis. I don't watch and evaluate the all-22, but what you describe is exactly how the game looks to me. And although the Bills don't have elite receivers (Chase, Jefferson, Hill, or a few other names) to really extend the field, it's a good receiving group. As I said, put Tyreek on the Bills, and it's a different story. But second, and it really isn't the point of the thread, the bolded part is what made me feel so good about the passing game last week. Allen was in complete control. He seemed to know, play after play, what he had and where the play was. His execution of the passing game was overshadowed by the TD run and other runs, but his work as a true field general was what impressed me.

I think it's just you, and you're romanticizing. I think we all do it - we tend to remember, or even imagine that we remember, a time when the passing offense exploded week after week. Well, there was no such time. Nobody's getting 300+ yards, week after week. I mean, sure, maybe 35 years ago when the Chargers were really explosive, maybe the greatest show on turf, maybe Peyton with two Hall of Fame wideouts for five years, but even those teams, if you look back, struggled. The defenses have caught up with the passing offenses. That's another factor. The Bills were 8th in the league in passing yards per game this season, 20 yards per game behind the Dolphins at #1. Dolphins did with Tyreek Hill, who's easily the biggest threat in the league, and Waddle and Gesicki. Trade Diggs even up for Hill, and the Bills would have been near the very top and the Dolphins would have been 8th. The reality is that the Bills get receivers open from time to time, and Allen usually finds them and hits them. That's about as much as any team can expect. If you can have two or three plays a game like Allen hitting Knox and Kincaid for touchdown, picture-perfect passing execution, that's a good game.

Man, I freakin love this! I'm so happy to hear and see Watt saying that. I don't remember if it was on video, but I remember seeing or reading a piece of an interview with Kyle Williams when someone asked about his or someone else's rating on PFF or some other system. First, Kyle said, "What's that?" He didn't even know any of these outside rating systems existed. So, someone explained to him what it was, and Kyle said, "Are you kidding?" He went to say that it was totally absurd to think that some people outside the team reviewing game film can evaluate a player's performance. He said they don't know the play call, they don't know the adjustments that may have been made during the week, they don't know the audibles, they don't the assignment on the play call, the weekly-adjusted play call, or the audibled play. They don't know anything about what the player is actually supposed to be doing to make the play work, and they want us to believe that their rating actually means something. How can it possibly mean something if they don't know what the player was supposed to do in the first place? Kyle was incredulous. And that's exactly what Watt is saying here. Good for him.

Absolutely! I watched the video expecting to see that yes, he does fake slides. I didn't see one. What I saw was a natural ball carrier. Actually, the video made me appreciate how good he is. I've always thought he was a big guy, with good speed for his size, who took advantage of openings to make chunk plays. What I realized seeing all of these together is that he is more than that - he is a true open field runner. He sees the field and has the ability to make cuts, change direction, and accelerate. As you say, he's freakishly athletic. He'd be really good if he could throw. 🤩

Is this a gambling site?

Did it make you feel all tingly?

Well, yes, they should spend money, but I'm not sure there was much to be done. Who has narrow snowblower for the rows of seats? Where dobyou blow the snow? What about the wind? How do you get the snow out of the stadium? And all those contractors have customers to serve. I'm not sure there's any solution. Heat guns to melt snow? Don't burn the seats.

He did get a chance a few times. I didn't think he looked very good. He looked like poor power and no wiggle. Power doesn't do it these days, wiggle does.

Yeah, that's interesting, too. The guy on CBS's broadcast, the former ref who comments on these things, said that if the ruling being reviewed is whether there was a clear recovery in bounds. That implies that the ruling on the ruling on the field was a fumble. Then he said that in that circumstance they cannot look at other aspects of the play and overturn the ruling on the field, so the ball being out of bounds before the recovery wasn't supposed to be reviewed. But that's different from what I've heard at other times, which is that the review CAN include other aspects of the play. They can't call penalties, but they can review other aspects. I haven't gotten too wrapped in it, either at the time or later, because I think that it's not worth worrying about reviews of bang-bang plays like that. But I thought one replay showed the ball didn't hit the helmet, so it seemed clear to me it was a fumble, and everyone here says it also was clear that the recovery was completed in bounds, so the Bills should have gotten the ball. I'm glad the game didn't turn on that play.

You miss the point. Die hards and season ticket holders will go when there is NO ROOF. That's why putting a roof on is the financially stupid move. They'll get the same ticket revenue either way, so why spend the money for a roof?

That's what I thought when I saw the replays during the game. That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about what the rule is.

I've been thinking a lot about Josh today. I think he is still maturing; not there yet, but getting there. Last night was one of those games where you good see his maturation. I think you can see it in his eyes. My wife calls it the "deer-in-the-headlights-look," and I think she's right. Sometimes you can see it when he's on the bench and the game isn't going well, sometimes pre-snap as he looks over the defense. It's fear in some form. He isn't like that every game, just sometimes, and less and less. Last night there was none of that. He was superior athlete, locked in, in command of all of his abilities, of the game plan, everything. That's why there wasn't a throw that was close to interception, except that ball he threw a little high that Ty Johnson tipped. No throws into double coverage. He did throw across his body, on the run, to Diggs for a nice first down, but that throw isn't a high-risk throw for Josh. You could see that he was in control on the TD run. When he stopped (and the longer I look at it I think he WAS thinking about going down), he made a decision in the moment, the right decision. He could see that all he had to do was break an arm tackle and go. I thought one of the more interesting plays was when he got wrapped up for a sack and he stopped fighting. He went more or less limp and waited for the whistle. At first I was disappointed that he quit, but in fact it was a sign of his maturity. It was Josh saying, "Okay, it's not happening this play. Maybe next play." That was always a sign of Brady's confidence - he gave up on plays, too, went down easy or on his own. Josh is still learning. He's learning which risks to take and which not to take. He's learning defenses better and better. He's learning to think better than everyone else, on the field, on the sideline, and in the locker room. Every season, he's a bigger and bigger nightmare for defensive coordinators. He throws better than almost everyone (Mahomes is a great thrower), he runs better than almost everyone (Lamar is otherworldly), and now he's becoming one of the best on-field decision makers - not there yet, but he's come a long way, and last night was the evidence. He has playmakers all around him, all of whom coordinators have to plan for, and he's also the best playmaker on the field. Josh is figuring out which playmaker to use on every play, and coordinators don't know what to do about it. Hard to believe, I know, but the best is yet to come.

There is no distinction. When you're touching out of bounds, if you touch the ball, the ball is out of bounds. Possessing is just a different form of touching. Now, I find it interesting after reading a few posts here that the Pitt player whose helmet did or did not touch the ball actually was in the air over the line but not touching out of bounds when the ball did or did not touch his helmet. If that's true, then even if the ball did touch his helmet, the ball's still in bounds. And on the broader, more sinister point, I wouldn't be surprised if New York has been told (probably not in writing) that if it's close, rule in favor of the losing team that is down by more than 8. I've thought for years that the officials have been told that if it's close, spot the ball for a first down and move the chains immediately, because the NFL wants more offense.

Thanks. I understand. So a receiver can be standing out of bounds and tip the ball to a teammate inbounds, and that's a catch? That COULD be the rule, but it violates the basic idea that the game is played inside the lines, not outside. I note that it's the same rule in basketball: if you're out of bounds and you touch the ball, the ball's out of bounds and the play stops. I agree with you that the rule COULD be that the ball is only out of bounds when it (1) touches the ground out of bounds or (2) is possessed by someone who is touching the ground out of bounds, but that isn't the rule.

So if a receiver is standing out of bounds and catches the ball while the ball is still inside the line, its a completion? When any part of a player is out of bounds, his whole body is out of bounds. When the ball touches any part of the body of a player who is out of bounds, the ball is out of bounds.

Good one! I used to wonder why he was still on the team. Then, year by year, he showed me why. When he finally left, his spot was a big hole to fill

I didn't mean just run support. I said more, including the scheme, which is what you're saying here. They drafted him to play corner on this team, and he hasn't shown yet that he can do it. Got you. He's a heckuva talent to have in reserve. He'll be getting a crash course this week in practice. Good thing Hill wears that ugly Dolphin color now.

In your world maybe, but not McDermott world. If you're a corner for the Bills, you have to tackle running backs, and you have to know and execute the pass defense scheme, which is a zone scheme. The Bills drafted hum because he was talented and they believed he could learn and execute the scheme.

Love you, man, but I think this way off. In McDermott world, and most other coaches, too, you have to do it in practice before you get to do it on the field. That's why Benford beat him out. Players EARN their playing time. Elam is where he is be cause he hasn't shown in practice that he can do it. Shorter is another example. Isabella another. Williams another. If you can't do it in practice, there's no reason for the coaches to put you in. Shakir, Benford, Torrence, Kincaid all are guys who did it in practice first.

Exactly. It seems like people reaurrected their observations from 2022 and repeated them here. We've only had one game to watch him, and what I saw seemed encouraging. If he was so easy to beat, why didn't the Steelers attack him?

Yeah, I didn't have a problem with their decision. It was close, and the whole point of replay is to fix obvious mistakes. That play wasn't all that obvious.

I actually thought they showed a replay that made it clear the ball didn't touch the helmet.

If the ball touches his helmet while he was out of bounds, then the fumble is out of bounds. That's the rule. That would make what Cheffers said true.