Shaw66

That's amazing. Period. Hard to know which team will show up.

When the ball flew a Ross the field to the left sideline, my heart sank. When I saw the replay with the wall set up, I realized we'd dodged the same bullet.

This is a good take. Every once in a while I go back and look at late-season games in 1964 and in the Super Bowl run. There were a lot of these games. Win and advance. Find a way to win. Cough up the lead late in the fourth quarter? Well, find a way to win. It's easier to find a way when Josh Allen is the QB.

Seriously, Dick. I was thinking about this today. We're ready to come here for eleven months with all of our brilliant critiques and suggestions, but in December, when it gets down to crunch time, when nothing else matters by the W, when every game is a big game, all the armchair quarterbacks (and coaches and GMs) go silent.

Thanks. So strictly as a matter of principle, he's not going to watch. Seems to me there are about 10,000 ways to protest rampant capitalism around the world. Of all the ways to protest, I don't get boycotting a Bills game in the middle of the playoff hunt. To each his own.

You own a Bills Backer bar and you won't have the game on in your bar? What are you going to tell your customers when they come in Saturday and you tell them the game isn't on?

Three punts after the two minute warning. Stimulating football.

This ignores the facts. First, NFL teams didn't throw to backs in the early 70s. Still, in about half as many games, Simpson had half as many receptions as Marcus Allen, perhaps the first great pass catching receiver who played a decade after Simpson. Simpson averaged more yards per reception than either Allen or Thomas. He also averaged more touchdowns per reception. Simpson was not "strictly a runner." He was a deadly receiver

Ethan - That's a great list. Top three absolutely are all-time greats. And Allen isn't half way through his career yet.

And the most amazing thing about the Cowboys was that THEY stuck with what THEY were doing. Never seemed to adjust. How many plays did the Bills break the back free off tackle and around the end? Over and over no one was there to stop the wide run.

Ah, I see what happened. You're correct. There was a sub-thread running based on a OldManFan's comment that it was a running performance like we haven't seen since OJ. At least one person, maybe a couple, responded saying OJ wasn't a great receiver, which really had nothing to do with what OldMan was saying. I responded to OldMan because as I thought through my memories of Bills running back, I had to agree that him. The ball carrying ability that Cook showed sparkled in a way that was unlike any back in Bills history other than OJ. Then you chimed in and mentioned receiving, again, and I was, like, "how difficult is it to stay on point?" But, of course, you're right, people were saying all sorts of things last night, and keeping a particular conversation focused in that environment isn't easy. Great win!

Are people having trouble tonight following the conversation? OldMan said the Bills haven't had a running performance like that since OJ. Running. What difference does it OJ's receiving make in a conversation about Cook's running. But, if you want to have a conversation about OJ's receiving ability, he was an excellent receiver. He was a receiver before he became a running back, and as a receiver with the Bills, he was excellent. He wasn't targeted as often as Thurman, but his yards per reception were better than Thurman's. His touchdown production as a receiver was better, on a percentage basis, than Thurman's Great as Thurman was, put OJ in the K-gun and the Bills might have won four Super Bowls in a row.

And your point is, what? Cook struggled until Brady took over?

Interesting point. And Cook is the perfect complement for a dominant QB. The last guy I remember running like Cook was LeVeon Bell, who just waited and waited until he saw the crease he needed. Cook does that. Bell had Ben; Cook has Josh.

I didn't hear it where where I was. And the Bills fans were making so much noise, I'm sure the Cowboys couldn't hear it on the field.

You're right. That was a special performance. And no, Thurman didn't run like that. Cook's not OJ, because OJ was a threat to do it every week. Still, that was special.

I'm home from the game and have several reactions. 1. One of the best home crowds ever. The first series wasn't as loud as it was going to get at some points in the game, but on the first series, my friend said, "It's really loud in here," and it was. During last week's Cowboys game, the announcers explained how this season at some point when the adjustments have been made at the line of scrimmage, the blocking assignments and the audibles and all, Prescott yells, "Here we go!" That means, "Okay, stop talking, I'm starting the snap count." Well, today, no one ever heard Dak say, "Here we go!" 2. I don't pretend to understand the details of the Xs and Os, but Joe Brady understands something. The Bills figured out how to run on the Cowboys, and it was amazing. That was offensive coordinator excellence on display. Who knows how well the Bills would have passed the ball if they had needed, but they didn't to, because ... 3. The defense was amazing. Again, I don't know Xs and Os, but the Bills certainly knew something about shutting down CeeDee Lamb. 4. When the Bills finally needed to pass, there was one of the sweetest Allen to Diggs connections ever. What a play. 5. Everyone saw Cook, and there is pretty much nothing I can say that would be news to anyone. Still, his combination of patience and explosive quickness is amazing. 6. Why in the world did the Cowboys play Prescott and Lamb on their touchdown drive? The outcome was decided, and an injury to either at this point of the season could be devastating. Did Jerry Jones call down from his box and tell McCarthy he was fired if the Cowboys didn't score a touchdown? The Bills desperately needed a win, especially because the other games this week didn't help the Bills much, and the Bills were thoroughly prepared and emotionally ready. Super win.

I agree. This whole discussion has been interesting to me. The people who run the NFL aren't stupid - there's too much money involved to let stupid people run it. I can't imagine that they don't talk about the extent to which the quality of the officiating and compliance with the rules may damage their product. Maybe they have changes in the works. It does seem like the game, and their product, would be better if they could reduce bad calls, if they could be more consistent in their non-calls. Basketball is an interesting comparison. Because there are many, many more scoring events in basketball, bad calls don't feel like they're such a problem. A bad call that costs a team a basket in the second quarter just isn't as important as a missed horse collar that costs a team a touchdown in the second quarter. Yes, at the end of a basket ball game a bad call feels more significant, but the NBA and NCAA even have gotten that under control. I always told my kids that a bad call in baseball or basketball is just like a bad bounce that causes an error or a loss of possession, it's just another part of the game. And that philosophy works, because there are so many calls that they do tend to even out. I can say that about a bad call in a football game, and theoretically, it's true. However, bad calls in football have the potential to be much more consequential, and it simply isn't true that they tend to even out. The missed horse collar was a major event, and although one might be able to point to missed call or another that went the other way, there isn't one that was (or seemed) nearly as important as that mistake. Bad calls might even out over a season or over a career, but in a particular football game, bad calls change the outcome.

Amen. It's theoretically possible, of course, but as a practical matter, in a game where a penalty could be called against either team almost on every single play, you're correct. Think of it this way: Under the current system, there always are going to be bad calls. It's a really difficult game to officiate, the plays flash by in an instant, and the official has to make a call. They're going to make some mistakes. There are two kinds of bad calls - penalties that are called that shouldn't be, and plays where a penalty shouId have been called and wasn't. On the plays where nothing is called, they're more likely to fall evenly. But when the penalties are called, if they're called 5-5 instead of 10-1, it's much more likely that on the plays where a penalty is called, the bad calls will fall evenly. Bills-Eagles is a good example. When the penalties go 10-1, you're looking at a game where the officials are not calling the horse collar and ARE calling a week intentional grounding. If they overhauled the system, if they had a lot of instant review, and significantly reduced the bad calls and the important missed calls, then if the penalties fell 10-1, we'd say, "well, that team is playing really undisciplined football," and we'd probably be right. But in this environment, when bad calls are happening regularly and missed calls are happening too, 10-1 is fundamentally unfair and the NFL should fix it.

There are two different thoughts behind this discussion. One is valid, the other, not so much. The first thought is that the stars get the calls, and that's what I was responding to. I believe that's absolutely true. Not all the time, to be sure, but my impression is that Manning and Brady and Rodgers, for example, got the roughing the passer calls almost as a reflex by the referee, and the unknown young guys don't. I don't think there's a memo out there that tells the refs to protect the stars; it's just natural. After all, the officials are fans of the game, too, and they know who the stars are. They also know defenses want to hit the stars, to try to intimidate them, so the officials actually are expecting the defenses to rough Mahomes more than DeVito. And I agree that Allen is now moving into that protected class. Do the refs understand that the star QBs are really valuable to the league? Oh, sure, they do. And maybe that's running in the back of their heads, too, but they aren't calling games to protect the NFL's business prospects. That is, they know that it isn't good for the game for Mahomes to get hurt, and that may influence their thinking in some subconscious way, but they aren't out there thinking "I have to protect the NFL." But the second thought, that somehow this is all orchestrated by the NFL to maximize the likelihood that the right teams get to the Super Bowl, and that therefore the league works to protect certain players in order for their teams to succeed, just doesn't make sense to me. The NFL isn't like MLB. World Series ratings go down when small market teams are playing, and MLB loves to have the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Dodgers in the series. NBA, too. But the NFL is different. It's a national game, and fans all over the country watch the playoffs, almost regardless of where the teams come from. We watch all season long, and we develop this sense of who the great teams are, and we enjoy the matchups of great teams, wherever they come from. No one is canceling their Super Bowl party because there are small market teams playing. On the other hand, the NFL knows that they need to market stars. They need faces to put on ESPN's home page, the Madden cover, and in all their TV promos, and those faces are of 8 or 10 or 12 guys. Marketing gets harder if half those guys are injured. So, yes, the NFL doesn't want their stars getting hurt, but for the NFL, what really important is to have really good teams competing, so the NFL doesn't want important players from ANY team going down. Brock Purdy isn't a star like Mahomes or Allen, at least not yet, but the NFL really doesn't want Brock Purdy going down. They don't want Burrow, or Lawrence, Tua, or any contender's QB going down. In other words, because the NFL doesn't need any particular star to succeed, the NFL isn't all that interested in protecting particular stars. The NFL cares about protecting ALL of them (not because they care about them, but simply because their business model works so long as they have highly skilled players playing really competitive football.

That's an interesting take. Makes some sense. The stars get the calls.

Has an NFL head coach ever been fired at halftime?

But he wasn't down by contact and he did throw it in the vicinity of a receiver. There was no penalty to call there. We all know he was throwing it away, but they can't throw flags based on he intended to do - it was a live ball and he threw it in the vicinity of a receiver. When Josh threw it on his horse collar play, he was throwing it away, too, and I think it WAS in the vicinity of a receiver, so it also shouldn't have been called.

Wow. Great stuff. "compromised by penalties" is a good point. And holding being worse for running teams is another good point, although it's consistent with NFL's preference for passing games - higher scores and more exciting plays. I agree with what you're saying about, essentially, more real time reviews. They can figure out how to review, almost instantly, any play, just to be sure they aren't missing game-changing plays. It almost would be taking the penalties away from the officials on the field, and they'd have to deal with the union about it, but I think the viewing public would adopt the change. It would just be a more modern way to enforce the rules, like somehow digitally following the football to determine spots, first downs, touchdowns. And, as you suggest, more reviews. I've said a few times that it makes no sense to have an automatic review on scoring plays and turnovers, while NOT having automatic reviews on plays that would have been scores or turnovers except for the officials' spot of the ball. Not getting the score or turnover is every bit as important as getting it.

I would agree with you that it's unlikely for an ordinary DE. But I took a look at the careers of Reggie White, Bruce Smith, and a couple of other guys. They played as long as Miller's contract, and they were still racking up sacks late in their careers. Given Miller's relatively low weight (like Bruce), his workout dedication and his focus, I think he actually could give the Bills at least a couple more solid seasons. Obviously, I don't know, and for all I know, he could fade dramatically at any time. (His arrest could change his life, for instance.) Like you, I hope I'm right. Tre White was in exactly the same situation last season, and it simply wasn't enough time for him to get all the way back.