Shaw66

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.

If I have Josh Allen, all I care about is getting him the ball. Give him the ball on the 50, on the Bills' 35, on the Bills' 5. Doesn't matter where. So, yes, give me a good punt catcher.

I don't know. But about a year ago I decided that if I were the coach, what I want in a punt returner is a sure handed guy. I don't care if he never gains a yard. One muffed punt is one too many. Harty really impresses me in that regard. He's like Hyde back there. Plus, he actually is a good returner, which for me is purely a plus. At this point in the season, I'm not going to put someone else back there who hasn't already proven he can catch it like Hardy. And, by the way, Josh seems to find Hardy every game or two, and turning him loose in space is a good thing.

I'd have to believe its Sherfield. Not Shakir or Davis. Not Harty - he's the punt returner, for sure.

I hear you, and obviously I have no crystal ball. However, you're stretching the facts when you say he "struggles to stay healthy." He played 15 or 16 games every season except when he had a knee injury in Denver many years ago, and now this injury. That's not a struggle - those are just two injuries that, with time, allow the player to come back. He's in much better shape than Mario Williams, he weighs 50 pounds less, and has the competitive spirit that Williams lacked. There simply is no reason to write him off yet (unless, of course, he goes to prison). As others and I have been saying, last Sunday he showed cleared progress. Earlier in the season he was just playing himself into shape. He was on a pitch count (probably still is). His training camp is just ending now, and we'll see what he does over the next four weeks. My guess is he takes down Dak at least once on Sunday.

We will have to wait to know if he is adversely affecting the roster for the next two seasons. He won a Super Bowl just a couple of years ago. He hadn't lost anything playing last season, and he's still recovering from a serious injury. He's a serious worker and a great team leader. His age? Yeah, maybe it's a factor, but the true greats, and Miller is one, often have a way to play longer than the ordinary guys. And in Buffalo he has the benefit of playing in a rotation, which can be expected to help extend his career.

I don't get this. The guy is a first-ballot Hall of Fame player. Before his injury, he was playing at essentially the same level as in previous seasons (he averaged 10 sacks a season, and playing part-time last season he had 8, he's recovering from an injury that takes 12-18 months for full recovery), and yet you say if he doesn't make an impact in the next four games, he's history. Makes no sense.

I just don't get this. I'm expecting him to be a true difference maker, if not by the end of this season, then certainly next season. He works hard, he stays in shape, he has unusual (to say the least) talents. He's motivated. Bills brought him to Buffalo to pressure the passer in the fourth quarter of big games, and even though by most measures he shouldn't be expected to be fully recovered yet, in the fourth quarter of a big game three days ago, he pressured the passer.

Yes. I was really excited to see what he did Sunday. Three weeks ago, he looked like he was going through the motions. Fourth quarter on Sunday, he was competing, he had a bull rush, he had his classic bend. None of it was as good as we saw last season, but the fact that in three weeks he went from not being able to do any of that to actually having an impact in the pocket was very, very encouraging. I think his first post-injury sack is coming very soon.

I gather you didn't watch the Chiefs' game. There were plenty of signs of his being a difference maker. I don't get why people hear things but ignore them. Like, for example, the dozens, literally dozens of times fans have been told that full recovery from an ACL typically takes more than a year. Last year at this time White was just getting back on the field. Miller was activated when he was because he was medically fit to play and was not at risk if he played, but it was and is a known fact that being medically fit to play comes months before being fully recovered.

Absolutely. There's something not right about an official standing on the field and seeing that a guy is lined up wrong and not saying anything about it. When basketball players line up for a jump ball, the officials be sure everyone is in place, and direct them to move. Typically, they'll do it at the free throw line, too. The bottom line for me is that penalties are bad, in the sense that they break up the flow of the game and they erase otherwise good plays, so the objective should be to minimize penalties. Most, of course, can't be ignored. When the play starts, if someone does something that unfairly impairs the other team or that is a threat to injure someone, then sure, you have to call the penalty to keep the game fair and safe. But when it's a dead ball situation, no one is moving, but it's clear that there will be a penalty if the ball is snapped, then fix it. Why run a play in that situation? Another one: Why does anyone have to be penalized for delay of game if they don't call time out in time before the flag is thrown? Why isn't the rule that if the play clock runs out, blow the whistle, throw the flag, and give the offense the option to take the five yard penalty or take a timeout? It just seems to me that there are a collection of rules and procedures that could be modified to make the game run more efficiently and create fewer circumstances that seem to the fans to be unfair. Even most Bills fans can agree that Toney lined up where he was did not give him a competitive advantage in any material way, so taking the play away from the Chiefs was unfair in every sense except one, which is that he broke a rule and there are consequences for breaking the rules. Why not eliminate the perceived unfairness by getting both teams in compliance with the rule. A good example was on the Bills' punt late in the Chiefs game. There was some kind of altercation. Neal's helmet was half off. It was a dead ball. An official essentially told Neal to get his helmet all the way on, because if it came off, he'd be penalized. We all would have been royally PO'd if in that case Neal's helmet had fallen off his head and the Bills were penalized 15 yards. Instead, the official assisted the player to be sure he'd be in compliance with the rule.

Yeah, coaches on the sideline, sure, but it's hard to see there. Maybe guys in the press box. I think the problem is coaching in the summer and during the week. It's not enough for coaches to tell the players to do something; their job is to train them so they actually do it.

You know, I do have more than a little sympathy for the players. The officiating is so inconsistent. I'd be pissed, too, if I'd been doing it all game long and then they call it inside two minutes.