Shaw66

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.

You know, your comment about minor details reminds me of my reaction to the penalty as called. When I saw there was a flag, my first reaction was, "It's on the Bills, touchdown." When they announced the Offside and we saw the replay, I thought it was an overly technical application of the rules. Then their expert said it was a point of emphasis this season, and it's been called 9 times, or something like that, and I felt better. Finally, when I realized it was Toney, I was completely okay with the call. Why? Because I'd bet that Toney came out of the huddle all excited that they were going to run his gadget play, lost his concentration, didn't notice that he was offside, and forgot to ask. In other words, he lost focus in the heat of the moment. Why are receivers trained to ask the official if they're line up properly? For exactly this reason - so they won't be offside. It was all on Toney, and on the coaches for having failed to train him to perform under pressure.

This is all really good. I agree, more or less, with all of it. A few comments. Miller, he didn't look to me to be all the way back. He used to be even better than he was on Sunday. But having said that, in the second half it was plain that he's now made real progress recovering. He had an impact. Yes to the Oline. Yes to Cook. When you write two paragraphs side by side saying there's something wrong with both wideouts, I think something different. I think Brady needs to go back to the drawing board, because some the Bills should be springing a free runner in the defensive backfield at least once in a while. It simply isn't possible to cover everything - someone has to be getting open somewhere. I mean, the Bills are throwing Diggs, Davis, Shakier, Harty, Sherfield, Cook, Murray, Kincaid, and Knox at teams. NOBODY can get open? Seems like scheme to me. Still, I agree that Diggs is in an odd funk. I'm fine with Davis. Actually, this makes me wonder whether Diggs isn't banged up in some way that they're not talking about. He's not a big guy, and the way he plays, he takes a lot of punishment. I think he gives himself up often just to avoid the wear and tear.

Maybe the Ravens. I've dumped on Lamar for years, but I'm coming around to giving him his due. That defense is monstrous, and Lamar and Beckham are dangerous. But, yeah, the Bills are right there. It's very much like several seasons the Patriots had in their hey day. First half, they'd look vulnerable, stumble through games, pile up some losses. But when December came, we all could see that the Patriots were still the Patriots. Well, the Bills are still some version of what people thought they were. And it's very possible that we haven't yet seen their best football. There simply aren't enough emojis to say how great this is! Every once in a while someone raises the level of conversation around here to new heights (usually it has something to do with Schrodinger's cat!), and you've done it this morning. Great stuff!

Yes, it does, but I'm sure there's a reason. For example, maybe he had some UB duties he wanted to deal with before he left. Maybe he had to do season ending evaluation of the offense and the players. Maybe he had recruiting duties to hand off. And if he was the guy the Bills wanted, and he asked for an extra week, the Bills certainly would have said okay.

Well, okay. But as I've said, I've stopped trying to figure it out, and you give me the perfect opportunity to show why: If you're correct that they check into those passes when they see the soft coverage, then McDermott and his defensive staff have seen that too. So, why don't they adjust? Is McDermott really content just letting them have that pass whenever they want it? And if you're correct that Josh likes the out pattern over the quick screen against soft coverage, McDermott and his offensive staff have seen that, too. Why don't they adjust and get Josh to take the quick screen when it's an easy 5-7 yards? After all, we've all seen defenses sitting on Josh's shorter sideline throws. For me, the bottom line has become this: The coaches have reasons for doing what they do. I don't know what their reasons are. Some of their decisions are wrong, just like every other coach, but I don't understand. I've stopped trying to figure it out.

I won't take the time to write a full Rockpile Review today, but as I'm doing other things I keep having thoughts about the game that I want to share. My real bottom line from the game is that there are a half dozen or so really good teams in the league, and the Bills are one of them. (Sorry, Bill Parcels, it's not as simple as you're as good as your record. The Bills are better than their record.) There are a half dozen or so teams in the league that present big challenges to any opponent, and the Bills are one of them. The Bengals, the Eagles, and the Chiefs all thought the Bills were one of their toughest games (and they were), and the Cowboys and the Chargers and everyone else on the Bills schedule feel the same way. Who are the others on top? Eagles, Cowboys, Chiefs, 49ers, and pick a couple others. My second bottom line is that they may have stumbled their way to the finish line yesterday, but the Bills finished first, on the road, against one of the other really good teams. We never look at the Bills' bumbling losses from the opponents' perspective. For example, there had to be a lot Eagles fans saying, "Yeah, it's nice we won, but it only happened because Allen and Davis couldn't figure how to complete an easy touchdown pass." It's no different from Bills fans saying, "Yeah, it's nice we won, but it only happened because Toney lined up offside." Well, guess what? Close games against good teams almost always could have turned out differently but for one little dumb thing or another. The object is to win, and the Bills did it. Their last defensive stand may have been a little ugly, but they made the stand. In particular, the pass rush showed up, sometimes with crazy all-out blitzes where guys either got home or at least pressured Mahomes, and sometimes with the front four making the most of their considerable talent. Especially Miller. Yesterday was the first time we saw Miller starting to play like Miller can, not every snap, but late in the game when it counted, he was after Mahomes. He's something to look forward to in the coming weeks. How close was the game? Look at the team stats (Bills first). First downs: passing - 12-14, rushing - 8-6, penalties -1-1. Conversions: Third down 6-15 vs 6-12, fourth down 1-1, 0-1. Total yards: 327, 346. It was two heavyweights slugging it out. As the defenses around the league continue to get better at stopping the offenses, the games get messier, with more mistakes and missed opportunities, and the scores drop. Romo said yesterday that earlier in the week Allen told him that the team that scored in the 20s would be the winner. One, good for Allen for being that perceptive of the realities of the game. Two, it's a measure of how the NFL game has changed - who would have thought a year ago that 20 points was enough to win a Mahomes-Allen battle? My third bottom line is one that everyone talks about in one way or another: Josh Allen is phenomenal. Tony Romo talks about it as "putting on the Superman cape." If at the end of every season you made a highlight reel of the six or ten greatest plays of the NFL season, Allen would make every highlight reel. Allen rolling to his left, falling out of bounds and dropping a touch pass into Murray's arms is already on the 2023 highlight reel. I've given up pretending I understand the game, except in the most general terms. I simply don't understand why practically every team in the league stops the Bills and everyone else on all those short receiver screens and rubs, and the Bills sit back in their zone and let teams take an easy seven yards. I simply don't understand why, if teams are going to attack the Bills' short passing game like that, why the Bills can't find Diggs or Davis or Shakir or Sherfield or Harty or Cook or Kincaid or Knox (man, what a list!) downfield anywhere. There are reasons, I'm sure, but I accept the fact that it's complicated. It's too bad the Bills have six losses. They never should have let that happen to themselves, but that's where they are. If they can find a way to beat the Cowboys, there'll be no reason to keep looking in the rearview mirror. If they can beat the Cowboys, they'll be 8-6 with their future in their hands. GO BILLS!!!

What happened to going with the call on the field unless you have convincing evidence. Wasn't there. Incomplete.

Allen's playing great, but if he's going to be a truly great QB, he can't throw the INT. A truly good QB knows that at that point in the game, the #1 objective is to score and the #2 objective is to eat clock and win the field position game. So, you don't throw that ball in that situation. Run, throw it away, find something else to do, but do not risk an INT. He'll learn.

McDermott would tell us that it's his job, and his coordinators' jobs, to make sure that their players execute correctly, particularly under the stress of the game, whether that means the stress of the pass rush or the stress of being in a close game in the fourth quarter.

I think the point of Romo's comment was that it was Davis's job to know the Eagles were in cover zero. He had pre-snap plus a 20-yard sprint upfield to figure out that there was no one deep to pick him up. So he's supposed to see that, assume the Eagles are blitzing, and therefore look back to find the ball. I think it's the case that on most plays, most plays must recognize the defense in order to adjust their routes. So, for example, on back shoulder throws, the receiver must read the defender and, if the defender has the deep route covered, the receiver must look back over his inside shoulder to find the ball. This was (I think) the opposite - see cover zero, look back for the ball, make a play on the ball. Again, I don't know. Maybe you're right - maybe Davis was supposed to read the defender and cut away from him, and Josh was supposed to make the same read and throw it. And that would explain Josh's comment about guessing wrong - maybe he couldn't see the leverage (he was under pressure), so he guessed. But I'd say that even if that's what happened, it would make sense that it STILL was Davis's job to look back early and find the ball.

I'm not saying I'm right. I don't know. But I also think you don't know. Have you bugged the wide receiver room at the Bills facility? Is Brady your brother-in-law? How do you know? As I've said before, what Romo (who actually played pro football and has been in hundreds of meetings about how the QB and receiver play the game) said was that in that situation it's the receiver's responsibility to find the ball before he makes the cut. Now, what I assume he meant is that that's the way the Cowboys trained their receivers. Whether the Bills do the same thing, I don't know. But I don't know how you would know, either. As has been said, over and over by me and others, is that one thing is certain: It was failure of training. Either Davis failed to do what was expected, or Allen failed to do what was expected, but in either case, it's the coaches' responsibility to train the players so that they WILL do what is expected. It's different from failure of execution, like Davis dropping the ball or Allen overthrowing him. That's on the players. But when Davis cuts the wrong way or Allen throws to the wrong spot, that's because they may have been taught something, but they didn't learn it. It's the coaches' job to see that they learn it.