Richard Noggin

But is it the books who buy the refs? Or the big money bettors? Or their part-time employer, the league itself (topic for another day, the refs' part-time employment status)? We never see the refs seemingly in the bag for the underdog. I do understand how fraught this topic is. I'll see myself out.

I hate you for this poll.

If over 60% of the action came in for the Bucs, then doesn't that (for the conspiratorially-minded) support the gambling-based game-fixing narrative? Can't let the Bills pull the upset when so much money is leaning on the Bucs. That's not my thinking, exactly. But again, we're discussing a hypothetical raised more than a few times in the wake of horrifically one-sided officiating.

You likely won't get much support for this perspective, but the defense did its job without question. 14 points. The end. The offense failed. The defense even got timely stops in the 4th quarter to facilitate a comeback, but the offense fell short. That's the failure of 2021 so far. I don't care about the rushing defense. I care about the offense that can't score more than 14, or 9, or capitalize on red zone opportunities. Oh yeah, and the refs. They suck the most.

This is an important point, HOWEVER...I do believe McD wants his guys (especially LBs) to attack plays more aggressively than they often do right now. Naturally my most recent example is McD, NOT Frazier, pulling Milano aside late against NE, and the result being Milano just screaming through the gaps created by NE's pulling linemen for big TFLs. You could clearly see McD gesturing to Milano to run through the gaps aggressively. You gotta get there before the blocks do to disrupt well-designed plays. If you hesitate or take a false step, you allow the offense to get on top of you. (This ain't a 2-gap defensive front, that's for sure. But they almost seem to play like one at times.) But also think back to when McD allegedly took over play-calling duties (I can't immediately recall when it happened but I know my fellow posters remember): the D ABSOLUTELY attacked more with McD calling the shots in-game. Of course that doesn't mean they called more blitzes and lighter coverage schemes exactly, but it does suggest that McD emphasizes aggression and disruption within the structure of the overall defense. Does that make sense at all? I think so...

Which way a betting-influenced fix would lean, in this ridiculous hypothetical. The line is set initially to be both predictive AND to be motivational. My guess is the Bills v Bucs line was set so low because a) the Bills are better than their recent results (Vegas ain't dumb) and b) such a tight line would inspire bettors to get in on this game (my next guess being that lots of money came in on the Bucs when the line was lowest).

But why not? I'd merely ask for expansion on your perspective. I tend to think someone like him should not be propped up and explicitly celebrated by the organization, given his documented violence towards women and others (even setting aside the "not guilty" nonsense). But I don't immediately hate people who disagree with me. Unless they just provide a one-word answer!

No, silly. Depends who got the most action, not who got the points. (To be fair, though, I have no idea where the action was on this game.)

Of course OJ Simpson was a Buffalo Bill. Fudging of course.

My contribution? Telling everyone what a great thread this is. Great thread, gang. After a tough game and tough season, feels like TBD is turning the corner here...

Imagine if the Bills offense had actually converted on just ONE of their near misses, though. They had so many chances, and failed to capitalize. THAT is the real issue this season. The Bills offense is the engine, and when it sputters, they lose. The defense allowed 14 points and got timely stops in the 2nd half. It ain't on them (which of course doesn't mean their run defense isn't a problem; it just isn't a huge problem if the Bills offense plays even just a little bit closer to form).

You don't go for two there. Gotta get it to a one score deficit first. Duh.

Plus, Jensen is a goon. Kinda guy you hate unless he's on your team.

Not if they're crushed first... But really, no one knows what wind speeds trigger a Skyway shutdown?

I've definitely hated them more in past years than I do this year (which is NOT to suggest I don't currently wish them IMMENSE misfortune), but I can agree that this particular game is at least worth the well-being of one of my peripheral family members...

Right. It will continue to get worse as the front approaches and passes. Which is supposed to happen prior to kickoff. The only real variable is how quickly everything progresses, which determines when and which way the wind shifts, if at all (i.e., lake effect or not).

Of course I hate irony

Even then, if they keep watching on TV...

Since when does the NFL care about the fans, though.

Chef's kiss'

This is fair.

I don't know you, so I don't know if the bolded is intentional. If so, nice. For everyone else, it's "For all intents and purposes." Which doesn't immediately sound more correct, to be honest.

Mike Boone is good.

The dome obsession among many posters (not necessarily you) is tiresome. Many great franchises play outside in suspect conditions late in the season. Sure, OP runs the risk of more wind and precip than most. Also, apostrophes are never used to pluralize. I'll see myself out.

I couldn't agree more...