Richard Noggin

Re: the bolded (emphasis mine): it IS, in fact, "that Trubisky is necessarily "better" than Barkley." It is ALSO preferable that this demonstrably better QB is athletically "similar to Allen." Both can be true. Barkley did some good things in his time in Buffalo. Probably more important to Allen's development and the team's overall cohesion than we fully understand. But now that Allen has taken the steps he's taken, it's time for a guy with better tools to serve as our backup plan.

Disagree completely with your first line. Agree completely with your second line. (There is no "reaction" that fits.) This is closer to what I think of the majority of his answers. Which is fine, I suppose. Smart, at least. And boring. Closer examination of Crash's list reveals Trubisky nailed all of them, in spirit, minus the last one.

Wow, do I miss 'Zo on this defense. Criminally underrated, even by many Bills fans. That dude made plays at every damned position in the front-7. Kind of ILB Belichick has coveted over the years.

This could be a sneaky important (and likely controversial) line of inquiry regarding these counter-intuitive (with respect to simple weight-based) positional correlations to heart disease... Probably would be easy-ish to compare demographic data of o-linemen versus d-linemen in the NFL, thus helping us to contextualize the reported disparity of heart disease death rates between those two position groups comprised primarily of very large athletes. (I'd think the inclusion of DEs would bring down the average weight of d-linemen to something WELL below o-linemen, even when considering that 3-4 DEs are typically much stouter than their 4-3 counterparts; again, I'm sure this data is out there and I'm just ignorant beyond my own assumptions. O-linemen are basically ALWAYS 300+ lbs; d-linemen are often MUCH lighter than that.)

That's a cynical slip of the keyboard, all right.

Thanks. I parked in roughly this location (front left) for the last Patriots MNF game, which was my first and only time using Hammer's lot. I've consistently used the ECC lots otherwise (those lots, and the Twin Oaks lot, are fairly young and rambunctious as you may well know). Hammer's lot was cool. Lots of enviable tailgate tents and well-established alcoves. (That was a frustrating night of football in the end.)

I love that this is the first reply to my query. Your characterization probably describes my ideal tailgate approach to drinking: get really shmammied but don't go to the dark place. Translation: have a ton of fun you can remember. Oh, and audibly help the team. I effing love Bills tailgates, increasingly now that I'm less spectacle and more spectator (never been belligerent; just boisterous).

Anyone have a moment to clue me in on exactly what this tradition is/was? I've got seasons for the first time (always made it to a few each games each year since I got back in town in 2012). I like to boo-gie.

You know, I'm something of a genius myself

Oh thank gawd

Feel like I got a much shorter clip (only 21 seconds). Hmmm.

Minor correction for out-of-towners: Hutch's isn't a steakhouse.

I know we're all really broken up about this.

Sorry. It's more difficult some days than others. That Isaac Asimov quote keeps taunting me. I'll do better. See also: my most recent post.

That's brutal, if it's even close to accurate. Let's hope the organization is effective in educating its players, dispelling myths, emphasizing the football-related positives of vaccination, etc. There are a couple months left for players to get on board.

Do we know if the (annoyingly, by me) emphasized part is true? WTF is going on with these guys? Forget all the layers of American ignorance, let's just look at this from a football standpoint: if unvaxxed players test positive, they'll likely still miss games, and bring other players with them. So, it stands to reason, that getting vaccinated is just a good football decision (again, ignoring all the other more important layers of this debacle).

I welcome any and every reminder that the New England organization is rotten to the core.

This oughta go well.

Agree to strongly disagree.

But you don't like the shaming, was your implication. Unless I'm reading that wrong. You support players exercising their rights to be selfish and stupid. No?

When did I suggest people aren't free to make selfish and ill-informed decisions? Your gotcha missed the mark.

People, probably like yourself, enjoy saying this is (oR aT lEaSt UsEd To Be) a free country. Well, then I'm free to discuss, criticize, or otherwise shame others for their exercising of those rights. You don't need to cry for these millionaires who might, or might not, be making selfish and poorly informed choices. This all came about due to an initially poorly handled answer by our beloved QB. It IS football relevant, as lack of vaccinations could have the very real chance of disadvantaging the team this season. (Not to mention our inability to achieve meaningful herd immunity before the virus mutates...but I digress).

There is evidence that one of his more prominent receivers is skeptical. He could be providing cover. Or, he could be expressing his own ambivalence/hesitancy. Impossible to say right now. The whole binary "two sides" fallacy we cling to in this country gives cover to a lot of people for a lot of things. Hopefully the players all come around in time and don't miss games unnecessarily.

I'm trying to unpack your post here one point at a time: 1) You don't trust the official stats for Edmunds? Specifically, with respect to his QB pressure numbers? Okay, I'm still reading; but why not? Also, you're not sure what qualifies as an impact play, which is totally reasonable. I think BADOL especially was working with the term "impact" specifically with respect to turnovers forced and QB pressures. Edmunds, unfortunately, doesn't really "flash" there in any of his three seasons. Still, are you suggesting that Tremaine's stats aren't accurate? It seems that way when I read your post. 2) The Tyrod Taylor comparison is simple: Taylor was good enough to make a pro bowl and to be an average-ish starter in the league, but history will concretely show that he just wasn't good enough to make the Bills a championship-caliber franchise. Great athlete, but not a "great" QB. Taylor was a responsible steward of the ball, and an athletically dynamic player. Hell of a long ball. Spins the ball well. He developed in his time as a starter for the Bills. But, he simply was not decisive enough, or aggressive enough (over the middle), to lead an above-average passing attack. He had to see it first. Much like Tremaine.

Genuinely wish I could disagree with you here. But the combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis of Edmunds's impact so far is what it is: the guy does NOT make impact plays, almost ever. Therefore, the argument becomes: is the defense's success due in (large) part to his unheralded, nuanced play, or is his individual success (2 pro bowls, for example) due mostly to the system and players around him?