Einstein's Dog

But it was the quick short hitters to McK that NE couldn't stop (McK 11 out of 12 targets) for a lot of YAC. A blitz would get torched.

I agree with this, Beas' play looks down. Either injury or age (or both). Will be interesting to see what they do with the McK/Beas situation against New England. NE had no answer for McK. McKenzie torched them.

Except the most logical explanation for an event such as this, is Cole was mugged. Players complain all the time, this isn't new. And McD would be coming down to let the ref know it. The announcers don't show it because that is not what they want the game to be about.

I mostly agree with you. Obviously no Calvin. Even let Sanders go and promote Davis - he's a Bill vet who is ready. Where I disagree with you is I think the Bills should add through the draft another WR to develop. So Davis takes Sanders role and a draftee is taken for the vacated developmental spot previously had by Davis. Cole will probably be here another year, and McK looks like he should be integrated more into the offense already. The process is working in the WR room. No need to panic there. I would rather see the resources in terms of a good vet go to another TE or CB.

I agree, need to play to win. Take the division. I would love to see KC get upset and then have Cincy do a mad scramble to try and regroup the squad and win. They would bring back Burrow but Mixon is out. I think Mayfield is out too. But Cleveland has Keenum. Chubb has been banged up. Hunt was out the last game. Tough game to call

KC plays on Saturday with the 2 seed at stake, meaning securing 2 home games with a win. They're 10.5 point favorites and should cover. The real dilemma occurs when Cincy tanks it under the guise of resting their starters. It seems Cincy would prefer the 4 seed (as would I). The 4 seed will probably play NE instead of Indy at home. Then assuming a win would play at Tenn instead of having to play at KC. Once again the preferred matchup. The league should have made KC and Cincy play at the same time. If Cincy loses a loss by the Bills to the Jets would bring an easier path. Assuming NE and Indy then win. NE goes to 3 and Indy would be 5 and the path for the Bills would then be at NE followed by at Tenn, instead of the home vs Indy and away vs KC.

Yes, and when I think about it more, it makes more sense. Not only healthy but lose and probably play NE or win and play Indy. I think most people would rather play NE than Indy. Also in that scenario after beating NE they would most likely head to Tenn instead of KC. The downside would be if they had to meet the 3 seed (probably the Bills) in the AFCCG it would be in Buffalo. I think I would rest the players. But there is still a good chance that a hungry second string can take down the pathetic Browns.

This is weird. I think it is a function of the early line being Cleveland is favored by 3 over Cincy (as reported by Yahoo as BetMGM as source). They say in the write up that they believe Cincy will be resting some starters. The CBS article with early odds from Caesars, has Clev as 3 pt favorites as well with the same underlying reason. Just doesn't make sense to me. The win for Cincy means something, seeding.

But if Diggs had just tossed it to J Allen there would have been a nice gain on 1st down and changed the whole dynamic of the series. IMO, It wasn't a bad play call as much as a poor decision by Diggs. Diggs went for the TD instead of taking the easy 5-6 yards with Allen.

I think it's a disingenous OP. The offense has talent. And the FO has been trying. When they acquired Diggs he was 1st round material. This is not the Green Bay scenario. If GB had traded the 1st round pick for say D Hopkins instead of getting Love, I think even the whiner Rodgers would have kept his piehole shut. Don't be more of a whiner than Rodgers, it's a bad look. The FO does, and will continue, to spend resources on the offense. Morse was a top paid center, Williams didn't come cheap, and multiple picks in the top 3 rounds on the offensive side - Dawkins, Singletary, Moss, Brown and Knox come to mind.

Can he ever change your mind? What is it you want out of him, what do you want him to change? I ask because I was skeptical of McD when hired. Thought he might be a rah-rah, defensive minded, run the ball type. The backing into the playoffs didn't really change my mind (even though that was quite an accomplishment in my mind - and I do consider results in my grading). When we got Diggs I didn't take him in fantasy. Good receiver going to a run oriented team, I thought. McD and company changed the whole offensive philosophy. Now he has taken an incredibly aggressive approach - which you and many have been calling for. McD has won me over. Changed to an offensive philosophy adapts to players/team stregths, brought in a culture. I see a bright future. What do you need/want out of him, if not results, that will have you consider him a good/great coach?

Sorry, but yes I would be very surprised, (and disappointed), if they move Gabe Davis. He is an improving young player - and I think his stock will continue to grow (it is certainly not a fact that Davis' stock will be at an all time high). The model they are following for creating a successful team for a decade plus involves drafting, developing, and re-signing draft picks (you resign the player before the end of their contract to secure them for the future at a market rate). Gabe, Josh, Tre, D Knox all fit this profile. You don't abandon that strategy like a little child because you're upset about a personal choice they made. Beane is not that stupid, nor childish, and I think you have misinterpreted his comments. And while we don't know what is in store for next year, we can look at the trend. The NFL is loosening up the standards in the midst of a spike. Seems like the smart money would be any additional changes would be to loosen up the requirements.

Yikes. That is a hot take. And a ridiculous one. Not a good long term strategy to get rid of your producing draft picks. Also, the whole Covid protocols and shots thing may not (and probably should not) be an issue next season. And for the remainder of this season Gabe won't have to be tested. He and Beas are actually in a pretty decent spot relative to others in terms of the covid protocols, better than most in terms of needing to test.

I think/hope McK has played himself into more snaps and action for the rest of the year. And I hope this translates into the post season and a reasonable multi-year contract for Mck. But I still think you should want Beas too. Beas' contract is not unreasonable. And everyone should want to keep a lot of the parts we have now into the future. Great offense that should be modified slowly.

I think you're wrong. Keep both. They're small guys and it's a long season. Plus they offer some coaching strategy bonuses, McK can't be covered one-on-one and Beas is great finding the soft spot in zones. As for the trouble and attention, next year should be vastly different. IMO, it's Sanders that doesn't get re-signed. Gabe takes over as #2 with Kumerow backing and groom a draft pick.

Beas got through last year without issues. And he followed the rules. Seems like he didn't think the rules under those circumstances were unreasonable. Beas got upset this year. He didn't like how they (owners/NFLPA) adjusted the rules in light of an available vaccine. One possible reaction to the availability of a vaccine would be to loosen the restrictions for everybody. Instead they decided to discriminate between vaccinated and unvaccinated. IMO, I think Beas' frustration this year stems from the discriminatory policy. IMO, I think the NFLPA did a terrible job in negotiating a set of rules for a post vaccine environment.

It seems you're having a hard time grasping what his point is, He is not playing because of the rules. He is physically able to play. So it is not the virus making him so sick he can't suit up, but instead he is out because of the rules. And Beas was one who was upset with the NFLPA. Remember early on, he questioned the rules. Apparently the NFLPA did not reach out to the players as a whole, but instead agreed to the policy with the owners. It seemed through Beas and others comments, that the NFLPA underestimated the opposition to their position.

I'm voting D Knox on offense. Reasoning: D Knox is healed/back. He came back early but is now a full go. Knox showed earlier in the season his new improved self The wind won't be anywhere near 60mphs and BB will have to prioritize eliminating our 25 yard laser game advantage. This opens up the underneath for D Knox (and Beas). D Knox will be the recipient of the Pats missing their rangy rookie.

I don't like the idea of thinking you come out dinking and dunking. That's the Pats* game plan. One team has a QB that can fire 25 yard lasers that can travel through 15mph winds like a knife through butter, and the other team doesn't. Lets make sure they are selling out to stop those lasers. Then we can proceed to march down the field with Beas and Knox.

Your second one says we started at the 18, so you're really going to go with "this mythical starting at the 15 doesn't exist"? Wow. You can tell McKenzie to take it out all you want, I'm leaning towards hoping McDermott plays the kid. This is a great opportunity to integrate another youngster for the long term growth of the team.

Wow, I'm polar opposite. With Tyrod, I would be willing to take the risk of the return. Roberts/McKenzie are better, and the risk of getting something is then worth it IMO. With Josh/Daboll, I don't want them constrained by bad field position (see playoff game vs Indy).

So you like the field positions of say 25, 38, 10 over 25, 25, 25. I don't. When we're inside the 15 there is a different kind of playcalling and feel to the possesion. And the real figure used should be drive start for the return, not the yardage. That way useless yardage from the end zone would not be included, and the penalties assessed would be included in the calculation.

It is the opposite of saying always punt from midfield. The analytics and averages are showing it's a bad decision. If his average is under 25 and he is usually taking it from 2 yards deep, it's just a bad choice. And that is before factoring in the fumbles and penalties.

No, because while he could break it long with an average of just 25 that means many would be short. And that is before factoring in fumbles and block in the back penalties. I would prefer to watch Josh and the O with the ball at the 25. I'm not excited when they bring it out, I'm hoping they can get it over the 20 with no penalty. We supposedly had the best returner last year by many stats, and Roberts really hurt us against the Colts. And this year McKenzie really hurt us.

Half the kicks are not touchbacks because the returners decide to take it out. Way more than half the kicks could be TBs if the returners wanted them to be. Taking it at the 25 is an option on, in my estimate, over 80% of the time. The Bills are one of the few teams that sometimes try and kick it high and not out of the end zone. And really the kicker could let it bounce to him in the end zone and could still take the knee and get it to the 25. Generally I think most returners seem to bring it out if it is 1 to 2 yards or less in the end zone. So if they include those 2 yards in the return yardage, it means when he brings it out, the average start is the 23 or 24, before factoring in any blocking in the back penalties.