PoundingDog

I think Allen saw Palmer got behind the defender, but threw short

The Texans don't believe we are going to run the ball

So no one is breaking off routes ona blitz?

Man, Mills looked aweful missing throws early on. Now he looked like Montana out there. Is that because he plays the Bills D?

Listen to some shallow X and O on the Tampa game. Extensive discussion on run defense. They think LBs are the worst problem. Carl Jones noted the pattern of motion caused big problems for Bills run defense. To me that's coaching. Babich said many times that "where your eyes should be." Apparently offenses have figured out what the eyes of our second level D eyes are and are taking advantage of it. Lastly I want to echo the statement in the show (when they discussed Bishop's emergence) that coaches want you "to be consistent" not just one flash here and there. This is so true when you look at the path of Cook, Benford, etc. and then look at guys like Epenesa, to further down to guys like Elam (who had a few flashes as a Bills as well). Coleman does have flashes, maybe one flash a game. But that's not nearly enough to be a professional NFL player. https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/bklnightly/episodes/BKL-Nightly-Lets-Talk-Ball-Pass-game-not-fixed--but-better-Run-D-problem-about-the-eyes-e3b6vos/a-acak4ep

So far it seems Sgavers is better against man coverage. There are instances where against zone, he does not know when to sit down and run into coverage. Atlanta game there were a few examples.

Strength (our offense) against strength (their defense). Weakness (our D) against weakness (their O). That's why I'm not buying into playing high risk high reward ball tomorrow. It is likely coming down to who makes less mistake. For example, if we get a turnover from their offense, it might just tilt our strength winning against their strength in terms of scoring. Conversely, if we give them a turnover, it is likely to tilt their weakness winning against our weakness.

There are stats and 6 TDs. But if you look closely, he did have 2 INTs and one really bone-headed. There were a number of passes he outright missed. On top of that, there were many instances, especially at the start of the game where he mis-directed protection that led to defensive guys rushing scotch free at him. I don't know this is even one of his top 10, 15 games of his career. And overall in NFL, will that game be one of the best 100 games by an NFL QB? I certainly think he can play better. To me, his bar is that NE play-off game. And there is a big gap between this game and that game.

Anyone played competitive team sports know this. Your teammates know exactly what you are doing and what you should do. They also know your effort from practice, workout, on game day. In an organization with good culture, everyone is accountable for contribution to winning. Guys get beat in games for sure, but players know there are different level of talent in sports and you are not getting top talent everywhere on one team. What gets people like Dawkins upset is losing due to the lack of effort from someone, on the practice/game field, unless you are on a team with bad culture and guys just care about their own stats only.

100%. There is talent, and there is drive and effort. Very very few (and rare) athletes can get by talent without the other side. Keon is far, far from talented enough to skip on effort. Someone will and can beat you (so perceived you make mistakes) on the field, but you cannot be beat on your effort (that's what coaches are looking for).

I don't know anyone plans for a shoot out game or ball control game to be honest. The term refers to what happens in the game, as in both sides scores a lot, a shoot out, both sides runs a lot but not much scoring, ball control. If one side is not scoring, thee is no shoot out. If the Bills are up, and see Texans not moving the ball, do we say "we are in a shoot out mode so keep throwing often and deep"?

As we stand right now, your statement is correct. But you have to admit the management is trying. They went thru an offense transition to the point where James Cook can carry the offense in addition to the one dimensional Josh Allen passing and running of the past. Objectively speaking, yesterday's game is a good example where the offense shifted reliance to Josh whereas there is plenty of examples this year Cook took the burden. But there are times the offense is not performing well as a whole, both the running and passing. That's when we need the defense to rise up to carry the load. That has not happened, more like never happened since Allen's arrival. They started to invest in bigger D-Line people this year, another sign of change. I'd say they need to invest in bigger LBs as well.

So here is the balance - you want to go all out and let Josh sling the ball all over the place, there is higher chance for a turnover. You want to minimize mistakes then I think it is likely a low scoring game because their D is going to make stops if you expect us to have 8+ play drives to score.

I won't say ball control but play a mistake free game. Houston has trouble scoring so don't gift them with INTs and fumbles, that might be the only way they win.

Josh does Josh things is fun, but not necessarily winning superbowls. We have seen it for many years now, and the coaching staff has seen it many years. I do not subscribe to the theory that McDermott is such a control freak that he wants to do it his way only, even at the sacrifice of not having a chance at a superbowl. If game manager stuff leads to win a superbowl - like Jalen Hurts is doing for the most part for the Eagles, I'd sign up for that in a heart beat, painful to watch or not. Bills with Josh's history and the superbowl history have showed us without a defense, we are not going far in the playoffs. The Bills management - front office and coaches - have failed to build a capable (not dominating) defense so far.