dave mcbride

The thing about Foles is he actually did have an elite season a few years back. The most revealing thing I've read about him is that after that great season, coaches tried to make him into more of a pro-style mechanical qb rather than the point guard he truly is. Pederson told him to play point guard, and that's what he's been doing of late. He's great at that. He was a highly recruited basketball player out of high school. Christ, he was recruited by Georgetown to play point guard.

The 2011 Giants were a top-ten scoring and yardage team (9 in points and 8th in yards), and the 2013 Broncos were first in points and yards. The 2012 Ravens were 10th in points. The 2009 Ravens were 9th in points. The 2006 Colts were 2nd in points and 3rd yards. This season, the Chiefs, who CRUSHED the Pats and appear to have NE's number, were 6th in points and fifth in yards. Those teams could score. The 2015 Broncos were a bit of anomaly (16th points) relative to the teams that have taken Brady out.

The Bills need to score points, and that's where they should focus their energies. Their offense is terrible outside of McCoy and a couple of o-line positions. Their defense has some holes, but it's less of an issue than the offense. And the only way to get past NE is to build an offense that can score.

I suspect everyone watched it. To wit: https://sports.yahoo.com/ratings-eagles-patriots-super-bowl-just-3-still-eight-year-low-153550105.html NBC provided local numbers, and of course the game demolished in the ratings. It was the top-rated Super Bowl of all time in Philadelphia, pulling a 56.2 metered market rating. The numbers for Boston were slightly less at 55.9, and it was just the fourth-highest rated Super Bowl out of the Patriots’ 10 appearances. Oddly, Buffalo pulled the highest local ratings of the night, at 56.4. Go figure.

I suspect that the primary reason for such poor odds is that they're in the same division as the Patriots. I think most people regard their chances of winning a division/getting a bye as practically nil.

I saw that this a.m. And immediately thought of our coaching staff.

I don't think they get all the calls at all (witness last night). I just think that a) they are well coached and commit fewer infractions than other teams, and b) have been the recipient of a couple of beneficial calls in very high profile games over the years (eg, the jesse james non-catch) that linger in people's minds. The problem is that those reversals on the pats' behalf were correct according to the letter of the law. Bottom line, though: they get called for fewer penalties because they commit fewer penalties. It's not as if the league wants to see them win all of time. I mean, it should be pretty freaking obvious at this point that they don't want that to happen. There is no conspiracy and there is no superstar-treatment of them with regard to calls. If there were, Gronk would be the beneficiary of a call every other play because he really is held and interfered with that much.

Good take. The talent there this seasonwas seriously lacking. Not a good decision to offload Chandler Jones a while back.

This board is a Bills one, obviously, but it has long been good at generating discussions about other goings-on around the league. If you're not interested, that's fine, but the board will always feature discussions about non-Bills-related NFL stories because of the people who have long populated the board.

If you are an NFL fan, I'd say yeah. McCloughan is one of the best talent evaluators of this generation and has proven it wherever he has been. He has some obvious personal issues, but many felt that Snyder cooked up rumors about him in Washington and that he didn't actually have a drinking problem there. He didn't get along with Allen, who is a terrible gm.

I get your point -- sort of. The thing is, there are nearly zero posters here who aren't aware of the News's policy already. And it IS a good piece. Pretty revealing actually. Nice interview by Vic C. Also, the thing that bugs me isn't so much what you're saying but the out-and-out venom directed at the paper because they now require what amounts to chump change. Their coverage really has gotten better since they instituted it too, fwiw.

I just went through all of Miami's games from 2008. They opened with the wildcat more than once. Ronnie Brown is not credited with any qb victories, however. Pennington got them all, going 11-5 in the official stats. I think that pretty much closes the case here. 23-20 it is.

Agree 100 percent. The venom directed at him here really sucks.

Taylor was the announced starter of the game. They ran a trick play. It's probably the only game in NFL history where a qb in Cassell's position got a phantom victory. It's not as if this is a regular occurrence. It is, quite literally, unique and should be treated as such and dealt with accordingly.

This post makes no logical sense. Really. I am out; I feel like I am losing brain cells at this point by engaging in such a silly debate. I also feel like I'm dealing with a 22-20 truther.

I have no idea if there was a bonus and frankly don't care because it's utterly irrelevant to the conversation, the subject of which is rightful credit. You're trying to change the subject, and it feels to me like the worst sort of technicality-based lawyering.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying information wants to be free and that the creators of said information should do it gratis? Why is it OK to criticize a media outlet for this sort of thing given that it has to pay its employees every week? Bear in mind that we're talking peanuts here. In other words, what's the logic behind the criticism? No one is forcing you to pay for it.

Who cares?? Which qb contributed zero to the victory and which qb contributed everything?????????? one qb played one play and handed it off for a six yard loss. The other qb made every pass in the game and had a passer rating of 120 or something (over 10 yards per pass and 73 percent completion rate). Who contributed to the victory and who didn't? Who therefore deserves credit for the victory? Answer me that before saying anything else. (Also, bear in mind that I don't even like qb win-loss stats. That said, they're the world we live in, and if he is going to be judged on them, he should get credit where credit is due.)

You are being very disingenuous here. also, why do you even care anyway given how silly the argument that Cassell "started" (much less deserves credit for the victory) is? Do you dislike Taylor that much? Dog is certainly right about intellectual dishonesty too.

Thanks to the OP for posting. I hadn't checked the main site today and I had missed this excellent piece. People who get into high, self-righteous dudgeon over paying a nominal charge for something that is practically free (which is what $2.99 per month IS) need to get a grip.

No he didn't. Taylor did. They simply ran a trick play at the outset with Taylor out wide. It was designed to fool the Colts' defense who knew Taylor was the starter. Cassell didn't play another down. It wasn't even as if Taylor was on the sideline for that play.

23-20, not 22-20. Someone has to alert the official stat keepers about this. Cassell was NOT the starter that game and should not get the win. Play one was a freaking trick play, for chrissake.

Weak. Do better. This is a hardcore site (or should be). Kirby brings it all of the time with good analysis. Do the same or refrain from engaging.

I think they'd have to trade 21 and 22 for an elite QB like Luck. That's the price one has to pay. The Bills specifically got that extra pick last year to deal with the QB situation in 2018, after all. They are NOT going to avoid seeking a huge upgrade at the position. Beane said as much.

My sense is that he'll eventually be 100 percent. They deliberately took it slow, in part because I think Luck was extremely pissed at the team for how they handled it initially. Luck's relationship with the organization is ultimately the wild card in all of this. He may demand to get out, and it may the be the case that McDaniels doesn't want to deal with this sort of situation. They can trade Luck for picks 21 and 22, and then draft a QB at 3 in what is the best QB draft in years. That's not a bad plan for a new coach. Also, the fact that he doesn't appear to need another surgery is pretty big news. That news just came out.