folz

I'm with you. I think an Allen/Darnold friendly rivalry (ala Kelly/Marino---we hated Dan, but Jim didn't) over the next decade is just what the AFC East needs. I hope both guys become great and battle it out in classic games for years to come.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go back and rewatch the first half because I came away thinking Peterman had a slightly better night than McCarron. Although it was close. And as far as arm strength, I also thought Peterman is slightly ahead of McCarron. There were a couple throws by McCarron where he looked like Fitz, having to put his whole body into the throw. But you guys are right that sometimes Peterman's balls have too much air...but definitely not every throw. He made some crisp passes last night. I also like Peterman's quick decisions/release. But as some of you have stated, he will have to be careful in real games to not get those routes jumped. He'll have to prove he can get it downfield now and then to keep the D honest. I am not a "Peterman" guy. I have been expecting AJ to start the season for a while now, but Peterman impressed me last night. It will be good to see the reverse next game. To see AJ with the ones and Nate with the twos to see if that matters. Either way, I'm feeling really good with the way all three QBs played last night.

Yeah, I guess I was wrong about Thomas from what others saw. And with Humber, I didn't mean he was helping himself to a starting role, and yes, he's slow in pass coverage. It was just that when he was in with the 2nd team, I noticed he was fast to the ball on a lot of plays. Looks like he only recorded 1 tackle, but to me he looked a step better than the other guys he was playing with at the time. I doubt he gets cut. Solid backup.

I get what you are saying and if that happened on the street or in the office, I'd agree. But these guys were friends (at least at some point) and they're out on the football field in warmups. It was definitely the wrong tactic to take, I'm just saying I don't think Cam approached to start a fight or truly intimidate. Haven't you ever pretended to get mad at something a friend says or does, when you're really not, and then laugh it off together? I just think Cam thought he could still joke with KB that way, then shake his hand and get the apology he expected. When things didn't go the way he thought they would, then yes, Cam got truly aggressive/mad. I'm not apologizing for Cam, he definitely should have approached him from the front and not touched him, but I don't think he was looking for a fight at first, I think he just misjudged the situation.

To be honest, I didn't notice his blocking much, except for the one play that the announcers mentioned him. If he was blocking well, maybe that takes him off the hurt themselves list. I put him there because he dropped one or two passes, while the guys behind him at TE made some plays. But maybe I was wrong with him.

Helped Themselves Peterman Murphy Humber (really stood out amongst 2nd teamers) RayRay Shaq Mike Love (making some plays with the third stringers) Dirty Harry Hurt themselves Robert Foster Keith Ford Logan Thomas Who am I missing? What have you got?

To me it looks like Cam is coming up to kind of joke with KB about it (but yeah there is probably some tension behind it). KB doesn't see Cam coming as he's talking to Thomas. Cam playfully bumps KB a couple of times between himself and the other player. But because KB wasn't seeing Cam at first, just getting the bump, he takes it as an aggressive rather than a playful move. So when Cam holds out his hand to shake with KB, KB refuses. Then Cam gets pissed, like oh this is real? You don't like me? And he starts to get in KB's face. KB backs up a bit to defuse and tries to walk away, feeling it is going to be a confrontation, and then Cam gets more upset. Don't know what was said, but it looks like it was kind of a misunderstanding, like KB was expecting Cam to be pissed and confront him and then thought that's what was happening when Cam's first move was to bump him.

I would love to have Mack,,,but if we get rid of Hughes, Murphy, and Shaq, who is starting at the other DE spot (Yarbrough?), And who is going to back them up? Our D-line runs in waves. That would be ok for the future, but we could be in trouble this season if we let all of those guys go. And are we even certain Astro's tweet is about Mack at this point?

You can get burgers rather than dogs and there is no mayonnaise, except on the mac salad, but you can get home fries and French fries (rather than mac or potato salad). And it helps if you're a bit drunk and its after midnight.

I'm curious why so many people think Holmes is a lock or near-lock to make the team. Yes I know he plays special teams, but it looks like Foster has been a very willing ST participant in camp thus far, Ray Ray (if he makes the team) will likely have return duties, what about the other young or vet WRs or players from other positions who can play STs (corners, LBs). I was very unimpressed with Holmes last year as a wideout, so I'm not sure why others are so high on him definitely making the team. He barely got any playing time even when our WR room became an ER and Zay was under producing. If the other guys are outproducing him in camp and the preseason as a wideout (and have more potential, higher ceiling), I'm sure they can fill Holmes' special teams role. It's not like he's Steve Tasker or Mark Pike. And as for being a red zone target, Holmes is 6'4". Benjamin is 6'5', Logan Thomas is 6'6", and Clay, Streater, and O'Leary are all 6'3". And it's not like Zay, Reilly, Foster, and Dupre are smurfs. They are all 6'2". So, there are plenty of tall targets for red zone work to choose from. Does anyone know how Kerley has looked in camp thus far? Since they brought him in, he has experience, and seems like the kind of guy that could thrive in a New England style offense, it seems like he'll most likely be on the team, but I don't know if even he is a lock at this point. The young guys are hungry. I think Benjamin and Jones (they won't give up on him this early) are the only locks for the team right now and then you are keeping probably only 4 of the rest depending on who is standing out, which receiver position they play (do we need another slot or Y or X to compliment or backup who we've already decided to keep), and ST play (does Ray Ray stick for return duties; or someone like Holmes as a gunner or whatever). But I think, right now that competition is wide open for any of the next 9 WRs to grab a spot.

I'm a bit of a football purist and I definitely don't want to see the game completely changed into a no special teams, flag football league. But, some of those hits that the NFL shows in the video, in the article that the OP linked to, should be penalized and taken out of the game. Most of us played backyard football as kids. And I was a shorter guy, so I always went low to make tackles (wrap up the legs), but because we were never wearing any helmets, pads, etc. you just knew to get your head out of the way. No one wanted a knee or shoulder or foot to the face. There is definitely a way to still make great tackles without using your helmet. You just might not get on a SportsCenter highlight for it (which is part of the problem). So, there may be fewer "You got jacked up" plays in the future, but that wouldn't ruin the integrity of the game. I'd rather see a great, clean open field tackle or a RB get stood up and dumped at the line of scrimmage than some kid getting knocked unconcious because they are going at each other with their helmets like battering rams. That's not football. The plays they showed in the video, guys were purposefully leading with their head, using their helmet to make the big hit and knock the guy down or out. There is no need for that. The problem, as everyone knows, is the officiating of the rule. Incidental contact of say a helmet to the body or head of a running back who is coming through the line, when the RB is trying to get small and the defensive player is just trying to go low for the tackle, as he was taught, should not be called. Or if a guy lowers his shoulders for momentum while making a tackle, but is basically keeping his helmet to the side or away from the other player's body/head, but it grazes the other player in some way. Nope. But when a guy is using his helmet to actually help him make the tackle or hit (as some of the hits in the NFL's video show), he should get penalized to discourage those types of hits. The two problems I see with the rule is first, the "lowering of the head." phrase. That is just too ambiguous. It should still be more like "leading with the helmet" or "using the helmet to make a hit or tackle." Guys have to lower their heads all the time for different reasons during the course of a game. And you'll even do it instinctively to protect yourself at times. And the second problem is making the refs decide intent. That is another very gray area. Trying to decide incidental versus intentional in the moment of a fast-moving game can be very difficult. The impetus for making the rule is good, but the language of the rule is not, which I'm sure will lead to some really bad calls if they try to enforce it strictly. I don't know, I feel like what an NFL catch was and what was unnecessary roughness was pretty clear at one time and the NFL just keeps making things murkier rather than solving the problems they are trying to fix. And I guess that too is their own fault because, as others have said, they have allowed that behavior for so long and glorified it on tv and the internet that guys were always looking for the big hit, the knock-out blows, rather than just a sure tackle. So, it is probably going to take some time to transition away from that.

It's a good list. The only points I would dispute are bolded above. I know what you're getting at with Kelly spurning the Bills in 1983. It really sucked and he was a different guy back then, but there is no way Kelly should be on a list of "traitors" to the Bills, when he is now one of the most loyal and beloved Bills. He just can't be on the list despite how things started out. He made up for the rocky start and then some. Maybe if the list were called something else, you could include him. But not "traitors." And I'm not sure how "only" getting Bennett out of that trade hurt the Bills dearly. Yes, it was a lot to give up, but Biscuit was one of the last pieces of the puzzle for the Super Bowl teams. He was a 2nd overall pick. He wasn't just a guy. In 1988 our pick would have been around 11 -14. How much would it cost to move up from say 12 to 2? That's what the Bills were trying to do this year and were expecting to give up at least their two first-rounders. What if they had given the Giants #12, #22, and Cordy Glenn. It wouldn't be that big of a difference from what the Bills paid for Bennett (who became a borderline/possible Hall of Fame player).

Dennison was the epitome of trying to put round pegs into square holes. The zone blocking scheme with the players he had on the offensive line, trying to force Tyrod into a quick passing offense when his best attributes were his feet and his long ball, the Mike Tolbert experiment, etc. Rather than adapting to what he had, he forced players into positions they weren't comfortable in. Tyrod was not a good fit for his (Shanahan's) offense and rather than tweaking and adjusting to Tyrod's skills, he just complained about Tyrod. You could tell from his interviews that he did not like having Tyrod as his QB. The switching to Peterman was no doubt at his insistence and he also had to be the one making a case that Nathan was ready. I agree with others that from McDermott's perspective, the benching of Tyrod was not a mistake. After a 56 yard performance and 3 brutal losses, he was looking to give the team a spark. And if Dennison had been petitioning to bench Tyrod, it had to be pretty hard to say, no I don't think that's the right decision after a 56 yard performance. You have to go with your OC at that point, that is why you hired him. And we get on Tyrod all the time for not throwing the ball when guys were open, etc. And at least 50% of the blame definitely goes to Tyrod, but when the plays being called don't suit your skillset, it is hard to be successful. Isn't that what the good coaches always say...my job is to put guys in a position to succeed. When your OC doesn't trust his QB, you are not going to put that player in a position to succeed. I'm not saying Tyrod would have lit it up in another offense, but I do think his production would have been higher. But this is not a Tyrod-apology post, he was as much to blame for the poor offense. Just stating that Dennison's inflexibility was his own and the offenses downfall and that I think McDermott did make the right decisions, given the circumstances, along the way; from benching Tyrod to firing Dennison. McDermott's main mistake was hiring Dennison in the first place when his scheme didn't fit the players he had. They were already changing the defensive scheme and the team was coming off of being the top rushing team two years running. Keeping some continuity on offense probably would have gone a long way. I do like that coach took the blame though----even now that Dennison is gone...that engenders a lot of trust from your players and staff. And ultimately, it was McDermott's decision. He still could have said no or fired Dennison then, etc. When you are the head coach, you either came to the decision yourself, or you agreed and allowed it to happen. So he does have to own the decision and a good leader doesn't try to cover his ass by throwing someone else under the bus after the fact. Even if it was that person's idea. Obviously in hindsight it didn't go well, but I still think that at the time, given all of the circumstances, it wasn't really a bad decision. It may or may not have cost us one game (we might have lost to the Chargers even if Tyrod started), but it may also have had some further reaching (harder to see) benefits.

For an article titled "5 Reasons the Bills will make the playoffs," I thought that was a pretty pessimistic take... ...then I read FadingPain and SoTier's posts. Geesh! I can understand being skeptical because of all of the question marks on the offense, but taking say 10 or 15 things and assuming they will all go wrong is just as crazy as assuming they will all go right.

Per the OP's question, which players should be considered for the WOF... Kyle Williams should be a lock for the WOF and Jackson, Moulds, Moorman, Brown, and Wood should all be considered. I guess it somewhat depends on your citeria for being WOF worthy as to who you'd pick: Some may feel that the player had to be great/elite. Well, that is definitely one way to get on the Wall (see Cookie Gilcrist, who finally made it despite only playing 3 years with the Bills). And no doubt the player had to have had a very good career at least, to be considered, but for me it is more than just that. To me it is also someone that somehow embodied being a Buffalo Bill. Long stint with the team, team leader, great/memorable plays, hard worker, never give up attitude, upstanding guy (no jokes about O.J. please)...that kind of stuff. So, per my criteria, I think eventually Kyle, Freddie, and E. Moulds should all make it on the WOF. Brian Moorman is a probably for me. Reuben and E. Wood might just be on the outside looking in (if simply because you can't put too many guys up there or it dilutes the purpose). As far as Freddie not having an elite career (huge stats, Pro Bowls, etc.), I put him in the Daryl Talley category. Despite a great career, Talley may not have even been the best linebacker on his own team, but he was the heart and soul of that defense and team as a whole. And just like Kyle the last few years, there were a good 5 or 6 seasons where the whole team looked to Fred in the same way. And come on, Freddie on the field waving the Bills flag after a big win...if that's not all in on Buffalo, I don't know what is.

Ok, let me take another stab at this: There are currently 33 Linebackers in the Hall of Fame Gil Brandt/NFL.com lists him as the 22nd best linebacker of all-time (although the list mistakenly says that Bennett is already in the Hall) http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000000816217 This list has him as #26 of modern era LBs https://bleacherreport.com/articles/409994-top-50-linebackers-of-the-modern-era With 94,600 votes in, Ranker lists CB as #33 best LB of all time https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/top-25-greatest-linebackers-of-all-time I know these lists aren't authoritative in any way, and if you think he shouldn't get in because of the incident in 1999, I totally understand that perspective, but I'm still surprised how many Bills fans don't think he should even be in the conversation based on his playing career alone. This is not meant as snark in anyway, but are those who say he's not HOF worthy old enough to have actually watched his career? Again I'm not saying he should definitely be in, just surprised how many think he definitely should not get in. I just wonder because it is hard to find highlights from his career and he has kind of been invisible in and around Buffalo since his career ended (unlike many of the other guys), so maybe people just forget about how good he actually was, and so don't put him in the same level as the other greats from that team. But, when Cornelius came, he helped take that defense to another level. Just as Thurman did to the offense the following season. Those two and Lofton in '89 were the last three big pieces of the puzzle to the Super Bowl teams. His pass rushing presence forced teams to pick their poison between Bruce and Biscuit. At times, he was flat out dominant. I know some say that he wasn't consistently great. And yes, he had like 3 or 4 monster seasons that stand out above the others. But no player has a career year every year. You can't compare him to himself. If you expected Cornelius to have one of those monster seasons every year of his career or even just the 9 he was in in Buffalo, he would probably be in the conversation for the greatest linebacker of all time now. That's how good his stats were those years. And the dropoff between those seasons wasn't like he disappeared, we are talking about sacks dipping from 9.5 to 5.0 and tackles dipping from like 103-107 to 81-96, while still causing just as many turnovers. [His tackles did dip significantly in 2 of his 9 seasons with the Bills, in 1989 (54) when he was dealing with a shoulder injury, played only 12 games (he still had 5.5 sacks and caused 5 turnovers that year) and in 1994 (58)---not sure if anything was going on that year (still notched 5 sacks and 4 turnovers that season).]

Yeah, I'm kind of surprised at how many people think Cornelius shouldn't even be in the conversation for HOF (as far as his playing career goes). I'm not saying he should be a shoo in or anything, but when you think of great players, you think about them making those clutch plays at just the right moment to turn a game around. And honestly, though Kelly, Hull, Thurman, and Reed were the engine that drove that team, when I think of clutch plays that turned games around in a heartbeat, I think of three players: Bruce, Tasker, and Bennett. Biscuit had a knack for making big plays at just the right time in a game. Guys can rack up a lot of stats without being great...but the great ones always come through in the clutch and Cornelius did that on a consistent basis throughout his career. And for comparison sake: Yrs Gm Starts Total Tackles Avg. Tkls/yr Total sacks Avg. sk/yr Total FF Avg. FF/yr Total FR Avg. FR/yr Total INT Avg. INT/yr Bennett 14 206 204 1,050 75 71.5 5.12 31 2.2 27 1.93 7 .5 Urlacher 13 182 180 1,040 80 41.5 3.19 11 .85 15 1.15 22 2 Awards/Honors Urlacher Bennett 8 Pro Bowls 5 Pro Bowls Defensive Rookie of year All Rookie Team 1 Defensive player of year 2 AFC Defensive player of the year HOF All-decade team 2000s HOF All-decade team 1990s 4 First Team All-Pro 3 First Team All-Pro 7-time Defensive player of the week 7-time Defensive player of the week 1 Super Bowl appearance 5 Super Bowl appearances played 13 years for one team played 9 years for one team Urlacher is a first-ballot Hall of Famer and most think Cornelius shouldn't even be in the discussion?

It looks like Star hovered around 60% of the defensive snaps and 17% of special teams snaps. Which seems about right for a big man... rotational is not a bad thing, those guys need some rest to maximize the snaps they do play. And McDermott is big on rotating all of his linemen. And McD was Star's defensive coordinator for 4 of his 5 seasons. 2017: 59% of defensive snaps 19% of special teams snaps (16 games) 2016: 60% of defensive snaps 17% of special teams snaps (16 games) 2015: 48% of defensive snaps 11% of special teams snaps (14 games - missed 2 games due to injury which lowers his snaps %) 2014: 47% of defensive snaps 14% of special teams snaps (14 games - missed 2 games due to injury " " ) 2013: 60% of defensive snaps 14% of special teams snaps (16 games)

I think you could make a case for Kelly either to be on the list or not, I personally would have him on. But I do think its a bit crazy to say he should be off the list without first pulling Aikman off the list (let alone be sitting at number 10). And someone even claimed that Aikman was clutch...not really. He was a steady player and a good leader on a great team. Yes, Aikman had a big game in his first Super Bowl against the Bills (473 yds 4 TDs), but his other two Super Bowls were quiet (SB#2: 207 yds 0 TDs 1 INT 2 sacks; SB#3: 209 yds 1 TD 2 sacks). Not exactly what I would call clutch. Aikman played in 16 playoff games/SBs. His averages per postseason game are 241 yds 1TD 1INT 2 sacks. (Unrounded stats: 240.6 yds, 1.4 TDs, 1.06 INTs, 2.1 sacks) Not exactly eye-popping numbers and not that different from Kelly's post season averages (despite Kelly having 4 pretty horrible SBs weighing his stats down) 227 yds 1TD 2 Ints 1 sack(227.2 yds 1.23 TDs, 1.64 INTs, 1.47 sacks). 4th quarter comebacks: Kelly is tied with 3 players at #23 (meaning he's in the 23-26 range) all-time Aikman is tied with 13 players at #58 (meaning he's in the 58-70 range) all-time So, again, not so clutch Career: Kelly years: 11 record: 101-59 yards: 35, 467 TDs: 237 Ints: 175 Aikman years: 12 record: 94-71 yards: 32,942 TDs: 165 Ints: 141 And unlike Canadian stats that count for say Warren Moon, Jim doesn't get to add his USFL stats, which were: + 9,482 yards 83 TDs 45 Ints

The average team rushing yards per game (for all teams) last year in the NFL was 110 yards. In Buffalo's first six games of the season, they gave up: 38 yds to the Jets 77 yds to Carolina 111 yds to Denver 147 yds to Atlanta 62 yds to Cinci 69 yds to Tampa So, 4 of 6 games they held teams way below the average, one game around average, and one bad game (but to Atlanta who has a pretty good set of RBs and overall offense) October 27th, the team trades Marcell to Jax and the next four games look like this: 166 yards to Oakland 194 yards to the Jets (after holding them to 38 in the first meeting) 298 yards to NO 146 yards to the Chargers Yes, we probably overpaid for Star, but he is exactly what this defense needs. And there has been some talk that he has improved his pass rushing game, but we actually don't even need that from him. We now have plenty of players who are good at rushing the passer (Kyle, Jerry, Murphy, and Yarbrough, at least, from the D-line; and all 3 LBs can rush the passer well: Zo, Milano, and Edmunds, and we have safeties and corners who can rush if called upon by the scheme). McDermott can bring pressure from anywhere. What we needed was a big man to clog up running lanes, stop any push of the pocket (so the QB can't climb the pocket and step up away from the rush), and free up other defenders by consistently taking up two blockers. I believe that the three reasons we were so bad at getting sacks last year were: 1. teams were gashing us up the middle in the run game, so they usually had short 2nd and third down distances, negating any pressure because the passes get out too fast. 2. QBs could step up into the pocket to avoid the rush because O-lines were getting good push against our front. and 3. Teams just didn't have to throw much because they were marching up and down the field mostly with their run games. Hopefully Star fills that hole left by Marcell and we improve in all of those areas, allowing our pass rushers more opportunities, while also being better against the run.

You guys may be right, I'm just trying to sort this out because if you watch videos of him (granted they are highlights) his hands do not look bad. He makes a lot of contested catches, often spears the ball out of the air, catches with his hands not his body, etc. He did seem to have an issue with drops his rookie year (ala Zay), but at the time when asked about it, his offensive coordinator responded with this, "He'll be fine," offensive coordinator Mike Shula said of Benjamin, per The Charlotte Observer. "... I think of Cam having a receiver open and he just overthrows him. Do I get disappointed about it? No. Am I concerned about it? No. Just working on it and getting ready to play the next week." Since his rookie year, his catch percentage has improved significantly, and he was only charged with 2 drops each in both the 2016 and 2017 seasons. In fact, PFF said he was one of the most reliable receivers in 2016. https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-panthers-pick-up-wr-kelvin-benjamins-fifth-year-option You also have to take into account (as mentioned above) QB play. Neither Cam nor Tyrod are the most accurate passers in the league. And maybe he just had a rough rookie campaign (as far as drops go, like Zay) despite his good numbers otherwise. There is a Buffalo News article asking. "Does Kelvin Benjamin Have a Drop Issue?" from November 2, 2017. But I don't subscribe, so I can't see it. But I would be interested in what it says if anyone does have access. KB is never going to be a speedster at his size; he's not going to blow by anyone, but that isn't his game. And I don't think you can look at last year's separation stats and make any conclusions because he injured his knee in the week 3 game against New Orleans (while in Carolina) and reaggravated it again in the snow game (with Buffalo). He was playing with a bad knee all season last year, not to mention being traded midseason and having to learn a new offense (probably only having a number of plays open to him, not the whole offense). I think Benjamin is a lot better than some people give him credit for, but I guess we will see one way or the other this season, if he can stay healthy.

Are you sure about his hands? And add strength to his positives. Watch the play at 5:06. Plus its fun watching safeties bounce off of him. I've liked KB since his rookie season. I think he is going to have a big year, provided we get good QB play.

Look, I understand that some people know Tim personally, are colleagues, or just enjoy his writing. But you also have to understand that a lot of people do not have positive feelings towards him because of how he handled himself on this board and because of tweets like the Vic/Bennett tweet (which just wasn't a very nice thing to do, regardless of it was partially true or whatever). And I'm not sure how this turned into a thread about sportswriters in general or how hard or easy a job it is (writing isn't as easy as people think, especially when you have tight deadlines and continually have to come up with new stories or unique angles on news events). But Tim gets this type of reaction because of his own actions. I don't know him personally, but from what I have seen from afar, I don't think I would want to. He may be a great guy and a good friend to those in his life, but he does not come across that way via social media. Now, I don't wish the guy any ill will and I wouldn't refuse to read an article of his if it seemed interesting, but I do understand why people don't like him (based on his public persona). He might be better off (if he cares about how he is perceived by the public) if he just let his sports writing speak for itself. And to Kelly, it doesn't really matter who started it...but how you handle it. He could choose to ignore, he could just respond with facts that back his opinion up, he could call the person out for their behavior without reducing himself to the same behavior, etc. But Tim's default seems to be to get very unpleasant.

"Vain" is correct. "You're so vain" "Vane" is the correct spelling for a "weathervane" "Vein" is used for the vessels that carry the blood around our bodies, or a mineral deposit in a rock (like a vein of gold)

I'm definitely rooting for Riley and think he has a decent shot to make the team. I think the Bills keep 6 WRs. KB, Zay, Kerley are in. I think Proehl ends up on practice squad and then I think it is mostly a 4-man race for the last three spots, between: Streater, Mccloud, Riley, and Foster. I don't think Holmes makes the cut. And I think Clay only sticks if there isn't another option for kick return duties (most likely Mccloud). So, it could be Riley vs. Foster for the last spot, with special teams play probably being the determining factor. The Bills don't have any sub-4.4 burners, but I think they have plenty of NFL speed to choose from this year: 40-yard dash times Riley 4:42 (at Pro Day) McCloud 4:53 (at NFL Combine - said it was disappointing) 4:40 (clocked high 4.3s to low 4.4s at his Pro Day) Proehl 4:41 (at Regional Combine) Foster 4:41 (at NFL Combine) Jones 4:45 (at NFL Combine) Streater 4:46 (at NFL Combine)