Cash

Agreed on those 2, so we're up to 6 active players plus 1 on IR. Per BearNorth's post above, we can add Josh Hines-Allen to get us to 7 active/8 total. I guess we could include Trey Hendrickson as well, but I'm reluctant to do that. I haven't watched any Bengals games this year, so maybe Hendrickson has massively stepped up his game this year. But I watched him a lot when he was on the Saints, and IMO he's not on a different tier than Groot as a pass rusher. And here's your original point: You're welcome to change them out once you get the GM job, but it seems like you think it's simple to find multiple DEs that scare other teams and wreck the opponent's game plan. I submit that those guys might be the 2nd-hardest to find in the NFL after franchise QBs. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but where are all these other acceptably-good DEs? Beane has been throwing a lot of resources at the D-line; some of it has paid off, a good chunk of it hasn't. But I don't think it's as simple as "get rid of these guys and bring in better guys."

Are there really “many”? What does that mean - do most teams have one? I’m skeptical on this front. I would bet that if you sat down and went through rosters, you’d be hard pressed to find more than 10 pass rushers who fit the standard you’re asking for. 1. Parsons 2. Watt 3. Bosa 1 4. Bosa 2 5. Garrett That's all I can come up with off the top of my head. Who am I missing?

I like this phrasing. There is no such thing as a risk-free decision in the NFL. The risk they took signing Miller didn’t exactly pan out. But it was a calculated decision on their part, weighing the upside against the risk. And given how good Miller looked pre-injury - particularly his clutch performances in big games - I can’t kill the decision making. Best case scenario would be Miller salvaging some major value with a clutch sack or two in playoff victories. Im not expecting it but I don’t think it’s crazy. I’ve been watching him a lot of defense all year. I was pretty encouraged by his play early in the year, but IMO he hasn’t looked the same the last few weeks. I don’t think he’s looked awful, just a lot less impressed than I was early on. My hope is that he’s taking it easy by his standards, either because he’s only got so much left in the tank, and he’s trying to save it for the playoffs. It's also possible that Miller’s faced some tough matchups the last few weeks and has been getting beat.

I don’t disagree with you for the most part, and I’m genuinely curious: How many pass rushers do wreck an opponent’s game plan? If you’ve got time to make a list I’d be interested in it. I watch a lot fewer non-Bills games these days, so I’m fairly out of touch with defensive guys around the league.

It’ll depend on how much backlash there truly is. If people just want to whine/whinge about it, but the stadium winds up full with no drop in ticket prices, the owners won’t care.

Injury report looks pretty good so far. I think we're still in a mode where guys who would play in a playoff game will be held out this week. Douglas is a good example - Elam played well last week (I think?), and at Douglas' age, his body will benefit from a week off in any case. Any NFL team can beat any other NFL team. But to lose at home to this band of misfits, while fighting for the 1 seed? That would be very upsetting. I'm expecting a pretty good game from the defense. McDermott has an excellent track record against inexperienced QBs and I expect a couple of INTs accordingly. Maye has some big-time physical tools and can make plays off-schedule, but our defense practices against a much better version of that. On the other side of the ball, the Patirots' defense is good enough to cause problems if the Bills let them. But if our guys stay as dialed-in as they've been, I don't think the Patriots have much of a chance on either side of the ball.

Agreed. In the sense that 4 cents is a better offer than 3 cents, but that doesn’t mean accepting the better offer is a given.

I actually don't. I think the voters as a group want the winning QB* to have great numbers on a great team. We can debate whether that should be the criteria or not, but even if it shouldn't be, it still is. In the current streak of all-QB winners, every winner has been on a 1 or 2 seed. Only one of them had 5 losses (Matt Ryan), and most had 3 or fewer. Now granted, we were the 2 seed last year, but the Ravens indisputably had a better regular season than we did, and that factored into the voting. And I don't have time to look it up, but I imagine Allen's INT numbers last year would've been extremely high for a modern MVP. I imagine you'd have to go back to the 60s or 70s to find an MVP who threw more than 15 picks. Maybe just the 80s, but that was still a different game back then. *The rare times a non-QB wins it, it's usually a running back who did something really special, and voters seem to have different criteria for different positions. But when comparing QB to QB, they've shown that team success factors in.

Especially in a dome, where there's nothing to interfere with the precision of the offense. Even in good weather, outdoor football always has some level of breeze to deal with. To say nothing of the conditions in the 49ers game. Personally, I like football better when it's harder, and even an elite offense can't score every time. (Just another reason why the "perfect game" against Belichick in the playoffs was truly one of the most impressive feats in NFL history.)

31 minutes? That's not happening. Any chance you could summarize? I live in the Boston area but don't listen to sports talk radio or similar. My guy who does is out of town so I'm out of the loop.

Yes to all of these, and I'll point out that 5 more passing TDs would put Allen over 40 total TDs on the year. Whether he gets 30 passing or not, I want him to extend his 40+ total TD streak.

No, but they're still very high on the list of teams I feel schadenfreude for.

I would assume they mean in the regular season?

Great write-up as always Shaw! I appreciate these columns a lot. Regarding the above paragraph, I agree. Last year's team felt like less than the sum of its parts; this year's feels greater than the sum of its parts. RE: the bolded - just my opinion, but I've seen WOW plays from Shakir and to a lesser extent Cooper this year. Shakir's are mostly RAC based - either bouncing off tacklers or accelerating past them untouched like he did last week. Cooper has made a couple of really difficult catches look almost routine. Coleman's also made a couple of plays that were above and beyond "doing his job", but I don't think I'd put any of them in the WOW category just yet. He'll get there eventually.

U-G-L-Y, we ain't got no alibi. C'mon guys, the game got flexed to 4:30 - there's gonna be people watching!

Thanks for the summary. It fits with my emotion-fused recollection from during the game, which usually but not always holds up on a rewatch. Last week, I more or less gave up on the game in the 3rd quarter when I realized we'd gotten ZERO stops on defense to that point. It just felt like the Rams had our number and no matter how good we played on offense, that was that. Now, we made it a little close in the end, but to me it never felt all that close, because even with all 3 TOs I didn't think we'd be able to stop the Rams from getting a first down and icing the game. (And yes, I wish we'd been able to actually find out instead of it just being hypothetical.) Contrast that with this week. We forced 3 and outs on their first two possessions. Held their vaunted RBs to 13 carries for 35 yards (under 3/carry). Even down 14-0, the Lions didn't need to abandon the run based on game script. They abandoned it because it wasn't working. Yes, the Lions made some great plays, and credit to them on that. But in the moment, I never felt particularly nervous down the stretch. Not fully safe, because if/when a miracle happens, it usually goes against us. But those last two drives defensively were IMO a good example of situational football when up late. Side note: The Lions are amazing on offense; about as good as anyone I've seen in a hot minute. I think many of us, myself included, still kinda see Goff as that young moron who was helpless without McVay reading the defense for him and telling him what to do before the radio cut out. (Reminds me of my older sibling treating me like I was still 10 when I was a teenager.) But Goff has really improved as a player, and he's really good at this point. Add in the talent around him, plus the coaching, and they are LEGIT. Losing Montgomery hurts them, but I don't think they'll slow down much. I do think that unless they get some guys back, they're too worn down to get through the playoffs, but we'll see.

Has anyone tried that yet? I kinda feel like someone did, but maybe it was in college or something. In any case, it's one of those strategies that relies on luck/variance, and coaches famously hate those. And I get why - they're used to seeing precise planning and execution beating luck consistently. But under the current rules, the best case for a perfectly-executed onside kick attempt seems to still be a recovery less than 10% of the time, and maybe less than 5%. At that point, it's time to embrace randomness. I think there's maybe a parallel with Hail Mary and multi-lateral plays (think Miami Miracle against the Patriots a couple years ago). They're never going to work well enough to be a good full-time strategy. But they'll never stop working some of the time, and that makes them much more dangerous in desperate times than conventional plays. Another analogy: blackjack vs roulette. If played properly, blackjack has a lower house edge (and if you're great at counting cards, you can actually make the house edge negative). Long term, a good blackjack player will consistently fare better than the average roulette player. But if you're trying to get a big win in the short term, playing individual numbers in roulette is much more likely to deliver that than blackjack.

Personally I agree, I’m just trying to look at worst case scenarios (or best case scenarios from Saquon’s perspective). Adrian Peterson’s win was a while ago, but not ancient history. And that win totally broke the mold I mentioned in my last post. If Saquon rattles off a 300-yard game or scores 6 TDs, AND breaks the Dickerson record? I could see the narrative shifting. (TBH, even in that scenario I’d probably still put my money on Allen but it wouldn’t be a lock.)

Huh. Interesting. I have to think it's mostly coincidence, but still interesting. As for the time change, I don't like it but at least it wasn't moved to be a true night game. (Sunset is 4:44pm that day so it will be a night game from a certain point of view.)

At the risk of being gauche, I'm quoting my post from 2 weeks ago to check back in. First off, Allen's 10 total TDs since then have definitely helped his case, as did beating Goff and the Lions yesterday. Second, I checked back on all MVP winners up to but not including Adrian Peterson, and they all had the following in common: 1.) Play QB, 2.) Either 1 or 2 seed in their conference. Most had the best record in their conference, and all but Matt Ryan had 4 losses or fewer. (Ryan's Falcons went 11-5 that year and were the 2 seed, and there weren't any great candidates that year in general.) Let's check back in on the competition: Saquon: Not looking great but I don't think the coffin is nailed shut yet. To have a chance, he needs to break Dickerson's record and I think the Eagles also need to get the 1 seed. He's no longer on pace to break the record but it's still potentially doable. Lamar: If he loses to the Steelers on Saturday, it's over. There's just no way he's winning his third MVP award as a wildcard. His only hope IMO is to win out, hope the Bills falter, and get the 2 seed. Mahomes: Dunzo. It's looking like he'll miss at least 1 game with his ankle sprain, and he hasn't exactly heated up in the last 2 weeks. I just can't see a realistic path for him at this point. Goff: If we fall to the 3 seed (which would shock me, BTW), I think he's the most likely winner, even over Lamar. Voter fatigue is real - and should be, in my opinion. Lions will be either the 1 or 2 seed and Goff has looked great in all but 1 game this year - and he even managed to lead a comeback in that game. Losing to Allen head-to-head isn't great, but he put up ridiculous numbers in that game. With all the injuries on defense, and now losing Montgomery for a while, Goff will be getting more credit for every win they put up down the stretch. Overall, I still say if we're the 1 or 2 seed it's Allen and probably not close.

Totally agree with this. One thing to add from my perspective: the Lombardi trophy is the most important, and what I want the most, but it’s not “the only thing that matters” like a lot of fans seem to think. This is, IMO, a loser mentality. Did these people turn off Talladega Nights after the first half hour and think they’d gotten the message? Just because something is most important doesn’t mean nothing else matters. I’m reminded of the Dodgers pitcher (Kershaw I think) who voluntarily left after throwing 6+ perfect innings. His postgame comments were along the lines of, “a perfect game would be cool, but it’s all about maximizing out chance at the title.” WRONG! Throwing a perfect game is way harder than winning a title and should be celebrated much higher when looking at individual players. Now, in this case, leading a team to victory in the Super Bowl is indeed better and more impressive than winning regular season MVP, but… not by that much. And more importantly, he can do both! I think every fan and employee of the Bills would never want Allen to play a meaningless game just to try to improve his MVP case, and that’s how it should be. But for some people to pretend that regular season MVP is worthless or irrelevant… if you really believed that, why bother watching the games? So yeah, regardless of what happens in the postseason, I want Allen to win the MVP this year, and when it happens, I’ll celebrate with great joy. Wins are worth celebrating.

For me, it’s still Bruce for now, but Josh is on pace to easily overtake him. Once he gets the MVP this year, I’ll flip my vote.

My guess is that it just came down to morale. If the result of the first one had been us barely recovering it and not advancing the ball, I think they probably keep going onsides the rest of the game. But Mack running it down to the 5 was demoralizing. Hard to run it back when your players (who are human, and affected by emotion) just saw the last result.

Hollins feels like exactly what Sherfield was supposed to be. I still don't want Hollins being a major part of the passing game on 3rd/4th down, but I'm very glad to have him on the team. Making plays left and right on special teams, contributing positively on offense both catching and blocking, and seems to be a great guy for locker room culture. Totally on board to bring him back next year.

I don’t expect White to be active for the game. As others have said, he gets a much larger check this week for being called up, but that doesn’t mean he will actually dress for the game.