Jump to content

We're onto Miami(Miami's headed to Buffalo)...opening line BUF -10! Game at 1:05 PM SUN 1/15


Big Turk

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:


 

So basically you don’t want the Bills to “tip their hand”, but by activating Beasley and forcing the Dolphins go back and gameplan for Beasley is a bad thing?

 

It is not lalalala crap - it is I genuinely do not understand what difference it makes if the Bills know the extent of the Hammy injury and expect that he is not going to play - why not get Cole activated.  The Dolphins would have been planning for him - just as the Bills are planning for Skylar, but still watching for Bridgewater news.

 

The Biggest loss in all this to me is McK typically plays Hill in the scout team and now you have lost that.

 

We will see, but I expect (as you said in an earlier post) - you will have Cole doing his part, Shakir doing the man routes more, and Hines doing the heavy motion/sweeps.  
 

 

 

Dude, if you’re gonna respond to me, could you please take the time to read what I’ve written?  Otherwise, you’re just talking at me and there’s really not much point

 

OK one more time: Beane could elevate Beasley any time between now and Saturday afternoon.  There is no advantage to do it sooner.  Beasley will not be more motivated or more involved in the game plan if he’s elevated now vs Weds.  If McKenzie is going to be out, no reason to tell the Dolphins now and not Saturday

 

The only reason I can think of to do it now and not Saturday is to make the Dolphins prepare defensively for some of the plays we used to have in the playbook for Beasley, that got taken out.  That would be a good thing for us, just as making us prepare for 2 QBs is a good thing for them

Edited by Beck Water
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nineforty said:

 

I've had this feeling that Bridgewater will be the QB since McDaniel's weird comment about Teddy's recovery/availability for Sunday.  

This comment about significant handshake work is the first actual datapoint or anecdote that lends credence to this that I've seen..

Yeah I didn't get that. So basically he's doing some josh Allen style handshakes and that's our way of guessing his availability for the game?  Kind of a silly thing to report but maybe that was his purpose. 

Hulk Hogan Handshake GIF

Edited by Goin Breakdown
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

OK one more time: Beane could elevate Beasley any time between now and Saturday afternoon.

 

The Bills may want to have Beasley, Brown and a DL called up from the PS.

Only 2 can be called up per week.

Thus someone (Cole) got signed to the main roster.

 

The Bills only have 4 WRs and it seems that McKenzie is out so getting a 5th WR on the roster is not a crazy idea.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

Fine “does not involve the QB as an option to carry the ball”, does that help?  

 

The point is the OP to which I was responding indicated an RPO could not be run effectively if the QB is not a proficient runner.  But they can.

 

https://footballadvantage.com/rpo-football/

 

They just gain another dimension when the QB can also run,

I didn’t read your previous exchanges on the matter, I was just seeking some clarification on your wording. And you’re correct, a QB need not necessarily be a great runner to execute RPOs as they’re designed. Unlike a read option play. 

1 hour ago, The Wiz said:

What still confuses me is how they call Josh's RPO's "RPOs".  A lot of the time it's a fake hand off to the RB and then Josh runs it.  More of an RRO than an RPO even though they do actual RPOs the same way.  Is that really an RPO or does it have a different name that they just don't say?

Perhaps you’re thinking of a read option play. RPOs are just that, options to run or pass whereas the read option is strictly a running play by either the RB if the QB hands off or by the QB if he chooses not to.

Edited by K-9
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:


 

So basically you don’t want the Bills to “tip their hand”, but by activating Beasley and forcing the Dolphins go back and gameplan for Beasley is a bad thing?

 

It is not lalalala crap - it is I genuinely do not understand what difference it makes if the Bills know the extent of the Hammy injury and expect that he is not going to play - why not get Cole activated.  The Dolphins would have been planning for him - just as the Bills are planning for Skylar, but still watching for Bridgewater news.

 

The Biggest loss in all this to me is McK typically plays Hill in the scout team and now you have lost that.

 

We will see, but I expect (as you said in an earlier post) - you will have Cole doing his part, Shakir doing the man routes more, and Hines doing the heavy motion/sweeps.  
 

 

 

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

Dude, if you’re gonna respond to me, could you please take the time to read what I’ve written?  Otherwise, you’re just talking at me and there’s really not much point

 

OK one more time: Beane could elevate Beasley any time between now and Saturday afternoon.  There is no advantage to do it sooner.  Beasley will not be more motivated or more involved in the game plan if he’s elevated now vs Weds.  If McKenzie is going to be out, no reason to tell the Dolphins now and not Saturday

 

The only reason I can think of to do it now and not Saturday is to make the Dolphins prepare defensively for some of the plays we used to have in the playbook for Beasley, that got taken out.  That would be a good thing for us, just as making us prepare for 2 QBs is a good thing for them

 

 

They didnt "activate" Beasley.  They signed him to the 53 roster.  Thats probably what you mean but there is a difference between activating from the PS and signing him to the 53.  They probably are just doing this so they can call up someone else as they can only use 2 callups per game.

Edited by Scott7975
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I think people are seriously underestimating the Dolphins. They played us close both games and we haven't had a comfortable win in months. They really should have beat us the last game. 

 

 

 

Yeah, I am underestimating them but it doesnt matter because I am just a fan.  The Bills will win this game.  I dont care about comfortable.  All I care about is W's.  

 

The Pats game was comfortable.  As was the Chicago game.  Unless you are expecting like 5 score blowouts thats as comfortable as it gets.    If you say they really should have beat us the last game, I would say we really should have beat them the first game.  

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I think people are seriously underestimating the Dolphins. They played us close both games and we haven't had a comfortable win in months. They really should have beat us the last game. 

 

 

I think some are, but the majority of the fans are looking realistically at this game and thinking the Bills should win comforrtably.  The Bills are the better team and the Dolphins will be playing a backup QB.  Fortunately, the players don't think like the fans and take any team for granted.  The Bills know that to advance, they need to play their very best in each of the upcoming games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I think people are seriously underestimating the Dolphins. They played us close both games and we haven't had a comfortable win in months. They really should have beat us the last game. 

 

 

I never underestimate any opponent, but I disagree that Miami should have beat us. Review the 4th quarter after the Phins kicked their FG to go up 29-21 with 12 minutes to go because from that point on Allen simply took over the game including burning the last six minutes of the game by driving 86 yards to set up Bass’s winning FG. Teams that “should” have won simply don’t give up two long scoring drives to the opponent with the game on the line in the 4th quarter.

 

If a team “should” have won it was us in the first meeting when we dominated Miami in every area except the final score. We lost that game more than Miami won it whereas we earned every bit of our win in December. 

Edited by K-9
  • Like (+1) 4
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I think people are seriously underestimating the Dolphins. They played us close both games and we haven't had a comfortable win in months. They really should have beat us the last game. 

 

 

Good thing it doesn't matter what you think, the game is out of your control.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

They didnt "activate" Beasley.  They signed him to the 53 roster.  Thats probably what you mean but there is a difference between activating from the PS and signing him to the 53.  They probably are just doing this so they can call up someone else as they can only use 2 callups per game.

 

I agree of course, the question (to me) is why do this today, vs waiting until Saturday 4 pm (I believe that’s the deadline)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

Bears were leading at halftime. 

falcons were leading 28-3 at halftime in the superbowl.

colts were leading 33-3 at halftime.

Oilers were leading 31-3 at halftime.

 

 

Side note: when I google "NFL the comeback" it still references the bills comeback game against the oiler and not the Minny game against the colts.

Edited by The Wiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I think people are seriously underestimating the Dolphins. They played us close both games and we haven't had a comfortable win in months. They really should have beat us the last game. 

 

 


Are you the Lionel from Good Times?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

falcons were leading 28-3 at halftime in the superbowl.

colts were leading 33-3 at halftime.

Oilers were leading 31-3 at halftime.

 

 

Side note: when I google "NFL the comeback" it still references the bills comeback game against the oiler and not the Minny game against the colts.

What's your point? None of those games were comfortable wins... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I think people are seriously underestimating the Dolphins. They played us close both games and we haven't had a comfortable win in months. They really should have beat us the last game. 

 

 

 

Eh, no Tua which is a huge deal. I won't go as far as to say they should have beat us, but on the same note we should have beat them Game 1, Allen missed the pass.

 

Any team without their starting QB is a shell though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

It’s a 4 quarter game bro 

 

Any NFL game won by 22 points at the end of the fourth quarter is a dominating victory 

The Bills dominated the second half but it wasn't comfortable until that point. I don't get why that is so hard for anyone to understand. 

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lionel Hutz said:

The Bills dominated the second half but it wasn't comfortable until that point. I don't get why that is so hard for anyone to understand. 

There are highs and lows in a football game and you need to weather the storms

 

 

If the final score was 35-28 than yea it was close 

 

It was 35 to 13… We doubled their first downs and doubled their yards 

 

It was a dominating victory 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

The Bills dominated the second half but it wasn't comfortable until that point. I don't get why that is so hard for anyone to understand. 

The last I knew the game is played for 4 quarters. So far I've seen nothing that makes much sense from you in this thread. But you carry on, it's quite entertaining.

Edited by DaBillsFanSince1973
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I think people are seriously underestimating the Dolphins. They played us close both games and we haven't had a comfortable win in months. They really should have beat us the last game. 

 

 

 

I was with you for a bit there but then we got to no comfortable wins and dolphins should have beat the bills and then I'm out on lionel hutz

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I never underestimate any opponent, but I disagree that Miami should have beat us. Review the 4th quarter after the Phins kicked their FG to go up 29-21 with 12 minutes to go because from that point on Allen simply took over the game including burning the last six minutes of the game by driving 86 yards to set up Bass’s winning FG. Teams that “should” have won simply don’t give up two long scoring drives to the opponent with the game on the line in the 4th quarter.

 

If a team “should” have won it was us in the first meeting when we dominated Miami in every area except the final score. We lost that game more than Miami won it whereas we earned every bit of our win in December. 

You have this 100% correct. No one says LV should have beaten KC or LA should have beaten KC. They always say KC finds ways to win in those 3pt games. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Because it's "tipping your hand" offensively as to what game plan intentions may be

 

 

First of all...I don't think we even know yet that McK DNP'd.  He wasn't out there during the media portion of practice, but it's not unprecedented for players the media didn't see to be listed as DNP

 

Do you really think that players on the PS aren't "involved and active 100%" without being officially elevated, especially if they know they're in the game plan?

 

 

 

Flip it around...even if this move is required, why does the GM make it now and not Saturday?  Why tip off the Dolphins that maybe McKenzie's injury is significant and he'll be inactive?  Why not leave them guessing?

 

 


What if we dress McK and Beasley, but make Shakir a healthy scratch…

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...