hondo in seattle

So Dunne's story is absolute truth and Hyde's comments to the contrary are garbage because he has a motivation to be complimentary? And Dunne is devoid of personal motivations?

I wonder why Dunne didn't interview Micah Hyde.

Joe's is a national treasure. And affordably priced. I've been to maybe a dozen BBQ places in KC. My favorite burnt ends were at Q39. Amazing.

Josh just said that there's a "We've got a lot of trust in this locker room and confidence in each other... We're going to have to believe it, to do it. And this is a team that believes it..." [We have a] "very, very good feel in this locker room right now." Seems different than Dunne's characterization. Someone's wrong. www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/josh-allen-makes-confident-buffalo-bills-promise-with-nfl-postseason-hopes-dwindling/ar-AA1la3GM?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6230e01c12284564b5ff372d3b2fb051&ei=43

In India, they say when a pickpocket walks down the street, all he sees are pockets. In science, it's called confirmation bias. We tend to see what we're looking for. I never suggested Dunne is lying. I think, maybe, Dunne doesn't like McD and so he looks for disgruntled ex-Bills employees to agree with him. And that's what he prints. I don't think he made up a single quote. I don't think he said a single thing he doesn't believe to be true. I just think that, maybe, he's wrong. I think a pro-McD journalist could write a very different article with lots of true quotes about how great McD is. If I was Terry, I wouldn't read this board or Tyler's article. I'd talk to Beane, the subordinate coaches, and the players. I'd try to get a good 360-degree of McD from the people who matter.

Well, this is part of the problem... on both sides of the argument. When facts support our point of view, we're all over them. When facts disagree with our view, we find ways to discount them.

Sadly, my view of journalism is that it's one of the lower-integrity professions in America. I've read too many bad, one-sided articles. I know there are also good journalists, and I loved the human-interest stories Dunne did when in Buffalo. But, other than that, I have no knowledge or opinion of the man. I don't know if he's capable of writing a hit job or not. I don't know if he has any personal animus toward McD and is unbiased. I'm just not going to accept anything a journalist says as gospel truth. You seem to know Dunne better than I do and hold him to be credible. I respect that. I'm just not in the same place.

You didn't like McD before Dunne's article. You don't like him now. So I guess BBG is right: it didn't move the needle.

I see the world of journalism a bit differently. In politics as well as sports, journalists write one-sided articles either for clicks or to support their opinion. They cherry-pick facts all the time. You don't have to be a journalist to see that. A NYT columnist visited my armored cavalry squadron when I was in Saudi just before the Gulf War. We were instructed to give him unlimited access to the troops. So he gathered a circle of soldiers and started talking to them about President Bush fishing in Kennebunkport instead of in DC working the phones to end this crisis. According to the soldiers involved, he seemed to be trying to rile them up. He then asked if any of the soldiers were resentful. The soldiers who were there told me they didn't really give a crap what the CINC was doing. Mostly they cared about the mission in front of us, not high-level political maneuvers. Finally, seemingly frustrated, the reporter asked the most discontented soldier if he could quote him something like, "Bush needs to get off his ass, out of Kennebunkport, and do something." (I don't recall the exact words). The soldier said, no, he had, in fact, said no such thing. Then he asked the others if he could ascribe that quote to one of them. A young private said he could attribute the quote to him. That quote - that none of my soldiers ever actually spoke - made the NYT and the national news. He got tons of fan mail and care packages for that quote. I got an ass-chewing. I'm guessing the article about frustrated, disillusioned soldiers was written on the plane trip to the desert and the reporter just needed someone to assign the quotes to. The actual facts & opinions on the ground didn't matter. So, from personal experience, I don't trust journalists from the Pulitzer-winning New York Times let alone journalists from Go Long.

I have a friend who roots for a bunch of different sports teams. His disappointment at Bills losses is counterbalanced by wins delivered by some of his other favorite clubs. Me, I just follow the Bills. So, when I have a bad week, personally and/or professionally, and then the Bills lose, there is no consolation. I just try to be Stoic about it and accept reality as it's handed to me.

If I was a reporter who wanted to write a negative article about a HC, I'd do the following: * Interview every coach and player who I suspect has a negative opinion of the coach. * Include all the worst comments in the article. * Include a couple of positive observations in the piece just to make it seem like I'm fair and balanced. * Imply that the negative sentiments represent a consensus even when they don't. I'm not sure Dunne did all this. But I don't know that he didn't. I'm hoping that Terry spends enough time with the team to have a true understanding of what the coaches and players think of McD and how he actually operates. If Dunne is, in fact, giving a fair portrait of the man, he deserves to be fired. I'm just not confident that he is.

Let me be the naysayer who gets smacked around for a divergent view... I like Dunne. And he says he talked to 25 people for this article. That's an impressive number. But I wonder who he talked to and which ones he quoted? Coaches who were fired? Players who were cut? It would be nice if he sought out a random sample. Both McD detractors and fans. But he seemingly didn't do that. I'm not arguing McD is perfect and doesn't do any wrong. I just don't think Dunne's article is the final word. We've heard a lot of players talk about how much they love the culture of the Bills. Things aren't all bad.

If the cap was a myth, I think Pegula would have dumped a bunch of money into the Bills bank account and let Beane go on a shopping spree that would have included better offensive linemen, receivers, DBs, etc. The reason we don't have the best roster in the NFL is because Beane does have a cap and doesn't manage it quite as well as some other GMs. Restructuring is kicking the can down the road. It solves short-term problems but becomes problematic later.

Actually, I mentioned 'coaching mistakes' but I guess I could have named him. And as I've said elsewhere, McD is the head coach. Josh's mistakes are his mistakes. Dorsey's mistakes are his mistakes. Any mistake by a player or subordinate coach goes back to McD. So, to boil it down, there are two main culprits in this year's story: Beane for not building a better roster and McD for not doing more with it. But I also acknowledge the fact that the Bills have been better under Beane/McD than they've been under other GM/HC combos. Still, this has not been a good year and they both need to share the blame.

I think the disappointment this year has been a team effort. Beane has not given McD a SB calibre roster. Injuries have hurt us. Josh went through a slump. Dorsey got stale as an OC. There have been other coaching mistakes. Player mistakes (drops, missed assignments, etc.) seem to come at the worst times. Lady Luck hasn't been our friend. If we were to take this same roster and coaching staff (i.e. without Dorsey) into 2024, I think it does much better assuming it stays healthy. But I'd love to see some positional upgrades.

I think the problem is more complicated than McD. I don't think McD is having a good year. But I also think the defensive injuries have really hurt the defense. And Dorsey got stale as an OC. And Josh went through a slump. Mostly, I think Beane has not yet built a SB-caliber roster. With the clarity of hindsight, the Von Miller contract was a mistake and took money away from other position groups. And his drafting has been spotty. Overall, he's built a good roster but not a great one. We can't just blame one guy.

The offense seems to be back on track. But we need more than a 2-game Brady sample to know for sure. The defense, with all the key injuries, really struggles at times. It's still a good team, but not good enough to win out against this schedule.

I respect your point of view. When I was young, I fancied myself a wide receiver. But when I watched football, my attention was always drawn to the running backs. Maybe because back then they were the most athletic guys on the field. And OJ was an amazing athlete. Watching him weave and power through a defense was like watching an artist at work. Earl was a bruiser. Not as beautiful to watch. But, man, he was impressive. Derrick Henry is an apt comparison for Campbell. Henry is also powerful and fun to watch. But he's a poor man's Earl Campbell. And, while in my eyes, OJ was the better of the two, I think it's clear that there are no backs today as talented as either Campbell or Simpson (or Barry).

I loved Earl Campbell. And wouldn't he be great on the Bills with all the power and passion? Put guys in the box to stop Earl, and we'll throw it over the top. Play in a soft zone, and Earl will ram the ball up your gut. We'd be so hard to defend. But OJ was better.

This is good info. Thanks. I've also heard a couple of people criticize Dorsey for using motion pointlessly on some plays. I don't see how it's ever pointless. Even if it's a running play and you don't particularly care if the D is in zone or man, you still might want to put a guy in motion to influence the defensive alignment. Or simply to not telegraph that it's a running play. You never want to fall into a pattern where, for example, someone can say, "The Bills only use motion in x and y situations." Random use of motion makes the offense less readable.

Many teams, maybe most, put a spy on OJ. Fergie became a good QB in later years but when he first got to the NFL his job was to hand off. Our passing attack in 1973 wasn't anything special. Neither was our defense. So the opposing team's game plan was to slow OJ down. If they did that, they'd win. With an entire defense focused on him every week, OJ still averaged 143 yards. People forget the rules were different then. Hash marks were wider out often squeezing the offense against a sideline. Linemen couldn't block with their hands. And so on. Virtually all the rule changes since the 1970s have favored the offense gaining yards and scoring easier. Schemes and philosophies were different back then. More RBs were taken #1 overall in the draft in the 1970s than QBs. While QBs were important, many teams built their offenses around bell cow running backs. The best athletes didn't become WRs and CBs, they became RBs. The coaching mantra was: Establish the run to open the pass. Then it was all about the run. So defenses were designed to stop the run. The Nickel defense we currently run as our base would be considered a pass-prevent defense back then. LBs weren't coverage guys and blitz specialists. They were big, violent thumpers like Dick Butkus and Chuck Bednarik whose sole goal in life was to crush running backs. By 1997, Barry's best year, the league had changed. Seasons were longer, defenses were more concerned with the pass, and the rule changes made it easier for offenses to move the ball and score. Barry topped out at 2053 but a couple other guys also took advantage of the changes and finished over 1500 yards. Still, it was a very good year for Barry as he finished an impressive 17% above the next best guy. In 1973, in a 14 games season where the best athletes played running back and defenses were focused on the run, OJ got 2003 yards - a whopping 75% more yards than the next best guy. OJ wasn't just a little better than his peers. He was on a different freaking planet. His combination of speed, grace, power, elusiveness, and vision were otherworldly. I am old enough to have watched OJ in his prime. And I don't think I've ever seen an NFL player - not even Brady - play at a level that was so much ahead of what everyone else was doing. Brady's career was amazing but how much better in his best years was he than Rodgers, Brees, or Manning. Not much - if at all. On the other hand, once Lou Saban came to town, everyone in the NFL knew OJ was the best back in the game and there was little-to-no debate.

Of course, Joe is right. A guy can play a good game, do what the team asks him to do, and not be a statistical standout. Still, Joe might be trying to get ahead of Gabe's discontent and/or massage a hurt ego.

I want Josh to have all the stuff you mentioned in the bolded parts!

It's frustrating because our OL is better than last year and yet we've been struggling in recent weeks (minus the Jets game) on offense. So although I'm happy with the progress the line has made, it's not performing as well as the NFL's elite lines. I know some analytics site somewhere says it is but, watching games, I don't believe it.

This is a hard one but I'm going... Offense: Diggs Defense: Floyd And I'm calling a Bills win. Their respective W-L records make the Eagles look like a significantly better team. But the Bills have a higher offensive, defensive, and total DVOA. The Bills also have a much higher point differential. And Brady has upgraded the offense. And the Bills just need the game more than Philly. Furthermore, Philly beat their SB nemesis last week. That was their big, emotional regular season game. They won't be as high for the Bills.