fergie's ire

Vague title....had to click on it to see if he was fathering babies, getting into confrontation with cops, demanding a trade....or this. So many things he could be at again.

Kirby Jackson?

I think it's stupid that the replay official can't throw a flag. I thought the big push for the change came from facemask calls that weren't made.

Maybe they could sign Tre, Dane, AND Stephon....put the band back together.

Candlesticks always make a nice gift.

Yeah, certainly looked better than that linebacker we drafted in the 3rd a couple years before him. That guy was undersized and completely lost his rookie year. Whatever happened to him?

I've seen others post this and it's not what they did. They would actually hop Cook so that he would run away from Parsons. Josh would continue to roll out the other way and Parsons would chase him. The Bills were going after an undersized back opposite Parsons. I forget his name.

Last year it would have been in the middle of OTAs about 2 weeks before minicamp. So....honeymoon in Orchard Park?

The sad thing is I think things have gotten better. I believe it was just before the Marvin Lewis years, there were reports that Bengals coaches were flying to college games to scout on Saturday and then flying back to coach the game on Sunday.

Do you remember Cook's rookie year? Not only did he do a fair amount of dancing but he also couldn't catch until this year.

I think losing a player like this is the best thing for a team like the Bills. He is a good back but looks better than he would on other teams because of the Bills O-line and the threat of Allen. So, if his success sparks interest in him, take advantage of it. In that scenario, Cook gets paid (which I do not begrudge him at all) and the Bills get assets back which is useful when they have late draft picks and limited salary cap space. It's how good teams stay on top despite draft order and cap.

Some people tend to hold Reid up as a coaching God and forget that he used to be generally regarded as a bad playoff coach. I remembered his poor clock management, but what I'd forgotten until this game is that he wouldn't or couldn't run the ball even in obvious situations. The Eagles had their DEs split really wide and had them charge toward mahomes. Brady would've put Anderson in against that formation and run duo all day long.

I agree that our offense was exceptional. However, someone pointed out that end of game drives have ended in failure. But why? Josh used to always find a way at the end of games, even the 16 seconds game and the hail Murray. So why these failures? Receivers or scheme...or just odds? Maybe the Daboll strategy of two plays to get 10 yards is better end of game than the Brady consistent 3 or 4 yards per play? I'm just not sure.

And one week earlier, the Bills took control of the game by running Ray Davis with Cook on the sideline. I have a lot of problems with the game Brady called but just saying you need your best back on the field is a little bit simplistic and shaped by hindsight.

Agreed. And it's not even really a rebuild year. It's really a tear down year and NEXT year they can start to rebuild.

What year is it out there?

Yes, it is an advantage that New England had all these years that I hadn't thought. When your division is crap and you can count on winning it, you can afford to take guys out. In years past, I'd hear people say "I would rest X because we know we can beat Y without him." I didn't trust that approach because the margins are so slim in the NFL, but when you know that even if you DO lose to Y you still control the vision you can sit guys. If you lose to a bad opponent then oh well...now we'll have to be more careful in the future...but until you do lose one or two of those games you can sit guys.

I agree about that particular play...and at least one lineman seemed to give up chasing him. However, in general, has anyone been talking about the Bills D being held? Ed Oliver, in particular, looked like he was egregiously held all day. He would split blockers and both would grab on to him. Was I the only one seeing what looked like really bad holds on every play? And Dawkins is the one called on a perfectly executed block? I am not usually a "blame the ref" kind of guy, and wondering if I'm seeing things because it looked really bad and obvious to me.

That's what I was trying to get at. To take an extreme example, suppose the ball had started 2nd and goal at the 7 and it looked like Josh ran to the 4 but they mark it back at the 6. Can McDermott challenge that it should've been a touchdown even if he (and everyone in the stadium) knows it wasn't but make that challenge just to get the 2 yards? It seems odd, but I don't see how he could be stopped from making the challenge.

I've seen a lot of people saying McDermott should've challenged the spot of the ball. My understanding is that is not challengeable as it's considered a judgment call. He could've challenged that it should've been a touchdown (which is challengeable) even though it clearly wasn't. I did see a case recently (don't remember where) that a coach challenged whether a player made the first down. Replay showed that while the player went down short of the marker, he was closer than the previous spot. The coach lost the challenge, but the spot was corrected. Could McDermott have done this when it was obvious he would lose the challenge (and a timeout) just to get an improved spot? I'm not sure.

Correction. They only had one penalty called on them. They didn't commit any.

I don't think you can say they "became conservative." They threw the ball more than twice as much in the second half than the first half. I would say that most of those throws came in the fourth quarter and my complaint would be that the coaching staff was slow to counter Baltimore's adjustments. I get it since they had the lead and their plan had been working, but would be good to recognize Baltimore's adjustment sooner.

My point is that they had to pass for 500 yards because they couldn't run. Look at all the discussion (on this board and in the media). Detroit was a bad matchup because they were going to kill them with the run. Bills took it away early and they got behind. My concern with the Ravens is that the same thing will happen but without the falling behind part.

It does make it tough that both Henry and Lamar run the ball so well. It can make it hard to scheme against them. However, I am less worried about the Ravens running attack than almost everyone seems to be. Whenever the Bills are going up against a great running attack there is much wringing of hands and saying "Oh no, we can't stop the run" and then more often than not, our defense does IF that is what they are keying on. Yes, Henry ran a lot against us in the first matchup but I am not sure if the Bills came in keying on him as much as they should have. Yes, he ran for 150 the week before but most thought that had more to do with Dallas (who couldn't stop ANYONE) than Henry who had 84 and 46 against the Raiders and Chiefs at that point. I think of the Seattle game ("OH NO!! THEY'RE GOING TO RUN ALL OVER US!!) and the Detroit game (OH NO!! THEY'RE GOING TO RUN ALL OVER US!!) and many games in years past and it just didn't materialize. That said, with Baltimore, I do worry if the Bills scheme for the run that they will kill us in the passing game, particularly to the tight ends.

Agreed. Then, even if you manage to get a two touchdown lead they get the ball to start the half and if they drive down and score they are right back in it. Just need one stop. I think the best approach is the way it went in Detroit. Give them the ball and be aggressive on defense early. If the Bills get burned for a big play, so be it, but hopefully they get a stop or two, get up on them and because they get the ball first in the second half make it hard to come back. If you take the ball first and get the lead, it's not a real lead. It's like holding serve in tennis.