timekills17

I like lamp.

But what if he's a priest?

After the first fumble and then the Gabe drop to INT - I completely agreed. After the fumbled handoff, which everyone seems to attribute to JA17, I thought "If I were Cook, I would have been looking that ball into my stomach so hard that I might take a loss before I let it go." And then he fumbled on the 41 yard play, which thankfully (although ultimately didn't matter) bounced right back to him. So yeah - it was probably a little drastic at the time. But maybe the coach(es) were concerned that Cook is more prone to "bad fumble days"; i.e. he is always really good at ball control except those rare days he isn't. And that was one of those days. At the time he went back in it wouldn't really have mattered if he fumbled again. We needed his offense and could risk the TO because they were going to lose without his skillset. And lo and behold it happened twice more that day to the guy who had "only fumbled twice in 27 games." Now back to Josh and Mc'D's comments: just like the Cook benching, I'm reserving judgement until I see a result. I won't need to wait long, but not going to judge his comments based on what I *think* (unlike most talking heads who seem to know what Diggs is thinking better than Diggs does.)

Mitch goes to NY Giants, and Davis Webb returns to the Bills.

This defense is built on playing the teams we have to beat, and how our offense is designed. If our offense is playing anywhere near their potential, they can score quickly. So another quick-strike offense is the most likely to cause us challenge. If we give up time-consuming short/medium passes and runs - that's fine. Even if occasionally (~45% of the time) when they get to the red zone they score a TD. Because it usually took a long time to get there. Tthe expectation - and the reality across the past three seasons - is that our offense will return fire, but faster. That also means they take a few risks across the middle to try and make a turn-over, because they can afford to let the play be executed. When they get into the red zone, they take less risks, and play tighter rather than taking guesses on plays vs. formation and scheme they've seen. We see it in the results of the red zone defense. Not to mention our defense is lateral quickness rather than straight-line speed so as the field length compresses it plays into their hands. It's frustrating watching teams make play after play, especially on 3rd and 7+. But if you understand that is how the defense is designed, it is a bit less stressful. You can actually get excited waiting for either the turnover, or the move into the Bills' side of the field past the 30-yard line - because then you know the heat is on, and it's playing into the defense's strength. This isn't homerish; look at the long term results and play style rather than any single play. The risk is a player who can get that intermediate play and quickly - and repeatedly - turn it into TDs, especially on a day when our offense isn't playing well. But every team has to play a risk vs. reward game in the NFL.* *It's the reason the playoffs often look so different. A scheme that works 75% of the time - including keeping players fresh and healthy - is successful across a season, but might not be in any one game. Teams talk "one game seasons" and players have to play that way, but coaches have to play the long game... Until the playoffs.

I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word "objective". Based on W-L record, they're objectively 2nd. Based on head-to-head they're objectively first. Based on strength of victory they're objectively first. Based on point differential they're objectively first. Based on Johnnyp566 subjective rankings, they're third.

Yes. Either it catches you and kills you quickly, or it catches you and plays with you for a while before killing you. It's about 50/50 which of those happens.

I might go so far as to say the CBA could include some verbiage connecting salary to allowed practice time. That might help temper some of the salary inflation. If you want to be paid top 10%, be prepared to commit extra mandatory time practicing with the team to earn it.

I'd rather see them move Taiwan Jones to safety. I mean - that's crazy, right? He's a "running back". But he has the straight line speed, he has the build, he has the agility, and he has the open field tackling from years of special teams play...

Somewhat coincidentally, he goes on to execute said idea after suffering an injury...

Especially when they do their 3/11th.

In my vast legal experience (I've watched A Few Good Men a bunch of times), I'd say that is a much more appropriate and viable legal case than the one the idiot is bringing against Wagner/Rams.

This was answered by both Josh after the game and McDermott later. The gist of it was Allen was concerned that the referees would see it as either a fumble or at best call it grounding. The rules allowing a spike are specific and that play would normally be an "intentional grounding". So JA17 made a snap decision to try and get something out of it rather than risk a loss of down and 10 second runoff of clock. McDermott later said that he thinks the referees would have had some leniency and recognized it wasn't an intentional try to fake spike and then actually spike - but I'm not sure JA17 isn't right in his assessment. Either way, it was *intended* to be a spike to stop the clock.

I kind of like (anybody) when they've had too much wine and are cracking on the Dallas Cowboys...

Even if true - and I think most of the additional depletion you speak of was temporary/heat exhaustion, not injury/long-term - 'm not sure it answers the question. I'd say the Chiefs loss was less expected and raises more questions about the team due to the poor offensive showing than did the Bills' loss. However, the Bills was against a conference *and* division opponent, so that is critical. If the Dolphins end up playing well ala the Pats last year, this game could make a difference even in the AFCE race. (I don't think it will, but from a "how important a loss" perspective, it could be.)