TheWei44
-
Posts
582 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TheWei44
-
-
25 minutes ago, Logic said:
I thoughts Sean McDermott's explanation of it was well stated. It was clear he had a really tough time with the decision. He even said if it was 4th and 2 they would've gone for it, but 4th and 3 was a bridge too far. He rightly pointed out that even if they Bills had gone for it and converted, it wouldn't have necessarily put the game away, as the Cardinals still had all three timeouts.
All in all, I was okay with the decision, because putting the opposing offense in a situation where they need a TD instead of a FG adds a SIGNIFICANT amount of stress and difficulty. Also, without that extra three points, that game was likely headed to overtime yesterday, as the Cards were already in field goal position at the end of the game.
I don't fault anyone who would've preferred to go for it, but I thought it was the right call in the moment.At the time, I saw 4th and 3 on the field/live game and 4th and 2 on my phone (checking other scores during commercial, I think) - I said to my son something like "if it's really 4th and 2, maybe we'll go for it" and then saw it confirmed for sure 4th and 3 on the field.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Rough start but a lot of positives by the end of the game. One thing is clear - We have a lot of receivers now with "good" hands (and Von is back).
-
3
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, HIT BY SPIKES said:
A Blow Out by the Bills coming up.
I'm strangely sensing that too, HBS! Hope we're right! Go Bills!!
-
1
-
-
Rousseau on D and Cook on O.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Straight sets! First semis in a grand slam!
-
3
-
-
Bills 31 Cards 20
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Fan in Chicago said:
She has maximized her talent and done quite well on the courts. I give her kudos.
I had purchased tickets to the Sunday night session several weeks back. Leading up to that night, I was fervently hoping for a Pegula and Tiafoe double bill but only one of them turned out to be scheduled advantageusly (for me). Tiafoe's game was quite entertaining and the crowd was loud in his support. If JP had played the second game, my vocal cords would have taken weeks to recover.
Anyone who plays to the best of her capabilities deserves major kudos as JP does.
I heard Tiafoe and Jess are friends and sometimes hit with each other
-
Great post! And it's exciting to think about what we'll write about 2024 in 2025 - Too early to make that prediction!
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Comebackkid said:
Think I'd rather have a smooth lombardi 😛
Or how about Vincent Lombardi? Couldn't hurt to have a guy that's an amazing coach too!
-
1
-
1
-
-
And to think I just ponied up for a signed M Milano football - It was from a charity auction at least. Ugh!
-
Not what I want to happen but here goes:
Bengals lose to Lions in Super Bowl
Bills lose to Bengals in AFCCG in Cincinnati
Cook does not drop any easy catches for TDs
Von plays in less than 12 games this year
-
I've said it before - Part of the important context with Brady/late last season is that our backs were against the wall. That's when we've always unleashed Josh more as a runner. So I think that was a big factor in any observed shifts to favoring the run//less passing. My hunch is that early next season, Josh will run less (but hopefully still be allowed to "be himself", which is a dual threat and able to run at times).
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Rampant Buffalo said:
Why is Ticketmaster entitled to engage in monopoly type pricing?
To be clear, I am not "supporting" TM. But offering some econ insights that are relevant. Monopolies or near monopolies can exist for several benign reasons. For example, growing super fast b/c you're more efficient than your competitors; natural monopoly where scale economies favor just one competitor. So if we observe a monopoly, near monopoly, duopoly, etc., and nothing nefarious has occurred in terms of achieving that status, the "high" prices are what we'd expect and are not "anti competitive" - If the company does "bad things" to achieve or try to achieve a monopoly, then that's completely different. And if the monopolist does things to harm the competitive process, that's a huge problem too. But my basic point is that we shouldn't just simply equate "high prices" to "monopolist" to "bad actor" without delving into the details.
-
Food for thought: Pricing in a competitive market with 100 pizza joints will be competitive. Pricing in a (legal) monopoly will not be competitive. So the question is not "Are TM's prices too high"? but rather "Are TM's prices higher than they should be in a monopoly or similar setting?" Another issue is whether the monopolist has engaged in conduct that has harmed the competitive process.
-
2 hours ago, Sweats said:
Miami is clearly at the top, are they?........the Miami media hype machine blows their offensive stats out of proportion every year and every year, good teams steamroll them.
What has changed with the Fins in terms of O weapons from this year from the past 3? They have good, fast WR's, however, they still have Tua.
No idea how Miami is "clearly" at the top of the list.
#wtfconfused
This highlights whether we're taking WR/TEs/RBs only or those+QB. Totally fine to focus on the former, but the latter is obviously critical too and a different question. Since we have a "top 2/3" QB, we don't necessarily need the absolutely most elite set of WR/TE/RBs. And we have a very good offensive line too.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Doc said:
Samuel doesn't have alligator arms. So he's got that going for him. Which is nice...
The 53-man roster or would PS work?
My son is starting a caddie job for the first time - None of us in the family really play golf - But I love that movie and was fun to see that my son needed to be dropped off at the caddyshack for training! You scratched my anchor!
-
1
-
-
Like one person wrote, I was thinking NE @ home @ 1 pm for the opener. I'd love that as our first game. My hunch is division rival at home. If not NE, then maybe Miami.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Chaos said:
This is a good analogy which can apply to the Bills in quite a few ways.
Like last night when I had AA and opponent had A10 and flop had both an A and 10 in it!! Good times for me!
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Logic said:
Yeah.
I think one of Dorsey's weaknesses was that his offense was reactive instead of attacking. Instead of saying "this is what we're gonna do, and we're gonna put you in a bind", I think his offense was predicated on the idea of "we always have an answer for what you show defensively". It was focused on always having the "right" answer to whatever the defense presented. They'd start really slow until they saw what the opposing defense was gonna be doing, then they'd build the "right" gameplan based on that. At least that's how it seemed to me.
At some point during Dorsey's second season, one or more of the players (I wanna say Josh, but I can't remember for sure) said something like "we need to get back to dictating to defenses and not worry so much about what they're doing, but instead say 'here's what WE'RE doing' and make them stop us". Something like that. And that makes a lot of sense.
My hope is that Brady installs a heavily matchup-based offense that attacks defenses, rather than waiting for them to attack first. That he moves his diverse group of skill players all around the formation and gives defensive coordinators headaches. That the Bills offense gets back to thinking a bit less, and instead just having fun out there and attacking.
One thing to watch this season with Brady is how he runs things when we are not in "do or die" mode (i.e., in a position where we're willing to let Josh run loose if necessary b/c our backs are against the wall re making the playoffs). As with many things, it'll be about finding the right balance with Josh (don't reign him in too much but don't let him take a lot of hits running the ball). I'd like to see a diverse, creative, unpredictable attack tailored to the opponent . . . But I guess that pretty much goes without saying! Go Bills.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Just in Atlanta said:
Facts all come with points of view. Facts don't do what I want them to. Facts just twist the truth around.
And we're . . . still waiting!!
-
1
-
-
As much as I liked how Brady did, those bubble screens to Diggs behind the LOS made no sense to me. Diggs has never been a "yards after catch" guy for the most part, and he's not built nor is he comfortable being essentially a running back in my view. He is not always averse to contact but there are plenty of plays where he avoids it. I'm guessing one or more drops on those screens was hearing the footsteps of the defenders. I am all for trying new things, but I was never a fan of those bubble screens to Diggs.
-
1
-
-
The more interesting question, perhaps, is what did Tampa/Brady/defense do to beat the Chiefs with Mahomes in the Super Bowl?! Maybe a blueprint for us? I'm mostly kidding, but it's one stark example of Chiefs with Mahomes failing/having a bad game in the playoffs!
-
13 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:
I see people say stuff like this all the time. If going into Sunday you would know that the Bills would have the ball deep in Chiefs territory and with the win in the hands of their Super Star at HOME, I’m betting both you and I would take that circumstance all day, every day!
Completely agree! But that's also besides the point. There's a tendency to focus on one or two plays and say if such and such had happened or didn't happen, then the outcome of the game would have been different. Except for the literal last play of the game, when the result may determine the game, all other individual plays are just part of the mosaic of the game, if you will. It's a little pet peeve of mine when someone says (not you specifically) essentially that if the 21nd play of the game had turned out differently, then we would have won (where that play might have been a pick six or just a pick or a missed FG). But the rest of the game from that point forward would have been different too so you can't assume everything else would have stayed the same . . .
-
6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
I must’ve been watching a different game against the Chiefs. The Bills did NOT lose because of their injuries on defense. They lost because when it came down to their final offensive drive, they had the ball…at home….in Chiefs territory and failed to get the First Down that would’ve iced the victory. They played the entire season to put themselves in that very position, and they failed.
All the plays in a game by both teams determines the winner. Sure, some plays matter more than others, but wins and losses generally cannot be distilled to the result of one or two plays. For example, when Mahomes threw a TD pass to a wide-open Kelsey in the endzone, was that the reason we lost? Of course not. But it didn't help either and the ease with which the Chiefs moved the ball was a big reason we lost the game. We lost because the sum of their plays was a little bit better than the sum of our plays.
-
1
-
Week 2, Bills v. Fish - PREDICT THE SCORE!
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Bills 31 Fish 24