MPT

Read my first post. Scoring a minimum of 21 points a game (and even far exceeding that number in multiple weeks) wouldn't even guarantee a .500 season. So how am I an idiot for wanting to do better than that? Sorry, I didn't think the idea of scoring enough points to make the playoffs would offend you so much.

Well yeah, because that was assuming the Bills hit McDermott's minimum every single week. Teams have bad weeks and don't achieve their goals on offense sometimes, which brings their average down. Your comment only further solidifies my point. You're saying that if the Bills exceed McDermott's stated goal every single week without fail they are still barely scratching a top third offense.

I was not talking about an average of 21. Let's do some hypotheticals. In the Bills' losses last year, they could have scored 37, 30, 21, 21, 27, 24, 31, 22, 26, and 23. That's at least 21 in each game for an average of 26.2. That puts them at 8-8 (and I'm being generous giving them a win against the Dolphins at 22-21). They still would have missed the playoffs and lost by double digits 3 times. If, however, McDermott were to say the goal was at least 25 per game, you're now talking about a MINIMUM record of 10-5-1 in those same games. I just think it sets a bad tone when the coach sets the bar so low. Don't basically tell the media your goal every game is to have at least a mediocre offense and hope it works out sometimes. Do you think Belichick has EVER said he wanted to at least score 21 points every game? Absolutely not. That's a low standard and McDermott should know better.

I think you're right that some people assumed he meant an average. However, I would still be concerned that his goal is to hit 21 points per game. Yes, that would mean an average over 21. Except the thing is, hitting at least 21 is still a pretty low bar. Someone else already mentioned that we would have only won one more game if we hit that every game. Would have still missed the playoffs. The point is, he needs to set higher expectations for his team and himself.

Legalized prostitution: voluntary sex workers. Criminalized prostitution: sex trafficking victims. So simple, even liberals can understand it!

That's pretty misleading and unfair. The first one said, "it's always something with this team," meaning he realizes the Patriots are constantly doing shady stuff. The second asked, "is this a big deal? Was she underage?" That's a legit question considering some reports are claiming that. There is a huge difference between a willing prostitute and an underage victim of sex trafficking. Pats fans are obnoxious enough; you don't need to try and make them look worse with misinformation.

This is what I think when I see mocks with us trading down. All trades need a willing partner, and we're looking for the same positions as some teams that would do so. Also, there's far too much to learn about incoming players between now and the draft to determine which players we might be interested in, let alone predict a trade. Speculating about which players we could draft is interesting and useful for those of us who don't know as much about college prospects, but even GM's aren't even close to finishing their draft boards. Though I generally like the theory of trading down, actually predicting them at this point is a fruitless exercise.

I agree. The league knows this settlement looks like an admission of guilt so they wouldn't have agreed to it unless there was something in evidence that gave Kaepernick a strong case. At the same time, Kaepernick would have pushed for a public trial and maximum compensation if said evidence were rock solid. He probably gave up some money and public vindication, and the league probably gave up some money and lost some face. Seems like a pretty even compromise, which leads me to believe the evidence was damaging to the NFL but not bad enough to be a slam dunk, at least legally speaking. Of course, if the actual settlement ever becomes public knowledge, all of my assumptions could be proven wrong one way or the other.

Maybe I'm the only one who appreciated this low scoring super bowl. But I'm also really angry at McVay. He was supposed to be the new wave of innovative coaches. Instead, he's just another bum in a long line of coaches who can't figure out how to not act like a ***** fool against the Patriots.

Yeah, that makes sense considering he barely played in the championship game. Except, here's the thing: Anderson crushed the Saints. If Gurley was too hurt to play, why didn't they game plan for Anderson? This was a total coaching f***up no matter how you look at it.

So much for the new "offense wins championships" narrative eh? I'm totally cool with that. The Rams had to do one thing: run Gurley out of his mind. They didn't even attempt to do it. They lost from the first drive.

Might have cracked the top twenty worst of all time, but barely.

If Umm what?! They have one of the best WR corps in the league. They needed a RB tonight. They had the best one in the league and chose not to use him.

Why do coaches become complete idiots against the Patriots? Run Gurley, throw to Woods, win the game.

I don't think Ford's penalty was as costly as everyone seems to think. Brady most likely knew he had a free play and took a risk. If Ford had not been lined up in the neutral zone, there is a significant chance Brady never throws that pass.

I'm curious why you say he isn't good. His only exposure was a preseason game where he made more tough catches than all of our receivers made this year combined. Obviously a good preseason game doesn't make someone a quality player, but I always thought it was ridiculous he never even got a chance in a real game considering our lack of talent at that position. Was there something about his practices that made the coaches dismiss him? Or was it just his injuries?

This is funny. "NFL officials that are really good can't be found."

Arians: "If that were one of the top quarterbacks, that would have been a penalty." Bruce telling it like it is. Late hit up high on Allen, yet again.

Well it would work if our receivers ran the route correctly. Gilmore went deep both times and Allen put it where it needed to be both times. Looked like the receivers weren't even expecting it.

We probably get called for that particular penalty more than any other team. Punting, kicking off, returning, offense, defense. I didn't see this one, but most of them are complete horse *****.

Please stay in San Diego. Talk about whiney and insufferable...

I wonder if they ever think "hmm maybe we should get a punt return to go at least five yards before we pack it in this year."

It is insane how bad our receivers are. That's the easiest catch he'll ever see and it goes right through his hands. How many tens of thousands of dollars did he just get paid to ham fist a cake toss?

I don't think so. Fumbling out of your own end zone prevents two scenarios: getting tackled for a safety anyway, or the other team recovering for a touchdown (meaning the other team would end up with at least two points regardless of the outcome). Fumbling out of your opponents' end zone prevents one scenario: you scoring a touchdown (meaning the other team saves 7 points and should count their lucky stars they get a crack at holding you at the spot of the fumble).

Should be treated like a fumble anywhere else on the field. Placed at the spot of the fumble since a fumble can't advance the ball. Currently, it's way too much of a reward to the defense for allowing the other team to get to the goal line and then getting the ball on a fluke. That would be better. Penalize the team that fumbled, but don't reward the other team.