Last Guy on the Bench

You must be looking at current divisional records. We'll each play 12 games in the conference. We cannot beat Denver in this tie breaker (assuming we are actually tied) because we are one game behind them in terms of overall record and two games behind them in terms of conference record. In other words, if we catch them in terms of conference record, we'll be ahead of them in terms of absolute record. There would be no tie, thus no tiebreaker.

Exactly right, which Denver would win based on conference record. Only one team at a time makes the playoffs in terms of tiebreakers, so we would then face off against the Jets, which of course we would win based on the same common opponents record that left us ranked ahead of them in the division. Bottom line, it would be the Bills and Denver (if and only if one of the Jets losses had been NE). The second phase of the above may seem stupid (i.e., why don't you just take Denver and the Bills based on the preliminary elimination of the Jets, since any subsequent face off between the Bills and the Jets will come out the same way). I think the reason they do the one team at a time thing, even though it seems redundant here, is that it would NOT be redundant if there were four teams. Say that Denver, KC, the Bills, and the Jets are tied. (Can't happen this year, but nevertheless . . . ) If KC is second to Denver based on divisional tie breakers, they are eliminated in the first round as are the Jets for the same reason. The Bills and Denver are not automatically the two playoff teams. They face off and Denver wins on conference record. However, now everyone comes back (including KC) for round two. Once again, the Jets are eliminated by divisional rules and now the Bills face off against KC. If KC had beaten them head to head or had a better conference record, they would advance (so it would be Denver and KC). Long explanation for a seemingly weird rule. Bottom line, if we tie the Jets (and they have a loss to NE), they cannot get in the playoffs over us, no matter how many teams are involved in the tie. And in fact, they cannot get in the playoffs, period unless we are the only two teams at 10-6, because everyone else beats us at 10-6 tiebreakers. (When you are behind a team in your division, you are paradoxically rooting for them to win any multiple tie breakers since you can then get back in the game, as in the KC example above). So, go Seattle this week, and go NE next week.

No he certainly did not. He had a few runs where he broke tackles really well. Look at his TD run. He dragged a couple of guys the last two yards if I recall correctly.

And here's a third opinion saying exactly the same thing. I was commenting throughout the game that, even though the end result was pretty much the same (THIS time), Willis was running faster and cutting harder than ever. It was very noticeable. He even broke out a few jukes, something he hasn't done much. I cannot freaking wait to see him next year. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see him pull a buck eighty game this year, which would have of course have to include a couple of big mongo runs.

I like Fieldpass for the pre and postgame (in between, I'm at the sports bar). But I listened to the preseason games and it's enough to give you a stroke when they don't come back on time and miss a big play. I, too, sent an email in complaining. How freaking hard would it be to get some sports broadcasting intern, who would be delighted to learn the ways of the booth, etc., whose only job would be to hit the button before and after commercials. I assume that someone is doing it who is also doing a million other things, because there is no other explanation for how often it's missed unless there is rampant alcoholism in NFL radio station engineering rooms.

Thanks. I thought that's what I saw. Since McFarland is never active, we basically have one backup tackle (Price), I guess.

Jennings was clearly playing hurt and Williams was out, so no surprise, that the OL didn't look so good at times (although I still think there were plenty of times where DB had a good chance to set up). Help me out, though. I was watching the game with no sound in a sports bar. When JJ got hurt and came out, did Smith come in at Left Tackle? If that was him, didn't I see him get smoked for a sack on his first play? And did I hear Mularkey say we only dressed 7 linemen? (Or was it 8?) (Listened to the postgame on NFL Fieldpass when I got home, but can't remember.) Anyone have a clearer pictue than I do of the OL machinations that went on?

Not impossible. Five catches a game (conceivable the way he's playing) and he ends with 49, nipping Andre and Jerry. Seventy yards a game (a reach, but also conceivable, especially if he has a big 100+ one in there somewhere - Hello Cleveland and San Fran) and he's at 834, right with Jerry. I could live with that. B)

See my post below. You're entering the attempts and completions backwards. Attempts go first, then completions. The resulting ratings seem much more believable (e.g., Drew's 65 today).

It was not 134.6 (that makes sense with a 1/3 TD/INT ratio and a decent but not astounding YPA). You entered the attempts in the completions box and completions in the attempts box. When you complete 37 passes on 25 attempts you will undoubtedly have a good rating. His actual rating was just under 65 accoring to the site you used.

We have consistently been much better on D in the second half than in the first (despite the late drives in the first few games). That says one thing to me. Jerry Gray is making really good half time adjustments, which is one of the hallmarks of great coaching (and something we've been missing for quite some time - even under Wade, whom I liked). I understand how someone can question the defensive call on the Moss touchdown, but how this translates into "Jerry Gray must go," I don't know. When you look at the overall picture, he's doing a really solid job (as are his cohorts in Washington and Pittsburgh).

LOL. Well, my Grandmothers are both dead. So it's a tossup. I was actually having a neural misfire provoked by the "Shayne" input, though I'm not sure that either Matthews OR Graham wouldn't hit a few of those wide open receivers we left littered on the field in Baltimore, even if the Graham had to pooch kick it to them.

Yeah, except that usually he says things like, "We believe we will win with Drew." Not, "Mike believes we will win with Drew." I think he's been noticably lukewarm in his DB comments lately. And I think this is quite a shift from the way he was talking last year or during the preseason. That's all I'm saying.

In his interview of Tom Donahoe today, Howard Simon asked TD if "you guys" (or something like that - it was a plural you) feel that Drew gives the team the best chance to win right now. (Simon had been talking about the possibility of putting Graham in the game if Drew was struggling.) TD said something like, "That's what Mike has said publicly and that's obviously the way he feels right now." Never once said that he/the administration felt Drew was the best option. He usually is a big "we" guy when speaking. But several times in the Drew conversation he referred simply to Mike. (Note: he didn't seem to be questioning MM per se, and he obviously felt comfortable with the fact that it was MM's decision. In fact, he gave MM a strong show of support at the end of the interview, saying that there were several positives about the team right now and that the biggest was that we had "the right head coach.") Still, he wasn't exactly jumping out of his boots to deny the possibility that even Graham, let alone Losman, might be seen as an option at some point.

That's pretty much what he said. He was asked if he thought it was unfair for people to question his future with JP waiting in the wings and the team at 1-5. He said, "I am the quarterback here and I'm going to be the quarterback here and anybody that has questions about that, I apologize - if you're going to cheer for the Bills, I'm going to be the quarterback." (Just went back and checked the archived postgame on Fieldpass.) He also spent a lot of time blaming the running game, offensive line, tipped balls, etc. I've never heard him point the finger away from himself so much. (He wasn't quite Flutiesque, but almost.) He did admit Deion's second pick was a bad decision on his part and that he threw "a little" behind Moulds on the missed TD opportunity. Basically, he was squirming the whole time (understandably).

The whole column is coming up for me. Both of the main page and at sportsguy.net. Weird.

Still up for free as of now, both on the ESPN home page and at sportsguy.net. Where did you see that they were moving him to insider?

Scary is right. We all know he received many of the same criticisms/defenses in New England, but it's weird how the tone is exactly the same as well. Does this mean Gregg Williams will turn out to be a genius. (I vote, unequivocally, no.)

-Ten penalties for 77 yards. -Fumble at the two yard line. -Give up a kickoff return (embarrassing leg breaking moment by safety coverage guy) for a TD. -Let the other team's fastest receivers get behind our coverage TWICE for huge gainers. -Let the freakin' PUNTER run for 37 yads on a botched snap. -Waste a replay challenge on an obvious touchdown (if we don't get lucky later with a fumble through the endzone by their linebacker on a fumble return, we would have missed having that challenge available, since the original pass was incomplete, but we couldn't have done anything about it - so their ball at the one). -Overthrows, underthrows, miscommunications. Oh wait. That was the Patriots. I laugh every time I hear that we could win if we could only eliminate the mistakes. Um, yeah. The problem is, no team eliminates the mistakes. Look at ANY game, and you'll be able to list plenty of things that went wrong for ANY team. Many of them will be self-inflicted. So why do teams win? Because they make up for the mistakes with great plays and they tend to make big plays when it really counts. Don't defend Bledsoe by saying that the mistakes aren't his fault. I want my QB to overcome mistakes (his and his teammates) and to make big plays when it matters. (He does throw a beautiful deep ball - I'll give you that.) Don't tell me about the false starts and missed blocks. Big deal. I bet there's a missed block on every single NFL play of some sort or another. Convert some freaking difficult third downs. I'm not just blaming DB either. The whole team is like that. Here are the guys that feel like playmakers to me. McGee, Moorman, Sam and Pat (though not consistently enough), Nate (through rarely when you most need it), Moulds (ditto). So two of our best playmakers rarely do it when it counts, and most of our guys don't dream of making a big play. The idea that this will be a good team when we cut down on our mistakes is ludicrous. This will be a good team when we increase our ability to make big plays in a timely matter. This team needs to be shaken up by a few good benchings, even if they ARE futile, knee-jerk reactions. Why are we so scared to make changes during the season? Does this come from TD. Other teams do it. Try a few different players (e.g., Baker and/or Prioleau, McGahee, Matthews?-gulp - Euhus (I HATE our tight ends - not personally, but as tight ends), start McGee over Vincent (injured anyway), give Hagen a chance maybe, whatever. Try some different guys for pity's sake. We've seen these guys for quite a while now. This isn't just disgruntled fan talk based on three difficult games. I agree this team isn't that far from being decent, but you have to spark them so DO SOMETHING to spark them. Sorry. End of rant. (Well, not quite. Does it worry anyone else how slow and inarticulate Mularkey sounds most of the time? I get Williams flashbacks. I want a smart coach. Being well-spoken does not mean you'll be a good coach, but most of the good coaches do sound reasonably articulate. This is the second TD hire in a row that just doesn't strike me as particularly bright when he talks. Maybe TD likes those slow talkers, but I don't. Still hope he'll turn out to be a good coach though. You never know.)

Great post. Thanks. I've been very curious about the whole "Does DB actually have enough time or not?" question. My gut impression is that he's generally had a normal amount of time. Last week, however, I decided to put some numbers to the problem, so I took advantage of the bye to watch a bunch of other games at the local sports bar. Whenever I could, I timed the interval between the snap and the throw (or sack). I was there pretty much all day, so I did it a LOT and for a number of QBs. I counted off mentally (one-one thousand, etc.), but I checked my watch frequently too to make sure my counts were basically accurate (they were). Here's what I saw: The vast majority of throws were made between two and and two and a half seconds from the moment the ball was snapped. The quick dumps were around two or just under, and almost every "normal"-feeling pass (based only on my having watched a lot of football for the last 30 years) was right around two and a half seconds. When the QB held on to the ball for three seconds (not four) the pocket almost always was breaking down signficantly. A QB who wanted to throw after longer than three seconds almost invariably had to make something happen on his own - not just step up in the pocket, but break a tackle, or run outside the pocket, etc. Sure, once in while a guy would stand back in the pocket for four or five seconds, but this was extremely rare - about as rare as it has been with the Bills lately. So yes, this "evidence" is purely anecdotal, but it involed collecting a lot of "anecdotes" from a number of teams, some with very good OLs. Based on MDH's timing of the Bledsoe sacks, anything over three seconds is on the QB (or WRs), not on the OL (unless you expect your OL to be vastly better than the average OL in the league - we wish).

Now THAT actually did make me laugh out loud. I am not rolling on the floor, but I would if I were a little younger.

Still weird that they have Anderson playing in front of Bannan. Was Bannan hurt or has Anderson moved up the depth chart that quickly?

Just check the frequency with Kenneth.

I'm sure "Marc in Montreal" will check in sooner or later. He's still around. I live in Montreal and watch games with him more often than not at Champs. Aussiew, if you get in by 4:00 Champs is on St Laurent just below Duluth - very easy to get to - essentially downtown though not in the biz district. I will definitely be there and I imagine "Marc" will probably be there too. Can't do the dinner thing, but I'd be happy to give you any advice you need. I've been here three years and love it beyond belief. Montreal is a fabulous, fabulous, friendly city. Have fun!