Shaw66

Thanks for the story! Happy holidays to all!

I grew up in Buffalo. I've lived in the northeast for 50 years. Buffalo is definitely midwest. Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee are essentially all the same city, and none of them is like Boston or Hartford or New York City.

I tend to think you're correct.

I don't spend much time or energy on chasing free agents. One guy makes a difference only once in a while. Like Miller. However, the thought that Beane might find a way to get Calais Campbell for the playoffs got my juices flowing. I don't know if he has anything left (and I don't mean to start that conversation - there's a thread where all that's been discussed), but sticking the Calais Campbell of a year ago into the middle of the Bills defensive line would change the whole picture. Mixing and matching Campbell, Groot, Jones, Oliver, Miller could create some great mismatches.

I look at the team and generally agree with you about an impact player. The good teams generally scare you with some big=time defender. Hutchinson says he plans to be back for the Super Bowl. That's something every AFC opponent has to think about. I really do think the ultimate question for discussion is philosophy. Groot is a good example. The guy could be the best all-round defensive end in the game. He can do everything. He's coachable. I'm sure McDermott loves him because he's skilled, high motor, durable, and consistent. He's the ideal McDermott player. Look at Jerry Hughes. He was a big play guy until McDermott arrived, and then he transitioned to a player more like Groot. The big plays declined, but the mistakes, the plays where the edge was left unprotected, also declined. That's what McDermott wants. But Groot is a playmaker without being a big-play guy, and in big games the perception of many (including me) is that you need big plays. Now, maybe out perception is wrong. Maybe consistent play is more valuable than big plays even in big games. I don't know. But when Chris Jones disrupts Allen on a critical throw in the red zone, it's hard not to think that the Bills need a big-play guy. It's an interesting discussion, and I'd love talking to McDermott about it. I won't get that chance. In the meantime, I'm not holding my breath. McDermott and Beane seem to agree on philosophy, because Beane keeps getting guys who fit the McDermott ideal, not the Deek ideal.

This is an interesting point, and I think you're correct. I commented somewhere that the Bills went heavy early in the season on all sorts of screens and rubs and other gimmicks to get the ball in the hands of Shakir or Samuel or any of the others (Kincaid, Knox, Coleman all were targeted some). As the weeks went by, teams started locking down that stuff, playing tighter, fighting through blocks etc. Several weeks ago, the Bills went away from those plays and now throw them only occasionally. But teams still know that if they play soft on the outside on short yardage, the Bills will just throw it out there and take the necessary yards, so the opponents still have to get up tight to stop those quick passes to the outside. What we saw on Sunday in Detroit is that the Bills are now taking advantage of that tight coverage in short yardage situations by going over the top of the defense. It's really demoralizing to a defense to give up 15, 20, 25 yards on third and three, and that's what happened to Detroit. It's all about play design and execution. Brady has the right design, and we're now seeing Josh in more or less full control of what's happening out there. The result is an offense that has looked unstoppable for a few weeks.

I agree with this. Signing Miller wasn't a mistake; it was a decision that didn't work out. We have no way of knowing how much he would have contributed if he hadn't injured his knee. He looked good before it happened; he hasn't had his special magic since he came back. In Detroit, he did his job and played his position, but he never really won one-on-one. Still, there's time. Two or three timely sacks in the playoffs will make everyone happy the Bills have him.

Thanks. I doubt McD will change his approach, so it won't happen. I can't say I disagree with you. I wish they had a big play guy up front.

But what you actually do if you were the GM and/or coach. Are you saying you would clean house? You would change the defensive style in some way? I mean, it's fine to say that the pass rushers are unsatisfactory, but what are you going to do. Get others? Get a different coach for the D line? Change the scheme?

If you were in charge, what roster and/or scheme changes would you make? And for the record I've consistently said I have my doubts about McDermotts approach. I think his style makes for a good regular season team but not so much for the playoffs. And I certainly haven't said that there's anything wrong with you're being critical.

I don't dislike teams. Well, I love it when the Cowboys lose, because their owner is such a jerk. But I don't dislike them. I like beating teams in the AFC East, but I've never had any intense Jets hate or Dolphins hate. I never liked losing to the Patriots, but I didn't dislike them.

Well, reading a bit of you and Muppy, I think she's on the right track. Was I disappointed in the defense on Sunday? Well, sure, I was disappointed that those guys moved up and down the field at will in the second half, but then again, our offense moved up and down the field at will, too. I think the reality is that it's really hard, maybe impossible, to stop modern offenses all the time. The offenses are too varied. Now that the run game has come back to the NFL, you have to defend the pass and the run. As I think I said in the Review, other than Allen, the Bills have no stars. Nobody comes into a game with the Bills worrying about what to do about anyone on the Bills except Allen. There is no LaMarr Chase, no Chris Jones, no Micah Parsons, no Saquon Barkley. The Bills are built that way intentionally. The Bills are built to be a team in the truest sense of the word, to operate together. It's like they're choreographed. And they are built to achieve a variety of goals, like scoring and stopping scoring. But because they're built that way, they aren't going to excel at stopping the best passing teams, like the Rams and the Lions, when they're passing, and they aren't going to excel at stopping the best running teams, like Baltimore, when they're running. They ARE built to make it more difficult for those teams, and the Bills did make it difficult for the Rams, Lions, and Ravens. They made it more difficult for the Chiefs. It's a good defense to win with. It may get overrun by some team in the playoffs, and then we'll say the defense needs to be better against whatever it was that smoked them, but to make it better that way makes it worse some other way. It's supposed to be balanced, to do as well as you can against everything. In addition, I think we forget, I know I forget, how good some of these guys are. Benford, for example. I continue to think of him as some young, unproven guy. No, he's a stud. He is really good. And Bernard. And Johnson. And Oliver. (I said in a different thread that Dan Campbell raved about Oliver, saying the Lions would double him regularly. If you don't double him, he wrecks the interior. That's what Campbell said.) It's hard to win in the NFL. And it often looks messy. If the Pats put up 40, I'll start to worry. I doubt that's happening.

Yes and no. No to Elam for Douglas. I like what the Bills get from Douglas: 1. Really solid pass defense, tight coverages. 2. Aggressive run support with solid tackling. Maybe he showed something Sunday, but I didn't see that kind of rock solid play. If another week off would be beneficial to Douglas's recovery, yes, by all means play Elam on Sunday. But then get Douglas back in there and battle ready. Yes to Bishop for Hamlin. Hamlin just doesn't do it for me. He's not a powerful tackler, and he strikes me more as a guy who is in the vicinity of making the play, rather than being there and making it. Rapp is on the scene to make the play, but Hamlin usually is just arriving. Bishop didn't show me complete command of the defense on Sunday; he looked like he was stilling thinking about it when other guys already were running to it. However, I'd take him over Hamlin because he has some speed that I don't see in Hamlin, he hits with authority, and he can continue to learn the nuances. In other words, I'd bet on Bishop's higher ceiling, even though he may not yet executing as well as Hamlin. As I think about it, having two playmakers at safety would make this pass defense a lot stronger for the playoffs. Rapp is one; I don't think Hamlin can be the second, but Bishop can. So, get him out there on the field, getting game reps, and get him ready for the playoffs.

My wife and I went to the Detroit Institute of Art, which is an extraordinary museum. On their main donor wall, the second highest category was donors who had given over $10 million in the past several years. There were four or five names in that category, including the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. Foundation, right there with this Ford and that Ford. Really extraordinary generosity.

It used to be that we used to pay attention to the power rankings every week to see if the Bills had moved up or down. Everyone would comment on the rankings - too high, too low, about right. We don't do that on this forum like we used to. Anyway, I just happened to look at ESPN's power rankings. Bills are fourth. That's okay, I guess, and I don't really care, but it strikes me as really odd that the Bills beat both the Chiefs and the Lions and both teams are still ranked above the Bills. What are they supposed to do to be recognized for what they are? I don't know - maybe the both of those teams ARE better than the Bills, but it seems to me some leaps of faith have to be taken to reach that conclusion. Like, Patrick Mahomes is the next Tom Brady, and his team is ALWAYS better because they have Patrick Mahomes. Or, the Lions are everyone's favorite story this season, so they must be better. Just keep winning.