Shaw66

League avg is 59.7 % and 81.5 rating.

Finally looked this up: When the Saints got in trouble for putting bounties on players, to my recollection no opponent ever was injured. In addition I don't recall that any Saints player during that time intentionally hit another player in a clear dead ball situation. The NFL handed out punishments an said this: "We are all accountable and responsible for player health and safety and the integrity of the game. We will not tolerate conduct or a culture that undermines those priorities," said Goodell. Penalties? Payton and Gregg Williams suspended for a year each. Vilma was suspended for the entire 2012 NFL season.[5] Former Saints defensive tackle Anthony Hargrove was suspended for eight games. Saints defensive end Will Smith was suspended for four games. Former Saints linebacker Scott Fujita (then with the Cleveland Browns, now retired) was suspended for three games. Gronkowski got one game. It's ridiculous.

I drive over six hours to the game. By the end of the Pats game I had decided that I'm shutting it down for the season. Anyone want two tickets, for free? PM me.

Fair enough. Some of what you say is true. However, I said Crush for two reasons: First, I wanted a reference to the Gronk play, and I think it's fair to say he crushed White. Second, although the score was relatively close, the Bills essentially never were going to score. The Pats crushed the Bills' offense. The only reason it wasn't 45 to 3 was that the game was 60 minutes long. 100 minutes and it would have been 45-3. 200 minutes and it would have been 90 to 3.

Over MY head!

With respect to Gronk, I don't think the penalty was large enough. I look at it several different ways, and I come out at the same place. Sean Payton created or tolerated an environment where he or other coaches encouraged players to injure opponents, and he got suspended for a year. I don't believe there was evidence that any player was actually injured as a result. Gronk actually intentionally injured a player in a totally unambiguous dead ball situation and he got a game. Guys get suspended for four games for doing drugs but get suspended only one game for intentionally injuring an opponent? If the penalty for an illegal hit during a game that injures in a player is one game, shouldn't the penalty for an illegal hit that injures a player when the game is NOT in progress be larger? During the game, there's at least an argument that the hit was intended to be legal but the guy came in too high or something. There is NO defense when you just hit a guy when he's lying there helpless. And I completely agree with your point about mob rule. We've already heard it from Tre White. If the league isn't tough enough on plays like that, there will be retaliation. The league can't afford to have mob rule on the field. I suspect that unless McDermott is really, really clear to his team about this, someone is going after Gronk's knees in a couple of weeks. Or Brady's. I also suspect that the NFL already has warned the Bills about retaliation. Why would they warn the Bills? Because they know the punishment was strict enough. Think about it. Steelers and Pats play in 10 days. If I know I'm getting only a one game suspension for taking out Brady's knee, why would I do it? It would mean I'd be back for the playoffs, and Brady wouldn't. You can't have that kind of calculation going on in players' heads. They need to know the penalties for intentional illegal actions will be severe. And it shouldn't depend on WHETHER the target gets injured; it should solely depend on whether it's a dead ball intentional act and had the potential to injure. As for who starts, I simply think that a coach who doesn't play his best player at any position loses his other players. My coach expects me to play to win, every play, every game, but he puts in a game who isn't as good as the guy he replaced, what does that mean to me? I'm supposed to play to win but he isn't? I'm supposed to risk injury now so that some kid MIGHT learn something that will make him a quality player a year or two from now? I probably won't even be on the team then, so why should I should do it? Last game of the season, maybe. Or in a totally lost season like the Giants, maybe. But when you're playing .500 ball and you could make the playoffs, I don't think a coach can do that to his players.

Yeah. I don't disagree about upside. Until you see a guy fail consistently he has upside. I just think that he's shown that he isn't ready yet. He needs more practice and more learning so that he doesn't bring so much downside onto the field with him. Yes, he looks and throws quickly, but he doesn't know what he's looking at. Sunday he threw quickly into triple coverage. He needs some more cooking on the practice field before he should get thrown out there. If I'm McD and I'm done with Taylor my plan is toget rid of Taylor in the off season and go all in on Peterman or a new guy.

Did I say nearly as effective? I don't think so. I think Taylor is clearly better. If it were close I'd play Peterman.

I didn't say the Bills were going to the playoffs. I don't think they are. They certainly aren't good enough. But you definitely must play your best players at each position, and if he's healthy that's Taylor. The coach cannot ask all his other players to play they're best when the coach isn't putting the best players on the field. If Peterman is the future (in doubt it) they'll install him in the off season. I agree about Peterman. Not a good arm. Maybe he will improve. Clearly doesn't see the field well. But in any case he is t nearly as effective as Taylor has been.

Agreed, on both points. I live in New England, and I have an enormous dislike for many, many Patriots fan. But as a football fan, I have enormous respect for the Patriots. What they've done in era when parity rules is truly remarkable. And yes, the Bills could have won.

Pressure is more important than sacks. The Bills got three sacks but very few pressures. The Pats got double digit pressures. There's a big difference. But I agree with your basic point. The defense played well enough to win. Pass defense was better than the run defense. Pats completed several passes where you just had to shake your head at Brady's accuracy and the receivers', particularly Gronk's, ability to catch the ball every time. And even the run defense was pretty good except on the few plays where they totally lost containment. As has been the case often this season, the offense lost the game, not the defense. Yes. He's better than Peterman. Peterman is altogether too green.

Thanks. Spending the night in Binghamton, so I wrote while watching the Seahawks. To that particular point. It's something I talk about from time to time. You can only be good at taking risks if you learn how to do it. Only way to learn how is to take the risks. So that throw was part of Tyrod's education. But he should have made that mistake two years ago and learned from it. Highlight of the day was going to the CBS broadcast booth before the game and chatting with Jim Nantz for five minutes. Incredibly nice guy.

The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66 Pats Crush Bills Things we learned (or already knew) watching the Pats crush the Bills on Sunday, 23-3: 1. The Patriots are really good. 2. The Bills aren’t as good as the Pats, but they aren’t the abomination that took the field against the Saints and the Chargers. 3. The Pats are as fundamentally sound as any football in memory, and they’ve been that way for a decade and a half or more. 4. The Bills are not a playoff team and THEY’VE been THAT way for a decade and a half or more. 5 The Pats have a Hall of Fame quarterback, and the game looks easy when you have one of those. 6. The Bills don’t have a Hall of Fame quarterback. On Sunday, the Bills would have been in the game if they’d had an average NFL quarterback. They didn’t have one of those, either. In other words, it was a slow news day at New Era Field. Taylor’s interception on the first possession may have been the worst throw in Taylor’s professional career. Taylor’s made a career, so far, of not taking risks with the ball and avoiding interceptions. When you don’t take risks, you don’t learn the difference between good risks and bad risks. Taylor clearly didn’t understand the difference on that play. It’s a completely different game if the Bills score 7. Taylor made several poor throws to receivers who were closely covered. Accurate, well-delivered balls would have resulted in completions. His throws were at the feet of receivers, behind receivers, over receivers, just not good enough. Taylor was injured on the first offensive play. Did the injury impact his play later in the drive and later in the game? Maybe, but it doesn’t change the conclusion. Taylor had a bad day in a game that a good quarterback could have won. Could have won? You bet. That game was closer than the score. The Bills ran the ball effectively. The Bills were 15-34 passing, and with good quarterbacking could have been 25 for 34. It’s easy to see the Bills scoring a couple of touchdowns if their passing game had been as effective as their running game. Would the Bills have won with better quarterbacking? Probably not. Why? Because the Bills’ front five on offense and front four on defense just aren’t good enough. Brady had all day to throw, and the Bills’ quarterbacks were under pressure constantly, including on Taylor’s interception. It’s too easy for Brady when he can wait and wait and wait for someone to get open. And it’s too hard for anyone when he’s at risk of getting hit on most pass attempts. Among the things that amaze me about the Patriots are these two: 1. Patriots are always physically tough. They take hard hits on offense without fumbling. They take hard hits and break tackles. Over and over. Their offensive scheme involves a lot of finesse, but there’s no finesse involved when they hit you. They hit hard on defense, every play. 2. On defense, they rarely are out of position. They got fooled when Webb overthrew Cadet, but that was about it. Receivers may get open and make the catch, but the defender is in position to make the tackle. Running backs may find a hole, but they don’t find 30 yards of open field – a defender is always in position to make the tackle, to limit the damage. And these aren’t shoe-string tackles; these are straight on, drive the shoulder into the runner, wrap him up and take him down tackles. The Patriots are really good. They always are. A note about Gronk. The game was over, so an ejection wouldn’t have mattered. He’s probably correct that White was guilty of pass interference. That’s all beside the point. The point is simple: This is a violent game in which players are at risk on every play. In that environment, there must be zero tolerance for intentional violence inflicted on a defenseless player in a dead ball situation. Zero. Players trust their opponents not to do that. Gronk broke that trust. He could have broken White’s neck. He should be suspended for a game for the hit, and if White is injured or in the concussion protocol, he should be suspended for a second game. Gronk apologized, and I believe he’s sincere. That has nothing to do with it. Would Gronk accept the apology of a linebacker who took out Gronk’s ACL on an intentional late hit to the knee out of bounds? Zero tolerance. GO BILLS!!! The Rockpile Review is written to share the passion we have for the Buffalo Bills. That passion was born in the Rockpile; its parents were everyday people of western New York who translated their dedication to a full day’s hard work and simple pleasures into love for a pro football team.

I'll let you know when you're slipping up. There are pluses and minuses everywhere. Forums have personalities and cultures that are defined by their users and their moderators. It was different at BBMB. Some people liked it better there, some liked it better here. I'm glad this place was here so that we had someplace to land.

I think they did it abruptly for a couple of reasons. First, if they'd given notice, they would have been getting phone calls and emails and stuff asking them to reconsider. They didn't want to waste any time on it. Second, I think they figured it was easier to just do it and live through the cries of outrage. They probably had a pretty good idea of how long the outcry would last, and then it would be over. Like a week. And there were only 2000 members, so what would you guess - 50 complained to the Bills. Maybe 100. No more. I didn't bother, and I think most other people didn't bother, either. So they got 50 irate emails and a few phone calls, then it was over. If they'd given notice first, they weren't going to change their minds, and then people would have been pissed that no one did anything about their complaints. SO they just pulled the plug. Is my life different today because of it? No, because I started coming here more regularly. I"d been a member for a while. And if this place pulled the plug? Then I'd have no place to go and I wouldn't waste so much time. I don't know if anyone cares. But it's something to talk about while we're waiting for the game. Better than some thread about whether McDermott should have started Peterman.

Nice story. I like it a lot. Still have to be able to coach. We'll see.

I won't argue with any of what you say.

This is mostly speculation but I think a reasonably good take at what was going on at OBD. Simply put, the message board generated no revenue for the Bills. The front office may or may not have liked what was said on the board, but I know for a fact that they paid attention to it generally only when a problem arose, like when someone who had been banned complained to OBD about it. And when that happened, OBD always stood by the fan, which wasn't good for mod morale. I'll give you some other speculation. I think there was a time last spring when someone, Russ or Terry probably, met with the publisher of the Buffalo News and told the News that it was time for them put a leash on Sully on the rest of those guys who were engaging more or less nonstop bashing of the Bills. I suspect the Bills made it clear to the News that certain companies that advertised with the Bills and also in the News didn't like having the Bills, their advertising partner, bashed by the News; i'.e, clean it up or some of your advertisers will leave you. The Bills and the NFL are more powerful, by a large measure, than the News. One reason I think this happened was that when Rex was being fired, Anthony Lynn had his famous press conference, all that, the News was ripping the Bills horribly. "Dumpster fire" was a frequently used term. I know for a fact that the Bills had plans at that time to deal with the News. The News did change. Some people left, others came in, and the reporting has been more balanced since the spring. The fact that it was around the same time that the BBMB went down that makes think that OBD was paying more attention to the negative content about the news that was appearing in their market.

I was a mod and I sometimes communicated with T&C because I thought his take on applying the rules was stricter than it needed to be. But I'll say this in his defense: He had principles and he stood by them. He had good reasons for why he saw it the way he did, and he stuck by his guns. He may have been the hardest working mod I saw on that board for the 13 years I was there. It wasn't an easy job.

Excellent, Fancy. I agree. Mod s did tend toward more of a hammer approach toward the end, and some posters didn't like it. They thoightnoy was necessary because of the Spanish, pbus, etc and it was. But some of it was just unnecessarily harsh. Being a mid is thankless. I always likened mod decisions to a nearsighted football ref making out of bounds calls without his glasses. If you went near the sidelines you were going to get some bad calls. But most of the posters anywhere stay near the middle ifnhe field and even nearsighted refancan tell they're in bounds. A lot of people were happy at bbmb. The quality of discussions was excellent several years ago. It deteriorated some I've the years but there still were plenty of good threads. This place is well run. Without the Bills looking over their shoulders the mods have more freedom to shape it the way they want. I have my quibbles with it, but that's just the near sighted ref problem - no place is.going to run exactly the way each member wants. I would bet that people aren't freer here. The fact that the Bills wouldn't give the mods the technical ability to truly ban bad actors meant that moderating over there was a constant guerilla war with some people who were just jerks. Here you have well behaved people posting - they feel free because they don't live in fear of being banned. At bmbb people were paranoid with good reason - the mods were tough. But you have to remember that the mods got rough because they were in this constant battle with a lot of.peoblem children they couldn't get rid of.

A guy named Gregg Pastore I think the other mods with Gregg's approval. They didn't care much. I think they considered it a nuisance. It just caused problems. Didn't earn any money. It varied overr time. Mods dropped out, became disinterested. I think once in a while Gregg wouldn't move a nod if he thought the mod wasn't doing a good job. I think they just got tired of it and someone decided it was time. I don't think any event caused it. Don't know who made the decision. I was a mod and wasn't notified. There was usually a volunteer mad who was in touch with Gregg more than others and whoever that was may have gotten advance notice. I don't know.

This is really the point. Unless Geno goes on a five-game winning streak, the Browns and Giants are both taking QBs. I'll trade up for the best QB in the draft, but not the third best. If he falls to me, fine. And I doubt that the Bills and Chiefs picks alone will get you up to 5. However, I keep Taylor until I have someone better. That's why benching him was so costly. It almost certainly means that he's gone after next season (because Taylor isn't going to stick with these coaches) and that, in turn, forces the Bills to find a QB in this off-season. That's why they may feel compelled to trade up, and trading up probably means using both first round picks and maybe a second or next year's first. If they hadn't burned bridges with Taylor, they would be much more comfortable taking a good QB when it was their turn and used other picks to fill holes.

Nobody's missing anything. This was reported last year when it happened. As I recall it: Rex, Terry and Doug were having their weekly call. Doug told Rex he wanted Taylor benched. It's never been disclosed whether Terry made that decision. The most credible speculation is that Whaley wanted to preserve his options under Taylor's contract, and if Taylor got injured in the last game, Whaley might have been stuck with Taylor long-term with no option to terminate his contract. Since the Bills were out of the playoffs, Whaley didn't want to take the chance of a Taylor injury. AFTER the phone call, Rex walked into Pegula's office and asked whether he would be fired after the last game. Pegula said yes. Rex said "then fire me now." Pegula said okay. I think what you infer from that is that if Pegula told Rex he'd be the coach in 2017, Rex would have been okay benching Taylor. But Rex wasn't going to bench Taylor, a guy he'd handpicked, if he was going to lose his job anyway. Then they offered the interim spot to Lynn and told him he couldn't play Taylor. Lynn didn't have the same commitment to Taylor, and the HC spot, even for a game, was much too valuable to his career to say no. Rex prides himself in being a players' coach. He stood up for Taylor. Rex effectively DID make them fire him.

I don't think there are many people around here who had expectations like that. There weren't a lot of people who thought when the season bean that the Bills would go to the playoffs. It's true that expectations rose when they went 5-2 to open the season. What you heard from me last week, and what you heard from a lot of people, wasn't disappointment from unreasonable expectations. It was reaction to the fact that the team was completely uncompetitive three weeks running. That shouldn't happen to any coach, rookie or not.

As I said, I wasn't defending Lawson so much as suggesting that that particular play may have been how the Chiefs would run it against most defenses because Tyreek Hill is THAT fast. Moving him to tackle is an interesting idea. The games about speed, and he'd be a quick tackle rather than a slow end.