Richard Noggin

Anyone who watched Edmunds get absolutely STONED by a much smaller RB last week against the Patriots knows this is not a viable proposition. Wish I had a gif or image of him being stopped in his tracks, just completely stood up by the RB in the A-gap.

Upon further review, I will finally agree that he says STFU. And I'm glad that's what he said because it's hilarious and not as cringey as the...other thing.

Stopped in for a brief glimpse, and...posters are mostly too whiny to watch football with.

To be fair, Utica can be sneaky fun.

I JUST posted this same sentiment in the discussion thread. Yes.

Can we all agree that they need to keep G. Davis on the field even if Sanders returns? Maybe Sanders slides inside to the slot so Davis can stay where he's proven to be more effective as our WR2.

The "I'm old and lame and hate passionate football fans" crowd is...old and lame. And I'm in my 40s. Stroke out? The guy behind me upset about us standing on 3rd downs was close to it. Just sip your tea and enjoy a nice, polite seated affair.

I'm very sorry the fans in the 100 level forced you to be more physically engaged and upright. I would prefer that to being literally forced to remain seated throughout the MNF game, like I was in my lower 300 season seats, by the guy behind me who refuses to stand and gets irate when fans in front of him do, even for 3rd and 4th down defensive "stands." He can simply text security and complain if I stand (although admittedly he seems too dim to grasp that, so instead he flailed around looking for nearby security to flag down...because we stood to cheer and yell for big 3rd downs). Football just ain't a relaxed, seated affair. Especially MNF against the division-leading team from NE. Why go if you want to remain seated and spectate passively? And especially if you're going to get all ruffled because the fans around you are passionate and want to help the team?

What about a big, fast WR who can high-point jump balls? Any of those in the 2022 draft? (I know it's off-topic, but we don't have a SPECIMEN at WR, either. Diggs is effing awesome, and Davis is showing to be valuable, but we're missing one more weapon at wideout. And a beast at RB would help, of course.

A "rocks" charge is not for "pouring drinks on the rocks." It is for a larger pour when the spirit is being enjoyed alone, on the rocks. They don't just pour a shot over ice. You get more. That's industry standard practice.

Let's differentiate "coaching decisions" from "play-calling." Chargers offensive play-calling was masterful. Exploit the gaps where Chris Jones should be, repeatedly. Chargers repeated 4th down attempts were...less masterful.

Physically assaulting a subordinate is grounds for firing with cause, is my guess, which is exactly what the Jags needed to avoid paying out Meyer's remaining years. Thoughts?

I don't think Lambo comes off as a Karen in this piece. He was put in a tough spot as a subordinate. Your advice for him reads like tone-deaf, toxic bluster: either shut up and accept unacceptable physical harassment or assault his boss? You should be a life coach.

But maybe last year was a bit of a novelty? In that the NFL wasn't calling offensive holding, so our line looked serviceable, and that defenses were generally behind overall and especially behind with respect to pass-heavy, spread-out offenses? Last year Allen solved the zero-blitz that had plagued him the year before. Has he, or the offense overall, solved the NFL's defensive adjustments this year? I often say that if you TRULY want to solve ANY problem in the world today, pay all 32 NFL defensive coordinators (and their staffs) to solve it within a predetermined timeline. Dynamic QBs shredding man coverage schemes? Vic Fangio to the rescue. Pandemic still not under control? Steve Spagnuolo saves the day. Unrest in the Middle East? Bill Belichick with the sideline adjustments.

But is it the books who buy the refs? Or the big money bettors? Or their part-time employer, the league itself (topic for another day, the refs' part-time employment status)? We never see the refs seemingly in the bag for the underdog. I do understand how fraught this topic is. I'll see myself out.

I hate you for this poll.

If over 60% of the action came in for the Bucs, then doesn't that (for the conspiratorially-minded) support the gambling-based game-fixing narrative? Can't let the Bills pull the upset when so much money is leaning on the Bucs. That's not my thinking, exactly. But again, we're discussing a hypothetical raised more than a few times in the wake of horrifically one-sided officiating.

You likely won't get much support for this perspective, but the defense did its job without question. 14 points. The end. The offense failed. The defense even got timely stops in the 4th quarter to facilitate a comeback, but the offense fell short. That's the failure of 2021 so far. I don't care about the rushing defense. I care about the offense that can't score more than 14, or 9, or capitalize on red zone opportunities. Oh yeah, and the refs. They suck the most.

This is an important point, HOWEVER...I do believe McD wants his guys (especially LBs) to attack plays more aggressively than they often do right now. Naturally my most recent example is McD, NOT Frazier, pulling Milano aside late against NE, and the result being Milano just screaming through the gaps created by NE's pulling linemen for big TFLs. You could clearly see McD gesturing to Milano to run through the gaps aggressively. You gotta get there before the blocks do to disrupt well-designed plays. If you hesitate or take a false step, you allow the offense to get on top of you. (This ain't a 2-gap defensive front, that's for sure. But they almost seem to play like one at times.) But also think back to when McD allegedly took over play-calling duties (I can't immediately recall when it happened but I know my fellow posters remember): the D ABSOLUTELY attacked more with McD calling the shots in-game. Of course that doesn't mean they called more blitzes and lighter coverage schemes exactly, but it does suggest that McD emphasizes aggression and disruption within the structure of the overall defense. Does that make sense at all? I think so...

Which way a betting-influenced fix would lean, in this ridiculous hypothetical. The line is set initially to be both predictive AND to be motivational. My guess is the Bills v Bucs line was set so low because a) the Bills are better than their recent results (Vegas ain't dumb) and b) such a tight line would inspire bettors to get in on this game (my next guess being that lots of money came in on the Bucs when the line was lowest).

But why not? I'd merely ask for expansion on your perspective. I tend to think someone like him should not be propped up and explicitly celebrated by the organization, given his documented violence towards women and others (even setting aside the "not guilty" nonsense). But I don't immediately hate people who disagree with me. Unless they just provide a one-word answer!

No, silly. Depends who got the most action, not who got the points. (To be fair, though, I have no idea where the action was on this game.)

Of course OJ Simpson was a Buffalo Bill. Fudging of course.

My contribution? Telling everyone what a great thread this is. Great thread, gang. After a tough game and tough season, feels like TBD is turning the corner here...

Imagine if the Bills offense had actually converted on just ONE of their near misses, though. They had so many chances, and failed to capitalize. THAT is the real issue this season. The Bills offense is the engine, and when it sputters, they lose. The defense allowed 14 points and got timely stops in the 2nd half. It ain't on them (which of course doesn't mean their run defense isn't a problem; it just isn't a huge problem if the Bills offense plays even just a little bit closer to form).