JoshAllenHasBigHands

I used this the other day, but this post deserves it more... You are:

This reminded me of all those years our offenses were terrible, and we hoped it would magically get better in the regular season because "its just the pre-season."

Window is open now. That said, if Allen develops, we will have a much better chance next year. I think the Bills will be good this year, but I don't think they are going to the Super Bowl. Next year, maybe. Either way, we will need a kicker that is reliable. Haush will be another year down the road, and we may very well end up cutting Dustin Hopkins again. Yeah, reasonable minds can disagree. I still vote Bass, just for different reasons.

The question boils down to: do you want someone who is almost guaranteed from under 50; or do you want someone that is gonna miss some under 50, but hit a bunch from over 50? If it were just about this year, I would want Hauschka. But its also about the future. We drafted Bass, we should play Bass.

Yeah, but most kickers benefit from a bunch of under 30 yard FG attempts. You make most kickers kick that many from 40+, the percentages are gonna take a drop.

I thought for sure this thread would be 12 pages by now

There is actually a pretty serious liability concern. The Bills would be responsible for enforcing mask rules. Regardless of their efforts, if a person is spotted without a mask, the Bills are subject to civil penalties. You let in thousands of fans, you could be setting yourself up to serious liability. I would bet you my right arm it has more to do with that than health concerns.

Knox is an absolute man-rocket.

Thanks! I don't know how I missed that. That isn't "simulated pressure." That was a light tap on the tush because thats what our QB1 deserves, and you will never convince me otherwise.

Which video are you guys watching?

Except coaches, of course.

Thats like 60 to 70 reps. How much better (or more comfortable) are you after 60 to 70 reps? And its 4 games of preparation, even if he is only playing a quarters worth of snaps. Being at the stadium at a certain time, preparing your body in a certain way, getting your routine right. It changes the dynamic of the game. Sure, McDermott can simulate other teams. But he does it with the same guys Allen practiced against all month. Guys that have tendencies that Allen is intimately familiar with. And, super important, Allen isn't getting hit. He is the first to tell people that he doesn't feel comfortable in a game until he gets hit. It definitely matters.

Reps matter. Reps against your team's defense; reps against another team's defense; reps against different styles of defense; reps in a game day setting with fans. Will he be fine? Maybe, but the preseason definitely does matter.

I hard agree with this. I hate that they are playing him at Guard. Unless they have made the decision that Tackle is never going to happen, which they may well have, he should be playing Tackle. Guard and Tackle are not the same position.

This is great. I miss this type of football too. Sort of reminds me of Baseball's progression. There used to be so much more gamesmanship--hit and run, bunting, etc. Now its all analytics and shifts. Guys either hit home runs or strike out. Teams can play the shift, and hitters don't even have the skill to drop a bunt or slap the ball the other way. Sort of takes some of the romance out of the game. Now, LBs not being thumpers doesn't exactly take the "romance" out of Football, but it would be pretty cool to see big guys hit each other.

Typical negative fan base. Somethings never change. Of course someone would think we would give up a TD to the Jets. Absurd.

God I love training camp. I feel like, deep down, we all know that nobody is overtaking Brown or Beasley—two top 32 (or at least 40) WRs in the league. But during this special time of year, we just cant help but convince ourselves that this is exactly what is happening.

I didn't mean to imply you made it political. My point was that people using that tone is why this whole thing got to be political. The data entirely supports my conclusion that Florida did better than New York. I'm a huge advocate that context is often more important than data. That said, the context supports the data here. Everyone remembers this chart: The idea has always been to slow the spread. The reason deaths per 100,000 people is so important is it indicates whether a state fell in the red curve or the blue curve. Remember, for months the narrative was this virus will spread, but we need to slow it down to limit deaths. We always knew deaths were inevitable. In New York, the State couldn't slow the spread. Florida, they did--hence they were able to treat so many more people, and why they had so fewer deaths. Unlike New York, Florida was never meaningfully over capacity. So, sure, they had different treatments, but they also had the beds and medical personnel necessary to render the treatments.

For months we were told that the goal here is to get to the Blue curve, and not to be the red curve. New York ends up in a red curve situation, and Florida ends up in the blue curve situation; yet, somehow, New York is the success story.

This response is super aggressive. I'm not really sure what I said to deserve to be insulted. If you ever wonder how this whole situation got so political, or why there is so much animosity, I'd suggest taking a hard look in the mirror. In any event, your response largely confirms what I said in the first place: Florida did better than New York. First, as you point out, Florida's testing protocol was far superior. Second, Florida did a better job of treating its COVID patients. Big picture aside, what Florida really did different was emphasize keeping high risk patients protected. Something New York obviously didn't do--I'm sure I don't need to bring up the whole Nursing Home fiasco. They knew young people could sick with relatively little consequence (key word there is relatively), whereas they needed to do whatever necessary to protect the sick and elderly. This is part of the reason the mortality rate in Florida is so much lower. I appreciate the "excuses" that you are making for New York, but none of it means that Florida did not do a better job than New York.

48 deaths per 100,000 v. 169 deaths per 100,000 I don't know the exact figure, but Florida's mortality rate is between 1-2%, and New York's was like 5-6%. There is no debating Florida did significantly better than New York.

And do you think comparing QAnon conspiracy theorists to people who think, for example, the Swedish model was a better methodology to combat the pandemic is also a "bit of a false equivalence." That's what we are really talking about here. Not wild conspiracy theories. Instead, its people saying things like, the Swedish model is better, or we shouldn't be overreacting to such a low mortality rate, or closing schools does more harm than good. This is what you are comparing to QAnon. That is preposterous.

Its sort of like concussion protocol. There are times that guys are held out of practice/games, even when they aren't exhibiting symptoms, because they have to first work through the steps of the protocol.

These threads don't happen because people think the "world is wrong" and they have it figured out. These threads happen because there are competing interpretations about what is happening/what should happen. On both sides (because somehow this became a political issue) people decided they had the ultimate answer and that anyone that disagreed was "anti-science." Its an absurd framework.

I don't really mind. Its sort of the cost of doing business. I wouldn't put an asterisks next to the season if Allen missed a couple games due to injury? Why would I care if it was due to false positives instead?