Mikie2times

Brady has always been the league leader in how fast he gets the ball out. I would argue if the stat was tracked historically he would be in the top 3 all time. It's why the Patriots can just rotate lineman at will. You get a few chances each game at him. We didn't take advantage of those chances outside of the strip sack. Rex did not have a good game plan. We didn't execute on any level defensively outside of stopping the run the few times the Patriots tried it. The defense was confused and not lined up correctly most the game. Pretty much everything sucked, which is how it usually goes when you allow 40 points.

I think his style infuses confidence in players. We need that. I think it's what will ultimately punch our ticket to the playoffs this year. At the same time we have to take the bad with the good. His style is incredibly irritating when he doesn't back up what he's saying. It's not very difficult to see how a guy like Rex almost has to be a quick exis if things go south. He had the Jets playing hard all of last year, so I don't want to take that away from him, but from a fan perspective, Rex would be pretty unbearable with a losing team. He would lose his edge and I just don't know the whole shtick would go over.

That was a the play Hughes slapped Gronks arm well before the ball arrived, should have been pass interference. I had a problem with many of the calls that went against us today. I just found it funny that in a Patriots cheating thread this play ended up being referenced as it seemed like the only break we got all game.

I agree, I like the politically correct version of the Bills that lost by 30 instead of 8 . Rex did not coach a good game. He didn't put his players in the best position to be successful. But if you have a problem with Rex's approach as far as how it played out in this game you might as well just throw in the towel on him. He was still acting like this when the Jets were awful. This is who he is. If you/we/the Bills didn't know that thru their bones when they hired him they didn't do enough research.

The pass was high, it was a 20 yard Dig, not exactly a gimmie, but borderline uncatchable? That is a phrase better used for many of the catches Watkins already has shown us he can make. It is the type of pass that will get you laid out but it's not as if Taylor had a ton of choices in that stage of the game.

LOL @ Taylor comments. 3 Int's, two right off our WR hands and one on a desperation pass trying to get in FG range before the first half ended. He easily could have had 3 TD's, 0 INT's, another rushing, 70%+ completion %, and 250+ yards. He looked like he wasn't fully seasoned on every play. Go figure. Outside of that is was a solid game. He made some plays no QB's in the NFL can make and kept fighting. Who knows how this would have finished if Sammy makes that catch on the Dig on our final drive. Taylor seems to be a last second magic guy, he was at VT and I thought he had a shot at giving us a shot on that final drive.

1. Taylor has shown exactly what I thought he would and my expectations were high. The two INT's we need receptions on, he was not pin point on either, but Clay and Watkins need to make those catches. He's going to make some mistakes, hes also going to make some incredible plays. He did both today and the line didn't offer him much help. 2. Teams are going to force us out of our heavy sets and Roman needs to adjust faster. The Bills offense can perform very well in space. That space opens lanes for Taylor to run in and spreads our YAC WR's out. We can't stay in two TE sets all game with 7-8 in the box. I want to ground and pound as much as anybody but we can't force the run. 3. I don't think the Bills belong in a 3-4. I know Rex mixes it up, a lot. 4-3, 3-4, 46, tons of nickle packages. I feel that is part of the problem. We made a big jump in 2014 after running a similar scheme as Rex in 2013. This scheme forces players to think as much as play and we saw a lot of confusion in the defense all game. Last year we just played. Seattle is a great example of a team that runs about the most basic defense in the league but it allows players to be players. I'm not sure if I'm willing to say this defense will be better because of a Rex which seemed like a guarantee pre-season. 4. This offense is light years ahead of being an Achilles heal. I would say the offense is appearing to be more of a strength especially when viewed with the assumption that the defense would be dominant. Preseason it was all about how the offense can't lose us games. The defense lost us this game and the offense seems like it will put up north 21+ a game. 5. McCoy is due for a big game. Stats haven't shown much, but McCoy just looks like he's playing at another gear compared to the other players on the field. His ability to stop, start, and cut without losing speed is impressive. Slow start, he's still banged up, but I still expect some big plays from him. 6. Darby is legit and I really hope he is fine after leaving the field slowly. He had a couple holding calls today. Outside of that he was on the hip pocket of everybody he covered. When the Patriots tried to Kelvin Benjamin him (1st preseason game) with Gronk on the outside he fought him the whole way and did a great job finding the ball. I would say he's light years ahead of where he should be based on degree of difficulty and the place he was drafted. Steal. 7. I felt pretty strongly that we would make the playoffs before the game and nothing changed that. In order to accomplish that we said in the preseason we needed a dominant defense and an offense that doesn't hurt us. I expect us to make the playoffs, but not under that formula. The offense won't always look pretty but it will score points and consistently have us in the 20's. I expect a very low Yards Per Point conversion for our offense, which is efficiency in converting yards into points. The best teams tend to make the playoffs and I expect us to be very highly rated in that area. We have been outstanding in two weeks so far. The defense will be good, but I worry our roster isn't the ideal fit for Rex's system and the additional learning required will cause a regression from 2014. It will still be a hell of a defense, I just don't think we will best 2014 or make some insane leap into the annals of history as some hoped with Rex at the helm.

Sort of? If he was drinking he was not allowed to have his firearm. I imagine he decided to bring it even though he knew he would likely be drinking. I don't think many people leave for a Bills tailgate undecided on that topic.

It's amazing how far off you're on this. His drives ended in a higher TD% than any QB. I'm eating lunch at work, if you really want the TD's I can do that for you. But it's a waste of time. His % of TD drives was the highest of any QB. His points per possession were the highest of any QB. These are stats remember, not open to opinion outside of debating the merits of the stats. Sorry if it doesn't fit your narrative.

Most of Manuel and Taylor's drives ended in TD's, I wasn't going to penalize players for Kickers missing FG's. Which did happen, which is why it's a % stat. I can convert it into TD% if you wish.

Yards per play is total rushing and passing yards, minus sack yards, divided by attempts. Taylor 43 Attempts, 335 Yards, 7.8 Yards Per Play, FG attempted or better on 7 of 9 drives= 77.8% Manuel 39 Attempts, 328 Yards, 8.4 Yards Per Play, FG attempted or better on 7 of 13 drives= 53.8% Cassell 17 Attempts, 82 Yards, 4.8 Yards Per Play, FG attempted or better on 2 of 4 drives= 50.0% I really hope Cassell is't in the mix. I understand he has taken a back seat so the coaches can see what they have in EJ and Taylor, but I just don't see him getting his Yards Per Play near 7.0, which Taylor and Manuel are both comfortably in. Taylor really seems to have a knack for sustaining drives. Leading 7 out of 9 drives into scoring range is pretty impressive and most those were TD's. EJ has also done well in this area including a game winning drive and by far the strongest job in the deep passing game.

Tyrod has the legs, big play ability, make something out of nothing ability. Cassel has the short passing game, veteran experience. Most knowledge and accuracy. Manuel has the best arm, is probably the best 2 minute guy. Those are just strengths. They all have weaknesses. It's hard to say how you can rate any much better or worse. Given the element of the enhanced running game with Taylor and the fact that he's never actually failed yet as a starter, his age, I really think he will get the nod.

I'm for Taylor starting. That said if the game was nothing but a two minute drill, EJ is the best quarterback we have.

I'm 33, so I didn't understand that time as well as understand this time. I imagine I would have disapproved based on similar logic. I'm right on monetary policy and left on social policy and sure as hell don't affiliate myself with either side. I actually don't support Bernie's monetary policy at all. I would have never made a vote again if it wasn't for Sanders bringing up the two issues I care about most, Citizens United and Glass Steagal. At this time I support a system that can be won by a republican or democrat with no gross favors owed, I don't care which side the candidate is. I also support an economy that is stable, which can't happen right now. Nothing has changed since 2008, a time we almost went into a depression if not for a bailout. Nobody cares. Interest rates are stuck at 0% for an ungodly period of time. We have brought the global economy to it's knees as a result of policy and we just keep replaying the same story. Bernie has been ahead of wall street and predicting too big to fail scenarios before the Fed or economists did. He was grilling Greenspan in 2003. You must keep missing words. "I want publicly funded elections with low maximum donations" The Koch brothers wouldn't be able to donate over 100 million dollars. Hillary would not be able to raise 45 million dollars. If the cap is 2,500, nobody can be as influential as they can now. Sure, the whole thing will always be shady. But what happening now is just arrogant.

GG, I'm saying the exact opposite. I thought I was clear in my point. Perhaps not. I care that a corporation can create a Super PAC and spend unlimited amount of money toward a campaign without even having to put a name down. I want publicly funded elections with low maximum donations. Publicly funded only by citizens and not corporations. How much did the Koch brothers spend in Wisconsin and Michigan to smash unions? Politics about unions aside. If the public doesn't want them fine, if two brothers don't want them and they can make that happen the system is broken. They literally bought two candidates, funded them beyond a competitive playing field and stacked the political system to fit their own personal agenda. That's what they will keep doing. Ya, the people still decide, but sort of hard to compete when your outspent 10 to 1.

Very happy he isn't in worse shape, but very concerned still. Hamstring and Groins can linger for an entire season. You watch a player and all year and they don't produce the same, they say they feel good. The season ends and then they say "ya, the Hamstring was bothering me all season". Happens so much. If he's even at a 5%-10% risk of re-injury for the opener I wouldn't play him. I wouldn't consider playing him until he has zero doubt he is 100% with no needles. I don't care if it takes 3-4 weeks into the season. We need him at 100% and it's a very long season.

Lets take a socialistic policy like SS. Personally, I would rather not have SS. I feel like I can spend my money and save my money better than any other entity as it pertains to my goals. Having said that I don't exactly see that playing out in the general population. Many if not most Americans struggle to fight the urge to balance credit debt. Forget about retirement. I can't think of many situations in which people have said, up, my 401k, savings, and pension is just so high I don't know when I should retire. It's more like, well, I want to retire soon, how the hell am I going to live off anything but SS? People don't save in mass and regardless if I feel I can, or you feel you can, most can't. Without SS we would have a millions and millions of 65+ year old people either homeless or working minimum wage until death. That doesn't sit well with me. Even if I do want complete control of my money, not at that cost. Hell, I don't like a lot of Bernie's Policy, but the things I do like I view as absolutely essential to restoring the political system and that is something that no candidate running on either side can offer me.

I don't deserve relief from debt I've incurred, I would like future generations to have better options. I prefer just to get the fed out of it completely as competition would lower cost, but since every loan is backed by the fed, it doesn't exactly take cut throat underwriting to get approved for large student loans, so schools have zero reason to maintain stable prices. Unfortunately Bernie wants the government even more involved in it. Still, his plan would allow for people to not be hamstrung by the this type of debt when they start life if they wish to seek out a higher education. You are a person, a corporation is not a person. Democracy is based on public funded elections. The concept of each persons voice represented to the fullest extent and equally heard. Limitation on campaign donations should be in place and only individual people/not corporations should be allowed to contribute. If that's not in place elections are not equal or based on the voice of the people. They become based on the voice of the people who have the most money. That is not a democracy. How many bubbles have we seen since Reagan/Greenspan economics? Tech, housing, and coming soon, a living hell....Ya, the stock market should be reaching all time highs. That's logical in an economy with no measurable growth. Maybe they just don't give a crap backed up by 0% interest rates for 7-8 years and knowing exactly what will happen when the next bubble hits. Too big to fail bailout. Wall Street does not fear risk. Glass-Steagall existed for a really smart reason. Unfortunately not smart enough to overcome the potential to make big money fast even if that put the entire global economy at risk.

I think Dareus is double teamed excessively regardless of the scheme. That said, for a man that gets nose tackle like double team rates, he is exceptionally fast and can either blow up the middle pocket or destroy a run play 3 yards back. Perhaps in Ryans scheme He needs to stay in anchor role. Too much penetration might create problems with gap responsibility. I could see why that designation would be frustrating to Dareus if that is indeed whats happening. That brings up all sorts of other concerns regarding his future but it's far too early to tell what his final role will be. Rex is a good coach and good coaches put players in a position to maximize the skills they have. Dareus being aggressive is in everybody's best interests and we need to find a way to position him where he can play that way.

Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. Not a weird country. When a party or parties does not represent any of the ideals they pretend to stand for what decisions are left to be made? He's my father in law. My Dad passed away two weeks ago and was very similar to my Father in Law in his republican principles. Which is fine, I long for the days when real democrats and real republicans even had a voice to debate with. The whole system is destroyed in so many ways. The only reason I'm even discussing politics is one of the candidates is discussing issues that have concerned me for years and he's putting his money where is mouth is. As for Hillary and the establishment, wait until the debates. They will do everything possible to destroy him, I have no doubt. But he is going to do very well in the debates and force Hillary into some bad positions no politicians are even willing to discuss right now.

I'm with Bernie. I make a little less than double the median income for my area. Which isn't a wealthy area, nor am I. Functional and above water, yes. About 47,000 in debt on student loans. I don't want a hand out or student loan forgiveness. I want Citizens United overturned. I want that overturned probably more than any other wish I have regarding politics I would like to see more Wall Street regulation, roll it back pre Greenspan. Less involvement by the Federal Bank (don't know if I will get this out of Bernie especially in these times). I also want student loan reform, I feel the whole program is designed to do nothing as far as maintaining or reducing tuition rates. I don't feel any of the peoples interests matter anymore. We have an election, Republicans believe in this, Democrats that, both nominees run campaigns on the principles that represent the party. A bunch of back and forth ensues among voters. Neither party will ever honor what they run on. They can',t they owe too many favors to too many people and if they didn't they wouldn't win. I don't agree with everything Bernie stands for. I'm actually a capitalistic person, monetarily conservative. Unfortunately actual capitalism is dead in this country and it doesn't matter if your liberal or conservative, both sides have played spin the needle with interest rates and as a result I expect we will probably see the worst economic event since the great depression. At least Bernie discusses the madness. Nobody else will and if nobody changes these things our political system and these conversations will never matter again.

I have no issue with your post, I thought TT played great. As it stands right now I would name him the starter and I've been saying that since the day we signed him.

I have never liked EJ as a starter, I posted tons of threads analyzing his play at FSU when we drafted him. It was one preseason game and his line was the best in that one preseason game. That said it does nothing to make me feel any better that he is the man for the job.

I've been using that metric for 7-8 years now and I'm comfortable with the way it is, but I do respect and appreciate the feedback. In your scenario that is correct, B) would win. That said, the difference between A) and B) is A's) attempts had a 0% chance to result in an incomplete pass. That aspect is what really powers the production rate of Running QB's without it ever showing up in the stat sheets in a correct way. A) will likely be more consistent in his production on account of that. You could almost look at it as a measure of volatility in data. A pass for 50 yards would really swing B), can we expect B) to consistently deliver that 50 yard pass into his metric? Likely not. With A) a higher expectation exists to produce that type of line on a game to game basis. Ultimately yards are yards and while teams deviate based on efficiency levels as far as converting yards to points, most NFL teams will stay right around 15 yards per point. When you see a high deviation in that stat it's usually a result of turnovers or high QB efficiency (Brady/Rodgers elites). I like Taylor's metrics when you include his running data. Similar to other QB's who bring mobility into the equation, the passing number just don't properly weight the performance they bring. Some might view passing yards to be more valuable. No statistical evidence exists that suggests that. No correlations exist between higher amounts of passing yards and lower yards per point values. The only correlations you see with lower yard per point values are with turnovers, ST, and the very, very few elite QB's and that aspect is more a product of RZ efficiency vs anything else.