Beck Water

So Cover1 did a Film Room thing on Bills-Lions. They made a case for part of the problem with the RPO being the lack of a Beasley replacement who can find the gap and get open quickly for the "P" part of the option. Beasley was the RPO king. I think the Bills conceptualized Crowder as That Guy, but the leg injury took him out of contention. They made a similar comment on lack of receiving options over the middle. Maybe I've missed it, but I don't understand why Knox isn't an option there, as well as on RPOs.

So there seems to be a bit of a paradox here. To my understanding, the Vikes moved on from Xavier Rhodes because he was no longer the "Rhodes Closed" shutdown man corner. He found success shifting to Eberflaus zone scheme in Indy. That's where Rhodes is probably strongest as a potential contributor: as a zone corner. Dane Jackson did a far more capable job of contributing to close out last season across from Wallace after White went down, and he and Benford held down the Bills secondary for the start of the 2022 season - in a DB friendly zone scheme with a stout pass-rushing DL ahead of them. Greg Cosell pointed out after the Lions game that the Bills played one of their highest percentages of Man coverage and also their highest percentage of 5 man pressures, to "affect the QB" after Miller went out and in the absence of Rousseau. So now we want to bench Jackson and replace him with Rhodes - replace a guy who has shown as a capable zone corner in the Bills scheme, with an aging corner who is still capable in a zone scheme? I'm not sure y'all are thinking this through. Yes, if White comes back and Elam overcomes his "handsiness", they can both play Man, one reason why we drafted Elam - so that we would potentially have two corners capable of playing man.

I mean, what is there further to say about Von Miller's injury per se at this point, unless the chap who watched Von Miller streaming has any further input about what Miller said? He has a lateral meniscal tear. Some of them can be played through with a brace, some of them can't. Apparently not clear which is which just from viewing the MRI, as it may have to do with the degree of bone bruising and stretching of ligaments. The plan is to wait 2 weeks for swelling/bruising to diminish and then see if he can play through it or if he's out for the season.

Is that changing, though, along with changing demographics where younger people spend less time watching broadcast or cable TV and more time on streaming services/Youtube/Gaming channels? I'm sure it doesn't hurt Lamar at all with a large segment of that demographic; they possibly admire it (like Barstool Sports "put the guy in a body bag" reaction) You may be able to relate to this classic musical ditty:

I mean, isn't it still, or at least the fallout from it? We have a guy who is "Our best defensive player will probably miss the rest of the regular season, but the Bills will continue on their previous W/L trajectory and we'll get him back for the playoffs" and most people smile and nod We have a couple people who say wait a minute, no Von Miller, possibly no Dawkins for a couple games, Allen still working his way back from injury and not the same guy - No, making the playoffs is not a sure bet, the Bills better hammer down and adjust and take care of business. And then we have the predictable Tar and Pitchfork reactions, "you're just a defeatist pessimist Concern Queen who probably spends your life worrying about everything" reactions. I think I've summed it up pretty well, ✌️ out

And not to pick on you specifically, but this is exactly the sort of reaction that I referenced above, In re: my (to me) not at all controversial comments that the Bills could realistically miss the playoffs. To me, it's a cold hard statistical way of looking at the world as overlapping probability ranges and recognizing changed circumstances (Allen's injury, Dawkinsn injury, potentially losing Von Miller for the rest of the season) that can change expectationsbuilt from past performance. To you, it apparently becomes very personal. Anyone who thinks that way has a personality flaw - they are a "Concern Queen" and must be personally attacked for their POV as "spending all their energy worrying". Moreover they are DEMANDING that EVERYONE accept their WORST FEARS, not merely explaining the way they see it, take it or leave it. Dude, no one here is demanding a thing, not even a moment of time to try to understand another POV - you can always skate right on past it or even block the person expressing it and never see it at all. But it would be nice to refrain from making it personal by casting it as a personality trait or flaw affecting someone's entire life. You're welcome to disagree, of course.

I don't have any inside information whatsoever. But I would guess that a number of our favorite players would say things that are far more profane than we have any idea of, between their friends and teammates in private, and that would include Josh. It really doesn't reflect one way or another on whether they're decent people or not, if they speak or write crudely. It more has to do with the culture in which they were raised and how they adapt it to a football locker room. JMO Think she might have ordered up a bar of that soap Herbert shills for express delivery to Lamar's residence?

I've already said that I don't think we can productively discuss this. It's as though we speak different languages. "It's defeatist pessimism" is an example. It's not "defeatist pessimism", it's not a personal expectation or belief, it's not personal at all. You want to make it very personal and emotional. It's understandable - we fans can get very testy at people who diss our beloved team, and of course, based on 1-2 posts one can't always tell trollish defeatism from raising a valid point. It's just a different way of looking at probabilities (and a relatively crude way, actually, for both of us). You see a "win rate" as a number. I see a "win rate" as a range of outcomes. All those teams don't have to change "win rates", they all have a range of outcomes and it just has to happen that 3 of those ranges fall higher than the Bills. Maybe this will help: you know those ads for financial services companies? The ones where at the bottom they hurry through the phrase "past results do not guarantee future performance"? Obviously neither the active fund manager, the company they work for, nor the prospective clients want to believe it, but it's still true. You'd like to use the Bills (and other teams) past performance to predict future outcomes, and sometimes that's reasonably valid. But if things change - a team gets a key player back or has the "light bulb" switch on for a key player or two, another team (like the Bills) lose a key player or two to injury (such as Von Miller and Dawkins), then past results truly may no longer apply. And this doesn't have to happen for 6 teams, it only has to happen for 3. Maybe we can find some common ground. How about this: The Bills can still control their own destiny in the playoff race and in the division. If they take care of business and can truly handle a "next man up" philosophy and adapt to the players they have, they will make the playoffs. If they stubbornly refuse to adjust, or if they start to feel entitled or though playoffs "are inevitable", they may face a surprise.

Looking at their schedule, I understand your point (and agree) but there's always that odd loss. I mean, who picked the Colts to beat the Chiefs?

That's wonderful to read, but is that calculated by the same people who make up "the spread" for betting purposes? You know, the thing the Bills have been failing to beat?

You lost me right there. I think it's safe to say this isn't a topic where we'll be able to have a productive discussion, so agree to disagree. Note that I don't want the Bills to lose ANY more games and I think "running the table" is entirely do-able for the team if they take care of business and focus But at the same time, I have no idea what is meant by "there is zero indication we would lose more than 3" means. We lost 3 close games that we could easily have won if one or two of a handful of plays had fallen differently; one could equally well say that we won 3 close games we could easily have lost if one or two of a handful of plays had fallen differently. So when I read "there is zero indication we would lose more than 3", I don't think we speak the same language, where probabilities are concerned, even independent of the team being different in the second half of the season if we're missing a key player like Von Miller and have other key players such as Dawkins or Groot or Edmunds absent for more time or if Allen fails to regroup from his UCL injury. Again, I don't want the Bills to lose any more games, and I hope they will make the playoffs, I just don't see it as a sure thing, especially if we are without 1 or 2 of our best players any length of time.

We've only had 17 games for a couple seasons, and I'm not the odds-meister to determine how adding a game changes things. At least one 10 win team has missed playoffs 5 of the last 10 years, as recently as 2020 So I'd kind of rather get more wins and not find out.

For DPI you mean?

Love couldn’t be placing some of those throws any better, his WR letting him down a bit IMO

To be honest, I didn’t think it was a particularly controversial statement. There’s a very realistic chance that if the Bills level up their consistency, they can win the division and even (with a little help) win the #1 seed in the conference. But with 6 games left, 4 other teams in the conference with winning records, and only a 2 game lead, it seems like simple math that the playoffs aren’t a lock. We’ve all seen what happens when the Bills walk into a game thinking they don’t need to bring their very best to come out with a W I’m not saying I think that’s what will happen, or trying to be a Debbie, just making the point that if the players who brought us this far can play, I’m not sure it’s a sound strategy to feel we can put them “on ice” until the playoffs.

The Eagles do not seem to have gotten this memo

Once, it would not have been. But that was then…. I’m gonna go with Aaron Rodgers can’t throw and if the Eagles key on the GB run they can shut this show down

This is the Eagles chance to put their foot on GB necks And they do!

He lives in Texas. That could end badly.

Well that was offensive PI

If his ribs are hurting every time he gets a breath that could slow a guy up some

Is it just me, or was Collinsworth talking about “perfect” protection which involved GB OL flagrantly holding?

He did take a hard helmet to the ribs down by the goal line on their last series. That couldn’t have felt good.

So far it’s a much more entertaining game than I thought it would be

Whoa two of the Eagles linemen interfered with each other on the run back of that fumble.