dave mcbride

Two actual Buffalonians play for Philly. That's pretty cool.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think that game came down to three factors: 1) (most importantly) the absence of a healthy Freeney, who got hurt in the championship game. He was the best defensive player in the league that year. 2) A wide-open Pierre Garcon's drop of a perfect throw that would have prevented NO from getting another possession before halftime. NO did and scored. 3) The (allegedly) mis-run route by Reggie Wayne that led to the pick six that effectively ended the game. Those are all player-related, not coaching related. That Saints team was really good too: 13-3.

Gilmore was PFF's 6th rated CB overall this year. Butler was 51st. Gilmore played really well in the postseason too. He was the only consistently decent defender on the field for the Pats yesterday.

I'm not sure that this has been said, but Butler wasn't that good this year. PFF confirms this: Gilmore is their #6-rated cb overall, and Butler was 51st.

I dunno. He just seems like he's morphed into an "oft-injured player."

I'd take a chance on him. I think Daboll is smart enough to utilize him correctly. Dennison? Not so much. So glad he's gone.

I don't think anyone is going to want Glenn. He is injured and has a huge contract. If I'm a gm of another team, I'd ask why the Bills seem to want to get rid of him. They might get a later-round pick for him, but that's the best they'll get. I wouldn't be surprised to see him cut.

Oh, I agree, but the long-term problem with the Bills hasn't really been the defense; they've fielded some good ones and a couple of great ones over the drought. The issue is the offense, which has been bad for a long time. The only bright spot was 2015-16, and they were only pretty good and flawed to boot. I don't really give them credit for 2002 given how the offense collapsed like a house of cards late in the season. Bledsoe had 16 TDs and 5 INTs through 8 games; he finished with 24 TDs and 15 picks. Re the Pats this season, they were always very flawed on D. The loss of Hightower was huge, and their inability to replace Chandler Jones showed up in the last couple of games. Their offense was fantastic this season, and they were very impressive last night against a very good D.

The thing about Foles is he actually did have an elite season a few years back. The most revealing thing I've read about him is that after that great season, coaches tried to make him into more of a pro-style mechanical qb rather than the point guard he truly is. Pederson told him to play point guard, and that's what he's been doing of late. He's great at that. He was a highly recruited basketball player out of high school. Christ, he was recruited by Georgetown to play point guard.

The 2011 Giants were a top-ten scoring and yardage team (9 in points and 8th in yards), and the 2013 Broncos were first in points and yards. The 2012 Ravens were 10th in points. The 2009 Ravens were 9th in points. The 2006 Colts were 2nd in points and 3rd yards. This season, the Chiefs, who CRUSHED the Pats and appear to have NE's number, were 6th in points and fifth in yards. Those teams could score. The 2015 Broncos were a bit of anomaly (16th points) relative to the teams that have taken Brady out.

The Bills need to score points, and that's where they should focus their energies. Their offense is terrible outside of McCoy and a couple of o-line positions. Their defense has some holes, but it's less of an issue than the offense. And the only way to get past NE is to build an offense that can score.

I suspect everyone watched it. To wit: https://sports.yahoo.com/ratings-eagles-patriots-super-bowl-just-3-still-eight-year-low-153550105.html NBC provided local numbers, and of course the game demolished in the ratings. It was the top-rated Super Bowl of all time in Philadelphia, pulling a 56.2 metered market rating. The numbers for Boston were slightly less at 55.9, and it was just the fourth-highest rated Super Bowl out of the Patriots’ 10 appearances. Oddly, Buffalo pulled the highest local ratings of the night, at 56.4. Go figure.

I suspect that the primary reason for such poor odds is that they're in the same division as the Patriots. I think most people regard their chances of winning a division/getting a bye as practically nil.

I saw that this a.m. And immediately thought of our coaching staff.

I don't think they get all the calls at all (witness last night). I just think that a) they are well coached and commit fewer infractions than other teams, and b) have been the recipient of a couple of beneficial calls in very high profile games over the years (eg, the jesse james non-catch) that linger in people's minds. The problem is that those reversals on the pats' behalf were correct according to the letter of the law. Bottom line, though: they get called for fewer penalties because they commit fewer penalties. It's not as if the league wants to see them win all of time. I mean, it should be pretty freaking obvious at this point that they don't want that to happen. There is no conspiracy and there is no superstar-treatment of them with regard to calls. If there were, Gronk would be the beneficiary of a call every other play because he really is held and interfered with that much.

Good take. The talent there this seasonwas seriously lacking. Not a good decision to offload Chandler Jones a while back.

This board is a Bills one, obviously, but it has long been good at generating discussions about other goings-on around the league. If you're not interested, that's fine, but the board will always feature discussions about non-Bills-related NFL stories because of the people who have long populated the board.

If you are an NFL fan, I'd say yeah. McCloughan is one of the best talent evaluators of this generation and has proven it wherever he has been. He has some obvious personal issues, but many felt that Snyder cooked up rumors about him in Washington and that he didn't actually have a drinking problem there. He didn't get along with Allen, who is a terrible gm.

I get your point -- sort of. The thing is, there are nearly zero posters here who aren't aware of the News's policy already. And it IS a good piece. Pretty revealing actually. Nice interview by Vic C. Also, the thing that bugs me isn't so much what you're saying but the out-and-out venom directed at the paper because they now require what amounts to chump change. Their coverage really has gotten better since they instituted it too, fwiw.

I just went through all of Miami's games from 2008. They opened with the wildcat more than once. Ronnie Brown is not credited with any qb victories, however. Pennington got them all, going 11-5 in the official stats. I think that pretty much closes the case here. 23-20 it is.

Agree 100 percent. The venom directed at him here really sucks.

Taylor was the announced starter of the game. They ran a trick play. It's probably the only game in NFL history where a qb in Cassell's position got a phantom victory. It's not as if this is a regular occurrence. It is, quite literally, unique and should be treated as such and dealt with accordingly.

This post makes no logical sense. Really. I am out; I feel like I am losing brain cells at this point by engaging in such a silly debate. I also feel like I'm dealing with a 22-20 truther.

I have no idea if there was a bonus and frankly don't care because it's utterly irrelevant to the conversation, the subject of which is rightful credit. You're trying to change the subject, and it feels to me like the worst sort of technicality-based lawyering.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying information wants to be free and that the creators of said information should do it gratis? Why is it OK to criticize a media outlet for this sort of thing given that it has to pay its employees every week? Bear in mind that we're talking peanuts here. In other words, what's the logic behind the criticism? No one is forcing you to pay for it.