SouthernMan

Since there seems to be no consensus on helmet color (it's not going to change any time soon anyway), I'd love to see the Bills become style pioneers and have the first transparent Plexiglas helmets. For the December games they could even fill it with that snow-globe stuff, so when they get hit, it looks like their heads are snowing! Can you say chick magnets?!?

If I'd heard ahead of time they were going blue on blue, I would have thought it would look awful. I was surprised. To me, it actually looked pretty good. I suspect the red helmets have greater nostalgic and sentimental value to kids who came of age during the 80s and 90s, and I can see why they might prefer them. For guys like me who first got hooked towards the end of the AFL era and into the O.J. era, the white ones, standing or charging bison, are the ones for me.

I wasn't necessarily commenting on Manning's chances of going to Buffalo so much as I was reacting to the predictable bit about the bad weather location being a factor in any decision. We know it gets cold in Buffalo, and sometimes there is snow. But the chances of actually playing in bad conditions during those 4 games (total of 12 hours) between November and December are minimal, or at the very least, hardly more than the odds when playing in several other NFL cities. My comment was merely about writer's almost obligatory, but unresearched comments about playing ball in Buffalo.

I get sick of hearing "bad weather" being such a big factor for players or FA considering playing for Buffalo. It's an exaggeration of the frozen tundra perception of Buffalo. The majority of blizzard-like conditions occur after Jan 1. Typically there are only about 4 games per year played in WNY after October, and usually there are not more than 1 out of 4 (if that) that could be considered "bad weather". There may be some cold games, but it's hardly any different than it often is in Denver, Foxboro, NY, Cleveland, Green Bay, Chicago, Pittsburgh, etc. Even players with the Bucs or Dolphins have to experience "bad weather" games, since there's a fair chance they'll play a late season game in one of those locations at some point. Seriously, how many "bad weather" games have the Bills had at home over the past 10 years? I'd be surprised if there were more than a few. For you season ticket holders, what games in recent memory would you categorize has having harsh conditions for a Bills home game? If fear of bad weather is really that much of an issue for any player, I wouldn't want him anyway.

Exactly. Every time I see the the amount of contact by defenders that is allowed, I immediately think of the textbook pass defense that Gilmore was nailed on - not once - but twice in the span of about 4 weeks. The problem with officiating is lack of consistency. It's got to be confusing to the players. The other penalty that is ridiculous is the "leading with the helmet" calls that occur when a player is making a hit. Unless the defender's body is 100% upright (almost impossible to tackle in that manner), how can you not lead with your helmet? I understand that don't want helmet to helmet hits, but it's fast moving game, and occasionally movement by the ball carrier may result in the two helmets making some contact. Unless it's an obvious projectile-style head butting to a stationary target, the officials need to give some latitude, Meanwhile, douchbag Suh gets a slap on the wrist for obvious attempt to injure a star player. Go figure.

let me clarify..... It's not exactly a Fonzie reference so much as it was a way to describe a TV show that had run out of plot ideas, and eventually got absurd. In the case of Happy Days, they had Fonzie water skiiing in a leather jacket, jumping sharks. TV shows that run out of ideas usually add some cute new kid, have marriages or babies or come other contrived idea to keep the show from falling off the Nielsen charts. Shows like Two and a Half Men have obviously jumped the shark. Seinfeld avoided jumping the shark by never marrying Elaine and having twins with her, which would have been a typical jumping the shark idea to milk another season. The term "jumping the shark" has transcended the TV show vernacular and now describes anything that is "played" and being milked. This thread has "jumped the shark"! :-)

You're not alone. There have been computer analysis done of the play. It shows that the point where the ball left his hand is right about in line with where the ball was caught. It's very close. The rule is clear that it's about where the ball is when it's thrown. Wycheck's right foot was about a foot away from the 25 yard line, his hand was forward of the right foot during the throw (right at about the 25 yd line), and Dyson scooped it up at about the 25 yd line. It was that close. With Wycheck's body mostly behind the 25 yd line, and Dyson's most beyond the line, it created the illusion that it's going forward, but from Wycheck's right throwing hand to Dyson's catching hands, the ball pretty much went in a straight line right along the 25 yd.line. It's very possible that it was a few inches backwards, and if a flag had been thrown, it probably would have done the other way. Just not enough evidence to overturn it either way. the footage starting at around the 1:12 mark of this angle shows that it was going backwards, or at the very least, on a straight parallel line.

Throwing all the measurable s out the window, the thing I see in star quarterbacks is that "eye of the tiger" winner, ultra-competitive mentality. You just have to look at successful QBs like Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Manning, Wilson, Rothlisberger, Elway, Kelly, Marino, etc - they have a noticeable swagger and look of leadership. They show great confidence and it's contagious to the team. Obviously, they had to have the physical, mental, and visual skills to partner with that character trait, but I defy you to name a successful NFL QB that has " all the physical tools", but was missing that key ingredient. The NFL QB trash heap is littered with physical specimens that didn't have the leadership gene. Few QBs in NFL history have had the physical gifts of Jeff George, but he didn't have what it took to be a team leader and get the most out of the players around him. That brings us back to EJ Manuel. From the little I've seen of him, I don't sense that he has the personality that oozes confidence and inspires teammates. Seems like a nice enough guy, intelligent, and certainly has some of the necessary attributes, but does he have the charisma, ability to lead, and same fire in his eyes top QBs display? I don't think so. Unfortunately, those QBs are a rare find and Manuel may be the best the Bills can expect in 2015 unless they get lucky. They's have to find the right guy who is just blossoming and fits in the NFL mold and falls under the radar in the draft - a Tom Brady miracle is what they need. Maybe the Bills need to put more emphasis on their prospect's psychology to determine if he's "got it".

We're only 21 weeks away from the draft and less than 41 weeks away from the start of the 2015 season! Oh, wait.....no first round pick next year. Never mind the first part. Only 41 weeks until opening day...YAY!!!

Name a team that has won a superbowl without a top tier QB! It never happens. * A couple of ways to get that elite QB: have the worst record and an early 1st round pick in a year when there's a Manning, Luck, etc sure thing QB available, then give them a year or two of seasoning. Rarely is there a sure thing. Identify and draft a hidden gem in the later rounds - Wilson, Brady Find a FA or trade from a team lucky enough to have two good QBs, or find one that's still viable but in the twilight of their career. Another infrequent occurance is the 'shooting star' season where a player has one great year but never maintains that level the rest of their career - think Mark Rypien, 1992. The last 2 aren't anything you can look to for long term success. * y'all said to yourself "Trent Dilfer".... didn't you? :-) That was kind of the point. Only once in how many years?

Isn't that a different penalty if Williams' man wasn't the intended receiver? Illegal contact or holding? 10 yards from line of scrimmage rather than at the point of the foul inside the 10 yard line. Either way, wrong player named or wrong call - it displays the incompetance of the officials.

There were a ton of bad calls. I don't think anyone has even mentioned the spot of the ball when Hogan caught the ball with about 2 minutes and change left in the game. Clearly, he was across the line for a first down. The ball was spotted a yard back (while the clock kept running), making it 4th and 1. I'm not sure why it wasn't challenged by Marrone, unless it was past the point in the game at which they can no longer challenge or he didn't want to risk losing a time out. The Bills did get the first down on the next play, in spite of the bad spot and extra precious seconds taken off the clock. Later that same day.....watching the Chargers/Patriots....there was a play when Rivers threw a ball to a receiver running towards the end zone. The Patriot defender was molesting the receiver, pulling at his jersey and his hands all over him. The official was standing right there at the goal line. No PI call there. Not for the darling Patriots. I'm thinking to myself, "but Gilmore gets flagged for textbook pass defense a couple weeks ago when his left hand was in light contact with the receiver's back as he reached around to bat the ball away?" And of course yesterday, Gilmore times a hit perfectly, but gets flagged. The lack of consistency is what drives me crazy. Fortunately, River threw a TD pass on the next play and the non-call didn't effect the outcome. The Bills could have made plays to negate the poor officiating, but they didn't. It's very possible the Bills could have won the game without the refs giving the Broncos all the breaks. We'll never know. But one thing is for sure - the Bills are not a championship team and won't be until they execute better. Orton is doing a good job with his natural talent. He's a decent enough game manager. The problem is he can't make the throws unless his feet are planted perfectly and he doesn't have to move. Even with that, it dubious. If the Bills had a passer with good field vision, who was at least minimally mobile, and could hit their target consistently, they'd be one of the top tier team in the AFC. Maybe then the officials would give them a break. After watching Orton and then watching Brady throw frozen rope darts to his receivers in the night game, it's clear the Bills are still a good QB away from any realistic playoff hope.

Pears was flagged for the late hit. Technically, it was a late hit after stoppage of play...but...the whistle wasn't blown yet when contact was made. Football 101 - play to the whistle.

You must be a defense attorney. Here's the problem: they NFL is defining a pass as the player moving their arm in a forward motion while holding the ball. Manziel was going to pass.(maybe) He didn't actually throw a pass by any rational person's understanding of the words "a pass" - only by the NFL's convoluted definition. IMO - If the player is tackled while still in possession of the ball, that should be credited to the defenders who blew past the O-line and caused the disruption. They did their job. The guy holding the ball didn't. Who can argue with that? So, with the idiocy of this rule, interpretation, or whatever - shouldn't the NFL at least be consistent? When a RB has possession of the ball and he's being gang tackled and one of the defenders wrenches the ball from his hands, shouldn't that be a non-fumble as well?. Clearly, he intended to keep running.

2 plays are the most notable of Manziel's time on the field Sunday. The non fumble and the touchdown run. On the touchdown run, an official was looking right at Hughes being tackled in the backfield on that play. No call. Hughes looked to be in position to stop or slow Manziel. Then there's the non-fumble. If it's so irrefutable, why did Mike Carey, every NFL commentator, and 95% of the people posting here questioning it? Because it's NOT irrefutable!!! What made the official change the call? The NFL needs a new marquee player to promote endlessly on the NFL Network. Tebow is history. Brady and Manning are old news. Now it's the new kid on the block. The obnoxious JOHNNY FOOTBALL!!! I'm being facetious and I don't actually believe in these diabolical motives, but I am starting to wonder. The NFL is a money machine. Maybe there is a little "wink-wink" going on between the NFL and the officials (hired by the NFL) to look the other way when it involves star players. It seems Brady and the Pats have gotten huge breaks for a long time. Maybe now it's Cleveland and Johnny Football's turn.

Thanks for doing the research. By that absurd definition of a pass, the call may be correct if followed to the letter. I still maintain that the NFL can avoid this sort of controversy very simply - don't considered it a pass until the ball has completely left the passer's hand - that would negate any interpretation of intent. I'd take it a step further and say that the ball must go forward beyond the passer's body and the intended receiver should be obvious. In this case, the ball was in Manziel's hand, perpendicular to the side of William's helmet when it was knocked free. Who was the intended receiver? The ball NEVER went forward from Manziel's hand or body. That's considered a pass by NFL rule? As I and another poster stated earlier, following the rule to the letter should make it nearly impossible to be sacked. All a passer has to do is make a forward arm motion and hammer the ball into a defender's helmet. By rule, it should be an incomplete pass and no sack or lost yardage. And yet, Orton gets penalized multiple times for 'intentional grounding' when he actually threw a ball a good distance in the direction of a receiver. Go figure.

By the NFL official's definition seen in the link posted earlier,a pump fake is a pass. How about that?!? And that is real weird, because it means a player can have two (or more) forward passes in the same play! Pump-fake, pump-fake,pump-fake, completion! 1 for 4. A guy could throw for 25% on one play! Who knew? Let's make it simple NFL. Revise the rule book to read: "If a ball is forced from the passer's hand by a defender, prior to the play being whistled dead, it is a fumble" End of discussion! That would certainly take care of one aspect of the ruling. The idea that it's defined as a pass because the QB "meant to" pass it, even though it never left his hand, is beyond ridiculous. By that logic, I say the Bills should be awarded the win in Superbowl XXV since presumablly, Scott Norwood meant to kick it between the posts and not wide right! Way to go Scotty!!!

It can't be both!!! Is it a fumble or an incomplete pass? (the answer is obvious) If the rule is so loose that all a QB has to do is move their arm in a forward motion, why wouldn't every QB simply move their arm in that direction each time a sack is imminent? You know why? Because intentional grounding would be called. The problem is this - who was the intended receiver (assuming it really was a pass)? And for the sake of argument, let's say we went along with the "arm moving forward/fumble" rule. THE BALL NEVER LEFT HIS HAND until he was being tackled and the ball was knocked out of his hand! How can that be considered a pass by any definition of the word 'pass'? It's absurd! If it was a pass (as was ruled following replay), then it was an incomplete backwards pass, as the ball NEVER WENT FORWARD from Manziel's hand or body. If it was an incomplete backwards pass, by rule, it's a live ball (a fumble). So, let's break it down. What is the definition in the game of football of "a pass" and/or "a forward pass". I'm not going to bother looking it up, but I'd love to see the NFL rule book's definition of pass. I can't imagine there's anything in the rule book that describes what we saw yesterday as a pass. Let me reiterate. My issue isn't this one play or one game. It's the overall level of incompetence that has plagued many games in 2014. This was just icing on the cake.

I'd forgotten that the tuck rule was eliminated. That only makes it worse. With 6 officials (I believe) on the field, it was ruled a fumble. The retired official who comments for CBS during reviews stated that without question it was a fumble. The commentators for the game and every post game show said it was a fumble. We all saw it was a fumble. Who the hell is this one omnipotent ''over-officious'' jerk that made the call? If it was 'indisputable', why does nobody agree with the call other than the guy who made it? And how is he held accountable by the league? The NFL instituted replay to overturn incorrect calls to maintain the integrity of the contest, knowing that too much is at stake in every game and the eye in the sky in high def will tell the tale when the zebras on the field make an error. By what definition could that have been considered a pass, and how could the ruling have been overturned? Those are questions the NFL should answer for the fans. Because the Bills won, the issue will probably be swept under the carpet and quickly forgotten. Wait until this incompetence dictates a play that prevents a team from making the playoffs or knocks one out of the tournament,

Can anyone help me understand the logic of the 'forward pass' ruling? IMO, the Bills were denied a touchdown when Manziel had the ball knocked out of his hand and the ball was recovered by the Bills in the endzone. OK- so the Bills won - great. But what if a call like that is the difference between a win or loss, making the playoffs or not? Here's the problem: Is a pump fake counted as a pass on a stat sheet? The arm is moving forward, right? Obviously it's not a pass. So, if the ball never left Manziel's hand until it was knocked out by a Bill defender, how the hell is that considered a pass? How does the official know if it was only a pump fake or not? Furthermore, if a QB throws an pass (for example) to a receiver behind him, it's considered a fumble and a live ball if the intended receiver doesn't catch it. With that in mind, the ball clearly never left Manziel's grip on a forward trajectory. If we swallow the idea that it was an incompleted pass, it still should have been ruled a fumble as the ball never went forward. Or, we could look at it from this angle - we've seen Orton flagged a couple times recently for intentional grounding, even though he had a receiver in the proximity of the thrown pass. Who was Manziel's target? He was still between the tackles. He wasn't 'clocking' the ball. At the very least, why wasn't he flagged for intentional grounding if we accept that it was a pass? In respect to the game yesterday, it was a moot point as the Bills stopped them on downs and went on to win. But my issue is the inconsistency with officiating, this year more than ever it seems. Either the rule defies logic, or the officials are incompetent. There's no other choice. Lastly, the play in question was ruled a touchdown on the field, yet the officials found 'conclusive evidence' to overturn that original ruling? The players and coaches work too hard from training camp to the end of December trying to secure an important win in a short 16 game season to have these indecisive clowns in stripes make decisions that can effect the outcome. I've never seen officiating as bad or inconsistent as it's been this year.

So, I'm reading the opinions on The Stadium Wall, and I'm thinking to myself, what a bunch of nitwits! You ever read that crap coach?

One glaring omission from the statistics - wins and losses - the only stat that really matters

Bills 16 Chargers 13

[sarcasm] It's clear that Watkins had full control of the ball as he touched the orange end zone marker. How dare you question that!!! The Bills are gods! You should understand Dragonborn10 that if you question anything or offer an opposing opinion that's not rah rah pro Bills, you're considered a troll or negative Ned. Realistic or opposing views aren't always appreciated here. 2 years ago, prior to the start of the season, a lot of the regulars here at TSW were 100% convinced the Bills were playoff bound. I wasn't quite as optimistic, having heard similar hype for too many years, and then experiencing a letdown. The Boy Who Cried Wold syndrome. I stated my opinion and was chastised for not towing the company line and proclaiming the Bills as a top 10 team. How dare I? Unfortunately, the regulars on this message board perceive anyone giving a counterpoint as being a bad guy. My avatar - the "on paper" superbowl trophy is the result of those conversations. There's little respect for an opposing point of view. Put on those rose colored glasses or shut up. I give up. Quote MultiQuote =3255235&st=&auth_key=7bee0f17e5c5300604bf0593e617d81a"]Delete Edit

Manual isn't losing games for the Bills. That's the good news. What will be most telling in the coming weeks is if he can be the guy they can depend on to win games when it's necessary. In other words, when the defense has an off week, when there are a rash of injuries, when the team experiences bad calls from the officials, inopportune turnovers, or some other adversity, will Manual step it up and do enough to overcome those obstacles and put them in position to win? Those are the defining characteristics of elite QBs like Kelly, Elway, Brady, Manning, etc. Those are the type of QBs that are the difference makers in a 16 schedule, getting them into and advancing through the playoffs. A big thing all those QBs have in common is they're ultra-competitive and hate losing. If Rob Johnson had had Flutie's competitive streak, he might have been a decent QB. Manual doesn't strike me as that kind of guy. Not saying he doesn't want to win, but there's a difference between someone who simply wants to win and someone who absolutely does not accept losing. I haven't seen anything yet from Manual to show he's got everything it takes, but time will tell. I'm skeptical, but still hopeful that the staff is deliberately bringing him along slowly so they don't shatter his confidence. Manual may surprise us and have a breakout season, but I don't see any signs showing he's got what it takes to be elite.