folz

I don't think we underappreciate him, it's just been a long off season and we haven't seen him play much since Jax--plus we've been obsessed with the QBs, so he's kind of going under the radar this training camp/preseason. I do think the national media forgets about him to an extent, but that is mostly because he has been in Buffalo and we just get less coverage and they always assume we will be bad. I have been surprised in many fantasy football preseason rankings to see Shady listed as like the 16th to 22nd best RB. When technically there are only 32 starters and many RB by committee teams, that seems pretty low. Especially because he has been a workhorse for us, a true #1, and he's so good at receiving out of the backfield (he was #4 in yards from scrimmage last year behind only Gurley, Bell, and K. Hunt). But I assume his rankings are more based on the concerns about our offensive line and who will be QB, rather than McCoy's skills themselves.

If they keep 7: Benjamin Jones Coleman Kerley Streater McCloud Holmes If they only keep 6, Holmes would be the odd man out for me (despite his special teams play) And then you hope to get Reilly back on the practice squad to call up in case of injury. With a QB who can get the ball to them, that could turn into a pretty nice receiving corps.

Safety Siran Neal had a nice game too, made a few big plays.

I don't mean to pick on you specifically OJ, but it just bugs me when people say stuff like "he blows." I'm all on board with Allen starting at this point, but Peterman does not blow. First of all, the worst guy on the worst team in the NFL is still an amazing athlete. You don't even sniff a shot at the NFL if you aren't a gifted athlete. Secondly, Peterman (since that San Diego game) has played well. He was playing well in the snow game and he has played well in both games this preseason. The kid has had a legitimate shot at one of only 32 starting QB positions in the NFL. That doesn't blow. He may or may not ever become a legit starter in the NFL, but by no means does he suck. Plus, he's a Buffalo Bill. You could prefer Allen over Peterman without having to trash Peterman. You could point out the reasons why you don't think Peterman should start or won't be a good starting QB in the league, but it's kind of ridiculous to just say he blows. I don't know, I guess I just grew up in a time where we rooted for all of our players.

With two new starters, another playing a different position, a 2nd year LT, and the center position being a competition still, it will probably take this O-line a little time to gel. If there is any place on the team that needs continuity, it is the O-line. They need to settle on their 5 and get them comfortable with each other. It is foolish to believe that this line with all of the upheaval would come out of the gate and look like world beaters. They played well in week one and not so well last night. Doesn't mean they will be terrible all year. They are going to need a little time to come into their own. Am I a little concerned with the O-line, sure. But I wouldn't take last night as a forecast for how they will play all year. A vanilla offense against a defense that was bringing the house because they wanted to have a good showing for their fans in their first game at home (and for the Hard Knocks cameras). Just as with QB, we should expect a little bit of growing pains with this line. But, hopefully they will get better with each game, the more they play together.

I was definitely in the let Josh sit and learn this year camp. I figured the defense would be better and the running game would be good, so we'd be ok with McCarron or Peterman managing the offense until Josh was ready (later this year or next year). I really expected McCarron to be our starter for game 1. Nathan #2 and for Josh to remain #3 for now. I thought McCarron's experience would make him the best start. After last preseason game, I was really impressed with Josh, and though they had similar numbers, I thought Peterman had a better game than McCarron. So, in my mind Peterman jumped McCarron and Josh showed promise, but probably still wasn't ready yet. After tonight's game, although I thought Peterman again played well, it seems clear that we might as well put Josh in and ride the roller coaster. I feel really bad for McCarron getting injured, and yes, the offensive line didn't help him tonight...but that is not an excuse really in McCarron's favor because if the O-line has trouble then you don't want someone like McCarron in there, you either want Josh (whose pocket presence is great and who can scramble) or Peterman, who gets the ball out fast. So, I do think despite the O-line and injury, McCarron played himself out of the starter competition tonight. Since Allen is the better talent overall, the only reason you don't start him is if you're worried that he will make too many rookie mistakes that would hurt the team or his development, but he hasn't shown that that will be the case with his first two preseason games. No doubt there will be some bad plays and mistakes, like the 4th down play last game, or wasting a time out or not reading the blitzing safety tonight...but his good plays have far outweighed his mistakes. I now believe he gives the team the best chance to win. And as far as the idea of ruining the kid by playing him too early, there are a couple of reasons why I'm not worried about that. 1. Josh is a level-headed, humble kid who has had to work for what he has, so I don't think it's in his personality to fold under pressure. He's coming from a bad Wyoming team, not a stacked SEC team. He knows how to handle adversity, losing, being up against it. 2. McDermott's culture and team first mentality. The team will support him through the good and bad, like they have with Peterman. I can no longer find a reason not to start Josh Allen week 1. Let the new era begin. Go Bills!

I guess it is different for everyone. I broke my collarbone sledding back when I was in high school. My friend heard it crack, but I didn't know anything was wrong. I guess my body went into shock. I climbed back to the top of the hill and started to feel a little bit queasy. My friends tried to convince me to keep sledding, but I kind of felt like something was wrong. And eventually I decided to walk home. I was about halfway home (maybe a 10-15 minute walk) when the pain kicked in. Not sure how I made it the rest of the way, but it took a good 10-15 minutes before any serious pain kicked in for me. Once it did, man it was one of the most painful things I ever went through.

I'm with you. I think an Allen/Darnold friendly rivalry (ala Kelly/Marino---we hated Dan, but Jim didn't) over the next decade is just what the AFC East needs. I hope both guys become great and battle it out in classic games for years to come.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go back and rewatch the first half because I came away thinking Peterman had a slightly better night than McCarron. Although it was close. And as far as arm strength, I also thought Peterman is slightly ahead of McCarron. There were a couple throws by McCarron where he looked like Fitz, having to put his whole body into the throw. But you guys are right that sometimes Peterman's balls have too much air...but definitely not every throw. He made some crisp passes last night. I also like Peterman's quick decisions/release. But as some of you have stated, he will have to be careful in real games to not get those routes jumped. He'll have to prove he can get it downfield now and then to keep the D honest. I am not a "Peterman" guy. I have been expecting AJ to start the season for a while now, but Peterman impressed me last night. It will be good to see the reverse next game. To see AJ with the ones and Nate with the twos to see if that matters. Either way, I'm feeling really good with the way all three QBs played last night.

Yeah, I guess I was wrong about Thomas from what others saw. And with Humber, I didn't mean he was helping himself to a starting role, and yes, he's slow in pass coverage. It was just that when he was in with the 2nd team, I noticed he was fast to the ball on a lot of plays. Looks like he only recorded 1 tackle, but to me he looked a step better than the other guys he was playing with at the time. I doubt he gets cut. Solid backup.

I get what you are saying and if that happened on the street or in the office, I'd agree. But these guys were friends (at least at some point) and they're out on the football field in warmups. It was definitely the wrong tactic to take, I'm just saying I don't think Cam approached to start a fight or truly intimidate. Haven't you ever pretended to get mad at something a friend says or does, when you're really not, and then laugh it off together? I just think Cam thought he could still joke with KB that way, then shake his hand and get the apology he expected. When things didn't go the way he thought they would, then yes, Cam got truly aggressive/mad. I'm not apologizing for Cam, he definitely should have approached him from the front and not touched him, but I don't think he was looking for a fight at first, I think he just misjudged the situation.

To be honest, I didn't notice his blocking much, except for the one play that the announcers mentioned him. If he was blocking well, maybe that takes him off the hurt themselves list. I put him there because he dropped one or two passes, while the guys behind him at TE made some plays. But maybe I was wrong with him.

Helped Themselves Peterman Murphy Humber (really stood out amongst 2nd teamers) RayRay Shaq Mike Love (making some plays with the third stringers) Dirty Harry Hurt themselves Robert Foster Keith Ford Logan Thomas Who am I missing? What have you got?

To me it looks like Cam is coming up to kind of joke with KB about it (but yeah there is probably some tension behind it). KB doesn't see Cam coming as he's talking to Thomas. Cam playfully bumps KB a couple of times between himself and the other player. But because KB wasn't seeing Cam at first, just getting the bump, he takes it as an aggressive rather than a playful move. So when Cam holds out his hand to shake with KB, KB refuses. Then Cam gets pissed, like oh this is real? You don't like me? And he starts to get in KB's face. KB backs up a bit to defuse and tries to walk away, feeling it is going to be a confrontation, and then Cam gets more upset. Don't know what was said, but it looks like it was kind of a misunderstanding, like KB was expecting Cam to be pissed and confront him and then thought that's what was happening when Cam's first move was to bump him.

I would love to have Mack,,,but if we get rid of Hughes, Murphy, and Shaq, who is starting at the other DE spot (Yarbrough?), And who is going to back them up? Our D-line runs in waves. That would be ok for the future, but we could be in trouble this season if we let all of those guys go. And are we even certain Astro's tweet is about Mack at this point?

You can get burgers rather than dogs and there is no mayonnaise, except on the mac salad, but you can get home fries and French fries (rather than mac or potato salad). And it helps if you're a bit drunk and its after midnight.

I'm curious why so many people think Holmes is a lock or near-lock to make the team. Yes I know he plays special teams, but it looks like Foster has been a very willing ST participant in camp thus far, Ray Ray (if he makes the team) will likely have return duties, what about the other young or vet WRs or players from other positions who can play STs (corners, LBs). I was very unimpressed with Holmes last year as a wideout, so I'm not sure why others are so high on him definitely making the team. He barely got any playing time even when our WR room became an ER and Zay was under producing. If the other guys are outproducing him in camp and the preseason as a wideout (and have more potential, higher ceiling), I'm sure they can fill Holmes' special teams role. It's not like he's Steve Tasker or Mark Pike. And as for being a red zone target, Holmes is 6'4". Benjamin is 6'5', Logan Thomas is 6'6", and Clay, Streater, and O'Leary are all 6'3". And it's not like Zay, Reilly, Foster, and Dupre are smurfs. They are all 6'2". So, there are plenty of tall targets for red zone work to choose from. Does anyone know how Kerley has looked in camp thus far? Since they brought him in, he has experience, and seems like the kind of guy that could thrive in a New England style offense, it seems like he'll most likely be on the team, but I don't know if even he is a lock at this point. The young guys are hungry. I think Benjamin and Jones (they won't give up on him this early) are the only locks for the team right now and then you are keeping probably only 4 of the rest depending on who is standing out, which receiver position they play (do we need another slot or Y or X to compliment or backup who we've already decided to keep), and ST play (does Ray Ray stick for return duties; or someone like Holmes as a gunner or whatever). But I think, right now that competition is wide open for any of the next 9 WRs to grab a spot.

I'm a bit of a football purist and I definitely don't want to see the game completely changed into a no special teams, flag football league. But, some of those hits that the NFL shows in the video, in the article that the OP linked to, should be penalized and taken out of the game. Most of us played backyard football as kids. And I was a shorter guy, so I always went low to make tackles (wrap up the legs), but because we were never wearing any helmets, pads, etc. you just knew to get your head out of the way. No one wanted a knee or shoulder or foot to the face. There is definitely a way to still make great tackles without using your helmet. You just might not get on a SportsCenter highlight for it (which is part of the problem). So, there may be fewer "You got jacked up" plays in the future, but that wouldn't ruin the integrity of the game. I'd rather see a great, clean open field tackle or a RB get stood up and dumped at the line of scrimmage than some kid getting knocked unconcious because they are going at each other with their helmets like battering rams. That's not football. The plays they showed in the video, guys were purposefully leading with their head, using their helmet to make the big hit and knock the guy down or out. There is no need for that. The problem, as everyone knows, is the officiating of the rule. Incidental contact of say a helmet to the body or head of a running back who is coming through the line, when the RB is trying to get small and the defensive player is just trying to go low for the tackle, as he was taught, should not be called. Or if a guy lowers his shoulders for momentum while making a tackle, but is basically keeping his helmet to the side or away from the other player's body/head, but it grazes the other player in some way. Nope. But when a guy is using his helmet to actually help him make the tackle or hit (as some of the hits in the NFL's video show), he should get penalized to discourage those types of hits. The two problems I see with the rule is first, the "lowering of the head." phrase. That is just too ambiguous. It should still be more like "leading with the helmet" or "using the helmet to make a hit or tackle." Guys have to lower their heads all the time for different reasons during the course of a game. And you'll even do it instinctively to protect yourself at times. And the second problem is making the refs decide intent. That is another very gray area. Trying to decide incidental versus intentional in the moment of a fast-moving game can be very difficult. The impetus for making the rule is good, but the language of the rule is not, which I'm sure will lead to some really bad calls if they try to enforce it strictly. I don't know, I feel like what an NFL catch was and what was unnecessary roughness was pretty clear at one time and the NFL just keeps making things murkier rather than solving the problems they are trying to fix. And I guess that too is their own fault because, as others have said, they have allowed that behavior for so long and glorified it on tv and the internet that guys were always looking for the big hit, the knock-out blows, rather than just a sure tackle. So, it is probably going to take some time to transition away from that.

It's a good list. The only points I would dispute are bolded above. I know what you're getting at with Kelly spurning the Bills in 1983. It really sucked and he was a different guy back then, but there is no way Kelly should be on a list of "traitors" to the Bills, when he is now one of the most loyal and beloved Bills. He just can't be on the list despite how things started out. He made up for the rocky start and then some. Maybe if the list were called something else, you could include him. But not "traitors." And I'm not sure how "only" getting Bennett out of that trade hurt the Bills dearly. Yes, it was a lot to give up, but Biscuit was one of the last pieces of the puzzle for the Super Bowl teams. He was a 2nd overall pick. He wasn't just a guy. In 1988 our pick would have been around 11 -14. How much would it cost to move up from say 12 to 2? That's what the Bills were trying to do this year and were expecting to give up at least their two first-rounders. What if they had given the Giants #12, #22, and Cordy Glenn. It wouldn't be that big of a difference from what the Bills paid for Bennett (who became a borderline/possible Hall of Fame player).

Dennison was the epitome of trying to put round pegs into square holes. The zone blocking scheme with the players he had on the offensive line, trying to force Tyrod into a quick passing offense when his best attributes were his feet and his long ball, the Mike Tolbert experiment, etc. Rather than adapting to what he had, he forced players into positions they weren't comfortable in. Tyrod was not a good fit for his (Shanahan's) offense and rather than tweaking and adjusting to Tyrod's skills, he just complained about Tyrod. You could tell from his interviews that he did not like having Tyrod as his QB. The switching to Peterman was no doubt at his insistence and he also had to be the one making a case that Nathan was ready. I agree with others that from McDermott's perspective, the benching of Tyrod was not a mistake. After a 56 yard performance and 3 brutal losses, he was looking to give the team a spark. And if Dennison had been petitioning to bench Tyrod, it had to be pretty hard to say, no I don't think that's the right decision after a 56 yard performance. You have to go with your OC at that point, that is why you hired him. And we get on Tyrod all the time for not throwing the ball when guys were open, etc. And at least 50% of the blame definitely goes to Tyrod, but when the plays being called don't suit your skillset, it is hard to be successful. Isn't that what the good coaches always say...my job is to put guys in a position to succeed. When your OC doesn't trust his QB, you are not going to put that player in a position to succeed. I'm not saying Tyrod would have lit it up in another offense, but I do think his production would have been higher. But this is not a Tyrod-apology post, he was as much to blame for the poor offense. Just stating that Dennison's inflexibility was his own and the offenses downfall and that I think McDermott did make the right decisions, given the circumstances, along the way; from benching Tyrod to firing Dennison. McDermott's main mistake was hiring Dennison in the first place when his scheme didn't fit the players he had. They were already changing the defensive scheme and the team was coming off of being the top rushing team two years running. Keeping some continuity on offense probably would have gone a long way. I do like that coach took the blame though----even now that Dennison is gone...that engenders a lot of trust from your players and staff. And ultimately, it was McDermott's decision. He still could have said no or fired Dennison then, etc. When you are the head coach, you either came to the decision yourself, or you agreed and allowed it to happen. So he does have to own the decision and a good leader doesn't try to cover his ass by throwing someone else under the bus after the fact. Even if it was that person's idea. Obviously in hindsight it didn't go well, but I still think that at the time, given all of the circumstances, it wasn't really a bad decision. It may or may not have cost us one game (we might have lost to the Chargers even if Tyrod started), but it may also have had some further reaching (harder to see) benefits.

For an article titled "5 Reasons the Bills will make the playoffs," I thought that was a pretty pessimistic take... ...then I read FadingPain and SoTier's posts. Geesh! I can understand being skeptical because of all of the question marks on the offense, but taking say 10 or 15 things and assuming they will all go wrong is just as crazy as assuming they will all go right.

Per the OP's question, which players should be considered for the WOF... Kyle Williams should be a lock for the WOF and Jackson, Moulds, Moorman, Brown, and Wood should all be considered. I guess it somewhat depends on your citeria for being WOF worthy as to who you'd pick: Some may feel that the player had to be great/elite. Well, that is definitely one way to get on the Wall (see Cookie Gilcrist, who finally made it despite only playing 3 years with the Bills). And no doubt the player had to have had a very good career at least, to be considered, but for me it is more than just that. To me it is also someone that somehow embodied being a Buffalo Bill. Long stint with the team, team leader, great/memorable plays, hard worker, never give up attitude, upstanding guy (no jokes about O.J. please)...that kind of stuff. So, per my criteria, I think eventually Kyle, Freddie, and E. Moulds should all make it on the WOF. Brian Moorman is a probably for me. Reuben and E. Wood might just be on the outside looking in (if simply because you can't put too many guys up there or it dilutes the purpose). As far as Freddie not having an elite career (huge stats, Pro Bowls, etc.), I put him in the Daryl Talley category. Despite a great career, Talley may not have even been the best linebacker on his own team, but he was the heart and soul of that defense and team as a whole. And just like Kyle the last few years, there were a good 5 or 6 seasons where the whole team looked to Fred in the same way. And come on, Freddie on the field waving the Bills flag after a big win...if that's not all in on Buffalo, I don't know what is.

Ok, let me take another stab at this: There are currently 33 Linebackers in the Hall of Fame Gil Brandt/NFL.com lists him as the 22nd best linebacker of all-time (although the list mistakenly says that Bennett is already in the Hall) http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000000816217 This list has him as #26 of modern era LBs https://bleacherreport.com/articles/409994-top-50-linebackers-of-the-modern-era With 94,600 votes in, Ranker lists CB as #33 best LB of all time https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/top-25-greatest-linebackers-of-all-time I know these lists aren't authoritative in any way, and if you think he shouldn't get in because of the incident in 1999, I totally understand that perspective, but I'm still surprised how many Bills fans don't think he should even be in the conversation based on his playing career alone. This is not meant as snark in anyway, but are those who say he's not HOF worthy old enough to have actually watched his career? Again I'm not saying he should definitely be in, just surprised how many think he definitely should not get in. I just wonder because it is hard to find highlights from his career and he has kind of been invisible in and around Buffalo since his career ended (unlike many of the other guys), so maybe people just forget about how good he actually was, and so don't put him in the same level as the other greats from that team. But, when Cornelius came, he helped take that defense to another level. Just as Thurman did to the offense the following season. Those two and Lofton in '89 were the last three big pieces of the puzzle to the Super Bowl teams. His pass rushing presence forced teams to pick their poison between Bruce and Biscuit. At times, he was flat out dominant. I know some say that he wasn't consistently great. And yes, he had like 3 or 4 monster seasons that stand out above the others. But no player has a career year every year. You can't compare him to himself. If you expected Cornelius to have one of those monster seasons every year of his career or even just the 9 he was in in Buffalo, he would probably be in the conversation for the greatest linebacker of all time now. That's how good his stats were those years. And the dropoff between those seasons wasn't like he disappeared, we are talking about sacks dipping from 9.5 to 5.0 and tackles dipping from like 103-107 to 81-96, while still causing just as many turnovers. [His tackles did dip significantly in 2 of his 9 seasons with the Bills, in 1989 (54) when he was dealing with a shoulder injury, played only 12 games (he still had 5.5 sacks and caused 5 turnovers that year) and in 1994 (58)---not sure if anything was going on that year (still notched 5 sacks and 4 turnovers that season).]

Yeah, I'm kind of surprised at how many people think Cornelius shouldn't even be in the conversation for HOF (as far as his playing career goes). I'm not saying he should be a shoo in or anything, but when you think of great players, you think about them making those clutch plays at just the right moment to turn a game around. And honestly, though Kelly, Hull, Thurman, and Reed were the engine that drove that team, when I think of clutch plays that turned games around in a heartbeat, I think of three players: Bruce, Tasker, and Bennett. Biscuit had a knack for making big plays at just the right time in a game. Guys can rack up a lot of stats without being great...but the great ones always come through in the clutch and Cornelius did that on a consistent basis throughout his career. And for comparison sake: Yrs Gm Starts Total Tackles Avg. Tkls/yr Total sacks Avg. sk/yr Total FF Avg. FF/yr Total FR Avg. FR/yr Total INT Avg. INT/yr Bennett 14 206 204 1,050 75 71.5 5.12 31 2.2 27 1.93 7 .5 Urlacher 13 182 180 1,040 80 41.5 3.19 11 .85 15 1.15 22 2 Awards/Honors Urlacher Bennett 8 Pro Bowls 5 Pro Bowls Defensive Rookie of year All Rookie Team 1 Defensive player of year 2 AFC Defensive player of the year HOF All-decade team 2000s HOF All-decade team 1990s 4 First Team All-Pro 3 First Team All-Pro 7-time Defensive player of the week 7-time Defensive player of the week 1 Super Bowl appearance 5 Super Bowl appearances played 13 years for one team played 9 years for one team Urlacher is a first-ballot Hall of Famer and most think Cornelius shouldn't even be in the discussion?

It looks like Star hovered around 60% of the defensive snaps and 17% of special teams snaps. Which seems about right for a big man... rotational is not a bad thing, those guys need some rest to maximize the snaps they do play. And McDermott is big on rotating all of his linemen. And McD was Star's defensive coordinator for 4 of his 5 seasons. 2017: 59% of defensive snaps 19% of special teams snaps (16 games) 2016: 60% of defensive snaps 17% of special teams snaps (16 games) 2015: 48% of defensive snaps 11% of special teams snaps (14 games - missed 2 games due to injury which lowers his snaps %) 2014: 47% of defensive snaps 14% of special teams snaps (14 games - missed 2 games due to injury " " ) 2013: 60% of defensive snaps 14% of special teams snaps (16 games)