JohnC

I recognize that his play was falling off, especially when compared to 2015 when it was at an all-star level. That's understood. What is also understood was that this veteran player who was at the end of his career was not in this rebuilding team's future. The veteran even knew that.What was also evident was that this diminished player was still arguably our best blocker. The organization had the ability to absorb his contract without stressing the cap or handcuffing it from making other transactions. The Incognito decision was a short term decision that hurt an already problematic O-line. Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep him for this year and then move on? There may be more to this issue but on the surface it didn't seem to be a prudent decision when considering how bad our line was without him.

As we enter the rest of the season one of the players that intrigues me is Tage Thompson. Because he is still so young and mostly because he has not completely physically matured there is still a lot of potential to tap. It may take a couple of years to get to a point where he will become more of a factor on the ice. Without question he has impressive skills. He can skate and shoot. He is not much of a force as a checker but he works hard at it. Maybe In a year or two the ROR trade will have worked out especially well for us because of how the younger player we got in the return developed? https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/24/buffalo-sabres-tage-thompson-phil-housley-nhl-news/

The issue that has me confused was why was it necessary to require him to take a pay cut? Did his performance decline so precipitously? I don't think so. We weren't cap squeezed to the point that his salary cut had to be made. Was he already exhibiting troubling signs? I don't think so because the organization was willing to keep him with a lower salary. No doubt that he was on the downside of his career but he was still arguably our best blocker on a unit that was already lacking even before the other departures. I'm not posing judgments as I am posing questions. The Incognito situation from the way the organization's handled it just doesn't add up. I'm not sure what happened here.

The departure of Incognito has me miffed. Why was the GM so determined to cut his salary when he could have easily fit it in this year? Cog's level of play was starting to slide a little but he was still arguably our best blocker. Was Cog's behavior and mental condition noticeably deteriorating? I don't know. What we do know is that offseason his behavior did show signs of trouble. My question is if they were willing to keep him on a scaled-down salary why didn't they just keep him at his current salary? We surely could have used him this year.

I said it before and I will say it again: This was not a competitive game. I don't blame the receiver for the drop of the pass in the sun. You can't catch what you can't see. You can cite our miscues but that doesn't mean that the opposition also didn't have miscues. You can't use your reasoning for one team and not apply the same reasoning to the opposition. I don't want to belabor the point but the better and the smarter team (in my opinion) handedly won this game. In the running game their D-line dominated our O-line and their O-line dominated our D-line. For me, the stats didn't reveal the disparity between the two teams. You are entitled to your opinion. With respect to this game I have a very different opinion of what transpired in this game.

What's maybe worse than our receivers ability to catch the ball is their ability to get open. Collectively, they have to be the worst receiving unit in the league to run routes and adjust their routes to help out the qb. I have been a supporter of Zay but this year it seems that on most plays he is blanketed. His stat sheet is sweetened with end of the game meaningless receptions where the DBs allow him to catch the underneath routes and allow the clock to run out.

Entering the last game of the season it doesn't matter whether we win or lose. However, the players showing effort in a meaningless game would demonstrate that they care. What matters the most is how this organization drafts (regardless where we are drafting) and how it handles this offseason's free agency. If the OL, receiving unit and the backfield is not dramatically upgraded then last year's effort made to draft its future franchise qb will be squandered. This current regime (which I support) is aware what needs to be done on offense. WGR's Murphy said on the radio that Beane told Josh Allen to not get discouraged because he was going to get him help for next year. That's the test for this franchise. Make no mistake about it that McDermott came in with the intention of rebuilding this roster and organization. So there was never going to be a quick fix. But entering the third offseason there has to be a major change to the roster (mostly on offense) to give this battered fanbase and franchise some real hope.

There is no doubt that the flubbed plays hurt the team. Our negative plays as damaging as they were did not shift the momentum of the game because there was no momentum shift in the game. The stats might not indicate the opposition's dominance but if one watched the game it was evident that right from the start we had little chance. When the opposing team runs plays that you know that they are going to run and you can't stop it then that tells you all you need to know. Most of our positive stats on offense came from a stage in the game where the other team was willing to give up in order to run the clock. My point is simple: This was not a competitive game. That's my basic point. If you disagree with my characterization that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

This game was not close to being competitive. The score and stats did not reflect how much better they were. Talking about specific plays when in general your team is being dominated is an exercise in futility. That's the point!

I'm not the type to be pessimistic about our team's future prospects. However, let's be fair-minded in assessing this game. They simply kicked our arses. We couldn't stop them when we knew that they were going to run the ball. There was nothing exotic about their offensive scheme. Their approach was if you can't stop us then we will run the same plays until you do. In the running game we never did. If throwing the ball into the sun was going to be problematic then why did we do it? We had an opportunity in warm ups to judge the field and weather conditions. We didn't do it. The Pats stacked the line on defense leaving the middle of the field wide open for throws to the middle. So not only could our receivers not get open but we continued to accentuate the sideline throws. How smart is that? When you start bringing up the line of thinking that "we could have" and "should have" and "if only" you are resorting to lame and pathetic excuses that losers use. This is a game in which the stats don't reflect the imbalance in the game. The positive stats that were mostly garnered by us in the passing game were generated when the Pats loosened up and allowed us to make the meaningless plays. Zay Jones caught a bunch of passes when the game was out of hand and was given more room by the defense. Ask yourself how open was he for most of the game? His stats in this game ring hollow and are meaningless. When you get your arse whipped by a superior team that was mostly coasting then have some honesty and dignity in acknowledging what was so obvious to see.

No one is going to pay Shady that amount money for his fading production. Peterson was basically out of the game when the Skins called after a string of backs got hurt. And Peterson is for the most part a north/south runner who played well for the Skins. If you put Shady on the Skins with his dancing style he would be as ineffective with them as with us. Putting aside the money issue McCoy's style of play is not suited for us, especially if you consider the OL he has to play with. As a receiving back he may have some utility but not at his price. My guess is that he won't be back next year. Without a doubt Peterson would have been more effective in Buffalo than McCoy was simply based on his style of running.

What trade value does he have? He is a high cost back who at this late stage of his career can only be used as a specialty back. He isn't much of an inside runner who can be a workhorse back. He can be used as a swing back or a receiving back but unless he has a top-shelf line (which we don't have) his dancing style simply doesn't work. Ivory is more suited for this offense but again he is a fading back at the end of his career. What this team needs are backs with fresh legs who run north/south. So when an honest assessment of our offense is made our offense has to be reconstructed on the OL, receiving unit and the backfield. With the exception of the qb this is major rebuild. Tinkering around the edges is not going to be sufficient.

He's going to be our starting MLB next year. He certainly did struggle in making the right reads and getting in the right gap on plenty of plays. This was his learning year as it was for the qb. I agree with you that in general Stanford outplayed Edmunds. But it shouldn't be surprising that a five year veteran sometimes outplayed a rookie at a challenging position. What's also obvious is that Edmunds has much more raw/physical talent than Stanford has and that with experience he is going to be an exponentially better player. That's why the rookie is getting extensive playing time than the veteran player. You might not acknowledge the obvious but by playing the more mistake prone rookie now it will in the not too distant long run will pay off more than playing a pedestrian veteran. If your logic was carried out of comparing rookies to veterans and playing the less mistake prone player the Bills would be starting Barkley over Allen. Edmunds is a good fit for McDermott's defense in that he is very athletic and fast and can cover a lot of territory. He is not a thumper and will never be. In our system it is more important for the MLB to cover a wide range of territory rather than being a run stuffing thumper. If we wanted that style of MLB we would have kept Spikes.

Don't you think that if he got a second or third round grade his decision would be more up in the air?

With a first round projection I don't see him staying. The economics of the draft with his first round grade make it difficult to stay in school. The financial consideration isn't only about the first contract. It is just as much about getting to the richer second contract sooner assuming the player develops as projected.

Great news. I was going to comment on the game last night but felt it was inappropriate because of the questions regarding RJ's health. Ullmark was the star of the game for us. Sam Reinhart is not as dynamic as Jack and potent as a goal scorer as Skinner. His game is predicated on intelligence and passing. His nifty pass from the wall after battling to get the puck to Skinner for his roof shot was terrific. Sam's having a terrific year and is positioning himself for a big payoff when his bridge deal ends. Reinhart and Dahlin have this preternatural hockey instinct for the game that when you are watching might not stand out but when examined after the fact is amazing to behold. You can't teach it. You either have it or not. They each got it! The Larsson line won't accumulate impressive scoring stats. But it is an important line for this team, especially on the penalty kill. You can't appreciate this line by reviewing the stat sheet. However, when you watch this line play against the top lines at critical junctures in the game you get a better sense how important it is to the team's success. From a general sense what is impressive about this team compared to previous years is that this team almost always plays hard regardless of the situation. The Sabres played a tough game in Washington the previous night and got in late the next morning. Against the Ducks the effort was consistent throughout the game. That's a tribute to the team makeup and to the coaching staff.

If Tryee goes to a higher level program as a graduate transfer he will be making a mistake because he will be watching next season's games from the bench. He's got a lot of tools but he is still very raw and erratic. At times he plays like a first round prospect and then with the next series of plays he plays like a confused freshman. If a qb hasn't developed a level of consistent play in college then that player is not viable for the pro ranks. Jackson needs to make a decision about next year that he believes is in his best interest. Whatever it is the reality is that he is far from being ready for the pro ranks. The bigger issue for the program is addressing the defense. Too many teams plow through them in the running game, and in the passing game receivers are open for big plays with the defenders not in the same zip code. If one stands back it is undeniable that this was a successful season. Under their HC this program has been elevated from the ash heaps of a dead program to a winning program that consistently wins and is very entertaining. I see this program under the current coach steadily moving up the ranks.

The attached link is Mike Harrington's reporting on yesterday's game. It was a brief but accurate account of the game. He noted as many do that there is an obvious dearth of scoring from the secondary lines. When he lists the players who are in a scoring drought you wonder how long this is sustainable before this team slides back? Mike Harrington noted that he felt that Sheary played well although he didn't score. That was the same takeaway that I had watching the game. The play is there but the production isn't. Hopefully, it will come. Maybe another mixing of the lines will soon follow? https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/21/buffalo-sabres-carter-hutton-nhl-washington-capitals-braden-holtby/

Just curious but what is a right cover compared to a wrong cover? It would be interesting to know if this wrestler competed in previous meets with the braided hair? If there was a long hair rule it seems to me that his coach should have addressed this issue with the wrestler before the match.

That's a good way of describing Hutton's play. Two sides of the same coin: The good side and the bad side. That really was a costly bonehead play. I don't want to take away an asset of his of playing the puck but he has to be more judicious, especially in such a tightly played game. As you were saying we competed against a Stanley Cup Champion that played well in this game. We not only matched them but I thought we played a little better. I thought McCabe played well for a player who has been sidelined for so long. I also saw glimpses of Tage's play which indicate that in the not too distant future he is going to be a good player for us. Although this was a frustrating loss this game left me more encouraged because of the way they battled and played hard throughout the game. There were no lapses in play. Just consistent effort. I got the Washington feed for this game.Their announcers and commentators were constantly praising Buffalo's play.

He's a backup and a willing mentor to our franchise qb. If he is called to replace the starter because of an injury he will play at an acceptable backup level. Barkley demonstrated in the Jet game that as a short-term replacement qb he can play reasonably well. Are your enumerations of his weaknesses accurate? Most people will acknowledge them because they are so apparent. But as a backup qb on our team with a young qb who still needs a lot of schooling having Barkley signed for a couple years is a terrific situation for the backup and the team.

Congratulations. However, before you close on your house make sure you have a snake inspection. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=giant+snakes&&view=detail&mid=5457F59C5B6D2EEDB0745457F59C5B6D2EEDB074&&FORM=VDRVRV

I totally agree with you that he shouldn't be taken in the first half of the draft. As I stated in the prior post if the Bills traded down to the lower part of the first round and got an extra pick/s (such as another second round pick) it would be a good deal for us. Without a doubt this is a McDermott "process" type guy. He would certainly fit the profile of the player/person that McDermott wants on his roster.

I would use a second round pick on him. (Although if we traded down to the bottom of the first round and acquired additional picks I would have no qualms taking him with a low first round pick.) The player he reminds me of is Clay Mathews. The appeal for me with respect to the Michigan player is the relentlessness of his play. The mistake scouts make sometimes is that they get caught up with the measurables instead of giving more weight to how one plays the game. Being more athletic doesn't necessarily mean that you are a better football player. Regardless of position having the instinct and football intelligence is invaluable. Mat Milano posses that important trait. And that is one of the primary reasons why he played at an all-pro level.

When you mentioned the tall Michigan TE prospect I thought of the former Michigan TE, Jack Butt, who had so much potential. It was sadly curtailed by multiple knee injuries. I thought he would be an upper echelon pro but his accumulated injuries have made him a shadow of what he could have been.