Who is the reporter that asked about the lack of WR targets?

[The Big Cat]

You missed ha point. He is calling all of us dad and singing the praises of his new and improved generation.

Your mean girl routine is sad.

[oldmanfan]

Because most of those teams receive questions about their strategies too, despite often having better track records of success.

 

We are sensitive enough that coach can't even be asked questions now?

Not at all. But why not then accept the answer instead of writing the snarky column? They saw an advantage against their LBs and exploited it, and they saw an advantage with the run game and exploited it.

[4_kidd_4]

Oh jeezus, we're gonna whine about a columnists "tone" and "agenda" all season again?

 

Some of you guys are more repetitive than Ol' Sully himself.

 

Don't click, don't read and don't share links or Sully keeps winning! Again.

[oldmanfan]

Think his was bad, check out Bucky's column. Ridiculous.

[4_kidd_4]

No. No won't check out Bucky.

 

This is the equivalent of "gross this tastes awful!! try some."

 

I was there, I saw what I saw and have my own opinions and takes. No need to give clicks. The Buff news is a dinosaur model, no mater who is writing columns.

[8-8 Forever?]

Jerry tweeted about the lack of WR throws at least once today during the game..I think he may have come into the game with an agenda...but the group is not a great one and he wants to keep stirring up how bad the Sammy trade is...it drives clicks and now $2.99 a month on-line subscribers...

he keeps his job as long as he keep the $$ coming in. and look at us, talking about him. feeding the beast. just ignore him and he will go away.

[PolishDave]

Oh jeezus, we're gonna whine about a columnists "tone" and "agenda" all season again?

 

Some of you guys are more repetitive than Ol' Sully himself.

 

Don't click, don't read and don't share links or Sully keeps winning! Again.

 

A lot of people are addicted to drama. That is why they still read it and then go complain about it instead of just ignoring it.

 

It is a human flaw. It isn't going away. Same reason people watch those stupid daytime television shows where they highlight people's screwed up lives. Sad - hormone addicted humans.

 

 

The thing that I find funny about the whole balance question is that - the Dennison offense did exactly what a lot of people here predicted - threw the ball to Clay and McCoy. If this is what a lot of people expected, and it actually happened, why is it now coming into question?

 

I expect to see a lot of that in a lot of games going forward. In fact, I am willing to bet it is going to be a staple of this Dennison offense. Going forward we will see more plays to McCoy and "tight ends" than we are going to see to wide receivers. If people have a problem with that, blame Dennison.

 

I am happy with lots of plays to the tight end and back. However, I am unsatisfied with this offenses number of attempts to stretch the field - as predicted. And I think that is going to turn into a major problem/discussion point in the coming weeks. This team isn't going to keep winning if they don't present a deep threat more often.

Edited September 11, 2017 by PolishDave

[mjt328]

Smart teams (like New England) game plan against the weaknesses of the opponent.

 

Sounds like the Bills were doing exactly that yesterday.

[LTarmy]

The concern I have about the lack of targets to WRs is this....was it gameplanned? Or was it because they were struggling to get off the line and get open?

 

It isn't a Debbie downer question...it is a real question about these WRs, that they have no one proven that can go deep and they struggled to beat coverage in preseason.

 

This formula may work against the worst team in the NFL, but against teams that have real weapons, where you need WRs to get open, can these WRs get open?

 

That is what Sully imo was getting at. To not acknowledge this issue is silly.

[PromoTheRobot]

 

Because this is a passing league and you need good WR's to be anything other than a middling team.

Does a team have to use its entire playbook in week one?

[LTarmy]

People want to believe that the Bills were holding back and exploiting matchups. The question is a viable one...were the lack of cataches due to the WRs not getting off the line.

Edited September 11, 2017 by LTarmy

[TigerJ]

The question about more opportunities for WRs is legitimate. Where Sullivan showed his stripes was in the editorializing about balance in the asking of the question.

[PromoTheRobot]

Because most of those teams receive questions about their strategies too, despite often having better track records of success.

 

We are sensitive enough that coach can't even be asked questions now?

There are legitimate questions and then there are questions asked to serve an agenda.

[oldmanfan]

The concern I have about the lack of targets to WRs is this....was it gameplanned? Or was it because they were struggling to get off the line and get open?

 

It isn't a Debbie downer question...it is a real question about these WRs, that they have no one proven that can go deep and they struggled to beat coverage in preseason.

 

This formula may work against the worst team in the NFL, but against teams that have real weapons, where you need WRs to get open, can these WRs get open?

 

That is what Sully imo was getting at. To not acknowledge this issue is silly.

An attorney would object and say asked and answered. He asked, McDermott answered. They had better matchups with Clay and McCoy.

 

Be honest now. If they had targeted say Matthews 9 times and Clay a couple, don't you think his question and column would have been about ignoring the TE and how that will cost them down the road?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

No. No won't check out Bucky.

 

This is the equivalent of "gross this tastes awful!! try some."

 

I was there, I saw what I saw and have my own opinions and takes. No need to give clicks. The Buff news is a dinosaur model, no mater who is writing columns.

 

Don't always agree with your take, but when you're right, you're right - no need to give clicks.

 

Did always read Ty Dunne's stuff though, and when he's writing feature pieces Tim Graham is good, actually.

[26CornerBlitz]

 

Don't always agree with your take, but when you're right, you're right - no need to give clicks.

 

Did always read Ty Dunne's stuff though, and when he's writing feature pieces Tim Graham is good, actually.

 

He's moved on to Bleacher Report. The former rag has stepped up its game to become legit.

[PromoTheRobot]

An attorney would object and say asked and answered. He asked, McDermott answered. They had better matchups with Clay and McCoy.

 

Be honest now. If they had targeted say Matthews 9 times and Clay a couple, don't you think his question and column would have been about ignoring the TE and how that will cost them down the road?

Which is exactly what was written by these hacks last season. You can't possibly win the right way with these clowns.

[LTarmy]

An attorney would object and say asked and answered. He asked, McDermott answered. They had better matchups with Clay and McCoy.

 

Be honest now. If they had targeted say Matthews 9 times and Clay a couple, don't you think his question and column would have been about ignoring the TE and how that will cost them down the road?

Maybe, but seeing how these WRs struggle to get open in ththe preseason and didn't appear to get open against the Jets, I think it is a viable question.

 

You can object all you want, this game plan worked last year against sub 500 teams, but when real teams come in, will the WRs get open or will you blame Tyrod for not getting the ball to them?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Because this is a passing league and you need good WR's to be anything other than a middling team.

 

That is true, but Taylor's answer does make perfect sense - good teams should always exploit what they see as their opponent's weakness. If they felt the Jests couldn't cover Clay and contain McCoy, Go For It.

So does McWrestler's answer - if it's a pattern over several games, it's a problem, but in 1 game, a game we won, No.

 

It's like a few years back when the Pats*** racked up something like 333 rushing yards against us. Why? They thought we had a weakness they could exploit, so they did. They were right.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

 

That is true, but Taylor's answer does make perfect sense - good teams should always exploit what they see as their opponent's weakness. If they felt the Jests couldn't cover Clay and contain McCoy, Go For It.

So does McWrestler's answer - if it's a pattern over several games, it's a problem, but in 1 game, a game we won, No.

 

It's like a few years back when the Pats*** racked up something like 333 rushing yards against us. Why? They thought we had a weakness they could exploit, so they did. They were right.

 

43 is the mike...