Anyone else want to keep seeing Elam and Bishop on the field after yesterday?

[HurlyBurly51]

4 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

Welp. We saw more of Elam. Do you guys want to see even more?

No for Elam, yes for Bishop

[Dr.Sack]

It’s good for all these guys to get game action. 

[transplantbillsfan]

27 minutes ago, HurlyBurly51 said:

No for Elam, yes for Bishop

 

Absolutely agree.

 

Bishop belongs on the field.

[vincec]

4 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

Welp. We saw more of Elam. Do you guys want to see even more?

Apparently. 😂 

[Freddie's Dead]

4 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

Welp. We saw more of Elam. Do you guys want to see even more?

 

I do.  He had tight coverage and made good tackles.  This kid will make plays given a chance.  He's basically sat all year, so I don't get the negativity.  Let him audition in these last games and maybe we can get a draft pick out of it if we decide to cut bait.

[That's No Moon]

3 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

I do.  He had tight coverage and made good tackles.  This kid will make plays given a chance.  He's basically sat all year, so I don't get the negativity.  Let him audition in these last games and maybe we can get a draft pick out of it if we decide to cut bait.

Is it legal to play in oven mitts? If so he might have to.

[Sierra Foothills]

4 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

Welp. We saw more of Elam. Do you guys want to see even more?

 

If we're restricted only to yes/no responses... absolutely yes.

 

Elam's getting more playing time which 1) will make him a better player and 2) will allow the team to make a better evaluation of him.

 

Even after regressing this year it's likely that the team won't be able to re-sign Rasul. The Bills have to be certain about how they feel about Elam.

 

Now if we're allowed a reasonable response, if the Bills are concerned based on what they saw today then by all means dress Rasul and spot Elam in as the game script allows. Keep in mind though that Elam didn't cost us the game today and he didn't come close to costing us the game today. He should be dressed and playing meaningful snaps.

 

[Freddie's Dead]

6 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

Is it legal to play in oven mitts? If so he might have to.

 

If you're referring to the BS DPI calls, both the WR and DB were engaged within 5 yards of the LOS.  The correct call in both cases was no call.

[That's No Moon]

31 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

If you're referring to the BS DPI calls, both the WR and DB were engaged within 5 yards of the LOS.  The correct call in both cases was no call.

I'm referring to basically every play where he is pulling and tugging on the receiver.  It happens very very frequently, usually when the receiver is coming out of their break or when the ball is coming, and if he could stop doing that it would be preferred.

Edited yesterday at 06:38 AM by That's No Moon

[BigDingus]

28 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

If you're referring to the BS DPI calls, both the WR and DB were engaged within 5 yards of the LOS.  The correct call in both cases was no call.

 

Just because you're within 5 yards of the LOS, doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want to a player. If that was the case, than DPI would be impossible if you're within 5 yards of the goal line.

[Freddie's Dead]

6 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

 

Just because you're within 5 yards of the LOS, doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want to a player. If that was the case, than DPI would be impossible if you're within 5 yards of the goal line.

 

When the WR has just as much jersey as the DB, it's a no call situation, or at least it's supposed to be.

[Brand J]

You hardly ever see DPI called on a play where a receiver has both hands on the DB’s chest riding him into the EZ before breaking away for a catch. Just as it’s illegal for the DB to make contact past 5 yards, WRs shouldn’t be allowed to use the DB to push off for a catch. We call that hand fighting if both are engaged with each other. Swallow your whistles, refs. You’re not the show.

[BillsFanForever19]

3 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

If you're referring to the BS DPI calls, both the WR and DB were engaged within 5 yards of the LOS.  The correct call in both cases was no call.

 

You can make contact within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage, but you can't interfere with a pass in the end zone. If that were the case, WR's would be getting blown up in the end zone on goal line formations within the 5 on every play there.

 

And any time you're making contact with the WR with your back turned towards the ball, you're just asking for a Penalty. You have to be making a play on the ball if you're initiating contact. Neither of those DPI's were BS. If they happened on our WR's in the End Zone, I'd be saying "where's the flag?".

Edited yesterday at 09:44 AM by BillsFanForever19

[GunnerBill]

Think the same on Bishop. He is better vs the run still having some coverage issues. He was late to recognise his assignment in zone a couple of times giving up completions that he needn't have. 

 

I'm more down on Elam than at any point tbh. That was not a good display.

4 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

If you're referring to the BS DPI calls, both the WR and DB were engaged within 5 yards of the LOS.  The correct call in both cases was no call.

 

Both the calls on Elam were legit DPI. 

[Brandon]

Granted,  it's kind of a low bar considering how he played in his first game,  but Bishop seems to be improving in every game he plays.  At this rate, I think he'll definitely be in competition for a starting role next year. 

[SoCal Deek]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Both the calls on Elam were legit DPI. 

I disagree on the second one. The NFL has to get away from calls on underthrown balls where the DB has nowhere to go. In fact on that second one I thought Elam did everything he could to avoid contact. He is NOT required to give up his spot on the field so the WR can come back and get an underthrown pass. 

[EmotionallyUnstable]

Come playoffs I think Bishop goes back to the bench. As others have alluded to, he seems to do well in run support. It’s clean Babich likes having him in and around the box. I am very skeptical of his coverage abilities. 
 

I give Elam a pass on the first TD drive. He was in good position and made a play on the ball. It was just a high level throw and catch. I can live with that. The other stuff was tough to watch IMO. It’s no wonder McD and Beane have done everything in there power to keep him off the field. His ball issues and awareness just scream Leodis McKelvin to me 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Think the same on Bishop. He is better vs the run still having some coverage issues. He was late to recognise his assignment in zone a couple of times giving up completions that he needn't have. 

 

I'm more down on Elam than at any point tbh. That was not a good display.

 

Both the calls on Elam were legit DPI. 

Or legit debatable, the inconsistency is the problem as we've seen games officiatied that allowed the things he was call for 

Edited yesterday at 02:18 PM by D. L. Hot-Flamethrower

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Think the same on Bishop. He is better vs the run still having some coverage issues. He was late to recognise his assignment in zone a couple of times giving up completions that he needn't have. 

 

I'm more down on Elam than at any point tbh. That was not a good display.

 

Both the calls on Elam were legit DPI. 

I'm not more down on Elam more than I was before. I thought he played pretty well. I like how he stays in touch with his man  (no pun intended), and for the first time I saw him making solid plays with his body. However, it seemed pretty clear that he still has not learned to make proper plays on the ball as it arrives, and I suspect that by now he's a marked man for the officials. I thought the calls against him yesterday were the appropriate calls, because in each in each case he did interfere with the receiver's ability to catch the ball in ways that are not permitted by the rules. There may be hope for him, but I was discouraged.

[Mr. WEO]

Bishop yes.

 

Elam...come on