1 hour ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I'm a fan of the very hard to find 7x32 model with extra wide viewing angle. I discovered this specific model about twenty years ago and immediately loved it. It is ideal for football, especially from an endzone view where you don't need to move side to side and can pretty much keep your vision stationary. Bought several "used" ones over the years. But that specific Bushnell model was discontinued. I luckily found a Japanese company that makes a model with the same specification and purchased one two years ago. Kept it in storage for the entirety of the '22 season and broke it out for this year. But my plan is to only bring it to good weather games. Exposing binoculars to bad weather leads to deterioration in quality.

Generally speaking, the stronger the magnification the narrower your field of view. So anything above a 7 would be bad for football. Probably good for bird watching, I guess.

Yeah - have a 4x30 which has a wide view but is kind of weak for the effort.

9 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

There's some other report that Shaq won't sign today. Wants to meet with us first before making decision, but I didn't trust the source enough to post it. Hopefully there will be more updates today confirming that it's true. 

It really doesn't seem like we're all that interested. We're down Dean/Cunningham and set to play against the biggest threat in the NFL to LB's, and the most proactive approach is "eh, we'll meet with him later in the week." Even if he signs here, is he going to play at all this week without practicing?

11 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

There's some other report that Shaq won't sign today. Wants to meet with us first before making decision, but I didn't trust the source enough to post it. Hopefully there will be more updates today confirming that it's true. 

They could have had him a week ago by offering enough money.  Howie may want him but not as a priority.  Even if he signs tomorrow it would be probably too late to have him suit up for SF.  I'm thinking sign him for the remainder of this year with an option for next year.  incentive based contract for next year.

 

29 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I agree with ipiggles in that it was indeed a zero blitz with boths LBs coming. I also agree with you that their defensive play call, combined with Swift's pre-snap motion, forced the Bills to overcommit (I don't see the coverage bust angle that others are seeing.) Though I don't see both safeties reacting to the motion as you mentioned, only Hyde alone, and I'll explain why.

In the first screenshot, it seems he's assigned to Swift with the other safety on OZ, and the NCB on Stoll.

As Swift motions, rather than tip their hand even further by having Hyde travel with him, the LB motions for the NCB to switch off of Stoll and take Swift instead. This means Hyde is now responsible for Stoll instead of Swift, with everyone else maintaining their initial assignments. I think it was Romo that said the play was designed to have the NCB blitz from the slot originally but on a second look, I don't think that's the case (would've been awfully late for that type of adjustment but not entirely implausible I suppse.)

So the reason why Hurts has tons of space on the backside is precisely because we caught McDermott with his hand in the cookie jar and BJ called the perfect counter to a zero blitz. Reminder: On a zero, nobody has eyes on the QB, let alone is assigned to him, and it's a testement to Hyde's awareness that he even got as close as he did to Hurts because he sniffed out the screen action pre-snap and kinda half-commited to Stoll (incidentally, if it's a quick out to Stoll instead of a screen with the same pre-snap motion, then it's an easy pitch and catch for at least 5 yards because Hyde is caught in no-man's land being so far away from him.)

I'm not disputing any of this. I agree with pretty much all of it. My whole point was that the success of this play was in significant part due to the screens we had called and run earlier in the game.

 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

when did he do that???

5 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

when did he do that???

I thought he said that it happened during Friday’s practice.  Apparently he didn’t say anything about it until he felt discomfort Sunday morning.

1 minute ago, McMVP said:

I thought he said that it happened during Friday’s practice.  Apparently he didn’t say anything about it until he felt discomfort Sunday morning.

really?!? thats weird.  

I'm not too far from NEHS I could walk over there right now and maybe get close enough to tell him yeah 10-1 is cool and all but the EMB wants your OC fired.

13 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

when did he do that???

From my understanding, before today. 

2 hours ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Really?  It's an RPO.  The problem wasn't the zero blitz.  The problem was how their secondary handled the motion.  Too many players flowed with Swift.  One player needed to stay at home.  Hurts saw this and ran it in.  If they defense doesn't flow, Hurts would throw the screen. 

Second, that play doesn't work with linemen not named Kelce and Mailata.

Third....Go Blue!

ZERO blitz means that it's man across the board, when you say someone is supposed to stay home? STay home for who? Man coverage does not put a defender on Hurts.  That would be using a spy technique and then it wouldn't be ZERO coverage. They called ZERO, so each of the 5 recievers (includes swift as 1) has one defender that is responsible to cover them. When Swift motions, it shifts who is covering who which is why you see both safeties react. Because both have one guy they are responsible for, and it changed when swift was no longer on the insde. 

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

From my understanding, before today. 

Maybe even before the Bills game?

4 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Maybe even before the Bills game?

It all started that one time we were led to believe Howie Roseman bullied him into playing injured in 2018

https://x.com/JClarkNBCS/status/1729579335533654292?s=20

 

Interesting, I was under the impression that he was out for the year.

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

ZERO blitz means that it's man across the board, when you say someone is supposed to stay home? STay home for who? Man coverage does not put a defender on Hurts.  That would be using a spy technique and then it wouldn't be ZERO coverage. They called ZERO, so each of the 5 recievers (includes swift as 1) has one defender that is responsible to cover them. When Swift motions, it shifts who is covering who which is why you see both safeties react. Because both have one guy they are responsible for, and it changed when swift was no longer on the insde. 

Technically you can still spy with man across the board (zero just means nobody free), but it would be with 5 rushers or less, rather than 6 like they did there. But otherwise agree with everything you said, and yeah comments saying the Bills screwed up becasuse Hyde should've "stayed home" are always fun to read. 

30 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

really?!? thats weird.  

The MRI told them about the scar tissue.  The pain or discomfort prompted the game day MRI.  Maybe no discomfort on Sat?

38 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

when did he do that???

 

42 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

because we ask the tough questions 

3 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

He plays like 2020 Wentz sometimes. You don’t want him to be a game manager but you want him to be less reckless and rein it in instead of thinking you can force the ball where you want it. 

And that’s completely fair and I get that. There does need to be that balance because he has such a great arm you don’t want him to get away from that too much.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

It is about being patient and waiting for the chance to use that arm in a decent spot rather than continue to force things in very risky scenarios. 

It’s a balancing act isn’t it. And a difficult one at that I’d say. 

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

because we ask the tough questions 

You know what, if Lane missed the game because he was getting a little....fresh?  I get it

 

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

No I meant it genuinely 

Appreciate the compliment, but I don't think that's true.

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I didn't want JPP or Earl Thomas over Brandon Graham

 

 

 

 

 

(I wanted Eric Berry)

Yeah... but there was about a 0.0% chance of him falling to where we could land him.