SageAgainstTheMachine

A loss this week means a decent 4-4 record and a hideous 1-4 record in the conference and 1-2 in the division. In other words, dead in the water as far as tiebreakers are concerned. It would basically eliminate the possibility of making the playoffs at 9-7, forcing us to finish the season 6-2 with games against the Pats, Packers and Broncos ahead. So...yeah. Things look pretty bleak if we lose this one. As soon as the Pats beat us, I knew that beating the Vikes and Jets had to be a package deal. We passed the first test by the skin of our teeth. I wanna watch them annihilate the Jets.

Similar to the phrase "flied out" in baseball.

Yeah, I'm inclined to think Geno's ceiling is higher than EJ's. The bigger reason, though, is that the Bills planned their backup QB situation a lot better than the Jets. Pundits laughed when the Bills brought in Orton for $5 million, but the Jets have the decaying corpse of Michael Vick for the same amount. In his one appearance this year, Vick netted 47 yards on 19 attempts and 2 interceptions.

You're doing mental gymnastics on number 5. Kyle Orton, while troublesome in certain aspects, is a demonstrably better quarterback than Geno Smith. Dude's got 19 TDs and 28 INTs in 23 starts. That's like...well, it's hard to even compare to other QBs because most guys wouldn't make it to start #24 with those numbers.

A couple years ago, plenty of posters on this board were actively dismissing the Guard position. Crickets now.

Orton is Fitz with significantly less mobility, but significantly more arm strength. And I don't say that to diminish Orton, because I think our defense is good enough that they would've coasted into the playoffs with Fitz at the helm this year, and maybe even last. I just see a lot of the same tendencies: Charismatic leader, accuracy issues, tendency to unwisely try fitting the ball into very small areas.

That actually makes more sense to me. Given that injuries are so generally common, it's unwise to make any risk when the return is only marginal. If Sammy had Devin Hester's return skills, it would be a different story. I think McKelvin and Bryce Brown are good options. We all have nightmares of that Pats game from 2010, but McKelvin is a good returner.

Never understood this logic, as common as it is. Sammy is our best weapon with the ball, so we better not give him more chances with the ball because he could get hurt? Players get hurt on all kinds of plays.

The limiting factor to any RB for the Bills this year is the disastrous play of the interior line. I'm going to predict that Boobie Dixon's stats will probably look better than Brown's because Dixon won't take as many negative or 1-yard plays.

I suspect that Sammy might deserve recognition in a few more weeks, but his season thus far doesn't objectively belong in any top-8 WRs discussion. Antonio Brown Dez Bryant Jordy Nelson Randall Cobb T.Y. Hilton Demaryius Thomas Golden Tate Steve Smith Sammy's somewhere around 15th for me.

Each year, there are a small handful of obvious contenders and obvious losers. The other ~20 teams are vaguely sorted through the pitfalls of a highly variant, tiny sample size 16 game season. In the past, the Bills have shown a penchant for making the wrong play at the wrong time - this year's been a little different. Who would've believed that a circus catch by Chris Hogan would be the most important play for an above .500 Bills squad?

Well, now I know we have no chance.

I still feel as though I've seen much uglier wins, especially during the Jauron era. Games where you were tempted to turn off the TV despite the score being close because the quality of play was just that bad. Games during which not a single player stood out. In this game, there were no fewer than a dozen truly impressive plays by the Bills, many of which were during the winning drive. Watkins, Dareus and Hughes played like All Pros. McKelvin, Hogan and Chandler had highlight reel moments. However, mistakes occurred often. It was nearly a frustrating loss, but not a bad win.

Here's a question: If defense is half the game, how come we only focus on the offense when trying to decide if a win was "good" or not? Our defense got to the quarterback 5 times and held a team to 1 touchdown and 16 points, despite our offense committing 4 turnovers. That's pretty incredible. I think it's time to accept that one side of the ball is significantly better than the other this year and embrace wins like this. It probably won't be the last.

Same here. I was on the cusp of benching him for Jerick McKinnon, but decided against it due to Ridley's injury.

It's a combat sport. Cheering for Brady to get knocked around to the point of being ineffective doesn't mean cheering for him to tear an ACL or get concussed.

Are the demons chubby?

Let's GO!

Yeah, that was a strange comparison.

Well, they were arguably the two best players on the field Sunday. It was Tate, Watkins, Dareus and Suh in some order.

You're close. The Bills kicked off in the first half 15 times. They elected to receive once, against the Saints.

I'm glad somebody else noticed this. Over the years, I think my eyes have picked up on subtleties that make NFC football seem like a different entity than AFC football.

Well, that's the perspective of the fans. General managers are paid to be objective. The Bills finished 6-10 and Pettine got hired because it was obvious that his defense wasn't part of the problem in Buffalo. I imagine the same could hold true for Schwartz.

Then again, certain franchises (including the Bills) have become coaching graveyards. If I was a hot-commodity coordinator, I'd want nothing to do with Oakland.

Against an elite offense (This year, I'd call only Denver elite) you don't give them the chance to immediately put 7 on the board. Against anybody else, I like deferring because it gives you a better opportunity to game plan around the end of the first half. Most people seem to agree with this logic nowadays, but I can remember Jauron and, to a lesser extent, Gailey getting lambasted because "a winner wants the ball!".