metzelaars_lives

I think most people already think the level he's playing at right now is rather odd considering his age.

What? A donut hole has a donut around it.

Very, very true also. Those Niners teams had excellent defenses by and large. Granted, so did most of Brady's teams but Brady won three Super Bowls with very little running game (as has always been the case) and Troy Brown and David Givens as his primary receiving threats. It's nice that most people seem capable of being objective about the guy and where he stands as an all time great. I realize he has owned us for the better part of two decades but as a football fan, you should be able to take a step back and see the bigger picture. I'm sure LA Rams fans found ways to minimize Montana's greatness in the 80's as well.

OK so by that logic a hitter who goes 1-1 (Dilfer, Brad Johnson, et al) has a higher average than a hitter who goes 2-4 (Peyton Manning) or even Brady (4-6). Similarly, Kelly (0-4) is way worse than Stan Humphries (0-1), having lost 4 big ones. Getting to the big one is an accomplishment in and of itself, hence the Bills having 8 HOF'ers from that era- which of course they wouldn't have had they never made it to the Super Bowl. Getting an at bat in baseball is not an accomplishment. I guess I would ask you very simply, do you consider the Bills'/Jim Kelly's four straight Conference Championships an accomplishment? It sounds to me like you consider it a detriment to their legacy and a blemish on their record. Personally, I consider it a great accomplishment.

Forget about who the best ever is. I never said that Super Bowl record/Super Bowl victories is the be-all-end-all in determining the best ever. If you think Montana is the best ever, that's fine, you could make that argument. You could probably make an argument that Manning is the best ever. I happen to think Brady is the best ever. But you CANNOT construct an argument that 4-0 in Super Bowls is greater than 4-2. That would necessarily mean that you are giving Montana credit for the times he didn't make it to the Super Bowl! In other words, he was better off losing twice in the NFC Championship game (which again, he did) vs. Brady WINNING the AFC Championship game and then losing a round later in the Super Bowl (which he did twice as well). I realize we are on a Buffalo Bills website so it is difficult to be objective about Tom Brady. I have already said that this is all cheating aside. The simple fact of the matter though, is that 4-2 trumps 4-0. You are basically trying to tell me that Conference Championships are a blemish on one's record if you don't win the Super Bowl and that it is a greater achievement to not even make the playoffs. Really think about what you are saying. And I'm not trying to be argumentative here. If you think that 4-0 is better than 4-2 then I would love to hear your argument. But please include why Jim Kelly going 0-4 is then better than Stan Humphries going 0-1.

Throw all that stuff out the window (not that I disagree with any of it). I'm just saying that 6 conference championships and 4 super bowl victories trumps 4 conference championships and 4 super bowl victories. There is no logical argument to the contrary.

I have been on tbd for 8 years now and the whole '4-0 is better than 4-2' argument is probably the dumbest, laziest and most contrived argument that anyone has ever made. I knew someone was going to say it. You are saying that Montana is better off for losing in the NFC Championship game (which he did twice) than had he won it and then lost in the Super Bowl. You are saying that Brady's legacy was buoyed this year by losing in the AFC Championship game vs. had he won and then lost to Carolina. Sorry but Super Bowl appearances count. It's why the Bills have eight guys from the Super Bowl era in the HOF. Would you argue that their legacy would be greater if they were 0-0? That's basically what you're arguing. How many guys would we have in the HOF then? The cheating thing is another conversation but believe when I tell you that 4-2 is better than 4-0.

He already is the greatest Super Bowl era QB and it's really not even that close.

Thank God, it would've been such a distraction. Saints are doomed now. I thought they might improve next year but with this incredible distraction, I can't see them finishing any better than 3-13.

I gotta go but 1. Not true. The "garbage time stats" argument is thrown around by the anti-Tyrod legion on here all the time but it's simply not true. First of all, every QB puts up some garbage time numbers (the anti-Taylor contingent's golden boy, Blake Bortles, being an exaggerated example). Taylor actually put up less garbage time numbers than just about any QB in the league last year. In fact, the only game in which they were out of it and he threw any TD's at all was the Washington game in which he threw 2 meaningless second half TD's. Every other TD he threw was in a game in which the outcome was undecided or they were winning (do you not count Tom Brady's TD's when he's winning?) 2. I agree and preach this all the time but I wrote that in response to YOU citing his record. Which again, was 8-6. 3. Yes Barry Sanders had many exciting runs. Not sure where you were going with that one. The Tennessee game was like his fifth game as a pro and THEY WON. And he played pretty heroically in the second half on a sprained knee. Through 14 games as a pro (which is more than 5) EJ Manuel completely sucked and you were still exuberantly optimistic about him. How is anyone supposed to believe that you are objective about these two QB's?

Ahh this topic always brings out the best in people. No matter what side you find yourself on, anyone who thinks Daniel Snyder is fighting some sort of "good fight" is seriously delusional.

Yes but remember they could still franchise him next year if he is bitter toward the Bills for not extending him this season. I think they explain to him, look, we're super tight to the cap right now, we're trying to re-sign the two guys who protect your blindside, we're the ones that gave you this opportunity, show us last year wasn't a fluke and we'll give you the monster contract.

1. What are "fluffy statistics?" Can any of you envision a world where EJ Manuel put up the numbers Taylor did last year and Gugny expressed skepticism by calling them "fluffy?" Please elaborate. 2. He was 8-6. Not bad with a horrendous defense. With the 2014 defense they waltz into the playoffs. 3. Yes the runs were incredibly exciting. Did you not think so?

Ok but if EJ Manuel had the season that Taylor did last year, you would have yet to leave your room, which would be covered in crusty pictures of Manuel everywhere, and you would have drool coming down both sides your mouth and a dazed look in your eyes. And my guess is that once you came to, you would be clamoring for an extension right now. Agreed 100% that they need to talk now and feel his side out. I would be shocked if anyone disagreed with that. And if halfway through next season, he's playing at the level he did last year and then some, he will get a decidedly bigger contract than Fitzpatrick, which will be well deserved.

To the "NOOOOO!!!!!" crowd, if they sign him to a deal, which I doubt happens, it would assuredly be a "bridge" deal, as others have alluded to. It's not like they're going to give him 5 years, $100 million. They couldn't afford it even if they wanted to. Which they don't. They are in wait-and-see mode just like the rest of us. Calm down people.

Ok I wouldn't go that far. Like he is more to blame than Thurman Thomas, for instance. He's definitely in the top 10-15 humans on planet earth to blame for the loss.

Great post. Agree on both accounts.

Then it sounds like we're on the same page. I just don't like whenever this topic comes up, like a quarter of the people on here lay all of the blame on Martin and assert that if you put any of the blame on Incognito then you are overly sensitive or something.

Nothing that you wrote goes against anything I said. I don't disagree at all. But would you agree that the guy was, at one time, a real jerk and his antics went beyond "typical locker room shenanigans?"

I think this is an interesting conversation and people have kept it pretty civil. I think there's a tendency to take a side here and people on one side are all "Martin was soft, if you think Incognito was being a bully then you are part of this wussification of America, you are too PC, you pee sitting down, there's a war on Christmas, etc." But why can't both be true? I happen to believe that while Martin was indeed soft, Incognito took it WAY too far. Especially after he had to have sensed that Martin was soft. I hate when Incognito plays the oblivious card like "I don't know what to tell ya, we just played fun, silly PG-rated pranks on the guy just like we did everybody else." Give me a freaking break. Watch the video I posted above. And don't forget about who he was in the first place- the guy that pretty much got kicked off the Rams. The guy was definitely in contention for biggest meathead in the United States. All that being said, I'm willing to take his word that he's moved on and I'm glad he's on the Bills now.

I think America is far too PC and I am uneasily offended. Some of the stuff that came out in this particular instance was incredibly offensive. I think Incognito has learned from his mistakes and I'm glad we have him. But to pretend like he was some sort of victim here is entirely ignorant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW9C4qi5Y80 Yeah this is how you want your offensive lineman to act. It's PC crap if you think this might be a little much.

I'll say this: I think we got rid of Chandler at JUST the right time as it is evident that he was starting to really slow down. But say, 2011 Chandler vs. 2015 Clay? I don't know, you tell me.

Not 1.2 billion times better. Literally 1.2 times better. Like only slightly better. Chandler was a good receiving tight end. You said he had so-so hands. I thought he had great hands. And Clay had 2-3 really bad drops this season- worse than I ever remember from Chandler. That being said, Clay is certainly more nimble and appears to be a more complete player. But not as huge of a difference as their respective contracts would indicate. Perhaps he proves me wrong in year two but overall, I was disappointed in what we got from Clay this season.

I think you're selling Chandler short. There's no way that Clay is a billion times better than him. I'd say he's like 1.2 times better than him.

That's it. Agreed.