thurst44

PFF is a good idea in theory, in that it goes beyond the raw stats that can be misleading. The problem is that it's subjective and the argument that its detractors have is that the people doing the judging aren't great at eliminating their personal biases. Also, as one person pointed out to me (and i think it was someone in this thread), there can be blind spots b/c they favor the flashier play at the expense of the player just doing their job sometimes, which works at some positions, but can be misleading at, say, cornerback, where a great CB just does not get thrown at often. I want to love the concept of PFF (how often are there stats quantifying offensive linemen), but it's hard to take them seriously when after watching the games multiple times from multiple angles last year, I see that they label Tre White the 18th best CB or that a dominant game by Allen earlier this season had him in the lower half of QBs.

Exactly. They're 5-2 (3-0) and in charge of the division while playing a level of football that's likely below their talent (and only two games have been against doormats... well "doormat"). Their two losses are to the defending members of the AFC Championship who have two losses between them (and one of those was one to the other). Maybe their sloppiness is indicative of what we'll see all season. However, it's arguably more likely that they could snap to it the rest of the season as they have a lot of young players with high ceilings. I'd suggest it's more likely that the Bills are closer to the last two years' top three defense than to whatever they played the first 13 halves of the season.

The Browns were down a lot of the game against the Bengals. Also, while this does not necessarily help either of our arguments, you called a 5-1 team one of the "league stiffs." By this logic, the Saints (who many had winning the SB this year) just barely eked out a win against the Panthers (who most had in the Trevor Lawrence sweepstakes before the season). Basically, your grand argument boils down to some teams had close games and others did not. Ours was actually not as close as the score indicated once the second half started. The Bills made it to the Jets 35 or closer in every one of their ten drives. We held the awful Jets to their lowest offensive output of the year. It was the third fewest yards by any team this year. They beat a bad team and overcame a lousy start. They may have learned some things and/or overcome whatever mental bugaboos in their heads. Next week, hopefully the Patriots are indeed the "stiffs" you label them as and we can both continue to iron out the rough spots while getting a major monkey off our backs. I'm not "very concerned." Sure, this team could be the messy, moribund team of 5 of the last 6 halves. But it's also very likely this team could be the high-powered offense of the first four weeks, but paired with a defense closer to the one we've seen the last two years. We'll find out a bit more next week.

And then if there is still a tie, play a 2nd overtime!

I'd say the fans wearing blinders are the ones who are hopelessly negative and won't acknowlege that football is a fluid game of peaks and dropoffs. Things can change in a hurry. In 2017, we were annihilated in three games in a row, yet were able to revive and sneak into the playoffs. After we started 0-2 in 2018, everyone wrote off the team and the defense as historically bad. That defense turned out to be one of the best in the league the rest of the way and it paved the way for last season's run to the playoffs. Last year, the Chiefs started 4-0 before losing two games (both at home) and we know how that ended. I've lived in the NYC area the last 20 years and have seen the Giants twice look moribund all season before waking up just before the playoffs, culminating in a Super Bowl win. This team has a lot of players who are likely playing well-below their ability: Oliver, Edmunds, Poyer, Milano (by mostly not playing), Hyde, even White. For all the offensive explosiveness, there's been a lot of dropped passes. They could return to form and find cohesiveness and go 3-1 or even 4-0. The last two weeks may just be who we are now and we could go 1-3 or even somehow fall apart so bad we lose to the Jets. However, I'd put my money on the talent rising to the top. Maybe Epenesa proves his worth. Perhaps Quinton Jefferson or Vernon Butler or Mario Addison goes on a tear. Maybe Feliciano's return anchors the line and Ford finds his footing. There's a lot that could go right. Yes, it could go wrong, but to act like someone is "wearing blinders" for being hopeful for a talented team is insulting and does not recognize that football is a very unpredictable game where fortunes can change in the blink of a (non-blind) eye.

Oh, stop it with the "real contender" nonsense. We were 10-6 last year and in the playoffs and are 4-1 this year. It was one bad game. This is why I avoid here after a loss.

Meh, if there's a week to not have Tre', this is it. They are down a bunch of wide outs and Tre' will hopefully be rested to defend against Mahomes.

Too late

Bills are 8th overall in running defense and that includes the disastrous LA Rams game. In 3 out of their 4 games, the opposing team has been held below their season average.

It's happened before: see vs. Chargers in '18 (post-Vontae retirement).

To put a little bit of perspective, even the best units have bad days. Out of curiosity, I checked one of the elite Ds of the last decade and, lo and behold, in week 2 the 2000 Ravens allowed 400 yards and 36 pts to a Mark Brunell-led Jags team. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200009100rav.htm In 1985, the unstoppable Minnesota QB Tommy Kramer lit up the Bears defense to the tune of over 400 yards (and that was before it was a passing league in a Week 2 win over the Vikings. And that was before it was such a passing league and a year with a full pre-season. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200009100rav.htm I'm not saying we're either of these teams, just that some fans have a habit of finding whatever they can to worry about. The defense looked terrible yesterday. However, it does not mean our defense is doomed to an awful season because it had a bad game (even if the two games before were "good" and "meh"). Great teams and great coaches right the ship. In my belief, we have both. Right now, we are 3-0 against an awful team, a mediocre team, and a probably very good team. We also proved that our offense is capable of picking up the D after a nightmarishly bad game. For now, I'm gonna bask and trust that the coaches and players know what corrections to make so the D shuts down the Raiders and Titans.

On the other hand, this was the first game where the D allowed 100 yards rushing this season, so they haven't exactly been steamrolled. I don't think that really applies to the Jets game at all. If anything, the D starts strong and then lapses. I'd say it's a concern, but to argue like change is impossible is short-sighted at best. Just look at 2018 when the defense was by FAR the worst in the league for the first six quarters and then something clicked (and it was not ALL the subtraction of Vontae Davis, although that made it kinda funny) and they were the best D for the rest of the year. Also, two key factors are that likely due to the unusual preseason, the Bills are not alone in defensive struggles -- defenses around the league are off to a sluggish start. McDermott/Frazier have shown they are good at righting the ship. Second, Edmunds and Milano have been the heart of the defense and were gone in game 2 and while Milano looked at full strength, Edmunds likely was not yet there. We're 3-0. Let's see what the D does against Vegas (that feels so weird to say) and Tennessee. I suspect we'll see a step up from the Rams game.

On the other side, given that both sides of the ball have proven themselves capable of controlling a game, there's not a single game I would count them out. The Ravens had an insane run of hard games last year and rolled through it to the #1 seed. This team has the makings of a Super Bowl contender. If they reach near their potential, they can thrive, even if it's a hard schedule.

Darnold will likely be a great QB in the league, but at this rate, chances are it will be with a different team.

The 2004 Bills had a lot of talent. The Jets have two one-time great RBs, one of whom is 37, the other has not had a great season in three years and is on the IR. They have a QB who has the potential to be great, but is in a terrible situation. If they still had Robbie Anderson, Bell were healthy, and their line were even mediocre, I could see him leading them on a surprising run -- but there would also likely be some 42-38 losses mixed in b/c they have barely more than nothing on the defensive side. Marcus Maye is an underrated safety. That's about it. The Bills were the only team to stop the Bills offense in the opener.

"You know what the funniest thing about TBD is?" "What?" "It's the little differences -- I mean they got the same things we have here, but it's a little different... you know what they call a trollish post starter in TBD?"

Me too. And I was loud about it, here and beyond. My friend, also a Bills fan, does a radio show in North Carolina and has me on yearly to talk about the draft a few days before it happens. I'm no expert, but it's fun to play one on radio. That archived show features my screaming (we're talking Skip Bayless/Stephen A. level coherence levels of screaming) about how dumb the Bills would be to take Josh Allen. However, after the draft, I slowly read more about Allen and was impressed by what he had overcome and by stories he was considered the leader of the QBs at the combine (which ostensibly is a group of leaders), and decided maybe there's more there and that I would be open-minded. By the Minnesota game, I was convinced that he at least had a chance to be something great. It's been exciting to watch him grow. I wish I could say he was my first choice and I knew, but I definitely was very, very wrong -- and am so glad I was.

What explains ranking a cornerback 18th who allowed zero touchdowns and led the league in interceptions and was second in QBR-against while playing on the third best pass defense in football? And it's weird, because they loved Tre his rookie year, and I've watched the tape -- it's not like he's declined. The only thing I can see is that he sometimes plays a sort of prevent d where he'll let a receiver get a quick catch on the sideline when nowhere near the end zone. But even that doesn't happen all that often. Are they suggesting that quarterbacks and OCs are just not noticing that he's blowing coverages and a mass hysteria has them avoiding throwing in Tre's direction? You mentioned it's subjective and it's hard not to argue that when it comes to the Bills, for whatever reason, they seem to let their subjectivity all fall in one direction. And there's a very good reason they would do that -- we have a very volatile fanbase who will get angry and respond when we feel hurt. This makes for drama and that's good for their business. I get that I may be wrong, but it's become hard to dismiss that they are always off in one direction when it comes to the Bills over the last few years. It annoys me more b/c I actually love PFF in theory, and for some positions where there are no stats, like offensive linemen, it's a chance to get a feel for how the player is progressing. However, when it's presenting Tre's season last year as mediocre-to-good and Allen's outstanding game yesterday as so-so and well below Darnold's losing effort, they lose credibility and it renders all their possibly useful info tainted -- at least to me.

It's def too early to talk about it, but if they are going to talk about it (and they are), he should be in that conversation with Russell Wilson and maybe a couple others.

Yeah, I've seen balls called drops when there's been a small movement of the ball when the player hits the ground

And now they're having tech difficulties and I'm stuck with Pit-Den game

Don't you have to hold onto the pass when you hit the ground?

I'm not so sure that is a winning argument. Have we forgotten that quickly that this is Allen's start #2 where he won a game on the road in a game against one of the highest point spreads of the last decade.

I'm not sure that he was HoF-worthy either, just that the fact that he does not get any consideration seems weird to me, but what is your argument against him? This comment seems to diminish him to just being a solid Bills player when he was arguably one of the best linebackers in football for a 5-6 year stretch -- all-pro three times, pro bowl five (but yes, there are many players who have those counts who aren't close to HoF material). He's fourth all time in fumble recoveries. He was a two-time UPI AFC DPOY. Is that HoF? Borderline, probably, and that may be generous. However, to dismiss him as simply a Bills star and not one of the top linebackers in the league in his era seems a bit of an overcorrection.

I've always been surprised how little consideration Cornelius Bennett gets. I'd wonder if it's maybe because of his incident. I'm not saying he should be in the HoF, but many of his numbers are better than other LBs already in, he was a dominant force for at least a five year period, yet he's never been a finalist and rarely seems to get mentioned.