thurst44

The weirdest thing is PFF LOVED Tre his rookie year. He was their DROY. Still a bit baffled how they can argue that a guy who led the league in interceptions, was second in QBR against, and who did not allow a single TD in a season is regressing and not even a top 10 cornerback. If your metric does not put a guy like that even in your top 100 players, it's probably your metric that's wrong. Also, have they ever talked about Sean McDermott, because given he's one of four teams that don't even have one top 101 player, he's got his team solidly in the playoffs. They must believe he's the second coming of Lombardi (or at least the love child of Belichick and Reid).

Nah, I think it's 50/50. It's just that both sides are pretty vocal and dug in and whichever side gets their first will dominate the argument. As a little kid, I watched the hail mary game live, so between that excitement and the fact I never thought he got a fair shake for his size from draft day on, he was my favorite non-Bill, so when he signed with the Bills, I was ecstatic.

I will never, ever get the Flutie hate. He was a fun QB to watch and exceeded his expectations and the team won when he was the QB -- a lot. That same team had a far different energy when RJ was under center, and he could never figure out how not to get sacked (doesn't he have the highest sack per dropback rate?). Also, if memory serves, there was a lot of talk about Buffalo moving that quieted down when Flutie went on his run. As for the playoff game, he was AWFUL in that game and if you're going to make the game manager atgument, it's just as logical to say Flutie might have had them ahead by a large enough margin that the forward lateral would never have happened. You don't have to be a fan, but why hate?! My choice would have to ultimately be Incognito, having been bullied a lot of my childhood, but even then, I was able to rationalize rooting for him when he was on the team. Did not love RJ or JP at the time, but in retrospect, have nothing really against them, and the latter seemed like a nice enough guy (or at least wanted to do some good things for Buffalo). John Fina almost knocked me down when I was at Kelly's club and afterwards gave me a dirty look, so I wasn't fond of him for a long time, but later he (and a couple other players) had a deal with the record store where I worked and he would come in and we would talk music for hours and he was engagingly friendly. Yeah, BJH is a good point. Forgot about that point, but was pretty redfaced about him at the time. What QB does not learn the playbook?!?!

I'm just watching the replay this morning, but he started and so far has "played" most of the game. Surprised no one has mentioned it -- guess it's just how reviled this game is -- but even in this no defense game, Tre White defended two passes on the first drive. I'm not in on the pile on on the Pro Bowl -- it is what it is (and it's fun to have one last chance to see a couple of the players). However, the coverage does not do anything for the game. The one thing that's interesting about it (or could be interesting about it) would be the selection and pageantry, and they didn't bother to even announce the players.

It's kind of a push for me. Watson, at his best, is one of the greatest in the game and he's further along in his progress. However, even at this point, he's much more inconsistent than Allen (who has been putting up mostly 2 td/0 int games), who has just two fewer 4th quarter comebacks in far fewer games. Watson is one of the few quarterbacks I wanted the Bills to draft in the past few years, but Allen won me over pretty quickly post draft, and based on how he has done in the clutch, I'm giddy to see how he reacts to his first playoffs.

I agree on both parts. As for the first part, I'd love to see them break the Patriots hold over us in the biggest way possible, but also kind of want the idea of Pats matching the Bills four SB appearances in a row quashed by Sunday night. Also, I've wanted the Bills to play the Chiefs all year -- just feel we match up oddly well with them this year.

After 2 and 3 seasons, can you honestly answer? Allen's numbers since Game 5 (17 td, 3 int, 6 rushing tds) and he's about to go to the playoffs. Pat Mahomes in last 11 games (18 td, 4 int, 2 rushing tds) and also about to go to the playoffs. I'm not saying they are equal yet, and Mahomes had perhaps the greatest second year ever, so hard for Allen to get close to that (but Allen's was not shabby), but the jury is still out on Allen and we don't seem to appreciate just how well he has been playing since he got a full's year worth of games under his belt. If they are both QBs in the top ten for the next decade, but if we also got one of the best players at STOPPING the opponent's QBs (right now, he's second in the league at opponent QBR and tops in allowing TDs at, um, zero -- and who got the only TD against the number one QBR -- Josh Allen), can you really truly say we lost the deal.

In his eyes, it may not be so "meaningless." I suspect he values going into the playoffs on a strong win (as opposed to a painful loss) is worth taking a chance on injuries. The philosophy -- at least my stab at a guess at it -- is that they'll have two more weeks to get to the point where they can potentially beat a Ravens and Patriots on the road. It's a long shot, but sometimes talented teams get hot at the right time. I've lived in NYC area since college and have seen the Giants pull that trick off twice. I like the move, but, yes, if Allen is hurt in this game, it will be hard to defend in retrospect.

Fan voting never turns out to be that much of the voting. There's been a couple times in the past where Bills have been leading and did not make the team.

My guess would be Tre'Davious debuts high (like 20s or 30s) -- we're starting to hear his name regularly as in the convo with Stephon for best CB in NFL. Tremaine Edmunds is starting to get a rep, but probably not there yet. I could definitely see Hyde. Poyer is a long shot as a surprise. Ed Oliver is probably already pretty close and it's hard to tell what Allen's rep is with his peers, but there's probably still enough stubborn people who will still think he's "trash" until he's absolutely dominant, but his numbers and win-loss total really give him an argument.

Nah, PFF loves Tre'Davious

I agree that the focus should be on the Steelers (although it does not really matter what we do or not b/c we are just fans) However, why can't we beat the Patriots? The Chiefs just did and I don't think we're that much worse (if at all) than them. The Patriots are reeling, we're due and we're 5-1 on the road. We've had a chance to win at the end of every game save for the Eagles game.

I'd argue having a 35-49% chance in a game against an absurdly hot team is not particularly negative, and I tend to get called out as an overly positive fan and it sounds about right to me. Plus, as different as this season has been, it's still hard to shake the feeling, as illogical and irrelevant as it is, that this is the kind of game where we expect a painful loss -- even coming, as it does, on the heels of an overwhelming and convincing win in the ultimate kind of game the Bills usually lose. That said, there are quite a few reasons to believe the Bills have a better chance than we think in this game: - Bills are playing on 10 days rest - Game is in New Era Field - Bills are arguably the second hottest team in the NFL right now and perhaps their mojo is even more powerful than the Ravens' - In the past 3 games, the Bills are just the sort of team that could stop a rolling team like the Ravens: an offense coming together and a disruptive, dynamic, hard-hitting, disciplined defense. - Overall, they are clearly one of the three high-level defenses (with SF & NE) and outside of a few anomalies they are a young defense, especially in their three potential (well, one is pretty much there) superstars, and there's some reason to believe their ceiling is much higher than it has been so far, and if there is ever a game where a defense could make a statement, this is it.

What I'm amazed at is that I've never heard anyone even suggest that there was more to Harmon's drop, given his history of suspicion of fixing games. I'm sure it was just a dropped pass, but...

This fits b/c to a certain degree, Bartman and Buckner, and for the most part every major scapegoat, does not really deserve the scorn. In Bartman's case there were many people going for the ball and it's not his fault that the Cubs blew a very large lead after Bartman "interfered." On the other hand, Buckner's error came after the Red Sox had already blown a lead they shouldn't have and has overshadowed the wild pitch thrown by Bob Stanley which allowed the Mets to tie the game. It's made even sadder by the fact that Buckner had been playing through immense pain and to paraphrase Dante Hicks, "wasn't even supposed to be there", as it was standard for Dave Stapleton to come in as a defensive replacement in the 9th inning, but McNamara wanted Buckner, as a veteran who had played for the Cubs and Sox and had never been in the World Series before to be on the field to experience the final out. I was annoyed when Levy did not try another play (maybe a hitch to Thurman or a TE on the sideline) to get them closer and more safely in Norwood's range, so I never really saw the fairness in blaming Norwood for missing a kick that was at the edge of his ability, and of that of most kickers. If Kelly was under pressure and threw a pass in the endzone just off the fingertips of a diving James Lofton as time expired, would either have been considered the "goat"? If it was, say, a 54-yard field goal, would he still be the "goat"? However, all that being said, the miss was the closest this team has ever got to the NFL's ultimate goal, so even if it's not really fair, for the purposes of this thought experiment, one would have to say he fits the bill. FWIW, one could argue that Thurman's fumble in Super Bowl XXVIII was more egregious as they were leading when it happened and it changed the trajectory of the game, but there seems to be a consensus that it was more a factor of the team having no confidence after three losses, and that they looked as if they had already given up hope during halftime, even with a 13-7 lead. (And was I the only one who had flashbacks watching an interminable halftime performance with the Bills having a 13-7 lead over the Cowboys -- to a degree, I blame awful country music for the Bills lack of a Super Bowl trophy.)

So, what is wrong with comparing 12 games to 12 games, which is what I did. Those are the stats, per Pro-Football Reference, for each player's first 12 games. It makes a bit more sense after he plays 12 games to update the others and compare it to 12 games than to revert Oliver's stats to 8 games. I just was trying to be helpful and do a little legwork on a quiet snowy campus day. I'm not the OP, btw, but I'm guessing what happened there was that the article he/she referenced was a month old. My point is that if you do the math, and extend all of these players to 12 games, the point still holds. I'm pretty sure that's seriously properly represented data.

Are... you... serious?!?! You can't be serious. On the off chance you are, the point of this whole article is that DTs tend to start slow and that he is on pace with many great DTs at this point in this career. What would be the point of going back in time and pretending he has NOT been a beast the last four games. We now have the 12 games to compare. Not to mention, his stats are similar to the others after 8 games.

OK, let's look at 12 Aaron Donald: 30 tackles, 6 sacks, 1 ff Fletcher Cox: 25 tackles, 3 sacks, 1 ff Geno Atkins: 7 tackles, 1.5 sacks Gerald McCoy: 21 tackles, 3 sacks, 2 ff Ed Oliver: 28 tackles, 5 sacks, 1 ff So, yep, pretty much on schedule.

You might want to check with 538 on that. By their playoff generator, there is a path. It would take a lot of variables (mostly upsets) -- each on their own very plausible, but probably not all of them. What I'm seeing is we win our game, Arizona beats Pitt in Ari, TB beats Indy in TB, Cincy beats Cleveland, and Tennessee beats Oakland. That's all it would take :). In any case, a win against Baltimore would put it pretty darn close and, man, does it feel good to even be in a position where there is a remote chance of clinching a playoff spot with three games to go. Now, let's go Bills and pull this off against the current IT team of the NFL.

Then by that logic, the Dallas Cowboys did have a winning record when we played them. I'm just tired of patently untrue statements that are twisted to show our play in a bad light. If one's comment is "we have not played a team with a winning record," no matter how you slice it, it just isn't true, so why should our fanbase go out of their way to repeat a stat that is on its merit does not hold water. If we beat the Ravens, some here will say, well, Lamar just had an off day, or let's see if we can do it twice. Also, it's come to that: we're saying we didn't face a real team b/c we didn't face Ryan Tannehill?! I mean, I know he's having a good run right now, but do you really believe we would have certainly lost if we were playing the Tannehill-led Titans. Can I also mention that we're not giving this team enough credit for being 5-1 on the road.

Tennessee is 7-5. We beat them on the road. I don't get why some of our own fans go so out of their way to diminish our accomplishments.

Being in NJ, I'm gonna dissent -- Jets fans starting to get annoying again.

Aaron Donald through 12 games: 30 tackles, 6 sacks, 1 ff Ed Oliver through 12 games: 28 tackles, 5 sacks, 1 ff so far, so good

Yeah, he didn't do anything at all today -- oh wait! (but, yes, I would not bring Murphy back either, and Shaq has been a beast the last few weeks and seems to fit perfectly into their system)

Clearly had the better game