thurst44

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

We went out to early dinner, and my wife and her mother and brother are at a movie, while my uncle (fan since 1960) and me went to our house to watch the game. Then, she once surprised me with a Bills uni for our dog Trixie, so she's pretty cool with the fandom.

So, hopefully it's the third time that's the charm (or even better, 2nd AND 3rd). It's kind of funny: we're facing the top offenses the next few weeks, they're facing top defenses.

This actually makes me feel weirdly positive about next week's game. They're due to have a bad game and we're due to get some interceptions. Then again, they're facing one of the two defenses better (statswise) than ours this week.

He said a good defensive team. They were the 4th ranked defense going in.

I agree that as of now the Ravens look like the best team in football, but every team is beatable. What were people saying about our chances v. the Vikings week 3 last year? The one-win Falcons beat the rolling one-loss Saints in New Orleans a couple weeks ago. And in this case, the Bills are actually ALSO a very good team. I don't see how the Bills beat the Ravens either, but it happens. They've been beaten twice this year.

Cowboys fans should not think ANYTHING is a sure win for them right now (especially a team with a 2 game better record than them).

Yeah, I've only seen one person pick against us so far (NFL preview video -- Carolyn somebody). I know I can be obnoxiously positive, but, damn, this may be too much :).

And in Dallas on Thanksgiving is a hard lie -- but we've only been blown out in one game, and Thursday games when both teams have no rest can be plain weird. The Run D has been more unpredictable than it's been bad, so hopefully the good Run D -- the one of the first five games, last week, and a few unlikely second halves -- shows up. If we play like the first half of the homestand+Browns game, yes, Zeke will eat us alive. We should have a good chance to win this game, but it's a scary start to a scary 4-game stretch. But good teams win some of these games.

You mean like they did against the Jets? Oh, wait, they lost to them when the Jets had zero wins? The Cowboys have actually become infamous this year for their slow starts. This past week, they beat the Lions by 7. Oddly enough, aside from the team we just blew out last week, their only true blowout was against that 5-5 team. The Cowboys should not be ranked higher than the Bills (not that it matters and I should not get as mad as I do when I see it happen), but here we are. They have not. Only the same Dolphins, and oddly enough the Eagles. They pulled away from the Giants twice (as we did), beat the Redskins by 5 fewer points than we did, and beat the Lions by 7. If we're going to take the side of other teams, let's get the facts right.

Would he be a fool, though. Let's say he really loves his situation (and few players have seemed to instantly taken to the Bills like he has) and pegs his renaissance to our system, how foolish would it be to take, say, a contract that guarantees 30 million vs. the chance at one that guarantees much more. Would the next 30 million make him that much happier and/or secure if Buffalo is where he actually wants to be. Also, for the poster who (inevitably) mentioned the weather and taxes: many players -- even ones who have lucrative post-NFL careers -- have stayed in Buffalo and/or NY state. Different people have different preferences, and every indicator is that Jordan Phillips is about as Buffalo a guy as can be after a year.

Who thought the Broncos were going to be good this year? Not that this will be an "easy" game, but this is the primary difference between them and the Eagles and Browns. Also, the Browns didn't come into New Era -- we lost a close game on the road. This is a game the Bills should win and need to win, and it is a more likely win than the Browns or the Eagles. Hopefully they do.