thurst44

I went through the seven-game stretch that the OP was referring to with points and it doesn't look quite as bad, even the Patriots games. Yes, we did terribly on Sunday and in that 3-game stretch. Our defense held the opponents to fewer than each team's average in 6 out of the 7 games in between (and, yes, 26, this is not the "same team," but in that case there is no trend and we'll see how they react to an embarrassing loss with the new and exciting, but inexperienced QB at the helm).

Yes it does in that applies to all teams. They may look bad last week. They may improve next week. People said many similar hopeless things. To imply that these 2018 Buffalo Bills are immune and clearly irredeemable (not that you are doing that, but many are) is to ignore history for the sake of basking in negativity or to play a game of negative oneupmanship. I'm pretty sure we are saying essentially the same thing (and i'm pretty sure the op is too): we don't truly know what will happen next week.

The OP's point was to after the three game dive, a stretch during which we were 4-2 with the two losses being to the Patriots in which our defense gave up the same amount of points every team does to the Patriots. Let's look game-by-game of this 7-game stretch after the last Peterman debacle when most everyone said the team was done for: KC: 2017 Offensive Avg Pts: 25.6, Our D allowed 10 NE: 2017 Avg: 28.9, Our Def: 23 Ind: 2017 Avg: 16.4. Our Def: 7 (admittedly, snow game) Mia: 2017 Avg: 17.6, Our Def: 16 NE: 2017 Avg: 28.9, Our Def: 37 Mia: 2017 Avg: 17.6, Our Def: 16 Jac: 2017 Avg: 25.9, Our Def: 10 (scored 45 pts the following week and their exalted defense gave up more than we did week 13 to NE in championship game) I'd say in that seven-game stretch, the defense rebounded pretty well, and while not the dominant D they were at the beginning of the season, and trading the largest guy on said defense probably did not help (and, no, Star has not done anything to prove he's improved the team), but they were a little above average while being on the field a lot. That was the point of the OP. And, yes, testy, Sunday sucked and does not bode well for this Sunday, but Allen starts and things can change. We'll see.

Fair enough. I don't agree that there is zero correlation between how a team plays one year to the next, and still contend how a team is coached and who the main personnel is can explain how they react to adversity. In any case, it still does not disprove the point that how a team plays can change dramatically from week-to-week and observing that after a certain team lost three games in a row in an embarrassing fashion, somehow defied the death knell pundits and fans placed on the team to go 4-2 and make the playoffs. The Chiefs had a longer stretch which culminated in losing at home to a team that had just finished one of the worst 3-game stretches in history, then won out to make the playoffs.

Yes, but that also strips the obvious context to make the point he or she wants to make. Three of the games were in the nosedive, the two losses which were not and were not the playoff "outlier" were against the Patriots and they gave up an avg of 30 pts to the Patriots, who averaged a 27 pts all season so they essentially -- in this small sample -- played average defense. These statistics don't disprove the OP's point and if cherry-picking is imprecise, it's definitely manipulative of the data to show its point. Don't be a jerk. I'm sorry if my heated defense of my position was jerky itself and I didn't realize it.

Really? I respect your opinion as one of the most consistent and seemingly wisest posters on the board, but that seems a gross case of absolutism. Are you really saying that coaching has no impact on how a team reacts to adversity or that certain players and/or teams don't handle it better. We just have to look at the Patriots to see a team which tends to win and rebound in a similar fashion regardless of an ever-changing roster (and even in games and seasons when Brady has been hurt). Besides, the point is more that the NFL's landscape tends to change fast as evidenced by what happened with our own team (and the team we beat in the game we pulled out of it...and the Titans who looked pretty awful going into Week 17 then won to get in and won a playoff game...and the Giants who lost six games in a row and won a Super Bowl ... and ... ). It may not be likely, but to imply it can't happen ignores the history of the NFL. We have a new QB, many of the players and most of the coaches were able to revive last year. I'm going to get excited (while knowing as I have for over 30 years of fandom that it's very likely to go bad).

He omitted the Jacksonville game when making a statistical point. That is practically the DEFINITION of cherry-picking. The OP's point is that despite a 3-game stretch that was, as you said AND the OP said, lopsided, and would usually be demoralizing, the Bills went 4-2 the rest of the way; hence, we should maybe remember a team with many of the same players and the same head coach was able to play well the rest of the way, so maybe we should not leave this team for dead while still giving them a few kicks on the way out. I'm presuming we all watched last season. If so, it was pretty obvious the manner the team played in that seven-game stretch (including the two Pats losses) was vastly different from the trainwrecks you saw in the three games prior and in the one game after. All the OP is saying is maybe we should get off the ledge, and the other poster is going out of his or her way to say "nah, the weather's fine out here." Yes, there's a good chance we could be a bad team as we rebuild. While I doubt that it will be as bad as last week, and take issue with absurd overreactions like the Rochester writer kneejerkedly calling the team "devoid of talent" (Hyde? White? Poyer? McCoy? Edmunds?) or the poster who smugly started a thread "see we're right" (congrats, enjoy), there's reasons to believe a turnaround is not impossible between a possible injection of enthusiasm by Allen's start and the fact that fortunes can change fast in the NFL and did for this same team less than a year ago. I'm not confident it will, but I'm excited to see what happens in the game and don't feel it's hopeless.

Chargers also lost and had their own issues (admittedly not as profound), so maybe, maybe not. While admittedly you could say the OP is cherry picking, you are cherry picking even more ridiculously. If you're taking out the Jacksonville game, then I'm taking out the Patriots games -- besides, in one of those games, the Pats actually scored fewer points than their 2018 average. And then, there you have it, the "illuminating claim" that the Bills played poorly in the 3-game stretch and last week, which is part of the original point.

They haven't had a chance to. That's the point. And, no, this EXACT team didn't, but many of them were on that team and the coaching is the same.

Exactly, I hope to never see Peterman start a game for the Bills again, but I have nothing against him personally and it's still sad that it didn't work out for him.

Exactly. Logic says the line will be bad, but how often does football follow logic. Look at last year to see how predictably units play week-to-week. After the 3-game-dive in the middle of the season, there was no reason to think our line could block anyone or our defense had a clue how to tackle, then the following week in KC, they played well. Our line (as well as other teams' lines) has been deemed "terrible" many times in the past only to take the field and do just fine. The opposite is true as well. We'll get the first glimpse tomorrow. Hopefully, we'll all be pleasantly surprised, even if we have no reason to expect that.

Also, Darby was burned maaaaany times by Julio Jones -- Darby, like Gilmore, tends to be feast or famine. I'm not sure whether we were right to trade him, but we got pretty good value for him and our secondary was great last year, and will be this year if Davis returns to form. McDermott and Beane found some reason they thought the return was better than keeping him and so far they have taken a team who were expected to tank to the playoffs in their only season. Maybe that's a fluke, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

It's a neat idea (and could ease him into playing), but I doubt it would happen.

Funny thing: I've been weirdly sheltered in games I've seen at Rich/Ralph/New Era weather-wise. I've only been to 6 (grew up in nyc and live in jersey now, but did live in buffalo for college, family from WNY), but my only truly awful weather game was also the worst game and only loss I've seen and it was more the rain than the cold (we lost to the Dolphins 37-10 for the first loss of one of the Super Bowl years -- and I had a nasty cold and three papers due early in the week). My first game was 51-3 and it was in the 30s with light snow, but the next day was 11 degrees and brutal -- crossed the street from the Best Western where my aunt and uncle were staying to the Lockport Mall and almost froze into statues along the way. Flew up to watch a game in December against Houston (great game) and it was 63. We were tailgating in t-shirts.

I love it when we are defiant. I love it less when we absorb the criticism and become closer to self-loathing :). Hopefully Sunday brings back the full defiance!

Honest question: why is it that we put every negative prediction gets a topic on the main page, while this relatively positive prediction from the premier analytics site is tucked into the eleventh page of comments on a thread about a site picking us as the worst team in football?

I'd be more gloom and doom if there weren't a lot of national media convinced we were tanking last year. That said, this article makes good points about what needs to happen -- the third one may be the biggest key, as if they can generate a pass rush, the defense could be dominant to keep us in games enough even if NP is only slightly exceeding low expectations.

Actually, 538's did not -- they put us middle-of-the-pack at 8-8 with a 2% chance of winning the Super Bowl. Also, maybe it's just the turn of phrase (and this is an insane level of nitpicking, yet here i go...), but the QBs actually have a little over 1 full game collectively as Peterman played the first half of the San Diego debacle, stood tall in the snow game until the 3rd quarter, and did mop up duty in a couple games (although one was a playoff game). 5-11 is reasonable, but I feel at the low end. My head says 7-9, while my heart says 9-7.

Question: who would you have added? Also, during FA, we supposedly did not know Richie was gone (but he was 35, it should be on their mind)? Norwell was a pretty good player, but would be costly (maybe worth it though)? Anyone else you would have added? Do you know that you wouldn't be criticizing them? I played that Fanspeak GM game quite a few time, and I'm no expert, but my research showed most of the available guards and centers were not much better than Bodine level.

Well, we don't know truly what happened between Ngakoue and Incognito, but that could have been an early sign.

I dunno, seems like a chicken and egg thing there. He may have already been exhibit some odd behavior before they tried to re-negotiate his contract. While maybe that act set off his fragile psyche, but I have a feeling something would have done it.

9/19, 160 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT

Zay Jones - he's got the talent, just has to get/keep his head together. He looked good catching balls in traffic when he didn't have to think about it. However, I suspect he'll look better with Allen and his zip arm (whereas Benjamin looks as if he might fare better with Peterman). Shaq Lawson - he seemed to respond better with his job on the line in camp and pre-season. He may not get a lot of sacks, but he will be integral to containment and the run defense surprising most people here. Tremaine Edmunds - OK, he might not qualify, but I predict he will be in the ROTY conversation by the end of the year. My biggest limb - John Miller - other than his play in year two, I have little to back this up than a feeling, but if the o-line does somehow come together and does not suck, he is our best bet (other than Dawkins who will probably be solid). If not, then Wyatt Teller will step in at some point this year.

24-7 Bills -- Ravens come in overconfident, while Bills play with a chip on their shoulders. Offensive line somehow gets it together against all logic, because that happens sometimes in football. Your heart and head are only a touchdown apart. May your heart be the victor!

Hopefully the Ravens are feeling the same way and come in overconfident off of a meaningless pre-season sweep. They are not that great a team and are coming off choking in their last game. They deserve to be favored, but this is not an automatic blowout; it could wind up that way, but I suspect the Bills will surprise a lot of people tomorrow (as long as Peterman does not breakdown).