Utah John

Man, I hope he recovers. He is flat-out a great football player. Tough, and classy enough to compliment a defender who laid him out for making a good clean hit. Granted I hate watching him destroy the Bills, but otherwise I love watching him play. Torrell Troup? Seriously??

The problem is, TT would have to turn his head to see him. Time after time, TT's in the pocket, he's got a wide-open safety valve with acres of green in front, and TT never even looks his way. TT's eyes are downfield, and that's that. it's like the part of his brain that's supposed to remember where everyone is on a given play, is not really engaged. Defenses see this too, and don't even bother covering the checkdown guy.

It's not true that no one notices the rotten safety play. People have talked about it all year, but at this point we're beating a dead horse. The front seven of the D is really playing well, the CBs are so-so, but the safeties are so bad the Bills can't get off the field on third down, if the other team even needs to get to third down. I think the biggest reason Gilmore and Darby have struggled at times is that they can't count on the safeties being where they're supposed to. And as other posters have mentioned, our guys are not big hitters. There's no fear by WRs about going across the field against our guys.

Think of TT as a point guard, not a shooting guard. I have been worrying since Lynn got the job that the D coordinators would figure him out, and he wouldn't have the experience or innovation to come up with new ways to attack. I am not sure whether that's happening, since there are some games when the O works and some when they don't.

When the Bills moved up to draft Sammie Watkins, Khalil Mack was still on the board. Would you trade Watkins for Mack, straight up? At this point, I'd say no. The Bills have invested several other high draft picks in the LB position, and they've lucked out with Lorax and Zach Brown and Hughes. But, suppose they'd taken Mack when they had the chance, and made a different set of decisions later. The question is, who's a better player, Watkins or Mack?

If you were Jacksonville and Watkins was on the field, you'd double team him every time. What other Bills receiver scares you? Without another viable threat, Watkins' impact is minimized. This was the first game when all three of the Bills' elite players -- Watkins, Dareus, and McCoy -- were on the field at the same time. When they were all playing, before Dareus came out, they were all having game-changing impacts. This is the core of the team that the Bills management must keep together in the years ahead.

Well, helllloooo Dhali, yes hellllooo Dhali, it's so nice to have you back where you belonggg...

This is nice, but I think it's a little payback for the league not handling the fiasco in Seattle properly. That FG that Carpenter made before the Bills were backed up, could have won the game, and that could be the difference between making and not making the playoffs. The league knows the entire sequence was botched. If this is their way of making up for it, it's not anywhere close to enough, but at least it's a nice gesture.

Dareus has quite simply let the team down, and very likely cost the team, his teammates, and the city a playoff slot. With Dareus in the lineup, the Bills don't lose to Miami. Period. With Dareus in the lineup against the Jets, Wrecks doesn't feel like he has to have his safeties in the box to stop the run, and our CBs don't get murdered by jump balls to the Green Giants they have at WR. (I just made that up but I wonder if someone thought of it before.) Even with that mismatch, the Bills nearly won. With those two games as wins, the Bills are at 6-3 and 3-2 in the AFC. With their easier schedule coming up, they'd be expecting to finish 11-5 or better and coast into a WC slot. Now, even if they go 6-1 the rest of the way, they probably don't make the playoffs. For costing his team a playoff slot so he could get high, and come in out of shape so he got hurt right away, he's the team's highest paid player? Yeah, I think I see a problem here.

The Bills DBs have had some good games this year. Same guys, better results. It think the explanation is better coaching in those games, with an effective scheme figured out and installed to counter what a particular opponent is doing. When the coaches get it wrong, the defensive backfield turns into a disaster. It could be the other way too. Possibly the times our defensive backfield looked good was when the opposing O coordinator didn't figure out how to attack the Bills well. When the D eventually looks great week after week, it will be because Thurman and the Ryans have installed enough defensive schemes to be prepared to stop anyone, with the necessary in-game adjustments to stop the bleeding when it starts.

I don't think it's just the Patriots who will face trouble with keeping the stands full when they start to lose. The NFL has been raking it in, more and more, every year, and trends like that can't continue forever. The league is overexposed, with way too many games on the weekly TV schedule (3 on Sunday or 4 if there's a London game, 1 on Monday, 1 on Thursday which also screws up the players and coaches schedule). It's like Who Wants To Be a Millionaire 10 or 15 years ago. There's just too much, and it stops being special. And the prices are ridiculous. All praise and glory to Bills fans who will attend a home game in December when it's 15 degrees and snowing and blowing, and the Bills are playing to see if they'll make it to 7 or 8 wins that year. But add the ticket prices, and it won't be long before it's only going to be season ticket holders or people with gift tickets who will go. Why buy a ticket for gazillions and freeze your butt when you can watch at home? The Patriots biggest risk is if, when they finally start losing again, that the Bruins and Celtics both have good teams, and the Red Sox are in the playoffs.

Can the Bills make the playoffs as a WC team? Yes, but they probably won't. The AFCW is too strong, with three teams with 7 wins. The biggest risk is the AFCW has all three teams make the playoffs. What has to happen for the AFCW to send only a champion and one WC team? The absolute best case scenario is Buffalo wins out, the other non-AFCW teams stumble enough to drop from contention, and the following happens: KC goes 1-6 the rest of the way, beating only Oakland in week 14 Oakland goes1-6 the rest of the way, beating only Denver in week 17 Denver goes 2-4 the rest of the way, beating only KC in week 12 and KC again in week 16 then Buffalo will be 11-5, 8-4 in the AFC, and 3-3 in the AFCE. KC will be 8-8, 6-6 in the AFC, and 3-3 in the AFCW Oakland will be 8-8, 6-6 in the AFC, and 3-3 in the AFCW Denver will be 9-7, 6-6 in the AFC, and 3-3 in the AFCW Obviously this won't happen. The best thing is if one of the three teams becomes dominant, one does OK, and the other collapses. Since the Bills play Oakland and will probably lose, and since Oakland is actually playing better than KC and Denver, let's assume Oakland wins all the head to head AFCW games and wins the division, Denver does well, but KC continues to lose all the but the head to head games. Then it's Denver that is the other WC team and KC that collapses. so KC goes 0-7 the rest of the way Oakland goes 7-0 the rest of the way (oh why not, it doesn't change anything), beating KC in week 14 and Denver in week 17 Denver goes 2-4 the rest of the way, beating only KC in week 12 and KC again in week 16 then Buffalo will be 10-6, 7-5 in the AFC, and 3-3 in the AFCE. KC will be 7-9, 5-7 in the AFC, and 2-4 in the AFCW Oakland will be 14-2, 11-1 in the AFC, and 5-1 in the AFCW Denver will be 9-7, 6-6 in the AFC, and 3-3 in the AFCW (same as before) So obviously Denver won't go 2-4 the rest of the way, but that's OK, they can win a lot more games and get a WC. In this scenario it's KC we have to worry about. They won't go 0-7 the rest of the way. If they go 3-4 and two of their wins are in the AFC, they'll be 10-6, and 7-5 in the AFC, matching the Bills. If it's KC we need to beat out, and they go 4-3 or better, or they go 3-4 with three wins in the AFC, they win. Now go a different way. Assume that Oakland is dominant, KC gets the other WC, and Denver collapses, KC goes 2-5 the rest of the way (or better), beating Denver in week 12 and Denver again in week 16 Oakland goes 7-0 the rest of the way, beating KC in week 14 and Denver in week 17 Denver goes 0-6 the rest of the way Buffalo will be 10-6, 7-5 in the AFC, and 3-3 in the AFCE. KC will be at least 9-7, at least 7-5 in the AFC, and at least 4-2 in the AFCW Oakland will be 14-2, 11-1 in the AFC, and 5-1 in the AFCW Denver will be 7-9, 4-8 in the AFC, and 1-5 in the AFCW Now if Denver is the team we have to beat out, and they go no better than 3-3, even if all three wins are in the AFC, they'll match the Bills record. If it's Denver we have to beat out, if they go 4-2 or better, we lose. It's really hard to imagine those strong AFCW teams all losing enough for the Bills to get in, even if the Bills finish 10-6, if their remaining loss is to an AFC team. The calculations all change if we beat Oakland and end up 11-5 and 8-4 in the AFC. Then it becomes much less unlikely we could beat out one of the AFCW teams. If it's KC we have to beat out, they would need to go no better than 4-2 and have only two more AFC wins. If it's Denver we have to beat out, they would need to go no better than 4-2, with three more AFC wins. These are the scenarios where the Bills tie the third place AFCW team. I don't pretend to understand the tie breakers at that point, and it's not worth the effort to figure it out, since this ain't happenin'. Most likely all three AFCW teams will win at least four of their remaining games, all getting to at least 11 wins, and the Bills won't run the table. The statistical figure I saw of a 20% chance for the Bills to make the playoffs seems too high. Will one of the AFCW teams really collapse in the second half? I don't see it happening barring several injuries to key players or injuries to all the players at a single position. I'm willing to keep the faith, until the fat lady sings. But she's warming up, and the orchestra is playing her intro. Go Bills. Beat the Bengals.

If you looked at the over/under on how many games into a season we get before it's over for the year, 10 would be about normal. The Bills have a chance this year to extend the number to 16. This Sunday is the key. They need to win out except probably for Oakland. All doable. But they can't lose to the Bengals and then expect to run the table every single week for the rest of the season.

I think the reasons the Bills are underdogs are -- no reliable CBs and lousy safeties against Dalton and Green -- two of our three elite players (Watkins and Dareus) perennially out, and the third (McCoy) frequently hurt -- Wood injury destroys continuity on what was just an average O line to begin with. That said, none of the factors are necessarily killers. The Bills played very well except for the secondary against Seattle and their tough D and good O even without Watkins and Dareus, and the Bengals aren't in Seattle's class this year -- McCoy might be just fine this week -- Incognito is still a stud. The Bills need to go 6-1 the rest of the year, and Oakland is generally looking great, so all the rest are must-wins. Playoff mentality from here on out.

He's a great player, a classy guy for how he spoke about the hit, and really tough. If the Bills had drafted him instead of Troup, we'd (1) have been in the playoffs way before now, and (2) be talking about Gronk for mayor of Buffalo. It's unfortunate he plays for our tormentors, but that's not his fault.

Pettine left before Marrone's last year. He wasn't forced out, he chose to leave. I don't think he has a bad taste in his mouth for the Bills. It was Schwartz who parted ways when Wrecks came in. I don't think we'll ever see Schwartz interested in another Bills job, unless it's HC.

I think Gilmore is putting the Bills in a bind. Keep him after a substandard year, at a premium corner price; or let him walk, get nothing in return; or trade him for a 4th rounder. There are times I suspect a player just gives up on the Bills, and sees greener pastures in NE or somewhere else. It's not honorable, but in the mold of Jarius Byrd from a mercenary standpoint it's the best way to get the big money AND get to the playoffs. It could be, unprovable of course, that Gilmore's agent has already been in touch with another team, with the promise of a big FA signing deal if he's healthy at the end of this year. That's not only dishonorable, it's illegal, but try to prove it. Or, it could be, that Gilmore is generally putting forth a good effort but gets burned a few times a game because our lousy safeties aren't where they're supposed to be, or because the scheme is a bad one for the opponent's players. I think it's a combination of being tired of getting embarrassed because of other people's mistakes or bad ideas, early in the year, leading to him backing off and deciding to cash in somewhere else. The Jets game was terrible. It was NOT the fault of Gilmore and Darby. It was the lack of over the top help from safeties. No CBs in the league were going to stop those jump balls to 6'4'' receivers when Fitz was having his annual, once-a-year good game. The terrible thing was the coaching staff did not adjust during the game. Patrick Roy gave up on the Montreal Canadiens when they hung him out to dry in a game when he wasn't playing well and the coach left him in to get embarrassed, and I think the Jets game might have been the turning point for Gilmore. The best approach will be to see if the D's leaders, like Kyle Williams and Jerry Hughes, can get him straightened out. If they can't do it, it means Gilmore wants out. If that's the case they should trade him now and get what they can. Especially if Watkins can't come back this year, 2016 looks like another "nice try but no playoffs for you" year. Move on next year with Darby and Seymour. And get some damned safeties who can cover, tackle, and think.

Thank you Terry and Kim. I think the Bills have a pretty good FO. Not sure yet about the coach, but the foundation starts in the FO. Stability and consistency of vision and approach are so important. Hue Jackson, Mike Pettine are both good coaches who have been fed into the sausage machine. In another era, I would be happy with Jackson as OC and Pettine as DC.

There's a difference between a hit that violates a specific rule, like hitting a QB in the head, and unnecessary roughness. Sherman's play was legal but unnecessary. I'm surprised the fine is so small considering he could have ended Carpenter's career. It could be small due to the ridiculous comments by Carpenter's wife.

The sequence of plays, and bad reffing, at the end of the first half, should be used as a training device for new referees, about what not to do. The refs, I think, focused on the fact that Sherman got his hand on the ball, and that eliminated roughing the kicker. But it was still egregious unnecessary roughness. Then not moving off the ball to let the Bills get set up for the shorter field goal, was shocking. As for other plays, on Shaq Lawson's sack, the Seahawks' left tackle had his arm around Lawson's neck and chest. Lawson fought through the obvious hold and still made the sack, but geez, what does it take to get a holding call against Seattle in Seattle? Great job by the Bills run defense. Astoundingly bad job by the Bills DBs, but that's no surprise, since our starters aren't good and the replacements are worse. Gilmore was the guy whom Jimmy Graham vaulted over, heaven forbid Gilmore would try to make a tackle. Darby didn't play well but Rex said Darby was ill, so OK. But the safeties, OMG, how much worse could they be. Wait, don't answer that. The Bills' O put up a lot of points and a ton of yards and dozens of first downs against Seattle's vaunted D, but they couldn't score every time they had the ball. The Bills' DBs would have given up unlimited yards if it weren't for the DL and LBs getting pressure on Wilson.

I'm happy for Roosevelt that he's having a professional career. A lot of guys who struggle to latch on in the NFL turn into leading players in the CFL. The money's not great but they get to play and earn a living. The CFL is also more wide open and often more fun to watch than the NFL.

Success comes from a convergence of favorable factors. Prescott is a talented guy, who seems smart and coachable, and has the arm to do what he wants to do. He has learned to read defenses quite well for a rookie. He also plays behind a great offensive line, has a highly talented RB to take the pressure off, has a great TE and great WR, and has a coaching staff able to help him succeed. Take away any of the factors and he'd not do as well. Put someone else in that situation and there's no telling whether the other guy would do as well, or even better.

The NFL is an entertainment business. Sometimes it's good to have a kick-butt dominant team, but mostly what gets people watching and selling commercials is a lot of competitive matchups. I don't think the NFL wants dominant teams anymore. (Deflategate might have been an attempt at crippling the Pats -- not that that worked out.) Free agency is the anti-evolution breaking up of the fittest, so a team that relies on a core veteran group discovers it can't the players. The Bills keep striving but also lose talent as fast as they gain it. So do most teams.

Fitz keeps playing because he can. He's still better than a lot of other options out there, and teams desperate for a competent guy who can keep a franchise afloat will find him or others like him. He's never going to win a championship, and maybe never win a playoff game. What he does do, unfortunately, is keep a bad team from collapsing completely and getting the #1 or #2 pick overall in the same year as when a great college QB talent is available. Many teams like the Bills keep bumping along, somewhere between 6-10 and 9-7, never sucking completely but never succeeding either. Team like this, and Fitz, are made for each other. Mediocre, but usually entertaining.

The key for this game is the same as for the past half dozen. If Shady is full speed, we win. Seriously. I know Seattle's D is much better than LA's, and the big holes won't be there for him to run through, but he'll still get is 150 yards and a TD. With Seattle's struggling offense and our D playing well up front, we have a good chance to keep the score down and win 14-10. But if Shady is out or just a shadow of Shady like he was against Miami, forget it.