BringBackFlutie

We'll beat them in NE in a few weeks. Don't worry about it.

We said that about manning in his second to last year, too. Watch him this year- he's not making those big throws when they're behind the sticks. They're still hard to stop from dinking and dunking their way down the field, as always, but when the clutch throws need to be made, he's just misfiring left and right.

It's nerf or nothing.

But that doesn't fix the blatantly incorrect conclusions on reviewed plays. Furthermore, without fixing the accuracy of those conclusions, we're unnecessarily punishing those coaches who've challenged the calls. As it is, from a game duration point of view, there's already a mechanism in place to limit frivolous (time wasting) challenges: 1. you only have 2 to start 2. it costs a timeout if you're wrong 3. you only get a third chance if you were right both times, which makes sense because it's only fair to get more challenges if the officials have demonstrated an inability to make the right call on the field The OP is just replacing the current positive re-enforcement mechanism with a similar concept, in a negative re-enforcement context. The real issue is the quality of reviews, which drives the effectiveness of both mechanisms.

I'm confused. You want to increase the likelihood of getting more accurate calls on reviews by punishing the challenger when the result isn't in their favor? Or you want to increase the likelihood of getting more accurate calls on reviews by reducing the number of challenges?

I bet he was pretty rowdy if he was watching the Bills game.

Dude. He's a troll.

Liuget, taylor, and Philip's have supplanted the starters? Link?

Why are you telling me this!? I read your posts and imagine an incredible, beautiful, well-endowed stud. Also, the point? ?

Post of the day x10. Exactly! I could see how ugly people might be offended though. Should we worry?

Yes.

So, OP... are you the dude that keeps calling into WGR suggesting this?

Ha. You don't have to be intelligent or knowledgeable to be good at debating or etiquette. "Philosophical" may not be an apt term, but the lack of objectivity in the discussion led me to it. ...I haven't read a book since The Boxcar Children in like, 1992. Books on tape are where it's at, yo!

Meh. That seemed like a really friendly conversation to me. The two of them are great at philosophical debate and etiquette.

No one likes hearing this because of Jauron, but the truth is, it's hard to win in the NFL. The teams who do it consistently, regardless of score or competition, are very good.

Doubt this ruined Goff. It helped develop Brady. Remember that the Pats were caught keeping their headsets on beyond the allowed period when Brady was younger? He had his hand held on pre-snap reads for quite a while. I think it worked like training wheels for him.

I agree, buuuut what's odd to me is that I read somewhere recently that we were 5-2 at one point during our playoff year with McD. ...so is this the same learning to win we did 2 years ago? Of course, if we beat the Eagles, 6-1 is different than 5-2. And, although we're not playing great teams, we're giving up far less points and not living off of turnovers on D. But it's still strange to me that we're so close to that same position. Anyway, I have no idea what the point of the article was. There doesn't seem to be a conclusion.

True. Unless you rested it and let it heal.

...but if we're that stifling on defense, doesn't that mean that the other team's offense HAS TO take more risks as the day goes on?

The part about linear growth can't be overstated. Many people on here seem to think we're 1 or 2 players away, or that we will be ready next year with one more year of growth, which will equal 2 more wins, etc. That's not how it works. Different positions generate different impacts on the team. Case in point- Edmunds. This may be a really good defense that might suffer, here and there, from offenses that can exploit potential weaknesses in the scheme. But, it becomes an unstoppable defense that doesn't scheme away weaknesses if you have a complete player in the middle of the field. Suddenly, as an opponent, you're forced to attack smaller spots, and the talent in the more specialized positions overcomes you. That's not linear growth of the defense. That single player's growth both improves the middle of the field and magnifies the talent of ten other players.

They just seem to hate him so much. It's not that their skepticism is unbearable. That's fine. It's their utter disgust with Josh Allen, and the way they declare that he'll never be good, and that's all there is to it. Their message seems to be screaming "why are you so stupid, Buffalo? Don't you know you're wasting your time on Josh Allen? He will NEVER be good. We know! We looked at his college completion %!"

Wow. Listening to those people is just...unbearable.

Any? ALL. You won't have time to fold them up before I rain down upon them in drunken fury.

I'm going to that game. If you're also there, I'd love to meet up and see you eat a hat, but not as much as I'd love to see us score 40+!

As many have already said, I think it's a matter of consistency. We start a lot of drives and don't finish in the 50-30 range of the field. Allen takes sacks out of FG range, or throws a pick. The O-Line breaks down there. We have a lot of penalties there. People are dropping passes. Just a series of ill-timed miscues in the same part of the drive. I think it's just a matter of time before we break through there.