Success

Thanks for the reminder on Gronk. I was already there, but go Chiefs, 100%.

Based on which QB's any of us would trade straight-up for Allen. Not a long list.

I'm a Bills fan AND a football fan. Rightfully respecting Brady's accomplishments is literally the hardest thing that I do.

I still like Mahomes, and Reid. But it's a challenge to root for that whole team today, and that fanbase. Oh, well. Gotta do it. It's either them, or he who shall not be named.

10 years ago, I kept telling my kids, "No worries - Brady has 2-3 more years tops at this level." Deal w/ the devil. He even looks like he's in his 20's.

Give me a break. All you need to see is the all-22 for both guys - and the announcers pointed it out repeatedly during the game. Mahomes' receivers were wide open much of the night. The Bills banged-up crew was not - they were blanketed. Love the hot take, though. Allen rarely got rattled all season. We'll see how big the "mental difference" is as time progresses. I don't think it's the differentiator that you make it out to be. Not that this is surprising. Clearly, you and I disagree about Mahomes/Allen, and Chiefs/Bills. That's fine. But this IS a Bills board, and guess what? We're allowed to have some hope in a QB who has gone from 50 to 60 to 70% accuracy over 3 seasons, and is obsessive about improving his game. I'd probably be more open to your arguments if we were a few weeks or months into the offseason. But much less so less than 2 weeks after a painful AFCCG loss. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I'm from the school where it's a tad impolite to come in as an opposing fan's board right after that to try to ensure that Bills fans don't start believing TOO much in their team or QB.

Pressure on the passer can be funny that way....

Seems logical & based on trends to me. Allen has improved dramatically with each new season. I can't really look at Mahomes over the past 3 years and say the same. Granted, he was at a higher level as soon as he started, but it seems pretty logical based on trends & trajectory that Allen will at least improve more going forward.

Chiefs fans are something else. They actually remind me of the "da Bears" guys from SNL, talking about how Ditka could beat a hurricane, or whatever. Just over-the-top pronouncements on how no one in the AFC will ever challenge Mahomes.

This is very well stated, and I agree w/ all of it. The OP was more a reaction to a clear sentiment on the internet among many that it's all rings, rings, rings, and 7 for Brady would put him out of reach. People were even saying things like "the most Mahomes could get is 5-6, so there is no way he could ever be the GOAT" (paraphrasing some comments I saw). Too narrow a focus. But of course it's part of the evaluation, as is the fact that he took a 2nd team there, in his 40's. It's hard to dispute he's the GOAT, and I don't.

As we approach another Brady invitational, I see it more & more on twitter & the boards: If Brady gets #7, no one will ever touch him, and he will always be the undisputed GOAT. Really? Football is clearly one of the ultimate team games. You need 3 phases to win the big one - not to mention some luck along the way, and generally great coaching. Looking at Brady's rings: the D really won both Rams games. And Brady sure didn't get that interception of Wilson at the goal line, or make all of the stops against the Falcons that allowed for a comeback. Brady might get #7, but he also threw 3 picks last week that most QB's wouldn't have gotten away with. The other team just didn't take advantage. Peyton Manning went through 5 coaches, and played with organizations that generally did not know how to build a balanced team. Brady had one coach - the GOAT - and they knew how to build the lines and create genuine championship teams. Would Brady have 6 rings if his coach was Caldwell, or McCarthy? Would Manning have only 2 or Rodgers only 1 if either had BB the whole time? And of course, there is the other argument on rings: is Dilfer better than Marino? Is Bradshaw just as good as Montana? And as a Bills fan, it nags me that Kelly would be considered historically higher in the rankings with just 1 ring. It wasn't Kelly that allowed a 10 minute drive to start the 3rd quarter against the Giants, and he did everything he could to put us in a position to win. I think Brady is the GOAT, but not because of rings. It's a poor argument. Not that it should be A factor, but most fans make it THE factor. This isn't tennis or golf.

I'd bet it's tight. You need to get pressure on the QB with your front 4. When it comes to winning championships, having a good pass rush is almost as vital as having a good QB or coach. We weren't really able to do that all season. Our top rusher had 5 sacks. If Beane focuses on that, we'll be fine.

Man, Chiefs fans (at least online) are really losing it about this. They think the "head to head" wins Mahomes got over Allen should have factored into this or something. I mean - Allen got 4 votes and Mahomes got 2. It wasn't like either came anywhere close to AR.

I said they were better.

My current list of "silver linings to not making the Super Bowl": 1) We didn't have to hear Brady say robotically all week how we were "always such a tough opponent" despite the record and that he had "so much respect for them & their fans." 2) I'm not spending this weekend with a surreal combination of queasiness, excitement, fear, anticipation, horror and impatience. That's it. That's all I got.

Saying Allen caught Mahomes was probably a bit of a hot take, but looking at one game and saying that hot take was ridiculous is even more of a hot take. The Bills had a bad game. It's weird to say, but it was UNBillsy - as in the "new" Billsy that we got used to in November & December. That Billsy was about lighting it up on offense, making big plays on defense, and dictating the pace of games. I mean, is it okay to acknowledge that injuries to Davis' ankle, Beasley's leg, Brown's knee and Diggs' oblique had a bit of an effect on that? No excuse, but it's undeniable this slowed down the offense we were used to. The Chiefs secondary is good - but not as good as at least 3 that we faced the previous 6-7 weeks, and I didn't see one of our receivers open all night. They were blanketed. Our O-line also had an uncharacteristically bad night after giving Allen great protection all season. That's something I can credit the Chiefs' pass rush for to an extent - but there were breakdowns that we weren't used to seeing. So yes - the Chiefs were better and are better. But some are making too much of it. I just don't have that "how are we ever going to catch 'em" feeling. We played as well as they did all season long.

We probably have seen his last game in a Bills uniform, but who knows. I love what he did for the team. One of the cogs in the transition from "drought years" to true contender. He was always dangerous when healthy, and I'm sure a headache for opposing DC's.

We hate the Patriots, but they're a blueprint. When you get a franchise QB, skill players are almost an afterthought. Protect that franchise QB and give him time to throw.

I think it's a hard one to rally around. Not a psychologist, but this is more of a gut punch - it's not something like deflategate that players can get angry about or turn into a positive emotion. It definitely impacts the game, imo.

Sad story. I'm sad for Reid, I'm sad for the families affected, I'm sad for everyone. Just terrible news. Really puts the game way down the list.

Understood. Like I said - no argument there. Not sure what we do to address it, either. I'd still like to see Knox develop. He has some superior playmaking ability. Obviously, it's the drops & blocking that are the issue. And of course he'll never be at Kelce's level, but that's a fool's errand to seek that. He just needs to be capable in the Bills offense. Looking back on the conversation, the overall point I think I'm going for is that we're there w/ the Chiefs on offense. We were the 3rd highest scoring offense in the league. I'm good w/ that. The way to a championship isn't to try to get more video-gamey. The way to a championship is more balance. We were one-dimensional all season, and it was ultimately our undoing in the AFCCG.

Huge? Yes on pass rush. Absolutely not on offensive weapons. Kelce is the only "differentiator" at a position. Clearly, he's far and away better than any TE we have - or anyone in the league. Receivers? No.

All true, but I was focused more on the player-to-player comparison. I just don't see it. No doubt Hill is a playmaker and dangerous, but he doesn't have the kind of broad skillset & versatility that Diggs has. It's a minor point in the scheme of the KC vs. Buffalo discussion. Diggs only gives us a slight edge at that one position. The BIG gap is clearly w/ Kelce and the TE position. I think the rest (on offense) is fairly negligible. When healthy, what we had this past season in Diggs, Brown, Beasley, Davis & even McKenzie stacks up well against KC's WR corps and the rest of the league. I don't see it as a glaring difference. It was a difference in the AFCCG because of Brown's knee, Davis' ankle, Diggs' oblique and Beasley's broken leg. We can say they looked light years apart in the actual game, but injuries were a big part of that. Our WR's were uncharacteristically not getting open. Combine that with Allen running for his life all night, while Mahomes could have had a light snack in the pocket most of the night, and it created optics that made the gap look bigger than it is.

A fair point. I think I went for that stat because it's the 1st thing I thought of, having watched a lot of the Chiefs games. This isn't scientific, but watching their games, he was either very prominent, or just disappeared for huge stretches. You can say that's a product of having so many weapons, but it's not like the Bills don't, and Diggs never disappeared like Hill did. I just see Hill as more of a "specialty" WR the way he plays (aside from production). He's a speedster. Diggs gives you a lot more versatility. Give me Diggs all day, every day over Hill.

If all other things are equal (contracts & dollars), who do you take: Diggs, or Hill? That one isn't really close for me. I get that opinions can vary, but no way do I trade Diggs for Hill. Hill was held to 5 or fewer catches in 9 games this past season. Diggs had one game under 6 catches. They have a pass rush & we don't. That's fixable in an offseason, especially if that is the main priority need. I agree they're better right now. I just don't see it as significant.