Billl

You just spent this entire discussion arguing something you didn’t comprehend.

I have no interest in taking you up on that wager. You misinterpreted the statement that started that conversation the same way you misinterpreted my comments in the conversation you’re referencing now. I respect your football takes, but you get so defensive when an opposing team’s fan dares have a different perspective that you become unreasonable. Back to the point of this thread, though. Seriously…re-read Taylor’s statement. It’s pretty obvious that he was providing zero new information.

They’re a group of players who belong to an organization in dire need of a culture shock. Who do you think knows more about how a successful NFL team should handle its business, Eric Bienemy or the Washington Whatevers?

On July 27th, Taylor said Burrow would be healthy [[one month]] from today. Today, Taylor said Burrow would be healthy [[one month]] from July 27th. Nothing changed. You got got.

He’s a solid player, but there’s no way he should get an extension. His caliber of a WR grows on trees. If he gets a big contract, take the comp pick and run. I’m really curious to see how this plays out.

Exactly. If Burrow’s injury was discovered to be significantly more serious than originally thought, they wouldn’t publicize it via an off-handed remark to some reporter’s question. That would be huge news, and they’d make a statement on it. It would be like Andy Reid casually mentioning that Mahomes’s ankle wasn’t quite healed.

0 + several weeks = several weeks. He didn’t say it would be several more weeks than he originally said. It’s like a dad joke that everyone’s missing. “Dad, what time is it?” “It’s 5 minutes later than it was when you asked 5 minutes ago…haha”.

Are people really this bad at reading comprehension? There is literally zero new information from what Taylor said. When the injury originally happened, Taylor said Burrow would be out “several weeks”. Today he said that Burrow would be out for several weeks from when he said several weeks. That is no different than if he had originally said 5 weeks and then today said it would be 5 weeks from when he said it would be 5 weeks.

It’s got a retractable roof!!!

His 2022 predictions had the Chargers winning the AFCW, the Bills in the Super Bowl and Brandon Staley winning COTY. He did have the Eagles as good value as a long shot bet to make the Super Bowl, though.

It was definitely me. It used to be a great board, but they let the political talk take over the board to the point that it turned into something more closely resembling a Klan rally than a football board. It looks like they've finally taken some steps to remedy it by either nuking or hiding the political forums, but I don't see myself ever posting there again. Shame because there really is a huge user base there and a lot of good discussion. I'm just not willing to sift through pages of racism and everything else in order to talk about how the Chiefs match up against the Broncos. If I wanted to know the political opinions of a bunch of middle aged white dudes from small towns scattered around the Midwest, I'd join Facebook. (Spoiler alert: They're BIG fans of Trump, and everything bad is caused by blacks and gays.)

C’mon man. You think they make cryptic yet oddly specific crib sheets?

I failed calculus, but the chances of that being their actual board are negative infinity.

Philip Rivers is basically Tom Brady.

You’re demonstrating my point perfectly. If the Bills had already proven anything, you wouldn’t have to offer wagers about future games. You’d point to the trophies. My disagreement with the OP (and evidently you) is that you seem to think that the Bills have already accomplished something that makes the first of these statements true and the next statement untrue: 1. The Bengals, Bills, and Chiefs all expect to win the Super Bowl. 2. The Dolphins and Bills both expect to win the AFCE. I say both are true. There’s an argument to be made that neither are true, but there’s no way that one is true and the other is false. If it’s reasonable to associate the Bills with the Chiefs based on what the teams have proven then it’s reasonable to associate the Dolphins with the Bills based on what the teams have proven.

What's to solve? Here's the statement in the OP that I responded to originally: "Yes, they have a decent team on paper but what have they proven? Constantly being mentioned in the same breath as KC, Cincinnati and Buffalo." To that, I say that Buffalo hasn't proven that they should be mentioned alongside Cincinnati and Kansas City then. Miami has proven they can beat Buffalo in the regular season just as Buffalo has proven they can beat Kansas City in the regular season. Neither Miami nor Buffalo have done squat in the postseason. Unless you consider having lower Super Bowl odds to be some sort of accomplishment, then the Bills haven't proven they belong in the conversation with the Chiefs any more than Miami has proven they belong in the conversation with the Bills. It's really not any more complicated than that.

Vegas win totals put the Chiefs at 11.5, Bills at 10.5, and the Dolphins at 9.5.

So when you compare the Dolphins to the Bills you talk about their record 4 years ago and postseason success while omitting just how close the wildcard game was. When you compare the Bills to the Chiefs, you chose to talk about regular season games over the past 2 seasons and emphasize how close the divisional game was. Why do the metrics change? Why did you only talk about 2 years of head to head matchups between the Chiefs and bills instead of 4? Why don’t you compare postseason success when comparing the Chiefs to the Bills like you did when comparing the Dolphins to the Bills? I’ll tell you why you didn’t. It’s because the Chiefs blew out the Bills twice in 2020. It’s because the Chiefs are 10-2 in the playoffs during that stretch while the Bills are 4-4. It’s because any argument for saying that the Dolphins don’t belong in the same conversation as the Bills is true regarding the Bills and Chiefs. The comparison of the Chargers to the Chiefs is in no way analogous. The Chiefs have been in 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls. They’ve hosted 5 straight AFC Championship games and have won multiple titles.

WTF is this mess supposed to mean? The Bengals Chiefs game (that the Bengals never led until the game winning kick in OT) wasn't as close as the score indicated? And that has something to do with the Bills relative standing to the Chiefs how? The entire premise of this topic is that somehow the Dolphins haven't achieved enough to be talked about in the same breath as the Bills. At the same time, the argument is made that the Bills belong in the same conversation as the Chiefs. There is simply no reasonable way to square that circle. The Dolphins have beaten the Bills recently in the regular season and have played them to the wire in the playoffs. If that doesn't qualify them to be in the same tier as Buffalo, then nothing the Bills have done puts them in the same class as the Chiefs. You chose to answer the bolded part of my question while ignoring the rest of it, so I'll ask it in reverse. If being the Chiefs in the regular season but losing to them in the postseason means the Bills belong in the same conversation as the Chiefs, then why doesn't the Dolphins doing the same to the Bills mean they belong in the same conversation as Buffalo?

Exactly. The cognitive dissonance around here regarding Hackett and Rodgers is off the charts. “Hackett was a terrible OC, and he could really be screwed because Rodgers may be falling off a cliff based off the season he had last year…without Hackett who was his OC when he won back to back MVPs right before Hackett left.”

The Bengals and Chiefs have been to the last 4 Super Bowls and have knocked the Bills out of the playoffs for 3 straight seasons. That must have been one hell of a coin flip.

So you seem to agree that if Buffalo belongs in the conversation with Kansas City then Miami belongs in the conversation with Buffalo, which is fair IMO. It’s the people who seem to think that it’s an insult to the Bills being compared to the Dolphins (because of the Dolphins’ relative lack of achievements) but assume that the Bills are on the same level as the Bengals and Chiefs who have a skewed perspective.

Did you have an issue with this line from the OP? “Constantly being mentioned in the same breath as KC, Cincinnati and Buffalo”? Bills fans don’t seem to have a problem putting themselves in the same category as the Bengals and Chiefs, but they tend to get offended when someone puts the Dolphins in the same category as the Bills. So my question is, if Miami hasn’t shown that they belong in a conversation with Buffalo, what has Buffalo done to belong in a conversation with Kansas City?

I've never understood why the franchise contracts differ by position. If they're not worth top dollar because they play a less important position then by definition they aren't franchise players.

Like the fumble returned for a TD by the Chiefs that was overturned? Nobody remembers all the calls losing teams get.