PBF81

Have you ordered anyone to get off your lawn yet? That's the real true test!

Thank you! Really? Because it couldn't possibly be coaching, right? We should find that out this season to be sure. Right, because the Jags beating the same Ravens that we beat, beating the Chargers twice with Herbert at QB instead of dizzy eyed Tua and Skylar Thompson, and the Cowboys who had an all but identical point differential to KC but played in a notably more difficult division, isn't beating as good of teams as we beat. OK ... Seems as if they have, during the regular season, and once during the playoffs. If you want to discount the Chargers as a good team, then get rid of the Fins too, because they weren't as good as the Chargers even. The point that you took issue with me over was when I said that we haven't done it in the playoffs. Which above you agree with me on. Otherwise, we didn't do it with regularity last season either I've discovered while researching for this. We beat the Fins twice, the Ravens, and Chiefs. We also lost to the Fins once, to the Ravens, and got dusted by the Bengals. Either way, earlier you disagreed when I said that they played better than us in the playoffs. They beat the Chargers with Herbert at QB. We barely beat the Fins with Skylar Thompson. They gave the Chiefs a good game, in KC, a much better game than we gave the Bengals at home. Yet you're insisting the opposite. Either way, you contradicted yourself from your earlier post. Here it is in fact, along with my statement, it seems as if you simply like to disagree with me often. Either way, you contradicted yourself above in the first line. LOL ...

Do you understand how this discussion between Gunner and I got started? It's weird, you and AutieEm both agree with the argument I laid out in principle, but you're arguing with me. I don't get it. I'm not arguing that the Ravens or Fins are or are not "top teams," as I've implied, one has to define what a "top team" actually is before anyone can claim that a team is one. Sure, KC, Cincy, Philly, Dallas, San Fran, easily all "top teams" last season, but after that it has to be defined. All I'm saying is avering that we beat top teams which only include KC, Miami (twice, again, once with a 3rd-string QB), and the offensively bereft Ravens, Detroit beat Minnesota, Jax, and the Giants, and the Jags beat the same Ravens we beat, the Chargers twice, and the Cowboys, but neither of the last two beat top teams whereas we did? That make sense to you? It makes zero sense to me, particularly since in terms of W/L record, offensive/defensive rankings, Point-Differential, and QBs played, we certainly aren't on the long end of that stick. It's not complicated. I have no idea why anyone's arguing that. Well that's fine, but then take it up with Gunner. He's the one that started arguing to the contrary with me. I'm not in disagreement with you. All I'm saying is that we need to apply the same standards across the board in terms of coming to conclusions. We cannot arbitrarily favor us because we're Bills fans, but then turn around and dismiss the same exact criteria in evaluating other teams for the same purpose. IOW, if we're going to assess teams as to how good they are based upon whether or not they beat "top teams," then the definition of "top teams" has to remain the same in evaluating any team. Again, it's not complicated though some try to make it that way. LOL

Then great, you agree with me then, and therefore disagree with Gunner. I'm not sure why people jump into discussions midway and don't engage with the full context.

OK, great. So by the same logic then, aren't the Jags, who went 7-2/6-1 down the stretch while winning their last 5 games in the regular season, and that won their division and had over a point-per-game better point differential than Baltimore a top team too then? Or the Giants, who were a half-game better than the Fins in record and also made the playoffs, which was your only criteria for them, also a good team then? Seems that logically the answer to both is unequivocally yes. And the Vikings at 13-4 and division winners, better than either Baltimore or Miami, aren't they also a "top team" then? Again, in applying the same logic the answer is yes. Or not? Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is. That has absolutely nothing to do with Gunner's original argument. Nada.

BTW, in the three regular season games that Thompson played for the Fins, they averaged 14.7 PPG. 44 total in three games. We allowed them to score 31, at home, in the playoffs.

So you're of the opinion then that the Fins with Skylar Thompson at QB is a top team then. Well, OK. I guess it all depends upon the definition of what a "top team" is. I don't consider a 9-8 team a top team, especially since they barely made the playoffs. Same for a 10-7 team that fielded the league's 19th ranked offense. I don't think that you'll find anyone at all that knows football that claims that any team with Skylar Thompson as their QB is or ever will be a "top team," try as you may. In fact I think it's ludicrous. Just because we couldn't prevent them from putting up points doesn't mean that they were good much less a "top team" with him at QB. Either way, let's not lose sight of the main point here, Gunner claims that we beat top teams last season, more so than the Lions implicitly. They beat Minnesota, whom we lost to just oh, by the way, and the Jags who were better than Miami in both offense and defense, and the Giants who had a notably better defense but only a marginally worse offense. I have no idea what the basis for Gunner's argument is, but it's not win-loss record or offensive or defensive rankings.

That's not what Gunner said, he said "top teams." Of the teams you cite, these are them: Miami, and we beat them once in the playoffs with Thompson starting. Either way I would hardly call them a "top team." I already replied about Baltimore and KC. KC yes, Baltimore questionable. But using wins over Miami (twice) and Baltimore as three of four examples, while claiming that Detroit didn't beat teams of comparable caliber, when they beat Minnesota, Jacksonville, and the Giants, seems to be a bit disingenuous if you ask me. But who cares, we haven't proven that we can beat any team the caliber of which has been in the Conference Championships. That's a fact. Believe what you will otherwise.

And out of curiosity, which "top teams" did we beat last season? I see Baltimore and KC, that's it. I'm also not sure I'd consider Baltimore a "top team." They were alright, seeded 6th between the Chargers and Miami.

Not in the playoffs we haven't. Sorry At least not with any regularity that is. Miami with Skyler Thompson playing I don't consider to have been a top team. New England the prior year wasn't either. Indy, meh, not really. Baltimore, good, but low-end for playoffs. 7th and 5th seeds respectively. We haven't had a "run to the Super Bowl" yet either. McD personally saw to that, didn't he. ... oh wait, apparently that was all Frazier's fault. My bad. LOL

Maybe, but on a related note, that also sounds like a great description of us. They also played better than we did in the playoffs last season, on both sides generally speaking, and particularly given the level of competition that they faced.

Isn't that essentially what they're doing with Bernard on the field.

Agree on the big-game aspect of that, however, they did beat the Vikes, Jags, and Giants last season too though, and their offense played @ Jets better than we did generally speaking as well. I discount that Giants win somewhat, as the Giants weren't as good as many had indicated IMO. They started 6-1, courtesy of an easy schedule featuring wins over four teams with losing records and the Jags who were 2-4 entering that game and went 2-6 before they found their stride, before fading and finishing 3-6-1. Having said that, I'd put them at about a 9-7 team that they ended up as. Otherwise, the Lions did beat the Vikes, and the Jags after they had entered their 7-2 finale uptick. So that is favorable. IMO the Jags are going to be very competitive this season.

Lions have a good chance of winning that IMO. The Lions lost five games last season by 3 (three) or 4 (two), all five of which were against playoff teams.

Indeed, but the point is in how much better that is. Poyer did not have knee surgery, we'll see if he has issues. Hyde's well into his back-9 and back injuries have a tendency to recur. We'll know for sure soon. But I don't see any way that how well we do isn't determined by the play of the offense.

So if he can't go, who, Edwards and Bates? Or Bates and Torrence?

Game Day Party at Antonio's!!!

Well, but to your own statements, why will that change this season? I'm seeing us giving up some big running plays, routinely.

Benford was deep covering and isn't a match for Cook in the open field. The front-7 whiffed and stopping the run is their responsibility primarily. Regardless, it's plays like that that we leave ourselves open to without a MLB presence beyond JAG, which is essentially all we have now. Edmunds wasn't in on that play. Well me too, so do most of us. Hines as well last season. He caught a ton of balls in Indy, here, nothing. We didn't use him. One of the things I'm going to do this season is create a medley video of all of the times that there's a short receiver open in the flats or slightly downfield outside, but Allen throws deep. You may be surprised at how often that happens if nothing changes. But that's going to depend upon Dorsey/Allen.

That's fair. But look at the play (below), notice what the alignment is. Heavy left with Dodson and Milano as the only LBs. It's not a stretch to assume that this isn't going to bode well for us all season. Edmunds was not in on that play, but given how AJE was taken out wide by Darrisaw, Oliver neutralized and Mlilano effectively blocked for the open space, I'm also not sure that we should dismiss that as being insignificant. What it means to me is possibly expect more big running plays against us when the line-up suits their offense, and Rodgers is no stranger to audibling etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g2fHbG7_Aw A week or two ago I really liked our chances, but after studying the Jets a little bit more, I'm far more concerned. This game can easily go either way. And again, much will depend upon Dorsey/Allen. We cannot afford another 17 or 20 point game offensively.

Yeah, it's a ballbuster for week 1. Pros and cons, but Cook & Hall vs. us w/ no bona fide MLB besides a journeyman retread isn't confidence inducing, particularly since Cook tore us a new one last season and last season @ NY Michael Carter and James Robinson led the way in hanging 174 rushing yards on us, with Zach Wilson at QB, who put up a mere 154 passing yards and 1 TD. Now factor in Rodgers for Wilson, add Hall back in, bring in Lazard whom Rodgers is familiar with, and essentially the same D that held us to 17 points, 317 total yards, 183 net passing yards, and only 19 1st-Downs in Allen's worst-rated, lowest net-yards-per-attempt, highest sacks game, and his only game with 0 passing TDs, and tied for his most INTs. Pros for us are the OL featuring Bates or Torrence along with McGovern or Edwards, instead of Bates and Saffold. Also Kincaid although this will be his first start against a tough D. Those differences favor the Jets. The biggest issue for me is that IMO the Jets are the only real threat to win the division, and if they take the first game, while they have Cleveland and Houston to our Jax and Cincy, we need to at least split with them. I don't want the second Jets game to be a must-win.

Agree for the most part. And yes, our overall YPC against was good, but keep in mind, we didn't play many top rushing teams or RBs. And sure, every team shuts down a good RB every now and again, but the teams that we faced had overall rushing games ranked 1st, 2nd, 6th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 24th (twice), 25th (twice), 26th (twice), 27th, and 28th. That's half our schedule all but in the bottom quartile. Against Baltimore we allowed 162 on the ground. Four other teams, ranked 15th, 25th, and 26th logged 208, 188, and 174 rushing yards against us. So that runs both ways. In the playoffs we held Miami down despite nearly losing to Thompson's arm, but allowed 172 yard rushing game with Mixon posting a 105 yard 1 TD day on 5.3 YPC. So there's work to do. MLB figures to factor heavily into that too. We'll see how that unfolds. We did a good job against the top-10 RBs we faced, generally speaking. Some weren't on balanced offenses however, like Chubb, Henry, and Jones. But Cook had his best game of the season against us. Now he's paired with Hall, Rodgers at QB, and Wilson and Lazard at WR. Much different than last season. If I had one concern about the Jets' offense (not defense in keeping with the thread), it's whether or not we'll have trouble stopping their two-headed running game with plenty of balance in the passing game. Your point on Edmunds did not go unnoticed.

No, it didn't, but there was also a reason for it. Namely their tenacious D. We were outcoached in both games despite splitting. We can probably afford another split, but if we drop both to them that'd be problematic for the seeding. As it is, they play Houston and Cleveland while we have to play Jax and Cincy. the difference between Tamps (us) and Atlanta (Jets) is negligible.

You know that I have high hopes for our offense. In his first game though? Hope so, but we'll see. 6 days ...