PBF81

The only player in "the middle of the field" that would have made a difference in that game is Bernard, and we've allowed quite a few less than stellar rushing performances with him in there. We're not ranked average in rushing D because of that one game, in fact, remove it and it only marginally impacts our rushing D stats. It's a lot more likely that Henry just ripped us a new one because we have a smallish front-7 and didn't scheme around that.

We'll see. I hope he doesn't siht it the way that Stroud or Stafford did. He's put up 21 TDs in his last 8 games. He's definitely a different QB in the second half than he was in the first. If he had played that way all season he'd have led the league in passing TDs. In his last four games he's also running on average what Allen contributes. I'm guessing that how we handle their tenacious D that's going to determine the outcome. They can bring pressure from a number of places. Their three leading Sack/TFL/QBHit players are all better than our single best. I hope the team isn't already looking forward to Baltimore. That wouldn't be good. Get this game in the bag!!!

I don't know about that. This will be the best defense we've faced all season, particularly the front-7. I certainly hope that the team isn't looking past this game to Baltimore. I like your sense of humor here. LOL

BTW, I get it, you think that Cincy and MIami are comparable teams, whereas IMO Cincy's better, featuring a significantly better QB and notably better coach. But allow me to ask, how do you think that Miami would have fared in a division with Baltimore and Pittsburgh, while Cincy would have been in our division with only four games against playoff teams? Do you still see Miami having been 8-9 and Cincy having been 9-8? Because I can easily see Cincy having been 11-6 or 12-5, with Miami having easily been drafting in the top-10.

Back in the '90s it was the same thing. You could buy tix for $5 in the lots prior to the game in the last couple of our Super Bowl years. I had a few extras one year and literally couldn't give them away out front. The bar has been raised as it should be.

The same could be argued here. Getting into the nits of each team is an endless argument every which way. As to the above, you're taking some extreme liberties here. Are you comparing Burrow and Tua? Burrow led the league in passing yards and TDs. Jackson has most of the other superlatives in passing. Miami had the easiest schedule in the league and still couldn't score more points than they allowed. At least Cincy was +38 in point differential to Miami's -19. That's a half-a-TD per-game difference. Over half of Cincy's schedule was playoff teams, and despite having been 2-7 therein, of their 7 losses, two were 1-point losses, two more were 3-point losses, and 6 of the 7 were one-possession losses. Miami played four games against playoff teams, all four were losses, two of which were against us, and their only one-possession loss was against us in Buffalo. Most people would consider that to be both significant and relevant. Again, a never-ending argument in every which way. All teams are banged up, I've never seen it be as much of an excuse as it is here. I give up, why not? I don't think that having either of those players back is going to impact what Henry does however. At the end of the day I don't think that there's a fan here that wouldn't ultimately rather play Miami than Cincy if it had come to that. Apart from that, Miami's pretty hapless. Tua's overrated and not long for the league, McDaniel, ... LOL Burrow will end up being one of the best QBs in NFL history.

It's a business, or so we're told when it's convenient, and players and coaches get paid handsomely to win and perform, not drop the ball and screw up.

It was a pretty simple line there, not much to disagree with. The Ravens were 7-3 against playoff teams. The beat us, which is hardly insignificant in the argument, and in grand fashion, they beat Washington, Tampa, Denver, the Chargers, the Steelers, and the Texans. They lost to the Chiefs, Steelers (divisional opponent), and Philly. We had a dozen games against non-playoff teams and went 2-3 in the others. We didn't beat any two playoff teams back to back. When your schedule is such that you play 60% playoff teams, it's much more difficult to get up that often. We have a tendency to get up for big games in the regular season, hence our 4-0 vs. KC in the RS, but 0-3 in the postseason. Same for Detroit which we got up for. You mention division winners, sure, Detroit and KC, but we also lost to two of the weakest teams in the playoffs, the Rams and Texans, neither of which even had a positive point-differential. And of course getting annihilated by the Ravens helps cement the argument there too. Throw in the Bengals which weren't a playoff team but were close, and which were arguably better than several playoff teams, and their division was worlds more difficult than ours having played 12 games against playoff teams plus Cincy. Would we want to play Cincy in the playoffs? Anyway, contrast that with our dozen games against non-playoff teams. If you asked, I can't imagine that anyone would rather have had their schedule than ours, and it's probably not a great assumption to guess that we would have been 13-4 with their schedule. As it is, our point differential against playoff teams was negative, -15. Theirs was +112. That's what a lot of people doing the voting are looking at. We'll see, but we first need to get past Denver, the toughest D we'll have played all season. Cook generally hasn't performed well against such Ds. We'll need players to step up besides Allen. After that, we'll play Baltimore at home unless they lose to Pitt, and if we can't win that game it would further cement the argument. Some people count another division as a successful season with Allen at QB, but I'm not one of 'em. We at least need to win the AFC.

I can't imagine that Allen cares. Also, the Ravens were 7-3 against playoff teams whereas we were 2-3 against playoff teams. They also played in a notably tougher division and obviously had a tougher schedule. At the end of the day Jackson posted better numbers across the board. Let's win now and win the AFC, otherwise it cements the argument.

Now that's a high bar, just being happy that we're not one of the dregs in the league. With Allen at QB, uncoached this team would be .500. What's interesting is that neither McD nor the players are content right now, but we're being told that as fans we need to be. Funny how that works. Otherwise how is this post even football related, it's a hit piece on a huge portion of the fan base.

Winning the Division appears to be the lofty goal these days. And a toughie of a division it is. LOL

I've never questioned anyone posting here as not being a Bills fan, unlike some. We're all Bills fans despite some claiming that others aren't, which is childish. But when the particulars of the team cannot even be discussed or criticized without personal condescension it makes its own statement. Let's see what this postseason brings us, we're ALL hoping, but if we can't get it done during the Allen-era, it seems pretty unlikely that many of us will ever see one while we're alive, which would be horribly tragic.

In the three games in which we didn't lead in TO margin, we were equal, we got killed (Balt) and beat two incredibly mediocre teams in one possession wins with both games going down to the wire. The teams that we're likely to face in the playoffs are generally top-10 offensively in avoiding TOs. It is relevant, the extent to which can be argued. But in other seasons throughout our history it's also been the case. I used to point it out and it was always a factor since in the playoffs teams that advance typically don't turn the ball over as much

Simple question: Is he an asset or a liability in the playoffs?

Let's see how he does in the playoffs first. Cook is a big-play RB. His average production is more inconsistent than his peers at that level. He rarely plays on 3rd-downs, 9 total touches in 15 games. It would be wise to see how he does in the playoffs once the defensive competition tightens up.

Perhaps see how these guys do in the playoffs first. To date no one has stepped up in the playoffs with even a remote level of consistency besides Allen. That includes coaching. Half of Cook's games have been during the regular season have been non-notable, the other half split between excellent and good. In his four playoff games to date Cook has averaged 3.6 yards-per-carry and done nothing notable, with 1 total TD rushing or receiving in those four games. We need players to step up starting in two weeks. It might be wise to see who does before handing out contracts.

Merry Christmas!!

IDK, I suppose that depends upon how one defines elite. Otherwise, Cook & Davis are the only two that have made a significant impact in the passing/receiving game and it hasn't been all that consistent. Together they've logged 29 catches for 319 yards and a pair of TDs. Cook's single biggest contribution was in a blowout win over the hapless Jags. Davis' only notable catches have been the 62-yarder in this past game and the 43-yarder vs. the Jets, both exceptional catches, but he's got 8 grabs for 44 yards and no scores otherwise. That's not really elite pending the definition. For elite in terms of receiving RBs I think a RB that logs 600+ receiving yards and historically I think of the Faulk, Centers, Byars, Roger Craig types. Last season the top-three RBs for receiving yards were Breece Hall with 591 yards and 4 TDs; McCaffrey with 564 and 7 TDs; and Rashaad White with 549 and 3 TDs. Our two combined are on pace for 602 and 4 TDs between them. That doesn't seem like it registers as elite for either. Also, greater consistency is required for elite status. 3 catches in three games for both TDs and about half the yards with fairly pedestrian performance otherwise doesn't qualify as elite either. Just sayin'.

Particularly considering that no one has done worse than we have against Baltimore and only Chicago did worse against Houston. We're at our best when Allen goes off of the complimentary football script, our core philosophy.

Agreed He's made their offense better At 32 it's risky. Could also be the way he's used there, vs. the way he'd be used here.

Depends upon how they're used. We aren't exactly known for bringing in free-agent WRs and receiving RBs and turning them into much in the passing game since Diggs or Beasley several seasons ago. Hines, Sherfield, Harty, Samuel, Hollins, MVS (injury notwithstanding) Otherwise, always go for youth once you hit that 30 year-old mark. Not sure that Cooper fits into our ideology very well, we're a short passing and running team now, when it works, and we have a plethora of short yardage receivers. maybe our offensive philosophy changes, we'll see. When it doesn't work is when Allen goes off script and excels. What's interesting is that we preach an "everybody eats" philosophy regarding our passing game, but then operate off of a philsophy where Allen's passing attempts diminish by nearly 20% on the season. Obviously we'll see how it shakes out.

I thought we agreed to terminate this.

OK Yes, consider it terminated.

Well, this much is obvious, that McD insists on making the running game and defense the focus of his approach. That's how he defines complimentary football. But it's certainly not unreasonable to ask whether, or perhaps why, making the running game and D the focal point for the overall strategical approach for our offense is wise or makes the most sense. Apologists will cite Allen's stats and lack of INTs. But critics will point out that against any team worth a crap Allen was flat out awful going 25 of 59 for an average of 155 yards with 1 TD combined in both games en route to losses to the only two likely playoff teams we've play thus far, and both with flaws. We averaged 15 PPG in those two games. For many, the cloud of the overall season overshadows the ability of our team to win the chip as you put it, which is not good and for which he is obviously an impediment. So holding out hope that he won't be an impediment come January for three, possibly four straight games, becomes an unlikely hope. Performing so well during the regular seasons but forever failing to advance past the divisional round, and then only once, makes quite a statement when you have Josh Allen as your QB.

I'd really like to see where I said that. My take has always been that their D has sucked until recently and that they've done it all via offense. When they had Hill they were great offensively, still, bereft of a decent RB. Then came Pacheco, who's good but far from elite, but Hill vanished and Kelce has diminished. Again, I'd love to see my own quote on that, it's not my take nor has been. I've always thought that on the whole, given the talent, the two teams have been comparable. Apparently you missed the lights out ball that Allen & Davis played, ... having nothing to do with McD. Rewatch the game and let's reconvene. McD didn't "develop Allen." Since you actually believe that, let's terminate this discussion. Frankly, how is it even possible for someone admittedly bereft of any knowledge of offense to develop a QB to that level? Don't take away Allen's individual achievements, he deserves those! As to your leadership question, who's the better leader, Allen or McD?