folz

They aren't one of the most talented teams in the league, they aren't that good overall from a talent perspective. I think we all know this, we've done the comparisons of number of pro-bowlers per squad, etc. But a cursory glance at stud players also does not take into account depth, coaching, culture and other factors that balance things out a bit (oh yeah, and having Josh). They lack play makers on both sides of the ball This is debatable. Are there other teams with more playmakers? Absolutely, no doubt. But I would say that at least Cook and Kincaid (if he could stay healthy) are playmakers. Ty Johnson is a backup, but he consistently makes some big plays (when getting touches). On defense, is Benford becoming a playmaker? I'd say so looking at the last couple of weeks. Shaq has been making some big tackles. Ed will be coming back. Bosa has made some pretty big plays. And, again, we have Josh (I know he meant beyond Josh, but Josh is almost like having two playmakers). Do we have a lot of guys that are say top 5 at their position or guys that have to be specifically schemed against, no (well, probably just Josh and Cook...and maybe Bosa---not top 5, but possibly needing to be schemed against). But, sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the parts. very poor WR core and Kalir is more of a WR3 Not sure those were his exact words, but again, it's not something that we didn't already know. Shakir is more of a slot receiver (which is usually considered your #3 guy). And beyond Shakir, yes, it is a weak group in comparison. But, again, you have to look at the makeup of the whole team and the reasons behind everything. First of all, we have Josh. Secondly, we are a heavier run team (top two in rushing attempts, #1 in yards, #2 in rushing TDs). We have three very good TEs, who are currently second in the league for TE receiving yards and 3rd in the league for TDs by TEs (and that's with Kincaid missing 4-1/2 games). There aren't as many balls to go around to our WRs as on other teams. Plus, being a run team, we want our receivers to be able to block well. They don't all do that well. Are the Chiefs expecting Worthy to be a great blocker for the run game? Not saying I don't want or don't think we need improvement to our WR room, but we are probably better off trying to find one in the draft. People make it seem like it's easy to just go out and get a stud WR. How many guys in the league even fit in that category? Maybe 15-23 or so (so, a number of teams don't have a true stud #1). This past off-season, only two stud receivers were available via FA or trade. Adams and Lamb. First of all, 31 other teams also wanted those guys. Secondly, holding late draft picks is a disadvantage even in trades. Other teams 1st or 2nd round picks are higher and of more value than ours. Also, we have been a little low on assets the last couple of years---it is just the part of the cycle we are in for a team that maintains success over a long period of time. You start losing guys to age, free agency, injuries, etc. Contracts come home to roost from seasons where you tried to hold everything together, etc. There is a cycle in trying to maintain success (are the Chiefs not going through a similar cycle right now?). Then you also have to factor in (at least for FA) does that stud receiver even want to come to a run-first team that throws a lot of balls to the RBs and TEs and that plays outside in the cold? Or would they rather go to the Rams and Cowboys who are going to be chucking the ball around their domes, giving you a ton more targets, etc. Playing with Josh I think would be a big draw, but you'd have to have a mature WR who isn't as worried about his own stats as he is about winning and who is also a willing blocker in the run game. Also, I looked back a few years and it is pretty much an average that usually there are only two (possibly three) stud receivers available each year via FA or trade (again, with 31 other teams also vying for their services). Believe me, I would love to see a stud receiver on the team---added to the RBs and TEs, this offense might be unstoppable. But I also get that it isn't just as easy as saying go out and get one. Should Beane take more shots (especially in the draft), sure I'm on board for that. I was hoping we'd trade up for Brian Thomas, Jr. last year (not sure if that would have been a good move or not. Good rookie year. But having a bit of a sophomore slump. Plus we would have had to trade from 31 to 23). Ladd was there for the taking, but we didn't need a slot (hindsight, who cares, right? But at the time...currently he's on pace for about 900 yards this year---about 250 yards less than last year). And this year, our only real chance was to move up from 28 to 16 for Egbuka (probably would have taken our 2nd and 4th at least). After that, the only guys available in round 2 were Jayden Higgins, Luther Burden, Tre Harris, and Jack Bech (currently Burden has the best stats of that group with 395 and 1 TD, so...). Plus, to move up for a guy, you have to be pretty sure that that's the guy you want and expect to be a stud to give up that much. Plus, you have other positions of need as well, with other players on the board that maybe you have rated higher, etc. I do hope we see a big improvement in the WR room next year (we should at least have more money for it), but I also think we can still win with what we got this year (especially with a wide open AFC and no real dominant teams league-wide). Not to bring up Rex, but the playoffs will be time for the Bills to play bully ball. Run it down their throats, keep emphasizing toughness and turnovers on the defense, and let Josh loose when needed. Just trying to have some perspective and some optimism. Go Bills!

I think a few Bengals made business decisions throughout the day when Josh was running the ball. Also, was it just me or did it look like Chase should have been able to run down Benford to save the TD and he kind of pulled up. Maybe the TV angle was bad and he wasn't as close as it appeared, but it seemed like he might have been able to catch him if he put the burners on. I think every hit just stings a little more in the cold and snow. But, yeah, props to Josh, Dion, Edwards, and Cook for making that play happen. I don't know if I have ever seen a TD that wide open (at least on a QB run). After the line of scrimmage, Josh had 30 yards of open grass in front of him, with only one defender way down the field, and who had a blocker on him, that blocked him all the way to the end zone.

I would have laughed at your post if you didn't include "AFC. Super Bowl." I agree on the division and #1 seed, but still think we got a shot at AFC/Super Bowl (call me crazy). Fun reference though. 😆 "Doctors say he's got a 50/50 chance of living, though there's only a 10% chance of that."

My take: 20% divison 99% in playoffs 1.0% out of playoffs Officially the Bills have a 96% chance of making the playoffs. If we beat the Pats, we will have a 99% chance of making the playoffs. If we lose to the Pats, we still have a 92% chance of making the playoffs.

Fair enough.

Not sure I understand what you mean. Josh was a top 10 pick, Keon was a 2nd round pick, but we only traded back 5 spots from #28 in the first round to #33 in the second round (still using our first round pick on him, we just got some extra compensation for the trades). I wasn't trying to say those picks are somehow of equal value, I was just looking at our recent top picks (mostly first rounders, with Keon included because he was our first pick even if it was early second round). I only included Josh and Tremaine in the conversation to point out that they were both kind of projects as well (despite being early- and mid-first round picks---rather than late first round picks). Many teams were scared off by Josh being too raw, bad completion %, etc. And it did take 2-3 years for Josh to develop (even though he showed tons of flashes in those first couple of seasons).

I agree with your observation. I think especially once we started to draft later in the rounds (because we became a good team), Beane thought, I'd still like to get a stud in the first round, but it's tough to get one out of the top 10-15, so let me take shots at guys that are young, or under-developed, etc. but who have the measurables and or potential to be turned into a stud (projects as they used to call them). Might take a couple of years to develop them, but if you hit and the player does indeed develop, you got a steal. But, unfortunately with those types of players, you will also miss on some (or they won't develop well, i.e., bigger bust rate perhaps). You could probably even include Josh and Tremaine Edmunds in that philosophy (even though they were picked earlier in the round). Then (after picking Ed #9 overall) we had Greg Rousseau, Elam, Kincaid, and Coleman (2nd round, but using our first round pick). They all kind of fall into that category a bit (even Ed was a bit of a projection based on his college position, despite being picked that high). I think that can work if you really have a feel/like for a player, but not sure that it should be the philosophy every year. Seems a little too boom or bust for my taste. Rousseau and Kincaid are very solid players, Elam did not work out, and things aren't looking great for Keon at the moment. It worked wonderfully with Josh (although he was a top 10 pick) and Tremaine is more like Rousseau/Kincaid (though he was selected mid-round, not late 1st too). I haven't paid too much attention to Tremaine since he left, but watching the Bears game on Sunday I was surprised to hear the announcer call him one of Chicago's superstars (has he been playing that well or was the announcer just glazing?). Maybe because of the Josh and Tremaine picks mostly working out (Tremaine was at least solid while here, though not spectacular), Beane felt that was the way to go. Pick guys with upside/measurables/high ceilings but who need time and development. Again, not sure if I agree with that philosophy, but I understand the thinking in it at least. Would be interesting to see if we think we'd be a better team right now had we always tried to take the safe pick in round one instead (a guy who will probably start for you, but you're pretty sure of where his ceiling is). [Not that any 1st rounder is a given with a 50/50 success/bust rate in the 1st round overall.]

I guess you haven't heard of the New England Patriots... Wide receivers on New England's Super Bowl winning teams: 2002: Troy Brown and David Patten. There wasn't even a third receiver in the box score for the SB, all of the other receptions went to RBs and TEs. 2004: Deion Branch, David Givens, Troy Brown 2005: Deion Branch, David Givens, Troy Brown 2015: Julian Edelman, Danny Amendola, and Brandon LaFell 2017: Julian Edelman, Danny Amendola, and Chris Hogan 2019: Julian Edelman, Chris Hogan, Corderelle Patterson And that's only looking at the Pats, not checking every SB. Here's a few more just off the top of my head. And that's not even looking into the early Super Bowls when passing wasn't as prevalent. 2001 Ravens: Brandon Stokley and Qadry Ismail 1985 Bears: Willie Gault and Dennis McKinnon. 2003 Tampa Bay: Keyshawn Johnson and Joe Jurevicius Sure, great defenses for those teams, but just saying there are more than one way to win. And it actually has been done a number of times without a stud receiver and/or with a pretty mediocre WR room. To the second bolded statement. This is just not true. There have definitely been games this year that Josh did not have to put his cape on...we just saw it in the Steelers game for one. And that wasn't the only game. The funny thing is when we do have one of those games, then you guys complain that we are wasting Josh's talents by making him a game manager. So, you want him to throw the ball all over the field, but then when he does, you guys complain that he has to do too much. Seems to me that the coaches/FO are in a lose/lose scenario with that type of thinking. Just as you guys think McBeane supporters think everything they do is right (which we don't), you guys obviously see everything they do as wrong, even if it was what you wanted them to do. Like your entire opinion on the team, coaching, and front office is completely dependent on us not having a stud receiver. Seems a very narrow way to look at things, imo. One last note: You said, "total absence of talent at WR." There is a big difference between being an average WR room (or a room without a stud) and having no talent at all. He's not a stud #1 outside receiver, but I think most NFL fans and analysts would say that Shakir is a pretty talented player. We added Cooks, who again is not a stud and is older, but he still has talent. Palmer has proven he can at least be a good #3 WR in his career (not so much in Buffalo yet, partly due to injuries). Gabe didn't do well in Jax, but he was a decent #2 for us previously, Keon is not in a great position right now, but he was an early 2nd round pick, so he has talent (whether it ever comes together consistently on the field is another question). Again just saying, big difference between being a mediocre room and a room completely void of talent.

First of all, no one is comparing our TEs to some of the best TEs of all-time. No one. I am comparing them to their contemporaries, to our current competitors (and as a group/room). And I'm not quite sure how you define serviceable. I said they are probably a top-10 group. Well, after doing a lot of adding up, it turns out that our TE group is currently 2nd in the NFL in receiving yards by TEs (behind only Arizona) and 3rd in the NFL in TE Touchdowns (behind only SF and the Rams, by 2 and 1 TDs respectively). Yes, some of that is because other teams throw to their WRs more, but that is also with Dalton Kincaid (the best receiver of our bunch) missing 4-1/2 games and with us being a heavy run team. Plus, Hawes is an elite blocker, Knox is a very high-end blocker, and Kincaid is not bad in that department (it's just not his strong suit). Are we weak at WR (in comparison to many teams)? Yes. But as I said in another post, it's not the only position on the field. We are #1 in the NFL in Rushing Yards, #1 in Yards per Carry, and #2 in Rushing TDs. Plus our backs are great at receiving out of the backfield. We are #2 in the NFL in Receiving Yards by TEs, and #3 in Receiving TDs by TES. Plus our TEs are great blockers. We have a top-tier offensive line (when healthy---but we also have pretty good depth there to cover when we aren't healthy). We have the best Quarterback. Some of you guys act like none of that (except for Josh) balances out any weaknesses we have at the WR position.

From what I could find on a quick search, there have been three players to win the NFL MVP younger than 24 years old (and/or in the first 3 seasons of their career): Jim Brown (1957---age 22, rookie year), Lamar Jackson (2019---age 22/23, 2nd year), Patrick Mahomes (2018---age 23, 2nd year). So, as you said, there is precedent with Mahomes and Jackson both winning in their second year and at about the same age as Maye (23 years old, 2nd season). Now, having said that, I thought I would compare the two QB MVP seasons to Maye's season. Mahomes (2018) 5,368 total yards, 52 total TDs, 12 INTs Jackson (2019) 4,333 total yards, 43 total TDs, 6 INTs [Maye is on pace for (pro-rated stats to 17 games)]: Maye (2025) 4,879 total yards, 33 total TDs, 8 INTs Stafford (2025, for comparison) is on pace for: 4,386 total yards, 45 TDs, 5 INTs. (Pretty similar to Lamar's 2019 stats, sans the running) Maye's yards and interceptions fit right in between Jackson's and Mahomes' first MVP season stats (of course, even though Jackson's yard total isn't as high, a lot of it for him was we just hadn't seen a QB that dynamic with running the ball, at least since Vick). The only knock for Maye is TD totals (and maybe strength of schedule---though you can only play who is on your schedule). The others (the two MVP seasons listed, and Stafford...and Josh as well), will all have 43 or more total TDs (Maye is on pace for 33). Not sure how much the voters weigh yards vs. TDs...as Maye will most likely have more yards than Stafford and Allen (and Jackson in 2019). No question Maye is having an excellent year, I'm just not sure if it is as dynamic or as eye-opening as say Lamar's running in 2019 and Mahomes' 5,000 yards and 50+ TDs in 2018. But, Maye is obviously not competing with Jackson's and Mahomes' MVP years, and there is no run away candidate this year. And he has taken his team that wasn't expected to do much, to a 11-2 record and probably a division title (that's big, especially with the Bills in the division). So sure, why not Maye? I do agree that Josh is not winning the MVP if the Pats hold on to the division (and with Maye playing as well as he is in the same division). So, if things stay relatively the same, it is probably a two-man race between Stafford and Maye. But there is still a lot of ball left to play. But, yeah, no reason Maye can't win in his second year, I just wonder if some voters would rather give it to an older vet---not sure why I'm thinking that though, just a gut feeling...and good luck with the "other guys have more help" argument. We tried that with Josh for a couple of seasons to no avail. Though, it did probably finally weigh in to the equation a bit last season, when he finally won.

Ah yes, thanks for the correction. I can only assume that in the football database I looked too quickly and saw his Int percent 0.9, which is right next to INTs (4).

According to the odds posted by QCity, it looks like a 4-man race at this point. Stafford, Maye, Love, and Allen. Stats Drake Maye (11-2) 3,731 total yards 25 total TDs 6 INTs Josh Allen (9-4) 3,570 total yards 34 total TDs 10 INTs Matt Stafford (10-3) 3,344 total yards 35 total TDs 9 INTs (corrected per Doc Brown, Stafford only has 4 INTs) Jordan Love (9-3-1) 3,195 total yards 22 total TDs 4 INTs Maye has the most yards, but Stafford and Allen are considerably in front in the TD tally. But, I think there are a few things going against Josh right now. He will get knocked for interceptions (even though Stafford only has one fewer), he'll get dinged for having another MVP candidate in his division (with a better record, more yards and fewer INTs---despite the TD discrepancy)---especially if the Pats win the division. Also, they just may not want to give Josh back-to-back titles. I have a hard time seeing Maye win it in just his second year (even though he is having a very nice year), but I guess there is nothing saying a young guy can't win it. But, yeah my odds are probably on Stafford at the moment too, for the above reasons. Though Josh should once again be at least firmly in the conversation. And now that he already has one (was finally recognized by the league as he should be), it's less important to me if Josh wins again or not. Post-season/Super Bowl focused.

Cook has had seven 100+ yard rushing games (he had a game of 200+ yards even). He is the second leading rusher in the league (only 48 yards behind first place Jonathan Taylor). He is 6th in receiving yards for a RB. He is 4th in the league in yards from scrimmage. Davis and Johnson are both very productive as backups. I'd venture to say we have one of the better RB rooms in the league. Does that not count as help? Kincaid is pretty good when healthy. He's had a couple of hundred-yard games. Knox just had a 93-yard day. Hawes is turning into a pretty good all-around TE. Our TE room is very good, top 10 at least. Is that not help? Does a very good offensive line not count as help? Cincinnati is a team that many people bring up in the WR conversation. Cincy has had Burrow/Chase/Higgins since 2021 (5 years). Yes, they made two AFC championship games and 1 SB (compared to Buffalo, 1 AFC champ game, 0 SBs over that span---though we also made the Championship game the year before in 2020 to make it 2 for Buffalo, and I really think we make the SB last year if not for the refs, just mo). But the Bills will have made the playoffs all 5 years. The Bengals will have missed the playoffs 3 of the last 5 years. You could say, yeah but that's because Burrow has been hurt so much, and I would respond, yeah well how much does his offensive line have to do with that? And you could say, I don't care about division crowns and playoff appearances, only SBs matter and they at least made one. But they didn't win it. If we went to and lost a SB, you guys would be on McD harder than ever. You wouldn't say, well at least we made a SB. And over that span, Cincy's record is 44-36 (.550%) and Buffalo's record is 57-28 (.671%). Just sayin'. And I know our defense isn't anything to write home about (injuries are a big part of that too), but would you say interceptions on back-to-back plays isn't help for your QB? No matter Josh's heroics, we may lose that game without those picks (and score). How about the Bosa/Benford strip-sack-score last week? No help? As to schemes, I haven't been thrilled with Brady at times either. The WR screens were too overused, amongst other things. But to just say all of these other teams have better schemes, I mean how much have you really researched that? How many teams do you watch every single snap like you do the Bills to even know? You may not like that we have basically become a run first, short-passing game team, but it doesn't mean that it can't or won't be successful. We are currently second in the league in offensive yards and 5th in the league in total points (just 3 points behind the 4th-place Rams and their two stud receivers, and 5 points behind 3rd-place Dallas and their two stud receivers). I have a hard time thinking we do that with a trash team around Josh. Just because we don't have great receivers does not mean that our entire roster is terrible. And yes, it is a fallacy that Josh does not have help/has to do it on his own. I think you could fairly say that specifically in regards to the wide receiver room (Josh may have less help at WR than some other QBs), but to pretend like Josh is doing it all on his own with no help, the rest of our team are all just JAGs and scrubs, you might as well play Josh 1 on 11 because the other guys don't help at all (ok that's a bit of an exaggeration there), just isn't true. Hmmm...Gabe got himself in position on the sideline during scramble drill for a nice grab; Keon got leverage on the slant near the end zone. But, because Cincy is so bad at covering TEs (all season), this was a TE/RB focused pass game. The TEs and RBs had 18 targets compared to 9 targets for the WRs. Not because the WRs weren't open, but because the Bills schemed the game for the TEs due to opponent. And I do remember Hawes being schemed for a wide open TD. Seemed like Knox was running free all game, was wide open on the two-point conversion as well. Kincaid was looking pretty open on his catches too. WR isn't the only position in football my friends. [Not that I wouldn't welcome an upgrade.]

Let me take a slightly different perspective on this incredibly over-used complaint of Josh having to do it all on his own and be Superman (or the roster being a disaster overall). 1. Josh is Josh. He is the alien, the unicorn, the generational talent. No matter how talented the team around him is (heck, put him on the '85 Bears), he is still going to do Josh things (like scramble for 16 yards on a 3rd and fifteen). He is still going to run, hurdle, and bulldoze. He is still going to be throwing darts and lasers, throwing passes rolling to his right, nearing the sideline, extending plays. On any team, it will feel like Josh is doing it all...Josh IS the offense. He's just that good. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if he had a stud receiver, but he actually has plenty of weapons overall (with the RBs and TEs included, and the way Cook has been running) and he also has a very good offensive line (ask oft-injured Burrow about offensive line play over his career). 2. Going back to the scramble for a first down to seal the victory against the Bengals, let me use a basketball reference. When you have a Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, etc. who do you want taking that last shot? In every sport, it is the star player that you expect to come through for you in crunch time. And yes, game in and game out. Whether it's a pass or a scramble or whatever, I want the ball in 17's hands, just as I would want the ball in Jordan's hands. Every team relies on their star player to win them the big games, make comebacks, hit the last shot, etc. Look at Mahomes and Brady. How many times did they carry their team or bring them back to win at the end of a game? They just didn't do it with much running (for the most part) 3. I'm not saying that our roster doesn't need improvement in spots, but you can't just look at WRs alone to compare teams. To say Cincy has a better roster? I'm not so sure. Better receivers? 100%. How about offensive line? How about their defense? Our offense put up 32 on them and we left 11 points on the field (Cook fumble, Ty Johnson snow trip). Are you sure Cincy has a better overall roster? Plus, every team has it's faults. especially this year---that's why no team looks dominant right now (injuries plays its part in that too, of course). It's just each team's weak links are at different positions, or in overall depth, etc. So, some weaknesses might be harder to spot at first glance. 4. I find it funny that the games when the running game is on point, so Josh has a quiet day statistically, fans scream that they aren't using Josh properly. We are wasting his talent making him a game manager. And then when they do unleash him, or he is needed to step up to dig the team out of a hole, the same fans cry that Josh has to do everything on his own. I believe that is called cognitive dissonance. Go Bills!

I'll give the Pats some props. They are having a great season and are far exceeding most people's expectations for them this year. It looks like they may indeed take the AFC East crown from Buffalo (even if the Bills win on Sunday) and Maye looks like the real deal. Vrabel has created a disciplined and motivated team. 👍 At this point, the AFC is wide open. You could make a case for a handful of teams being the best, it is all opinion at the moment because there is no obviously dominant team(s). Team Rec Conf Rec PF PA New England 11-2 6-2 351 241 Quality Wins: Bills, Bucs, Panthers---can't give you Cincy (no Burrow, no Chase) Denver 11-2 7-2 308 235 Quality Wins: Eagles, Cowboys, Texans, Chiefs Jacksonville 9-4 6-2 328 272 Quality Wins: Texans, Panthers, Niners, Chiefs, Chargers, Colts Buffalo 9-4 6-3 376 293 Quality Wins: Ravens, Panthers, Chiefs, Bucs, Steelers, Cincy Houston 8-5 7-2 283 208 Quality Wins: Niners, Jags, Bills, Colts, Chiefs Chargers 8-4 7-2 277 252 Quality Wins: Chiefs, Broncos, Steelers, Lions Colts 8-5 6-4 376 285 Quality Wins: Broncos, Chargers Despite being tied for the most points of the bunch (that will probably soon change), the Colts currently have the worst record of the bunch, have given up the second most points of the bunch, have the fewest quality wins, and are now without Daniel Jones. I think we can safely eliminate them. And I didn't include Pittsburgh or Baltimore, as I don't think anyone would claim they were the best team in the AFC. So, of the top six teams: 1. The Pats and Broncos have the best records. 2. Denver, Houston, and LA have the best conference records. 3. The Bills have scored the most points (Pats #2---then a good drop off to Jax at #3) 4. Houston has allowed the fewest points (Denver #2, Pats #3) 5. New England has the most Net points (Bills are #2). 6. I think quality wins has to go to Jacksonville (with maybe Buffalo and Houston as 2 and 3) So, I think you can make a pretty good case for NE currently being the #1 team by stats/metrics at least. The only knock on them would be a soft schedule. But as Bill Parcells said, "You are what your record says you are." However, as others have noted, who is currently #1 is a different question than who is actually the best team, or who do you think can/will win come playoff time. The Pats are a young team with a young QB who has not been in a playoff game yet. It is kind of like when the Bills faced KC for the first time in the AFC Championship game. We were a good team, but we were young, Josh was young, and KC was already so playoff seasoned and experienced at the time that they kind of rolled over us (with a little help from the refs). Not saying the Pats will get rolled by anyone (or that being young means you can't win), but when it comes down to winning in the playoffs, experience often matters and Buffalo is by far the most seasoned team of the bunch (with the best QB---no knock against Maye, he's just not at Josh's level yet as a 2nd year guy, regardless of stats, just due to experience alone). And I mean, if the Chiefs were to sneak in as the #7 seed, despite being a mediocre team this year, would they not make you a bit nervous because it's the Chiefs, with all of their playoff experience and a dangerous QB? Now, on the other, other hand, it is also said that defense wins championships (so that could mean Houston, Denver, NE having an upper-hand). Like I said, you could argue for a few teams at least being the best in the AFC currently. It will just have to be settled in the post-season (and to a lesser extent, this weekend in Foxboro). Should make for a fun playoffs though. Every game anyone could win and anyone could lose (except for maybe the North winner and/or maybe the Colts, if they still squeak in). Can't say I totally disagree with you, but I would just note that vs. Houston was a Thursday Night game on the road. A short week after a good (hard fought) win against the Bucs. And Houston was playing for their playoff lives. Kincaid, Samuel, and Hardman were out for the game. Taron Johnson, Joey Bosa, Terrell Bernard, Christian Benford, Jordan Poyer, Conor McGovern, Josh Palmer, Jordan Phillips, Shaq Thompson, and Dorian Williams were all playing through/with injuries (from the Bucs game, on a short week). We lost Hairston, Spencer Brown, and Bernard in the 3rd quarter for the rest of the game. And Shakir, Dawkins, Epenesa, McGovern, Gilliam, Benford, and Josh were all also injured during the game...but played through it (after some time on the sidelines). We were a MASH unit. We had three injured O-linemen going up against that pass rush---as good as they are (pass rush and overall defense), we also weren't at our best. So, not sure how much we should judge things based off of that game. But I do agree it's probably our worst matchup.