folz

I was thinking the same thing today, as some of the national media started talking about us as Super Bowl contenders. It is part of our identity as a team and fan base to be one step away, one play short, screwed out of victory, or to be lost in mediocrity---but to be resilient, pick ourselves up and keep going, stick by each other no matter what. All great lessons for our young fans about perseverance, family, etc. So, I did think about if it would seem anticlimactic (the day after) or change our identity/feeling for the team if we were to win a Super Bowl. Don't get me wrong, I still want it to happen and will celebrate my ass off. But I was kind of feeling the same thing as the OP. I have a friend who is a Pats fan and he said, it would just be so apropos for the Bills to win a Super Bowl in the most apocalyptic year ever. 😊 But, if we were somehow to do it this year, I think that fire would still be there because we didn't/won't get to celebrate in person in the stands, we won't get to celebrate the way we would want to with each other most likely, no parades, no houses full to the rafters with multiple generations the night of the game, etc. So, there would still be something to fight for in trying to win another. Plus, who knows, this year may always have an asterisk next to it (whoever wins)..."yeah, but that was the COVID year, which was all screwed up, teams depleted, no offseason." All things that just make this a harder year to win, but some might say it doesn't count the way it would another year. I don't know. I just think that there would still be something to root for/play for if we were to win the big one this year. But Buffalo to me will always be more than about getting a Super Bowl win. It is the crowd calling for Scott Norwood at the post-game rally after SBXXV, it is the Andy Dalton play to break the drought and all of the celebration and donations that came from that, it is folks showing up at the airport to greet their warriors, their brothers coming home from big wins and big losses, it is the donations to Oshei in the wake of Josh's grandmother passing...and that we will never lose.

To me, the thing with PFF is that beyond any metrics, analytics, or math that they may discuss or use, at the end of the day, their info is completely subjective---based on the people who are evaluating each game. Many of their stats are judgement call stats (i.e., it was a catchable pass/not a catchable pass; a dangerous throw/a great throw, etc.) They have individuals with varying degrees of football acumen and biases (let's face it, we all have biases and sometimes even when you're trying to be objective, the bias is still there subconsciously), evaluating the games and making judgement calls. Plus, they don't know what the team is running, what each player's assignment is, etc. And I'm not sure that they take their evaluations in context. For instance, say a team loses its Center and Left Tackle to injury...I guarantee you (unless the team has great backups) that the Left Guard for that team is going to be evaluated poorly in his next game (because he is probably trying to help cover for the guys around him, or he gets a demerit because the other player made the mistake, but because they don't know the assignments, they guess wrong on who messed up). I can see how their information can be useful for certain things, and especially over a full season, where things start to average out. But I can also see why they so often seem to miss the mark, especially when talking about an individual game or week (player vs. player). Because ultimately, it is subjective. I do give them credit for at least trying to do it though. Especially since there is no real means for fans to evaluate players for which real stats can't give you an assessment on (like offensive linemen, D Tackles, etc.), except the eyeball test of course. But, I would never hang my hat on any of their stats personally.

I just thought that I would throw in the current ranking of Josh's completion % as well. Through Week 13... Josh is ranked 5th in completion percentage for passers with more than 10 passing attempts on the year (which eliminates WRs and backup QBs who have thrown only a couple of balls all season) Josh is ranked 4th in completion percentage for passers with more than 82 attempts (eliminating Taysom Hill who has 347 attempts less than Josh and 355 attempts less than Russell, so Hill isn't really a fair comparison). So this would be the Top Five (under the attempts limitations): 1. Drew Brees 0.735 (on 130 attempts less than Josh) 2. Teddy Bridgewater 0.702 (on 62 attempts less than Josh) 3. Russell Wilson 0.700 (on 8 attempts more than Josh) 4. Josh Allen 0.699 5. Aaron Rodgers 0.689 (on 13 attempts less than Josh) Of the 15 QBs with more than 3,000 yards on the year, Josh is 2nd in completion percentage---only one thousandth of a point behind Wilson and a tenth of a point ahead of Rodgers. Actually, Josh's and Russell's stat line for the year to this point is amazingly similar: Player Att Cmp Cmp% Yards Yds/Att Rush Yds Total TDs INT Fmb QB rate Russell Wilson 436 305 0.700 3,479 8 424 33 11 7 107.6 Josh Allen 428 299 0.699 3,403 8 322 32 8 7 105.9

The 90s Bills ran the counter trey over and over for like 6 straight years. Everyone knew it was coming, but with our O-line and the ball in Thurman's hands, no one could stop it. It's the ultimate taunt really. Like when Larry Bird would tell a defender the exact spot on the court where he was going to hit a game winner from, over that player, and then he would go out and do exactly that. It's demoralizing to the opponent to know what is coming and not be able to do a damn thing about it..

I would hate to see Daboll go at this point...he's calling great games, his relationship with Josh, he's a hometown guy, etc. I hope that he's around one more year at least. But, I wouldn't be as worried as the OP if Daboll were to leave for a head coaching position for three reasons: 1. We are in a very different position for hiring OCs than we were in Sean's first year. In 2017, we were a down-and-out franchise that hadn't done much winning for 20 years and Sean was a first-time head coach working for an organization that had been turning over head coaches every two to three years. Bad team, no stability, and no QB? What OC wants that, unless it is their only option. Cut to 3+ years later, we should be making our third trip to the playoffs in four years under McD, Sean's reputation across the league has really risen, the organization under the Pegulas and McBeane is stable. The owners put money into the team/want to win. Beane has a top FO. The team is talented, with young core players all over the place. You have a top WR group. And most importantly, a young, ascending, franchise QB. Sean should have the pick of the litter with OCs if Daboll leaves and Sean decides to hire outside the organization. And a high-end OC will be able to work with Josh and adapt his scheme and or Josh's game to continue to be successful. And there is no way, with as methodical as McDermott and Beane are, that they don't know who the best OCs or potential OCs are and/or who would be good for Josh/the team. You can't use the hiring of Dennison under the circumstances of 2017 as a future predictor that Sean can't hire a good OC. 2. Because Daboll's system is so situational, the players and Josh learn to attack in many different ways. The offense can be chameleon-like from week to week. Sometimes a QB's skills fit a particular system and they have some success in it, but if you take them out of that system, they seem to regress or not be able to grasp/execute in other systems. But, thanks to Daboll's system, Josh is not doing one thing, one way, every week. He has learned to be adaptable and attack any defense in multiple ways. They have learned more concepts (how many times have we heard jokes about the size of Daboll's playbook) than your average team, so they can call on them if need be against a specific opponent. I think that Josh would be able to pick up another system pretty well at this stage of his development. 3. JOSH himself. The kid just has superhero-level talent and it is matched with smarts, drive, work ethic, competitiveness, and good relationships with everyone. I have confidence that Josh will make whatever his situation is work for him. As long as his coaches are above average (and point one should quell that fear), then I think Josh will continue to succeed. Daboll has given him such a solid base and core (and he's a smart kid to begin with) that I think, at this point, Josh could still flourish with a different coach/system, etc. Josh won't let Josh fail.

BEASE, BEASE, BEASE!!!!! Also of note...of his 9 receptions, 7 went for first downs and 1 for a TD. So, only one reception wasn't for a first down or a score. SAUCE greases those chains and keeps them moving forward!

Robb Riddick was the man...and a tough son of a B, whether on special teams or short yardage. Loved watching him play fearlessly! Core special teamer for six years (as return man and on coverage). Was an important goal line back and STer in '88 (15 TDs, 720 yards from scrimmage, 100 return yards)---the year the "90s Bills" team first really came together...and he also had 1,100 yards from scrimmage, 200 return yards, and 5 TDs in '86. Good receiver out of the backfield as well. A role player, sure, but the kind you always want on your team and love to root for because of their toughness.

Apparently, Carlos Hyde made an interception for the Bills tonight. How he did that from Seattle, I'll never know. 🙃 https://www.nfl.com/news/what-we-learned-from-monday-s-doubleheader

Were you guys also calling for A.J.Klein's head three weeks ago and calling Josh a bust in his rookie season? Sometimes you have to have patience with players. I'm glad that our coaching staff has more patience than some of our fans. Knox did have a nice TD last week. No question, he has not lived up to our expectations for him this year, but I wouldn't write him off yet.

Besides the Notre Dame "Touchdown Jesus" that H2O posted, apparently there was another dubbed "Touchdown Jesus," a statue in Monroe, Ohio. But it was destroyed in 2010 by a lightning strike and subsequent fire.

I didn't realize that Kumerow's nickname was Touchdown Jesus, so I thought that I was going to open the thread to see something like this: But very cool to learn about Kumerow's family/NFL connections. I didn't know any of that either. Who knows what he will do with the Bills, but definitely the type of guy you want to root for.

To me, head-to-head matters when records are close, so... KC and TEN should be ahead of us in a power ranking. and SEA, LAR, MIA, LV should be below ARZ is fringe. They beat us, but on a last second Hail Mary, and we have a better record by 2 games. So, this is my one exception to the head-to-head. I'm putting BUF ahead of ARZ. Then you have: PITT, NO, GB, TB, IND, and CLE in the mix. PITT may be decided when we play them, but for now the Steelers get the bid for being undefeated. And I'm the same as others, NO with Brees is ahead, without Brees, below. GB has the same record, but they have been scoring more than us (and are only 1 point different in points given up), plus Aaron Rodgers. So, I'll put GB ahead. I think Tampa and Buf are close, they have also played a tough schedule and have lots of weapons. But I'll give Buf the edge because we have 1 more win and two fewer losses. I think we are ahead of Indy because of our QB, and I think we have more talent than them. And I'm still not buying Cleveland yet (plus Josh over Baker). For all teams, I took into account head-to-head as much as possible, good wins (say against KC, NO, GB, etc.), team talent, QB, record, and strength of schedule. So, my top 15 rankings would be: KC (10-1) PITT (10-0) GB (8-3) NO (w/Brees) (9-2) TEN (8-3) BUF (8-3) TB (7-5) SEA (8-3) LAR (7-4) MIA (7-4) ARZ (6-5) LVR (6-5) BAL (6-4) CLE (8-3) IND (7-4)

Even if we had lost to the Bengals and only beat Jax by 3, Denver by 2, Minnesota by 1...and Bears by 7 and Texans by 6? Somehow I think that you would be using that to say McD wasn't a good coach (rather than pointing to 3 big wins by 26, 19, and 14 points).

👍Thanks...fixed it. (I forgot their 7-point win against the Bears as well, so added that too).

I think sometimes fans see one or two games from a different team and then have a skewed view. So, let's look at Tennessee's season (and all of these blowouts): They beat the 4-7 Broncos by 2 points They beat the 1-10 Jaguars by 3 points They beat the 5-6 Vikings by 1 point They crushed Buffalo by 26 in the COVID game They beat the 4-7 Texans by 6 points They lost to the Steelers They lost to the 2-8 Bengals by 11 They lost to the Colts They beat the 5-6 Bears by 7 They beat the 6-4 Ravens by 14 They beat the 7-4 Colts by 19 So, they blew out the Bills (under strange circumstances), beat the Colts by 19 (but also lost to that same team just two weeks prior), and beat the Ravens by 14. Those are their three "blow-out" wins? If this were McDermott's record, you would be saying, "Come on, we barely beat Jax, Denver, Minnesota...and we lost to the Bengals...McD sucks." But since it is another team, this coach is a future HOFer. We get so laser-focused on the Bills and generally see only highlights and box scores for other teams that we think other teams don't have issues and close wins (against bad teams) too. We forget that other QBs make bad throws, other RBs fumble the ball, other coaches make mistakes. How bout them undefeated Steelers? They beat the 4-7 Giants by 10 They beat the 4-7 Broncos by 5 They beat the 4-7 Texans by 7 They beat the 3-6-1 Eagles by 9 They crushed 8-3 Browns by 31 They beat 8-3 Titans by 3 They beat the 6-4 Ravens by 4 They beat 3-8 Cowboys by 5 They beat 2-8 Bengals by 26 They beat 1-10 Jaguars by 24 So, the Steelers have 3 blow-out wins. One against a 2-win team, one against a 1-win team, and one against the Browns. By your standards though, they also almost lost to two 3-win teams and three 4-win teams. So, are you saying that you would feel much better about McD if we had three blow-out wins? So, let's say instead of beating the Jets by 10 and 8 points in our two games, we won by say 19 and 24, and then beat the Chargers by 14 instead of 10...all of a sudden McDermott would be one of the great coaches? That seems to be your standard here.

Stafford is an interesting question. Is he a product of a bad organization and coaching staffs (and would have flourished more---as far as wins/playoffs---somewhere else), or is Stafford the kind of guy that puts up a lot of numbers, but just doesn't have that killer instinct/put the team on his back leadership/mentality/drive? I'm not sure...most likely, a little bit of both. But, Stafford has put up some nice numbers over the years: He's 17th on the NFL's All-time passing yards list and if he plays two more seasons, he'll probably crack the top ten on that list. Yes, like all QBs of today, he benefits from the pass happy game of today...but when all is said and done, he will probably be top ten/eleven all-time in passing yards, completions, and passing TDs. His average career year is 4,521 passing yards, 30 TDs, 14 INTs. It's hard to win/succeed in poorly-run organizations. How many QBs have flourished with the Jets, or the Bengals, or the Browns, or Detroit? Or the Bills, post-Polian/Butler and pre-McDermott/Beane. How often is it that the kid is just not good enough and how often is it an organization ruining the potential of the player (by not giving him a decent O-line, or weapons, or a complimentary defense, or not coaching/developing him well)? Look at a Sam Darnold or an Andrew Luck. Luck had some good years, but probably could have played another 10-15 years if he wasn't so beat up because the Colts never put a decent line in front of him. I definitely think Stafford would have some playoff wins under his belt if he had been drafted by one of the better organizations in the league. I mean, the guy has been consistently putting up solid/big numbers on a horrible team for years. He's only made the playoffs 3 times. Is that due to him or the team built around him? If he had been making the playoffs more often and had a couple of wins, would people look at him differently? And might that not have happened if he was drafted by an organization like the Steelers, or Seattle, or KC, or New England, etc.? It's hard to say definitively one way or the other, because it is what it is, but I would have been thrilled for him to have been the Bills QB during the drought. That much I know.

Just for some perspective on how the defense played: Herbert has been averaging 26 comps./game for a 67% avg. comp. rate. He is averaging 300 yards/gm, 2.4 TDs/gm, and 21 rushing yards/gm. Today he had 31 comps. for a 60% comp. rate, 316 pass yards, 1 TD, -2 rushing yards. So, the Bills held him to 7 yards less than his average yards from scrimmage, 7% less than his average comp. %, and 1.4 TDs below his average. Not a huge drop off, but the D didn't let him hurt us. (Not to mention that 55 of his passing yards came on that prayer he threw up in the closing minute of the game on 4th down and 27.) Keenan Allen is averaging 9 receptions for 93 yards and 1 TD Today he was held to 4 receptions for 40 yards and a TD The Chargers were averaging 143.2 rushing yards per game. The Bills held them to 76 rushing yards today (and that was with the return of Austin Ekeler, who has been out for the last 8 games. He is probably their best offensive weapon and the last eight teams that played the Chargers didn't have to face him---so that should be factored in as well. He had 129 all purpose yards today---how much better would the Chargers have been over the last eight games with him?). The Bills were in command the entire way. If not for the turnovers, I don't think that anyone is upset with this game. Don't forget that one of the turnovers happened at the Chargers 22. That should have been 3 or 7 automatic points. And both of the other turnovers happened at mid-field, just after a big Bills play, as they were rolling. Take back one of those turnovers and its a 13 or 17 point victory. Take back two and it could have been a 20-24 point margin of victory. No question, the Bills need to hold onto the ball. But if not for those turnovers (which were out of character---at least that many in one game), this would have probably been a blow out. I'm not excusing the turnovers, just trying to give some perspective. No doubt they have to clean that up. But, the only other game they had 3 TOs this year was the Tennessee game. They are averaging 1.45 turnovers/game (as opposed to 3). It would be good to get that down to one or under though. And I'm not faulting them for the penalties, because I thought that the majority of them were BS. Josh deserved the taunting call, but most of the other big penalties were on the refs, not the Bills. I think there was only 1 pre-snap penalty (Feliciano got called for a false start), which is a huge improvement from the Arizona game. And to those who feel they can not be critical without getting called out, it isn't that you can't be critical of the Bills or the game they played, what people are reacting to is the negative attitude (the Bills are never going to win a playoff game, we can't beat any good teams, we're not as good as KC, Pitt, Tenn, Balt, Cle, Mia). Most don't have a problem discussing what went wrong in the game, where the Bills need to improve, etc., but that's not what a lot of the negative posts are. The negative ones tend to come from a defeatist attitude that the Bills and Bills fans are trying to overcome. We're 8-3 (a lucky Hail Mary away from 9-2), leading the division, still getting healthier, still improving. Enjoy the ride and stop worrying about if our wins look pretty or not. It's a week to week league, do whatever you can to advance and move on. Worrying about KC in a divisional round playoff game right now doesn't help anything and you can't predict that future yet anyhow, so take one game at a time. Enjoy the positives, point out the negatives, and move on to the next one. But, have a little faith too.

Just a couple of points I disagree with. Yes, we all expected more out of Knox this year, but that big missed tackle was a one-on-one block against Bosa. There aren't many TEs in the league that can take Bosa one-on-one. So, it's hard for me to fault him too much for that. Especially since it was sweep play. He wasn't lined up opposite Bosa, he had to try to slide over and catch Bosa before he got off the ball. Tough ask. Coaches didn't put him in a position to succeed. And I totally disagree with your take on the TD. That was a great catch by Knox. It was either a bad ball from Josh or he was putting it where the defender couldn't get to it, but either way, the ball was high and behind Knox. The fact that he caught that and was still able to get his feet down was an excellent play by him. I think Taron played a very good game today for the most part and I think he is a player. I'm not sure why people have been calling for his head lately. And due to injuries, game plans, etc. Moss has not had many opportunities overall. So, I'm also surprised how many fans are down on him too. He is a rookie who has had a total of 68 carries, is averaging 4.2 yards per rush, and has 4 TDs.

I'm just speculating like everyone else here, but... I think that Morse is a very good center, but he isn't the stoutest at the point of attack. So, when he went down, they got to see Feliciano at center. Obviously he is more of a mauler and a bigger dude (he's two inches shorter than Mitch, but 20 pounds heavier). So, maybe they just wanted to give the combination with Feliciano one more week (as an experiment) to see if it helped the running game. If it did, maybe they would have kept running with it. But, it didn't seem to achieve that goal or they realized that any small advantage they were gaining at Center was being lost in the Guard position, so they went back to putting the 5 best players out there (which includes Morse at center and Feliciano at guard). And it wasn't a bad time for the experiment, a non-conference game, plus it gave Mitch the two more weeks to heal up (especially with his concussion history). But when asked about it, McDermott was honest. Mitch was out of concussion protocol and could have played, but it was a football decision. They weren't holding him out just for his health...they also wanted to see if that other combo might work better. And speaking of the run game, everyone keeps laying that at the players feet (O-line and RBs---all of a sudden Singletary and Moss suck, according to some)...and no doubt, the players have not been executing well. I'm sure some of the film junkies could show me where all the breakdowns are occurring. But, I keep wondering if it isn't more of an offensive play calling problem. Don't get me wrong, I love what Daboll has done this year. But, we have become a pass first, pass often offense. The only game that we came out leading with our run game and stayed committed to it was the Patriots game...and they had some success. How many times have we heard running backs and offensive lines say it takes so many carries to start getting into a groove or rhythm with the run game. When your running backs aren't getting their first touch until the 2nd quarter, or they only have 2-3 runs a piece in a half, well it seems like it would be hard to get it going later (say for a 4-minute drive in the 4th quarter when you need to close out a team). Looking at the stats, it looks very balanced: 247 rushing plays/253 passing plays on the year, but only 168 of those rushes have been by the RBs. It just never seems like we establish the running game in the first quarter. Sure, sometimes you want to come out passing (depending on the opponent) or if you aren't picking up enough yards on say first downs running the ball, you start passing (so maybe it is a combination of things)...but I wonder if the run game would improve if they just showed a little more commitment to it earlier in games. Just for instance, 28 RBs have more carries than Devin; Derrick Henry (the leading rusher) is getting 23 carries/game---Devin is averaging 10 carries/game and Zach is averaging 8 carries/game. Then again, maybe with the chameleon-like, Daboll/Patriot way of changing your identity per opponent, it is tough to have a great run game because one week you run a lot, the next the RBs hardly touch the ball, or you want to use a specific type of RB, etc. and guys just never get in a groove during the season. I mean look at the Patriots running game throughout their dynasty. Of course, they very rarely had a stud RB, but maybe the system just never allows the RBs and O-line to get in a rhythm with the run game to be an above average rushing team. Again, just speculating...and please remind me if you can think of other games where we really tried to establish the run game in the first quarter. But, I'm just wondering if it is more of an identity/play-calling issue rather than solely a "players suck" issue?

I updated my initial post (in red), just to see where those same numbers/rankings stood now that the Bills have had their BYE week and therefore do not have the advantage of an extra game for their stats.

From what I remember around draft time and early training camp, I don't know that he would be considered a slot receiver per se. More of a possession receiver. He won't be burning guys down field, but he'll catch everything thrown to him in the 5-20 yard range (which a lot of that could be over the middle). He has great hands. Will also be a red zone target with his size and hands. Good on contested balls as well, knows how to high point the ball.

Not to take anything away from the Steelers, 10-0 is impressive no matter what, but 7 of their 10 wins were against teams with losing records. Those 7 teams have a combined record of 19-56-1. The other 3 teams they played were Baltimore (at 6-4, Steelers won by 4 points), Tennessee (at 7-3, Steelers won by 3 points), and Cleveland (at 7-3, Steelers blew them out 38-7). So, including those three games as well, the Steelers opponents' combined record is 39-66-1. I find it interesting that last year the media and some fans kept pointing out how the Bills had an easy schedule (i.e., so they aren't as good as they appear). Yet, I haven't heard any media discuss how easy the Steelers schedule is this year, it's just wow the Steelers are awesome. Again I'm not taking anything away from the Steelers. Every one of their wins count the same, just as all of ours did last year. I'm just saying that they may not be this unstoppable juggernaut. I'm not afraid of any team left on our schedule, with our offense. We can beat any and all of them. Now will we, that is a different question. It's tough to win six in a row no matter who you are playing. And often times, the loss comes against one of the least likely opponents. But here's to a fun stretch run!

Just wanted to respond to a couple of points. Yeah, sure, free agency is good for teams too, especially ones that may not draft well. I just mentioned the players because a good player being stuck on a bad team was a more relatable aspect of the fee agency debate to fans. Actually, I don't mind that the players are friendlier with each other now, and it makes sense, because of free agency, more of them have crossed paths with each other during their careers and due to media functions, etc. that are much more prevalent now. And I actually don't get worked up about the guys kneeling to pray with each other or whatever, I guess that I was kind of exaggerating a bit to demonstrate that rivalries back in the day mattered more (there would be actual bad blood between some of the teams and cities). You didn't want to shake a Bryan Cox's hand after the game. And since your guys had been in your city for 10 years, and their guys had been in their city for 10 years, it was more personal somehow. The game was heightened emotionally. I don't regret that the league went to FA, I think that it was a necessary evolution. But for all the good it brought, we did lose that deeper connection to our teams and rivalries. Guys weren't coming and going all the time, they came to your community and stayed for a decade...all of them. Now, it's only a handful of guys, if that, who will be with your team that long. And I guess I didn't explain well what I meant about prima donna athletes (and maybe that was the wrong word to use). Of course there have always been A-holes in the league, there have always been cocky players and showboaters. And by no means were the players better people back in the day (people are people), nor were they less prone to using performance enhancing drugs. We all know there was a time in the 70s-80s when most of the league was on steroids. What I was pointing at is exactly what you mentioned (more media exposure and social media) along with the salaries that these guys make. They have F-you money now and can act differently with coaches, teams, the league, the media, and some of that is good, but sometimes not. I was just trying to point out that because of the money and the knowing everything about these guys, their lives...the good and the bad (and of course the media likes to focus on the bad), the dumb things that people tweet or whatever, the playing up to the media (because it is there), etc. takes away a bit of the mythic quality that the game used to have imo. Sure, give the players back in the day that kind of money and media access and there would still be some of that stuff. It's more the environment/society and not any difference in players from then to now. But, to use an analogy, it's like in a horror movie, sometimes the violence that happens off-screen is scarier than when you get to see all of the gore. Or a story being a little more interesting when you leave some mystery to it and don't explain every detail. It's simply over exposure of the league again that I think that has watered down the product a bit and taken away some of the mythic quality it held. Look at the difference between the old NFL films and the football shows or recaps of today. It's all part of the same idea I was trying to convey.

While I agree that nostalgia plays a part and the fact that it just meant more to you when you're a kid also weighs into the equation, but I have to say, even though I still enjoy watching the games and am still a die-hard Bills fan, I don't think the game is as good as it used to be. I will take out the physicality factor. All of us older guys grew up with a much more brutal game, and it really changed the game to eliminate that factor. And although we lament that to some extent, for player safety, it kind of had to happen. So, I won't count that as a factor. Although I do find it interesting that there seem to be more injuries now than back in the day, overall. (I assume that is due to the size and speed of the players today, despite the improved safety measures. And some of it may be that we didn't hear about every single injury back in the day/less press, etc.---but it does seem like there are still more injuries now.) In the positive category for today's game, I will say that overall the players are much more athletic. Some of the athletes in today's game are unbelievable. But here is why I think the game used to be better: 1. Scoring: I'm sure a lot of younger fans love those 44-38 score games, but damn it, I like defense too. All of the rules to prevent CBs from doing their jobs, barely being allowed to touch QBs, etc. have led to over-inflated numbers, and most games become shootouts. Some of the best games I have ever seen were 9-6 defensive battles. But the average fan would be bored by games like that now, rather than appreciate those defenses and the strategy involved in a true field-position game. I stopped watching the NBA years ago when they took defense out of the game. What's the point if everyone scores on almost every possession. To me that is boring. Where is the drama and conflict of the game if you don't have defenses on an even footing? 2. The NFL's own popularity: The NFL got too big and popular that, as others have said, there is way too much pre-game/post-game hype and talk, etc, etc. The Super Bowl has become completely unwatchable to me. At first, I could just skip all of the pre-game and just turn it on to watch the game itself. But now, because of the half-time shows, the TV timeouts, the extensive commercial breaks, the hype of the game, it just never flows like an actual game and has become boring to watch. 3. Refereeing/NFL story lines: Another reason I stopped watching the NBA years ago was because star players started getting special treatment. If you breathe on a star player driving to the lane, he gets the call; while a role player could get hacked by 4 guys in the lane and no call. I feel like the NFL has been heading in that direction too with players and teams. No one can tell me that Brady and the Pats didn't get preferential treatment over their dynasty run. It's not the reason for their success, but they definitely got a lot of help along the way. What about the thing with Cam a few years back where the ref told him he hadn't been in the league long enough to get that roughing the passer call. And there is no doubt to me that the NFL likes to push certain story lines. I'm not saying they out-and-out rig games (cause I don't think they do), but for marketing reasons, there are definitely scenarios they would prefer and are not above having the refs give a certain team a leg up in accomplishing that with a few calls here and there at key moments. The first time that became clear to me was when the NFL basically took a Super Bowl away from the Seahawks to give it to Pittsburgh, so they could have the storyline of the "Bus" driving off into the sunset wth a Super Bowl victory. Then there are things like the catch rules, Al Riveron and his bs replay calls, too many flags, just bad referees altogether, etc. 4. Free Agency: Although this is a necessary evil for the players' sake (it would suck to be stuck on a bad team your whole career), it did kind of destroy rivalries and loyalties. Things were a lot different back in the day when you had the majority of the guys on your team for like 10 years straight. They were like your family members, and the rivalries would get down-right nasty because these guys have been battling each other for a decade. There are no more real rivalries in the league anymore. Hell, now the guys all kneel and pray together after the games, swap jerseys, take pictures together. That stuff never would have happened back in the day; if you lost, you were pissed, hated the other team, and headed to your locker room. 5. Mythic Aura: This may be down to a bit of nostalgia, but I feel the same way about baseball. I feel like the game has lost some of its mythic quality, probably due to over-exposure, prima donna athletes, the money they make, social media, etc. For instance, Brady and the Pats will probably go down as the best QB/Dynasty ever. But, do they have the same aura of Lambeau's Packers, Shula's Colts or Dolphins, Bradshaw's Steelers, Landry's Cowboys, Walsh's 49ers, etc. The Frozen Tundra, the Galloping Ghost, Ed "Too Tall" Jones, Billie "White-shoes" Johnson, Mean Joe Greene, Two yards and a cloud of dust, Johnny U, the "Ice Bowl", the "Comeback", the Steel Curtain. Great games still happen, players still have nicknames...but I just feel like that old mythic aura of the game no longer exists. Having said that, the NFL is still fun to watch, but I just don't feel like the game is as good (overall) as it was back in the day. It has changed (not for the better imo), but it seems like younger fans might disagree with me on that, so it is what it is.