Rubes

I agree. That was pretty entertaining.

I agree as well. We're frustrated with our defense, of course, but that's one of the best offenses in the league, and we held them under their season averages in many categories. And the offense was just clicking, especially in the second half. I was convinced we would score on that last drive, you could just feel the confidence and momentum. The ending sucks, but it was a very entertaining game.

Way to miss the point, and the thread.

You go, Tashard. Too bad we don't play them again this year.

Please, God...not another first round running back.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't disagree with you, though.

Probably another example of how losing those two timeouts to injuy doomed that drive. (Not that it should have, just that we're not a good enough team to overcome it.)

I respectfully disagree. That's not the point, and it's not a stupid one. But whatever.

Another thing to consider: as bad as the New England defense is, that was the most anyone has scored against them this season. (Tied with the Ravens.) And we were 15 yards away from 7 more.

I think so. I think Nix has always talked about the importance of re-signing your own FAs. I think it's clear our O-line is one of the (few) strengths of this team, and keeping that continuity is of extreme importance.

I'm not saying they are the same. I'm saying that helps to make my point. To put it briefly, consider: the difference for us between first place and last place is two teeny plays among thousands. With those two plays in our favor, we're in first place. It doesn't make us that much better of a team—a bit more clutch, perhaps, but still monumentally, historically bad on defense—but instead of being an afterthought in the league, people would be talking about us as a big factor in the playoff picture with a real chance of breaking through and winning the AFC East as we now become a divisional power. We wouldn't really be a "better" team. We'd just be "considered" a better team. Just with two little plays going differently. That's all it takes.

...which actually helps to make my point.

There certainly are such things as bad doctors. There are also such things as doctors who don't know the answer to every question. The good ones either know the answer, know how to find the answer, or know when to send you to someone else who does. If your doctor doesn't know what's going on, and doesn't seem to be offering any further help or advice, then that's probably a good time to look for (or ask to see) a different doctor.

*sigh* Okay, thanks. At least it's pretty cool that I could actually ask that of someone in the media and get an honest response.

Well, that's a refreshing perspective.

I don't recall what the original debate was about, but yes, he did run it more against the Pats* than against the Texans. But I think it's considerably more complicated to explain why he did than to just say he made more of a commitment to the running game. There are too many factors to count. Things like injuries (who's currently injured for us, who for them), matchups (how do our guys match up man-for-man against their guys, are there particular advantages or disadvantages against each team), defensive styles, and so on, that influence the guy's decision on how much to run. It may have been that he felt Cordy was struggling early against the pass rush, so throw a few more running plays in there to get his confidence and game feet back. Maybe same with Urbik. Maybe Wilfork was causing too much trouble with the pass rush, so he tried to run it a little more to keep him honest. I have no idea. Whatever it was, the circumstances made Chan believe he would be better off running more against the Pats* than against the Texans. That doesn't necessarily mean if we ran more against the Texans that we would have done better. But again, I have completely lost what the debate was about here, so I may just be making your point.

You disappoint me, Chris.

Did you mean 25 rushing plays? Fred had 16 and CJ had 9. But perhaps it's not the raw number but the actual percentage. With 40 passes against the Pats* (I'll make it 43 since there were 3 'rushes' by Fitz which were undoubtedly pass calls), we had a run-pass split of 37% (run) to 63% (pass). Against the Texans, it was 13 rushes (official count is 15 due to two Fitz 'runs') to 40 passes, for a 25%-75% split. So Chan certainly seemed to run less against the Texans, a better team against the run, but not by that much. The Texans are #3 against the run, the Pats* are #9 against the run. I'm not sure I would say that running a bit more against the Pats* proves anything, given that we obviously passed a lot more than ran against both teams. Of note, the Texans are also #3 against the pass, while the Pats* are #29 against the pass.

True. The Pats* defense had been allowing less than 100 yards rushing per game. We thrashed them for 165.

I certainly would agree that newspapers and journalism aren't what they used to be. Still, expecting that they just give away their content online for free is just nonsense. Many people don't realize this but the BN has been one of the few papers in the country that has been in the black for many years now. They are a very well run paper. If you don't like the journalists, think the content is poorly written, or you don't like supporting the paper or their journalists, by all means, don't read it anymore.

Eh, nevermind. 'MikeBillsFan' is obviously just coming on here to push his web site. He has three posts and they all say the same thing, directing people to his site. Ignore him.

Cool, thanks.

Not sure what on earth you're talking about. There was the fumble by Fitz, of course. But besides that, here are the other starting points for the rest of the Pats* drives: NE 27 NE 17 NE 18 NE 20 NE 20 BUF 39 (idiotic special teams penalty on Brooks, not the offense's fault) NE 20 NE 1 NE 32 NE 20

True, imagine how many more yards passing he would have had yesterday if he only threw the ball on target to his receivers.