BobChalmers

Not as weak as the Pats* team that beat the Jets - thought experiment: subtract Amendola from the Pats* week 1 lineup and tell me who wins that game. Yeah - that threw me too - no way would we trade WR groups with the JEST. I give them the coaching edge though. Also for QB's this isn't close: EJ >>> Geno - one QB has a rating of 95.2(9th in the league), the other a 55.2 (32nd).

2 games a year are decided by where you finish in your division. The other 14 are fixed. The Chiefs "reward" for going 2-14 is games against the Bills and the Browns that their AFC West rivals don't get. The Broncos got the Ravens and will also play the Patriots. Speaking of 2-14 - that's exactly what I saw last night - an ugly "battle" between TWO TEAMS WHO COMBINED FOR AS MANY WINS AS THE 6-10 BILLS LAST YEAR. The Chiefs look slightly less bad that the Eagles, but they are stocked with injury-prone stars, give them time. The Eagles pre-season hype machine was comical. They got off to a fast start thanks to the Redskins handing them a game - other than that they (and their QB) are the same turnover-prone mess they were last year. Chip Kelly is an improperly promoted coach who had way too little experience and what experience he has had has almost all been at low levels. He will lose this team within a year. Unless we beat them!!!

Hackett has me a bit worried too - too many of his play calls look like they are "too clever". He's so determined to be unpredictable he's not doing the standard sensible thing and it's costing them 1st downs and killing drives. Marrone still seems a bit rough on the sidelines, but I am comfortable he'll settle in. There's almost no way to overstate how huge an add Pettine was.

My theory is new regime recognizes that a RB is not where you invest a high 1st round pick. Seriously - if you knew what you were getting - how many RB's other than AP are really dominant enough to justify a #1 pick anymore? It's a new FO, that obviously disagrees with the previous one.

I swear they were (relatively) bad at 3rd and long defense even during the Super Bowl era. I am sure it's been more than just the 13 years. I would imagine that points to lack of depth in the secondary?

Losman and Edwards were also REALLY BADLY COACHED in Buffalo. Exposure to Jauron-Skeletor created a losing attitude - as was obvious from the sideline decisions. Compare and contrast Skeletor with what EJ is hearing from Hackett and Marrone... Fitz got decent coaching from Gailey but just didn't have the whole physical tool set to work with.

Seriously - I think they're nuts using McKelvin for returns right now.

This - plus he's playing hurt.

He's probably not 100% yet - not surprising really.

Same here - and yeah - when they get Gilmore back they are going to be an awesome tandem!!

Each game is only discussed on one show or the other (AFC/NFC) - so if it came up (at all) on NFC Playbook, it would not on AFC Playbook. It's a weak show - always has been - but I must say NFLN as a whole is really exposing and embarrassing themselves this season with their complete disregard for the top-drafted QB this year. They go on for hours (literally) trying to make excuses for Geno - and make NO MENTION of Manuel at all.

Maybe because they are so good on defense as a unit they make each other look better than they really are as individuals? Von Miller might not look bad to them - suspension aside.

Last night really did illustrate how much they need Amendola right now. They struggled enough against the Bills WITH him, and they were clearly desperate for him last night. Except for that one sideline catch by Holmes - got to give him that - it was nice. It could take him a while to be healthy enough to do anything,

Actually, although it is a less common usage, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to a female as "handsome". It does imply a more dignified sort of beauty. IE - refined (and symmetrical) facial features are "handsome" on a man or woman - but you probably wouldn't call impressive cleavage "handsome". A list of "handsome" actors AND actresses: http://www.imdb.com/list/TA33EtTqC8E/ From Merriam-Webster: hand·some adjective \ˈhan(t)-səm\ : pleasing to look at; especially of a person : having a pleasing appearance that causes romantic or sexual feelings in someone : large in size or amount : done or achieved in an impressive way hand·som·erhand·som·est Full Definition of HANDSOME 1 chiefly dialect : appropriate, suitable 2 : moderately large : sizable <a painting that commanded ahandsome price> 3 : marked by skill or cleverness : adroit 4 : marked by graciousness or generosity : liberal <handsomecontributions to charity> 5 : having a pleasing and usually impressive or dignified appearance

well put

Yeah - I can't stand T. Graham either - he's always throwing nonsense all over just to be heard and is generally irritating and of little value... Oh wait - this is about TJ not Tim???

I know this is hard to believe, but the Jets won last week so another win makes them 2-0. Now, IF the Jets are the 2-0 team, the Bills can knock them down when they play next.

Maybe a little, but the Pats* also weren't turning the ball over every drive - more often than usual, but not remotely as much as the Redskins did the first half. The 'skins offense was horrific.

Yeah - I mean, I'm all for saying Jax sux and doesn't deserve a team, but the thread title is inaccurate. Is that really practical to have a team that far away? The travel would be brutal - what happens for London @ San Diego? No way a team can be 100% against that much jet lag/time zone mess.

A major point of running the no-huddle is to give the offense an advantage by PREVENTING SUBSTITUTIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS. Since you failed to list this, I assume you are unaware. Marrone and Hackett have explained from the beginning that they are opting for a simpler offense run quickly that forces the defense to also stay relatively simple. Sitting around at the line or in a huddle won't add any plays to the Bills' playbook, but it does give the defense time to substitute, etc, IE it makes it LESS LIKELY they will get first downs and points. With almost 6 minutes left they needed first downs and points. The fact that they failed anyway is an execution problem - not a game-day clock management strategy problem.

OK - so this whole thread is meant as a joke, right? 1. Did you really just compare the Jets offense to the Patriots?? 2. For Brady, that was a pretty bad day statistically. He was under a lot of pressure and it showed. The Bills OFFENSE scored 14 points. How many defenses in the NFL can hold the Pats* under 14?? The DEFENSE gave up 23 and scored 7, and as has been previously pointed out, both TD's they gave up were on very short fields off turnovers by the offense. In other words, while the D wasn't perfect, they did way more than their share to win. If the offense had merely scored 17 points they would have won the game.

In fairness to the Ravens: 1. They wanted to distinguish their purple from the Vikings, so they are Purple/Black/White while the Vikes are Purple/Yellow/White 2. Ravens are very dark black birds. 2a. "Raven" as a color means "black". Point being, once they settled on the name - at least partially black uni's made all the sense in the world.

Washington's OFFENSE handed Philly that game last night - RG3 stunk out loud and the whole team seemed determined to give the ball back to the Eagles as often as possible. The Philly offensive scheme was fine but not that big a deal.

In all seriousness - if what we're hearing here is really true - WTF Hackett??? And EJ looks 30. Actually, the first time my college-age son saw Manuel as a senior on the FSU sideline, he exclaimed - "how the heck old is that guy - he looks almost 30!?"

Same thing I was wondering - there was a LOT of pressure on Brady which led to a lot of the incompletions even if he got rid of the ball to avoid the "sack". He took some pretty hard hits too - Hughes planted his butt on one nice play.