finn

Right. And if they lose, it wasn't Lamar's fault since he had never played in snow before.

What he said about making Diggs pay for every catch reminds me of the first Super Bowl, where the Giants hit Reed hard every he caught the ball on crossing routes. Sure enough, he started short-arming the ball and lost effectiveness. Diggs is a far better receiver, though, and he runs more routes, or so it seems to me.

No small part of why I want the Bills to win is so we don't have to endure seven months of "The Bills struggled in the playoffs when it really counted." That and the Jackson/Mahomes deification would be enough to drive me to drink.

I don't mind the team--in fact, I'd like to see them succeed after so many down years. But what do people see in Baker Mayfield? I must be missing it. Is it his persona in the commercials? In interviews, he comes across as an insufferable twit.

Objectively speaking, I agree the Bills are the better team and will likely win, but the weather might really skew things. Snow and wind favor a rushing team, which the Ravens are (on steroids) and the Bills are decidedly not. If Allen is throwing into 15 mph snowy gusts, he's going to have a hard time hitting his receivers, whereas pretty much nothing changes for the Ravens. Even so, I STILL think the Bills will win because I think they have more will to win. They want this badly, and I don't think they have any illusions that it will be easy.

That's why I'd like to see Williams added. Remember the Steelers game, when Moss and the Bills ran over seven minutes off the clock in the fourth quarter? I can see Williams doing that to Baltimore, just as he did against Miami. Maybe worth a spot in the lineup only for that possibility.

I feel the same way. It's like, if they're not good enough to beat the Ravens at this point, well, let's fix the problems and come back next year. With the Colts, it felt like "Of course they're better, but they might screw up," which led to a lot of nerves. That's not to say I don't think they'll win. Looking objectively at how they've played since the Arizona game, against top defenses, and I think they will. It just feels like this is new territory from here on.

My guess is they want a veteran who can pick up the blitz and finish games without fumbling. Could be Yeldon and Freeman, with Yeldon bringing value as a reasonable blocker, non-fumbler (over his career), and--best of all--excellent hands for the passing game. I would take Moss over both of them, though.

Well, keep in mind he was facing some pretty mediocre defenses: Dallas, Jaguars, Giants, Bengals and Titans. Only Cleveland was better than ok, and they barely won that game. I'm not underestimating him, but I have more respect for Kyler Murray, who offers everything Jackson does and is a more dangerous passer. The Bills wrote the book on Jackson last year: keep him in the pocket. He gets antsy, double clutches then, if he can't escape, takes the sack. Of course, you can't contain him all day, but if they keep him from scoring more than a few TD's, the Bills should be ok.

Well, I don't know if this is right. It grants what the Colts did well but not what they messed up on--the dropped passes, the missed receivers (two huge misses), the missed 33-yard field goal, the dumb Offside penalty--and does the opposite with the Bills. Yes, they messed up on defense a lot, but they also stuffed them on fourth and goal and won the game at the end, despite the bad call on the fumble. When the chips were down, the Bills came through: Allen, Diggs, Beasley, Davis, Williams, Bass, McDermott, and, yes, the defense. And when the chips were down on the other side, Rivers, Turay, Blankenship, Taylor and Reich all choked. The Colts didn't outplay the Bills. The Bills outplayed the Colts.

I'd love to see a compilation of early Allen hatred, especially the smug reviews with no caveats. Incidentally, did that one hater ever get "Bills Mafia" tattooed on his butt cheeks like he said he would if the Bills went 13-3?

I think this nails it, although I'm not sure if it's personnel or approach that determines this outcome. In the Colts game, it's like the coaches decided that they had to stop Taylor at all costs, much like they stopped Henry and (pretty much) Mahomes. As you say, the good news is that not many teams left have the balance the Colts have. Baltimore may be the most unbalanced team of all. Please tell me if you think I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if Jackson isn't allowed to run at all, they lose. If this is the case, then the Bills' formula should work, provided the Bills offense holds up its side of the bargain.

Likely influenced by McKenzie's punt return for a TD, wanted to show that he had it, too. Hopefully he got it out of his system.

Also, there was that weird short kickoff by the Colts that stopped dead on like the ten yard line, as if the air had gone out of it.

I had the same thought. It might not be correct, but I was thinking he wanted to show that he could return one for a TD like McKenzie. And he ended up screwing up, at least on that one return. He didn't help the team yesterday.

My bad. I thought he got $2M.

Beane tried to sign Melvin Gordon. He would have been a terrific addition, especially now. There are inexpensive options that don't involve a high pick.

The game today is proving you wrong. Plus, that's just not right. I haven't seen teams selling out to stop Henry. Tannehill is mobile, accurate, creative and clutch. Just as we have seen so much bias against Allen, I think there's similar bias against Tannehill. The evidence is right there, but people refuse to believe it. He's in the same class as Watson, Mahomes, Rogers and Allen (and soon Herbert).

Tannehill is still underrated. Mahomes, Rogers and Allen get all the attention, but he's just as good, or at least the difference is slight. He, not Henry, is what I find scary about that team. I can see (saw!) him absolutely shred the Bills D. But I think the Bills offense can score even more points, so I'm not that concerned. Ravens, meh, I've always thought Jackson was overrated. Take away the middle of the field and box him in, and he's not even average.

I think we're underestimating the impact of bad field position for the Bills offense. They started drives at the 11, 3, 6 and 4 yard line. No offense will do terrific with those starts (and they did manage to go 96 yards on one of them). So I wouldn't put so much emphasis on how terrific the Colts D played. Give Allen four starts at the 30, and this game might have been a rout.

Bummer to lose our Steelers killer the week before we play them again. Williams is closer to Moss in style. A battering ram to close out a game. Yeldon can catch the ball and block, and he's a pretty good runner. But he's not a short-yardage guy, and he's not ideal for closing out a game. At least that's my impression.

Well, I have a laptop. Who needs a TV these days?

I don't have a TV. What's the emerging narrative about the game? Because you know they all repeat each other.

Yeah, but his big mistakes are the flip side of his most incredible plays. If he took the advice of not taking risks, he wouldn't be nearly as successful as he is. We have to take the occasional 33 yards sack-fumble with all the long TD throws downfield. They're all of a piece.

I think it'd be accurate to call them a good team with a great coach. Those two calls could easily have resulted in touchdowns. I liked his aggressiveness. He's absolutely as good as McDermott.