Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

1. Football is a tough game and every game take somewhat of a t(r)oll.  ...Fixed

2. An extra game was added this year, this will take an extra t(r)oll. ...Fixed

3.  Our extra game was Washington and we played it thus our extra t(r)oll has been taken  ...Fixed

4. KC and Tenn have not played their extra game.

Yes, it was so obvious all along.  And the cow jumped over the moon while the dish ran away with the spoon.  Troll on...

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, ganesh said:

The chiefs just played brutal games against the Ravens and Chargers (after winning a close game against Cleveland) and now must face a touch Eagles team on the road..and then playing Us,  Washington and the Titans.....As brutal as ours if not more.....  Think about it ....The chiefs could possibly be 1-6......Yes it is a possibility because these are all tough teams

No, the Chiefs are not going to be 1 - 6.

 

Also the Eagles are not a tough team, they are pathetic. And how could you just finish watching our game and think Wash would be any type of problem for KC? C'mon.

Posted
33 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e472vtte6peowak006e5e

Except that we've all played the same total number of games to date...?:blink:

Yeah but we played our 17th game and the other teams in the AFC are working on their first 16 games.  See?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

In every game players get nicked up.  Player our extra game before we play KC is likely to have less players at 100%.

So KC is playing one less game when the Bills play them?  Is this your logic?  If so it fails miserably!!!  Utterly and Completely.  An abject failure of a statement.  I mean you do realize we would have played a game no matter what correct?  You are going to die on this hill of no reason......your argument/statement is just plain wrong.  I fail to see ANY logic in it at all.  Both teams will have played 4 games and the week after both teams will have played 5 games.  Said players will have been or not have been nixed up regardless.

 

This makes no sense whatsoever.......using this hill of no reason it stuns me the sheer number of posts you have.

1 hour ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

Yet another time I want to use the confused reaction, but it was bizarrely removed in the mass expansion of reaction options.

 

The vomit reaction works just as well with the OP's post!!!!

Edited by Kwai San
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Kwai San said:

So KC is playing one less game when the Bills play them?  Is this your logic?  If so it fails miserably!!!  Utterly and Completely.  An abject failure of a statement.  I mean you do realize we would have played a game no matter what correct?  You are going to die on this hill of no reason......your argument/statement is just plain wrong.  I fail to see ANY logic in it at all.  Both teams will have played 4 games and the week after both teams will have played 5 games.  Said players will have been or not have been nixed up regardless.

 

This makes no sense whatsoever.......using this hill of no reason it stuns me the sheer number of posts you have.

 

The vomit reaction works just as well with the OP's post!!!!

It seems the "logic" is they supposedly played one out-of-conference opponent that they wouldn't have had to play last year before most other team., The total number of games played "doesn't matter".  Why this matters at all is lost on me as well.  The Bills decimated their "extra" opponent.  I don't know who the other teams have for theirs but it's moot to bicker about now that Washington is toast.  Hopefully the rest of the AFC's "extra" opponents destroy them.

Edited by Amorgus
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Amorgus said:

It seems the "logic" is they supposedly played one out-of-conference opponent that they wouldn't have had to play last year before most other team., The total number of games played "doesn't matter".  Why this matters at all is lost on me as well.  The Bills decimated their "extra" opponent.  I don't know who the other teams have for theirs but it's moot to bicker about now that Washington is toast.  Hopefully the rest of the AFC's "extra" opponents destroy them.

Idk how we can complain about our extra opponent when we won the division last year and still got to avoid the best team in the nfc east by far and the patriots have to play them instead loll so the whole original post was wild 🤣

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

Idk how we can complain about our extra opponent when we won the division last year and still got to avoid the best team in the nfc east by far and the patriots have to play them instead loll so the whole original post was wild 🤣

I bet whoever gets the Jets as an extra opponent isn't going to cry about it!

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

It's been a while since one of these gems from @4merper4mer.  Just love watching all the folks unfamiliar with him take the bait.

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Rubes said:

It's been a while since one of these gems from @4merper4mer.  Just love watching all the folks unfamiliar with him take the bait.

 

Guilty, but laughing now...  Have to acknowledge work well done...  Damn!

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
3 hours ago, corta765 said:

The Bills have one of the easiest schedules right now opponent wise and before the season I think it was rated as 5th easiest. If you have an issue with Houston then they are not SB caliber

 

     Let's not forget the reason alot of our games are rated as easy is because Josh Allen is an elite QB and we have a quality well balanced team.

Teams are already gameplanning to stop Josh Allen while not having the players to do that for a whole game.  And don't even get to whether they can figure out where to attack our defense, to even have a chance at winning. Bills strength of schedule largely, dictated by their play quality.....            

       Haven't had a team earn its schedule strength since the 90's and I think we have a better defensive potential than what the 90s defenses ranked in their era. The 90s were more stacked with the star players in Bruce, Talley, Bennett, Conlan, Jones, ....   telling that Bruce was the only HoF from the defense those years.  I think we got a more top tier defensive playmakers than the 90's defenses had or at the very least think as a total unit i think we have a better defense than Kelly's teams had. 

Posted

The best way to 'guarantee' yourself an easy schedule is to be a small market team, and finish in last place in a crappy Division.  That will limit your national TV exposure and set you up with at least six winnable games right out the shoot.  (The Bills did two of the three.)

Posted
5 minutes ago, AuntieEm said:

 

     Let's not forget the reason alot of our games are rated as easy is because Josh Allen is an elite QB and we have a quality well balanced team.

Teams are already gameplanning to stop Josh Allen while not having the players to do that for a whole game.  And don't even get to whether they can figure out where to attack our defense, to even have a chance at winning. Bills strength of schedule largely, dictated by their play quality.....            

       Haven't had a team earn its schedule strength since the 90's and I think we have a better defensive potential than what the 90s defenses ranked in their era. The 90s were more stacked with the star players in Bruce, Talley, Bennett, Conlan, Jones, ....   telling that Bruce was the only HoF from the defense those years.  I think we got a more top tier defensive playmakers than the 90's defenses had or at the very least think as a total unit i think we have a better defense than Kelly's teams had. 

 

It is always tough comparing because we do not know who is a HOF and star plus the teams sucess etc.. But Allen talent wise is above Kelly, but I think Kelly had better play makers. On defense the 90 Bills had Bruce, but the depth and talent of the secondary and Milano/Edmunds pushes the defense now better then the 90s crew.

Posted
3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Right but we already had our extra game and will play KC/Tenn when they haven’t had an extra game.

😂.. 😂… that’s so funn…..err… ohh 😯… wait you weren’t being funny were you (well not on purpose at least). Ohhhhhh you’re the OP. You’re not making fun of the OP.. ohh pardon … 🤭.. pardon me.. for laughing 🤭….bwaaaah! 😆 😆… just can’t help but thinking about Dennis Green 🤔 “they are what we thought they were …. And we let’em off the hook!” ….. who is this really? Are you Billy Joe Hobert? 

Posted
4 minutes ago, corta765 said:

 

It is always tough comparing because we do not know who is a HOF and star plus the teams sucess etc.. But Allen talent wise is above Kelly, but I think Kelly had better play makers. On defense the 90 Bills had Bruce, but the depth and talent of the secondary and Milano/Edmunds pushes the defense now better then the 90s crew.

        And of course all the rule changes that make it easier to pass.  Wonder how many PF Bruce would have garnered with the new rules.  Not that I recall him being brutal.  Maybe he was more quick on his get-off than anything.  His power bullrush moves were usually spent fighting off all the dbl and triple teams he faced, 

Posted

I still believe the NFL should adopt the international soccer model and give the entire league the same week off, right in the middle of the season. This is even more critical with the addition of a 17th game. The league's going to learn this the hard way when some of their biggest stars are either beat up or out going into the playoffs.

×
×
  • Create New...