Anyone else feel the Bills would have given the Eagles a much better game?

[Gunsgoodtime]

Yes, but I do think we would have lost, not enough talent 

[clayboy54]

4 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Exactly what issues were those that Cook was having while shredding their defense for 85 yards on 13 carries for a 6.5 yard average and adding another 49 yards thru the air on 3 catches?

He wasn’t getting the ball most of the time! Why…who knows. We’d have likely done the same thing tonight.

[Big Turk]

Just now, Dr.Sack said:

The Bills would have stuck in the game. At times the Chiefs looked disinterested on offense and Mahomes had zero time. Not saying the Bills would have solved the Fangio defense but it’s conceivable it wouldn’t have been 0-34. Pretty much any team could have done better than 0-34. Mahomes played his worst game of his career and got exposed as a Reid inspired QB. Once it was clear the Eagles owned the LOS Mahomes fell back into his Texas Tech script and failed to play the script Reid was calling. The ball which was out in 1.7 seconds vs the Bills soft zone defense was held as the Eagles defense tore through the KC OL. It was a 4 only 5 exhibition. Mahomes crumbled and at one point was 2 picks to 0 TDs and 50% passing. Such a poor game I wonder if Mahomes was concussed. 

 

I mean Fangio has not fared very well against Allen in his previous meetings, including the absolute drubbing he got when he was Denver's HC, had an elite D and just threw his hands up after one TD by Allen when he called the perfect play and he still scored anyway.

 

They didn't blitz a single time against the Chiefs and were getting quick pressure all game long.

 

I just think that would not have happened as frequently against the Bills.

 

 

[Success]

As others have said - we would have scored earlier, and more, and given them more of a game.

 

But we would have need a big break or 2 to actually win. Possible, but Philly probably beats us 7-8x out of 10.

 

[Big Turk]

6 minutes ago, Success said:

As others have said - we would have scored earlier, and more, and given them more of a game.

 

But we would have need a big break or 2 to actually win. Possible, but Philly probably beats us 7-8x out of 10.

 

 

I don't disagree, I'm just saying the game would have been a lot closer.

[glazeduck]

lol no. We were getting killed too. At least we didn’t have to suffer through another SB loss. 

[Mikie2times]

1 minute ago, Success said:

As others have said - we would have scored earlier, and more, and given them more of a game.

 

But we would have need a big break or 2 to actually win. Possible, but Philly probably beats us 7-8x out of 10.

 

They’re built very similar to Baltimore and I think we win that one 3 of 10. Philly was better. So you’re where I think it likely is. But the funny thing with these thoughts is the market really doesn’t agree with them. KC or Buffalo would never be as much as +200 bs the Eagles (even now) which is about a mid 30% implied probability. Converted to a spread  would be like -4/-5. Reality is Buffalo or KC vs Eagles would be within 3 points and likely within 2. So while we don’t think we would have a big chance the lines would indicate we do. 

[Dr.Sack]

8 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

I mean Fangio has not fared very well against Allen in his previous meetings, including the absolute drubbing he got when he was Denver's HC, had an elite D and just threw his hands up after one TD by Allen when he called the perfect play and he still scored anyway.

 

They didn't blitz a single time against the Chiefs and were getting quick pressure all game long.

 

I just think that would not have happened as frequently against the Bills.

 

 

Agreed and Allen isn’t dependent on his OC scheming guys wide open, preferring to ad-lib which Mahomes can do a few times a game, while that’s Allen’s core game. Assume it’s a shootout. Could the Bills defense do a better job than the Spags D featuring 2 All-Pros and hard hitting Safeties? Prolly not. Saquon would have not been bottled up. However it’s worth pointing out 2 Mahomes 1st half picks led to 14 points. I don’t think Allen gifts the Eagles 14.  

[Doc Brown]

Bills o-line is a lot better so I think we would've found a way to have a soul crushing close defeat.  Can't remember the last time Josh threw a pick six though.  Allen's owned Fangio over the years so anything's possible.

Edited yesterday at 04:57 AM by Doc Brown

[Brand J]

If the A+ Bills showed up it absolutely would’ve been a game against the A+ Eagles that showed up tonight. If the Bills defense got a turnover they get momentum and are fired up, which would’ve sapped some of that energy out of the Eagles.
 

I’m old enough to remember when the Bills had the Ravens on the ropes, up 24-19 and driving to make it 31-19 before being stopped at the 2 yard line. This with Dalton Kincaid dropping a pass that could’ve extended another scoring drive. No one was playing better than the Ravens when we saw them and I’d argue they’re more talented than the Eagles. Certainly an even more dynamic QB and another MVP candidate in the backfield.
 

Say what you will, but the Bills could’ve beaten this Eagles team tonight if they showed up with their best, not with what showed up versus KC. If they came out flat like the Chiefs? Ala Ravens part 1 or Houston? Then yeah, no chance. 

[Utah John]

Hurts didn't complete a whole lot of passes, but he kept finding wide open receivers.  I say that partly because I'm used to watching Bills receivers running around with defenders right beside them so this was a refreshing experience for me, and partly because the Chiefs sold out to stop Barkley.  

 

The Chiefs roster had holes in in, particularly on the O line, and through skill, great coaching, and team work they managed to compile a great record through the regular season.  I remember Diane Keaton starring in a movie after she was already looking pretty old, and with camera tricks and makeup they made her look a lot younger than she really was.  Same thing for the Chiefs.  Once they hit the playoffs, their legacy skills got them past the Texans but they should have lost to the Bills.  The party crashed down tonight, when a complete team with strong players at many positions exposed the Chiefs limitations.  Reality matters. 

 

The Bills have fewer holes in their roster than the Chiefs, in particular a much better O line.  But the Chiefs have a much better D line than the Bills do, and also much better DBs.  I think the Bills would have done better than the Chiefs tonight because Josh would have been protected better and would have kept the ball away from the Eagles, helping hide the Bills weaknesses.  But, honestly, I think the Ravens are a better team than the Eagles, and the Bills beat them, so who knows what would have happened tonight if it was the Bills out there.

[LABILLBACKER]

We knew against the Ravens, Rams & Lions we had nowhere near the defense to compete in a SB.  Philly's defense tonight was fearless and abusive. I've never seen rocky Mahomes get that overwhelmed. It was like Fangio knew the exact play coming.  Until we lock down a dominant front 4, it's going to be more of the same.

[cale]

Nah. Our D would have been shredded. We just don’t get to the QB consistently. Plus Hurts played out of his mind tonight.

[sven233]

We would have had a better offensive game for sure.  The Eagles did nothing flashy on defense.  They lined up 4 and went after Mahomes all night and controlled the LOS.  There were no exotic blitzes or coverages.  They lined up and they whooped the Chiefs physically.  Our O-Line is built for games like that.  We have big, physical dudes that can match up better against a base defense like that.  However, they were very bad against the Chiefs because they were not prepared and couldn't figure out the scheme and blitz packages they were running.  They were beaten bad mentally more than they were physically.  Would the Eagles defense have played us differently than they did against the Chiefs?  Maybe.  But, I do think they love just lining up and trying to beat you with 4 more often than not.  So, that said, I think we would have been more successful on offense against their defense.

 

The problem is, this goes both ways and their offensive line is just as good, if not better, than ours and they would have dominated us physically up front.  We wouldn't have been able to contain Barkley and therefore would have had to stack the box to have a chance.  Then, their big, physical WRs would have beaten us for big plays on the back end.  Their offense would have been way too overwhelming for our defense.  It would have been one of those games that Allen would have had to catch fire and play his best football and scored on almost every possession to have a chance to win because I am not sure if we could have forced the Eagles to punt.  I'm serious when I say it would have been one of those games like the Colts game a few years back where they would have never had to throw the ball to beat us.  Hurts would have a very pedestrian stat line and we would have probably given up 200+ on the ground and they would have just run the clock on us.  Would have been one of those lopsided TOP games.

 

Could we have won?  Sure.  It's football and we have Josh Allen at QB.  But we would have probably had to score 40+ to do it because they would have dominated our defense physically.

Edited yesterday at 05:11 AM by sven233

[billsfan89]

Bills offensive line would have handled the Eagles pass rush a lot better. Bills may or may not have won but I think it would have been a better game. 

[LABILLBACKER]

I was told this week that I should never practice "hindsight".  So all I got for y'all is "I guess we'll never know"?

[DapperCam]

6 minutes ago, sven233 said:

We would have had a better offensive game for sure.  The Eagles did nothing flashy on defense.  They lined up 4 and went after Mahomes all night and controlled the LOS.  There were no exotic blitzes or coverages.  They lined up and they whooped the Chiefs physically.  Our O-Line is built for games like that.  We have big, physical dudes that can match up better against a base defense like that.  However, they were very bad against the Chiefs because they were not prepared and couldn't figure out the scheme and blitz packages they were running.  They were beaten bad mentally more than they were physically.  Would the Eagles defense have played us differently than they did against the Chiefs?  Maybe.  But, I do think they love just lining up and trying to beat you with 4 more often than not.  So, that said, I think we would have been more successful on offense against their defense.

 

The problem is, this goes both ways and their offensive line is just as good, if not better, than ours and they would have dominated us physically up front.  We wouldn't have been able to contain Barkley and therefore would have had to stack the box to have a chance.  Then, their big, physical WRs would have beaten us for big plays on the back end.  Their offense would have been way too overwhelming for our defense.  It would have been one of those games that Allen would have had to catch fire and play his best football and scored on almost every possession to have a chance to win because I am not sure if we could have forced the Eagles to punt.  I'm serious when I say it would have been one of those games like the Colts game a few years back where they would have never had to throw the ball to beat us.  Hurts would have a very pedestrian stat line and we would have probably given up 200+ on the ground and they would have just run the clock on us.  Would have been one of those lopsided TOP games.

 

Could we have won?  Sure.  It's football and we have Josh Allen at QB.  But we would have probably had to score 40+ to do it because they would have dominated our defense physically.

I think on defense we would have played our soft zone like we always do. And we would have forced the Eagles to run 10 plays to get down the field and score (which they would have done). And on offense we would have run the ball better and kept Allen a lot cleaner than Mahomes was kept. Probably a one score game.

[Old Coot]

In a word, No. Our OL is better than KC's but the KC defense is lights out better than ours.

 

The Eagles have too much talent on both sides of the ball.

 

KC played during the regular season and playoffs just well enough to win their games. That kind of play doesn't work against a team with the talent and coaching of the eagles.

 

This Super Bowl reminded me of the first few AFL-NFL Championships when the AFL was clearly outclased by the NFL. Also reminded me of our Super Bowl losses to the Cowboys and Redskins.

[Brian Higgins hair]

The Chiefs saved us the indignity.. Let’s get real and face it, our defense line can’t stop the run because they are small. Linebackers are good, but we are pretty bad in our defensive secondary, and horrific without Benford and Rapp. 
 

[90sBills]

36 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

They didn't blitz a single time against the Chiefs and were getting quick pressure all game long.

 

I just think that would not have happened as frequently against the Bills.

 

 

That’s how bad their OLine is. The strength of that OLine is the interior 3. Moving Thunny out made the entire line a liability. Too bad Bills didn’t have the DLine to take advantage in the AFCCG game.

 

Bills OLine is much better so it wouldn’t have been a complete massacre against Philly. But we’d still lose because Saquon would probably run all over the place. It would’ve nice to find out though. Need to get over the hump next season.