Thurman#1

Nope. Not buying this at all.

He hasn't played poorly yet. He certainly hasn't played up to his last year's standard, but he also has not played poorly, he just hasn't. If he did play poorly this game? It's always a bit concerning when there's a game like that, but no long-term concerns over one game against an excellent defense, no.

I hope not. Before the shoulder injuries, Pennington looked like he was rounding into hall of fame form. His first year he only had 5 attempts. His second year, only 20. His first year as a consistent starter, he had a passer rating of 104, back when that was top two or three in the league. I'd just say that a bunch of that YAC is coming because he's hitting guys in stride and putting them in position to run. He's accurate as hell.

But again, that schedule they played that year was really really easy. Our division's schedules that year were really lucky. Easy enough to make the Dolphins look really good, winning eleven games when the year before they won one and the year after they went 7-9. Yes, some of that was the wildcat, but a lot more was the schedule. Jones is pretty athletic, and can throw long with accuracy, as he showed at Alabama. Yeah, I'm a little worried, but I always am till guys show they're just not good enough over time.

It's a bit weird to call a team that scored 35 points in a "slump." 685 yards over two games against PIttsburgh and Miami. It really is. Perhaps, "not hitting on all cylinders." Or "not playing at peak efficiency." Something along those lines. Again, these are two terrific defenses we played, and they're doing their best to take away chunk plays. We're still putting up a few, and moving the ball. They can do better. They could get more efficient and smoother. But it was easier last year, as teams didn't have video. This year opponents've spent the offseason poring over it. If they can get the passing game going as consistently as they probably can, they can force teams to play up further. I suspect at that point the chunk plays will start to happen more consistently again in the passing game.

I would argue that says more about your memory and what you are looking for than it does about his performance. One comes immediately to mind. On the play when he stoned the guy at the goal line on third and goal last year, he absolutely imposed his will. Most times when he makes a tackle, really. The ball carrier would rather stay up. Tremaine tackles him. What you and many others seem to want is the train wreck Brandon Spikes or Dick Butkus kind of play. That's not the kind of player he is. And there really aren't many more Brandon Spikes / Dick Butkus players in the NFL anymore. The league has changed. McDermott wants a guy with speed, height and length in the middle. He doesn't need a guy to blow people up. He need someone to make tackles, to go sideline to sideline, to be very strong in pass coverage and Tremaine does that.

No. One win counts as much as another. They in no way took that Pittsburgh game for granted enough to do anything deliberately that might have hurt their chances. Just matchups, tactics, play-calling and how they performed on the day.

Their defense may well still be one of the best in the league. Derek Carr and the Raiders have come out on fire this year, and as stated above, they had a few guys missing against Vegas. And they destroyed our OL in that game. Allen had no time. This week he had some time but the Fins secondary played really well. Allen has been mediocre, far from very bad. It's just that last year's Allen was so very good. And best guess this early is that those were two good defenses we played. Bottom line is that we'll have to see if he gets his rhythm or not. Too early to say very much.

You don't think the Baltimore, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Miami defenses had anything to do with this? Those were last year's #2, #3, #6 and #11 defenses. This year's opponents were #3 and #6. That's a very high level pair we've faced so far this year. IMO the answers are simple, but not easy, to steal from Marv. Stop killing yourself with penalties. Figure out how to adapt to what they're doing to us. Play with discipline and attention to detail.

It's not, because he hasn't played all that bad. He's been fairly mediocre. And what's rare is that a guy this quickly becomes the kind of QB in three years that people call him a "top level" QB and are surprised when he doesn't play great in two playoff games against very good defenses in January and two games to start the season the next year. During those four games he's thrown 5 TDs and 1 INT, thrown for more than 250 YPG and put up a passer rating of 81.25. Just for comparison, in the first four games of Tom Brady's fourth year, he managed 5 TDs, 7 INTs, 848 yards, for a passer rating of 70.85. And I find it weird for you to say the offense played like ***** today. They did not. They just didn't. They weren't great, but they were solid at least.

Seems pretty weird to me. I feel terrific. The offense isn't hitting on all cylinders, but they're certainly still playing very solid, and the D is taking up the slack. I feel terrific. Maybe after a few days I'll feel a bit less thrilled.

Nice! Thanks.

We might easily be elite right now. We were in 2019 with Edmunds.

Non Oh, please. This defense is playing extremely well, and he's part of it. In seasons when he's not injured, he has graded out very well in coverage. He does make a good scapegoat, though. Maybe next you could complain about Star or Oliver. They're the other two that people desperate to attack somebody generally target. He's still got some things to prove, but you're way off.

And he could also return kicks, because he's obviously a good runner and he could throw laterals across the field hard and fast. Yeah, we're really onto something here. Maybe even play some linebacker.

Any team losing its #1 is going to take a major hit. But no, mediocre is absolutely overstating it. Even without Diggs our group is strong. Sanders, Beasley and Davis is a good trio. Kumerow is solid for a #4. Take away everyone's top #1 and this group would be top ten in what's left. Probably well inside it. It's true they don't have a lot of pure speed there, but they have gone with great route-running in the belief it fits Allen's skillset. They've still got that with this group. Allen would be just fine throwing to them.

Lemme get this straight, he forced his way out of Minnesota because he became angry with how they used him ... and we should use him more like Minnesota did? And the reason is because we could reap the benefits of earning some of the 160 yards he made in runs over the course of his five years in Minny? Where his big year he earned 62 yards in running? 1535 yards says we used him just fine last year, just fine. And as for getting hurt, you don't encounter quite as many 300 pounders, or even 250 pounders, downfield after catching passes as you do when you get the ball handed to you by the QB behind the line. We're using him better than Minnesota did.

It really does not mean anything. If asked how many of the 22 SB teams who played at home in Week 1 had lost in that week, you'd probably guess two, three or maybe four. Probably two or three. This is a seriously unsurprising stat. You're right that we have to change a stat set by that game. That stat, the one we have to change, is our 0-1 record. We'll have a chance to do that in two days. It's one loss, against an excellent team. While not thrilling, it's not a big deal.

A more specific look at this question ... How many of the 55 Super Bowl champions had a home opener as opposed to an away opener? You'd guess around 27, 28, right? Wrong-o. Only 22. So now the pool of teams you're looking at is already down to 40% of all SB champs. The 66 Packers 67 Packers 73 Fins 74 Steelers 76 Raiders 85 Bears 87 Redskins 90 Giants 91 Redskins 92 Cowboys 94 Niners 97 Broncos 98 Broncos 99 Rams 02 Bucs p 04 Pats 05 Steelers 08 Steelers 09 Saints 12 Ravens 15 Broncos 18 Pats Those are the winners who had home openers. So, we played a team that looks to be a very good team this year. If Roethlisberger's arm wears away as the year goes on the way it did last year, things will look different, but that was a very good-looking team we just played. So out of the 22 SB winners that played home openers, how many played tomato cans? 67 Packers played the 5-7-2 Lions 73 Fins played the 5-9 Niners 74 Steelers played the 2-12 Colts 85 Bears played the 2-14 Bucs 05 Steelers played the 4-12 Titans 09 Saints played the 2-14 Lions 15 Broncos played the 5-11 Ravens Out of the 22 teams, seven played teams that just sucked. That leaves 15 left. How many of those 15 teams were mediocre, and thus quite a bit less difficult opponents than the Steelers? 87 Redskins played the 7-8 Eagles 92 Cowboys played the 9-7 Redskins 94 Niners played the 9-7 Raiders 98 Broncos played the 9-7 Pats 99 Rams played the 8-8 ravens 02 Bucs played the 9-7 Saints 08 Steelers played the 8-8 Texans Seven of the 15 were just mediocre. Leaving only eight SB teams that had opening day home games and played good teams. 66 Packers played the 9-5 Colts 76 Raiders played the 10-4 Steelers 90 Giants played the 10-6 Eagles 91 Redskins played the 12-4 Lions 97 Broncos played the 13-3 Chiefs 04 Pats played the 12-4 Colts 12 Ravens played the 10-6 Bengals a 18 Pats played the 11-5 Texans And while there are a few scary teams there, there are also a bunch of pretty good ones that would be respected but not frightening. So out of eight tough games how many would you expect a Super Bowl winner to lose, on average, at home? One? Two? Three? Four? In other words, the results are pretty much what you would expect. And all of those SB winners lost games. Specifically 2 (out of 14 that year), 1 (out of 14), 3, 2, 4, 2, 6, and 5 losses. What week they happened in doesn't much matter. And the odds of it happening on opening week at home are just about what you would expect. It happens. Super Bowl winners lose. Just not too many.

Heh heh. I like this. It clearly tells everyone that history is against us. Nor has a team playing at a stadium named Highmark Stadium ever won one. Nor has a team QB'd by Josh Allen ever won one. We're doomed!!! The original stat is one of those types of things that people love to talk about. It looks impressive at first, until you realize that it's just not surprising at all. When you throw a bunch of conditions on a likelihood, you will get lower and lower results. The low results are more about the conditions of the problem than any kind of meaningful result.

Probably not. Luckily, they have one. Killer instinct isn't a problem. Roster strength, matchups, scheme matchups, there are plenty of real concerns to worry about. ... and the desperate search for scapegoats continues. Nonsense.

Our receivers were all injured at that point. They weren't getting open, and the refs decided not to call pass interference in the championship game. And controlling them was easier due to their injuries. And while the offense wasn't great against Indy, they certainly weren't bad and pretty decent in the second half. Four drives for a TD and two FGs. The problems were more serious in the last two games, against two good Ds, with injured receivers. If we continue to have problems, that will indeed signal that the system needs some fixing. Right now it's not clear there are any problems beyond Pittsburgh's being really good and needing to learn to handle what they did against our route combos. If they do at some point switch play callers, that would be fine with me. It hasn't yet, IMO, been shown to be necessary. But bigger changes could be indicated if the returns continue to come in negative.

That headline overstates what Graham did. He didn't suggest it. What you could say is something more like ... he brought up the possibility and discussed it, along with McDermott's history of doing things like that. In fact he goes pretty far out of his way NOT to suggest it. "One then could fairly deduce the Bills’ message about improving their run game meant they needed to adjust the way Daboll calls their plays," he said. "... one might wonder if it’s time for passing-game coordinator Ken Dorsey to get a shot to see what he can do," he said. "One might wonder." That is not the language you use when you suggest something. Bringing up a possibility, for the sake of discussion, maybe. About as far he goes towards any kind of assertion is, saying, "Lombardi Trophies won’t be lifted without significant adjustments from what we witnessed." He absolutely did not suggest demoting Daboll, much less doing so this week.

Yup. Folks may have seen this, but it's a thoughtful breakdown of the Steelers DL vs. the Bills OL, with video breakdowns. He even had video of Bobby Johnson at a coaching clinic he attended.

This. Blame goes to nearly everyone on the offensive side, including Allen, Daboll and the OL as the largest parts, but Simms' point here is that Pittsburgh crossing us up and really using smart anticipatory strategy was a big part of it. QBs have to get confused along the way. It is part of the process. Seeing new things, getting confused and beaten, looking at it on film and figuring out what they did and how to counter ... this is what turns guys into Peyton Mannings and Tom Bradys, in terms of veteran smarts. It's part of the process, but it's a painful part of the process. We'll see other teams trying to ape this strategy. Most of those teams won't have a defensive front four like the Steelers do, so they won't do it as well, but it will be tougher unless/until we figure out how to successfully counter.