Thurman#1

We got dominated by the Skins and the Cowboys the first time. The other two were good tough games on both sides, decided by a few big plays. In the second Cowboys game, a Thurman fumble run back for a TD and a bad Kelly INT at a crucial moment was most of the difference. And we're significantly less soft and we're just plain better if Lotulelei, Edmunds and Spencer Brown were playing.

This.

That wasn't the problem. Not even close. Excluding Allen, our RBs went 10 carries for 73 yards. When we have run problems it's almost always the OL that is responsible for most of it. With Brown and Feliciano out the OL was really hurting, though they weren't as awful as they were against the Jags. A few of many of the real causes were: 1) Not good enough through the middle on D without Lotulelei and Edmunds 2) Not good enough on OL without Spencer Brown. 3) Allen didn't play well enough, including losing his cool near the end 4) Far too many penalties 5) McKenzie's fumble 6) Some drops 7) We have better personnel than Indy, particularly when healthy, but they match up with us extremely well 08) There's been a revolution on defense in handling high-flying passing attacks using two-high. Teams are learning how to make it really hard for guys like Mahomes and Allen. We need to adapt. It won't be easy. I mean, it wouldn't have hurt to be better at running the ball. But that wasn't a top ten problem today. I like what Tompsett said on Cover1 today. "They built for the past on both sides of the ball." They built a gap run OL in a league that's suddenly going zone rush. And they built a small but athletic DL in a league that is suddenly - mostly due to the two-high revolution is rewarding teams with physical OLs because there are so many small but athletic DL groups.

Frankly, that is absolute bull picky. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. And what I did is anything but splitting hairs. Not even remotely. What it is is a common and obvious rule for discussion, a rule that makes for infinitely better, smarter, clearer discussion, and that rule is ... If you're going to attack what a guy says ... then attack what he says. Don't attack what he did not say. Don't remove parts of his argument and then attack the fact that without the parts you removed his arguments make no sense. And that's what you did here, Hap. Don't distort the argument and then attack the distortions. Don't twist the argument and then attack the fact that it's twisted. This is simple common sense. This guy didn't say what you said he did. So you misrepresented his argument and then argued that he's wrong in presenting an argument that in fact was created by you, not him. You created a straw man. It happens consistently on these forums. And it is destructive to reasonable discussion. Disagreeing with somebody and saying it ... totally reasonable. Misrepresenting what he said ... completely unreasonable. Degrades discussion.

Oh, please. It's not too fine in any way, Hap, and I know you know it. He put in a bunch of qualifiers and you chose to ignore them. That's not defensible. Again, there's a lot there to disagree with but he did not say what you tried to represent him as saying.

Come on, Hap, disagreeing with him makes total sense, but at least correctly represent what he's saying. You say, "Intangibles and from the neck up 'the greatest we've EVER seen from a quarterback'"? But that's not what he said. He said, "Mac Jones has some stuff in him, some intangibles, that I think are maybe the greatest we've EVER seen from a quarterback. ... From neck up, I don't know if we've ever seen a rookie that is better." There's still a lot there to disagree with. But let's not distort the message as so many do on here before they attack some point. Let's also not pretend that ESPN is pushing this. It's just some guy on ESPN. They do explain it on the site, in exhaustive detail. And what it's useful for and what it's not so useful for. I agree that opaque stats make me wonder too. I still don't think much of ESPN's QB stat, QBR, for just that reason. And DVOA does say that the Bills opponents are weak. Could anyone disagree? It also has the Bills as the #1 team in DVOA. And DVOA adjusts for strength of opponent. Certainly Schatz was wrong about Allen. He has admitted it.

As the season passes, he starts to work longer passes. For a rookie he's doing really well. Most rookies start with a bit of a Captain Checkdown mentality, if they're smart. Jones isn't giving up the longer targets for short ones less and less. As the season passes, he starts to work longer passes. For a rookie he's doing really well. Most rookies start with a bit of a Captain Checkdown mentality, if they're smart. Jones isn't giving up the longer targets for short ones less and less.

Nonsense. He's smart, he's on target, he's thoughtful, and he's not a sock puppet for the NFL. He's damn good. Not that he avoids controversy. Why would anyone. Nobody on this board does. But he approaches them reasonably.

Of course they'd inquire. They inquired about Antonio Brown. Beane is a fiend for doing his due diligence. OBJ would have added something. The question is whether it would have been worth doing what they'd have to do to get him here and keep him here. 95% chance or higher that it would not be worth it. Yeah, I was shocked. You never see WRs in their first five or six days with a new team have problems in communication with their QB. It's always perfect from the first throw.

If they want him, which is very far from a sure thing.

There's something there, but the bottom line is that's not a question that should be applied to one guy. That's a question that should be applied to the OL, the RB and the play call, all rolled up together. The whole offense, really, with emphasis on the OL and the RB, with an FB thrown in if the team uses one, which we mostly do not.

Doesn't make sense. Garbage time runs increase your number of runs. They don't increase your YPA. More, know what his run stats are this year in the fourth quarter when up or down by eight points or more? He's 0 for 0 in those cases. Doesn't have a single run in that kind of situation. So, nonsense. https://www.footballdb.com/players/devin-singletary-singlde01/splits Defenses absolutely respect him. They play him with the same amounts of linemen that they have with Moss and Breida. That's a result of having Josh Allen in the backfield. Do they respect him as an elite back? No nor a top ten guy. But as a solid RB who can easily make you miss? Yeah, absolutely.

He is a decent third down back. He can catch. As for replacements, that's just flat-out nonsense.

Politely disagree. IMO he's already showing a bit of regression and more injury than we've seen from him before. And there are other concerns than those performance-related.

Agreed that some time soon he won't be worth $6 mill. But he signed a 4 year deal which includes next year. Sanders, though is on a one-year deal.

Excellent player. And a doofus and a distraction, and willing to increase the odds of missing time and increase the odds of infecting others on the team due to a personal preference. Sanders has showed just those same traits. Against tougher defenders deeper in the D. That doesn't downgrade Beasley, but Sanders has been excellent. I don't think McKenzie has showed the ability to perform as well, but this team features the slot WR. The scheme is built around it in some ways. IMO they can find somebody to give them 80% of what Beasley gets in some combo of McKenzie, Stevenson and someone else. Last year the best slot in the league, this year maybe top 5 to 8 and showing signs of aging decline and injury. We'll see, but IMO there's a decent to good chance he's not here next year.

This is silly. It's not Jones' responsibility to "prove himself" in his first ten games in the NFL. Of course he hasn't proved himself. Nobody could. What he has done is play extremely well, play with a ton of consistency for a rookie and far out-perform expectations. Also out-performed every one of those drought era Bills QBs in the first 10 games in the NFL.

Not even close. Well-hyped, yes. And they deserve it. 5-1 in the last six games, and have won four in a row, including Chargers and Browns. They're over-achieving.

Good point. Fletcher was terrific. Disagree strongly. Since his bout with Covid, maybe this is on target, but since year three he's been settling in around excellent. Not elite, but not that far away either.

Yup. Allen looks likely to become the best, but for right now, it's Kelly until Allen succeeds over time. Kemp is underrated. First team all-pro twice, Pro Bowl six years in a row and seven total out of nine years of more than 20 passes thrown. A very solid guy.

It's not that the board that's not sure about Edmunds. It's that he's got a small group of haters that want a Dick Butkus in the middle. They don't get it and won't be convinced. Having said that, Edmunds would be running up against Sam Cowart, Takeo, Shane Conlan and a bunch others before you even consider the real old-timers like Stratton. Way too early to have this conversation for him and for nearly everyone in OP's post, though Poyer and Hyde might be a pretty reasonable thought and Allen certainly looks like in a couple of years he'll be in there as well. Other than Hughes, nobody's been here more than four and a half years and the first year or two didn't look good. Too early.

Quick, we're the #1 defense. Change!!!

Yup. The Bills have shown over and over again that they're best and most productive running with 11 personnel and that means three receivers. Davis is our fourth-best WR. When they run four WRs he goes in, but they're a lot more successful going with three.

What, too few of them? This is genuinely a horrible take. A few? Absolutely. Far fewer than most teams? Yup. Even for a bad take, this stands out as exceptionally clueless. They're playing better than any other D in the league right now, and Edmunds inside has a major role in that standing. And so now we're playing incredible defense with 5 DBs so we ought to hurry and change? Yeah, makes total sense.

Good player, but far from great But a lot of his lack of TDs is that he isn't in the game when they're down at the goal line. Moss is in there, or nobody and if they run it, it's Allen. You can't just hold the raw numbers against him there. He's had 6 career TDs, but out of how many runs from inside the 5 yard line? He's not our hammer, nor will he ever be. But that doesn't mean he's not good.