Thurman#1

I don't think any but a very few say he was terrible the last two years. He was pretty bad the first year but there's no way to say that about last year. Last year he was decent. If he'd frozen there, he wouldn't have lasted more than about four years in Buffalo. He wasn't good, but he was OK, and he really did progress during the year. That Pats game was a massive milestone, he was awful, and he took that to heart and simply looked a lot better afterwards. When the occasional person does say he was terrible the last two years, they're being lazy.

The whole "nobody wants to play them" thing applies to the lower-ranked teams in each conference. You don't hear it about the Chiefs or the Bills because it's already so wildly obvious that nobody wants to play the two best teams.

That is a great quote. But this isn't "all of a sudden." That's nonsense. Pretty much everyone has known this team is absolutely a Super Bowl contender for weeks now.

Even if we'd have lost yesterday because of sitting our guys, I'd have absolutely loved the chance to play Miami. We should beat Indy, but Miami would have been a much easier opponent. I hear you. It's an interesting argument, but I don't think the Steelers are saying to themselves, "Gosh, the Browns beat us just last week. Sure, we weren't playing Roethlisberger or many of our other best guys, but I don't have much confidence we can beat the Browns because of what happened the other day." And I don't think the Browns feel any better about beating the Steelers next week because of what happened last week. Do you?

I didn't mention preseason. What are you talking about? Do you think that teams feel it's a necessity to play all their starters all game long in the preseason? This makes no sense. That's fine that you were in a war zone. If you were in the military I thank you for your service, but like the preseason it has nothing to do with this discussion. It's all risk and reward. You play those ratios smart if you want to consistently maximize your chances. We took more of a risk than we had to, for what turned out to be zero reward. Pittsburgh lost, which it always seemed likely to do. Luckily, we didn't have any major injuries result. That's good luck. The Bucs did not get so lucky, with Mike Evans out for at least a week and maybe more. That could have a huge impact on their playoff fate. Thank goodness we didn't suffer such bad luck, but we could have, and for what now turns out to have been zero gain, it was taking too much of a risk. In any case, thank goodness it worked out OK.

No, there wasn't. Scoring quickly is not a weakness. They weren't just the highest scorers, they scored 51 points more than the 5th highest scorers. A low time of possession wasn't a weakness, it was a side effect of their extreme productivity. And Kelly early in his career was plenty mobile. No, he wasn't an antelope, but he could move decently. Lost that in the last two or three years and that's how people remember him, but he could run when he had to and evaded sacks well. And not being special (the TEs) isn't a weakness. We got 9 TDs out of the TEs in 1990, for instance. And over 500 yards and excellent blocking, in a season when the best TE in the league managed 747 yards. McKeller was 7th in the league for yards among TEs. That's not a weakness. Certainly not an extreme strength either, but far from a weakness.

Yup. Still, this offense is terrific.

Looks like a creditable report. But I'll believe it when I see it.

Getting excited is fine. Thinking you know who you'll play even if you do win is just defective thinking. The OP, not you.

Unfounded assumptions all the way, One game against Indy is all we know.

Announcer: "Bills Mafia is thrilled to come into this game having won the #2 seed due to winning their game against Miami. Of course, they would have won it anyway, as the Browns beat the Steelers, but the Bills are proud to have won it themselves. And here's the first snap of the game, and Barkley takes the ball and hands off to Moss. Barkley looked confident and smooth on that handoff, losing Allen may not hurt this team too much." Though I certainly hope this is in no way predictive, it could happen. You're certainly right that the game isn't meaningless, but there's nowhere near enough reward to winning it as there is risk. And there's no particular reason to think that playing replacements from the beginning or after a series or two would in any way take away from their momentum. We've been really lucky with the injuries late, after being really hamstrung by them earlier in the year. We need to stay healthy. Whatever happens I just hope they stay healthy. If I were a betting man, I'd bet they do just what they did last year.

It's anything but insane. It's completely sensible. That's why Pittsburgh is doing it. It's simple risk/reward. The same risk as usual but for much less reward. And your week 1 comparison is utter nonsense. The reward is different. The risk is the same, but the reward is different early. The biggest advantage they could possibly get is the possibility of a home game for the second game, and even that would only happen if the Steelers win this week behind Mason Rudolph and then both the Steelers and Bills win the first playoff game. The odds are pretty decent that at least one of those three events won't come true, particularly the Steelers winning today. And the odds of the Bills winning that first playoff game would be gravely decreased by a crucial injury or two. Correct. And that includes the teams that sit the starters. That's not fear. It's sense. It's playing the odds. It's being smart. It's heeding what the risk/reward ratio tells you.

Yeah, I'd expect them to do just as they did last year, play 'em for a series or two. I wouldn't even do that, but I'm not the coach.

It is an interesting stat, but it doesn't tell the whole story. That's only true if by "rested," you mean that they didn't play a single play. That was Flacco. But three of the others played but didn't play much. That's four out of ten SB winners. And plenty of the other SB winners might easily have been playing for a week off, which we aren't.

This. Precisely. So, you figure the reason we lost to the Texans was because we rested the starters? That doesn't hold up in any way. If anything we came into that Houston game on fire. In no way were we stale or rusty. They just weren't good enough. This year, they are.

It isn't fear of injury. That's just spin. Taking care and being fearful are not the same thing. It's simply a matter of the risk/reward ratio. What you gain here if you play them all game is far less than what you are risking. That's correct, anytime a player steps on the field they risk injury. But no, not warmups, not any significant chance. Yes, it's happened, it's happened from walking on a rubber mat, but you don't keep guys off mats. With relatively little to gain, you keep them out of dangerous situations, and games are by far the most dangerous situations guys face. How would we feel if, say, Diggs gets injured and is out for the season and the Browns win, which is the likely ending of that game anyway? Or if the Steelers win and the Bills lose, and then someone beats the Steelers in Wild Card weekend. Winning tomorrow would affect only the home stadium of the Divisional Weekend, and matchups if there are some upsets, which can't be planned for anyway. It's much more important to work on being healthy and rested, which will affect every game the Bills play in the playoffs this year.

Appreciate your kindness. As to my point, it's just the obvious. QBs aren't responsible for wins or losses. Teams are. Was Rob Johnson responsible for the loss in the Music City Miscarriage of Justice? Is a QB whose team wins 7 - 0 with the score coming on a pick-six responsible for the win? No. Everyone is. Even when the QB plays lights out, he doesn't get the win. If his OL hadn't blocked well, if his receivers hadn't got open and made the catches, if his defense hadn't held the other team to that amount of points and if the STs hadn't done a great job (as the Bills STs have this year), he doesn't get the win. And yet over and over again people want to use this stat to show things about the QB. Doesn't make sense in any way. If you want to show things about Allen, look at how well he himself played. Nobody should say something like, "last second kick, it's a 35 yarder for the Fins, and the Bills line up to block it, an LBs sneaks through the line, it's blocked ... and Josh Allen wins the game, conclusively proving Josh Allen is a winner." That's what you do when you use wins as a QB stat. It really is that simple. Wins is NOT a QB stat. It is a team stat. The QB is part of the team, so he gets his share of the credit/blame, but no more. In any case, again, thanks for your consideration and kindness. It is greatly appreciated.

I was curious about your assertion that he can't throw anywhere but the middle of the field, so I went and checked. Just not true. https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/charts/player/season/lamar-jackson/JAC323395/2020/all/qb-grid Below average to the left flat, awful beyond twenty yards on the right side, but everywhere else he's at least average. If anyone can do a good job shutting him down, it's McDermott. But how much effort will he put in to stop them throwing? My guess is that they will be worrying more about the run game.

They did look physical in those two games. But I think they had in both games advantages that allowed them to leave large areas of the field relatively unprotected against the pass and to concentrate hard on the run. The Niners without Garoppolo are not much of an air threat, and the Steelers had had very little long-distance success in the weeks before our game. We looked like we were confident we didn't have to worry too much about Roethlisberger going long. Do you think playing the Ravens you have a similar automatic scheme advantage in being able to not worry about the long ball? That's a real question, I don't know the answer, but my personal guess is that while Lamar's throwing isn't nearly where it needs to be, that he's still good enough that they need to protect long, and they need to worry about him attacking outside. Will the Bills be able to be so physical when they have to protect every yard of the field? My guess is no. If they play the Ravens and get a real early lead, it should be academic, as the Ravens don't seem able to come back well. But if the Ravens get ahead early, I would really worry.

Nearly anything by the godlike band Low. Wait, mellow, but cheerful? I'll go with the crooners, instead. Der Bingle. Dino!! Oughta hold up well at the Ralph in January. We know he loves Sinatra, so ... Nancy!!!!

Just wanted to point out that while Rayray McCloud ran 4.53 at the combine, he ran as fast as 4.44 elsewhere. He can fly. http://draftscout.com/dsprofile.php?PlayerId=1002683&DraftYear=2018

We want the two seed. But we want a rested healthy team much much more. Agreed the Ravens would be one of the toughest matchups. Health is far far more important for us than matchups. Try to imagine this coach's pre-game talk: "Thank goodness we avoided facing Baltimore. Great win, fellas. Of course, now that Allen's out for the next three weeks with a knee tweak he got so we could avoid Baltimore, we should be fine with Barkley the next three weeks. Allen will be back for the Super Bowl." There's no team we need to avoid in the sense that we can't play them with a good chance to win. ... IF ... we're healthy.

For the billionth time, wins is not a QB stat. It's a team stat. Josh Allen hasn't beaten anybody. The Buffalo Bills have beaten some teams with Josh Allen playing quarterback. You used Pro Football Reference to gather your stats. They will tell you the same thing. You used their stat "QBRec" to gather your data, right? Well, go to the page for Allen or any other quarterback, and check the QBRec. Now go to the top of the table and click on the actual letters "QBRec." Hell, you don't even have to click. Just put the cursor on the letters. Doing that will show you the actual name of that stat ... ... which is "Team record in games started by this quarterback (regular season)."

No football related excuse for him missing his kids birthdays? So, you know the Patriots practice schedules? You know the various travel problems he might have encountered getting from his place to his kids place? You know whether he might have a relative at home with a pre-existing health condition of some kind, and what doctors might have told him about whether he could possibly catch the new strain even though he's had the old one? Sorry, man, assuming there's no reason for him to miss an event when all the info you have is their game schedules, is acting on info that goes way way beyond incomplete. And the thing about grown men is that some care what they wear and some don't and when you pick through any list of people who are wildly successful, you'll find plenty of both. I didn't like the guy much early in his career either. But in New England he's really bought into their attempt to win through team-first ball and attitude. I'm a lot happier to see him losing there than winning, and his throwing has gone to hell, but he's been a good guy there from what I can see.

Reading through it, it says that it was a tough year for him and that going through it made him more resilient. What in the world is wrong with a word of anything he said? Nothing. He's not throwing anyone under the bus, he's not blaming anyone else. He's just saying it's been a tough year. Fair enough you don't want him near us. I don't either unless they fix his mechanics somehow. But what he said there was all just fine.