Thurman#1

Exceptional!! Great job, fans, and great job, Josh.

So, just like last week, then? And losing to KC wasn't pooping the bed. It was losing to probably the best team in football after keeping it very close. My guess: We win. Nah. The Bills played well against a very tough Pittsburgh defense, and Allen was absolutely a star against Dallas.

Yes, but look at what the Jets are starting with. Still, you're right that this is a good thing for them. Miami will have $35M. I wouldn't call that a ton, myself, though it is indeed well above average for next year.

Sigh. I can only shake my head and walk away.

Not only have I never heard of him, I haven't even heard the name. Living in Japan really isolates me in many ways but I read about half the Uncut and Mojo magazines that get published. Well, there are worse things than being out of it. Me likey some Prince, though, so I should give him a try. EDIT: the Blinding Light video above is really nice. Good toonz.

Maybe. They're 4th next year in available cap space, and next year will be a terrific year for picking up FAs at low prices, because there will be very little cap money available for most teams. I'd take the over on .499, that's for sure. My best guess (far too early, of course) would be 8-8 or 9-7. I do expect real improvement. You're right that it wasn't only losing Brady that killed them. Their optouts hurt a lot and they really had sold out to win during their window. But they will recover quickly, and the optouts will really help, in that they had very little space left under the cap before the optouts, and now they're 4th highest in the league in present cap space, and can roll over $25M, which will help a ton next year.

Harry and Michel? Not so much. This is Harry's second year and he's better, and Michel is one of the best recieving backs in the league. Neither is a great draft bargain or anything at #31 and #32, but both are good players. But he hasn't had enough hits lately, no doubt.

I agree without Brady he doesn't have even close to his current legacy. But he's been pretty good at evaluating talent. Less so the last few years, but part of that is trading draft picks for FAs lately. Three first round picks the last five years. It's harder to do a great job drafting when you're in the last 20s nearly every year. Still, he hasn't done well the past 3 or 4 years.

You need to check the dictionary on the meaning of the word "statistic," 'cause what you've got there ain't one, it's an opinion. Not a wildly unreasonable one, but it's in no way a statistic.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise. I didn't listen much this week, so maybe you're right that the grandma stuff is overdone, but I felt the 2016 received tough coverage for very good reason. Or tough coverage for Buffalo, anyway. Compared to what most big city teams get, Sully and Bucky were straightforward, demanding but still polite. They were fine. If things have gotten mushier, IMO it's much about the 2016 team continuing a long period of bad to mediocre football and this team having a history of going through a rebuild and since then improving consistently. When you're not a good team you get more pointed questions, and that's as it should be.

IMO they then lose to the Football Team and go 1 - 1 against the Cowpats. Agreed that we couldn't stop the run. Disagree that was a coaching problem. It was much more a "their Olsons outweighed our DLs by about 40 pounds per person and only Bruce could still win despite that" problem.

Interesting. Thanks. I knew he was doing well, it's interesting to hear they think it's that well.

I feel like I've seen it pretty often. A reasonable move as long as the next few yards are not important, and in this case they weren't. I wouldn't consider it so much a savvy play as just a way to cut down on wear and tear. He's a crucial part of our offense. Makes sense.

They did a couple of years ago after the season and he's gotten better, though still not great. His first two years he was 1 for 10. Last year 2 for 5 which is pretty close to average. (Last year 37% of all NFL challenges succeeded). This year 0 for 2 so far, which is bad but also incomplete and probably statistically insignificant with too small a sample.

Davis had no way to know. He wasn't looking at his foot or anywhere close, and even if he was he couldn't have seen underneath the foot to see exactly which part of his foot had been down. About all he could've said was, "Maybe. If I was out it wasn't by much, but dunno, really."

This. Live, it looked like he was out. Nobody questioned it till after they'd lost the chance.

I went to college in that area. Long time ago. Used to get the Bills games usually. Pretty much never been back, though. Good luck.

No, that was not a pre-COVID change. They announced it on April 1st, well about a week after the Olympics had been cancelled because of COVID worries, and three days after the stimulus bill was signed into law.

LBs play better when the system around them is working. Everybody does, really. Our defensive system has been limping into some kind of shape the past three weeks or so.

Some of them do. Others don't. I'm not referring to you, Major, but it cracks me up how some people operate here. They set a bar and when the bar is topped, there's an excuse why that doesn't count. This was absolutely a signature win. But though Seattle was thought of by pretty much everyone as a top three team and by many as the best in football, for some it won't count. You'll ask them why and they'll throw nonsense up in the air in vast dustclouds, but the real answer deep in their hearts is that the Bills only beat a team that was so bad that they could be beaten by the Buffalo Bills, and therefore couldn't have been much good. Yes, that's circular logic and logically eliminates the possibility of a signature win. But it's what's in their hearts.

We rushed four and disguised coverages a lot today.

Totally disagree. They've lost in big games before. They've never played scared. They've played conservative a few times. Never scared.

IMO, this is such a tiny deal. One half of a sentence in a long article. And it didn't even say early in the game, he could've meant early in the week. It's not an especially well-written sentence, but it's a miniscule bit of the article.

An "admitted Bills hater"? Um, no he is not.

That's really not true. Top QBs like the rest, like all humans really, have ups and downs. Look at Mahomes against the Raiders this year. He barely got above 50%, and that is not the Mahomes we're used to seeing. It's not that top QBs don't need excuses. It's that top QBs, top players, top performers in anything, don't use excuses. And Josh Allen hasn't. Doesn't mean we can't look at the ups and downs and speculate what's behind them. It's a good point that the weather's been bad. I really hadn't put that together. But it's true. Having said that, the weather IMO isn't the main part of the problem, though it surely had some effect. The main problem is simply that in the cycle of football when you're doing well, people will defense you differently till you prove you can hande it. They're doing that to Allen and he's still playing very well but short passes don't look as transcendently awesome as what he was able to do against the defenses he faced the first four weeks. One of Allen's problems has been consistency. Teams are going to force him to try to maintain drives through a lot of plays, and to be successful at that, he'll need consistency at a very high level.