Thurman#1

Yup, not teaching that would be dereliction of duty. You have to deal with the officials, their expectations and how the way they interpret the rules and determine penalties. This absolutely should be and is being taught in every locker room in the league, and college and high school as well. There's going to be contact between WR and CB. That's life. What can you do to stay within whatever is being treated by the authorities as legal? It's part of the job.

Watt played in eight games this year. And while they were better, no, they were not a totally different team, or defense, with him in there. Quick summary, in those eight games, Houston opponents averaged 23.5 PPG (19th, and by the way three -quarters of a touchdown more than we managed against them) and 362 yards (23rd). That's a justification and not a good one.

Are people saying he's another Tyrod? Jeez. Wacky. Tyrod was in his fifth year in the league when he got here. It's a totally different situation from Allen, who's been thrown into the deep end early. And yeah, Tyrod was a game manager who could seriously run the ball. Allen can run the ball, though not as well as Tyrod. That's most of the similarities from where I sit. Good post.

Yes. The Texans were the 28th rated defense this year. 19th in points. They weren't good.

Nonsense. Just as a quick example, look at the first SB team. Their top three WRs were Andre Reed (945 yards, 13th in the league, and 8 TDs) , Lofton getting 712 yards (42nd) and Don Beebe racking up 221. Don Smith also managed 221. Even at his age, Lofton was still probably a better deep threat than Brown but not as good on short routes. The young Lofton, yeah, he unquestionably plays over Brown in any situation, but the 34 year-old? They'd have found spots for him, for sure, but it's not obvious that he was better at that point at all, though as I say, he was a better deep threat. The next year Lofton got up to about what Brown managed this year. Andre had an unassailably great year of 1113 yards and 10 TDs, and Lofton had 1072, with 8TDs. That's a great year, and that year beats out Brown, I'd say. Beebe was next with 414. With almost exactly the same number of passes thrown by the QBs that year as this year. And while I don't mean to insult Josh Allen, Andre and Lofton had a bit of an advantage with Jim Kelly throwing to them and completing 63.3%, 64.1%, 58.2% and 61.3% in those four SB years with an OL that was sensational and a hall of fame running back. Beasley would have started. Brown might easily have started half of those year or more. Though Andre was certainly the best of the lot. 1992, Andre had 913 yards, 3TDs, Lofton had 786 and 6 TDs, and Beebe had 554. 1993, Andre had 854 yards and 6 TDs, Bill Brooks had 714 and 5 TDs and Beebe had 504 and 3 TDs. There's a very strong argument that Brown is better than Bill Brooks - though Brooks was very good and I like him a lot. A pro's pro. Yeah, the rules made passing easier back then. But people look back through rose-colored glasses at that team. Andre was terrific, certainly better than anybody on this team, but after that, we had a great deep threat in Lofton at age 34, 35 and 36, Brooks and Beebe. And Lofton wasn't getting a lot done in terms of short-area quickness. And Brown is a great deep threat. Think of how many times we've seen him open long and overthrown this year. But in any case, saying that our current guys wouldn't have started on a team that made the Super Bowl four years in a row (and I believe that's wrong, because Beasley probably starts in the slot on both teams) is saying pretty good things about our group. Peep. Pass rusher and replacement LB for Alexander. But yeah you're right, the defense was absolutely excellent this year. And maybe a CB as well.

We don't need tall. We need good. If we get someone good, who's also tall, that'd great. But the tall part would be a great bonus, not an absolute necessity. My guess is they sign a solid vet who's a bit tall so we can use him as a chess piece in different designs. But plenty of tall guys can't beat the press consistently. Good CBs can defense tall. Get in his way, nudge him, restrict him. Most tall guys - not all, but most - aren't as quick or as able to find space as smaller guys. Again, it'd be good if we can find a tall guy who's also good. Maybe Duke can even become that guy as he develops. But the whole "we need a tall guy" nonsense is what got us James Hardy, may he R.I.P.

Again, we've got a #1 receiver in John Brown. He's probably around the 20th best receiver in the league this year, and that's a #1. As for a "true #1," (which generally means a guy in the top 6 or 7 best in the league), how many SB-winning teams in the last decade or so have had one? Almost none. We don't need a true #1. We need an upgrade at the #3, and hopefully a bit more strong depth as well. If the guy we get eventually turns out to be as good as John Brown, that'd be fantastic. If he's even better, another Julio Jones, or an Antonio Brown without issues or a young AJ Green, great. But it's not necessary. If it were necessary, that would be awful because it's extremely difficult to come up with guys that good and we're very unlikely to manage it drafting where we are. But luckily, it's not necessary. What's necessary is another good WR, another option teams have to respect. As for your comments on the OL, yup, you make sense here. Also an LB. Above all, a pass rusher. And probably another CB as well, and a hammer at RB would go down well also.

Nah. It isn't him that leaves too many points off the board. It's the offense. Does he deserve a share of the blame? Sure. But he's a second-year guy. If he's still looking the same as he does now in another couple of years, it'll be time to wonder if he's not going to be the guy. This early, though, it's par for the course. A few QBs have really quick starts, and deserve all the kudos they get. Most take time to develop.

Nice! He deserves to be treated that way. A great guy, a great player and a great Bill.

I do want to say that I like Josh Allen. It might sound like I don't, but I do. I'm just noting how many out there will not hear anything negative about him. He's not there yet, but he really does seem to be improving. I'm far from convinced, but I think things look good and my guess at this point is that he'll continue improving. I'm hoping it will be enough. And while he certainly deserves his share of the blame, for a second-year guy I thought he played pretty damn well. But there are a lot of people on here who will not hear anything bad about him. I love that he put the whole thing on his shoulders. That's a move a great leader makes. He absolutely does not deserve all the blame, but he does deserve some. And people who blame him will be accused of not understanding who is really responsible..

I'm kind of disappointed that some of you are blaming lower-ranked candidates as the fall guy for this loss. Everybody knows that the higher-ranked chumps listed here should be slapped with the scapegoat label. There's an order to all this. There's a long tradition to scapegoating that needs to be respected. There's a system ... a way things are done ... and when you're looking for a patsy to blame there's an order in which Bills fans have a long long-established modus operandi for doing so. So when you're on the way to the barn to grab your pitchforks and torches, first you need to figure out who is the easiest to blame. With that in mind, here is the official list of who to scapegoat, in a strict order which comes from long tradition and thus should not be broken. The top guys are the ones you should scapegoat. They make excellent patsies and ALMOST CERTAINLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WHOLE THING Tier 1) The officials. Always. Forever. Malign them. Revile them. Point the finger. You'll get likes up the wazoo. 2) The mysterious abetters of the officials. New York. Guys in black. The black helicopters that provide the technical support. Sure, you can't see them. But we all know. 3) The Illuminati. 'Cuz, duh! 4) The OC. This should be obvious. When plays work, it's the players. When plays fail, it's the OC. One of our Bills traditions that has aged like fine wine. IT'S PROBABLY THEIR FAULT Tier 5) Ernie Adams. Belichick's dirty tricks guy. Of course. No need to look further, really. He's behind everything. 6) God. Hey, the ball doesn't bounce that way for other teams. 7) Luck. (Not Andrew Luck, but instead the laws of chance) It's a well-known fact. Even nature and the laws of probability hate us. 8 Lee Smith. It's a rule. It's usually him, even if he was on the bench. We don't need a reason. GO AHEAD AND BLAME THEM Tier 9) The rest of the coaching staff. Because it couldn't be the players that we like. 10) Star Lotulelei. Again, nobody needs a reason once they've looked at his salary. The Bills love him and say he's doing a great job, but go ahead and vilify him mercilessly. 11) The GM and the personnel staff. Again, it couldn't be the players we like, and it has to be somebody, and Beane is from Carolina and just oozes slickness. How can you not hate the guy? He deserves all of the blame that's left after the ten choices above, and his staff as well. 12) Hauschka. Sure he didn't miss any kicks today, but he's in on the conspiracy and he would have. YES, THEY HAD A LOT TO DO WITH IT TOO Tier 13) John Brown (It's his own fault he's not 6'3") 14) Trent Murphy. He's not liked in fan circles. Blaming him will only draw agreement. Kick him around. 15) Whoever has held Duke Williams back. It had to be someone. Obviously. Besides the Illuminati and the Knights Templar. 16) Al Qaeda. Of course. 17) Mitch Morse. High salary and not very often mentioned. That makes him hateable and thus available for angry tirades. SHOULD BE BLAMED ONLY IN LAST GASP DESPERATION Tier 18) The rest of the players. They're the popular ones, and shouldn't be blamed for anything. SHOULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR ANY REASON Tier 19) Josh Allen. Because let's face it, if he's not good enough, we're screwed for a long time. So we must avoid talking about it if he has problems. As you know, I'm not making anything up here. This is well-established as the official Buffalo Bills Pecking Order for Scapegoats. The further up the list you go, the more love you'll get if you brandish your pitchforks and blame the hell out of them. Looking for someone to put in the frame? Pin it on these folks in this order and you'll be going along with history and tradition.

No. That's the basic answer. No. As for your breakdown of wins and losses, the Dallas and Pittsburgh wins were good ones and they played right with the Pats and the Ravens. Were they good enough to break through against the absolute best in the league? No. But I don't think too many people thought they should have been listed among the top five or six. If you did think that, it's on your judgment of what they were, not on whether the Bills the Bills were over-estimated.

Yeah, I absolutely LOVED this!!!!! Wanted it probably more than I wanted a win against Houston.

We've got a #1 in John Brown. Yeah, we need a major upgrade at #3, and if he is as good as Brown, that would be terrific.

I don't agree. I've seen a pretty fair amount of games turn at halftime after early domination. I think if you go back and look at it, you will think of a bunch yourself. This wasn't so much Billsy, IMO as it was a team - the offense in particular - just not being good enough. I agree it's on nearly everyone, though. I just never saw this team as a top five or six group. In talent, I thought they were just about where they ended up, maybe 10th to 12th in the league, damn good on defense and sputtery and inconsistent on offense. I was really hopeful about this game. But I didn't think they had a chance at being competitive for a title this year. They just aren't there yet.

Again, if you go exactly by the rulebook, there's holding every play and pass interference on most if not all pass plays. The rulebook is applied with discretion. IMO this has happened a dozen times this year, minimum, and each time was treated as giving it up, and nobody said a word. I'm not willing to go looking through the whole year for it, about a minor argument. And this is a minor argument. And you'd have to look because when it's happened before, the ref simply grabbed the ball, blew the whistle and marched the ball to the 25 and nobody said a damn thing. I could be wrong, but I know that early in the year several times I thought, "Isn't that a live ball?" And it never was. And so I got it that the refs weren't enforcing that rule very strictly. The thing that made this play different is that the ref dodged the ball. The Bills saw that and kept running. That's what they're taught, I think is if you're not sure keep running till you hear whistles. If the refs are going to make this call, do it early in the year so everyone knows you're serious. The last thing you do is not apply it during the season and then during the playoff suddenly break the trend and apply it. He tossed the ball to the ref and walked away. No way this could have been a fake. If a fake happened, yeah, I suspect at that point the refs would call it by the book and if no whistle was blown at any point, the defenses would keep running. But the play would've been called based on whether the whistle was blown.

What killed me was the play before, 2nd and 9, where Allen had Beasley wide open but threw it short and didn't give him a chance at it. Beasley was on the 39 and had a great chance to probably make the first down if the ball hits him in stride. He could at least have made the 35 or so even if the defender makes a great play to prevent the first down, making it 3rd and maybe two. And I don't think that defender makes the play. He was well inside of Beasley. That would probably have been the ballgame. Anyway, I just went back and listened and Pereira didn't say that was a bogus call. Didn't say anything like that, actually. The only comment by anybody on whether it was a deserved call was when someone said, "Think it might be an illegal blindside block, a lineman is coming back towards that goal line, initiating force with the shoulder." I thought it was Pereira, but whoever it was, it wasn't Booger or Tessitore. At least on the broadcast, that was all that was said about it.

Yeah? Giving yourself up is in the rulebook, so your assertion is questionable. But say you're right ... by rule there's holding and pass interference on every single play. The rules are selectively enforced, and that's a good thing. My impression is we've seen that kind of thing before this season and the refs just normally accept it. I guess I could be wrong about that, but guys are routinely so very casual about this that I just don't think it's exceptional.

While I do agree with several points in the article, particularly the clock management at the end of the half when they call a run with 30 seconds left and certainly going for it on 4th and 27, I don't think it's wrong to run Gore. We constantly hear on here how they pass too much, and how they need to run more to take the burden off Allen. And then when they do that and it doesn't work you hear the opposite. And then we hear others saying we run too much and need to put it in Allen's hands ... but when they do that and it doesn't work, then again it was a bad play call. As long as they pass sometimes with Gore in there so it isn't a giveaway that when he's in there it means a run is coming, I don't mind them running him sometimes. Make a hole and he does the job. He does need to work on clock management. I'd expect him to realize that in his review of the game. I hope we'll see some changes. But this isn't a dynamic offense - it doesn't have the personnel or the experience just yet - and that's going to come out sometimes.

... is that you just don't get it.

No, it was hard to understand because no quotation marks were used, but everything from "Morse has named us," and on down was the (perhaps overcaffeinated or just plain hyper) Hapless. But hey, of course he's a bit giddy. Me too, I'm going nuts. This year is the first since 2004 when the Bills looked like they had a chance not just to make the playoffs but to make a real impact there. In 2017, I thought it was a really nice feel-good story about Kyle but it was obvious that teams would be thrilled if seeds lined up so that they played the Bills. I didn't think for a minute that they were a good enough team to do any real damage there. This year just feels different. I don't see them making the Super Bowl. They're just not good enough. But they're legitimately good.

Looked to me less like simplifying and more like finding the group of guys that had the best synchronicity and talent level, and that at the same time stressed the defense more by giving them less time.

The Ravens, maybe? I know, I know, the reference is not just asking who's the best team in football. But what is it exactly? The most dangerous wild card team? Most dangerous team to play wild card weekend? Assuming it's wild card teams only, I agree with the folks above picking Tennessee. I think teams would rather see the Bills coming than either the Titans or Seattle. And would probably rather see the Eagles (throwing them in even though they're not wild cards) or Texans than us. IMO next year's going to be our year.

There are no football-related reasons. If an owner didn't want to spend the money on players at all ... just wanted to put it as a profit to the team, he could just not roll over the money. I believe it's been done but it's extremely infrequent. If you want to be as competitive as possible, you always roll it over. Fans get it and don't appreciate what it means.

No. If signed this year, the signing bonus would be paid this year. That changes how the amortization works. The first fraction would be paid this year if signed this year. That means that the year the last fraction is paid would be a year earlier. It also changes leverage. Depending on how well a player is playing next year - or even how he plays in the playoff game(s) - he might easily feel more or less pressure to sign a contract at that time than he does now. So the contract's terms could change between now and next year, particularly if they wait till during the season to sign a re-negotiation. Yup. Good point.