Thurman#1

Nah. I mean, granted, the reactions are always over the top after a bad loss. That's not just a Bills fan thing, it's a human thing. Every team's fans do it. But no, these reactions are simply NOT over the top. They aren't. Saying we should look for another QB, that would be over the top. Saying this shows that Allen isn't very good, that would be over the top. But saying this was an absolutely awful game by Allen ... that's right on target. In the bullseye. It's anything but psychotic. It makes total sense. It's seeing it the way it is. I'm sure there are a few posts that are over the top. There are always a few nuts and flakes out there. Most of this reaction is completely legitimate.

Four catches last week. Did I miss Dorsey trying to knock the ball out of his hands?

If I remember correctly their answers were a lot more complex and multi-faceted than "we're not changing." He should continue to trust his arm. He just should make better decisions at a higher rate. He's doubtless aware of this.

Why was he trying to make those throws, you ask? Because sometimes people make bad decisions. You may not like to hear it, but that's the correct answer. He felt the need to play hero ball because he had an awful game. Absolutely awful game by Josh, and he'd tell you the same thing, in fact he already has. Did the run game let us down a bit? Yeah. But they were fairly unsuccessful against a team that is really really good against the run. But did the run game turn the ball over four times? Nope. That was Allen having an absolutely horrendous game. Was Allen the only one to not play that well? Nope, but he was the only one who had an absolutely awful game. The only one responsible for four turnovers. Yup, it's a team game. Anyone who says Josh Allen is 0-1 is dead wrong and just doesn't get it. The Bills are who went 0-1. But saying that Josh Allen was primarily responsible for the Bills losing that game only shows you're seeing things correctly. He was. We can't say that often about his Bills tenure. He's generally excellent. But this was horrific. And dude, that last paragraph is flat-out ridiculous. You correctly point out that the Jets are a terrific defense but then say therefore having your QB throw all game must be wrong is dumb, and that the run game is to blame? Um, what? That has absolutely no logic. What production they had last weekend came mostly from the pass game, not the run game. But it came when Allen took the short quick throws. When he went with the game plan, the pass game was fairly productive. Certainly more so than the run game. Which means they had a decent game plan. Destroyed by the four turnovers. And the INTs were passes thrown to the absolute wrong guy. Just horrible decisions. And Allen knows it.

He's not leaving town if people blame him and bash him for games that he knows were crapfests by him. And that game was absolutely a crapfest by Allen. And he knows it. He's made that very very clear. Blaming the coaches says more about you and your grasp on reality than it does about Allen or the coaches. Yes, he's a great quarterback. He's a great quarterback who had an awful awful game. McDermott is fine. Still has some things to prove, but he's an excellent head coach.

This is just dumb. I mean, you can kid yourself if you need to. The facts are that if they'd gone for it they might have succeeded. Or they might have failed. But we had a bad game running the ball and that's often the case against this Jets defense. What they did absolutely was not factually wrong, it just simply was not.. Fair enough to have the opinion it was wrong, but pretending you know better is nonsense. It was very defensible. Especially in an away game against a team that had just lost it's only good QB and looked like it would have a ton of trouble scoring points.

This is what it looked like to me. Just a really bad game. But I do think it's a legit concern that he doesn't lean into the work in the offseason these days the way he used to in his first few years. He's always going to be really good. But he still needs to make some changes. Folks assume it's impossible. It's not. But it's also not easy at all.

Last year, under Dorsey, Josh threw 14 INTs. Fourteen. Of course, in 2021, Daboll's last year, Josh threw 15 INTs. Fifteen. IMO the Daboll thing is overblown. There is still a lot for Dorsey to prove, but Josh's arm injury last year probably had as much to do with his problems as Dorsey did, and his inability to find a good slot after Crowder was almost immediately injured.

We don't tell you we care because it would make us so vulnerable.

Yup. This is it. "When you study the tape you also become completely aware of the turn-downs ... the decisions he didn't make, the things he said no to when working progressions and surveying the field. "He stopped taking profits. He did a little early. And sometimes throughout the game. But he stopped taking profits, which is not OK against a good disciplined defense like the Jets." "We all wanted 'easy button' throws and quick passes for Josh Allen. They were there for him all night long and he took them sometimes. But the times he said no were pretty inexplicable. The tape doesn't lie. "I know there are some out there that want to point fingers at Ken Dorsey. People want to point fingers at the offensive line, point fingers at weapons. It was 17 that was the problem, folks. "Now, were there some moments when the offensive line and weapons and Ken Dorsey could have been better? Sure. "But all those things are way down the pecking order when it comes to things that went wrong offensively on Monday night."

You're right. I NEVER see teams breaking long runs once a year or more against other teams. It's only the Bills. And pretty much everybody else. Over the course of a whole season, teams are likely to allow one or two. I took a quick look for the Niners and the Jets last year, two terrific defenses SEA had a 50 yarder against SF. SEA also had a 60 (Walker) yarder against the Jets. This stuff happens. Yup. It's part of the cost of letting Edmunds go. He was excellent at lining them up correctly, and they don't have anyone else right now with much experience at doing so. Likely they'll get better at this as the season goes along.

This. And people would say, "What the hell is wrong with McD? He obviously isn't able to handle play-calling as well as HCing, and this is the proof. This guy needs to be fired." People unwilling to blame the players sometimes don't seem to want to change their minds.

Gabe doesn't need to bounce back. He had a damn good year last year, even though injuries greatly affected him in three or four games next year. And Good Lord, you're so desperate to spin things badly that you're willing to simply be completely wrong. You say Gabe "has more 0/1 catch games than big games," and that is complete and utter nonsense. He had zero games with zero catches and one game with one catch, and several big games despite the injury. Four games over 70 yards, for instance. The way you present Sherfield's stats shows you're not interested in the facts, you're far more interested in presenting things so they fit your narrative, both with your dumb Gabe Davis stats (has more. Sherfield already broke out. Last year. I mean, you're not wrong when you say he has 67 receptions in 5 years. But you somehow left out the fact that last year he had 30 receptions and 417 yards. And he was that productive when he'd only played 58% of their snaps. He already broke out. All he has to do is keep improving. And plenty of players keep improving in their sixth years, particularly guys who greatly stepped it up with more opportunity than they'd had the year before. James Harrison for one, though few become stars as Harrison did. But nobody expects Sherfield to be a star. Just a good solid player. Jimmy Smith is another late developer. Brandon Graham. Lorenzo Alexander. AJ Bouye. They're around. Crowder? Crowder is one of the guys you're using to show guys who we can't upgrade from? McKenzie? Good Lord, dude, your desperation is showing. Yup. It's very early and he's a rookie. It's hard to imagine them not using him quite a bit as the year goes along and he catches on.

The Raiders going to throw away their $9M signing bonus after one game? Bills going to take on $6M guaranteed this year? I like Renfrow. This wouldn't work. Nonsense. If this was true, we'd suck a lot more than we do and we have. This team was 13-3 last year. And this year's roster is comparable, perhaps even better. Yeah, it was a bad game. Blowing off steam is understandable. But do you really think Allen's going to be that bad every week? And for the eight billionth time, he's a pretty good drafter for where he's drafting. Not great. But solid.

You're kidding yourself about what Diggs thinks. And if your respect for him is new-found, it's come around way too late.

I did see it. And it doesn't do anything for your argument. The fact that a guy on the internet doesn't think they called them with situational awareness isn't a strong argument. And see my point that situational awareness includes the awareness to see that the defense is beating you up in the run game and that you're not running well. The problem was Allen playing much much much worse than he usually played. I wouldn't have minded a few more runs myself. But you yourself said you have to pass some with Josh Allen. Yeah. And if he throws that badly, you still get INTs and turnovers. It's still a better bet, almost always, though today he played so badly it was not. And my other point that if you don't turn the ball over but you also don't convert first downs successfully (and our run game was not successful) you're not going to have things turn out well. Maybe the Jets get an extra drive or three with us having a bunch of three-and-outs on runs. You're pretending this wouldn't happen, but it easily could have. No way to know either way.

Maybe you get another field goal or two. Maybe you get one or two fewer. The fact that you like the guess where we get more doesn't mean that's what would have happened. And situational awareness is good, but part of the situation was that the Jets DL was beating us in the run game. Wouldn't have minded seeing a few more runs myself, but my guess is they would have averaged less than four YPC as the ones they ran did. Five plays of five yards or more Oh, and yes there were a lot of passes, but 10 of them came on our final drive of the game that started with 1:48 left in the 4th and down by three.

Yeah, yeah. Still doesn't make your point, though. You can not - you simply can not - play as if your quarterback is going to throw balls as horrible as those throws. You can't. Especially if your quarterback is Josh Allen. The blame for the awful plays today goes to the guy receiving the ball from the center. And yet still our big plays came from passes, our first downs came from passes, nearly all successful plays came from passes.

Hint: Repeating things does not make them make more sense than they did in the first place. The pass defense really wasn't the problem. Four absolutely awful plays by Allen were. The first one maybe wasn't so dreadful, but the other three were. And while safe plays can sometimes win the game, safe unsuccessful plays can sometimes lose it.

This is also something we all forget. And shouldn't. Just because we run a play does not mean it's the one Dorsey called.

Those don't prove what you're trying to prove. When your OL isn't doing a good job of running, it's not necessarily a bad idea not to run it much. Generally, this offense is better at passing than running. Generally it's a great idea to put the ball in Allen's hands more. Not yesterday, though. Sixteen non-Allen runs and 61 yards resulting. We weren't doing it well. If Allen had simply made better choices on the plays when he made awful choices, we would have scored at least six more points and won.

Maybe. Right now it's not year-to-year, it's year to game. So far. We'll see. This is utter nonsense, it really is. The Bills are an extremely well run organization. They have more to prove, but to say they're not well run is just dumb.

Certainly not impossible. This year? I give it maybe a 10 - 20% chance.

Yup. Can't blame him. But it does say something about his values. Nothing bad, but it points at what's important to him. Here's a guy who's already made over a hundred million if I'm adding correctly. Those are the guys who sometimes give a real contender a break. He didn't. Which is fine. But revealing.

Holy crow! Oh, what a drag! Good site.