thebandit27

Uh, no. It means that I feel that this is the type of team that is playing above my level of expectations, but isn't ready to compete with the best in the NFL, especially on their own turf, and thus a loss to the best team in the NFC isn't going to adversely affect my opinion of them. Sorry for the run-on sentence, and I'll appreciate a more thoughtful, less put-your-words-in-my-text response next time around.

Last week I was all over the Bills having a real shot to beat Denver. This week, I think Buffalo catches a beat down at the hands of an Atlanta team with too much firepower. Good defenses get run out of that building routinely, and I don't see Buffalo's offense being able to sustain drives long enough to keep the defenders fresh. I'm thinking it'll end up something like 30-13 Atlanta And you know what? I won't think any less of this team if that happens

I'd swap Pouliot and Girgensons to get some speed on that 2nd line, but other than that I like the mix quite a bit.

Don't forget about Austin Hooper Sure does, though I thought Takk looked good in his place yesterday. Probably. It's the kind of game where you'd love to hold them under 20 points, but that just doesn't seem practical. They always score well at home; their 2 lowest home point totals since the 2016 opener were 24 (2016 week 1 vs. TB) and 28 (2016 week 13 vs. KC)

Big test for the defense obviously. Offensively, we actually match up with them pretty well. They're mostly built on speed with their EDGE guys and LBs, as Poe is really the only stout run defender that they have in their front 7. Their corners are very strong, and while the safeties are big-hitters, they aren't great in coverage. Buffalo's offensive formula of hammering with the run and hitting a few big gainers on the interior is actually pretty well-suited for this matchup. This would be a really good game to execute ball-control. If Atlanta's offense gets going--which it can against even the best of defenses--the Bills will get run out of the building.

"In large part"? Uh, no. One player out of the starting 11 plus the half-dozen other regular sub-package guys is not "in large part". Gaines has played well...I'm quite happy about that.

My favorite thing about these corners is that they are tackling extremely well.

He was outstanding today. I didn't think much of him based on his 2016 play, so I am very glad to see this level of play thus far. Really hope it continues!

I'm in 311 as well

The Bills may not be very good, but I am undefeated in shifting the focus of threads to food

Well I agree that he's a moron, and I don't agree with a lot of what he does and says.

And Paula's donuts

Do some folks really not recognize that the president can express an opinion--regardless of whether it's accurate, inaccurate, stupid, unpopular, inane, etc--and that his opinion has absolutely zero impact on individual rights?

I'm not a Trump fan, and somehow I manage to move on with my life utterly unfazed by his buffoonery

Sam Darnold just clapped 6 times before taking a 2nd down snap--not the QB for us

Yes, I generally agree with all of that.

Don't get it twisted E-man, I don't agree with a lot of what he says. That doesn't mean that I don't think he should be allowed to say it. That's all.

I'm assuming that's all sarcasm Either way

I think it is, but everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I think it makes him look silly.

Sure--it's a stoopid thing to say; what else is new? It's also utterly harmless and pointless (again, what else is new?).

I tried pointing that out; I'm pretty sure this poster is a bit confused about the difference between opinion and legislation

That's correct. If he does something unconstitutional, he can be impeached. Very simple.

Um, are you saying that you really don't understand the difference between stating an opinion and imposing legislation?

I'm okay with him saying anything he wants; if he tries to make a law against rights that are guaranteed in the constitution, well, different story

He's not oppressing free speech in any way whatsoever. He hasn't signed any kind of EO requiring folks to say/not say what they want. He's not pushing for legislation. He's simply voicing his opinion that owners should fire players for protesting (which, as you point out, they can)...rightly or wrongly. Oppressing free speech would include inflicting violence against those that say things with which you don't agree, etc...it's important, IMO, to consider who does such things.