Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

319 Excellent

About thurst44

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's kind of a push for me. Watson, at his best, is one of the greatest in the game and he's further along in his progress. However, even at this point, he's much more inconsistent than Allen (who has been putting up mostly 2 td/0 int games), who has just two fewer 4th quarter comebacks in far fewer games. Watson is one of the few quarterbacks I wanted the Bills to draft in the past few years, but Allen won me over pretty quickly post draft, and based on how he has done in the clutch, I'm giddy to see how he reacts to his first playoffs.
  2. I agree on both parts. As for the first part, I'd love to see them break the Patriots hold over us in the biggest way possible, but also kind of want the idea of Pats matching the Bills four SB appearances in a row quashed by Sunday night. Also, I've wanted the Bills to play the Chiefs all year -- just feel we match up oddly well with them this year.
  3. After 2 and 3 seasons, can you honestly answer? Allen's numbers since Game 5 (17 td, 3 int, 6 rushing tds) and he's about to go to the playoffs. Pat Mahomes in last 11 games (18 td, 4 int, 2 rushing tds) and also about to go to the playoffs. I'm not saying they are equal yet, and Mahomes had perhaps the greatest second year ever, so hard for Allen to get close to that (but Allen's was not shabby), but the jury is still out on Allen and we don't seem to appreciate just how well he has been playing since he got a full's year worth of games under his belt. If they are both QBs in the top ten for the next decade, but if we also got one of the best players at STOPPING the opponent's QBs (right now, he's second in the league at opponent QBR and tops in allowing TDs at, um, zero -- and who got the only TD against the number one QBR -- Josh Allen), can you really truly say we lost the deal.
  4. In his eyes, it may not be so "meaningless." I suspect he values going into the playoffs on a strong win (as opposed to a painful loss) is worth taking a chance on injuries. The philosophy -- at least my stab at a guess at it -- is that they'll have two more weeks to get to the point where they can potentially beat a Ravens and Patriots on the road. It's a long shot, but sometimes talented teams get hot at the right time. I've lived in NYC area since college and have seen the Giants pull that trick off twice. I like the move, but, yes, if Allen is hurt in this game, it will be hard to defend in retrospect.
  5. Fan voting never turns out to be that much of the voting. There's been a couple times in the past where Bills have been leading and did not make the team.
  6. My guess would be Tre'Davious debuts high (like 20s or 30s) -- we're starting to hear his name regularly as in the convo with Stephon for best CB in NFL. Tremaine Edmunds is starting to get a rep, but probably not there yet. I could definitely see Hyde. Poyer is a long shot as a surprise. Ed Oliver is probably already pretty close and it's hard to tell what Allen's rep is with his peers, but there's probably still enough stubborn people who will still think he's "trash" until he's absolutely dominant, but his numbers and win-loss total really give him an argument.
  7. I agree that the focus should be on the Steelers (although it does not really matter what we do or not b/c we are just fans) However, why can't we beat the Patriots? The Chiefs just did and I don't think we're that much worse (if at all) than them. The Patriots are reeling, we're due and we're 5-1 on the road. We've had a chance to win at the end of every game save for the Eagles game.
  8. I'm going to go ridiculously positive and say 42-10 Buffalo. Pittsburgh is a very good team, but have a weird feeling they are running into a buzzsaw with the pent-up energy of the Bills who can win and go to the playoffs.
  9. I'd argue having a 35-49% chance in a game against an absurdly hot team is not particularly negative, and I tend to get called out as an overly positive fan and it sounds about right to me. Plus, as different as this season has been, it's still hard to shake the feeling, as illogical and irrelevant as it is, that this is the kind of game where we expect a painful loss -- even coming, as it does, on the heels of an overwhelming and convincing win in the ultimate kind of game the Bills usually lose. That said, there are quite a few reasons to believe the Bills have a better chance than we think in this game: - Bills are playing on 10 days rest - Game is in New Era Field - Bills are arguably the second hottest team in the NFL right now and perhaps their mojo is even more powerful than the Ravens' - In the past 3 games, the Bills are just the sort of team that could stop a rolling team like the Ravens: an offense coming together and a disruptive, dynamic, hard-hitting, disciplined defense. - Overall, they are clearly one of the three high-level defenses (with SF & NE) and outside of a few anomalies they are a young defense, especially in their three potential (well, one is pretty much there) superstars, and there's some reason to believe their ceiling is much higher than it has been so far, and if there is ever a game where a defense could make a statement, this is it.
  10. What I'm amazed at is that I've never heard anyone even suggest that there was more to Harmon's drop, given his history of suspicion of fixing games. I'm sure it was just a dropped pass, but...
  11. This fits b/c to a certain degree, Bartman and Buckner, and for the most part every major scapegoat, does not really deserve the scorn. In Bartman's case there were many people going for the ball and it's not his fault that the Cubs blew a very large lead after Bartman "interfered." On the other hand, Buckner's error came after the Red Sox had already blown a lead they shouldn't have and has overshadowed the wild pitch thrown by Bob Stanley which allowed the Mets to tie the game. It's made even sadder by the fact that Buckner had been playing through immense pain and to paraphrase Dante Hicks, "wasn't even supposed to be there", as it was standard for Dave Stapleton to come in as a defensive replacement in the 9th inning, but McNamara wanted Buckner, as a veteran who had played for the Cubs and Sox and had never been in the World Series before to be on the field to experience the final out. I was annoyed when Levy did not try another play (maybe a hitch to Thurman or a TE on the sideline) to get them closer and more safely in Norwood's range, so I never really saw the fairness in blaming Norwood for missing a kick that was at the edge of his ability, and of that of most kickers. If Kelly was under pressure and threw a pass in the endzone just off the fingertips of a diving James Lofton as time expired, would either have been considered the "goat"? If it was, say, a 54-yard field goal, would he still be the "goat"? However, all that being said, the miss was the closest this team has ever got to the NFL's ultimate goal, so even if it's not really fair, for the purposes of this thought experiment, one would have to say he fits the bill. FWIW, one could argue that Thurman's fumble in Super Bowl XXVIII was more egregious as they were leading when it happened and it changed the trajectory of the game, but there seems to be a consensus that it was more a factor of the team having no confidence after three losses, and that they looked as if they had already given up hope during halftime, even with a 13-7 lead. (And was I the only one who had flashbacks watching an interminable halftime performance with the Bills having a 13-7 lead over the Cowboys -- to a degree, I blame awful country music for the Bills lack of a Super Bowl trophy.)
  12. So, what is wrong with comparing 12 games to 12 games, which is what I did. Those are the stats, per Pro-Football Reference, for each player's first 12 games. It makes a bit more sense after he plays 12 games to update the others and compare it to 12 games than to revert Oliver's stats to 8 games. I just was trying to be helpful and do a little legwork on a quiet snowy campus day. I'm not the OP, btw, but I'm guessing what happened there was that the article he/she referenced was a month old. My point is that if you do the math, and extend all of these players to 12 games, the point still holds. I'm pretty sure that's seriously properly represented data.
  13. Are... you... serious?!?! You can't be serious. On the off chance you are, the point of this whole article is that DTs tend to start slow and that he is on pace with many great DTs at this point in this career. What would be the point of going back in time and pretending he has NOT been a beast the last four games. We now have the 12 games to compare. Not to mention, his stats are similar to the others after 8 games.
  14. OK, let's look at 12 Aaron Donald: 30 tackles, 6 sacks, 1 ff Fletcher Cox: 25 tackles, 3 sacks, 1 ff Geno Atkins: 7 tackles, 1.5 sacks Gerald McCoy: 21 tackles, 3 sacks, 2 ff Ed Oliver: 28 tackles, 5 sacks, 1 ff So, yep, pretty much on schedule.
  • Create New...