thurst44

That's just ridiculous!!!! There's a 62.3% chance tops.

And any given Sunday, someone could get past KC. Juggernaut teams don't ALWAYS win the Super Bowl. We all know what happened to the 16-0 Patriots and the 15-1 1988 Vikings and 2005 Steelers did not even make it that far. KC has won its last three games by 3, 4, and 2, and the 2 was against a Panthers team that had lost three in a row going into that game. They only beat the Bills by an almost identical score to the one many fans here are bemoaning was not enough against the Chargers. Chiefs are a great team, but they are hardly invincible.

With an actual good coach and some talent and players who wanted to win, that hypothetical team that has never existed could have 30+ pts, 750 yards of total offense while shutting out the opponents. Sorry, I'm just a hypothetical realist.

Vrabel's Titans also barely beat a lot of terrible teams (Jags, Texans, Vikings, Broncos) and lost by 11 to the Bengals. On the flipside, McDermott's Bills have not lost to a bad team since arguably the Browns last year and have beat four teams with seven wins or more. Yes, they lost to the Titans, but even you have to admit that the circumstances of that game were a little weird. Bills had to prepare for two different undefeated teams while the Titans got a bye week-plus.

That was always clearly more disruptive to the Bills who had to plan for two different undefeated teams, not knowing when or where they were going to play. Plus, in that case, they simply played in Tennessee so the Titans were not even disrupted as to where they were playing. In this case, the more disrupted team is clearly the 49ers as the Bills were already traveling across the country and have even played in the stadium more recently than SF as the 49ers have not played at Arizona since last year. I'm not saying the 49ers won't have the upper hand; it's just that I don't think that parallel really tracks.

Also, if a person is 6-10 consistently in every stat, it's a good chance they average to 4th or 5th overall as you have some players who will be below the top 10 in some categories.

Fair enough on Taron--he's having his worst season for whatever reason (I've cursed his name during games this year more than AJ Klein, and Klein has at least played well the last few weeks). I'd argue his good plays outweighed his bad plays (at least well enough for a CB3) in 2018 & 2019. Maybe it's just that we're seeing too much of him--or people figured out how to exploit him.

And probably when you compare him to most of the CB2s in the league. We tend to have different eyes for our own players (some people skew positive, others negative), but Taron Johnson and Levi Wallace have been an important cog--as usual CB2 and CB3-on a pass defense that's been at or near the best two years in a row. I suspect they're both a bit better than you value them.

On that note, George Wallace the 60-something comedian is also underrated.

I always thought it was endearing.

We're actually top 10 in sacks as well.

That's actually pretty similar to the resume of James Harrison at this point in his career and he went on to be a 4-time All-Pro and is so much the epitome for hitting hard that he is used in commercials as the representation of the pain of being tackled. I'm not saying Zimmer is the next James Harrison, but just saying that "never drafted, bounced around" does not immediately mean he can't possibly ever become a star. He's probably going to be a part-time player but who knows, and he's been fun to watch in the brief time we've got to see him so far.

Honestly, Tua starting is the reason I don't fear the Dolphins this year. It feels like they're playing a longer game in hopes they hit with Tua and can be a dominant team in a year or two, and I'd be surprised if he doesn't struggle the rest of the way. That said, I've been surprised before. However, you're not going to have many games where you can win when you get under 150 yards offense while your defense gives up 400 yards.

Yup, if you have a lot of worries it's better to be 6-2, 4-0 than 2-6, 0-4! There's time to figure it out

And some of us always want to believe the norm is whatever is the worst version of the team. They have stopped the run some weeks, been awful other weeks. They've also been plagued by an absurd rash of injuries, but have a lot of talent. I'm not sure which defense or running game we'll see this week. I'm not sure what this team is this year. That seems like the rational reaction, not that they are clearly terrible and cannot beat any good teams. Also, for all we seem to wish to rag on this team, they are still 5-2 with their only losses to teams that played in Conference Championship games, and wins against three teams that are .500 or better.

PFF is a good idea in theory, in that it goes beyond the raw stats that can be misleading. The problem is that it's subjective and the argument that its detractors have is that the people doing the judging aren't great at eliminating their personal biases. Also, as one person pointed out to me (and i think it was someone in this thread), there can be blind spots b/c they favor the flashier play at the expense of the player just doing their job sometimes, which works at some positions, but can be misleading at, say, cornerback, where a great CB just does not get thrown at often. I want to love the concept of PFF (how often are there stats quantifying offensive linemen), but it's hard to take them seriously when after watching the games multiple times from multiple angles last year, I see that they label Tre White the 18th best CB or that a dominant game by Allen earlier this season had him in the lower half of QBs.

Exactly. They're 5-2 (3-0) and in charge of the division while playing a level of football that's likely below their talent (and only two games have been against doormats... well "doormat"). Their two losses are to the defending members of the AFC Championship who have two losses between them (and one of those was one to the other). Maybe their sloppiness is indicative of what we'll see all season. However, it's arguably more likely that they could snap to it the rest of the season as they have a lot of young players with high ceilings. I'd suggest it's more likely that the Bills are closer to the last two years' top three defense than to whatever they played the first 13 halves of the season.

The Browns were down a lot of the game against the Bengals. Also, while this does not necessarily help either of our arguments, you called a 5-1 team one of the "league stiffs." By this logic, the Saints (who many had winning the SB this year) just barely eked out a win against the Panthers (who most had in the Trevor Lawrence sweepstakes before the season). Basically, your grand argument boils down to some teams had close games and others did not. Ours was actually not as close as the score indicated once the second half started. The Bills made it to the Jets 35 or closer in every one of their ten drives. We held the awful Jets to their lowest offensive output of the year. It was the third fewest yards by any team this year. They beat a bad team and overcame a lousy start. They may have learned some things and/or overcome whatever mental bugaboos in their heads. Next week, hopefully the Patriots are indeed the "stiffs" you label them as and we can both continue to iron out the rough spots while getting a major monkey off our backs. I'm not "very concerned." Sure, this team could be the messy, moribund team of 5 of the last 6 halves. But it's also very likely this team could be the high-powered offense of the first four weeks, but paired with a defense closer to the one we've seen the last two years. We'll find out a bit more next week.

And then if there is still a tie, play a 2nd overtime!

I'd say the fans wearing blinders are the ones who are hopelessly negative and won't acknowlege that football is a fluid game of peaks and dropoffs. Things can change in a hurry. In 2017, we were annihilated in three games in a row, yet were able to revive and sneak into the playoffs. After we started 0-2 in 2018, everyone wrote off the team and the defense as historically bad. That defense turned out to be one of the best in the league the rest of the way and it paved the way for last season's run to the playoffs. Last year, the Chiefs started 4-0 before losing two games (both at home) and we know how that ended. I've lived in the NYC area the last 20 years and have seen the Giants twice look moribund all season before waking up just before the playoffs, culminating in a Super Bowl win. This team has a lot of players who are likely playing well-below their ability: Oliver, Edmunds, Poyer, Milano (by mostly not playing), Hyde, even White. For all the offensive explosiveness, there's been a lot of dropped passes. They could return to form and find cohesiveness and go 3-1 or even 4-0. The last two weeks may just be who we are now and we could go 1-3 or even somehow fall apart so bad we lose to the Jets. However, I'd put my money on the talent rising to the top. Maybe Epenesa proves his worth. Perhaps Quinton Jefferson or Vernon Butler or Mario Addison goes on a tear. Maybe Feliciano's return anchors the line and Ford finds his footing. There's a lot that could go right. Yes, it could go wrong, but to act like someone is "wearing blinders" for being hopeful for a talented team is insulting and does not recognize that football is a very unpredictable game where fortunes can change in the blink of a (non-blind) eye.

Oh, stop it with the "real contender" nonsense. We were 10-6 last year and in the playoffs and are 4-1 this year. It was one bad game. This is why I avoid here after a loss.

Meh, if there's a week to not have Tre', this is it. They are down a bunch of wide outs and Tre' will hopefully be rested to defend against Mahomes.

Too late

Bills are 8th overall in running defense and that includes the disastrous LA Rams game. In 3 out of their 4 games, the opposing team has been held below their season average.

It's happened before: see vs. Chargers in '18 (post-Vontae retirement).