hondo in seattle

I get what you're saying but the Bills offense only scored 19 points. It was enough. It was a win. And it was fun to see, especially when the hallmark of Pittsburgh football is physicality. We shoved the ball down their throats. But getting 19 points from a Josh Allen led offense doesn't scream 'masterful' to me personally. Still, watching the performance of both sides of the ball in the second half - after the doubt and frustration of the first half - brought joy to my heart.

Before the Steeler game, I was: 7-2 when wearing my Josh jersey along with Bills sweatpants. 3-0 when wearing all that plus my Bills socks. 0-1 when wearing my Kelly jersey. 0-1 when wearing my Kyle Williams jersey. So I went all in with Allen jersey, Bills sweats, and Bills socks. And it worked!

That running game was great to see. But let's not rush into conclusions. Why did we run the ball so much? Why did we not throw down the field? Part of the answer to these two questions is that the run game was working. But the other part was that Brady didn't trust the OL to protect Allen. Allen wasn't sacked today because (1) he didn't throw very often, and (2) most of his passed came out quick. The Pitt DL is better at pressuring QBs than stopping runners. So Brady didn't give them a chance to pressure Josh by calling short, timing passes. It's what he should have done in the Texans game. The shame is that the Steeler secondary isn't great and we didn't/couldn't take advantage of that because we don't have great wideouts and don't trust our OL (with the two starting tackles out) to protect Allen. Fortunately, we didn't have to pass downfield because our OL was pushing guys around on running plays. Props to Van Demark and Anderson but I wouldn't want Brown or Dawkins to be out long term.

It seems to me Heyward quoted Allen saying, "I needed to do something to get you off of me." Not "Off my game."

I don't think you can teach a team to win by losing on purpose. And I'm just morally, ethically, and philosophically opposed to intentionally losing.

@FireChans, I don't disagree. Beane has failed to give Josh & Brady a good receiving corps. Yet, I do think it's odd that receivers continue to have production drops playing for Brady despite Josh being under center (Diggs, Samuel, Palmer, etc.). I'm also tired of hearing commentators (Cossel, Orlovsky, etc.) talk about how basic our passing concepts are. And I'm tired of Joshing scanning the field and finding no one to throw to because Brady can't scheme guys open. I'm not saying Brady's a bum. We've scored a lot of points with him as OC and I acknowledge that. He seems to have a knack for scheming a run game. But he also has Josh the Magic Alchemist turning crap pass plays into gold. Scheming a downfield passing game is not Brady's forte which is a shame because we have a generational QB who's incredible talents are being wasted to an extent.

It's true that our defense is worse than our offense. Maybe we talk so much about Brady because it's more fun to watch and discuss offense. Or maybe it's because our defense isn't very talented and is riddle by injuries while our offense has a freakish, once-in-a-generation QB who's being misused.

You're right but a variety of people who know more about football (Cosell, Romo, Orlovsky, etc.) than I do have mentioned that our passing concepts are rather simple and/or unimaginative. Andre Reed said their passing concepts back in the 90s were "vanilla" because they had the talent to make simple concepts work. Brady doesn't have the luxury of talented wideouts. So he should be working overtime to figure out how to scheme guys open. And doesn't it strike you as odd that pretty much every receiver sees their production go down when they start playing for Brady (Diggs, Palmer, Samuel, Moore, etc.)? When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. But not Brady, he made durian juice.

Neither was last week's yet we saw it anyway.

Every receiver who comes to Brady's Buffalo seed their production go down. Does this mean Cooks will average less than the 16.5 yards/game that he's been racking up so far this season?

Never sure who's going to show up: Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. But I only pick against the Bills when I feel strongly about a bad matchup. This week, I don't know what to expect so I'm going with a Bills win... Bills 24 Steelers 21

This is all true. Our defense is the bigger problem. I think we complain more about the offense for a couple of reasons: First, we're fans. We like to see our teams score points. Second, we have Josh Allen. Whether you want to blame Beane, Brady, or the wideouts, it's criminal that we have an inept downfield passing attack.

The problem is none of them pan out. Since Brady became OC, pretty much every FA WR who Beane signs ends up having a bad year. If I was a FA wideout, I'd stay away from the Bills like it was kryptonite.

Won't get fooled again! I'm not the biggest Gabe backer on the planet, but I'd rather see Gabe on the field than Keon. Or Cooks. Or Shavers.

That's a good observation. I didn't know that we ranked last for WRs using that point system. Though we do have to consider Diggs. We traded four picks to the Vikes to get Diggs if I recall correctly, including a #1. Does that up our score to 13 points or more? Even if it does, it's still under the 21-point average. As I see it now, we're both right. Beane undervalues WRs and mismanages the cap. He's not a great wideout talent evaluator either, overvaluing guys like Keon, Curtis Samuel, Kelvin Benjamin, etc. I have said in other posts that if you're lucky enough to have a unicorn QB, your two priorities as a GM ought to be getting him an elite OL bodyguard to protect him and capable WRs to throw to. Beane has an unimpressive record in this regard, sometimes giving us one or the other, but never both at the same time.