hondo in seattle

I don't think our starting trio is as weak as you think it is, but I do agree with this: Beane hasn't done Josh a lot of favors. Earlier in his career, it was only Josh's athleticism that kept him somewhat upright. You'd think a GM with a great QB would want to give him a great bodyguard. Beane took his time with that. You'd also think that a GM would give his talented thrower some good guys to throw to. Beane success with that has been a mixed bag. I miss the days when the Bills had Reed, Lofton, and Beebe on the same roster. I'm afraid that when Josh retires and his critics, looking at the stats, assert he wasn't the GOAT or doesn't deserve the HOF or junk like that, his apologists will say, "Well, he had a sh*tty line for half his career and sh*tty receivers for the other half."

I occasionally check out other boards. It's not just homerism to say ours is better. It just is. Thanks, all.

Good point, but I'd rather forget that one.

I disagree. Even Moore and Curtis Samuel are borderline #2s. Each has started about half their NFL games. I agree that Shakir, Palmer, and Coleman aren't #1s. But they would all be starters on most other teams.

As great as the game was, I don't know if it warrants a name. The Comeback, 13 Seconds, The Homerun Throwback - those were all playoff games. This game, arguably, wasn't as meaningful and won't be as memorable. But if I had to name it, I'd riff off the previous suggestions: The 15-716 Game.

I get the point but what he really needs to do is practice good leadership. I knew army leaders who were skinny and somewhat nerdy who nonetheless successfully led guys into combat. Unlike McDaniel, they had a command presence, spoke with confidence, acted decisively, and led by example. I do appreciate that Tua said something to the effect that McDaniel was the first coach to believe in him. Good stuff. But I remember seeing McDaniel on Hard Knocks or whatever and thinking: "That guy is not a leader of men."

Hold on a minute. I hate to bring this up because I don't like the man but... Back when the best athletes became RBs, and RBs were winning Heismans and getting picked #1 overall in the draft, and coaches believed you had to establish the run first, and defenses defended the run first, and LBers were brutal RB-killers with manly names like Dick Butkis and Chuck Bednarik, we had OJ. In 1973, the best of the league's freakishly talented RBs could only manage at best 1,144 yards against the era's man-eating defenses. Except for OJ, who ran for 2,003 yards. That would be something like Josh throwing for 7,000 yards one year when Lamar, Mahomes, and today's other greats only threw for 4,000 at best. No accomplishment in the NFL comes close to what OJ did in 1973. And, btw, Joe Ferguson only threw for 939 yards that year despite starting every game. We had no passing attack. OJ was our offense, and defenses that were already pre-built to stop the run focused exclusively on him. The opponent's game plan was simple: stop OJ and you win. But no one could.

True. And then the other thing about Brady was his diet and fitness regimen that allowed him to play at a high level for a long time and smash a bunch of career records.

Similar story. I made Buffalo Wings and wore my 17 Jersey - to no avail. But in the 4th quarter, I brought my husky (wearing her own gear) into the living room where I was watching the game. "Snow, you stay with me for the rest of the game and bring me luck."

From a game theory, statistical, and/or probabilistic point of view, it was the right decision. Simple math says so. From a subjective point of view, it's hard to say. How much would've that first two-point conversion, which was likely to be converted, meant beyond the scoreboard in terms of momentum and team morale? How much would failing the two-point conversion - which was unlikely but did happen - hurt momentum and morale? Given the probabilities, was it worth the risk? You decide. But I think a lot of coaches would've made the same decision that Sean made.

I forget who but someone did report that he was ejected by security.

Thanks for this. And you're exactly right. Logically and statistically, McD made the right decision on the first two-pointer. When it failed anyway, he was forced to go for the subsequent 2-pointers. Each decision was rational by itself. But we failed on each of them so hindsight says it would have been better to kick all those EPs.

Yeah, if I was a Ravens fan, I'd be pissed. But Brady's play-calling changed too. He started the game very conservative but opened it up when he realized he had no choice. I'm not sure the Ravens D would have been more successful if they had remained in their 1st half defense. We can only speculate. In any case, our passing game leaned heavily on our receivers and earned 41 points against one of the top teams in the NFL led by a guy considered one of the top coaches. When we needed our wideouts to produce, they didn't fail us.

I think most pundits would agree that Baltimore has better players, and yet the Bills won. I'm not sure why Beane doesn't get some blame for not building a better roster. I'm not sure why McD doesn't get some credit for building a no-quit culture.

I was instantly happy when I saw they were punting, which meant it was obviously a bad call for the Ravens. 4th and 3. Lamar is cramping but all he has to do is hand the ball off to Henry. Henry always gashes the Bills and was averaging something like 9 yards per carry against us yesterday. The 1st down was likely. With the Bills only needing only a FG and Josh on fire, punting was clearly the wrong choice. Raven fans must be pissed.

I don't hate any announcers/commentators/analysts. Part of it is that I just don't like to waste time and emotion on hating anyone. The other part is that I take what they say with a grain of salt. They don't like Allen? They don't like the Bills? I don't care.

He did his 1/11th on a team that gave up 40 points at home. Not high praise.

GB, you're right. And yet... Harbaugh chose to rush 3 for at least part of the 4th because he believed that gave him the best chance of winning. Rushing 3 meant he had 8 guys in coverage versus our 4 or 5 out on routes. Maybe only 7 guys in coverage if Harbaugh left a spy on Josh. Still, considering the Ravens have good coverage guys and our receivers are, reportedly, poor at separation, that would seem to give them the advantage. Yet Josh threw for 269 yards in the 4th quarter alone, mostly to subpar wideouts. Maybe the wideouts aren't as bad as some folks think. It's interesting that Samuel and Moore have both started about half their NFL games yet aren't good enough to start for us. I don't think our starters are elite by any means - Josh deserves better. But they're not entirely woeful either. Still, Josh is the engine that makes this passing game work. I started this thread to see if anybody has a different take and, of couse, some do and I respect that. But IMHO the scheme, play-calling, and 10-man talent are average-ish. Josh elevates everything.

Here's what I know about Jackson Hawes: He can block as well or better than any TE coming out of college over the past ten years. But he's got hands of stone and can't even catch a cold. Um, wait...

Josh makes some great throws and has some great games that make me start thinking he'll be in the GOAT conversation someday. When I calm down and consider this, I think Brady was better in two ways. First, Brady was a master of presnap recognition. You could tell because he'd get the ball out so quickly to the right guy. Second, Brady was devoted to his diet and fitness in a way that I don't think Josh yet equals. And that's why Brady lasted so long. But I think Josh is gaining on him in both areas.

Three times this season and last, I turned on the TV and expected to witness the Bills losing a game. Only three times. All Ravens games. So happy to be wrong - again. Maybe I'll learn to have some faith the next time we play them.

I guess I'm old because I remember those games. The 1974 game was the only home game I ever attended. The Raiders were undefeated on Monday night. The Bills were only allowed on MNF because we had OJ. The Juice got off to good start but when he got hurt just before halftime, it seemed like the Raiders would continue their Monday night dominance. OJ was pretty much our entire offense the year before. But Fergy, surprisingly, came through dramatically for our first MNF victory. Amazingly, we went 0-for-the-1970s against the Fish. If I recall correctly that game had like 9 or 10 interceptions but after all those changes of possession, we ended our 20-game losing streak. The fans tore down the goalposts in celebration. Picking a favorite among these three is hard. But I'd probably choose this one because I transitioned from absolute misery when it was 40-25 to absolute jubilation just a few minutes later.

I remember watching The Comeback on TV. My then-wife wanted me to take her somewhere when the score was 35-3. I told her the Bills could still come back. She asked, "Has any team ever come back from such a big hole?" I acknowledged that, no, never. But hope always lives in the heart of a Bills fan until the time expires. Considering we authored "The Comeback" with a backup QB, I don't know how fans could leave with Josh under center and we're only down by 15.

I think Lamar is a good QB and I don't blame them for supporting their QB. But, yeah, if you had to choose the MVP based on tonight's performance, Josh is the man. In retrospect, Raven fans chanting MVP for Lamar is kind of amusing. Thanks for reminding me!

Happy Days, all your micro-observations are true. But you also point out that Baltimore "maybe has the best secondary in the league." Yet Josh threw for nearly 400 against them in a game they badly wanted to win. And our wideouts accounted for more than half of those yards. So maybe when you put the wideouts under a microscope, they don't look so good. But when you look at the big picture (389 yards passing, 41 points, and a W), they look a little better.