2003Contenders

While I primarily agree with you, I will say (playing devil's advocate for just a moment), that drive you spoke of: 1. Ate up more than 1/2 of the 2nd quarter. The Steelers' offense sat on the sideline for over 30 minutes (real time) and did not get back on the field until less than a minute to go (with no timeouts) in the first half, effectively denying their ability to score points at the end of the half. Losses against both the Patriots and Texans can be traced back to the defense giving up cheap points at the end of the first half in each of those games. 2. The physical beat-down on that drive played a role in wearing down the Steelers' defense and invigorating the Bills' confidence on offense. While the drive only netted 3 points, it was the start of a 26-0 run. 3. The drive may have ended with a TD, except that on 4th and goal from the 2, there was a false start penalty that led McD to reconsider his decision to go for it and settle for a FG. 4. The Bills were playing without both of their starting OTs (and with interior linemen also banged up) -- so the coaches were mindful of not asking Josh to stand in the pocket and hold the ball for more than a couple of seconds. We saw what happened against Houston when the ball didn't come out of his hand quickly. In fact, the sort of smash-mouth scheme that they ran against Pittsburgh is probably what they should have done against Houston too. That said, I'm not sure that is the best course of action to take a against the Burrow-led Bengals whose offense is superior to that of Houston/Pittsburgh. I think the key (which we probably agree on) is that the Bills need to show that they can be versatile on offense. When the game-flow permits, it is perfectly OK to impose their will against an opposing defense and grind the ball on the ground, while judiciously mixing in passes here and there. However, there will come a time (possibly this week against Cinci), where they will need be able to compete in a shootout. With the lack of viable downfield threats, that is not really the way they are built, but they HAVE shown (this year against the Ravens and Bucs, for example) that with a stud QB like Josh that they CAN do it.

Why Is Gabe just standing around watching? LOL

As we have seen all season -- and it is conventional wisdom that has always made sense -- win the turnover battle, and you usually win the game. Part of why the team won so many games last season is that the offense very rarely turned the ball over. This year it has been a different story. Some of what has happened this year has been "regression to the mean", but there is no denying that the team has been very sloppy this year regarding turnovers. The Bills have turned the ball over multiple times in all of their losses. They also turned it over multiple times against the Bucs and Steelers -- but the defense stepped up in both of those games to limit the damage (and create turnovers of their own). If they can avoid those costly turnovers (and force some of their own), they could absolutely run the table, provided they are reasonably healthy. That is a big caveat, I know.

Very fair take. One thing I will say is that Brady finally seemed to be using Keon (at least on the 3 targets) in the manner that many of us have been begging for in the quick/slant game rather than as a deep threat. Say what you will, but at least Keon made more of an impact than Shakir, who dropped two catchable balls and has really regressed -- but that is a topic for another discussion.

Daboll used to subtly talk about this aspect of Josh. Early in games he could tell whether or not Josh was in a rhythm as a passer -- and if he wasn't he would start calling his number in the rushing game. At the time, I thought these comments had more to do with Josh's efficiency as a passer (especially in his early/developmental years) and that moving to utilizing him in the run game was the best way to maximize his physical gifts when the passing game wasn't working. More and more, I suspect that getting him involved in the running game was a way to get him more dialed into the game-plan -- and get his adrenaline going. Hopefully, Brady takes note.

What a horrific signing Palmer was.

I can understand the decision to go for it there. The kick wasn't a gimme -- would have been about 50 yards -- and a FG would have still had us down by a point. The problem was with the play call. Cook was clearly gassed an coming out of the game, and Brady made him trot back on. I thought for sure he was a decoy for either a bootleg or play action pass. Still not sure why they didn't do do the tush-push there as the one time they did in the game Josh got like 3 yards on it. I still wonder if Josh was more banged up on that smash play in the first half than we know and the coaches were trying to keep him out of harms way? If that is the case, they should have done a much better job of mass protection throughout instead of allowing him to get pressured so often. Regardless, from McD's reaction after that failed 4th down, you could tell that McD was NOT happy with Brady's play call.

Maybe not released, but I wonder if Coleman is going back in the lineup and Moore has been told he will be inactive again?

Except, Patrick, what if Hoecht and Oliver had remained healthy? Meanwhile, Bosa has played the last couple of games one-handed. I won't even count Jackson since he hadn't shown much prior to his injury. I have a lot of problems with personnel decisions that Bean has made, but I give him credit for TRYING to fortify the DL in the off-season.

The one thing I will say is that Lawson used to excel at setting the edge and remaining disciplined in run support (something Bosa has been horrible at accomplishing). If nothing else, even if he isn't active on game-day, maybe Lawson can help coach up the other d-linemen?

Bingo! And let's see what kind of noise these teams (Bears and Pats) make in the playoffs and what their staying power looks like now that they have achieved some success and start playing 1st place schedules and picking later in the draft. Let's not forget that McD himself led the Bills out of the forest of 17 straight years without a playoff appearance and into a world in which they have now made it to the playoffs 7 out of the last 8 years. The knock on McD (which I agree with somewhat) is that he may have taken the Bills about as far as he ever will with an AFC Championship showing and that new leadership may be required to take us to the next level. At 7-4 the playoffs are still very much in sight, but 2025 has been a very trying year in terms of having to battle injuries and a rather sudden and profound regression to the mean in terms of turnover differential and other statistical categories for which the Bills had dominated the last few seasons.

It's pretty simple, really. If the offense can simply avoid turning the ball over, they likely win. In all 4 of the Bills' losses this year they committed multiple turnovers. Meanwhile, it would be nice if the defense could force some turnover of their own for a change.

Hasn't Lawson been out of the league for over a year? In his prime he would have been what the doctor ordered to improve the run defense given his discipline in setting the edge.

McD would argue that Brady has done a good job for the following reasons: 1. The offense ranks amongst the top in the league. 2. The rush offense is the best in the league 3. The team has battled multiple injuries -- Kincaid, Palmer, Shakir, Brown, etc. 4. Turnovers have been a key ingredient in all of the losses. The coaches would argue that is a product of poor execution rather than play calling, etc. There is some merit to these thoughts. However, there is no denying that Brady has made too many head-scratching play calls and horrific game plans (the most recent Texans game being the most obvious).

I get what you are saying and mostly agree. However, it is hard to image Daboll calling those stupid screens to Shakir over and over again -- or that ridiculous 4th and 1 play to Cook deep in the backfield. Just a couple of different plays in a game like Thursday's could have made the difference between a L and a W.