eball

That's an exaggeration. Those who encounter the behavior you cite are those who have rightfully earned it by being the ones who fail to find anything positive in anything the team does. Far too many pessimists try to cloak themselves with labels of "realism" or "objectivity" when in truth, they're just pissed off about everything.

So in other words, you can see the Bills doing better than that if a certain set of your own conditions are met? Hmm...

Chad Pennington on Eddie Robinson. Got him with the old "dead leg."

Unless you open your eyes and mind.

I think the correct answer is 1999. I absolutely believed that if the Bills had beaten the Titans they were headed to the Super Bowl. That defense was nasty, and even though Flutie was in decline they had a very good running game and Eric Moulds. These are exciting times to be a Bills fan, particularly if you also believe Josh Allen's best football is ahead of him.

It is absolutely NOTHING like the Browns of last year. Making a statement like proves you simply have an agenda to "tamp down" any Bills enthusiasm. Get real.

I hope when the Bills beat the Pats*** twice next year you dig deep and find some way to enjoy it. I know it's hard when a chick dumps you, but you really can find a way to love again.

Yeah, I watched half of it and had seen enough. Championship.

I'm guessing your popularity profile will not be enhanced with a post like this.

Dude what the hell are you talking about? ?

So The Athletic killed local non-sports news? Interesting.

Then I'd say you have bigger issues than deciding whether or not to pay for sports coverage.

LOL -- I honestly don't know. Maybe $60/year or something like that? I think there are deals also.

I know some people just don't want to pay for their internet sports content but if there's one site you should consider subscribing to it's The Athletic. They really have had the best Bills content by far since their inception, and there's a heluva lot more than that on the site.

You must be channeling Mark Gaughan of The Buffalo News; he wrote about this yesterday. The "first four" aren't the best in the league but nobody can rotate 10 guys like the Bills can, which is perfect for McD's style of defense. They are going to have to let one or two pretty good players go (or try to trade them) because it's unlikely they go with more than 9 on the 53. Nice problem to have.

It is far from an "absolute" scenario. This is a "win now" league...and the situation under which Rodgers was still available in 2005 when the Packers drafted is much different than what transpired last week. The Packers have holes -- particularly in the "playmaker" category -- and ignored them to draft a project QB. It seems LaFleur is proving to be yet another power freak who will do it "his way" even though he has a HOF QB on his roster and a window to compete for Super Bowls. When you plan for 3-4 years ahead in this league at the expense of doing what you can to win now -- particularly with a guy like Rodgers behind center -- it's not a particularly smart move. Now, if LaFleur and the GM have analyzed their roster and don't think they could do enough with Rodgers to truly compete in 2020? That's something completely different. If Love turns out to be really good in 3-4 years people will look back and say how great it was for GB to take a chance on him...but if they've pissed away a shot at a SB title this year or next because of it I don't think you can say it was necessarily the right decision.

That's the clinical definition of BBFS.

I agree with all of this and it begs the question whether it is advisable to relegate a no-doubt future HOF QB to that sort of role when he still has a lot of ability. This is a "win now" league, after all. Sure, GB won more games last year but didn't many see them as a paper tiger when the playoffs rolled around?

No. Next question?

This is so overblown (pun intended). Despite a few bad decisions and "hero ball" Josh had them in position to win and they would have, but for a ridiculous penalty and a missed block by Knox.

I want as close to a full season as possible, even if that means a Super Bowl in April. The season could then be "shifted" back over the course of two seasons, and by 2023 be back to normal.

The whipping boy for a lot of fans on bad Buffalo teams, when he was nowhere near the problem.

Cutting Fluker only saves the Hawks 3.7M...I wouldn't think they would do that for a good player who is only 29.

Who cares about preseason rankings and all that nonsense, but when was the last time the Bills were rated as high as #6 at anything other than "team most likely to fire their coach mid-season?" Exciting times.