TPS

Bree's averaged over 360 net passing yards in his first 3 home games, and he had 309 against Buf.

I found it amazing that some were criticizing Gilmore for his not so great play as a one-armed man. A healthy Gilmore and Byrd will allow Pettine to incorporate more of his play book. I really think this team is poised to turn the ship around, and it starts this Sunday! Marrone is feeling it too, if you saw his Monday Presser.

Gilmore had man coverage on the play and chased his man toward the middle of the field. Brees read it and took advantage.

Against the Saints and Bree's, PFF says Gilmore was one of two cbs who gave up zero yards last week in pass d. http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2013/10/29/pff-credits-play-of-kyle-dareus-gilmore/

Totally disagree. Leonard is a solid player, but he's not elite. Byrd is.

I think they are a very good football team, especially their defense, but I think the Bills have a very good chance of pulling off the upset. Don't underestimate home-field advantage. KC's away games were against Jax (worst D in the league), Philly (also a bottom tier D), and the Titans. KC's offense scored 17 points in that game (one TD came off a fumbled punt). This will be another tough, close game which will, once again, go to whoever gets luckier. I am pretty sure the Bills will hold KC to 20 points or less; can they put up 20 or more? For me, the key to the game will be stopping Charles and KC's run game. So it's not that "we" underestimate them, rather the Bills have a good shot at upsetting them.

What I meant by "done" was that their playoff chances would slip to < 5% (IMO); and if they win, I think their playoff chances exceed 50% based on your argument about schedule, and that I believe the last WC spot will come out of the AFCE.

Exactly. They were not over-matched in that game, especially given the fact they are lead by someone who came off the PS a couple weeks ago. The Saints are in the top 3 (I believe) in D points allowed. This team is on the verge...and a win this Sunday could launch them.

Kyle Williams played like a Pro Bowler yesterday. I think it came down to 2 plays: obviously the INT at the end of the half, which wipes 7 off the board; and the D-holding call on a 3rd down that would've forced a punt, and the Saints go on to score again. Take those 14 points away, and the game is a coin toss, though the Saints still probably win. Point is, they were didn't look that over-matched even with Thad at the wheel (there's another 14 points related to his TOs).

I said something similar in another thread. A win this week and I say their chances of making the playoffs is better than 50%. I think the final WC spot will come down to 2nd place in the AFCE. Right now SD is 4-3, but they have a tough schedule. This young team will start to get the breaks that it hasn't in the first half.

I believe they have improved in almost every metric measured for defenses, with almost the same personnel.

The way the second WC spot looks right now, it'll probably be a 9-7 team and come down to tie breakers. KC is the season: a win could put them on their way; a loss and they're done.

go piss on someone else's parade. The op (and I) qualified with "if" they win and are 4-4. There's always hope...

No doubt! If they were 4-4 after the first half, and with a relatively easier second half, I would bet they make the playoffs.

by what measure are they 8th? Looking at YPC they are in the middle of the pack, which is a heck of a lot better than last year.

Could be because the bills haven't had any games against bottom 10 defenses?

I didn't think his knee ever touched down, and that photo doesn't prove it. His hand is right next to his knee on the photo, and there is some distance between the hand and knee. Bottom line, it doesn't matter.

Any projection is an opinion. Your bull stinks as much as mine...

Damn! Even if the Bills beat Miami Sunday, they can't be declared the better team. That sucks man.

You're an idiot. (note: I'm using copyrighted material without the author's consent).The point of my original response was to point out, one, we are past the trillion dollar deficits; and two, throwing out big numbers without some type of normalizing is a way to make a blow-hard point--which you are good at. I used Reagan to give you an example from someone you probably idolize. The deficit in 1983 was 6% of gdp, which would generate a trillion dollar deficit based on 2013 gdp. You want to change the subject and play "mines better (bigger?) than yours," which has nothing to do with the point I made. If you'd like to move to that subject, fine; though the majority of the current large deficits (and Reagan's) have more to do with revenues than spending.

It sounds like Bill Murray as the bass player....uhh, I mean Kiko...

A big part of the improvement has come from the end to the SS tax cut, which is not subject to manipulation. Those tax increases and spending cuts helped slowed economic growth in the first half of the year. The economy was gaining a little more momentum starting the second half, then the idiots in DC took over...

Yes, that's all I got because I'm not defending Obama as most of you infer. As for comparing it to Reagan, the purpose was to show you that you can't focus on the nominal number alone. Again, if you want to claim Reagan's deficits were somehow better, I think that gets you into very subjective arguments that will be based on yours and my biases, plus I'm not comparing them for any other reason than to point out why your talking point was wrong. As for deficits in general, of course we're not out of the woods yet, but it's headed in the right direction, which was my other point. Really, there are two main points about deficits that I'll defend: 1. They should be countercyclical--falling when the economy is growing, and rising when the economy is contracting. 2. The government does not EVER have to pay off its debt, but long term stability requires that the deficit as a % of gdp remains below the nominal growth rate. As long as this condition is met, the debt/gdp ratio will decline over time, and that's the ratio that investors tend to worry about. Current projections by the CBO indicate the deficit ratio will be < NGDP growth for the next few years, so the debt ratio will decline. However, in another 4-5 years, the healthcare costs begin to push it back up again. That still needs to be resolved. Yes, I set myself up for the ACA-attack...

doesn't change gdp, but it creates a source of funds to sop up treasuries. The tax increases from January and spending cuts from sequester are gimmicks? I haven't said anything about whether this economy has been good or not, I was simply pointing out 3rdnlong's right wing talking point that reps are tired of trillion dollar deficits no longer holds.

Kiko has been getting a lot of interviews lately. I didn't know he played bass too... ok, I was reluctant to post this for some time now, but it so sounds like him...