Logic

"This style of play"?! Josh got hurt standing right in the middle of the pocket, looking downfield. The same could have happened to Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Joe Montana, or *insert any other prototypical dropback QB you can think of here*. He didn't get hurt running. He didn't get hurt stiff-arming or hurdling a defender. He got hurt standing right in the damn pocket. Those of us who say that the "his style of play risks injury!" stuff is overblown often point out that most quarterback injuries happen IN THE POCKET, not when the QB is scrambling. Josh Allen has now had two career injuries to his throwing arm, and wouldn't you know it, both happened while he was standing in the pocket. If you want to blame poor play by the o-line or blame Beane for not upgrading that line, then have at it. But to claim that Josh's "style of play" has ANYTHING to do with this injury is laughable and demonstrably false.

Mike Mayock: Enjoyable on TV, but a legendarily bad NFL GM.

The thing that I don't like about him is that he's not good at playing football. It's a no for me, dawg.

What I REALLY want to know is... When is Tre White moving to safety and when is Tremaine Edmunds moving to Edge?

I wanna take Mike Garafolo behind a middle school and get him pregnant.

This IS fun and cute. Like a puppy.

People keep saying this, but no one seems to mention that MAKING that 70 yard throw on an injured arm could have injured it worse. People also fail to mention the incredible capabilities of the human body when adrenaline is coursing through it. See Tommy Doyle playing a bunch of snaps on a torn ACL.

May I borrow your crystal ball when you're done with it?

I'm mentally and emotionally prepared for him to miss four games. If it's worse than that, I'm gonna drive my car off a mountain.

Easy for us to say. We're not the ones who'd have to play through incredible pain while going against giant athletic freaks trying to murder us every play. In any case, if there's NO chance of further damage, then he likely plays. Even if there's "very minimal chance", I'd rather that he didn't, and I don't think he would. This franchise is not going to risk the long term health and effectiveness of its $250million franchise QB just for a few wins this season. Ain't gonna happen.

That's the key question. Is it JUST pain tolerance, or is there risk of further structural damage or lack of proper healing if he plays though it?

....... Screenname checks out.

I'm a grown ass man, and I'D be pretty disappointed if I was traveling to ONE game this year and I wasn't gonna get to see Josh Allen play in it. Missing out on seeing the best player in the NFL due to injury is a reasonable justification for disappointment, child or not, and is not indicative of "what's wrong with today's youth".

My prediction... [**Note: I have zero inside info, I am not a medical professional, and this is strictly my uninformed, amateur opinion, based on the information I've read and the history of UCL injuries in quarterbacks. Take it with an entire shaker of salt**] ...is as follows: Josh indeed has a UCL injury, which will be treated non-operatively. Given his importance to the Bills this season and long term, the team will opt to be cautious with the injury, even though Josh will want to play through the pain. He will be called "week to week" by McDermott and declared out for Sunday. The timetable for his recovery will be 2-5 weeks, leading to breathless "Josh Allen watch" threads and Twitter vigils every day. Ultimately, he'll wind up missing 3 games. The Bills will go 1-2, and Josh will return December 1st against the Patriots to a 7-4 Bills team in need of a victory to remain tied for the division lead with Miami. Here's hoping I'm totally wrong and Josh is fine and plays this week.

I disagree. I'm not saying that he's elite, but your comment seems like wild exaggeration to me. It's also hard to imagine that the Bills could field the #1 scoring defense in the league through nine weeks while giving so much playing time to a corner who is playing as badly as you describe. Sure seems like if they had "the easiest CB to throw against in the league" on the field as much as Elam is, they wouldn't be giving up just 14 points a game.

Did you hurt your back stretching on this one?

I mean... Other than the two cornerbacks who have been more than holding their own on the league's number one scoring defense and the fifth round receiver who posted 3 catches for 75 yards and a touchdown in week five and capably returned punts for the first half of the season... Sure. Not good.

Totally different band!

Haven't read the whole thread, but this is another post reinforcing why I tend not to come to this forum on the Monday after a loss. Overreactions, exaggerations, and overly simplistic generalizations galore. If by "blueprint" you mean being able to get home with 3 and 4 rushers and dropping 7 or 8, and having two really excellent corners....then sure, blueprint is out. It always has been. Almost no offense can win in those conditions. See "New York Giants vs New England Patriots Super Bowl 2007". See "Bills vs Steelers" or "Bills vs Jaguars" from the 2021 season. As to whether most teams can actually do that against Buffalo? I'm doubtful. The rest is just noise. Run the ball and play ball control and keep it out of Josh's hands? How did that work for Green Bay last week? I'm already ready for next Sunday. My goodness.

Everyone should take blame for yesterday. Coaches, players, everyone. But the coaches shouldn't take any more blame than the players. It wasn't the coaches' fault that Josh Allen threw two bad picks. The Bills almost certainly would have won had he NOT thrown those two picks. It wasn't the coaches' fault that Dion Dawkins held (or was called for holding, or whatever) on that 4th quarter sideline laser to Diggs. It wasn't the coaches' fault that Davis dropped that pass that hit him in the numbers on 4th and 21. Sometimes it's the Xs and Os, sometimes it's the Willies and Joes. This loss is on the whole team, to be sure, but the Willies and the Joes seem to me like they should shoulder the majority of the blame.

Threads like this make me wonder why I bother coming to this forum on the Monday after a loss. Good grief.

I'd do the same thing I do every year when we hit the annual "sky is falling" mid-season slump (yeah, I know, one loss doesn't really equal a slump, but they sure haven't looked like the same team from the second half of the Green Bay game onwards): Re-focus, practice the fundamentals (blocking, tackling, catching, passing mechanics), don't panic, and get back to playing Buffalo Bills football. I refuse to over-react to one loss against a division opponent with a really good defense. Football is a tough game, and the other guys get paid too. Bills are 3rd in ppg on offense and and 1st in ppg allowed on defense. They're a really good team. They were never going 17-0. They'll get through this slump like they do every year and finish strong and this game will soon be a blip in the rearview mirror on the way to the playoffs.

One more I wanted to mention. Fleetwood Mac from 1967-1970 was an elite electric blues band. Then they had a several years long weird transitional period, and they came out on the other side of it a completely different band. When you think of Fleetwood Mac -- that sound you hear in your head, Stevie Nicks, all of it -- it really bares no resemblance at all to the original Fleetwood Mac, who played brilliant music in my opinion. I am NOT such a fan of the latter day, well known, platinum records selling version of Fleetwood Mac (except for Landslide, which is dope). But the original Fleetwood Mac, the REAL Fleetwood Mac....holy *****, man. Good stuff.

I'll give two. One that some others might relate to or care about, and a second that only fellow nerds in this particular category will know what the hell I'm talking about... First, The Beatles. I love the Beatles in general. Their entire catalogue. HOWEVER, to me, the era from the White Album, through Abbey Road, to Let it Be (so basically, from fall of '68 through their demise in late 1970) is far and away the best. Early, poppy Beatles are fun. Middle era psychedelic cartoon Beatles are fun and increasingly complex. But the last three albums, man, just at a completely different level. And the last two albums in particular...as the band was collapsing and all the members kind of knew it, they started writing songs to each other, songs about the situation, songs with a bittersweet note that I can't really describe adequately. Heavy emotional stuff, but still within the confines of beautiful, melodious pop music. Just so, so good. Second, The Grateful Dead Greg S already mentioned the 70s, and I feel like thats a given. That's the golden decade for this band. But to go a little deeper, the era from 1972-1974 is my absolute favorite. At this point, the band only had one drummer (they had two for the majority of their career). This allowed them to maneuver more deftly through their music, to take turns more quickly or make sudden shifts in tempo and feel. Once Mickey Hart came back in 1976 and from that point onward, they couldn't ever "get to the point" as efficiently. It's hard to do that with two drummers. Additionally, from 72-74, the keyboardist Keith Godchaux was playing at the top of his capabilities and really adding to the music with his jazz piano stylings. Lastly, at this point, the band was still having fun. None of the members were addicted to hard drugs. None were burnt out. Touring was still a grand, fun, group-mind adventure. Following the 1975 hiatus, hard drugs and alcohol beat out psychedelics and pot as the drugs of choice. Jerry began his descent into opiate addiction. Two drummers made the musical beast harder to steer. Keith Godchaux, as he became more addicted and depressed, stopped playing interesting piano. Many Deadheads will cite '77 as their favorite year, or the late 70s as their favorite era. To me, nothing could ever beat '72-'74.

Love that song. Literally have never heard another song by them and haven't cared to try. So I guess I'm in the same boat with you on this one!