BullBuchanan

I'm just able to criticize players I like, because I want them to be better instead of just thinking they're perfect when they aren't.

I'm not a davis fan, but you can't really judge how many targets/catches he got when the QB play was as poor as it was. Maybe (probably) he should have gotten a lot more targets. Would he have caught them? Who knows?

Tons of them. I'm a big fan of Allen, Diggs, Milano, Poyer, Hyde, Bates,Benford, Shakir and others. You?

It doesn't mean anything beyond "trust me blindly". I remember an interview in his first year where he used like pleading the fifth. He was asked a handful of difficult questions and the answer to each one of them was "trust the process". I'd rather he just ignore them or grunt like Belichick, but I'd drastically prefer he answer them as thoughtfully/honestly as he can like Kerr and Popovich

Doubt it. What we saw from him was his status quo. It wasn't inaccuracy or erratic behavior that caused his problems. It was well considered (from his perspective) poor decisions. You can explain each of his turnovers away through his pattern of decision making going back to college.

He got blown out in the AFCCG by a team who in turn got blown out by the Super Bowl Champion. Mark Sanchez made back-to-back AFCCGs - it doesn't mean he was close to winning a Super Bowl either. His best chance was probably 2021, but he was 3 wins away from winning that one. Throughout his playoff history, he's laid plenty of eggs. He played terribly against the Dolphins and got bailed out. Wasn't as lucky against the Texans. He lit up a New England team that didn't belong, Played great against KC once and mediocre to poor another time, and was embarrassed by the Bengals last season. If he lit everyone up and just ran into a Mahomes meatgrinder I'd be more forgiving, but I think it's more likely their luck runs out against up and coming teams. If he controlled the pace of play more deliberately, he'd have a better chance of dictating playoff success, imo. He looks his best when the ball comes out of his hands at the top of his drop (like the 2 minute drill against the Jets). It's when he holds the ball that the bad decisions and hero ball comes out.

Josh is a top 3 QB in the league because he puts up a lot of stats and wins a lot of games. The problem with him is that he has severe limitations that are easily exploited by even modestly competent DCs. A QB with less of a ceiling but less severe limitations would seemingly be more likely to win a Super Bowl. With the way Allen has regressed over the last year, I can't see any strong coach letting him win in January. It's ez-mode. I've never seen an otherwise elite QB with a more obvious and destructive weakness. If he fixes it, or Dorsey schemes around it, that will change. If he just keeps living by the sword though, thinking he got unlucky, he'll die by it over and over again when it matters most.

How do we know that? He's never come remotely close.

If this is acceptable to you, than you must be content with the fact that Allen will likely never reach a Super Bowl (barring a miracle), let alone win one. He doesn't struggle against just elite defenses, either. He struggles again anyone who understands that all yopu have to do is run disguised coverages that give allen reads that he has a 1:1 matchup with a WR running deep. You give him that and he'll take it every time - hence the hail mary throws into double coverage while he has wide open receivers underneath. If he's as good as he's ever going to be, he's not good enough. I don't think that's true, but if it is, you have to find a new solution.

Which one of those changes resulted in Hollywood lobbing bombs into double coverage 50 yards downfield and running straight into blocked defenders for the 6th year in a row?

it's not cherry picking at all. You're counting calendar time, when games they played in is what actually matters. Allen threw for 67 TDS and rushed for 27 more in his first 43 games or 2.19 TD/game game Mahomes threw for 108 TDs and rushed for 6 more in his first 46 games or 2.48 TD/game

Josh loses that competition by a wider margin. His "stat" is a bad faith argument that requires you to count the games Mahomes sat behind Smith before getting a chance to play. Once he saw the field, he's demolished Josh's numbers in nearly every category outside of rushing.

It's amazing how people can tell you everything there is to know about them in a couple sentences. Your stance on statutory rape in the Araiza case pairs like a fine wine with regard to this. The only people who think this is "a true thing we're not supposed to say out loud" are extreme racists. I heard this kind of disgusting ***** all the time growing up. Those people had the excuse of never having left their small hometown. What a truly deplorable thing to think.

that's ridiculous and wrong. Mahomes blows him out of the water: 204 total TDs vs 176. It's practically an extra season worth of TDs.

Winning a Super Bowl is probably fun. I don't know for sure, but I'd love to try it. I know for a fact that not winning one is not fun and I've tried that for nearly 40 years. Let's try the new thing and see how it feels.

I'd chose the one that's paying me $250M+ by a lot Hopefully she has a hell of a personality.

QBs who never lived up to their ultimate potential while remaining high end starters? Lots. Or are you suggesting a scenario where he'll be a 5 turnover/game guy and the worst player on the field from here on out after formerly being a top QB? There are less of those, but still a couple.

He sure did. Of course this was after 3 consecutive first team all-pros, two MVP awards, and a super bowl win - none of which Josh Allen has one of, but Peyton sure did throw all those picks that one time.

better. I wouldn't even deny that.

If you're going to misrepresent me, at least make it something funny.

That's a poor justification. Individuals are not a court of law, just like private enterprise is not the federal government.

if there was documented recorded proof, it wouldn't be an accusation - it would be a fact. Although, I'm guessing in your case, that documented recorded proof would result in a shifting of goalposts and a twisting of intent.

Could be, but why default to that stance?

Typically plaintiffs in a lawsuit directly benefit by being believed. Yes. That's why they sue.

If he said it, would he admit it?