Shaw66

If they can, then the game obviously is in the hands of the Bills' defense.

This. I don't know the Pats personnel, and I really haven't followed them, but the reality is that every Belichick team will play defense well. I went into the game fairly certain that the Bills wouldn't score 30. Belichick just won't allow it. He's been doing ever since he was the Giants' defensive coordinator. The scary thing was that Belichick might hold the Bills under 20, and once the Pats returned the opening kickoff, I thought the Bills were in a bigger hole than it may have looked. The Pats weren't getting over 20 unless the Bills gave away points, and that's what they did immediately. I don't know if there's a formula for stopping the Bills, but there's not much question that good defense can slow them down considerably. The Bills have a defense to slow the Dolphins down. The question is whether the Dolphins can keep the Bills under 30.

Interesting. Thanks. Other two clearly seemed to be reporting. Did the ref screw it up that badly?

I'm late to this party, but it seemed to me that Detroit had two and maybe three guys who needed to report. 68 and someone else talked to the ref, and then he turned to notify the Cowboys. 70 got there late and looked like he was trying to get the ref's attention over the shoulder of one of his teammates. The ref kept walking away, so I don't think the ref ever got the message from 70. As others have noted, the ref should have done better. He should have seen 70 was coming over to him. Still, it's the player's responsibility to report, and the player should have seen that the ref wasn't getting the message. It's the same as Toney lining up offside. It's the player's responsibility, not the ref's. It was a great play, but the players have to be trained to do everything to make it work, including report.

1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 all have scrambling QBs. I don't trust PFF analysis, ever, even when it makes the Bills look good.

Can we e keep this thread on page one? It's useful.

I hear you, but there are a lot of people playing for their jobs, either with their current team or their future team. And every team is playing to win. In high school, we all played hard to win, even the last game of the season. The whole point of playing is to win. And at the NFL level, these guys want to win. If I were on those teams, I'd definitely want the best QB on the field, and the best QB is Taylor and Brissett. And I wouldn't care at all about developing the young guys because (1) I won't be on this team in a year or two, (2) it's take those guys more than a year or two to develop, and (3) I've watched them play, and I don't think they'll ever make it. The coach is playing for his job, too, and he wants to win, too.

Yes, lump, for sure. When the ball was thrown across the field, there was a moment of terror. Then, I thought, "don't be silly." Then, I saw the replay and realized it wasn't silly at all.

Oh, yeah, I wasn't including the Bills in the list. But the definitive list isn't determined until the end of February, and we aren't there yet. The fact is that inconsistent from game to game really doesn't matter. Winning in December and January is what matters, and the Bills won Saturday night. Miami and New England won, too, and both of them will be tough opponents. They're both beating playoff contending teams.

I was 13 at the first game at the Rockpile in 1960. Moved from Buffalo for good in '68, but I've been through it all, too. We just keep waiting.

That way overstates. The 49ers and Panthers aren't where they are because of luck. The better teams win more games. The Bills just haven't been the better team for many games.

I'm the one who earlier this year was on Josh for still not taking the easy throw and going for broke. The INT was a poor decision. He had better, much higher percentage options, including, I think, running. But the other thing I've said about Josh is that the reason we want him is for six or eight plays a game, and the team has to trust him to decide when it's time for one of those plays. On that throw, he decided it was time. He should have run, but if I'm the coach I'm giving him latitude to make that play. It was a bigger risk, but a similar play as the TD to Davis, and we all were OK with his deciding to go long that time. And you're right, he missed several throws in the first half. It looked to me as though he was spending so much of his brain energy thinking about the play that he sort of forgot to focus on the quality of his throws. Obviously, I can't read his mind, but he didn't seem focused on his throws.

I gotta respond to this. I haven't read the thread, except for a few of the early posts. It's not for me to say what OldMan meant when he said "lucky," but I've been trying to use the word "fortunate" instead. The win wasn't lucky, but the Bills were fortunate to win. It wasn't a lucky bounce, or a bad call against the Chargers. But it WAS a game the Bills good have lost. They were fortunate. I wouldn't say the Bills "sucked," but they certainly didn't play well. And it certainly is true that the Bills have lost too many times to inferior competition. The Bills have too many games when they should be cruising through the 4th quarter and aren't. On the other hand, the mark of a good team is that it finds a way to win when they don't have their A game. That's what we saw yesterday.

That's amazing. Period. Hard to know which team will show up.

When the ball flew a Ross the field to the left sideline, my heart sank. When I saw the replay with the wall set up, I realized we'd dodged the same bullet.

This is a good take. Every once in a while I go back and look at late-season games in 1964 and in the Super Bowl run. There were a lot of these games. Win and advance. Find a way to win. Cough up the lead late in the fourth quarter? Well, find a way to win. It's easier to find a way when Josh Allen is the QB.

Seriously, Dick. I was thinking about this today. We're ready to come here for eleven months with all of our brilliant critiques and suggestions, but in December, when it gets down to crunch time, when nothing else matters by the W, when every game is a big game, all the armchair quarterbacks (and coaches and GMs) go silent.

Thanks. So strictly as a matter of principle, he's not going to watch. Seems to me there are about 10,000 ways to protest rampant capitalism around the world. Of all the ways to protest, I don't get boycotting a Bills game in the middle of the playoff hunt. To each his own.

You own a Bills Backer bar and you won't have the game on in your bar? What are you going to tell your customers when they come in Saturday and you tell them the game isn't on?

Three punts after the two minute warning. Stimulating football.

This ignores the facts. First, NFL teams didn't throw to backs in the early 70s. Still, in about half as many games, Simpson had half as many receptions as Marcus Allen, perhaps the first great pass catching receiver who played a decade after Simpson. Simpson averaged more yards per reception than either Allen or Thomas. He also averaged more touchdowns per reception. Simpson was not "strictly a runner." He was a deadly receiver

Ethan - That's a great list. Top three absolutely are all-time greats. And Allen isn't half way through his career yet.

And the most amazing thing about the Cowboys was that THEY stuck with what THEY were doing. Never seemed to adjust. How many plays did the Bills break the back free off tackle and around the end? Over and over no one was there to stop the wide run.

Ah, I see what happened. You're correct. There was a sub-thread running based on a OldManFan's comment that it was a running performance like we haven't seen since OJ. At least one person, maybe a couple, responded saying OJ wasn't a great receiver, which really had nothing to do with what OldMan was saying. I responded to OldMan because as I thought through my memories of Bills running back, I had to agree that him. The ball carrying ability that Cook showed sparkled in a way that was unlike any back in Bills history other than OJ. Then you chimed in and mentioned receiving, again, and I was, like, "how difficult is it to stay on point?" But, of course, you're right, people were saying all sorts of things last night, and keeping a particular conversation focused in that environment isn't easy. Great win!

Are people having trouble tonight following the conversation? OldMan said the Bills haven't had a running performance like that since OJ. Running. What difference does it OJ's receiving make in a conversation about Cook's running. But, if you want to have a conversation about OJ's receiving ability, he was an excellent receiver. He was a receiver before he became a running back, and as a receiver with the Bills, he was excellent. He wasn't targeted as often as Thurman, but his yards per reception were better than Thurman's. His touchdown production as a receiver was better, on a percentage basis, than Thurman's Great as Thurman was, put OJ in the K-gun and the Bills might have won four Super Bowls in a row.