BigDingus

I dunno, unless you're saying it gets in his head so he just makes bad decisions. Like nobody made him shovel pass last week, nor did he need to throw that soft pass to nobody over the middle right there at the end.

I'm just so tired of the turnovers. Do we need to get used to an INT or 2 every single game again? This is getting ridiculous.

When we finally play competent on defense, the offense does nothing. We even got production on ST & still flounder.

Texans are 23rd in rush yards per game. Tonight will show us how much our own run D benefits the opposition.

Yes, I agree. But I'm saying they wouldn't be able to add 8 teams overnight. It would be a 20+ year process to slowly add teams every 4-5 years until they hit 8 teams. They don't need kids to be born with the NFL already in their location. If you put a team in Berlin today, it's not that you need to wait 20 years to see an NFL player from Germany appear. An 8 year old in elementary school could become a fan & start playing. Some teenagers could get interested & change sports. It's a process. Europe has athletes. Mexico has athletes. There are hundreds of millions of people out there, and some people just have great genetics regardless of where you're born. The key is to get some of those people interested in YOUR sport over the others. If 2 new expansion teams were added over the next 5 years, there's enough college players & talent on benches/practice squads to do the usual expansion drafts to fill out those rosters. It would be similar to adding the Panthers & Jaguars, only there's WAY more talent available than there was back in the 90's. The Jags had pretty immediate success. The Panthers made a Super Bowl a little after 10 years of existence. Each team carries 90 players at the start of camp & cuts down to 53. That means over 1,200 players don't make a 53 man roster each off-season, and I'm sure there's at least some that could very well be NFL level talent. Not only that, expansion drafts take players from a pool of existing teams as well. Adding 2 new teams wouldn't break the league. You do that to start, then after another 5-6 years, add another team. You do this until you hit 40 teams. And while this is going on, even having 2 teams in Europe (say 1 in London, 1 in Berlin) would attract viewership & fans from other places in Europe. Just because they're located in those 2 places, doesn't mean they will only appeal to people in those 2 locations. It's a source of pride, like how all of Canada rallied around the Raptors in the NBA Finals or around the Blue Jays in the World Series. I'm sure plenty of young Canadians watched these games & got interested in basketball & baseball. This is ignoring that some schools in Europe ALREADY offer American football as a sport. Leagues already exist for universities, and some high schools offer American football as well. So it's not like they're starting from zero. Again, you have to start somewhere if the league ever wants the kinda of appeal MLB, NBA or even NHL has internationally.

Oh absolutely, it would definitely be watered down. But there's a ton of potential with spreading out the sport even further & growing the pool of prospects. That's why basketball & baseball (and obviously soccer) now have such a huge percentage of players coming from international markets. You make NFL football popular in the UK, Europe, Mexico, Canada, etc. and you'll slowly start getting talent from all over the world. It's a long-term thing, which is why I don't think this will happen (at least not any time soon), but I think it could pay off huge in the long run. If you dropped 8 teams in overnight, it would make the product extremely watered down. But if you slowly added 2 teams every 4 - 5 years, it would lessen the immediate blow to quality & spread out the talent more gradually. It would make divisions/conferences/playoffs a little wonky, but they've had strange division setups in the past. Again, I don't think they'll go this route, but I think 20+ years from now it would make sense IF they lay the groundwork now.

I think it'd be cool if they expanded to 40 teams. The NFL is popular enough that they could put a franchise anywhere & have success. They could drop a team in El Paso or Omaha & probably sell out every single game, and TV ratings would be high regardless of where the team is. The issue is obviously the amount of revenue that an owner can extract from that market though, so they'd obviously want bigger markets than those. But still, you could find 4 x European teams to create a new division (if you wanted to go that route to limit travel distances), along with 4 new teams in North America, whether it be 1 in Canada + 1 in Mexico + 2 in the US, or they could just drop 1 new team in each existing division. Of course, that'd be a huge undertaking & never happen, so I think we'll just get international games for all eternity. Either that, or a team will be relocated at some point.

This is exactly what I wanted to know. Even though there's nothing we fans can do, it's nice to have prescedent to give us hope for the future. People talk about how every QB + HC tandem has won a Super Bowl within the first 7 years, except for Allen + McDermott & Lamar + Harbaugh, which never makes me feel optimistic going forward. So when I see stats like this, I think this is yet another major flaw that probably kills our chances of winning a SB. But if the Colts managed it in the past, that means there is hope. That's all I need!

The Bills lead the league in rushing averaging 147.6 yards per game. Great! That seems like a lot! Unfortunately, every single team that plays us suddenly becomes just as good at running the ball as we are & averages 153 rush yards per game... I'm sure we all know our defense has been rough, but has any team won a Super Bowl while allowing teams to shred them on the ground? It's almost surprising that we've only allowed 4 x 100 yard rushers, but most teams have RB by committees or we got ahead on them to where they gave up on the run (like the Jets & Panthers). Even though we have a great RB, our D is such a liability that they all but negate any advantage from our own running game & allow opposing teams to dictate time of possession as much as we do. At this point, we're going to need to find another advantage, and it'll have to be Josh Allen passing the ball to win offensive shoot-outs like last Sunday. I know they're 2 separate sides of the ball & don't directly correlate with each other, but the advantages you expect from being a dominant run team usually benefit your D by allowing them more time to rest & recover. But this D allows every opposing offense to do the same thing, so it all comes back to Allen making plays to win.

Teams better than us overall (both conferences): 1. Patriots 2. Broncos 3. Colts 4. Eagles 5. Rams Teams on par/could beat pose problems in the playoffs: 1. Steelers (with Rodgers) 2. Chargers 3. Jaguars 4. Ravens Honorable Mention: Chiefs... if they get in. I don't care about record, I'm just going off of what I've seen & how they could play against us in the post-season. With our injuries, our offensive weapons & what we've seen of this defense, it's highly unlikely we make the Super Bowl. We lost to the Falcons & Dolphins, so we're not exactly world beaters. Every other week we have people calling for Brady to be fired, and our offensive weapons outside of Cook aren't great. Just a couple weeks ago I was saying we were a Kincaid injury away from having no passing offense, and while I was wrong, the passing game has been sloppy & the turnovers have been much higher than last year. We'll have to get healthy, buckle down on defense & somehow figure out how to pass the ball without turning it over every game if we want to be real contenders.

I don't think he'll cause locker room drama, just drawing unnecessary attention in the media & online. It could also hurt what little trade value he might have going forward.

More drama. Yay. Beane & McDermott sure know how to pick em. Glad they decided we didn't need to make a trade before the deadline though.

I agree with just about everything aside from benching him. There are definitely people open in these games, and he's not throwing to them. It's a reocurring theme. And although I think we definitely need better WRs, Josh isn't hitting the ones we have. Even in games where he plays well, he's not seeing people downfield. Look at these from the Chiefs game: And from the Pats game: People get open, but Allen's not seeing them or gets happy feet & runs into pressure.

People mocked me for saying we were a Kincaid injury away from having zero passing game, and the Chiefs win made Beane & McDermott think we don't need help. But no, this team thinks because we beat KC, we're built to beat anyone. Unfortunately, we've gone backwards, while the Pats have improved dramatically. Not only that, they have the most cap space in the NFL to get even better next year, while we have the least available cap in the league. Doesn't help that Allen just looks worse in general. Most of his sacks this year have been his own fault according to advanced metrics. I'm not sure how this gets better now, but it'll take a miracle at this point.

Told yall. Winning against the Chiefs made Beane & everyone else think we don't need help & the offense is set.