The 9 Isles
-
Posts
1,984 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The 9 Isles
-
-
Dion is a vibe!!
love that dude.
-
I believe in jinxes.
😐
-
1
-
-
Bill Belichick is the latest to show the world how truly powerful the 🐱 can be.
-
1
-
-
-
Another season of mediocre wrs
-
-
Just now, Simon said:
The longer it takes, the more advertising dollars they rake in.
True.
-
They need to change how long these first round picks take, 15 minutes is excruciatingly slow.
-
1
-
-
Happy Easter Bills Nation.
✝️
-
6
-
1
-
2
-
11
-
-
-
The Texans and Browns ruin everything.
-
Just info:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_ddafc7c2-6a97-43a2-9d49-ec7990d43cbf
QuoteJoey Bosa entered the NFL in 2016 when he was drafted by the San Diego Chargers (now Los Angeles Chargers). Below is a breakdown of the games he has missed each season due to injury or other reasons, based on the regular-season totals. The NFL regular season consisted of 16 games from 2016 to 2020 and expanded to 17 games starting in 2021. Note that this focuses solely on regular-season games missed, not postseason or games where he played partial snaps.
2016 (Rookie Season): Bosa missed the first 4 games of the 16-game season due to a hamstring injury sustained during training camp, compounded by a contract holdout. He played in 12 games.Games Missed: 4
2017: Bosa played a full season, appearing in all 16 games.Games Missed: 0
2018: Bosa missed 9 games of the 16-game season due to a foot injury (bone bruise) that lingered throughout the year. He played in 7 games.
Games Missed: 9
2019: Bosa played a full season, appearing in all 16 games.
Games Missed: 0
2020: Bosa missed 4 games of the 16-game season due to a combination of a shin injury and a concussion. He played in 12 games.
Games Missed: 4
2021: Bosa played a full season, appearing in all 17 games of the newly expanded 17-game schedule.
Games Missed: 0
2022: Bosa missed 12 games of the 17-game season due to a groin injury requiring surgery. He played in 5 games.
Games Missed: 12
2023: Bosa missed 8 games of the 17-game season due to a combination of a hamstring injury and a foot sprain that landed him on injured reserve. He played in 9 games.
Games Missed: 8
2024: Bosa missed 3 games of the 17-game season due to a hip injury. He played in 14 games.
Games Missed: 3
Summary of Games Missed by Season:
2016: 4
2017: 0
2018: 9
2019: 0
2020: 4
2021: 0
2022: 12
2023: 8
2024: 3
Total Games Missed:Over his nine seasons (2016–2024), Bosa has missed 40 games out of a possible 148 regular-season games (based on 16-game seasons from 2016–2020 and 17-game seasons from 2021–2024).
However, some sources, including posts on X, suggest he missed 41 games, which may reflect slight discrepancies in reporting or interpretation (e.g., counting a game where he was inactive but not officially ruled out due to injury). Based on the most consistent data from official NFL records and injury reports, the total is 40 games missed through the 2024 season.
This tally reflects his injury-prone career, with significant absences in 2018, 2022, and 2023, contrasted by three full seasons (2017, 2019, and 2021). His recent years (2022–2024) show a trend of missing substantial time, totaling 23 games over those three seasons.
-
good value for a valuable asset
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
Ty Johnson returning would make this a little more palatable.
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
-
3
-
45
-
3
-
Idiot Browns team continues to drive up costs for every other team in the league.
-
4
-
2
-
8
-
-
With a better Dline coaching the sky is the limit for him.
-
4
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:
Canada needs us more than we need them.
What a silly thing to say.
Why start a trade war with a country that is an ally, which has a beneficial and reciprocal trade relationship?
Outside of energy which the US needs and buys at a market discount (and then refines and resells at a massive profit) Canada actually has a trade deficit with the US. An impressive feat considering that the US has 10x the population of Canada.
This was completely unnecessary, especially with Canada.
Take auto manufacturing, Canada buys relatively the same amount of vehicles BUILT IN THE USA as they send to the US.
Mexico, Japan, South Korea and Germany buy almost no autos built in the US but ship in millions built in their respective countries.
The result of tariffing Canadian built autos will be retaliatory tariffs on autos built in the USA, a net loss considering both countries will just buy more from Japan, Korea and Germany which are not tariffed. Not to mention the hit to American brands from the negative perception from a tariff war on a friendly nation.
Drive down the street in any city in Canada and you see American businesses and franchises everywhere, pushing down Canadian businesses and sending profits back to America. Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, Best Buy, MacDonalds, Starbucks….etc, etc.
Too many to list. Canada and the US are the same market.
An argument can be made for tariffs on many, many countries but Canada sure isn't one of them. Trump is totally wrong on this issue.
1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:
This list is bogus.
Its part of a misinformation campaign.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Motorin' said:
Also from Grok. Why Trump is correct about US banking in Canada. What he said was Canada's laws make it impossible "to do business."
Ask "what rules does Canada impose on US banks that they don't impose on Canadian banks"
Canada imposes specific regulations on foreign-based banks operating within its borders under the *Bank Act*, which differ from those applied to domestic Canadian banks (Schedule I banks). These rules are designed to maintain stability in the Canadian financial system but create distinct competitive disadvantages for foreign banks. Below is an explanation of the key differences and their impacts:
### Rules Imposed on Foreign-Based Banks (Not Imposed on Canadian Banks)
1. **Operational Structure Restrictions**:
- Foreign banks can operate in Canada either as subsidiaries (Schedule II banks) or branches (Schedule III banks), but not as fully integrated entities like Canadian Schedule I banks.
- **Subsidiaries (Schedule II)**: These are separate legal entities incorporated in Canada, requiring their own capital, governance, and risk management structures. Unlike Canadian banks, they are subject to ownership by a foreign parent and must comply with additional regulatory oversight tied to their foreign affiliation.
- **Branches (Schedule III)**: These are extensions of the foreign bank and cannot accept retail deposits under CAD 150,000 unless they are from specific institutional clients (e.g., governments or large corporations). Canadian banks face no such deposit size restriction.2. **Deposit-Taking Limitations**:
- Schedule III branches are prohibited from accepting retail deposits below CAD 150,000, a restriction not applied to Canadian banks or their subsidiaries. This effectively excludes foreign branches from the retail banking market, limiting them to wholesale or commercial banking activities.
- Schedule II subsidiaries can accept smaller deposits, but they must maintain separate capitalization and comply with Canadian regulatory standards, which can increase operational costs compared to Canadian banks that operate under a single, unified structure.3. **Capital Equivalency Deposits**:
- Foreign bank branches (Schedule III) are required to maintain "capital equivalency deposits" in Canada to cover their liabilities. This is a reserve requirement not imposed on Canadian banks, which manage their capital under domestic risk-based frameworks set by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI).4. **Approval and Oversight Process**:
- Foreign banks must obtain approval from both the Minister of Finance and OSFI to establish operations in Canada, a two-step process that evaluates policy implications and operational prudence. Canadian banks, once incorporated, do not face this additional entry hurdle.
- Foreign banks are subject to ongoing scrutiny to ensure compliance with Canadian laws, including restrictions on activities like personal property leasing, which do not apply to Canadian banks in the same way.5. **Ownership and Control Limits**:
- While Canadian Schedule I banks must be widely held (no single shareholder can own more than 20% of voting shares), foreign bank subsidiaries (Schedule II) are controlled by their foreign parents. This subjects them to additional regulatory checks to ensure alignment with Canadian financial stability goals, unlike Canadian banks, which face fewer constraints on domestic ownership structures.### Competitive Disadvantages for Foreign-Based Banks
1. **Limited Access to Retail Banking**:
- The CAD 150,000 deposit threshold for Schedule III branches bars foreign banks from competing for the savings of average Canadian consumers, a market dominated by Canadian banks like RBC, TD, and Scotiabank. This restricts foreign banks to niche areas like corporate lending, wealth management, or treasury services, reducing their market reach and revenue potential.2. **Higher Operational Costs**:
- Schedule II subsidiaries must maintain separate capital and governance structures, increasing compliance and administrative costs compared to Canadian banks, which operate under a single, integrated framework. The capital equivalency deposit requirement for branches adds further financial burden, tying up funds that could be used elsewhere.3. **Barriers to Market Entry and Expansion**:
- The stringent approval process and ongoing regulatory oversight deter some foreign banks from entering or expanding in Canada. Canadian banks, by contrast, can open branches and offer services nationwide without facing equivalent entry barriers, leveraging their established networks and customer bases.4. **Reduced Competitive Pressure on Canadian Banks**:
- The restrictions insulate Canadian banks from foreign competition, particularly in the retail sector. Posts on X and analyses like those from the Competition Bureau note that this lack of competition allows Canadian banks to maintain higher fees and less innovative services, a dynamic foreign banks struggle to challenge due to their limited scope.5. **Difficulty Attracting Customers**:
- Switching costs for Canadian consumers (e.g., fees, penalties) make it harder for foreign banks to attract clients away from established Canadian banks, especially since branches cannot offer retail deposit accounts. This entrenches the dominance of Canada’s "Big Six" banks, which control the vast majority of banking assets.### Broader Context and Implications
Canada’s banking regulations prioritize stability—credited for its resilience during the 2008 financial crisis—but critics, including the Competition Bureau, argue they stifle innovation and competition. Foreign banks, despite holding about half of foreign bank assets in Canada (with U.S. banks like JPMorgan and Citi active as subsidiaries), operate at a disadvantage compared to Canadian banks expanding abroad, such as TD and BMO in the U.S. This asymmetry has fueled debates, with figures like Donald Trump (as noted in recent news) claiming unfair treatment, though the rules reflect Canada’s protective regulatory philosophy rather than an outright ban.In summary, Canada’s rules limit foreign banks’ ability to engage in retail banking, impose higher costs, and restrict their operational flexibility, creating a competitive landscape that heavily favors domestic institutions. These disadvantages hinder foreign banks’ ability to challenge the entrenched position of Canadian banks, particularly in the consumer market.
We can do this all day, the point is that Trump is exaggerating and alienating a good trade partner and ally for no good reason. He has surrounded himself with some very nefarious people giving him some very bad advice and I don't think he is smart enough to flush them out.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_a063d621-a443-4f14-a728-829233cc71b7
QuoteTo address the question of what limitations the U.S. imposes on Canadian banks that it does not impose on American banks, we need to examine the regulatory frameworks governing foreign banks in the U.S. and compare them to those applied to domestic U.S. banks. The U.S. banking system, overseen primarily by federal regulators like the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), treats foreign banks (including Canadian ones) differently from domestic banks in several key ways due to their status as non-U.S. entities. Below is an analysis of these distinctions based on available regulatory principles and practices.
One primary limitation is that Canadian banks, as foreign banks, must operate in the U.S. through specific structures—either subsidiaries or branches—each subject to additional oversight and restrictions not imposed on American banks. A subsidiary is a separate legal entity incorporated in the U.S., while a branch is an extension of the foreign parent bank. U.S. banks, being domestic entities, can establish branches nationwide without needing to navigate foreign bank-specific regulations. For Canadian banks, establishing a subsidiary requires approval from the Federal Reserve under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA) and compliance with capital and management standards akin to those for U.S. banks, but with added scrutiny of the foreign parent’s financial health and governance. Branches, governed by the International Banking Act (IBA) of 1978, face restrictions such as prohibitions on accepting retail deposits from U.S. citizens or residents unless the branch is FDIC-insured, a requirement not typically applied to domestic bank branches since they are automatically eligible for FDIC coverage as part of a U.S.-chartered institution.
Capital requirements also differ. Foreign banks, including Canadian ones, must meet U.S. capital adequacy standards for their U.S. operations, often in addition to home-country requirements. The Federal Reserve may impose enhanced prudential standards on foreign banking organizations (FBOs) with significant U.S. presence (e.g., assets over $50 billion), such as stress testing and liquidity buffers, under regulations like those stemming from the Dodd-Frank Act. While large U.S. banks face similar standards, they don’t have to align with a foreign regulator’s rules, giving them a simpler compliance landscape. For example, a Canadian bank like Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), which operates TD Bank as a U.S. subsidiary, must ensure its U.S. entity meets Federal Reserve standards while its parent complies with Canada’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) rules, creating a dual burden not faced by American banks like JPMorgan Chase.
Another limitation is ownership and control. Canadian banks seeking to acquire or establish U.S. banking operations must gain approval from U.S. regulators, who assess the foreign bank’s global financial stability and home-country supervision under the BHCA and IBA. This process is more stringent than for U.S. banks, which face no equivalent foreign oversight check when expanding domestically. For instance, a Canadian bank acquiring a U.S. bank must demonstrate that its home regulator (OSFI) meets U.S. standards for consolidated supervision, a hurdle American banks don’t encounter. Additionally, foreign banks are restricted in owning non-banking businesses in the U.S. under the BHCA, whereas U.S. bank holding companies have more flexibility to engage in financial activities like securities or insurance, subject to domestic rules.
Deposit insurance presents a further disparity. Canadian bank branches in the U.S. cannot accept retail deposits (typically under $250,000) unless they opt into FDIC insurance, which requires meeting U.S. chartering and capital rules—essentially mimicking a domestic bank. Most foreign branches avoid this, focusing on wholesale banking (e.g., corporate loans), limiting their retail market access. U.S. banks, by contrast, have inherent FDIC coverage for all branches, enabling broader retail operations without additional opt-ins. Canadian subsidiaries like TD Bank, which are FDIC-insured, can offer retail services, but establishing and maintaining such entities involves higher entry costs and regulatory oversight than for U.S. banks expanding organically.
Market access and competition also reflect implicit limitations. The U.S. market, while fragmented with over 4,000 banks, is dominated by large domestic players (e.g., Bank of America, Wells Fargo) that benefit from established networks and fewer regulatory layers. Canadian banks, even successful ones like TD or Bank of Montreal (BMO), which owns BMO Harris Bank, must navigate a complex state-federal regulatory patchwork and compete without the same historical foothold. While not a formal restriction, this dynamic disadvantages foreign entrants compared to U.S. banks, which face no equivalent barriers abroad unless imposed by host countries.
In contrast, American banks don’t face reciprocal structural or supervisory limitations in the U.S. They can branch freely across states (post-1994 Riegle-Neal Act), don’t need foreign regulator approval, and aren’t subject to dual home-host oversight. Canadian banks, however, operate under a stricter Canadian regulatory regime at home (e.g., OSFI’s domestic stability buffer) and then face U.S. rules tailored to foreign entities, creating an asymmetry. For example, while Canadian banks have expanded significantly in the U.S.—TD and BMO rank among the top 10 U.S. banks by assets—their U.S. operations are still shaped by foreign bank rules that don’t encumber domestic competitors.
In summary, the U.S. imposes the following limitations on Canadian banks that it doesn’t on American banks:
Structural Requirements: Canadian banks must operate as subsidiaries or branches, with branches restricted from retail deposit-taking unless FDIC-insured, unlike U.S. banks’ unrestricted branching.
Enhanced Oversight: Foreign banks face Federal Reserve approval and ongoing supervision of their global operations, a layer not applied to U.S. banks.
Capital and Compliance Burden: Canadian banks must meet U.S. standards alongside Canadian ones, while U.S. banks comply only with domestic rules.
Acquisition Barriers: Stricter regulatory approval for Canadian banks acquiring U.S. entities, including home-country supervision checks, unlike U.S. banks’ domestic expansion.
These differences reflect the U.S.’s approach to balancing foreign competition with financial stability, contrasting with Canada’s more restrictive stance on foreign banks (e.g., ownership limits on large banks), though the question focuses on U.S.-imposed limits. Canadian banks succeed in the U.S. despite these hurdles, but they operate with constraints American banks don’t face domestically
-
1
-
1
-
-
From Grok:
facts matter.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_a227b10f-0d7e-4177-b575-51151b2af7f3QuoteTo address why Donald Trump might be lying about trade with Canada, along with examples of his inaccuracies and potential motivations, let’s break this down based on available information and reasonable analysis.
Examples of Inaccuracies
Trump has made several inaccurate claims about U.S.-Canada trade over time. Here are some specific examples:
Claim of a Massive Trade Deficit
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. has a significant trade deficit with Canada, citing figures like $200 billion or $250 billion. For instance, in remarks to the World Economic Forum in January 2025, he stated the deficit was "$200 billion or $250 billion," calling it unfair. In reality, the U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Canada was approximately $40.6 billion in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Even when considering only goods (excluding services, where the U.S. has a surplus), the deficit was about $72.3 billion—far below Trump’s numbers. Additionally, in 2016, the U.S. actually had an overall trade surplus with Canada of $12.5 billion, a fact Trump ignored when boasting in 2018 about making up deficit claims during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
"Subsidizing" Canada
Trump has framed the trade deficit as the U.S. "subsidizing" Canada, suggesting it’s a loss or gift to Canada. This misrepresents how trade deficits work—they reflect market-driven exchanges, not subsidies. The U.S. imports large amounts of Canadian oil (about 3.9 million barrels per day in 2023), which keeps American gas prices lower, benefiting the U.S. economy rather than constituting a loss.
Canada Blocking U.S. Banks
As recently as March 2025, with tariffs on Canadian goods taking effect, Trump claimed Canada prohibits U.S. banks from operating there. This is false. While Canada regulates foreign banks, U.S. banks like Citibank and JPMorgan Chase operate subsidiaries or branches in Canada under Canadian banking laws, similar to how foreign banks operate in the U.S. with oversight.
Historical Claims and Exaggerations
In 2018, Trump asked Trudeau if Canada "burned down the White House" (referencing the War of 1812), implying Canadian aggression. In fact, British forces, not Canadians, burned the White House in 1814, and Canada was then a British colony, not an independent actor. This was part of a broader pattern of distorting U.S.-Canada relations to justify trade actions.
Why Is Trump Lying?
Trump’s inaccuracies about trade with Canada likely stem from a mix of political strategy, economic misunderstanding, and personal style rather than a single clear motive. Here are some potential motivations:
Populist Appeal and Nationalism
Trump leverages claims of trade imbalances to stoke nationalist sentiment, portraying the U.S. as a victim of "unfair" foreign practices. This aligns with his "America First" rhetoric, appealing to supporters who feel economic anxiety over globalization. By exaggerating deficits or framing trade as a zero-sum game, he simplifies complex economics into a narrative of exploitation, even if the facts don’t support it. Analysts have noted this as a hallmark of his populist approach, where emotional resonance trumps data.
Negotiation Tactics
Trump has a history of using exaggerated or fabricated claims as leverage in negotiations. His 2018 admission of making up trade deficit figures to Trudeau, later bragging about it to donors, suggests he sees falsehoods as a way to pressure counterparts. With looming Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) renegotiations in 2026, his tariff threats and trade distortions might aim to force Canada into concessions, though he’s also said tariffs are an end in themselves, not just a tool.
Economic Misunderstanding or Disregard for Facts
Trump often ignores nuances like services trade (where the U.S. excels) or the benefits of imports (e.g., cheap Canadian oil). His focus on goods deficits alone reflects either a genuine misunderstanding of trade economics or a deliberate choice to cherry-pick data that fits his narrative. His repetition of false figures—like the $17 billion deficit including energy and timber, which still doesn’t align with official stats—shows a casual attitude toward accuracy.
Political Pressure and Distraction
By targeting Canada with tariffs and false claims (e.g., linking them to fentanyl trafficking, despite less than 1% of U.S. fentanyl seizures occurring at the Canadian border), Trump might aim to shift focus from domestic issues or rally his base around a visible enemy. Canada, as a close ally with integrated economies, makes an easy scapegoat despite the mutual benefits of trade.
Critical Perspective
While Trump’s lies could be strategic, they also risk backfiring. Canada’s potential countermeasures—like oil export tariffs or targeting U.S. Red States with retaliatory duties—could hurt American consumers and his own supporters, contradicting his stated goals. The irrationality of attacking a stable trade partner suggests his motivations might blend genuine belief in protectionism with a performative strongman persona, where admitting error or complexity is avoided at all costs.
In short, Trump’s inaccuracies about Canada—like inflated deficits, fictitious subsidies, or banking bans—seem driven by a mix of populist messaging, negotiation bluster, and a rejection of economic nuance, all tailored to maintain his image and political capital, even if the long-term consequences undermine his stated aims.
-
1
-
-
It used to be free over the air because it was paid for with the commercials that aired during the games.
Now you will have to pay for multiple services just to be able to get the games and watch even MORE commercials.
I miss the old days for just about every reason.
.
-
2
-
-
QuoteIn the last five seasons, only two teams have exceeded 55 regular season wins: the Chiefs (66) and the Bills (61).
Regular season wins are fine…if they lead to better seeding and playoff success.
Despite the Chiefs and Bills both leading the NFL in total wins over the last five seasons and each making the playoffs all five seasons, the Bills lag behind in playoff success.
In the playoffs, the Chiefs have:
4 Conference Championships
2 Super Bowls
Meanwhile, the Bills have:
0 Conference Championships
0 Super Bowls
It is not so simple to suggest the Bills are great in the regular season and bad in the playoffs.
In fact, in the playoffs over the last five years, the Bills have 12 games played (second most in the NFL) and 7 wins (second most in the NFL).
Beyond that, they actually have a winning record in the NFL playoffs: 12 games, 7 wins, 5 losses.
There are only 6 other teams with a winning record in the playoffs the last five years, and ALL of them have at least one Conference Championship victory and Super Bowl appearance to show for it.
Chiefs
Rams
Eagles
Buccaneers
Bengals
49ers
But not the Bills.
Josh Allen's Playoff Performance
You cannot blame Josh Allen’s overall performance as the reason they cannot seem to accomplish their goals of making it to and then winning the Super Bowl.
If you look at the 24 quarterbacks with at least 50 playoff pass attempts since 2020, Josh Allen is the #1 most efficient quarterback in the playoffs.
#1 in EPA per play (+0.15)
#1 in success rate (50%)
We know how badly turnovers affect games, particularly in the postseason.
That hasn’t been an issue for Allen.
He has the #1 best TD:INT ratio in the postseason over the last five years.
He has thrown 25 playoff touchdowns to only 4 interceptions, a TD/INT rate of 6.3 that ranks #1.
In their five playoff losses, the Bills have averaged 24.6 points per game, which not only is above the scoring average in the playoffs for all teams (24.5) but is substantially above the scoring average for teams that lose playoff games (18.8).
In fact, the Bills average of 24.6 points per game scored in playoff losses over the last five years is #1 most of any NFL team with at least three playoff losses.
Opponents scored an average of 33.2 points in Buffalo’s five playoff losses over that span.
It’s hard to pin those defeats on Allen.
In his five losses, he’s averaged +0.14 EPA/play and a 51.2% success rate.
Where do those stats rank among quarterbacks in playoff losses over the last five years?
#1 in EPA/play
#1 in success rate
In those losses, he has thrown 9 touchdowns to just 2 interceptions, and his 4.5 TD/INT ratio is #2 in the NFL among playoff losing QBs.
Allen has also added 3 rushing TDs (tied for most in the NFL) in his playoff losses.
His 2.4 total touchdowns per game rank #2 best among playoff losing quarterbacks, and his 0.4 interceptions per game rank #3 best.
Avoiding sacks is also critical, and Allen’s 4.3% sack rate ranks #5 best.
As noted earlier, the two teams with the most regular season wins and most playoff wins over the last five years are the Chiefs and Bills.
Let’s compare Josh Allen’s performance in his playoff losses (5) to Patrick Mahomes in his losses (3) over the last five years.
And keep in mind, there have been 18 quarterbacks with at least two playoff losses in our sample.
Josh Allen (of 18 QBs):
#1 EPA/play (+0.17)
#2 EPA/dropback (+0.13)
Patrick Mahomes (of 18 QBs):
#15 EPA/play (-0.15)
#18 EPA/dropback (-0.22)
Even in playoff losses, Allen has delivered more efficient performances than any other quarterback.
In playoff losses, Allen has been the best quarterback.
Patrick Mahomes has been the worst.
In his five playoff losses, Allen has a 9:2 TD:INT ratio.
In his three playoff losses, Mahomes has a 6:6 TD:INT ratio.
Josh Allen (of 18 QBs):
#3 in TD/INT rate (4.5)
#5 in sack rate (4.3%)
#2 in Sack+INT rate (4.8%)
Patrick Mahomes (of 18 QBs):
#10 in TD/INT rate (1.0)
#14 in sack rate (9.8%)
#15 in Sack+INT rate (13.2%)
Allen has also recorded 293 rushing yards and 3 rushing TDs in those games.
His 59 rushing yards per game is over double Mahomes’ 26 rushing yards per game, and Mahomes does not have a rushing touchdown.
Allen has given the Buffalo Bills tremendous performances in the postseason, even in their losses.
The best statistical quarterback in the postseason over the last five years across all games, wins or losses.
And yet, the only statistic that matters for the Bills is 0.
That is the number of Super Bowl wins in the last five years.
Even worse, that is the number of AFC Championships in their five playoff trips.
Allen would be the first to point the finger at himself for things he could have done better in each playoff loss, and he hasn’t been perfect.
But at the end of the day, given these statistics and this analysis, it’s hard to look at the Bills and think they can “get over the hump” in the playoffs if only Allen would play better.
With this team, their playoff futility is not on the quarterback.
So, if it’s not on the quarterback, who then bears the blame for the Bills failing mightily when it matters most and not bringing home any AFC Championships or Super Bowls these last five seasons despite recording the #2 most regular season wins and #2 most playoff wins?
And the even bigger question: what are they changing to get over that hump in 2025?
-
8
-
4
-
1
-
-
1 game above .500-
5
-
1
-
-
Classy
“Pat Mahomes Sr., the father of Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes, created a bit of a stir when video emerged of a squabble with former baseball player John Rocker on Bourbon Street in New Orleans.
The problem for the elder Mahomes is that he’s currently on probation after a third DWI. The fight arguably violated the terms of his limited freedom.
Unless it wasn’t an actual fight.
Via TMZ.com, Mahomes Sr. told a court last week that the fight was a staged promotion for an April boxing match with Rocker at Barstool’s Rough N’ Rowdy. The contract, Mahomes Sr. showed the court, was signed on January 17.
While it kept Mahomes Sr. out of jail, it exposes the whole thing as a ruse aimed at hyping the fight.
Mahomes Sr. is due to make at least $85,000 for the fight. He could get more depending on the pay-per-view numbers.
And the phony fight on Bourbon Street was part of the effort to bump the numbers. If the fake altercation didn’t present Mahomes with the prospect of real incarceration, the official word would still be that the falsified confrontation was legitimate and genuine.“
-
1
-
Maxwell Hairston named in civil lawsuit for sexual assault
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Farking Gold Diggers.
Anyone bringing forward a case like this and loses should have to pay the exact same amount they were asking for to the person they accused.