The Red King

Well, attempted crime then, at the least. We do that for other criminal acts that fail. Attempted fraud, blackmail, murder, etc...

Yes. Why does it have to be one or the other? I abhored both canidates in the 2016 election. Saddest part is, I neither canidate could have won against anyone else. Just because I hate a good number of things Trump's done (still waiting for the mexicans to pay for the wall...) doesn't mean democrats past or present get a free pass. I'd be tickled to see Trump and Hillary in the same cell, tbh.

What scares me most is the fanatical partisan opinions here. Either you support Trump, in which case we should be demanding a wall (Weren't the Mexicans paying for it?), and any inquiry into Trump is harassment by democrats who should just leave Trump alone, as the man can obviously do no wrong...or...you support the democrats, everything Trump has done has been wrong and likely criminal, and anything he proposes should be shot down. There is no middle ground, not even a pretense. That being said, back on point, if there is the possibility a crime was commited, in this case fraud, it should be investigated regardless of whether Trump is President or just a shoe shine boy. Crime is crime.

Ever since the realignment the schedules are fixed. Each division plays an entire AFC division and NFC division. That's eight games. You play six games against divisional rivals. That brings it to fourteen games. A team's remaining two games are against the teams that finished in the same place in the two other divisions in your conference you're not playing. The AFC and NFC divisions you play rotate year to year, and the home team flips. Last season, Buffalo played in Green Bay. Four years prior, we hosted them, four years from now we'll host them again. No conspiracy at all. The entire schedule is dictated by a formula.

Biggest comeback in NFL history. Super Bowl champ is an honor shared with every other SB champion. Only one team pulled off a 33-point comeback. Or are you going to try and throw shade on that, too?

This is why we need a monster pass rusher. I think our secondary can make plays, but when opposing QBs can set up lawn chairs, sip iced tea and read a book until someone comes open...it ain't gonna matter who's in coverage.

He had receivers that dropped an inordinate amount of catches, never fought for the ball, and tripped over the goal line coming out of the endzone at Wyoming as well? ?

Bruce, hands down. Our defense is actually pretty damn good, but the most glaring weakness is a lack of pass rush. Add Bruce (in his prime) to that defense and it could be legendary. Force the QB to get the ball out quick, and into the hands of our secondary, the thought gives me shivers.

So, the plan is to not give the developing, top ten pick QB all of the first team reps throughout training camp and preseason so he can form bonds and timing patterns with all the new offensive weapons we're hopefully bringing in? Instead we're going to waste starting reps and potentially a draft pick on another QB? Do you honestly think any other QB on the roster, or any other QB we would draft in a reasonable round could dethrone Allen as the starter? If they don't, all you've done is take away development from him. ...of course this is the point where you insist even a seventh round QB could take the starting job from Allen, and I roll my eyes and rightfully discard everything you've said.

Remember, the NFL is all about player safety. I'm sure after this result that Kiko will realize it's not worth taking a similar run at QBs going forward. ...honestly, someone is going to take this chump out, and the NFL's gonna act shocked and come down hard on the person who does it, in a typically hypocritical move to deflect blame from themselves.

At least call and kick the tires. The Bills haven't had a dominant pass rush since...how long has Brady been around, again?

C.J. Spiller. He was bpa at the time, but the Bills had a number of needs and running back wasn't one of them.

Coach-speak. Means nothing. He's not going to throw him under the bus. Remember all the kind words for Peterman...

Bimgo. Had he declined, I would have supported him. Nobody held a gun to his head or took his loved ones hostage. He said yes, signed, then went berserk.

Cogs could have said no. He said yes. Then he went outright berserk, and some people think that's 100% on the Bills. Accordng to their logic teams should never, ever ask a star to take a pay cut because if they accept, then go berserk, it's the team's fault. New England really took a chance asking Brady to take a cut because *bam* he could have snapped and it would have been the team's fault! They really rolled the dice! ?

Why did you highlight half of my sentence while not highlighting the start of the sentence that said 'I am not saying...'. It's like me going 'I'm not saying beef is bad...' and you replying, highlighting 'beef is bad' and jumping on it. Though, that, and your reply, make it clear you still don't understand what I am saying, and I've run out of ways to say it, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you don't think an early 80-yard bomb would have changed momentum, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. That aside I stressed multiple times that I am not saying those plays were the only or main reason we lost. We still had three takeaways, and a number of defensive stands. The defense jeckell and hyded all game. Had Buffalo hit those opportunities, I do think the game would have been competative. We didn't, not a one. But all this talk of watching the game, I did. Every single painful play, start to end.

Talking specifics when your team is dominated is kinda what this board does. Otherwise there would be just one new thread after the game titled "We got dominated". You seem to think I'm excusing the Bills, or saying they only lost because of the plays mentioned. I claimed nothing of the sort, and specifically said otherwise. That aside, the plays mentioned in the OP were certainly back-breakers, and changed the momentum of the game. Honestly, we get dominated, and you think people should only be able to create posts stating exactly that, while being forbidden from discussing certain aspects of the game? Would make TBD a very boring place.

Who was making excuses? Did you even read my post? I even specifically said "I'm not saying we would have won...". I...think you missed the point of the thread entirely.

Buffalo's offensive weapons? You mean like... I think Shady might have value. He's a finesse runner behind a line that couldn't open a hole if they needed oxygen after a cave-in. Allen is a work-in-progress. Beyond that...newp.

I claimed 9-7 if Allen started, 7-9 if Peterman did, and I was close. If Allen hadn't been injured (and Peterman threw away the Texans game), I might have been spot on. I think most of us considered this a rebuilding year, with potential but not expectation to surprise.

It's easy to be discouraged after yesterday, but it's worse when you think of how many points the Bills left out on the field. How much better would Allen's stats have looked had the sun not broken up that perfectly thrown long ball? That's 7. We missed a field goal, and didn't try another shortly after thanks to an injured kicker. 6 more there. Fumble at the NE 5 prevented what would have been another 3-7. In total, just that small number of plays cost us 16-20 points. We only scored 12. Now, I'm not saying we would have won. Obviously, NE would have played differently were the game closer. But, we would have been more competative. All teams have rough breaks, and it wouldn't have been unusual to have one of the above happen, but all of them? What I wonder is, can we fix those intangibles? I'm not worried about Haush. Offseason to heal and he should be back in buisness. We need playmakers on offense, specifically receivers. Other teams, you look and say "Holy crap! How did he catch that?". Us, it's "Holy crap, how did he drop that?". It seems like where other receivers bail out their QB at times, Allen has to hit his in the numbers to even have a chance. It just struck me as odd, how the smallest number of plays had such a drastic effect on Buffalo's scoring, and how we might be closer to NE then we showed.

Allen is obviously a bust. Tosses a perfect bomb to a guy that got past two defenders, but didn't even realize the sun was still in coverage. Totally his fault, totally a bust. Cut the guy now. ?

Blow it all up! Cut the entire team! If they're not winning, then there can't be a single good thing to talk about! Allen is obviously trash! On that TD bomb, even though the receiver got behind the Pats and the ball was perfectly thrown, Allen should have realized the sun was still in coverage. Totally Allen's fault! *eyeroll* Also, the Bills went 9-7 last year and made the playoffs. That disqualifies them from being perennial losers. Just saying. That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

In the tabletop miniature game Warhammer 40,000, Orks frequently paint vehicles red because they believe red ones go faster. That aside, they either need red helmets to go with them, or wear white pants. As it stands they look like lighthouses, some sick inversion of their 90's road uniforms.