Einstein

Over time i have come to this conclusion as well. When I go back and watch games, its remarkable how often he saved a drive. And as you noted, its not like we cant afford him because we are paying an elite WR.

Agreed. Kelly and Josh should switch places. He is very close. I can understand why some would put Bruce above him right now, but I wouldn't make any argent for Allen being #1 either.

Yep. Absolute delusion. "its not theft because the stolen item is not economically scarce". So ridiculous its not even worth debating.

This. That would be very costly. We are talking many millions - not hundreds.

We are so screwed as a species. People are not only immoral but they are also happy and make jokes about their immorality. Theft was once a social stigma - you were embarrassed by your actions. Not anymore. Now it is simply; "You have something I want, and I don't want to pay for it. That's good enough justification". Yikes.

Paid almost $1,100 last month. The two months before that were over $1k too. Absolutely ridiculous.

One needs to twist logic into a pretzel for your argument to make sense. You make the argument that stealing from Walmart is wrong because it causes a loss to someone else, but then add the distinction that illegal streaming doesn’t occur such loss by its owner. You're wrong. When people stream illegally, it lowers official viewership numbers, which directly impacts ad revenue and future broadcast contracts. That is a loss. The league makes less, players make less, etc. Yes, digital files aren’t scarce, but the value of the product depends on exclusive access. Most people make the argument of "boo hoo, big rich league", but your argument is that not that the league makes enough already - its that you doing something illegal doesn't cause them harm. Which is quite the strange argument. There is always a loss to *someone* during theft. Your argument is akin to rioters who loot stores because "Insurance will pay for it - its a win/win for everyone". But in reality, premiums are raised costing stores more, insurance takes a hit which results in job losses (look at what happened to insurance companies in Florida), etc. Theft is never free.

yeah its the perfect answer

A drug test would prove it. Unless he carries the drugs around for show rather than for ingestion.

Not only the Boyd miracle, but also the easiest schedule ever. Our wins…. Against Josh McCown, David Fales, Trevor Siemian, Jameis Winston, Jacoby Brissett, Derek Carr, Alex Smith, Matt Ryan, and Jay Cutler.

WGR was playing a similar version this game and I would like to see your opinion as well. Bills won 13 games in 2024. 1. How many would they have won without Josh Allen? 2. How many would they have won without James Cook? 3. How many would they have won without Dion Dawkins? Spencer Brown? 4. How many would they have won without Ed Oliver? 5. How many would they have won without Rousseau? and any other you would like to do...

Now I know you’re confusing me with someone else. I am not, and have never been, a domer (someone who cares deeply about wanting a dome). If it was my choice, I probably would have chosen a dome - but as my post history shows, I have always said I am fine with open air too. In fact, the last time I mentioned the word “dome” in a post was 7 MONTHS ago when I said I’m surprised they didn’t build a dome just because of the liability of slick steps. And before that? It was a 16 MONTHS ago that I last mentioned anything about a dome - that time it was to joke around with the domers. So… 1 post in 7 MONTHS is “at least twice a month” to you? Or maybe it was 2 posts in 16 MONTHS that put it over the top for you? And before all that, you hit me with the accusation that I was “crusading” in this thread—only for it to come out that I account for just 14 of the last 500 posts, and that you account for more. Then, suddenly, you changed your tune and the issue wasn’t how often I post, but that you just don’t like my opinions. Well, sorry, but not liking my opinions is not crusading; that’s just disagreement. Question for you: What are you going to completely fabricate and lie about next!?

Oh i’m aware. Post 100 times about how great the stadium is = not a problem. Post 14 times (in a 6 month span) about how you don’t like aspects of the stadium = crusading!!! The hypocrisy is overwhelming. Last time I checked, the thread title isn’t “post great things about the stadium”. It’s stadium discussion. The good, the bad, the ugly, the interesting, the not interesting - everything stadium discussion.

So you’re crusading against me… and my 14 total posts in this thread in the last six months. Got it ✅

Hold on.... In the last 500 posts of this thread - that is going back 6 months - I have posted a total of 14 times in this thread. But you? You have posted 17 times in that same period. You have posted more than me in this thread in the past 6 months! If you think I am 'crusading', then you must be leading an entire holy war.

I do!? I have half the amount of posts in this thread as the leading poster, and only 60% of the second most. Can you tell us about all the leading edge technology? Is it the grass field with grow lights that Green Bay and others have been using for decades? Is it the fact that we are installing the same radiant heating technology that is in the current stadium and was installed over a decade ago? Is it the canopy that is a lesser copy of Tottenham’s almost decade old design? Is it the snow melt system that was copied from the Vikings who built theirs a decade ago? (ours will be bigger/more advanced though) From what I have seen and read, we are installing features that have been in other stadiums for decades and calling it ‘leading edge’ because it’s new to us. If we have genuine innovation in this stadium then that is awesome, but everything I have seen is a copy of old-ish technology that is borrowed from other stadiums who have had it for a while. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So if you think it looks modern and cool, that’s great! Personally, I think it looks old and boring. Someone else mentioned that it looks old because it’s based on Tottenham - which was designed almost a decade ago. So it’s already based on an older design. I thought that was a good point.

You're a better man than me for responding to that

Oh if we are talking about the play call itself, I agree with you. Brady has sucked twice in the playoffs against the Chiefs. I am talking about Allen only.

This is what it comes down to. For both Doc and Bill.

That logic would make sense if our struggles came from just being bad at running it. But if the real reason we struggled was because defenses were taking that area away — and now you’re in a game where the defense is leaving that area wide open… Then you absolutely take it.

Wow, you really didn’t understand that post you just quoted. We are *not* awful at throwing to the middle of the field. As that post shows in detail, the middle of the field stats look bad for most great offenses because: 1) Cover 2 forces you to throw elsewhere 2) The few times (literally about 10 times per season on average) we throw there, it’s often a deep throwaway or hail mary. It’s not that teams can’t throw there. It’s that, most of the time, the defense takes that middle away. But if they don’t, you definitely want to take it - especially in the endzone. Long story short: Youre making a faulty comparison. You’re thinking “bad stats = bad at throwing there”. But that’s not the case in this situation.

Yes. That is correct. And that is what you should do IF there is not a WR wide open in the endzone. Had Shakir not been open, I would agree with you - hit Diggs. Or scramble. But Shakir WAS open. And you take the TD when you have a WR open. Just because a certain scheme is meant to take something away, doesnt mean it works every play. One would only feel that way if they don't understand what I am writing.

Nice try As a general rule, yes, throwing deep middle seams against Cover 2 is tough. But that is because the defense is designed to stop it. However, if the defense messes up, YOU TAKE IT. Just like, as a general rule, running against a stacked box is difficult. But what if 2 defenders fall down? Should the running back NOT take that hole and go for it? Of of course they should. The Chiefs lost Shakir. It was a touchdown had Allen not been hit.

I refuse to entertain your trolling. You know what I and others are saying and you are purposefully attempting to twist it. You read what Simon said. You also read what I have said (unless your responding without actually reading which is worse). Yet instead of responding to what we write, you simply regurgitate the same point without any additional nuance or clarification. I don't know why you are acting like this, because in general you haven't done this. But today, you are trolling for some reason. Its bad enough when our own fans do it, but downright miserable when a Chiefs fan does it. Its not interesting and I can only assume that if you keep it up, sooner or later, you will be tossed.

No. Which is why you see the same exact thing in other great offenses. Read below... Nothing to do with personnel - its how defenses are playing us and other good offenses. After the 2020 season, defenses across the league began playing more and more Cover 2 against great offenses like the Bills and Chiefs. The goal was to take away the deep passes and intermediate crossers (Daboll loved these). The goal was to force offenses to go on methodical drives. Because Cover 2 takes away the deep pass (especially the middle intermediate where the 2 safeties have converging zones), great offenses barely ever throw there anymore. This means that most of the intermediate/deep middle throws are throwaways and improbable heaves. But if you dont know the context behind the stats, its easy to be confused. For example, Doc Brown (because he doesn't know any better) thought this was an Allen issue. It's not. Its just how teams are playing great offenses. Example: Here is Mahomes throwing to the middle of the field. 11.3 rating. And here is Hurts with a 8.3 rating. And here is Goff And here is Allen So... yeah. The deep middle argument is nonsense. But if you don't know the context of the stats you're seeing, you may think its something wrong with Josh. it's not.