dave mcbride

Agreed. He will have lost me. More importantly, I suspect he will have lost the team. I mean, you have to at least try to win given the circumstances, and trotting out an average QB gives you a better chance than trotting out the garbage that is Peterman. He will be destroyed by the Chiefs active pass rush and its corners.

They're all bad. It's not like the Bills didn't play the Panthers tough. Anyway, all of these teams have suffered some horrible blowouts this year (Indy: 46-9, 46-18, 27-0). Miami has been destroyed a number of times and just lost a game to freaking Fitz. I'm not positive at all, btw; I just think some of these games are winnable because of turnovers, weather, etc. It ain't over. KC just lost to the Giants, who are *terrible*. I think KC will beat Buffalo with relative ease, but anything can happen.

Oh, I'm not optimistic at all. I expect defeat. Having said that, though, I'm one of those people who plays games hard to the end because a) you never know; b) it's the right thing to do; and c) the other competitors at the bottom of the pool are all deeply flawed too. For instance, I have no doubt in my mind that this year, Tyrod Taylor is a significantly better QB than Marcus Mariota. These mid-tier AFC teams are all weak. Ironically, the Chargers are the best of the lot and should probably be 7-3 if not for three collapses in the final seconds.

Agreed.

What? Why the insult? The Bills have three winnable games: Indy, who is terrible, and two against Miami, who is also terrible. Will they beat KC or NE? Probably not, but crazy turnovers and injuries can happen. Bad weather can happen and affect a game. All of the Bills' erstwhile competitors for the #6 spot are bad too. The Ravens are not good. KC just lost to the Giants, who are terrible. Yeah, sounds likely.

Um ... when you've a bad decision it's actually OK to waver. My god, this reads like someone who has ingested the contents of ten really crappy inspirational management books. Just cliche after cliche.

At 5-5 and with as solid a shot as any in a bad conference to get into the playoffs if they take care of business and go 4-2 the rest of the way, they need to play to win. Anything else is not acceptable. Starting Peterman can't be a serious possibility, right? We just witnessed arguably the worst performance by a QB in league history. He made Jeff Tuel look like Aaron Rodgers.

It's not balls to start Peterman again, it's flat out stupidity.

I'm not saying Oakland has a great running game, but it's not like SD does either. It doesn't help when your best running back is out, however. No, his numbers aren't great this season, but he's had some good games. Against a sieve D like Buffalo's though, he would likely have put up 100 if the team had decided to feed him the rock. In his last two games, he had 14 carries/57 yds and 2 strong TDs against Miami, and 11 carries/67 yds against NE. Also, they only ran it 14 times against Buffalo, which in retrospect was a huge coaching error by Del Rio given what we know now.

I think this is a pretty good thread (even if I disagree with aspects of your argument); thanks. I disagree with you about Watkins pretty strongly, but I can see where you're coming from. For what it's worth, I do expect his numbers to go up now that Woods is hurt, however. He has looked very explosive on the all-22s lately even if the ball doesn't come his way. I also think that he's the sort of receiver that is great for a qb who shifts into sandlot mode on a play, which TT does more than most QBs. He's simply the best athlete on the field in those situations. The Rams offense is very, very structured, and Goff's throws are truly dictated by coverage.

In the three games Jax has played since Dareus has joined them, they have allowed 166 rushing yards (53.3 per game) on 65 carries (2.55 per carry). Prior to his arrival, their rush defense was at the bottom of the league. The Bills' D had one solid run defense game against Oakland, who just happened to be missing their most talented RB that game. Since then, they have not been decent, to say the least. It's hilarious to think that giving up 146 yards and 2 rushing TDs on the ground represents a massive improvement over the previous two weeks.

Kidding, right?

NE is in the Steelers' division?

Tell that to the 2011 Giants.

I take your point about taking chances, but this wasn't like going for it on 4th and 2 at the opponent's 39 yard line -- it was more like deciding to punt on 3rd and 11 from your own 30 yard line in a fit of (wrongheaded) cleverness.

Just to clarify, the "allergic to turnovers" coach didn't deem it necessary to make the hook until 5 TOs and 37 points had happened. Then it was ok for the superior-yet-flawed qb to come in. dennison has to go.

It is now halftime and peterman is still qb. Season was on the line, and mcdermott didn't put tyrod back in. Looks like Vic's theory was essentially correct. They will not play him no matter what despite the fact that after int 3, it was clear he gave them a better chance to win. The defense has quit on this coach too.

Lol! This game is some damn fine comedy.

It is clear to me that this team has quit.

I stand by what I said. Not a good decision at all. I am very skeptical of this coach going forward.

Almost picked though ...

I disagree. Taylor is fun to watch, at least in my opinion. anyway, this change is an epically bad decision. One for annals in the history of bad Bills coaching decisions.

Stating there is no difference is foolish. Seriously.

14, should be 17.

There is actually a huge, huge difference.