folz

Besides the Notre Dame "Touchdown Jesus" that H2O posted, apparently there was another dubbed "Touchdown Jesus," a statue in Monroe, Ohio. But it was destroyed in 2010 by a lightning strike and subsequent fire.

I didn't realize that Kumerow's nickname was Touchdown Jesus, so I thought that I was going to open the thread to see something like this: But very cool to learn about Kumerow's family/NFL connections. I didn't know any of that either. Who knows what he will do with the Bills, but definitely the type of guy you want to root for.

To me, head-to-head matters when records are close, so... KC and TEN should be ahead of us in a power ranking. and SEA, LAR, MIA, LV should be below ARZ is fringe. They beat us, but on a last second Hail Mary, and we have a better record by 2 games. So, this is my one exception to the head-to-head. I'm putting BUF ahead of ARZ. Then you have: PITT, NO, GB, TB, IND, and CLE in the mix. PITT may be decided when we play them, but for now the Steelers get the bid for being undefeated. And I'm the same as others, NO with Brees is ahead, without Brees, below. GB has the same record, but they have been scoring more than us (and are only 1 point different in points given up), plus Aaron Rodgers. So, I'll put GB ahead. I think Tampa and Buf are close, they have also played a tough schedule and have lots of weapons. But I'll give Buf the edge because we have 1 more win and two fewer losses. I think we are ahead of Indy because of our QB, and I think we have more talent than them. And I'm still not buying Cleveland yet (plus Josh over Baker). For all teams, I took into account head-to-head as much as possible, good wins (say against KC, NO, GB, etc.), team talent, QB, record, and strength of schedule. So, my top 15 rankings would be: KC (10-1) PITT (10-0) GB (8-3) NO (w/Brees) (9-2) TEN (8-3) BUF (8-3) TB (7-5) SEA (8-3) LAR (7-4) MIA (7-4) ARZ (6-5) LVR (6-5) BAL (6-4) CLE (8-3) IND (7-4)

Even if we had lost to the Bengals and only beat Jax by 3, Denver by 2, Minnesota by 1...and Bears by 7 and Texans by 6? Somehow I think that you would be using that to say McD wasn't a good coach (rather than pointing to 3 big wins by 26, 19, and 14 points).

👍Thanks...fixed it. (I forgot their 7-point win against the Bears as well, so added that too).

I think sometimes fans see one or two games from a different team and then have a skewed view. So, let's look at Tennessee's season (and all of these blowouts): They beat the 4-7 Broncos by 2 points They beat the 1-10 Jaguars by 3 points They beat the 5-6 Vikings by 1 point They crushed Buffalo by 26 in the COVID game They beat the 4-7 Texans by 6 points They lost to the Steelers They lost to the 2-8 Bengals by 11 They lost to the Colts They beat the 5-6 Bears by 7 They beat the 6-4 Ravens by 14 They beat the 7-4 Colts by 19 So, they blew out the Bills (under strange circumstances), beat the Colts by 19 (but also lost to that same team just two weeks prior), and beat the Ravens by 14. Those are their three "blow-out" wins? If this were McDermott's record, you would be saying, "Come on, we barely beat Jax, Denver, Minnesota...and we lost to the Bengals...McD sucks." But since it is another team, this coach is a future HOFer. We get so laser-focused on the Bills and generally see only highlights and box scores for other teams that we think other teams don't have issues and close wins (against bad teams) too. We forget that other QBs make bad throws, other RBs fumble the ball, other coaches make mistakes. How bout them undefeated Steelers? They beat the 4-7 Giants by 10 They beat the 4-7 Broncos by 5 They beat the 4-7 Texans by 7 They beat the 3-6-1 Eagles by 9 They crushed 8-3 Browns by 31 They beat 8-3 Titans by 3 They beat the 6-4 Ravens by 4 They beat 3-8 Cowboys by 5 They beat 2-8 Bengals by 26 They beat 1-10 Jaguars by 24 So, the Steelers have 3 blow-out wins. One against a 2-win team, one against a 1-win team, and one against the Browns. By your standards though, they also almost lost to two 3-win teams and three 4-win teams. So, are you saying that you would feel much better about McD if we had three blow-out wins? So, let's say instead of beating the Jets by 10 and 8 points in our two games, we won by say 19 and 24, and then beat the Chargers by 14 instead of 10...all of a sudden McDermott would be one of the great coaches? That seems to be your standard here.

Stafford is an interesting question. Is he a product of a bad organization and coaching staffs (and would have flourished more---as far as wins/playoffs---somewhere else), or is Stafford the kind of guy that puts up a lot of numbers, but just doesn't have that killer instinct/put the team on his back leadership/mentality/drive? I'm not sure...most likely, a little bit of both. But, Stafford has put up some nice numbers over the years: He's 17th on the NFL's All-time passing yards list and if he plays two more seasons, he'll probably crack the top ten on that list. Yes, like all QBs of today, he benefits from the pass happy game of today...but when all is said and done, he will probably be top ten/eleven all-time in passing yards, completions, and passing TDs. His average career year is 4,521 passing yards, 30 TDs, 14 INTs. It's hard to win/succeed in poorly-run organizations. How many QBs have flourished with the Jets, or the Bengals, or the Browns, or Detroit? Or the Bills, post-Polian/Butler and pre-McDermott/Beane. How often is it that the kid is just not good enough and how often is it an organization ruining the potential of the player (by not giving him a decent O-line, or weapons, or a complimentary defense, or not coaching/developing him well)? Look at a Sam Darnold or an Andrew Luck. Luck had some good years, but probably could have played another 10-15 years if he wasn't so beat up because the Colts never put a decent line in front of him. I definitely think Stafford would have some playoff wins under his belt if he had been drafted by one of the better organizations in the league. I mean, the guy has been consistently putting up solid/big numbers on a horrible team for years. He's only made the playoffs 3 times. Is that due to him or the team built around him? If he had been making the playoffs more often and had a couple of wins, would people look at him differently? And might that not have happened if he was drafted by an organization like the Steelers, or Seattle, or KC, or New England, etc.? It's hard to say definitively one way or the other, because it is what it is, but I would have been thrilled for him to have been the Bills QB during the drought. That much I know.

Just for some perspective on how the defense played: Herbert has been averaging 26 comps./game for a 67% avg. comp. rate. He is averaging 300 yards/gm, 2.4 TDs/gm, and 21 rushing yards/gm. Today he had 31 comps. for a 60% comp. rate, 316 pass yards, 1 TD, -2 rushing yards. So, the Bills held him to 7 yards less than his average yards from scrimmage, 7% less than his average comp. %, and 1.4 TDs below his average. Not a huge drop off, but the D didn't let him hurt us. (Not to mention that 55 of his passing yards came on that prayer he threw up in the closing minute of the game on 4th down and 27.) Keenan Allen is averaging 9 receptions for 93 yards and 1 TD Today he was held to 4 receptions for 40 yards and a TD The Chargers were averaging 143.2 rushing yards per game. The Bills held them to 76 rushing yards today (and that was with the return of Austin Ekeler, who has been out for the last 8 games. He is probably their best offensive weapon and the last eight teams that played the Chargers didn't have to face him---so that should be factored in as well. He had 129 all purpose yards today---how much better would the Chargers have been over the last eight games with him?). The Bills were in command the entire way. If not for the turnovers, I don't think that anyone is upset with this game. Don't forget that one of the turnovers happened at the Chargers 22. That should have been 3 or 7 automatic points. And both of the other turnovers happened at mid-field, just after a big Bills play, as they were rolling. Take back one of those turnovers and its a 13 or 17 point victory. Take back two and it could have been a 20-24 point margin of victory. No question, the Bills need to hold onto the ball. But if not for those turnovers (which were out of character---at least that many in one game), this would have probably been a blow out. I'm not excusing the turnovers, just trying to give some perspective. No doubt they have to clean that up. But, the only other game they had 3 TOs this year was the Tennessee game. They are averaging 1.45 turnovers/game (as opposed to 3). It would be good to get that down to one or under though. And I'm not faulting them for the penalties, because I thought that the majority of them were BS. Josh deserved the taunting call, but most of the other big penalties were on the refs, not the Bills. I think there was only 1 pre-snap penalty (Feliciano got called for a false start), which is a huge improvement from the Arizona game. And to those who feel they can not be critical without getting called out, it isn't that you can't be critical of the Bills or the game they played, what people are reacting to is the negative attitude (the Bills are never going to win a playoff game, we can't beat any good teams, we're not as good as KC, Pitt, Tenn, Balt, Cle, Mia). Most don't have a problem discussing what went wrong in the game, where the Bills need to improve, etc., but that's not what a lot of the negative posts are. The negative ones tend to come from a defeatist attitude that the Bills and Bills fans are trying to overcome. We're 8-3 (a lucky Hail Mary away from 9-2), leading the division, still getting healthier, still improving. Enjoy the ride and stop worrying about if our wins look pretty or not. It's a week to week league, do whatever you can to advance and move on. Worrying about KC in a divisional round playoff game right now doesn't help anything and you can't predict that future yet anyhow, so take one game at a time. Enjoy the positives, point out the negatives, and move on to the next one. But, have a little faith too.

Just a couple of points I disagree with. Yes, we all expected more out of Knox this year, but that big missed tackle was a one-on-one block against Bosa. There aren't many TEs in the league that can take Bosa one-on-one. So, it's hard for me to fault him too much for that. Especially since it was sweep play. He wasn't lined up opposite Bosa, he had to try to slide over and catch Bosa before he got off the ball. Tough ask. Coaches didn't put him in a position to succeed. And I totally disagree with your take on the TD. That was a great catch by Knox. It was either a bad ball from Josh or he was putting it where the defender couldn't get to it, but either way, the ball was high and behind Knox. The fact that he caught that and was still able to get his feet down was an excellent play by him. I think Taron played a very good game today for the most part and I think he is a player. I'm not sure why people have been calling for his head lately. And due to injuries, game plans, etc. Moss has not had many opportunities overall. So, I'm also surprised how many fans are down on him too. He is a rookie who has had a total of 68 carries, is averaging 4.2 yards per rush, and has 4 TDs.

I'm just speculating like everyone else here, but... I think that Morse is a very good center, but he isn't the stoutest at the point of attack. So, when he went down, they got to see Feliciano at center. Obviously he is more of a mauler and a bigger dude (he's two inches shorter than Mitch, but 20 pounds heavier). So, maybe they just wanted to give the combination with Feliciano one more week (as an experiment) to see if it helped the running game. If it did, maybe they would have kept running with it. But, it didn't seem to achieve that goal or they realized that any small advantage they were gaining at Center was being lost in the Guard position, so they went back to putting the 5 best players out there (which includes Morse at center and Feliciano at guard). And it wasn't a bad time for the experiment, a non-conference game, plus it gave Mitch the two more weeks to heal up (especially with his concussion history). But when asked about it, McDermott was honest. Mitch was out of concussion protocol and could have played, but it was a football decision. They weren't holding him out just for his health...they also wanted to see if that other combo might work better. And speaking of the run game, everyone keeps laying that at the players feet (O-line and RBs---all of a sudden Singletary and Moss suck, according to some)...and no doubt, the players have not been executing well. I'm sure some of the film junkies could show me where all the breakdowns are occurring. But, I keep wondering if it isn't more of an offensive play calling problem. Don't get me wrong, I love what Daboll has done this year. But, we have become a pass first, pass often offense. The only game that we came out leading with our run game and stayed committed to it was the Patriots game...and they had some success. How many times have we heard running backs and offensive lines say it takes so many carries to start getting into a groove or rhythm with the run game. When your running backs aren't getting their first touch until the 2nd quarter, or they only have 2-3 runs a piece in a half, well it seems like it would be hard to get it going later (say for a 4-minute drive in the 4th quarter when you need to close out a team). Looking at the stats, it looks very balanced: 247 rushing plays/253 passing plays on the year, but only 168 of those rushes have been by the RBs. It just never seems like we establish the running game in the first quarter. Sure, sometimes you want to come out passing (depending on the opponent) or if you aren't picking up enough yards on say first downs running the ball, you start passing (so maybe it is a combination of things)...but I wonder if the run game would improve if they just showed a little more commitment to it earlier in games. Just for instance, 28 RBs have more carries than Devin; Derrick Henry (the leading rusher) is getting 23 carries/game---Devin is averaging 10 carries/game and Zach is averaging 8 carries/game. Then again, maybe with the chameleon-like, Daboll/Patriot way of changing your identity per opponent, it is tough to have a great run game because one week you run a lot, the next the RBs hardly touch the ball, or you want to use a specific type of RB, etc. and guys just never get in a groove during the season. I mean look at the Patriots running game throughout their dynasty. Of course, they very rarely had a stud RB, but maybe the system just never allows the RBs and O-line to get in a rhythm with the run game to be an above average rushing team. Again, just speculating...and please remind me if you can think of other games where we really tried to establish the run game in the first quarter. But, I'm just wondering if it is more of an identity/play-calling issue rather than solely a "players suck" issue?

I updated my initial post (in red), just to see where those same numbers/rankings stood now that the Bills have had their BYE week and therefore do not have the advantage of an extra game for their stats.

From what I remember around draft time and early training camp, I don't know that he would be considered a slot receiver per se. More of a possession receiver. He won't be burning guys down field, but he'll catch everything thrown to him in the 5-20 yard range (which a lot of that could be over the middle). He has great hands. Will also be a red zone target with his size and hands. Good on contested balls as well, knows how to high point the ball.

Not to take anything away from the Steelers, 10-0 is impressive no matter what, but 7 of their 10 wins were against teams with losing records. Those 7 teams have a combined record of 19-56-1. The other 3 teams they played were Baltimore (at 6-4, Steelers won by 4 points), Tennessee (at 7-3, Steelers won by 3 points), and Cleveland (at 7-3, Steelers blew them out 38-7). So, including those three games as well, the Steelers opponents' combined record is 39-66-1. I find it interesting that last year the media and some fans kept pointing out how the Bills had an easy schedule (i.e., so they aren't as good as they appear). Yet, I haven't heard any media discuss how easy the Steelers schedule is this year, it's just wow the Steelers are awesome. Again I'm not taking anything away from the Steelers. Every one of their wins count the same, just as all of ours did last year. I'm just saying that they may not be this unstoppable juggernaut. I'm not afraid of any team left on our schedule, with our offense. We can beat any and all of them. Now will we, that is a different question. It's tough to win six in a row no matter who you are playing. And often times, the loss comes against one of the least likely opponents. But here's to a fun stretch run!

Just wanted to respond to a couple of points. Yeah, sure, free agency is good for teams too, especially ones that may not draft well. I just mentioned the players because a good player being stuck on a bad team was a more relatable aspect of the fee agency debate to fans. Actually, I don't mind that the players are friendlier with each other now, and it makes sense, because of free agency, more of them have crossed paths with each other during their careers and due to media functions, etc. that are much more prevalent now. And I actually don't get worked up about the guys kneeling to pray with each other or whatever, I guess that I was kind of exaggerating a bit to demonstrate that rivalries back in the day mattered more (there would be actual bad blood between some of the teams and cities). You didn't want to shake a Bryan Cox's hand after the game. And since your guys had been in your city for 10 years, and their guys had been in their city for 10 years, it was more personal somehow. The game was heightened emotionally. I don't regret that the league went to FA, I think that it was a necessary evolution. But for all the good it brought, we did lose that deeper connection to our teams and rivalries. Guys weren't coming and going all the time, they came to your community and stayed for a decade...all of them. Now, it's only a handful of guys, if that, who will be with your team that long. And I guess I didn't explain well what I meant about prima donna athletes (and maybe that was the wrong word to use). Of course there have always been A-holes in the league, there have always been cocky players and showboaters. And by no means were the players better people back in the day (people are people), nor were they less prone to using performance enhancing drugs. We all know there was a time in the 70s-80s when most of the league was on steroids. What I was pointing at is exactly what you mentioned (more media exposure and social media) along with the salaries that these guys make. They have F-you money now and can act differently with coaches, teams, the league, the media, and some of that is good, but sometimes not. I was just trying to point out that because of the money and the knowing everything about these guys, their lives...the good and the bad (and of course the media likes to focus on the bad), the dumb things that people tweet or whatever, the playing up to the media (because it is there), etc. takes away a bit of the mythic quality that the game used to have imo. Sure, give the players back in the day that kind of money and media access and there would still be some of that stuff. It's more the environment/society and not any difference in players from then to now. But, to use an analogy, it's like in a horror movie, sometimes the violence that happens off-screen is scarier than when you get to see all of the gore. Or a story being a little more interesting when you leave some mystery to it and don't explain every detail. It's simply over exposure of the league again that I think that has watered down the product a bit and taken away some of the mythic quality it held. Look at the difference between the old NFL films and the football shows or recaps of today. It's all part of the same idea I was trying to convey.

While I agree that nostalgia plays a part and the fact that it just meant more to you when you're a kid also weighs into the equation, but I have to say, even though I still enjoy watching the games and am still a die-hard Bills fan, I don't think the game is as good as it used to be. I will take out the physicality factor. All of us older guys grew up with a much more brutal game, and it really changed the game to eliminate that factor. And although we lament that to some extent, for player safety, it kind of had to happen. So, I won't count that as a factor. Although I do find it interesting that there seem to be more injuries now than back in the day, overall. (I assume that is due to the size and speed of the players today, despite the improved safety measures. And some of it may be that we didn't hear about every single injury back in the day/less press, etc.---but it does seem like there are still more injuries now.) In the positive category for today's game, I will say that overall the players are much more athletic. Some of the athletes in today's game are unbelievable. But here is why I think the game used to be better: 1. Scoring: I'm sure a lot of younger fans love those 44-38 score games, but damn it, I like defense too. All of the rules to prevent CBs from doing their jobs, barely being allowed to touch QBs, etc. have led to over-inflated numbers, and most games become shootouts. Some of the best games I have ever seen were 9-6 defensive battles. But the average fan would be bored by games like that now, rather than appreciate those defenses and the strategy involved in a true field-position game. I stopped watching the NBA years ago when they took defense out of the game. What's the point if everyone scores on almost every possession. To me that is boring. Where is the drama and conflict of the game if you don't have defenses on an even footing? 2. The NFL's own popularity: The NFL got too big and popular that, as others have said, there is way too much pre-game/post-game hype and talk, etc, etc. The Super Bowl has become completely unwatchable to me. At first, I could just skip all of the pre-game and just turn it on to watch the game itself. But now, because of the half-time shows, the TV timeouts, the extensive commercial breaks, the hype of the game, it just never flows like an actual game and has become boring to watch. 3. Refereeing/NFL story lines: Another reason I stopped watching the NBA years ago was because star players started getting special treatment. If you breathe on a star player driving to the lane, he gets the call; while a role player could get hacked by 4 guys in the lane and no call. I feel like the NFL has been heading in that direction too with players and teams. No one can tell me that Brady and the Pats didn't get preferential treatment over their dynasty run. It's not the reason for their success, but they definitely got a lot of help along the way. What about the thing with Cam a few years back where the ref told him he hadn't been in the league long enough to get that roughing the passer call. And there is no doubt to me that the NFL likes to push certain story lines. I'm not saying they out-and-out rig games (cause I don't think they do), but for marketing reasons, there are definitely scenarios they would prefer and are not above having the refs give a certain team a leg up in accomplishing that with a few calls here and there at key moments. The first time that became clear to me was when the NFL basically took a Super Bowl away from the Seahawks to give it to Pittsburgh, so they could have the storyline of the "Bus" driving off into the sunset wth a Super Bowl victory. Then there are things like the catch rules, Al Riveron and his bs replay calls, too many flags, just bad referees altogether, etc. 4. Free Agency: Although this is a necessary evil for the players' sake (it would suck to be stuck on a bad team your whole career), it did kind of destroy rivalries and loyalties. Things were a lot different back in the day when you had the majority of the guys on your team for like 10 years straight. They were like your family members, and the rivalries would get down-right nasty because these guys have been battling each other for a decade. There are no more real rivalries in the league anymore. Hell, now the guys all kneel and pray together after the games, swap jerseys, take pictures together. That stuff never would have happened back in the day; if you lost, you were pissed, hated the other team, and headed to your locker room. 5. Mythic Aura: This may be down to a bit of nostalgia, but I feel the same way about baseball. I feel like the game has lost some of its mythic quality, probably due to over-exposure, prima donna athletes, the money they make, social media, etc. For instance, Brady and the Pats will probably go down as the best QB/Dynasty ever. But, do they have the same aura of Lambeau's Packers, Shula's Colts or Dolphins, Bradshaw's Steelers, Landry's Cowboys, Walsh's 49ers, etc. The Frozen Tundra, the Galloping Ghost, Ed "Too Tall" Jones, Billie "White-shoes" Johnson, Mean Joe Greene, Two yards and a cloud of dust, Johnny U, the "Ice Bowl", the "Comeback", the Steel Curtain. Great games still happen, players still have nicknames...but I just feel like that old mythic aura of the game no longer exists. Having said that, the NFL is still fun to watch, but I just don't feel like the game is as good (overall) as it was back in the day. It has changed (not for the better imo), but it seems like younger fans might disagree with me on that, so it is what it is.

Let's take a look... I'm giving them 3 drafts each as GM (not counting 2017 for Whaley since its hard to tell how much was him and how much was McDermott. And Whaley may have been very influential in some of the Nix drafts, but again, it is hard to know. So, I am only looking at his drafts where he was the unquestionable man-in-charge.) WHALEY BEANE 2014 2018 Sammy Watkins Josh Allen Cyrus Kouandjio Tremaine Edmunds Preston Brown Harrison Phillips Ross Cockerel Taron Johnson Cyril Richardson Siran Neal Randell Johnson Wyatt Teller Seantrel Henderson Ray-Ray McCloud Austin Proehl 2015 2019 Ronald Darby Ed Oliver John Miller Cody Ford Karlos Williams Devin Singletary Tony Steward Dawson Knox Nick O'Leary Vosean Joseph Dezmin Lewis Jaquan Johnson Darryl Johnson Tommy Sweeney 2016 2020 Shaq Lawson A. J. Epenesa Reggie Ragland Zack Moss Aldolphus Washington Gabriel Davis Cardale Jones Jake Fromm Jonathan Williams Tyler Bass Kolby Listenbee Isaiah Hodgins Kevon Seymour Dane Jackson It's still so early to judge a lot of Beane's picks (good or bad) yet, but it is hard to look at Whaley's picks and think he was better than, well...just about anyone. I count no studs, maybe one solid starter (Shaq), and maybe 4-5 fringe starters (may have started at some point in their career, but always looking to be upgraded). Shaq Lawson is probably his best pick and even he was a disappointment due to where he was picked. I'd love to hear your argument about how Whaley picked better than Beane. I just don't see it (even if you take the QB out of the equation...the fact that Beane found a franchise guy and Whaley didn't, as you said---despite that probably being the most important thing that a GM needs to do in today's NFL). If you did want to add in the Nix/Whaley combo (even though Nix was the GM and Whaley the Asst. GM) then out of 26 picks (across the 2011-2013 drafts), the best picks were: Aaron Williams (though he wasn't very good at the position he was drafted for, but became a very good safety), Stephon Gilmore, Cordy Glenn, Nigel Bradham, Robert Woods, Marquise Goodwin, Kiko Alonso. They also busted hard with Marcel and E.J. Manuel as first round picks. So, even if you include the Nix years on Whaley's resume, you have 2 studs (Gilmore and Woods), maybe 2 other starters (A. Williams and Shaq), and then maybe 8 fringe starters. Out of 46 overall picks. I think your average fan could pick better than he did.

In relation to the Diggs trade, just as you have to weigh in the difference of money (between Diggs' contract and a rookie contract) and the other assets that money and those picks could have garnered---as one poster pointed out---and despite a lot of the rookies looking very good---you also have to weigh in the following factors on Diggs' side of the trade: 1. Veteran knowledge: We all know that it is a tough transition for many players to the NFL, there is a lot you need to learn. Diggs already has that, the rookies have a long way to go to understand all of the nuances of the league, even if their overall numbers are decent. They are still learning. A lot more goes into being an All-Pro WR than just number of yards. 2. Great downfield blocker: How many rookies are willing, let alone good at blocking early in their career? 3. Confidence/Competitiveness: Yes, I'm sure that some of the young guys are ultra-competitive too, but do they have the knowledge/confidence yet to let their competitiveness always be at 100%, like Stefon? 4. Being a true Number One: Despite having other good players around him (Brown and Bease), Defensive Coordinators go into Bills games trying to gameplan against Diggs. He is leading the league, despite being the guy other teams are trying to shut down. And despite the rooks putting up some decent numbers, very few of them are the #1 player on their team that defenses are trying to take away. They are most likely getting softer coverage and #2 or #3 CBs. Stefon is getting the best every week. 5. Veteran Leadership: I doubt any of the rookies are one of the big leaders on their teams yet. Stefon, despite being new to the team, is already a major leader in the locker room and on the field. He raises the play of others around him. Now, some of the rookies will eventually share all of those traits and become beasts in this league. But it may take another 2-3 years before they do. They may put up great stats in their first couple of years, but it will be some time before they can bring everything to the table that Stefon does right now. So, we basically traded that extra money and picks for time and certainty. We got the fully-developed stud now, rather than having to wait 3-5 years for a young guy to develop into that.

Since this topic was already discussed recently, I think a better question/topic might be... How many other team's GMs would trade their QB straight up for Josh Allen right now, if they could? Off the top of my head, I would say Seattle and KC would say no. Probably Not (because they like their young guy too): Arizona, Houston. Iffy (They like their guy, but might do it because of the age factor): GB, Pitt, NO Iffy at this point (because they like their pick and probably want to see them develop): CIN, LAC, MIA I think the rest are yeses. So, I'm guessing that 22-25 GMs league-wide would want to trade for Josh.

Yeah, its a toss-up with Carolina and Cincinnati. I think of Carolina as more relevant recently and more in the spotlight with Cam, plus they also have two Super Bowl appearances (and loses), like Cinci. And like you said, if you discount guys who only played in either city for a brief period, then the only HOFer for either team is Munoz for Cinci. Although maybe Bill Polian still counts for Carolina, because he built that expansion team from the bottom up and had them in the Conference Championship in just their second year, unheard of for an expansion team at that time. But, yeah, close call. And for anyone who even joked that the Bills should be on the list, I would say two AFL Championships, Ralph was very important in keeping the AFL going and with the merger with the NFL, 4 straight Super Bowls (despite them all being loses, still no one has ever done that before), the Kelly v. Marino battles, O.J.'s 2,000-yard season, The Comeback, 11 HOF players (I didn't count TO), maybe the best Defensive lineman of all time. We have been irrelevant lately, so other fans might put us on the list, but despite being a mediocre to bad team for many stretches in our history, I think our resume is pretty good as far as import to the NFL, its history, its fans.

I went with Jacksonville and Cincinnati. I keyed on the OP's phrase "no one would notice." So, my criteria was that they do not have a following outside of their city. Their fans aren't rabid. Probably needs to be a smaller market city.They do not hold a special place in NFL history. They are not often on National TV. They do not have many HOF players. They do not have a recent tradition of winning. Never won a championship. So, nothing that anyone would miss. I thought about Detroit, but they play every Thanksgiving and Barry Sanders. Plus they have a long history in the NFL with old rivalries. I pondered Cleveland, but they were a very important part of the early NFL, won championships, and technically, Baltimore is the original Cleveland team, so there is that tie-in too. And the Dawg pound is well known. Cincinnati did make two Super Bowls (and lost), but when you're 2nd and 3rd best all-time franchise players are Ken Anderson and Boomer Esiason, well... Jacksonville is the only team without any HOF players (granted they've only been playing since 1995). Cincinnati only has two HOF players (franchise started in 1968). The only teams with fewer are Jacksonville with 0 and Houston with 1 (but they have only been playing since 2002). Jacksonville and Cincinnati seem to fit my criteria best. I think you could pretty much write the history of the NFL without those two franchises and only miss maybe a couple of footnotes really.

Some of you guys calling out players and saying the coaching staff should be fired are just ridiculous. If not for a miracle, Hail Mary pass, we walk away with the win. QBs throw INTs, players miss tackles, CBs get out jumped for balls. It happens. It's the NFL and the other guys get paid too. It was a great game to watch...people will be talking about it all week. The ending was like a punch to the gut, but the boys were still good enough to get the win, if not for a great play by two of the best players in the league. It was a good 'ol gunfight. And just to give it some perspective, the Bills have not had their BYE yet, they had to travel cross country and play a late game, they came in pretty banged up, missing key players on COVID/Res---when Dane went down, we were missing 3 of our top 4 corners (and the one we did have was playing hurt), all against the number one offense in the league in their building (with some fans). And then losing Brown again hurt the offense. And despite all of that, we were a miracle play away from winning the game. I'm not making excuses for them or the loss (every team plays with adversity), but before you fire the coaches and start shipping players out, can you at least acknowledge that they weren't playing under perfect circumstances? It was a gut check game and despite not coming away with the win, I feel like they passed the test. They didn't pack it in with the BYE coming next week, after playing two emotional games in a row; they fought to the end, despite not playing their best ball. And some of the takes on coaching decisions, I just don't agree with. You had exactly what you wanted on the Hail Mary with Poyer, Hyde, and Tre defending the ball. It didn't work out, but that is how you would want it designed. This idea of throwing Knox or a receiver in there isn't realistic. How much practice have they had at it? They might cause a PI, or let someone get away from them, or say the ball only gets to the 5 yard line, now they have to defend a guy like Hopkins. No. And getting the touchback on the last kickoff was the right call too. If you kick a squibb kick you take off maybe 3-4 seconds of clock tops (if that) vs. giving up 10-15 yards of field position. Odds favor the touchback there. It was the right decision. The penalties were definitely an issue and that was disappointing. But I feel like the refs helped there too. I thought the one PI call against Worley was pretty ticky-tack and then on the next Bills position, an obvious PI call by AZ (against Gabe) was not made. And Neal was pretty hot on the holding call against him on that AZ punt and they never showed the replay, so I wonder about it. That took us out of AZ territory after a nice Roberts return with 4:38 left in the game. And then the next play was one of Allen's INTs. Overall they weren't that bad (the referees), but I did feel like they gave the Cards a few calls to help them get back in the game. But all of the pre-snap penalties by the Bills definitely need to be cleaned up over the BYE week. It is a hugely disappointing loss because we had it there for a moment...it was in our grasp and we let it slip away, but I just can not get too down on the team for this one. They, by far, didn't have their best game and still almost came away with the win. I'm still excited (going forward) that the Bills made that last (almost game-winning) drive. Allen, Beasley, and Diggs were amazing on that drive, which bodes well. And even though the defense couldn't close it out and were playing with a depleted line-up, I felt that they continued their upward trajectory. Take the positives, work on the negatives, and move on. An NFC loss doesn't hurt too much, as far as the team's goals. And people think this is a bad way to go into the BYE? Maybe it's not. Maybe this team stewing about this loss for two weeks...and hopefully getting healthy at the same time, will fuel them for a great stretch run of the season. And I'm not going to worry about Miami until I have to (week 17). We have a win against them and if we take care of business in that game, the threat will dissipate. Yes, loses suck, but this fire everyone sentiment, is so reactionary and pretty silly. One poster even said that it is time to move on from Poyer and Hyde. Poyer is playing at a Pro Bowl level and Hyde has been hurt. This is the best FO, coaching staff, and roster we have had in 20 years. They are winning games and going to the playoffs. Enjoy it...the ups and the downs. Why would you want to break it up? Come on guys...stand by your men! Go Bills!

No one, not even Mahomes. Josh is the perfect QB for Buffalo! The relationship between this QB and this coach/team/city/fanbase is special. Maybe it would have been with Mahomes too (he also seems like a great guy), but Josh wanted to be drafted by Buffalo. He's humble, small town, blue-collar. His story: the struggle to get to play college ball, let alone getting to the NFL. He's had to work for everything he has. Playing in the cold and weather on a bad Wyoming team. His need for redemption, to prove himself. The list goes on. It is just a match that I would never mess with.

Good point...I didn't take that into account. So, I went through the teams with only 8 games played and added their average points/game to their current totals to get a clearer picture (now, not all of these teams may hit their average in their next game and some may surpass it, so obviously its an approximation). Taking this into account, the Bills do fall down the list a good bit, but they are still in the mix. SEA 308 KC 286 (9 games) GB 284 NO 274 Pitt 264 ARI 263 TEN 261 BAL 255 TB 250 (9 games) MIA 250 LV 245 DEN 244 MIN 244 LAC 243 ATL 243 (9 games) BUF 242 (9 games) So, that does drop us down to 16th place. But I could see us passing 6 or 7 of those teams if we score well next week and they don't hit their average points/game over their next two games. So, after the bye week, we could be right around 7th-10th in points scored. As for Josh's stats, taking into account the extra game for him, only Russell Wilson and maybe DeShaun Watson will pass him on the passing yards (with an extra game). So, he'd still be 4th or 5th in passing yards. For passing TDs, there are maybe 4 other QBs who could pass him given an extra game, but only two QBs that will probably pass him for total TDs. And completion percentage is not affected by the extra game (he's 6th there). So, he's still putting up top 6-10 QB numbers, with the arrow pointing up. I guess we'll have to wait until after our bye week for a better picture...once everyone has played 10 games (except for Carolina and Tampa).

I was looking at the league standings and decided to scan down the "Points For" category to see where we were...and then I just poked around the stats for some other notable numbers: The Bills are currently in 7th place in points scored (across the league) with 242 points. But Atlanta (243), New Orleans (244) Tampa Bay (250), and Green Bay (253) are all within reach. We are only 11 points out of the third place spot. KC (286) and Seattle (274) are in a league of their own right now. The Bills are 2nd place in points scored in the AFC (behind only KC). Josh is 3rd in passing yards in the league right now (behind only Mahomes and Matt Ryan---just ahead of Wilson). Josh is (league-wide) 6th place in completions, 6th place in completion percentage (0.689), and 6th in passing TDs. If you include rushing TDs for QBs, then Josh is tied for third in total TDs by QBs with Rodgers and Murray (each with 24). Only Wilson (29) and Mahomes (27) are better. Stefon Diggs is 1st in the league in both receptions and receiving yards (63 for 813). He's on pace for 112 receptions and 1,445 yards. Andre Roberts is 2nd in kickoff return yards and 3rd in punt return yards on the year. Jordan Poyer is 8th place in total tackles across the league. 11/25 UPDATE: I thought that I would update this post, now that the Bills have had their bye week, so the numbers for all teams (except Car and TB who haven't had their byes) are for the same number of games (and therefore not giving the Bills inflated numbers). Points scored (NFL): The Bills are now in 11th place (but only 7 points out of 9th place) Points scored (AFC): The Bills are in 6th place Josh is in 6th place in passing yards league-wide (just 12 yards behind Watson and 18 yards behind Rodgers) Josh is 8th in completions, 8th in completion %, and 8th in passing TDs Josh is 5th in total TDs (QBs, rush/pass) Stefon is 2nd in receptions (behind only Keenan Allen) and 2nd in receiving yards (only 6 yards behind DeAndre Hopkins). Andre Roberts is still 2nd in KO return yards and is now 4th in punt return yards Poyer is 12th in total tackles, but 6th in solo tackles