finn

How did a really good defense let Carolina (Carolina, just to be clear) score 30 points on them? Right, but we have a Hulk.

Fair point. I'm not saying McDermott is a bad coach, just that the excellent win percentage people point to as evidence of his prowess is dubious given the quarterback he's been bestowed. It's like saying "Look at all the championships Scottie Pippen won! He's obviously one of the best players of all time."

Beane has invested a lot in quick pressure after seeing from their two Super Bowl defeats that this is the way to beat Mahomes. Oliver, Hoecht, Ogunjobi, Walker, Sanders, Bosa... they're all penetrators, not edge setters or run stuffers. But he may have put spent too many resources there, at the expense of players who can tackle, cover, and stop the run. If you're good at only one thing and suck at everything else, other teams catch on fast. Not to put it all on Beane. Maybe he was expecting McDermott and his defensive staff would do a better job than they have. Anyway, plenty of blame to go around. The defense still has time to turn it around, as we keep telling each other.

Well, let's look at the NE game, since the Bills lost and maybe Brady messed up because he wasn't using his best receivers. Here is what I would say is the rank from best to worst, with their snap count (distorted because Cook and Ty also run the ball): Cook (72%), Kincaid (54%), Shakir (63%), Ty Johnson (12%), Palmer (52%), Coleman (62%), Knox (56%), Shavers (25%), Samuel (49%), Hawes (29%), Ray Davis (6%), and Gilliam (8%). Lost in the data is how Cook and Ty Johnson were used as receivers. They weren't, which I would say is problem one. The second problem is Coleman's high snaps. He's a weak blocker from what I can tell and is an exceptionally limited receiver. Why is he getting so many snaps, especially when Kincaid, arguably the only only star on the receiving roster, is getting a lot less? Lots of caveats: no context, small sample size, etc. But I would say that Brady needs to use Kincaid a LOT more and Coleman a lot less. I would see what Shavers can do; he can't do much worse than what Coleman has shown.

You know, I'm tired of hearing that win percentage stat trotted out every time anyone suggests McDermott is a mediocrity. Dick Jauron could win with Allen playing for him.

Yeah, I think it's pretty plain that this Bills team is good but not great. I think the offense will bounce back, and the defensive reinforcements, especially Oliver, should make a difference, but they're no juggernaut the way they have been in the past. The only real hope of going all the way is that no other team looks great, either. Or that Hairston is a revelation and someone tells Brady that Kincaid is on the team. Or Beane trades for a CB and WR. Or all of these things. Anyway, a good humbling may be just what the team needed.

Right. I mentioned elsewhere that the Pats are the first team to figure out that if you stop Cook, you stop the Bills. Allen could have eaten a sandwich on some of those pass plays, and even then his receivers evidently couldn't get open, or at least not when Allen was looking their way. Take-away: Elite receivers make so much money for a reason: They really do make a difference. "Everyone eats" is happy talk for "Our wide receivers are mediocre." Yes, the offense can and will still carry the defense to win a lot of games, but what an appalling waste of Allen's prime. It's like making Usain Bolt race wearing mud boots.

I'm not sure what to make of Brady. Is he holding back, maybe at McDermott's request, playing conservative ball to take the win? Or is this all he can do with the best quarterback in the league, a terrific line (and line coach) and running back, and the best tight-end trio in the league--against bottom-half teams? Maybe Babich is struggling because of a dearth of talent to work with, but you can't say the same of Brady. My growing sense is that he's just a guy who happened to be around when McDermott needed someone to take over. I credit him for turning things around, and I'm not giving up on him yet, but he's been dealt pocket aces and so far this year he's playing like he has 5-7 off.

I missed the game. How did the refs give them the points? I couldn't tell from the highlights.

Either that or the system itself is the problem, since it just doesn't get results. Hard for players to learn and ineffective once they learn it, a situation that might help explain the current state of the Bills defense.

Agreed, as long as the discussion doesn't assume the "errors" were indeliberate or that the people doing the correcting aren't also biased. Or that such a system would resolve other forms of unfair treatment, whether consciously motivated or not, such as calling holding more on one team than another despite clear evidence of violations from both teams. It seems to me the league has realized it can tweak the outcomes without causing too much public distrust. So why wouldn't they? (Besides basic integrity, which is the first thing to disappear when big money is on the table.) You can rationalize all kinds of behavior that in another light is blatantly wrong. One person's "buying the refs off to tip the game" is another person's "Hey, why shouldn't I assign Hochuli's crew to the Bills game? Yeah, they're historically anti-Bills and, ok, I'll make a million dollars if the Bills lose, but they're a good crew!"

I'm looking forward the referee report on Buffalo Rumbings. He does a good job breaking down not just the number and type of call but also the timing and "harm" inflicted. Of course the refs are putting their thumbs on the scale. Do people really believe that when billions of dollars depends on the outcome and it's so, so easy to influence the final score, that everything is kosher, nothing to see here? If so, no wonder the world is going to hell. Wake up, people. At least don't carry the league's water by pointing out how our team played badly and didn't deserve to win. How can any team overcome a dozen penalties, flags thrown not when there is a foul but when the refs think it's a good time to throw one? Holding is an especially effective penalty, a real drive killer. You kill enough drives, and that alone will tip the balance, as happened last night. And think of how easy it is to get away with. It all depends on the refs' subjective judgment. Plausible deniability is all the league needs. But they go further, crushing anyone in the NFL community--players, coaches, GMs, broadcasters, anyone--who dares to object or criticize the refs' performance. Did you see the replay of Shakier being mauled before he could catch a pass? You didn't last night because it wasn't shown, naturally. Did you hear Collingsworth pointing out how bogus the calls were against McGovern, or how the DB dragged down Coleman before ball arrived? No, because he can't do that without risking his job. What I find unsurprising but still sickening is even the fans of the defeated team do their part, shouting down anyone who points out the obvious and lamenting the "sloppiness" of players committing phantom penalties. I'm not claiming every game or even most games are fixed, just the ones the league thinks need to be manipulated. For whatever reason--and it always has to do with money--the league decided it didn't behoove them to allow the Bills to be 5-0. They were not going to win last night, or at least the refs were going to tip the scale enough so that the odds of winning were very long indeed. The same will happen in the playoffs if they choose a winner ahead of time. It's such as shame, because it's a great game, in part because the balance is just right. But that close balance is absurdly easy to tip. With that temptation on one side and bottomless greed on the other, what do you think will happen? Flame away. Let me see how eagerly you do your assigned part to enable the corruption.

Seems like the Patriots are the first team to figure out that if you stop Cook, you stop the Bills. How many times did we see Allen waiting, waiting, waiting for someone to get open? Coleman, Palmer, Shavers, and Samuels are all #3 receivers at best; only Shakir and Kincaid are threats, and that's not enough without a running game. They don't need a superstar at WR, just someone you can't cover with a single DB.

Depends on whether the league thinks it will make it as much or more money than sending the Chiefs back. I wouldn't bet on it.

I'm not sure they played any worse than they have in any other game, all of which showed multiple problems almost across the board. The difference this week was the referees, who were killing Bills drives left and right and ignoring all but the most flagrant Patriots fouls. Apply this same 1-5 imbalance to all of the other games, and the Bills could easily be 2-4 instead of 4-2, and instead of being widely considered an elite team, they would be (perhaps accurately) viewed as a critically flawed team, with a below-average defense and an offense too dependent on Allen and Cook. And it would be the same team. My point isn't to bemoan a corrupt league (although I think it is corrupt) but rather to point out that the Bills are not as good as we think their record indicates. Cornerback, safety, pass rush, run defense, wide receivers... they're really quite poor at all these positions. Fortunately, they're very strong or elite at QB, O-line, running back, and tight end. Can the strengths overcome the weaknesses? I'd say no, not unless the defensive reinforcements shore up the defense quite a bit (I think they will) AND the Bills acquire a downfield threat at WR.

You and thousands of others. What a con by the marketing department.

Dorian Strong getting injured was the worst thing that could have happened to the defense.

I missed the play. Did Milano blow it somehow?

The refs are telling Vrabel that he has to help them out. Even they can't ignore flagrant personal fouls on national TV. How can they throw the game when the Pats don't cooperate?

Watch for the critical penalty.

Look, it's not the fault of anyone on the Bills, coach or player. The refs are controlling the game. We're playing right into their scheme by criticizing everyone but them. From the start, the Bills literally could win this game no matter what. Now investigate who in the league's front office or their allies put big money on the Pats.

But I don't think it was necessarily a penalty. The announcers will always fall into line (except Troy Aikman) and back up the refs every time. But notice there was no replay, and if there were, it would show the kind of minor transgression you could find on every play. No, it's plain as day: the refs will not allow the Bills to win. They literally will not allow it. And all of us will point fingers at anyone but them.

The refs must have been reined in. Maybe the league reminded them it doesn't matter if they have big money on the Pats.

Can you imagine if a Bills lineman held like that? There would be ten flags on the ground.

Everyone keeps saying the Bills are playing sloppy, but that is just what the league wants you to believe. All but one of those calls were ticky tacky, and they're not being ticky tacky with the Patriots. No team can overcome hair-trigger refs, no matter what quality the opponent. The Bills will not win this game because they literally will not be allowed to win.