finn

I'm telling you, I'm getting impatient!

Agreed, but that's a bit vague. I would say the offense is demonstrably better across the board, but I don't think that's the case with the defense. As always, it's the matchups that matter. Is the Bills offense enough better than the Pats defense to overcome the narrower (or non-existent) disparity between the Pats offense and Bills defense, all else being more or less equal? (Not that it is; watch out for the Pats' return game and their penchant for fumbling.) I think we need to prepare for another nail-biting game where the Bills run the ball and throw short passes, the defense repeatedly gives up yards, third downs, and points, and the score stays close until the end, when the Bills cash in on all that running and pull away against a tired Pats defense. So far, it's been a winning formula. Keep your Porsche in the garage for the milk runs and all that. But, yes, by all means the Pats could win this game. The "winning formula" doesn't work if the Bills offense turns the ball over more than once, the receivers drop the ball in critical situations, and special teams poops the bed. I can just see Maye leisurely pat the ball while we tear our hair out before lofting a TD over Tre's head. And Brady running the ball on second down all game for no gain while we scream for play action. And the secondary bouncing off the Henderson, who has his breakout game. Down two scores, the Porsche comes out and does its thing, but by then it's anyone's game. On the other hand, maybe finally--finally--the Bills will blow somebody out. Wouldn't that be nice?

Maybe he's waiting to spring it on the Chiefs late in the fourth quarter of the Bills' inevitable playoff game against them. Surprise them for a change.

Agree with all of this. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I think Brady and McDermott don't unleash Allen because there is more risk involved. Yes, he will likely score touchdowns, but he might also turn it over, not because he's prone to (on the contrary) but because of the coverages they're seeing and his receivers inability to separate. Safer and arguably smarter to hand the ball off and keep the Super Man option in reserve. In other words, there's no guarantee it will get the results we want.

Same here. 30 years in New England and what feels like 30 years of Brady worship (and that is the right word) makes me want Patriots fans to suffer for decades. Too bad, because I like May. I wish they had Watson instead.

Right, but what I don't see acknowledged very often is how the running game set up those deep passes in the Baltimore game. There's a reason things suddenly opened up in the fourth quarter: the Ravens defenders were exhausted from the pounding. You get less points early maybe, but the payoff comes later. Plus, play action (which I think Brady should do more of) should in theory allow even the Bills wide receivers to get some separation. But I think you're right that the teams we've seen so far prefer Cook's effective runs to Allen's long completions. The trick is to make them pay for that choice.

How about Strong/Tre? Strong was just named to his second PFF All-Rookie team of the week with an 89.5 coverage grade. If his name was Hairston we'd all be ecstatic.

He might be right about the Bills defense, but the Bills not being able to run on the NE defense--and not being able to pass, either? So one of the top offenses of last year and this year utterly stymied by the Patriots? I'm pessimistic about the game because of the Bills leaky defense, but the offense is a sleeping giant. They haven't blown teams out because they haven't needed to.

It really is a legitimate word....

I'd trade both Epenesa and Knox for Jonas Sanker, the Saints CB who knocked down one Allen pass then intercepted his next one after sprinting across the field. He was amazing, especially for a rookie.

Maybe that's why he was ushered out. I always wondered how it would have gone if Beane had kept Hughes and not invested so much in Von Miller. I'm not criticizing the move, which was bold and exciting and might have paid off big time. Hughes wasn't Von, but he was a good player and continued to play well for his new team. Plus, maybe he was right to butt heads with McDermott, especially after the way that game ended.

Wow, this is not good, especially coming off a mini-bye--and a game after not playing well against Miami. In all four games, the defense made clutch plays, but in all four them they put themselves in a position of having to. That's living dangerously. I really thought the defense would handle either Miami OR the Saints, both weak teams, competently and decisively. Instead, they continue to play poorly, which makes me wonder what is going on. Winning helps tamp down the urgency, but the coaches have to be concerned, maybe even alarmed. As you say, it's not just the rookies who are struggling; it's the veterans, too. The problems are cropping up everywhere: poor communication, missed tackles, players out of position, undisciplined play. It's not all bad, not by a long shot. Walker, Strong, Bishop, and Sanders are improving in front of our eyes, and Bosa, Daquan, Oliver, and Benford have all played consistently well. It could just be a perfect storm of rookie mistakes and veteran off games, or maybe the defense as a whole just needs to gel, given all the new players (with more to come). I hope so. But I'm not all optimistic about the Pats game. This feels like a team in need of a wake-up call, and the Pats appear to be a team that is primed to be the alarm clock.

Agree. They play like wolverines, hustling to the ball, and they force turnovers at an impressive rate, so those are two traits to build on, along with selflessness. But the tackling is abysmal. Hard to be a "physical football team" when you're whiffing on tackles every game.

I hope it doesn't end up as one of those "too complicated" scenarios that players never master, relieved only by a new hire the following year who "just let's us play football." Not sure, but I think I'd prefer the Bills be the best against the rush and worst against the pass.

Yes, I should have put in a disclaimer saying that Landon might turn out to be a solid contributor (which I believe will happen, actually). It's far too early to judge him. I

You wrote, "Who said better options were available. It’s not like there were 1st and 2nd round talents that we passed upon." I didn't claim or imply there were top-notch talents in the third round. I merely said there were likely better prospects at non-premium positions. According to you, I'm wrong because a) no better options were available than Jackson at any position when he was picked; and b) if there were, it's meaningless to point that out. Heads you win, tails I lose.

I agree, but you said 2nd round, not third, when Beane took Landon Jackson. We're fine at WR and DB, but why not stack that position with a player that is likely to be very good than one at DE who is less likely to pan out? That's my point. So, yeah, first and second round at DL, but after that, draft for quality, not need, especially if the disparity between, say, a Landon Jackson and a Cam Skattebo is pronounced (if that was the case in Beane's mind).

I thought it would be obnoxious to cherry pick the third round to make my point, but since you ask, it would have been nice to have cornerback Jonas Salker, who knocked down and then intercepted passes from Allen on successive plays yesterday; he was available, as was Cam Skattebo. Also, I'm not saying there were 1st and 2nd round talents in the third round, just like I didn't say there were future Hall of Famers to be had there. What is up with the straw man fixation in this community? Do you have to put outrageous claims in the mouths of people you disagree with in order to respond to them?

This may be a naïve question, but why then draft a DE in the third round, when it seems you're much more likely to find a quality player at another position? That never made sense to me. Better a good prospect at a position where you're ok (like WR or RB, cough) than a weak prospect at DE.

Groot had a clutch goal-line tackle on third down, saving a touchdown. First time I've noticed him all season.

That's when Ty Johnson subbed in, got the ball and hesitated, then ran into a wall. Not what you want. He hasn't shown up this year yet this year, either as runner or a passer. That dropped TD pass against the Dolphins is etched on my brain, in part because, as Collinsworth said, you will not see a better-thrown football. It's still early, but so far RB depth has gone from team strength to nothing special, at best.

Slow for sure, but all the missed tackles worries me the most. The runners especially just bust through arm tackles left and right. Cook and Allen bailed the team out this week.

Why isn't he a head coach yet?

I don't think I and others were wrong criticizing Brown. He WAS awful, a real liability. But people were calling him to be benched, not cut. That might have been the best choice. He learned, but only by risking Allen's health.

Not a power back anymore, not particularly elusive or creative. Remind me of his strengths. I recall thinking he ran with a lot of heart and, yes, power. Are we sure that's gone? He hasn't had many carries this year.