finn

Right. The "If only" thinking is a big part of the experience following sports. I don't have to invoke "wide right" or "illegal lateral" to make my point. The funny thing is, fans on the other side of the if-onlys seldom think this way. Titans fans don't consider the Titans could have just as easily lost that game against the Bills. To them, the Titans are the better team, maybe by a mile. To be fair, if Allen doesn't slip, I would have though the Bills deserved to win hands down. I still do, in fact, but it's a lot harder to think that way. Anyway, I'm tired of the countless off seasons thinking about what could have been if only. I want the Bills to just fricking win.

Thank you for this. Might be a stupid question, but why haven't the Bills run this scheme more often--and why don't all teams run it constantly? Never mind--I should have read the full thread first. Thanks again. Please keep your informative posts coming!

His mistake was assuming his teammate was going to block the gunner instead of whiffing.

I highly doubt the league is rigged. But that doesn't mean some refs in some games aren't corrupt. In fact it's pretty naïve to think that's the case, given a) how easy it is for a ref to tip a close game without getting caught; and b) how much money is involved. So it's not a matter of seeing suspect calls and concluding widespread corruption OR not seeing it and concluding no widespread corruption. There's a scenario in between that's more likely that either--and I would say probable.

Agree. Stats only broadly capture performance. For example, his soon-to-be-famous 17 passer rating doesn't reflect his two rushing TDs or his 80+ yards, so that's stupid on its face. He was terrific today. We're just so used to it that we're spoiled.

Not sure it works that way. The Bills beat Tennessee, maybe they lose to the Pats twice, or maybe they win every game, or maybe Allen gets hurt, or Russia invades the Ukraine. Kinda silly to assume that everything else would be the same if only. More interesting to consider that a) they not seem built to win close games; or b) they're much better than their record and regression to the mean = they're bound to win more close ones from here on.

Things are fine. The ball has just been bouncing (or tipping) the wrong way. The Beasley miscommunication is the only real concern, not sure what that was all about. They just need to get some points on the board and go home.

Both he and Allen will be Hall of Famers.

Makes you wonder how this team would perform with another star receiver. They have higher priorities elsewhere, however.

They have a vet rest day. Maybe they need a rookie rest day, too. Seriously.

Did anyone notice the lineup after the Boettger injury? The announcers didn't seem to think it was important enough to tell us.

Did anyone notice the lineup after the Boettger injury?

So who's the backup to the backup?

Not exactly a defensive battle.

True with most quarterbacks. They need to be pressured. Only the good ones read and react quickly or, like Allen, scramble to buy time. How many times have we seen Brady having time to eat a sandwich--then be called brilliant because he completed a pass?

Take care of business, boys.

Maybe they'll use Dawkins as a sixth lineman on run plays, take a play out of the NE playbook.

That's a good place to start if you want to see if the refs are corrupt: follow the betting, especially late bets. Let's see if the flags go in the Bills' favor today.

You be careful among the English, now.

This might end up being an asterisk season.

I wonder if Williams is the best choice for left tackle. That leaves Brown at right tackle and Boettger and Bates at guard. Yes, Brown had no time to prepare for left tackle, but he played about as badly as anyone can play over there. What a mess.

Being allowed to throw just three times will do that.

Right on. Plus, even diehard Pats fans--those few who aren't completely delusional, anyway--would much, much rather have Allen that Jones. "We got a Hulk."

That puts things in perspective. It's only a game.

Yeah, but it's not like their choice affects just them. Unvaccinated people are more likely to get the virus, more likely to spread it (potentially killing or damaging many others), and more likely to end up in the hospital, which the rest of us pay for either outright if they can't pay for it, or in higher insurance costs. How do people miss this point? People boast they're unvaccinated as if they're brave or free thinking, instead of dense, ignorant, reckless and selfish. And people like you (although I'm sure you're not any of these) say they respect them. Really hard to understand.