Jump to content

Week 1: Steelers at Bills


YoloinOhio

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, LeGOATski said:

So awesome you mean. Football in the elements is fun. And I think it only helps the Bills offense.

 

Did you ever play sports? When it was raining or snowing, we just got that much more pumped.

 

Personally, I prefer no elements so that 1. Teams can play to full potential and 2. People can comfortably watch them.  I get why some people like the elements though. I am too old and too disabled for that stuff anymore and like I said, I like to watch teams play to the full potential.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Personally, I prefer no elements so that 1. Teams can play to full potential and 2. People can comfortably watch them.  I get why some people like the elements though. I am too old and too disabled for that stuff anymore and like I said, I like to watch teams play to the full potential.

That's a fallacy, IMO. No one in Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Foxboro, KC, Seattle, etc has complained about their team not playing to full potential when at their peaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rushing yards allowed per game before Bush injury:

 

 

29 at the Giants

104 vs Denver

29 vs Houston

94 vs Philadelphia 

75 vs Cleveland 

 

 

After Bush injury:

 

82

265 (at Baltimore)

144

139

73

129

45 (vs Washington)

104 (that was us 28 was Allen)

152

127

192

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

Rushing yards allowed per game before Bush injury:

 

 

29 at the Giants

104 vs Denver

29 vs Houston

94 vs Philadelphia 

75 vs Cleveland 

 

 

After Bush injury:

 

82

265 (at Baltimore)

144

139

73

129

45 (vs Washington)

104 (that was us 28 was Allen)

152

127

192

 

 


Glad the Bills don’t worry about total rushing yards in this offense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eball said:


Glad the Bills don’t worry about total rushing yards in this offense. 

 

 

Well my original point was crap weather = you better be able to run the ball......and stop it. 

 

Against meh defenses or teams that don't have hall of fame QBs and elite rookie RBs where you know they're going to be grinding it out, I probably don't sweat it at all....

 

Don't take this team lightly.  Our D better be in full run stop mode and prepared for a QB that won't go longer then 2.1 seconds to get rid of the ball.  

 

 

 

Build a freaking dome!  

  • Thank you (+1) 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

That's a fallacy, IMO. No one in Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Foxboro, KC, Seattle, etc has complained about their team not playing to full potential when at their peaks.


What about the teams playing against those teams you listed that lose when playing in these stadiums?  Are they playing to their full potential too, or are the elements having a positive effect for the home team?

You can't have it both ways.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Capco said:


What about the teams playing against those teams you listed that lose when playing in these stadiums?  Are they playing to their full potential too, or are the elements having a positive effect for the home team?

You can't have it both ways.  

Exactly. The whole argument is void. Elements effect both teams. The reality is that better teams win and worse teams lose.

 

The weather complaint is purely driven by fan watching experience and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LeGOATski said:

The reality is that better teams win and worse teams lose.


Not so sure I agree with this statement either.  I'm sure there are cases where the exact same gameday rosters of 3 teams played each other at various points in the season, leading to a situation where

A beat B,
B beat C, and
C beat A. 

Who's the better team in that example?  Or when two divisional teams split their divisional games.  Or in 1990, when the Bills beat the Giants in the regular season, but the Giants beat the Bills in the Super Bowl.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Capco said:


Not so sure I agree with this statement either.  I'm sure there are cases where the exact same gameday rosters of 3 teams played each other at various points in the season, leading to a situation where

A beat B,
B beat C, and
C beat A. 

Who's the better team in that example?  Or when two divisional teams split their divisional games.  Or in 1990, when the Bills beat the Giants in the regular season, but the Giants beat the Bills in the Super Bowl.  

Further proof that simply playing in a dome out of the elements doesn't mean your team plays to its full potential,  voiding that whole argument.

 

It's like "Oh man, good thing the Super Bowl is in the Georgia Dome because that means the K-Gun will be unstoppable!" 

 

Pop Tv Reaction GIF by Schitt's Creek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

when at their peaks.


Woops, I somehow missed/misread this part.  I might have read "peaks" as "stadiums" lmao.  

We are actually on the same page now that I've taken this qualifier into account.  My bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

This seems weird or maybe I'm not understanding correctly.

 

If you have 8 active OL, you can have 2 extra actives. If you have 7 active OL, you lose those 2 extra actives.

 

What's the reason?

It was that way last year as well. It is a permanent rule in the CBA through 2030 to get gameday active rosters increased.   Makes it less of a game of attrition 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...