All_Pro_Bills

Both teams have been caught in a constant cycle of rebuild and inside this cycle has been many mini-cycles of various coaching staffs and front office personnel. The goal here is to settle on a system that works and have competent people in place that can run the system which translates to success on the field. I expect the Browns to stay on course with minimal adjustments this off season but with the Bills new ownership is a wildcard and its not clear what plans are or will be put in place by TP/KP. Does Marrone and the entire staff stay? Will they replace the OC? What happens in the front office? We might start to see something right after the season ends but my guess is that JP/KP have done a lot of homework in the background with a lot of 'experts' and have their minds pretty well made up at this point. Both teams have veteran starters with young QB's on the sidelines with some significant differences. JM in Cleveland showed a much higher level of competency in college than EJ. Unfortunately circumstances threw EJ into the starting line up last season and he suffered some growing pains and injuries. And EJ was pulled in favor of Orton this season. The Browns QB situation is pretty well set with the expectation that Manziel will win the starting job next season while the Bills QB situation is up in the air. Will Orton come back next year? Will EJ show improvement after sitting? Will the front office sign a veteran free agent in the off season that is expected to start? Can this QB fill the gap until they identify a longer term solution to the franchise QB search? Will they draft a QB in 2015 or wait until 2016? The big question. Can any free agent veteran QB available in the off season be a difference maker? Or just another fill in? The difference maker between challenging for the division and making the playoffs or not making the playoffs? Lots of questions and no answers right now. When free agency starts after the SB things might get interesting. This is the #1 issue holding this team back. Give me a top 10 QB and I'm pretty confident this team is a playoff team this season. Both teams have built good defenses. The Bills get Kiko back next season. WIll Spikes return or will the Bills be happy to move Brown to the middle and use the cap money on another need? Will there be money to sign Jerry Hughes? Both fan bases are loyal and long suffering. We share a lot here. It would be fun to see both teams rise to the top and battle it out in the playoffs a couple times.

The Packers are an 'average' 3 and 3 on the road this season so maybe we up the percentage to 50/50. But the Raiders are playing better ball having won 2 in a row at home with that 52-0 drubbing at St. Louis thrown in the middle. So I don't see this game as the sure thing it once was earlier in the season. And the game at New England? Sure there's a chance but looking at the Bills recent history of 'must wins' can you really expect something different than a 3 or 4 turnover 11 penalty blow out loss to end the season? While it keeps the interest level high these mathematical scenarios are unlikely and I wrote off the chance of making the playoffs back when they lost the KC and Miami games and dropped to 5-5. A split of those would have left them at a more favorable 8-5 but 7-6 is what it is and they need to jump 5 teams in 3 weeks to catch the 6th spot.

In the NFL the ref's call the game in a very situational manner. Which teams are playing, where is the game, who is the home team, who is the 'better' team, which players are involved, the score, the point in the game, etc. They lack consistency. And let's call it what it is, favoritism. Sometimes they know they made a 'bad call' and try to fix that as evidenced by the obligatory 'make up' call on the next play. Who hasn't seen that? It's not just the Bills who are ending up on the short end of the stick here. But some teams are good enough to overcome these mistakes by the officials. However, the Bills are not. Going into Denver as the underdog against one of the league darlings this is the treatment I expected the Bills to get from the officials so its no surprise they got flagged so much. It's up to ownership to address these problems and discuss them privately within the league.

I don't think there's any formal policy of bias in the league but its obvious that individual officials and crews, along with league officials have established an informal culture to hold different teams and different players to different set of standards. Seattles secondary can climb all over receivers all the way down the field for the entire play and not get called for illegal contact but the Browns or Bills cannot. Gronkowski can push off the defender to get separation on every single play but Candler cannot. Hughes gets called for taunting but JJ Watt does not. And on and on. When we had the replacement officials a couple years ago I liked the fact that their mistakes were at least unbiased. Only when a marquee team got screwed in a pivotal game did the league look to bring back the regular officials. That said it all to me at the time and spoke loud and clear of the need to restore the bias immediately.

Marrone shoud be thinking short-term here. Like job preservation. If WIlliams really can help the Bills score in the red zone he's a fool for not playing him, regardless of his antics and comments. If I'm ownership and I know my head coach didn't play a WR that could have helped the team with their most obvious problem because of some grudge or personal issue then I am going to seriously evaluate my options with regards to the head coaching job. Do I want to keep Marrone or replace him with 'my guy'? Also, WIlliams should be smart enough to realize this might be the end of the line for him too.

If the Bills played the AFC and NFC south divisions this year like the AFC north they'd probably be 9-3 right now. But probably Miami would be too..

I think Denver sat Manning once before in last years Super Bowl. Or maybe it just seemed that way?

The number of passes targeted for Woods and to a lesser extent Hogan in recent games would appear to counter the argument that Orton is 'forcing' a high number of attempts at Watkins. I suspect Watkins injuries are hampering his production and play. The Bills offense suffers from a lack of big plays and red zone production due to some combination of execution, personel use such as no use of Mike Wiliams known past proficiency in the red zone, and play calling. The first is up to the players and the latter two can be corrected by coaching staff decisions.

Just like the Bills did against the Giants in SB 25.

The Bronco fans should be confident but their team is hardly unbeatable. When NE mopped up the field with them a few weeks ago I concluded they don't deserve another Super Bowl appearance off that putrid performance. Their run defense stats are supported by a high scoring offense rather than some dominant play up front. Still, they have some great players, when Manning is 'on' he's almost impossible to beat, and being home is a big advantage here too. For starters, the Bills 'D' needs to give them a physical beating similar to what the Seahawks gave them in the Super Bowl. I think they're up to the task here. And the offiense needs to get a little more creative. While I don't expect a win I do expect a battle.

I think Coleman's crew had the Broncos/Chief on Sunday so its unlikely he'll be assigned to a Denver game two weeks in a row.

The big difference between the Saints and Bills in your example is the Saints put up 5 TD's with Graham getting lots of attention and the Bills 1 and a lot of FG's with Watkins being the focus of attention. Until they 'hurt' the defense and force them out of their coverage schemes of keying on Watkins with some significant points on the board from mulitple TD's they'll continue to face this strategy. Along with the other obvious difference being the OC dialing up the right calls and the QB executing on them.

All the Bills have to do is finish 10-6 by beating Oakland on the road and winning 2 of 3 games against 3 of the top 4 teams in the league each of which is lead by a future home of fame quarterback. Given that, to me 14.3% seems too high. They screwed the pooch by losing to both Miami and Kansas City in that 5 day stretch where getting a minimum of a split was needed. The defense should hang tough but I find it hard to get too excited with an offense that cannot score red zone TD's. FG's are not going to beat Manning, Rodgers, and Brady. Not that its impossible but something has to get fixed and fast for any kind of miracle finish to happen.

A college offense? Yes, watching a lot of college games yesterday a lot of teams were running the Bills offense. But getting better production than the pro version. Next season we need to dump the college 'O' and get a 'real professional offensive system..

For sure punting or going for the 1st is a matter of playing field position but its also situational management. You're not going to punt for field position on 4th down from the opponents 41 yard line if you're trailing by 4 points with a minute left and no timeouts. We can all agree with that. And in the 1st quarter of a 3-3 game you might punt because its early and no need for taking the risk in most cases. This makes a lot of sense too. The issue most point out with coaches deciding to punt in opponent territory is situational. Take the Miami game. If I recall correctly, with something like 9:30 left and down two scores coach Marrone chose to punt on 4th and 6. 6 yards is a high risk and no gimme for certain. But in that situation you're down 2 scores, your offense is having red zone issues, you've only managed 3 FGs to that point and maybe you don't sniff the other side of the 50 for the rest of the game, you might get a possession two, and Miami's offense has been moving the ball well in the 2nd half so other than the opponent burning more clock what's the difference if they drive down the field from the 20 or the 40? So maybe you take a shot at that point in the game rather than punt? Not going for the 1st in that situation also gives off the vibe of being timid and scared and that you have no confidence in your offense to pick it up and no confidence in your defense to defend a shorter field. In the Thursday night game after that punt it sent me the message that the Bills had more or less conceded the game.

I understand your viewpoint but I don't see teams game planning on defense for Beckham or Evans like some have done for Watkins. That in itself tells me how the professional coaching ranks view Watkins ability. And I also don't think we can conclude the trade was a mistake. It's one possible conclusion but all the information is not available yet. Does surrendering a #1 choice in 2015 really put this program back 2-4 years? Why? Because that pick could have been used on a franchise QB? Unless the Bills go down the drain here and finish 5-11 I think its a misconception that some sure thing QB is going to be there sitting and waiting to be picked in that draft slot. Who will be available at that draft slot when the pick's on the clock? We don't know yet but I'll wager no QB identified as a sure thing franchise QB will be there in round 1 when the Bills to Cleveland pick is up. Right now Mariota is the only QB worthy of top 5 consideration and it's certainly possible the prospects of other QB can improve before the draft. But he'll be off the board way before that pick is on the clock. At this point the Raiders control the board with the #1 slot and and given their record they look like a 'lock' for the top pick. The next guy up might be Winston if he declares but there's all kinds of red flags and lights flashing there. Maybe the Browns get a great player with that pick. And if they do so be it, that's the price of the deal. The Bills got a great player in Watkins. You can't get something for nothing. The mistake was not trading up for Watkins and giving up the 2015 #1. The mistake was believing EJ was the long term solution to the Bills QB problems based on his potential and his performance on the field to that point. And from the 'eye test' I do not understand how the teams front office and coaching staff, football professionals and talent evaluators, could have reached that conclusion based on his performance and what I saw as a lack of improvement over time. I certainly didn't see it but a lot of times it's just human nature that the fathers of a plan refuse to see their child (the plan) is not working out.

You hit on a lot of topics here with some valid points. I won't comment on all of them. On Watkins I believe he'll turn out to be over and above the other WR's in the draft the Bills could have taken and I believe none of those other top rookies have made much of an impact to their teams in the win/loss column. And they're not getting constant #1 receiver attention like Watkins is from the defenses every weekend. I could argue Watkins has been instrumental in a few Bills wins. The catch over the middle in Detroit to set up the FG, the winning TD catch against the Vikings, some big plays against the Jets. He's also been hindered by rib and groin injuries which have impacted his performance. The big 'what if' is the draft choice they gave up to move up. As for Pegula I suspect he'll be 'all in' when it comes to doing whatever it takes to get the Bills turned around. I don't think he spent $1.4B in order to see his investment troll the bottom of the barrel forever. No doubt in my mind that things will turn around at the top here and quickly.

Yes. The Bills aren't going to be bad enough to get into the top 5 so the potential to grab a bonafide 'franchise QB' with the surrendered 2015 1st round pick won't be there. Granted the bowl season and the combine might change the outlook but at this point I only see one QB, Mariota, that gets first round grades and he'll be off the board quickly. So the idea the Bills gave up a chance to grab another QB if EJ didn't work out is off the table. But the Browns should still get a good player at some position that will help them.

All we know to this point is that Terry & Kim Pegula purchased the Bills from the Wilson estate for $1.4B and have made a commitment to keep the team in Buffalo. We know of TP's work to date with the Sabres but comparing that experience with the Bills probably isn't going to give any clues of where things are headed with the Bills. We've heard about the potential hiring of some football 'consultant' but that is just specuation at the moment. My suspicion is the evaluation process of the front office, the coaching staff, adminstrative staff, game operations, the players, etc., is already underway but nothing is going to be made public prior to the end of the season. I think there's a good collective understanding of what ails the Bills on this board and I can't help but believe that TP/KP are observing some of the same things our fellow board members are seeing on and off the field. And that they will conclude the weaknesses that need to be addressed are consistent with what most identify here, OC, HQ, QB, OL, to name a few. I expect the Pegula's will not be hesitant as Mr. Wilson was to spend funds on top-tier coaches or delegate power and authority to competent personnel 'experts' that will be brought in to manage the front office. So all options are open and any previous conceptions candidates have had in the past with regards to ownership will no longer exist. Money/pay level shouldn't be an issue and mostly how attractive the job is will matter. This I would think would be the first steps and it would happen pretty quickly after the season unless there are candidates of playoff teams they want to consider. Around the New Year we should see things start to happen.

I'm resigned to the fact the Bills are close to certain of not going to the playoffs again this year. Sure, we can look at all the scenarios and hold out hope but you're just setting yourself up for more disappointment. The team is like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. Trust me, I won't move the ball when you try to kick it! They had their chance with the 2 games in 5 days against the Chiefs and the Dolphins and failed the test. Plain and simple they didn't answer the bell.

Hypothetically lets say a QB throws a deep sideline pattern to his receiver launching the ball 50 yards down field but his receiver cuts off the pattern 25 yards downfield and runs a deep in vs. the fly. The ball lands at least 25 yards downfield beyond any receiver. Is that intentional grounding since no receiver is in the 'area'? The problem is the rule is inconsistent, arbitrary, randomly enforced, and subject to way too much individual interpretion by the officials. There may be no 'right' or 'wrong' in saying the call was correct or not because it is so subjective the term 'rule' should not even apply.

I'll trade your two guards and a running back for one guard and an NFL level offensive coordinator. Just for the sake of argument, can somebody find me Richie Incognito and Charlie Weis? I think both might be available right now..

However, its okay to throw the ball at the feet of a receiver 5 yards away from the QB, clearly in order to avoid a loss, avoid a sack and a hit, and its clearly intentional? And getting 'out of the pocket' and throwing the ball 10 yards out of bounds to the cheerleaders is okay too even though its clear intent to avoid a loss? I'm coming around to the idea that the entire rule should be eliminated since it requires the officials to determine intent and arbitarily set what 'in the area' means rather than some clear cut action like offsides or facemask penalties for example. But I do agree it was a stupid call by the OC. There was absolutely no way the Bills were going to convert that 3rd and long absent some defensive penalty resutling in a 1st and 10. Get 4-5 yards and give the punter some room to work might have been more prudent. Then at other times when you'd think being a little more aggessive would be the right playcall and they turtle up on the call. But I'm getting off topic and venting a little..

My problem with intentional grounding is the ref's are trying to judge the QB's intent. Did Orton throw that ball specifically to avoid a loss or was the intent to attempt a completion to the receiver, in this case Watkins who cut inside rather than to the sideline. Given the reciever was still in the picture and the inside cut occured as the ball was released I'm not sure how you can be certain Orton was just throwing it away. The entire receiver in the area concept is pretty weak at times. As mentioned before the QB throws the ball at the feet of the lineman when a screen play gets blown up but since a receiver is 'in the area' its not grounding regardless of the fact we know he threw it away because the play was busted and he was surely avoiding a loss. Coleman's crew blew that call. That all said, the Bills were handed a wonderful opportunity to turn the tables when they recovered the ensuing fumble on the free kick but did nothing with that chance.

Don't forget the hail mary pass interference call that followed placing the ball at the Bills 1. And I'll continue to hold Wade in high esteem for taking his team to the locker room in protest after NE scored the gift TD to win the game. The only extra point play I've seen in NFL history where there was no defense on the field. I remember the pricks had the stones to go for two there!