SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

They never should have built a team in Jacksonville to begin with. But for the record Orlando is 140 miles from Jacksonville - which should be a reasonable drive for fans there, much more reasonable than Miami. Miami is much much further from Orlando than that, at 235 miles. The problem is that Jacksonville is not large enough to support professional sports franchises, and with two other pro teams already established in that state, it is hard to draw any new fans. Fans don't just lose their loyalties because a new team opened up a little closer. It is the same reason the Marlins struggle with attendance - Most of Florida was a pure out loyal Braves market and too many people there still support the Braves. It was just a terrible decision to open a franchise in Jacksonville.

Poor field vision DOES NOT result in 70% completions and 26 points. I mean that is really all that needs to be said about it.

I would have went for it. That being said, the only way going for it is more advantageous is if you have zero faith in your defense's ability to prevent two touchdowns. The only reason I say go for it there is because I am a Bills fan and have watched them blow seemingly insurmountable leads when it seemed impossible. The technically correct call there IMO is to kick the field goal, as that makes them have to score two touchdowns and recover the onside kick. Only the Bills would be in danger of that happening.

IMO, this is your best post as a Buffalo Bills fan. I think we both can agree it would be nice to see Trent continue to even get better as he gets more comfortable in the offense. Ironically, I am usually one of Trent's staunchest supporters and I was frustrated with him forcing the ball in on short throws (unlike last week when the short throws were wide open) during much of the game. Not that I felt he wasn't still effective, but it seemed like after the TO drop he got a little hesitant to look TO's way. Perhaps TO was being doubled - I was frustrated that they weren't giving me any good looks at the coverage during the broadcast. But he did show that he is willing to go deep and that he can put good touch on it, so I'm with you in that it was a good overall performance. I give him an A-. All we need is for him to build up that confidence and Brady-like killer instinct. He has the tools to be dominant, both in personnel and natural talent I think..

OMG DJ love? I was watching a broadcast I found online (since the game was unavailable on cable down here) that had two obviously Bucs biased announcers. I don't know if you guys were listening to the same ones, but I thought it was neat how on the drive after our 4th quarter FG we were playing conservatively on defense and the announcer commented about it and all of a sudden the defense started coming after Leftwhich and made a nice stand after forcing Leftwhich into some bad throws. It was a right on the money, middle of the drive adjustment to the play calling and it was effective. I hope some of the DJ critics can appreciate that.

I agree that there have been few holes of any type on the defensive line. I don't think that guy must be talking about the Bills. It did make perfect sense to me how people thought our line was the worst in the NFL. How could you not, I mean really? But I'm not about to argue that the play hasn't been a great surprise or that we have a lot to look forward to. No complaints at all from me - if they play like this all year we are contenders as far as I see it.

The rest of the league is already experienced. AVP isn't. And he will have the same opportunity to view tapes on other teams. Advantage of gaining experience clearly in AVP's favor.

1. TO and Lee each had a long TD pass down the sideline. Each also dropped a big play ball. 2. Nothing wrong with pounding the run when your back is ripping of 168 yards @ 5.8 yards per carry. 3. Trent utilizes the middle of the field effectively, consistently moving the chains on passes underneath all during the 4th quarter FG drive, and setting up the big play to TO later at the same time. I think Josh Reed had 2 big receptions in the middle on 3rd down - may have been three. 4. This is not fantasy football. It brings to mind the old cliche: if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

The defense looked pretty damn good against the best offense in the league Monday night.

Scoring points is not about putting the ball in certain players hands. It is about putting the ball where the defense is weakest. They literally double teamed both Lee and TO all night long. I never thought Belichick would do that. It sends the signal that he has no idea what to do to stop this team, and thus he chose to make us execute the short passes consistently which the Pats were quite literally just giving us. As long as they are using 4 DBs to defend two receivers, there is absolutely no reason not to run those receivers down field all day long and throw it to the space they just vacated. I don't understand where the idea comes from that certain players need to have the ball - when your QB has a 114 rating, 60% completions, and averages over 14 yards per completion, that is total domination, and there is no other word strong enough to describe it.

Everything you are saying is of course correct. And everything you are saying will of course be flagrantly disregarded by that sector of TSW populace that wants to see Trent Edwards and DJ canned because their fantasy football players aren't getting enough touches.

You forgot: Watch said OL dominate Vince Wilfork and the rest of the Pats for 59 1/2 minutes.

DrFishfinder, how do you propose that we should have adjusted? The options are relatively limited here. We can either a) play tighter zone coverage and/or switch to man to man, opening up the down field passes that we all know Brady and Moss are going to complete, leading to much quicker scoring by a Pats offense that is trying to come from behind, or b) play soft and make them burn precious minutes off the clock passing for 3-7 yards throughout the drive while slowly by comparison moving down the field. I'm not sure what makes you think that there is some magical defensive adjustment that can be made to stop Tom Brady. I thought we have all seen enough of the MTHERFING MAN torching the league for the past decade to realize how unfeasible that sounds.

I was going to respond to this but then I decided not to because I realized how dumb that would make me look...

Holy effing crap. Someone who understand the dynamics of the game. Well stated.

It is easy - you are way over-analyzing this thing. All we have to do is convince teams to switch out of their man to man coverage and play a soft 2 deep zone, and bingo. We will have the same results.

You are wrong and ridiculous as usual. If there were *not* better options to throw to you may have a point. But when you consistently get a very good pass catching RB lined up on a LB, with absolutely zero help from the secondary within 10 yards, the correct throw is to that guy. Look no further than Trent's 14+ yards per completion vs the Pats as evidence. And I love how the Chargers game from last year totally escapes your selective memory, when Trent continually burned the Chargers down field using some of the most impressive throws I've seen from any QB (as you may also recall, that was his 1st game back from his concussion, so the theory about him being scared does not in any way hold water). Just be quiet already - your knowledge and understanding of simple concepts is very underwhelming and unflattering. Here is my rebuttal to your example: 1. Steve Smith has a fantastic season, and teams realize they have to double cover him. 2. Steve Smith gets double covered in every game the following season, and his production disappears. 3. How is Steve Smith regarded now? As far as I am aware, nobody on the face of the earth ever considered Steve Smith to be better than Randy Moss. Steve Smith has nowhere near the size required to go up against two defenders and consistently come down with the ball. It is a very hollow argument that you are making, and you are grasping at desperate straws. 5'9" - and you think any QB is going to get the ball to this guy in double coverage? Dude....you are truly amazing. Man it really seems like any time I respond to you, there is no end to the arguments that can be made against your positions (which typically is indicative of highly flawed positions). But I just think it is funny that you pick the ONE guy (except maybe Lee Evans) to make your argument that *SHOULD NOT EVER* beat a double coverage. And as far as "getting the ball to him before the double coverage" (again laughably absurd nonsense), double coverage, in the case of a safety and CB, allows the CB to bump the receiver off the line, thus taking away any short plays, because he still has help over the top. Randy Moss caught passes Monday night underneath because WE WERE IN A ZONE. Why do you struggle so much to grasp these simple truths? It is beyond me.

I know where you are coming from, and if your comments are not directed specifically at me, they easily could be. I just want to say that I am more than happy to call people idiots *and* provide lucid and logical evidence supporting my position and my opinion of their intelligence. =p When I call anyone an idiot/moron/etc, it is NOT because they disagree with me. It is because they perpetuate ideologies that are in direct contradiction to solid football logic without providing a single shred of supporting data. I mean there is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, but if you want to be respected and/or not flamed, then you need to justify your position beyond "you must get your knowledge from Madden loolzes...." Just my two cents. For the moderator(s): everyone on this board who perpetuates flagrant and judgmental positions without providing a shred of evidence contrary other than "SouthGeorgiaBillsFan is stupid" (which we all can see as plain as day is not true) is an idiot/moron/etc. This post was my choice.

This is the only prediction I can respect that I have thus far seen. The game will not be within 2 TDs. There is absolutely no way a lackluster Bucs team can compete with the Bills. We are more talented all up and down the roster, on both sides of the ball, and on special teams. My prediction: Bills 34 Bucs 17

The way you sign all of your posts with "PTR" is redundant and unnecessary. We all know who made the post because it says "PromoTheRobot" right above your avatar. So really you are just wasting time and causing unnecessary wear and tear on your keyboard. SGBF

First of all, any DB matched up on a TE is a mismatch, especially over the middle. Second of all, the Bucs are laughably *less* dangerous on offense than the Pats, and thus I am not at all worried. They don't stand a chance. They will not be able to "dink and dunk" because they don't have Randy Moss and Tom Brady to force us into soft coverage. They also don't have the Pats O-line to protect the QB. The Bills coaching staff is going to come out playing an aggressive cover 2 this weak taking away the short gains and forcing them to prove they can beat our solid secondary down the field (which actually is the strength of the cover 2 - teams started utilizing the scheme because it was the BEST way to stop the west coast offense). You don't take this approach with the Pats because everyone in the league knows that they can burn everyone in the league down the field, and the Bucs do not have that luxury. If they prove they can burn us deep, we make the adjustment to take away their ability to throw down field, and then perhaps it opens up for dinking and dunking, but I'm willing to bet that will not be the case, and I would bet my life on the fact that the short passing game will not be consistently effective until they do prove they can throw it long.

2/2 times it did not appear to be a good move for the best offense in the league against the Bills, so why don't you just shut the !@#$ up?

The decision to go for it on 4th down has to be situational to be effective. For example: Team is down by 9 points. Fourth and two at the opposing team's 27 yard line. No matter how good your offense is here, you have to kick the field goal. You need 2 scores no matter how you slice it, and so you take the opportunity now to get your 3 points. If you are in this same scenario down by 12 points however, you clearly go for it. The same logic would apply in a situation where your team is on the 27 yard line and up by 4 points. Again you need to kick the field goal in this situation, because to fail to convert here could cost you the game. It should always be a function of what the score is. Granted, are you going to score more points by going for it all the time? Of course. The problem is you have no way to know whether or not the opposing team will score more points than they would have otherwise. And there is still the conundrum that *if* your offense is good enough that you feel you can essentially profit by going for it aggressively, then why would you not take the safe play with confidence that your offense will be good enough to find the end zone on the next possession? As video games have become more popular we have seen an increase in the number of people who feel that being more aggressive on fourth down leads to greater success. But the flaw in their thinking is that in a typical John Madden game this is a much greater disparity in talent of the players than in a real game, because you have 2 people affecting the outcome of the video game, and a team of forty or more people affecting the outcome of a real game. In essence what I am saying is that if your team is substantially better than the opposition, then yea, going for it on fourth down is going to pay dividends. But on the same token, if your team *is* that much better than the opposition that they can consistently convert questionable fourth down attempts, then you really shouldn't even be seeing that many fourth downs or have the game close enough where the decision is making a significant impact on the outcome. Bottom line is that it requires that your team be substantially better than the opposing team to consistently benefit from risky decisions to go for it on fourth down, and the vast majority of the time, when that is the case, going for it is irrelevant to the outcome anyway, and thus makes little sense. It is not public scrutiny imo that keeps pro coaches from adapting more aggressive philosophies. It is the fact that they are better able to grasp the logic that governs situations in a football game than a fan posting on a forum or playing John Madden football, which is why they get paid a lot of money to coach pro teams and fans and ESPN analysts do not.

Well Poz didn't give up any completions over the middle to Ben Watson...

They might get some nice gains, sure. I certainly don't think we will shut down the Bucs running game the way we did the Pats. But as far as being concerned that they will score enough points to win? Not a chance. The Pats barely beat us due to a fluke play - there is nothing that could make me fear anything the Bucs have to offer.