SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

Exactly, that is the conundrum. People aren't going to pay more for a mediocre product, and you aren't going to have better than a mediocre product without increasing your revenue. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? If you go ahead and raise the prices now in hopes that next year or the year after you will be able to be competitive, then you risk actually losing revenue because fans won't come to the games. If you leave the prices as they are, you cannot afford to hire more talented players, and thus you sell out games but you fail to raise the talent level of your franchise. So if you want to watch a winning team 2 years from now, you have to make that sacrifice and pay more now so that the franchise can facilitate success later. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to do that, I'm simply saying that's the way it is.

OMG @ the stupidity here. I'm so sick of people making the statement that Ralph Wilson doesn't want to win because he makes money by running a mediocre team. Winning is more lucrative than losing, period. The additional salary you have to shell out for quality players pays for itself when you start making post season runs. To think that a mediocre franchise is more valuable than a winning franchise is absurd beyond description, and to think that Ralph Wilson believes that is even worse. OMFG you have a brain, try using it. The Bills sell out their stadium because the prices are CHEAP. If they charged the same ticket prices as the Pats or Eagles, they would NEVER sell out a stadium. The revenue generated by selling out the Ralph simply is not enough to hire better players. If you want Ralph to have the money to compete, then I suggest you start a petition to let Ralph know that you will still sell out his stadium if he charges competitive prices for his tickets. Otherwise, STFU. If you enjoy watching pro football at a fraction of the league's average ticket prices, and if you don't want to pay through the nose for a seat, then you get to watch the team that your money buys. You see Ralph understands that many people in western NY are not going to pay standard prices. So the choices are: a) field a mediocre team with mediocre revenue, or b) raise ticket prices and hope that people still come to the games (not likely to happen). It is a conundrum with no simple solution, except if the fans took the initiative to be willing to pay more money to watch the games. Considering the economic state of the base Buffalo Bills market, that seems more than impractical. So stop pissing and moaning about it. Either accept the mediocre team that your money can buy, or embrace the idea of the Bills moving to a more lucrative market that can afford to pay competitive prices.

So you hate the vikings for hiring the best available QB who can give them a shot to win the SB? I think Favre's attitude is "I want to play football." Plain and simple. And who are you or anyone else to even have an opinion about it? It isn't anything to you, doesn't affect you in any way, and you're not even a vikings or packers fan. Seriously you need to get a life, since you have nothing better to do that sit around looking for reasons to hate.

Don't blame me for your cognitive drop-off. I mean I keep reading your banter over and over and stil eye dunt get any les smarter.

Considering how much football you supposedly watch, I would expect you to display a far greater degree of cognitive understanding of its principles and dynamics. That fact that you do not only leads me to believe that said cognitive understanding is quite simply beyond your capacity. But don't feel bad, you can always blame it on the gene pool.

I could see Al Davis going for Roscoe Parrish and a 2nd round pick for Seymour, considering how much he likes the speedy/explosive player archetype. I'm just not convinced that would be prudent for the Bills - the fact that the Pats traded him seems to indicate to me that he is not performing at a level required to run an effective 3-4. If we had a larger presence at DE opposite from Seymour, maybe we take a chance and convert to a 3-4 to utilize Maybin at OLB, but I don't see that as feasible at all as is.

Better record last year. More talent. Less senile owner. More accomplished head coach. Less potentially criminally liable head coach. More explosive weapons on offense. Fewer concealed weapons in the locker room. A better quarterback. More talent on defense. ETC ETC ETC

With the weaponry the Bills have it shouldn't require a complicated system to be effective. Run a simple pass play and someone has to be open. It is that simple. Why make it more complex than it needs to be? Doesn't make any sense. Last year, when we were starved for talent and couldn't create mismatches to exploit, then yea, we should try to confuse the defense. But when few teams in the league are going to be able to match up at the skill positions, why not just shove our simple offense right down their throats? I mean it is pick your poison: Play 8 in the box to stop the run, give up big plays deep. Play 7 in the box to prevent the big play, get run all over. Double team T.O. and Lee burns you, double team Lee and T.O. burns you. Why would any OC in the NFL want to complicate this? It doesn't make any sense and really I have to think DJ made this decision flat out because Schonert pissed him off, not because of pressure or lack of fortitude to do it sooner or anything. They got into an argument, Schonert said the wrong thing, and Jauron told him to hit the bricks on the spot.

Really? What metric is that statement based upon? Who has been head coach of a playoff team more recently? DJ. Who had the supposed "most talented team in the league" but failed to make the playoffs? WP. Who had arguably the least talented team in the league and posted a vastly overachieving 7-9 record? DJ. Who has lost more playoff games as head coach of the Bills? Exactly.

I predict this is what will happen: On obvious passing downs, you will see Maybin in at DE in the 4-3. On first downs, Maybin usually will not play. On 2nd and medium to long range, the Bills shift to 3-4 and Maybin comes in at OLB. On 3rd and long we see the 4-3/nickel with Maybin at DE, and 3rd and <5 we see the 3-4 with Maybin at OLB. This is how you mitigate his disadvantage of size vs the running game and exploit his advantage at rushing the quarterback. The only problem is that the Bills lack the size on the D-line to hold up against a short yardage rushing game in a 3-4 alignment, and will have to rely on heavy blitzing to prevent short yardage first downs, which will backfire and result in big plays some of the time. The smart thing to do against Maybin is to line up and run the ball right at him. By utilizing a system like the one described above, you assure that they will be running at him in disadvantageous situations most of the time. If the Bills let him play only at DE and on every play, he will become a liability. But if they let him roam between OLB and DE as needed, you get all of the upside with virtually zero downside. So I don't find it strange that anyone would speculate that he might play OLB, or that the Bills haven't shown everything they intend to do to the world already. I mean as good as BB is, there is no reason to try and surprise him or anything is there?

So you think switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 a week before the season starts is an indication that things are going in the Pats favor? So you think they get rid of Seymour and switch defenses because they know that "someone will step up?" LoL! Son your lenses are as colored as anyone I've ever known. What a joke.

I'm not sure what you think is funny here. Let's analyze this objectively, shall we? 1. The Pats defense is bad. Especially when you trade away Richard Seymour off of a defensive line that was one of its few redeeming qualities. Their LBs, while a few have some talent, lack depth. Their secondary is patchwork at best and a major liability at anything less than their best. 2. The Pats (regardless of how much Tim Graham thinks Lawrence Maroney is a *gamer*) have zero running game. They gain yards because teams have to compensate for the deep pass and that will happen early in many games, but when it is close and the game is on the line late, where will the Pats look to protect a fragile lead? Is Maroney going to be able to carry the load and eat the clock with a close game on the line? I wouldn't put my money on that. 3. Tom Brady hasn't played in a year, and he is returning on a completely reconstructed knee that hasn't been tested. Even if we assume his durability will not be a factor, you have to wonder if he can possibly show the same poise and fearless decision making that so set him apart from the league. I think Brady is going to do well, but to think he is going to return to 07 form and/or make the Pro Bowl - well again I wouldn't put my money on that. 4. The Patriots took seeming delight in embarrassing and mocking the other NFL teams in '07. That hasn't been forgotten, and even the Steelers won't see the same level of infuriated, inspired play week to week. Every week is going to be the SB for the Pats opponents, and they simply don't have the talent to endure it. Get ready Pats fans, because the time to pay for that '07 debacle begins this season and probably won't stop for a very very long time. The only question is: how long will it be before the Pats see the playoffs again? I'm guessing at least 5 years.

I'll take speed over size any day of the week.

Zack Thomas is 5-11.

Cornelius Bennett.

Why is that strange? Many people, myself included, have predicted this since draft day. It makes sense to make an undersized DE with great acceleration on the edge into an OLB, and I've felt it was pretty obvious that was the intention from the beginning.

Just for the record the Patriots aren't going to be as good as ESPN wants us all to think they are. Everyone drinks somebody's kool-aid. The only question is which flavor are you drinking? Personally I don't care for the Patriots are better than everybody variety. The only thing that has happened to the Patriots recently has been getting smacked down over and over since they went 18-0, and I see no reason not to expect that trend to continue, considering how everyone in the league wants to hurt them as much as possible.

I'm not sure which pop warner leagues you or Turk are watching that utilize the check down pass.

Actually it should. With no pass rush, you *have* to play soft coverage or else risk being exposed deep far more frequently. Without time to let deep routes develop, we could afford to play much tighter coverage. Pass rush is everything right now, and right now we don't have it.

No huddle offense *DOES NOT* kill the defense. The Bills defenses of old had no problem with this, and they ran a frantically paced no huddle. Look people can say that the no huddle undid the Bills against the Cowboys in the SB but that is pure and speculative fallacy. If it was true that no huddle kills the defense, the Bills could not have advanced to the SB to begin with. Don't forget - they had to beat some rather good teams to get there. Please stop regurgitating that same tired old BS. The no huddle wears down the opposing defense to a much greater extent, allowing the Bills (in theory) to maintain possession for longer stretches because the defense is less likely to post three and out defensive efforts. If you no huddle and fail to pick up first downs and/or points, then yea it certainly becomes much less effective. But the same is true of any offensive philosophy in the history of football, so its really a moot point.

Teams realized you could double team Lee Evans and there was nothing the Bills could do to mitigate that fact because we did not have anything even close to a legitimate #2 threat. Without consistent blocking, Trent doesn't have time to wait for someone to beat their coverage, even on the rare occasion that it happens, it is quite likely he will have been pressured into throwing too soon.

Dog, we should have known this was going to be a BS thread just based on the fact that Alphadawg started it. His posts are always...well laughable. Guess what nubs - no QB is a good QB with a bad o-line. Just look what happened to "the greatest offense ever" when the Giants d-line put Brady on his a$$ consistently. This isn't even a legitimate debate. Also, Lee Evans is not the awesome receiver you guys want him to be. It isn't an issue of stats - it is an issue of Lee can't beat double coverage and Josh Reed/all other Bills receivers before TO can't beat single coverage = no place to throw the ball = checkdown/sack. It's not even close to the most complicated dynamic to understand in football but if you can't grasp this relatively simple idea then you are in fact hopeless and shouldn't voice your opinion unless you don't mind being flagrantly and consistently rebuked. The problem is, as I have stated frequently, the Bills ARE NOT GOOD. We don't have competitive talent, therefore no QB, coach, punt returner, janitorial engineer or paraplegic genius is going to change that. Just let it sink in. We aren't good. Sometimes the truth hurts. Trent Edwards would likely dominate the Earth sitting behind the Patriots line. But it really is pretty absurd to expect him to throw the ball deep down the field into blanketing coverage to receivers who lack the size and physical ability to go up and force the issue against defensive backs in the two-three seconds per play he has to make a decision. Having T.O. in the mix changes everything. All of a sudden, you can't double team Lee Evans, and Lee *is* good enough to make you pay for single coverage. All of a sudden we have a guy who can go over the middle to catch passes and make you pay for blitzing. The entire dynamic of the Bills offense changes with T.O. in the game. Our o-line is suspect still, but in any game where they can provide at least adequate protection, you have to think most teams are going to have problems matching up. If you can't watch Trent play and see his obviously superior vision and poise, and see that he makes the *best* decisions possible a vast majority of the time, then why even bother trying to articulate a meaningful criticism of his play?

Ahem. You are right. It is not Lee Evans' fault that he gets totally shut down. He is not a #1 receiver. He gets double teamed and has no tools to defeat that. He is a one trick pony, and when you don't have a legitimate all-over-the-field threat across from him, he won't be at all effective. It also is not Trent's fault, as you just cannot throw the ball to a receiver who is as covered as you can possibly be. Without T.O. in the game, the Bills are doomed. Plain and simple.

Yes.

No. Bad QB play and bad play in the trenches = bad teams. The only problem with the coaching is that it changes too frequently. I think it is pretty obvious that coaching *IS NOT* the problem when you bring in new coach after new coach and still get the same results. Firing coaches doesn't do much to mitigate the fact that you still have the same bad team. In fact, it really inhibits the team's ability to establish continuity and thus work for several seasons to build a roster of players that fit that coach's philosophy. Every time a new coach comes in, the team has to adapt a new philosophy, and all of a sudden the team must begin the three-four year process of rebuilding its roster according to the new philosophy. I don't really understand how so many fans are too ignorant to see that.