Ronin

The O can't even move the ball vs. the Vikes 2nd-team D.

Bills' D already out too. 1st team O needs to stay in.

Unfortunately the worrisome part about tonight is that the D will have allowed over 200 yards to an offense like the Vikes.

Suprisingly, no sacks by the Vikes.

Well, there's a TD.

It's just the vanilla scheming. That's all. They'll play like world champs in week one.

Place started as Buffalo Wild Wings and Weck in Cleveland.

Says 4.55 here; http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=84950&draftyear=2011&genpos=CB Other Googles say 4.52 at combine. No, I'm quite concerned in fact. They should have hung onto Florence at least until they had two proven competent starters. We enter the season with one rookie and a second year player with only 6 starts under his belt at the corner spots and no real depth otherwise since McGee can't be counted on. Here's a decent piece on the uphill battle that we face in making the playoffs as a result; http://www.profootballweekly.com/2012/07/04/bills-counting-on-rookies-at-crucial-positions How much will this lack of experience at the corner spots also negate our new found pass rush? TBD

Enough to work out ten games last season and this preseason's worth of kinks in the O to give us confidence that they'll hit the ground running, instead of the way that they finished last season, when the regular season begins. The offense scored almost as many TDs in the first three games of last season as they did in the last 10. Is that good? Hardly. They have this and next week's preseason games, you know that they won't play the starters more than a series in the fourth game, although if the O is still struggling IMO they should. It's not like we're the Giants defending a title and need to keep our starters healthy. Health is nothing apart from competent well executed play. I'd leave the starting unit in until they demonstrate that they can move the ball some and score at least a TD or two. But hey, that's just me, ignorant non-NFL coach talking. What do I know. Funny how many people here run on assumptions, assumptions that what the coaches and team reps say will happen. Have we learned nothing in a decade of extreme futility? Neither. See above.

I'm expecting that the 20 plays that they say the starters will play won't nearly be enough, coupled with more offensive futility with the jury being out defensively. I'm curious if the first team D will log a sack against a 2nd-year QB after allowing a rookie to remain all but unscathed.

Because he's unfamiliar with why it happens. Let's not forget that the team barely averaged more than 15 points/game last season over the last two-thirds of the season. They averaged 1.6 offensvie TDs/game over the last 10 games. Don't you thiink it would be somewhat presumptuous to institute such a rule a this point? Kind of sets himself up for some embarrassment too if scoring doesn't improve, don't you think? The offense really hasn't changed since last season with the exception of a few linemen, none of which is proven yet. And while many seem to think that Donald Jones, Derek Hagan, or David Nelson, none of whom were even drafted by the team, are going to turn into the next Steve Johnson's, it's probably not going to happen. Meanwhile, the only WR that Nix and Gailey did draft, Easeley, everyone's complaining about. Anyway, not trying to be a wet blanket, but the onus is on the team here to prove that they're different from last year despite no significant changes offensively. As they say, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. So far, this season, offensively speaking, is doing the same thing (as last season) over again, until further notice. And what they're doing that's new, the Wildcat, hasn't helped any team significantly. We also have absolutely no idea how it will work out for us.

LOL, so that's it, anyone that doesn't share the viewpoint that this is presently a winning/playoff team is a troll? Let me ask you then, at the end of the season, which is so typical in Buffalo with preseason expectations at or great than they've been now, what are those same people, the ones you say are trolls, then called when people such as yourself are ready to make the FO walk the plank called? Besides know-it-alls that is.

And logic. But that's common on message boards.

It's the internet - 95% of the people are living in opinionated fantasyland. One of the things that's the most hilarious is how this time of year at this point during all of our illustrious coaches' tenures, they're all geniuses and know so much more about football. Then in their third seasons there's no notable improvement(s), or they regress even, then all of a sudden within the time span of a few months they're "morons, idiots, don't know jack, need to leave town," etc. Jauron's 3rd season: 7-9. same as his first two. Mularkey's 2nd and last season: 5-11, four games worse than his first. Williams' 3rd season: 6-10, two games worse than his second. The fourth time's obviously the charm here. LOL I'm tellin' ya, all the comedy you need will be right here throughout the season. They could rename rename many football forums bipolar.com/[team name].

If Graham is so good and so fast, how come he averaged only 14.7 ypc there in four years, and only 16.5 as a senior? That's really not very impressive for what appears to have been one of the fastest players in all of college football, even faster than Spiller supposedly was. How come his only great games were against teams from marginal conferences or Wake Forest? In two-thirds of his games as a senior he was a non-factor. If he couldn't do better in college it's unlikely that he's going to step up and light up the NFL. Be happy if he can catch three long balls every season. He won't be a factor on the whole.

If Vince Young comes in to do anything it will be a sign of several things. First, that the regular offense isn't producing, ... or worse yet, that Fitz is out for injury, which won't be good. It will also be a sign that they're grasping at straws. That is not an argument, it's nothing but a misdirection statement. If the coaches knew how to run a team they wouldn't have been 4-12 and 6-10 the last two seasons.

And we've never heard anything at all along these lines from other coaches, Jauron, Mularkey, Williams?

Well, to your first paragraph, I think that they should focus on the meat-and-potatoes of what their offense is going to be. They have Fred Jackson, who led the NFL in yards-from-scrimmage a couple years ago and was on pace to do it again before suffering an easy to recover from injury last season. How about building the O around him? Doesn't that make a ton more sense? Then Spiller who might do something this year too as a backup, or having them both on the field. Instead, they spread out five WRs, four of which wouldn't be starting for any decent NFL team with playoff asperations. They can reach for the sky, but it's not going to happen with that unit. Steve Johnson doesn't even command double coverages. The next best WR we have is a backup on most other teams. You play to your strength, you don't just fiddle around with things as if just hoping for them to happen makes them happen, despite the fact that that's how they've coached in Buffalo for years. As to your comments on Chan, he's got more talent on this team, last season and the one before it too, than all of his predecessors going back to pre-Williams ever had, but he's posted far worse records. He's never successfully coached a pro-set/style offense, ever, in college or in the NFL. So why is he going to do it now? He sure has a better QB than any of his recent predecessors had. I'm not saying that Fitz is Brady, he's obviously not, and IMO he's below average, but he's better than Edwards, Holcomb, Losman, Van Pelt. Bledsoe was by far the best but he sucked too. In fact, IMO he wasn't much better than Fitzpatrick is but comparable nonetheless. Both were below average QBs that couldn't play against good defenses. To answer your question about Ryan and Lewis, Lewis wanted his players to go up against what they would typically see, not against something that they might see on 50 plays all season if even that. Come on, you didn't really need someone to answer that for you, right? LOL, no, no personal attacks, and I'm enjoying this exchange, but I could say the same thing about you on your lawyer comment. Lawyers constantly ignore facts and tend towards procedure and using "methods" rather than actual data, facts, trends, patterns, and analyses. Again, preseason games are meaningless, in terms of score/outcome. But they're not meaningless in terms of how players and units play. It's much better to have your first team O score twice against a first team D on two of three drives, have them come out and lose the game 56-14, than it is to screw the pooch and demonstrate play-calling and an approach to a game that makes everyone scratch their noggin and start lining up the excuses for why it appears that their hopes are on the cusp of being shattered. Wouldn't you say? We'll see how they do against Minnesota with the first team O. On another note, how do you think that Mario's going to play this season? How many sacks, etc.? : )

I'll enlighten you, but unfortunately you are absolutely correct. The matchup problem that it does create is one of head coach vs. head coach, more specifically a head coach that apparently hasn't caught on that the Wildcat is more of a gimmick "works occasionally" type play rather than something that should even remotely be relied upon for the success to any level. In other words, if you have to plan on using it as a regular part of your arsenal, then your offense really isn't that good. Hence Miami's having used it all those seasons, and the Jets. Neither team had an offense that they could rely on. You typically won't see the Pats, Giants, Packers, Lions, Saints, Ravens, or Texans using it. They don't have to. I'm sure a lot of people would like to put to rest the notion that common sense isn't being demonstrated right now by the coaching staff, but hey, that's why the Bills have the standing that we do right now. Until proven otherwise of course, but things aren't looking like this is the break-the-chain season for that, is it.

I don't know that they won't use it, but given how they did use it, abysmally, on top of the fact that it would be stupid to play like that routinesly, would you first of all, consider it competence if they did, and second of all, were you even remotely convinced that they would ever be able to do it effectively? We've all seen spread offenses before, but not with receivers ranging from 2nd to 5th types on the depth chart. Teams that run those have receivers like Green Bay, New Orleans, the old Oilers (that we beat in the comeback game era), Patriots, etc. In essence, receivers any of which are capable of posting a thousdand yard season in their own right. We don't have that here. To address the questions in your second paragraph, it's not really what I prefer, it's more what's wise for them to do. This isn't the Patriots who lead the league in scoring every season or close to it. It's a team that struggled mightly just to put points on the board for most of last season and easily the last two-thirds of it. So wouldn't it make sense to try to figure out why and correct those issues? That's not going to happen in camp. If we go by camp reports, then every team will finish between 8-8 and 14-2, a veritable impossibility. Either way, they seem to be taking the preseason quite cavalierly. If they're so worried about injuries, then just play the precious offensive starters, most of whom after Johnson and Jackson wouldn't have a chance at starting on any truly playoff caliber team, then just play 'em for a series and yank 'em. I mean imagine Donald Jones on the Pats, Saints, or Packers; would he even have a remote chance of starting? How about Graham, Hagan (who's had his chances and flopped), even Nelson, Easeley, or Roosevelt? Your third paragraph is kinda funny. If they're so smart, then they've massively underachieved the past two seasons, so what would be the reason for that then? Either way, I beg to differ, as coaches go, I think most would argue that they're low end. So far we're not getting any more from them than we got from Jauron. We know, we know, this year will be different as the horse finally catches up to the carrot dangling off the string in front of him. That whole exercise is like Groundhog Day, the movie. Otherwise, they don't have to expose their entire playbook simply by trying to run an offense competently. This whole "vanilla" thing is one big cliched excuse usually. And honestly, let's say that the first team O runs 50 plays in the preseason, which is about right for most teams, maybe a few more, that's merely a fraction of the playbook anyway. As to the Super Bowl teams, they had nothing to prove. They also had talent. Are you really comparing Kelly, Reed, Lofton, Thurman, Wolford, Ballard, Hull, Ritcher, Bruce, Hanson, Wright, Smerlas,Biscuit, Talley, Odomes, Jones, Kelso to this team? Particularly on offense. Really? Does the above really need explaining like that?

LOL To which my response is, call me when Gailey posts a winning season. Otherwise, defending a coach that has produced 4-12 and 6-10 seasons sounds kinda funny.

I agree somewhat, but I still think that you're missing part of my point. Mario knows that no matter how he plays he's going to start all 16 unless he gets injured. He can test his injury in camp. One thing that cannot be done in camp is "real-time" play. For example, we may hear how great the WRs are in camp, as a hypothetical example perhaps, but if they're all going up against rookies and players w/ no experience, what kind of a measuring stick would that be. Short answer, it wouldn't be. On one hand we hear that preseason is meaningless. Well, OK, then how meaningful is it when Williams plays OK against a pretty below average OL? More importantly, what does it mean when a rookie QB behind such a line, with only marginal WR talent, can move the ball downfield methodically, and score while looking great in his first NFL start, preseason regardless? Same for Glenn. He was lined up across from Stephen Bowen primarily. What does that mean? And I'm asking, I don't know since Bowen may not even make the Skins, so what does it mean? It's highly uncertain at this point. As to the straight passing plays, do you think it's good that they're now only working on Fitz's mechanics three seasons into his starting? He was allowed to call his own plays, what was the point of that, and do you think he simply said, WTF, let's just screw around and have fun and didn't care about the results? I don't think so. And honestly, some of these players can play their hearts out in preseason, especially now with the expanded preseason rosters, but they're simply not good enough to play in the NFL. I wasn't all that impressed with Mario unlike others. I hope he brings much more once the season starts, especially if he's lined up against the likes of RTs like Tyler Polumbus. He should have run that guy over on every play. I hear ya, but again, given the way that the Bills finished last season, do you think that they have the luxury of being able to ride out the preseason games just to get to the regular season ones and then hope that it all comes together, or do you think that it would be wise to use these games as opportunities to attempt to get some things to come together on offense? A reminder, the offense over the last nine or ten games last season averaged barely more than two TDs/game. That's bad. It's awful. So I'm not sure how much they can afford to blow the preseason off and hope that for some magical reason the offense is going to come together for no apparent reason otherwise, and because it can play well in camp when the pressure's not real. Exactly! You get it. They'll also do what all the other NFL teams do, despite the fact that they cannot afford to, and will only play the starters for the first half, or thereabouts, of the next two preseason games, and will let them only play a series or two in the last one. Also, if they're going to make them play, then let's be serious about why. Letting Fitzpatrick call his own plays to the tune of 16 passing plays and no running plays at all doesn't sound like a wise use of an opportunity to me. And they risk getting injuired, for what purpose? To see what happens in a situation that they'll never create? I don't get it. That's a way overgeneralized cliche`.

Then by the same token, the good things that occur need to be taken with a huge grain of salt as well then, right? I mean at least if that argument is going to be consistent, right? Agree on the refs, they'll either need to step up in a big way or it's going to really be bad. The review machines should get a good workout this year until the regulars come back. Again, what does it matter if Mario and Glenn made plays and looked good. Obviously then, by your own reasoning, we can assume that no one on the other side was trying, so that skews their performances towards the positive, right?

Henry's the NFL's career leader in children hatched w/ different women. If brains were dynamite he wouldn't have enough to blow his nose.

LOL