billsfan1959

Sanchez is a turnover machine. No

Virtually everything they do this off season should revolve around improving this offense. After so many years of futility, it should be natural to feel full of hope for the future after improving to 9-7...to feel that the team is improving and headed in the right direction. However, the truth is, the "team" is not getting better - the defense is getting better. In the last two years, the defense has improved leaps and bounds, to the point of becoming, arguably, one of the best units in the NFL. On the other hand, the offense has drastically regressed - across the board. IMO, unless some unlikely scenario unfolds, the talent level at QB is not going to improve much going into next season. That leaves the offensive line and coaching as the two issues to sort through. Is the talent that bad or has the coaching failed to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses? Is it a combination of both? Is there an offensive identity this team wants to have and are the personnel suited for that particular style? How/why did the play of virtually every offensive player regress? I am with you, I am not certain where the blame should be placed - or what the answers are. What I do know is this: The offensive side of the ball is the reason we are not going to be watching our team in the playoffs this year - and, over the last two years, people in place on that side of the ball have not found a way to improve things. Perhaps someone else needs to do it...

Agreed. In Orton's two "great comebacks," it was his play that directly put the team in the position to have to have "great comebacks" to win. And in one of those games (Detroit), had the opposition had a kicker who could actually make field goals - there would have been no comeback at all...

This. When Russell Wilson actually has to carry a team with his abilities, then this will be a discussion. I do not know if he will be able to or not, because, up until this point he hasn't had to. Until then, IMO, Luck is hands down the better quarterback.

Deceased

Actually, it goes back further than that. I know people want to give him credit for pulling out the Detroit and Minnesota games - and I will give him credit as well. However, the reality is that it was Orton's horrible play for most of 3 quarters (i.e.; pick sixes and turnovers leading directly to opponents points, inaccurate throws, etc) that greatly contributed to putting the team in the position to have to come back at the end of those games. Orton is exactly what he always has been, a QB that makes plays from time to time that lead you to think he can be "the guy," when, in actuality, those good plays are far outweighed by bad plays. And many of those bad plays are not just bad, they are game changing (i. e.; pick sixes, turnovers in the red zone, not even trying to run/dive for a make-able first down in a crucial moment in a crucial game, etc). With that said, I don't know what the answer is for this team. I do not think EJ should come in now. I do not believe he is the answer at the moment; however, I would continue to let him develop. We are where we are with the QB situation and there really isn't anything we can do about it right now. Nor are there any top echelon QBs on the horizon. I think the best thing this team can do in free agency and the draft is to do everything possible to overhaul the offensive line, which would take a lot of pressure off the QB position. Then bring in whatever free agent QBs they can, draft one or two, and let them all compete.... As for the rest of the season? All we can do is watch the team play the hand they have...and hope

Who are you trying to kid?. If this team went 11-5 with EJ compiling the exact same stats Orton did in his rookie year, and then lost their first playoff game - you would be leading the charge to have him replaced..screaming, "This team would be Super Bowl champions if they had a competent QB!"

Not because of Orton - who completed only 51% of his passes for 9 TDs, 13 INTs, and a 59 QB Rating....

Maybe more along the lines of mental masturbation...?

You start a thread and link to some irrelevant article about RGIII - all to continue a crusade against a backup QB who hasn't played in 9 weeks. And you are calling other people moronic....

IMHO, Cam Newton on the Seahawks last year and this year is a better QB than Russell Wilson all day long...

I know that EJ didn't get injured as you wished; however, he is, in fact, not starting anymore - and hasn't for the last eight games. So, you start a thread to quote an article that has nothing to do with EJ, to let us all know that it isn't enough for EJ to not be starting, but you want him banished from the team completely? Ok...

Jerry Sullivan won't be happy to hear this...

Yep...100%

Yeah, the 79-81 defense was pretty solid. It went into San Diego in the playoffs and almost shut down Dan Fouts and his high octane offense...almost :-(. As for the Super Bowl years, I honestly think the issue was Walt Corey, rather than the talent...

It is almost impossible to compare defenses from different points in history. With that said, I believe it is at least in the conversation of best defenses in Bills' history; however, IMHO, not even close to the Bears' '85 defense. I have been watching the NFL since 1968 and, again, IMHO, I have never seen a defense as completely dominating (and consistently so) as the '85 Bears.

There are probabilities, but no certainties when it comes to predicting wins and losses...that is why they play the games. I will be hopeful and that hope will be tempered by reality. I accept that a defeat in Denver is more likely than not; however, I do not accept that a loss is inevitable. So, in answer to your question, I hope they win and I will be disappointed if they lose...

Because they're fans? Because they love their team? Because they would rather experience all that is good about hope and belief, even if it means disappointment in the end - rather than spend their time focusing on every reason their team will not succeed just so that, if their team fails, they can feel better by telling themselves and anyone who will listen, "See, I told you so?"

No matter what happens the rest of the season, I think they are turning the corner. Hopefully, they keep everyone on the defensive side of the ball, get Kiko back to where he was before the injury, and add a few more pieces through free agency and the draft. On the offensive side of the ball, I am not sure there is a real answer to the QB situation this off season; however, I hope they do everything possible to really upgrade the offensive line. A dominant offensive line could go a long way toward reestablishing a solid running game and taking some of the pressure off the QB position.

Amen

You might want to check your stats. Buffalo is not averaging 349 yds per game. They are averaging 319 yds per game - which is worse than last year and under Gaily. No matter how you try to spin it, they are worse with more talent. As for PPG, refer to my last post. This year, the defense is far more responsible for the number of PPG than the offense - and Gaily never had near that advantage.

Over 5 YPC and almost 140 yds per game rushing....compared to 3.8 YPC and 98 yds per game now. I can play that game too. Oh, and by the way, Gaily didn't have the advantage of having the #1 average starting field position in the NFL thanks to the defense - or a defense that was primarily more responsible for offensive points than the offense. For example, yesterday the defense scored one touchdown and gave the ball to the offense on Cleveland's side of the field where the offense managed a measly 26 total yards and 1 first down before kicking 3 FGs. So, let me see, that is 16 of the 26 points. But, hey, keep waving the banner and crusading forward. I'm sure Nate appreciates it...

I have always thought this idea of being a "big game" QB is a pretty simplistic way to look at it. It's funny to me that Tom Brady is considered a big game QB but Manning is not. Brady won his first Super Bowl with 145 yds passing and one TD. That win was more about his team's defense and Mike Martz' arrogance than it was about Brady. He won won two more SB in 2003 and 2004. He played well in both of those games, but NE also had a great running game and great defense those two years. In those three SB years, he was 9-0. Since 2005 (and since spy gate??) his playoff record is 9-8 and he lost the two SBs he played in. During that time, he may have been an even better QB than he was during his Superbowl winning years - but, his defenses and running games have not been nearly as good. So - is he a big game QB or not? It's more than just the QB....don't forget, Trent Dilfer won a SB and Ben Roethlisberger won a SB with the lowest QB rating in the history of SBs...

You can keep making the point all you want; however, I believe a truly good OC could take the same talent and put a better product on the field. Hell, two years ago the offense under Gaily was statistically better in almost every category than this team - with, arguably, less talent.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears you are arguing that, because he has a less than average to average QB, Hackett shouldn't be expected to put together an offensive scheme/game plan that produces anything more than less than average to average results. You also say that Orton is about the same or better than Mark Sanchez - yet Chip Kelly puts offensive schemes/game plans together with an average QB that produce top 5 results in yards and points. I am sorry, but I just do not buy this argument that if the QB is average or below average, then we shouldn't expect an offensive coordinator to put an offensive scheme in place that is anything more than what his QB is.