billsfan1959

I truly hope the Bills defense does replicate what the Rams and Seahawks were able to do. However, the Bills defense has played two upper tier QBs this year: Tom Brady and Phillip Rivers. They went a combined 45-62 (72%) for 617 yards, 6 TDs, no interceptions, and a QB rating of over 135. We lost those games by a combined score of 59-32...and both games were at home. I don't say this to be negative or to say that there is no way the Bills can beat Denver. My point is that great QBs typically make plays and that tremendous defensive performances against them, such as the ones cited, are rare. I believe the key for the Bills to beat a team with an upper tier QB is for their offense to step up its game and help the defense by playing consistent, putting together time consuming drives, scoring touchdowns in the red zone, and not turning the ball over. If they do that, then the defense does not have to have one of those rare performances - just a very solid one. This defense is very, very good. But, to beat a team like Denver (not to mention Green Bay and New England), then the offense is going to have to play far better than they did earlier this year against San Diego and New England.

Shhhhhh.... Don't tell Chip Kelly. He apparently doesn't know his offense shouldn't be averaging almost 35 points a game with Mark Sanchez as his QB....

Clearly, a franchise QB can mask a lot of inadequacies of other players and coaches. The reality is that very few teams ever acquire a true franchise QB. In the case of our beloved Buffalo Bills, the level of play at the QB position has run from average to completely disastrous (and in many instances, painfully comical) since Jim Kelly. With that said, the mark of a good coaching staff is not how well they do with a franchise QB at the helm, but rather (1) what they do with the talent they have, (2) how prepared their teams are for the teams they face, in terms of game plans, and their ability to make in game adjustments, (3) how fundamentally sound their teams are (i.e.; execution of assignments, not committing senseless penalties, not turning the ball over) (4) and how consistent their team plays from week to week. In the case of the current team, we clearly are, at best, average at the QB position - however, Orton is certainly capable of managing a well designed offensive gameplan. We also clearly have above average talent in a number of other positions - and below average talent in some critical areas (read offensive line). Yet, I believe a good coaching staff could devise game plans to maximize the strengths of this team and minimize its weaknesses. I believe a good coaching staff could have this team playing fundamentally sound and competitively in every game they play, and fighting for a division championship or a wild card spot deep in December. The little things change a losing culture and that starts with the coaching staff. This team might not have a franchise or even upper echelon QB; however, that doesn't mean it can't play sound, fundamental, playoff caliber football each and every week.

After each loss (and in a few of the wins), there seems to be a different excuse for the play of this team...the QB, the offensive coordinator, the head coach, the offensive line, penalties, turnovers...etc, etc, etc... All I know is this: They played a completely winnable game, at home, after a bye week, with the opportunity today to take a big step forward as a playoff contender and as a team - and gave us a performance (and results) we have seen time and time again. They are 5-4 and, Intellectually, I know they still have an opportunity to have a successful season. Yet, games like today make me wonder if the losing culture of this team is truly changing. I know it is a product of the disappointment I feel right now...but still....

Why are you always wishing for someone to get injured?

We are half way through the season. The one thing you can count on is change. For the most part, the teams that were playing at a high level at the beginning of the year are not the same ones that are playing at a high level now - and who knows which ones will be playing at a high level throughout the rest of the season. You can rarely say which teams are a lock to win their divisions at mid-season, or even to make the playoffs. In the end, the Bills are currently 5-3 and if they are going to win the division or get a wild card spot, they are going to have to play better in the second half than they did in the first half. If they do, they will be successful and in the hunt for a division title or a wild card spot, regardless of what other teams do.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts...

I think, as in many debates, the truth lies somewhere in between. Hackett has a year and a half under his belt as an NFL offensive coordinator. His first year was marked by learning the abilities of players he had never previously worked with and teaching them a new offensive system, a revolving door at QB (all with little to no NFL experience), nagging injuries at running back and wide receiver, and a regression in O-line play from he previous year. This year he began by calling a limited game plan for a still raw QB (who subsequently began regressing) and moved to calling a game plan for a more experienced QB, but one that nobody knew how he would actually perform - all behind an offensive line that was an on going experiment in player personnel and subpar in it's play, particularly at the guard position. I think that it would have been difficult to be consistently successful under those circumstances for even the most experienced of offensive coordinators On the other hand, at this point, he should fully understand (1) the limitations of the offensive line and (2) the abilities of KO at QB. I think the frustration many people felt in the Jets game was that there were stretches in which his game plan was painfully conservative and predictable - and many of those were not when the Bills had an insurmountable lead. I understand the desire to protect KO from a top five defensive line and to limit the turnovers the team had been experiencing the previous two games in particular. However, part of being a good coordinator is designing a game plan that utilizes some of the strengths (quick decision making and quick release of KO and an upper level receiving corps) to minimize it's weaknesses (awful offensive line play, and running back play - both running and blocking). Like I said, I will give him the benefit of the doubt in the Jets game because of the circumstances (the horrible play of the Jets offense and great play of our defense). However, going forward against some very good teams, he is going to have to be more creative in compensating for the poor offensive line and running back play. He was able to do this to some degree with the read option when EJ was at QB - and he needs to find a way with KO's strengths. Hopefully, to help Hackett out, they will find the right combination of O-line personnel and they will find some consistency - and FJ will make it back sometime soon. I am interested to see what they show us coming out of the bye week

The fact that you can legitimately be frustrated and complain after a 20 point win should be an indication of just how bad Hackett's play calling was....

Some of the responses to the OP are a little "nit-picky." On the other hand, it is a little odd to start a thread congratulating one's self, not for predicting every game right so far - but for an overall record prediction at this point. If it were the end of the season and you were right on an overall prediction of 10-6 or better, then I could see it. I could even see it at this point if you were right on a prediction of, say, 6-1...but 4-3?

The guy has been an absolute class act. Give the crusade a rest...

I am not one of those who has criticized Orton and, after three games, I still believe it was the right call to make the change. I think the improvements mentioned are legitimate; however, there are some real concerns as well. In three games, he has lead the team to only 56 points. He is playing better than EJ did and it is not entirely his fault - but still, the offense needs to put more points on the board than they have been. He also has turned the ball over five times, resulting in 23 points for the opposition - and those were his fault. That's a net point differential of only 33 points. He is still the best option we have and, in the end, the only things that really matter are wins and losses. He is 2-1 as a starter. Hopefully he continues to get better and cuts down on the mistakes.

It is even a worse matchup when you consider we have an offensive coordinator who seems hell bent on devising a game plan each week that highlights our weakness.... The greatest strength of the Jets team right now is the interior of their defensive line. There are ways to negate that weakness and take advantage of the subpar play of their linebackers and defensive backs. I just don't have the faith in Hackett to do it. If we see his usual steady dose of runs up the middle, the offense is going to be in for a very long day....

I am not one of those that wants Gailey back or Hackett gone. For me the jury is still out on Hackett as there have been, to say the least, extenuating circumstances his first 21 games in the NFL. My issue is this idea that CJ and Freddie can be used interchangeably - as if they have the same skill sets. They don't. IMO, CJ is a special talent when used properly. Hopefully, Orton plays consistently well enough to make defenses respect the passing game and allow Hackett to devise some plays for CJ out of spread formations which better suits his skill set. If they want to run CJ up the middle in two tight end formations, then we will continue to see Spiller struggle. And if they want to keep CJ in the backfield for extra protection on passing downs - then it just may eventually get our QB killed.....

Well according to mrags, that's because Spiller averaged 2 yards per carry on the first 29 carries and then ripped off a 143 yard run (while the defense was playing soft because the Bills were way behind) to get that 6.7 YPC on 30 carries....

It would be nice if posters handled EJ's situation with as much class as he has....

You can say it again...and again...and again - like you have been for as far back as I can remember reading your posts about Spiller - it doesn't mean you are right. It is just your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, to me, your long standing dislike of Spiller (notwhithstanding your caveat about how you "used to like CJ") seems to be coloring your evaluation of him.

No. It was because, for most of his carries, CJ was the lone back out of the spread formation (and it wasn't always when they were way behind). That suits his skill set and he averaged almost 6 yards per carry. This year, when utilized as the lone back in a spread formation, Spiller has averaged over 6 yards per carry - while averaging less than 2 yards per carry when they are in a two tight end set. Your dislike for Spiller has been evident for a very long time. The fact is that he is an exceptional talent when used in the right way.

CJ Spiller could very well be one of the top five big play offensive skill players in the league - certainly in the top ten - if utilized properly. This is not an issue of potential. This is not an issue of Spiller having a limited skill set. When the interior of the offensive line is the weakest part of the offensive unit and the primary use of Spiller is to run him between the tackles...then you have to say this might just be an issue of offensive play calling. :wallbash:

We should be happy that the team won and that Orton had a good game, particularly given that it was his first game, in a hostile environment, against a top defense. However, I don't understand the need to take a shot at EJ. Most of us agreed that he wasn't progressing as he should have been and that the change to Orton needed to be made. Whatever you might think of EJ's skills on the football field, he tried hard for this team and handled his benching with class. I truly hope that he benefits from it and one day emerges as a good NFL QB. I don't get this need by some posters to continue kicking this kid around.

You were also the one wishing for him to get injured so that Orton could start. The OP's post is one of decency...

I am not in the camp that has asserted from the beginning that EJ will never be an NFL QB and is now officially a bust. I am also not in the camp that has blinders on when it comes to deficiencies in his game. IMO, he has all of the physical tools necessary to be a good NFL QB and I believe there have been a number of factors that have limited his development. While I personally think that his failure to progress this season is not entirely his fault, the fact remains that he has not - in fact, it is obvious that he has regressed over the last two weeks. I think Marrone made the right move for this team at this moment. I do not agree with the OP; however I understand his sentiment. I certainly am not going to ridicule his opinion. I feel bad for EJ because I do think there have been extenuating circumstances regarding his development - and, personally, I find a real lack of decency in those few posters who seem to take real joy in his failure because of their overwhelming need to show everyone else how smart they are. I have no idea how Orton will do. I think there are real concerns about this offense outside of the QB position. Perhaps his skill set will be better suited to overcome them. As I did with EJ, I wish him the best.

And how many of them were top 10, superbowl winning caliber QBs after their first 12 games? It seems you want to apply a standard to EJ that few, if any of the QBs on your list reached in their first 12 games. Why? If you don't expect him to achieve that standard after 12 games then what is your point? And how in the world do you know he won't achieve that standard when he reaches the point in his career most of the above QBs were at when they won a superbowl?

IMO, this is a pretty good analysis. Bill Belichick is from the Bill Parcells coaching tree; however, he is no Bill Parcells. Belichick has this, seemingly legendary, reputation as a defensive genius and draft day wizard. The truth is, he hasn't fielded a top 25 defense since 2009 - and the overall talent on the team has gotten weaker and weaker through his "draft day wizardry." Even when the patriots had good defenses and were going to superbowls, it wasn't the defense that was getting them there or winning them. In five superbowl appearances, his defenses have given up an average of 375 yards a game, 6 yards per play, and 21 points per game - hardly genius caliber. Even in the first superbowl they won, the win was less about Belichicks defensive genius and more about Mike Martz arrogance - along with a last minute clutch drive by a young Tom Brady that put them in a game winning field goal range. Belichick is a good coach and the fact is that he has been at the helm of a team that has had tremendous success. However, the one constant in the success of the Patriots under Belichick is Tom Brady. IMO, without Brady they might have gotten to and won the first superbowl with the Rams. After that, I don't believe they would have experienced near the success they have without Brady. If I had my choice between Tom Brady in his prime as the QB of my team or Bill Belichick in his prime as the coach of my team - I would take Brady, hands down...not even close. Brady might be starting to decline; however, until I see otherwise on a consistent basis, he is still in the top three or four in the NFL.

IMO, if you remove Tom Brady from the equation, the Patriots are an average or below team since 2009 - even with Belicheck