Dorkington

Good to know, thanks for the info.

What if we reverse jinx it? Put up a mixture of Jauron, Trent Edwards and THE STACHE?

I know *nothing* about College Football, hence the question. I'm not telling you, or anyone, anything, about Marrone, because I'm fully unqualified to speak on the subject.

Wouldn't the relevance of that "turnaround" depend on where the team was, and who their players are? I'm not in either camp on Marrone (for or against), as I don't know much about him. But I'm hesitant to simply say ".500 isn't impressive". So here we go... ready to throw more numbers and analysis at us?

Man, I don't know how I feel on this one. Part of me wants to go "all in" with EJ, but that's getting way ahead of things... I say SJ is a "safe" bet. I prefer CJ, but for all we know, we might not extend CJ when his contract comes up, whereas SJ has already been extended.

I think he should be treated like one should treat internet trolls. Just ignore him. (though, I'm guilty of failing to do that, myself)

To be fair, the Jets have had a decently strong team for a couple of those years.

Finally saw Bills Roundup (highlights) of these plays. Gilmore was definitely out of bounds, so that's "good" for EJ, but the throw as also not put in the right spot. Compared to all the long bombs he has completed so far, though, I'm not too worried. I'm sure they had a talk about where he needs to place the ball in "jump ball" situations. The Woods tip/INT, I could see clearly. But, it looked like Woods was diving? So it might have been an errant throw, or bad technique to approach the catch, who knows. Tips happen though. I'll back off my EJ ledge.

See TG's post as to why people might be skeptical. It's not just because they are negative due to it being mathematically probable to miss the playoffs or not win the Superbowl. Stop trolling.

Thanks for the link. It'll be interesting to see how Manuel, Smith and Tannehill work out for their respective teams, see if any of them can dethrone Brady.

Thanks for the numbers, TG.

Wow, you're incredibly condescending. Listen, you failed to define "failure" in any way that was related to the actual opinions in this thread, simply to prove your point. Your follow up "analysis" didn't really prove anything either. People aren't "negative" on this team because it's statistically more likely to not make the playoffs or win the Superbowl. People are "negative" on this team because our team has been consistently bad for the last 12 years (hence, not relevant). But hey, lets throw in insults, let's condescend, let's make lots of "lol" faces at the other person when trying to debate. That really drives it home. This is my last post on the subject. You win. Please tell me and others who are skeptical, what we should do in relation to this forum, and your so called "logic".

Can't wait for tonight's highlights. Hopefully they do an extra long Roundup

Very fair point.

I *really* hope he doesn't mess up the rest of his life. I admire the kid for battling to come back. And it'd be awesome if he produces for us... but really, none of this is at all important compared to being healthy so you don't burden your family for the rest of your life. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

It's a silly quote. We don't have a recent winning past to sell. We don't have a record yet this season. So, really, logically speaking, all there is is hope, as one can't actually guarantee success in sports with 100% accuracy.

Ah, yes.... I'm lazy. Even though I *responded* to that quote already. (Meaning I read it, and what you responded to.) The problem with your original assertion is that you assume 31 teams are "failures" because they didn't win the Superbowl. You back off a little by saying 20 teams are failures. But let's actually look at this. Is a team that doesn't win the Superbowl for 13 years but still makes the playoffs, still has multiple runs of relevancy the same amount of "failure" as the Bills? Numbers only play one part in your argument, you forgot the analysis part. The "negative" people aren't "right" because the Bills haven't won the Superbowl/made the playoffs in the last 13 years, but because of HOW the Bills have "failed". But beyond that, I don't see anyone here claiming that it's impossible for the Bills to succeed under this new direction. I see a lot of people who are SKEPTICAL, and it's fair to be as such due to how our team has been run.

Missed this... The Bills had a solid mission statement 3/4 years ago at the beginning of the of the Chan/Nix era as well (at least on paper). I know a whole lot of us were excited about it. Chan's nifty offensive schemes, getting big beefy guys for the defense, running something other than the Tampa 2, and then hiring THE STACHE, oh man, things were looking up. Even the National Media was on our side! And then.... Womp Womp. That's basically been my point. We get sold this wholesale change every few years, and then the results end up being the same. This team kind of reminds me of the team that last had the best shot of the playoffs for the Bills, so it should be fun at least. I guess the silver lining is, we get to be excited about a new attempt at success every few years.

That's a good point, if the coaches push him onto the field right away anyways! Fun times ahead for Byrd and the Bills.

Fun question... I think it really depends on how Team B misses the playoffs. Are they a 8-8/9-7 all the time and finally break through and get to the big one? Or are they a miserable experience of 2 to 7 win teams that are irrelevant way before the season ends? If it's the former, I think I'll take "B". If it's the latter, I'll take "A". I'd much rather watch a team that's relevant every year, than watch a team be horrible every year, then some how get the Superbowl once in there. So, really, it all depends on how Team "B" performs in non Superbowl years, in how I answer the question. Either way, the Bills are: Team "C" - misses the playoffs 10 of 10 years, usually by a fair margin. So I'm not really sure about the relevance of this question to the discussion at hand. I asked you a question. My expectation/thought would be that you'd dodge it. And you did. That's really all I need. I stand by my opinion that most everyone here is in the same boat, as far as actual expectations go, but they wear it differently on their emotional sleeves. That's turned into the argument that those who are skeptical are overly negative, and those who are hopeful are overly optimistic.

Heh. That's what I thought. I've been participating and reading this thread. I see most everyone is in "wait and see" mode. I see some people who are skeptical of any sale's speech given to us, and I see some that are incredibly optimistic. But apparently it's delved into "OMG YOU GUYZ R IDIOTS FOR THINKING THE BILLS MIGHT SUCK/BE GOOD!!!!" Fun times.

Can you point me to examples of this? It is however, silly to adopt a "I said the Bills wouldn't make the playoffs, and I was right, so that makes me more realistic and knowledgeable about football than anybody who said they would make the playoffs" attitude. I don't really see anyone here doing that. In stead I see "whatever FO guy, show us on the field, enough nonsense talk".

My expectations are relative to my team, it's culture and its recent history. For a while, as a Lakers fan, it was championship or bust. Right now, with their issues, I'll be excited if they make the playoffs and do well in the first round. As a Dodgers fan, I'll be excited if they win their division and win a playoff series, as they haven't done that in a while. That's even considering that they have a pay roll that should get them to the World Series (if that's how things actually worked). For the Bills? I'll be happy/excited with above .500, and a playoff chase. In general, as I've experienced a wide range of success across my teams, I prefer the excitement of having a team in the playoffs, even if they don't make it all the way. So you can call BS, but I know what I like.

Same money for less work and injury risk. In a purely monetary sense, there's no reason for him to show up before the regular season. One could argue, though, by not being there, he's risking the further investment in his long term career, as he might lose his starting spot and lower his value on the open market.

I'd much rather be a "failing" team that makes the playoffs every once in a while, or at least has a winning record. The Bills are relatively in a league of their own over the last 12 years. But again, speaking for myself, I am fully ready to be "wrong" (though I haven't really predicted anything in this thread, other than not giving much weight to the FO's sound bites). Bring on the wins! Bring on relevancy!