mjt328

Yes. I agree that Super Bowl wins are all that matters in the end. As a Bills fan, I would rather my team have a Lombardi trophy in the case, instead of several players in the Hall of Fame and/or record books. But that wasn't the original poster's question. He asked about using Super Bowl wins to compare players (specifically QBs). The legacy of Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, Bruce Smith, Marvy Levy, etc., etc. would ALL be looked at completely different if Scott Norwood's kick went through the uprights. Despite the fact they had NOTHING to do with that individual play. Good or No-Good. Like someone else said, John Elway was in the same boat as Jim Kelly and Dan Marino - until the last 2 years of his career. What if Denver hadn't gotten lucky and landed Terrell Davis in the final rounds of the draft? What if Elway decided to retire a few years earlier?

No, it isn't. And it's not just a problem for QBs. I make this argument every time the HOF voting comes up. The guys with the championship rings are always pushed up the list. Guys without rings are left at a significant disadvantage, unless their stats are completely out of this world (like Dan Marino or Barry Sanders). Case in point. Michael Irvin, Andre Reed and Tim Brown were all top WRs in the same era. All three dominated on the field. All three had great stats. All three had Pro Bowls. But only one of them was a first-ballot selection. The others may NEVER get in.

Here are the times this year that each NFL team is forced to play an opponent off a bye week: Three Games = Buffalo, Carolina Two Games = Houston, San Diego, Chicago, Arizona One Game = NY Jets, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Tennessee, Denver, Oakland, Dallas, Washington, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Detroit, Green Bay, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, New Orleans, St. Louis None = New England, Miami, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Minnesota, Seattle, San Francisco

I've noticed this trend as well since back in Week 1. I'm surprised we are only #5. We blanked Zach Sudfeld in Week 1. Kellen Winslow and Dallas Clark were putting up good numbers until we played him in Week 3. Jordan Cameron was putting up Pro Bowl numbers until Week 4. The Bengals have two good tight ends in Jermaine Gresham and Tyler Eifert. Neither did much on Sunday. Greg Olsen scored a touchdown in Week 2, but didn't dominate. He was about the only TE that did anything against us this year. Anybody with All-22? I'm curious who has been handling the majority of coverage on tight ends. Alonso? Moats? Searcy? Williams?

I love how this staff isn't afraid to dump crappy players when they continue to suck week after week (first Shaun Powell and now Colin Brown). There are literally hundreds of free agents sitting at home. You might as well give someone a chance. It's unlikely anyone could play worse than Brown was through 6 games. He doesn't need to be on our roster. Period. Not every street free agent is worthless. Brian Moorman was unemployed. In one game, he proved that he's a much better option than Powell. For way too long, the Bills have been content to keep mediocre talents in starting positions and terrible players sitting on the bench. Once a guy proves he doesn't have what it takes, cut them. A real front office should be doing everything in their power to roster the best 52 players possible. I have a feeling that Justin Rogers isn't far behind once we get some players like Stephon Gilmore and Ron Brooks healthy.

He hit a couple nice deep throws, which kept us in the game. But he held the ball waaaaay too long and was very indecisive. Defensive coordinators will pick up on that.

There are really good arguments for either choice (as you can see above). Personally, I would have gone for it. As Marrone said, the odds of picking up ONE YARD and taking the lead are in the Bills favor. If we somehow failed, there was a good chance we could make a quick stop and get great field position right back. I've never been one to shy away from criticizing our coaching staff when they make a mistake. This was not one of those times. You cannot judge a coaching decision based purely on the end result. It is their job to put the team in the best position to succeed. It's on the players to execute. With that said... Did Hackett put the Bills in the best position to succeed with his play calling at the goal line? That's another story...

The refs were atrocious again. They killed a Saints drive by calling a false start when it was CLEARLY offsides on New England. The Patriots also got a free 3 points because they refs didn't let Brees call timeout, and he threw an interception in the confusion. I've watched 4 of 6 games for the Patriots, and the refs have been heavily lopsided in all of them.

There are still quite a few missing pieces. But another good draft and some development by our younger players would really be huge for this team. These are what I see as the biggest problem areas: Quarterback: This has been the biggest hole for the last decade. Through 6 games, we still aren't getting a consistent, high level of play out of our QB. Hopefully, Manuel becomes that guy soon. At this point, it's way too early to tell. He's shown some good signs, but also some troubling ones. If he develops into a top guy, this team becomes a playoff contender instantly. If he bombs though, the rest of the team really doesn't matter. Offensive Play-Calling: Hackett has gotten a lot of criticism so far, and for good reason. Regardless of the talent level and inexperience he's working with, his play calling has been predictable and unimaginative. The complete opposite of Pettine. Cornerbacks; Assuming Manuel is our long-term guy, CB is easily our biggest weak spot. Every team should have 5-6 capable corners. We have 2-3, when everyone is healthy. Pass Rush: I really like the guys on our defensive line, but they are just too inconsistent. They were nowhere to be found yesterday. They were nowhere to be found against the Jets. We could really use another strong pass rusher on the edge. Play Maker in the Passing Game: We have a couple great route runners (Stevie and Woods). We have deep speed (Goodwin and Graham). We have good pass catching backs and a tall red-zone threat (Chandler). What I don't see is great YAC ability. I like the idea of adding an explosive tight end -- somebody like Chandler, but with moves and speed to do something after getting the ball. Offensive Line: This group was SOOOOO close to being set. Then we let Levitre walk. Left guard is a big problem area. Pears has been inconsistent (it would have been nice to see what Hairston could do this year). Linebacker: Alonso has been great in the middle. Lawson has been very good on the outside. We could still use an upgrade over Moats/Bradham.

Bingo. Play Calling is mostly about keeping the defense off balance, emphasizing the strengths of your offensive players, and attacking the weakness of your opponent. As he mentioned, there is a "rhythm" involved in calling the right plays at the right time. In the Baltimore game, there was a sequence where we busted off a couple nice runs. Then bam... play action bomb to Woods. Touchdown. Perfect. That was an example of great play calling. Where was it today? We were running the ball down their throats in the 1st quarter. It was ripe for some play action. Did we even call it once? Hackett doesn't seem to understand rhythm. He is way too predictable. He doesn't seem to know BASIC counters against the defensive schemes he's facing. Jay Gruden saw an agressive defense and Gilmore with a cast. So he dialed up a heavy screen game and absolutely toasted us.

Marrone is fine, but Hackett is clearly a problem. The guy simply does not understand how to attack defenses.

Very interesting that Brooks and Rogers are both inactive, but Gilmore is not. I can't see any way he doesn't play today, and (unless he's a bit rusty) that may be HUGE for today's game.

Exactly right. The most successful Super Bowl winning quarterbacks over the last 20-30 years - Tom Brady, Joe Montana - did the majority of their damage with short/underneath throws.

1. Quarterback The key is consistency. It's not necessarily about having Peyton Manning, Tom Brady or Drew Brees. It's about having a QB that can play at a very high level, week after week - against every kind of defense thrown at him. He needs to play well against heavy blitzing teams AND against those that play heavy coverage looks. He needs to make throws against man to man AND against zone. He should be able to hit the deep throws frequently, but also have the patience to pick down the field with underneath throws. 2. Coaching Staff The key here is adaptability. Look around the NFL and you see tons of copycats. West Coast Offense. Tampa 2 Defense. Read-Option. Wildcat. Spread. A good coaching staff doesn't form "his system" and force it on the players. He adjusts his scheme to fit the players strengths and hide weaknesses. He adjusts the weekly game plan to attack that particular opponent. Every team in the NFL has talent. But only a few coaching staffs know how to maximize what they've got week after week. 3. Supporting Cast This is different from team to team. It's about knowing and building on your franchise's identity. If you are the Denver Broncos with a QB like Peyton Manning, it's more important to have an excellent O-Line than a shut down defense. Why? Because your championship hopes depend on Manning staying healthy. And if the defense can just keep the opponent under 25-30 points each week, the Broncos win 90 percent of the time. On the opposite end, a team like 49ers (when they had Alex Smith) needed a strong running game, and a defense capable of keeping the opponent under 15-20 points each week. Because Smith was better suited as a game manager, not a guy who could win in a shootout.

I'll never understand why teams even consider trading proven players for draft picks. It's a stupid gamble that almost never works out. The point of the draft is to select a college prospect that you HOPE becomes a good player. Why would you trade a good player for the CHANCE you get something decent in return. Over the last few years, we've traded Willis McGahee, Marshawn Lynch, Lee Evans and Jason Peters for draft picks. On every single trade, we ended up on the short end of the stick. The closest we got to a good deal was in the Peters deal - since we ended up with a pretty good player in the draft (Eric Wood). Despite the grudge that most Bills fans hold against Peters, they must admit that Wood is nowhere near the player Peters has been (3x Pro Bowler and 2x All-Pro since leaving Buffalo). When healthy, Wood is probably a Top 10-15 center in the NFL. When healthy, Peters is probably a Top 5 left tackle. And it's not just us. What did Denver get in return for Jay Cutler? What did the Oakland Raiders get in return for Randy Moss? Do you think Dee Millner will make Jets fans forget Darrelle Revis? Please. 20 years ago, the Dallas Cowboys fleeced the Minnesota Vikings for Herschel Walker. Now everyone thinks draft picks are gold. It's ridiculous. Let's assume that Buffalo can get a high 1st round pick for Stevie Johnson (not in a million years). They can select Marquise Lee, Sammy Watkins or another top WR. What are the chances Lee/Watkins eventually turn out as good as Stevie Johnson, 2-3 years down the road? 50 percent? 25 percent? 10 percent? In the best case scenario (a high 1st rounder), we would still be taking a huge gamble. Stupid.

Absolutely not. Draft picks are ridiculously overrated. Pretend we get a 1st round pick for Stevie, which is more than any team would give up for him. First of all, we create a BIG hole at WR. Our #1 receiver becomes Robert Woods. Our #2 becomes TJ Graham. WR becomes a big need. So instead of improving at OG, TE, LB, CB or another position - we now have to use our pick on an unknown player. Even if we use that Number #1 pick on another WR, what are the chances that we get a player of Stevie Johnson's caliber? The guy has 3 straight 1,000 yard seasons and is widely considered one of the best route runners in the league. More than half of 1st round picks in this league are complete busts. Another 25 percent only turn out to be decent starters. Instead, why don't we use our #2 pick from next year and offer it to Cleveland for Josh Gordon. That way we are absolutely loaded at the WR position for years to come.

If he is playing better than EJ and we are winning games with a chance at the playoffs - then NO DOUBT you definitely leave in Thad Lewis. Re-open the QB competition in next year's training camp. It's fun to think about, but I seriously doubt this will happen. I went back and looked at the 4th preseason game and watched his throws. His accuracy is dreadful.

Great job to get momentum in the second half. This would be a great job to hit them with a play-action deep pass.

Coaching tips for the second half: 1) No more read-option 2) Quit punting the ball to Benjamin

When is Hackett going to realize that EJ SUCKS at the read option? It's a gimmick play that NFL defenses figured out before Week 1! Quit running it!!!!

When is Hackett going to realize that EJ SUCKS at the read option? It's a gimmick play that NFL defenses figured out before Week 1! Quit running it!!!!

But what happens when the players seem incapable of "executing" the game plan? Should the coaches remain stubborn and keep running the same plan over and over and over, then blaming a lack of execution? Or should they adjust to something that has a better chance of success? Bottom line. The Bills offense is having trouble sustaining drives. They have a rookie quarterback who is having lots of trouble with his reads. Maybe they need to slow down, just to help Manuel get his feet under him.

This is a nice article, but I don't agree with the conclusion. I agree that EJ needs to make a better read on the defense, and know when to pull the ball and run himself. I agree that we are missing blocks. And I agree that CJ is tentative in hitting the cuts. However, that doesn't clear Hackett of blame. - If the defense is loading the box and keying so heavily on Spiller, (again) why are we not doing play action? - If our players are struggling to run the read-option, why does he insist on calling it over and over and over? - If the interior of our line (namely Colin Brown) is getting blown up, why are we constantly running delayed handoffs directly behind him? It's easy to blame execution. After all, if every player on offense "executes" the play perfectly as it's drawn up on a chalkboard, then we will be successful every time. But unless you are the most talented team in the NFL, that isn't reality. A coach/coordinator HAS to adjust to what the defense is throwing at him, and he HAS to work with the strengths and weaknesses of his own players.

I'm saying there is plenty of blame to go around... and Hackett is certainly included. I think it's silly for people to argue whether we lost because of Hackett, EJ, Justin Rogers, the OL, Mario Williams, etc. They all sucked horribly and they are all hurting the team.

Why do we fight over WHO to blame? It's silly. The truth is, almost everyone sucked on Sunday. They all contributed to the loss. Yes, the offensive line was terrible on Sunday and got dominated by the Jets front 7. Yes, Spiller is missing running lanes and is back to dancing in the backfield like his rookie season. Yes, EJ was inaccurate, indecisive and completely confused. Yes, the receivers struggled getting separation and failed to get open. That doesn't justify Hackett's predictable playcalling, or his failure to make adjustments. As a fan, it's easier to point the finger at ONE player or ONE coach... and assume he is dragging everyone else down. The painful reality is that we've got a lot of bad on this team, and we aren't nearly as close as some people think.