BringBackFlutie

Barber had 7 attempts for 45 yards...It doesn't take perfect to stop that. Look, I'm not trying to be negative. I just don't want to get over-excited if it's not warranted.

On the drive I'm talking about (the bears TD drive) I paused and was able to point out Dareus, Williams, Barnett, Carrington, Edwards in the front 7. Granted, on the first play that they let a run up the middle, it's fair to say that Dareus and Williams were both held (though it wasn't called).

I thought the D looked really good against the pass (obviously), and against the rush, but only the first two drives. One can argue that the lack of run D was because the bigger runs started during the bears third drive and it wasn't our starters- but it was. The only person that was out on Barber's first (of many) 11-yard run was Merriman. Are we really that dependent on Merriman? The pass D continued to be good even after the starters (94 yards total), but the run D was still struggling (160+ yards). Is there something I'm missing? I know it's just preseason game 1, but I REALLY want to have missed something crucial when the Bears started breaking off huge runs.

A strong point of Spiller's presence is that he is versatile, and that he can be a running back or split out as a receiver. Considering said dynamic would be lost and he has below average abilities as a pure receiver, this would be a horrible move.

While I actually do agree with what they are doing on the team in terms of bringing in a lot of young talent and insisting on saving cap room to resign their young player (hopefully), I will say this: Marshawn Lynch was traded for a 4th rounder and a conditional 6th round pick. Lee Evans (likely a more valuable player for the Ravens than Lynch was to the 'Hawks- though debatable) was traded for only a 4th round pick. This isn't TOO scary until you realize that Nix apparently didn't even think about the fact that a 4th round pick from the Ravens is more like a 5th round pick. I think the trade itself was done poorly and it makes me wary of the FO. That's not the only thing though. I don't expect huge splashes in free agency at this point in the game, but depth is obviously a HUGE problem for our O-line and even if we went out and got another Cornell Green (bust) it would be better than sitting on our hands about it. The season hasn't started yet, and we don't really know what we have, or if another lineman will be added, so I suppose I should reserve most judgment.

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2011/08/11/evans-rumors-persist/ Not like Nix hasn't been full of crap before.. "we need to resign our younger talented players....and by the way I just let Poz walk." But it's interesting that in the above article he seems to think that unless someone is offering something awfully good, Lee isn't going anywhere. However, his idea of something that will "improve our football team" remains to be seen.

...seriously.

I just keep thinking of 2003. I may not have known the sport as well back then so my view was inaccurate, but I remember this: In 2002 we acquired Drew Bledsoe and everyone was psyched about finally having a pro-bowl QB with a strong arm and good pedigree. We went 8-8 that season but with a great offense, the idea was that all we needed was a defense. That off-season we bolstered the defense and dropped Sam Gash and Peerless Price. The next season we went 6-10 with the 30th ranked offense because Eric Moulds couldn't do it all by himself. This year seems eerily familiar...or I'm just a Bills fan.

Well, just sitting here on my laptop and watching NFL Countdown on ESPN, and they say that we're definitely "open to trading Lee Evans" and that a trade could be "Consummated within the next 24-48 hours." OK, fine, maybe won't happen, but the aforementioned report is certainly more confirmation than we've received to this point. Realistically, without a deep threat, spread or no spread, how do you account for the loss in our offense? I mean really, I'm tired of hearing how ineffective Lee Evans "really is." Not necessary- just want to know what any of you think we would realistically do with the receivers that we have on the roster having that vertical threat essentially diminished.

I felt that last year we were extremely competitive. While it's certainly not a valid assumption that things would have turned out better "had the ball bounced our way in those close games," it is valid to say that if those teams couldn't hold the ball by running for 200 yards every game, things may have been much better both in terms of wins and offensive performance. Sure the offense fizzled here and there, but they don't play in a vacuum, and the plain and simple reason we lost close games and lost some games by larger margins were largely in part to teams being able to run at will on us. So yeah, I ended last season saying, "We could be really good if we were healthy on offense and fixed our run defense" and if that happens this year, why not a winning season?

Yes, Gailey said it was precautionary. No, getting rid of Roscoe is a bad idea. Just like it's a bad idea to get rid of Evans. People don't think about the respect that certain offensive threats command. The last 8 games that Roscoe missed, the whole offense experienced a decrease in production, which is noticed in Stevie's lack of consistency in that stretch (3 TDs against Cinci and then 1 TD in the other 7 games). The 3 games that Evans missed, Stevie had 0 TDs and our Offense scored 17, 3, and then 7. Sure you could say that these people's places could be taken, but until anyone steps up as a consistent play-maker, defenses will blanket Stevie and our offense will suffer. Games with Roscoe: 18.75 PPG Games without Roscoe: 16.63 PPG Games with at least Evans: 19.69 PPG Last three games with neither one? 9 PPG Good, reliable guys like Donald Jones, Naaman Roosevelt and David Nelson are great to have to fill the holes, but they benefited from having Stevie and Evans in the game. Roscoe benefited but provided more dynamic, so there was a larger PPG while he was in. When Roscoe and Evans were out, and our offense was one-dimensional, the result was pathetic.

I'd be willing to bet that if Belichick had Parrish before Welker had a track record with him, Parrish would start.

Maybin is an inherent bust, and that's the truth until he can get on the field and make a play in a real regular season game. I don't believe Maybin is at fault for his bust status. Most busts are labelled as such because of their poor work ethic resulting in an inability to adjust to their position in the NFL, or being injury-prone. It's not that he's not trying, and doing all that he can to adjust what he was given to the NFL. In actuality, picking him in the first place made him a bust- not his performance. It was a ridiculously senseless move. The fact is that he is attempting to play the LOLB position in a 34 defense at 6'4" 228lbs...The scary part of this fact is that he was drafted as a DE. The kid never had a chance.

Most head coaches have their forte. Gailey's is offense. It clearly showed last year in the Bills' offense and if anyone is unconvinced of their improvement, that's ok- there are plenty of articles and opinions and a pristine offensive track record for Gailey that would speak to his offensive prowess despite one year's performance. I think that the "genius" label on head coaching as a whole is a bit unfair. That being said, I think it's safe to say a head coach's ability to appoint the correct coordinators is a great factor in their performance. So far, Gailey has completely switched the defensive system and hired a mediocre George Edwards to coordinate it- but that was what he had available at the time. Since then, he has hired defensive guru Dave Wannstedt (another title that shouldn't need to be proven, he has a well-known defensive track record) and made it known that his run defense needed bolstering (which happened over the offseason- at least on paper). As far as offensive coordinator, well, his only best option was himself. Taking the above two points into account, it seems that head coaches are just really good staff-pickers that can make executive game decisions and effectively motivate. I think it's clear that Chan Gailey is a motivational, firey coach. However, he's also honest (which I personally appreciate), unlike Rex Ryan, whom, while I respect his previous two seasons, I can not get behind his claiming that his defense-heavy, high school quarterbacked team is going to win the Super Bowl ever year...That's gotta start getting old in the locker room- maybe this year? I'd rather have Gailey who comes right out and says when he doesn't think we're good yet, but that we can be- I think that's a challenge to naturally competitive professional athletes, which yields performance. So that makes Gailey a motivator/head coach attitude with sound coordinator decisions, equaling an average NFL head coach. Now the genius part (I know I already said I don't support the "genius" thing, but most do)- well, every genius is an average head coach, then they win a Superbowl and they're considered geniuses (see Tony Dungy, Bill Belichick, Mike McCarthy, Mike Shanahan, Jon Gruden, etc.)