Cynical

Ah, I see. Since you cannot refute the argument, insult the poster. Got it. Aren't you the same poster that tried to claim Edwards was/would be better than Kelly? While you continue to think of new insults for me, I will leave you with some more info tidbits: Good/great players inspire those around them to play even better. During the preseason, it was revealed not a single Bills player would not unequivocally say Trent Edwards was the leader on the team. During the preseason, it was also revealed both Lee Evans and TO were constantly telling "Trentative" to throw the ball down field. Now, feel free to B word about TO's body language all you want. But I do not think TO is the problem there. In fact, I think it speaks volumes of his opinion of this offense, and more importantly, of "his" QB. Hell, even Donte called out the offense. It's beginning to look like the players have given up on Mr. Edwards. But feel free to support that sinking ship.

Trent happened. Are you kidding me? If Edwards played with half the emotion Losman had, Edwards might still have a chance. Losman called out the coaching staff. TWICE. What has Edwards done? Oh yeah, claimed Jauron was the "bestest" head coach he has ever head in the NFL. As what, a back up? Turk was chosen to replace Fairchild so a whole new offense would not have to be learned. AVP took over for Turk and changed nothing. In short, Trent is basically playing within the same offense for the past 3 years. Trent does not need a another coordinator, he needs a psychologist. He's afraid to take chances. Give it up. Edwards blows. It will not matter what offensive system he plays under. Until he can abandon his "comfort" zones on a consistent basis, he's back up material.

The very definition of a homer. He is an optimist because he continues to believe the Bills are just ready to break out and win. And I do agree he likes to attack other posters, especially when he cannot "spin" away from the facts.

Never said it was difficult, but it would not be as easy as some you claim it would. You're right. I only focused on one area of the their arguments: the bye. Why? First, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO A PLAYOFF SYSTEM. In fact, please reference post #18 where I said I would lean towards (read "prefer") a 16 team system. I prefer a 16 team system because every conference champion would make it, and every team would have to play the same number of games to win the NC. Incorporating a bye means a team could win the NC playing one less game than some other team. And how hard is it to fathom the fans of a repeat conference champion, that never makes it beyond the second round, bitching and complaining they are getting screwed because they never get the bye. So, I find no real fault in your suggestion other than I do not believe you should limit each conference to only two teams. Would you only limit the amount of independents eligible to only 1? College BB has 32 conferences vying for 64 spots (65 if you count the game played to determine the 64th seed). D1AA football has 8 conferences that are vying for 16 playoff spots. D1A football has 11 conferences. Notice a difference? 11 doesn't play nice with 8, 16, 32, etc ... Never said the current system does not have problems. It does. My argument has been a playoff system will not solve the issues (or perceptions) of bias, teams being screwed, etc ..., and at some point down the line will cause people to start complaining of the how system needs to be fixed. As you guys like to keep saying. It's not rocket surgery. 11 does not divide cleanly by 2. Talk about your faulty assumptions ...

Nah. Just an overly optimistic homer who refuses to believe Jauron really is a terrible coach.

Another Moral Victory!!!! What's our record now?

He is? Could have fooled me. Still waiting on his "guarantee" ...

Don't worry. Arena Football is expected to be back in 2010 ...

If a playoff system does happen, I would lean towards a 16 team set up myself. That way it includes at least 1 team from each conference. "Bias" would still exist, at least in the minds of ACC fans. I can already hear the howls of 'bias' when the SEC sends at least 2 teams every year into the playoffs, yet the ACC some how only gets to send 1. And if by chance the SEC qualifies 3 teams for the playoffs ...

Just so we are clear, I wasn't really arguing we should keep the BCS. I just wanted to point out the reality of the situation: There is no perfect system. Right now, that's due to fact there are 11 conferences plus independents that play D1A ball. There is absolutely no way to divide/incorporate that number into a logical and fair playoff structure. Somebody will get "screwed". This will be followed by the cries of "favoritism", "flawed", and the inevitable "it needs to be fixed". How do I know this will happen? Because it has already happened. Before the "formal" BCS, there was the "informal" BCS. And before the "informal" BCS, there was just the Bowl System and the numerous polls. It was the Bowl System and the numerous polls that has caused the this nonsense in the first place. People were just not happy debating the pros, cons, and weight of each poll in determining the "true" NC. We had to have an "absolute". So they "fixed" it. And people were not happy with the result. So they "fixed" it again. And guess what? People are not happy with the result. And here we are, crying for the system to be "fixed" yet again.

Disagree. A 64 team playoff would take 6 weeks to play out. And as someone else already said, there are 120 teams in Div 1A ball. That means more 50% of the teams would make the playoffs. Why bother having a regular season?

And I gave you mine, and now you are bitching about it. How am I twisting anything? It is a simple concept: 1. You would completely disapprove of Herm's hiring regardless of the reason 2. You would completely approve of Herm's hiring regardless of the reason 3. You would fall somewhere in between 1 and 2. Meaning, there is set of circumstances and/or reasons you would be willing to accept/tolerate/put up with/approve/settle for/what ever word or phrase you choose to signify "I am ok with the hiring of Herm at this time". By your own admission and words, you are not 1 nor are you 2. That puts you in category 3. And it's irrelevant if Herm is #5 or #555 on your list of candidates to be the next HC of the Bills, it still means at some point you would tolerate him being the HC. Which brings me back to my original post. Do NOT accept a crappy HC under any circumstance or reason.

Here are two examples of what I was looking for. I wasn't looking for the plans to build an ICBM, just the basics of a football playoff system, and how it would be implemented. The big thing I noticed that was common to both of these scenarios is the use of the 'bye'. And the 'bye' will create it's own set of flaws. Teams who did not get a bye will have to play and win extra game to be the NC. Under the present BCS, the argument and debate is about who should have a shot at the NC. With a bye setup, the argument and debate will center around who should get the 'bye'. I can already see future criticism of how "Boise St." was screwed because they are forced to play the extra game (thus increasing their chances of being eliminated), while "Penn St." was given the bye. Whispers of "favoritism" will still exist. Just for the record, I am not bashing the playoff system because I favor the present system, nor would I be opposed to some kind of playoff system. It is the realization that the implementation of a playoff system is nothing more than trading one flawed system for another flawed system. I find it intriguing people think a playoff system will fix all the problems and flaws of the present system. A playoff will not cure/fix everything, as it will create it's own set of problems that I can already imagine in the future people claiming 'need to be fixed'.

Very true el Tigre. The problem is the SEC had some really bad calls, and the SEC suspended those officials. So now, any time there is a questionable call made by an SEC official, it is just further proof just how really "bad" those SEC refs are.

Are you a freaking half wit? From you: Unless you are 100% sure you do NOT want him as a HC, then there is a percentage of you that would accept him. So while Herm may not be your first choice, or second, or third , etc ...., given the right circumstance, you would accept Herm as the Bills coach. That tells me, if Herm was selected as the next Bills coach, you would probably find some way to justify it. In fact, to some extent you already have: Hence forth: why would you be willing to accept another crappy head coach for the Bills? And this: You asked for people's opinion, and I gave you mine.

!!!! What is it with people and desiring/keeping s****y coaches? Jauron, Herm, Mangini ... And the same goes for Marty "Chokenheimer". Why is it only Bills fans are willing to accept "good enough"?

Another good old fashioned SEC slug fest. Good thing Bama has Richardson and Ingram, because McElroy makes me nervous as hell. With this win, Bama has reserved their spot in the SEC CG vs. Florida. Roll Tide Roll!

Actually, from what we have already seen in past seasons, a week 2 loss may not be as devastating as once thought. How many times have we seen a team lose early in the year, only to be in the hunt near the end of season. Losses later in the season seem to have a bigger negative impact.

Feel free to explain how the playoff system would work. In your explanation, please include: How many teams would make the playoffs. What is the criteria used to determine which team makes the playoffs (especially tie breakers) How long would the playoffs last. Anything else that you might feel might enhance your position.

I knew that. However, being a nice guy does not mean "qualified" or "competent". What Jauron is: A nice guy. What Jauron is NOT: A competent head coach.

Actually, the scheme was 'uncomplicated' at the beginning of the year. That's why Turk was fired. Remember the "Pop Warner" reference? Many of the penalties can probably be traced back to the fact the Bills were trying to run the no huddle. What's the one of the big things young players need? Communication. What is one negative aspect of the no huddle? Communication is limited. (That's why it was laughable when people on here drank the kool aid, and declared the no huddle would "help" the young line)

That's okay. I like a little fight in them.

1. I would challenge that notion. Decent? Maybe. Great? NO. He's penchant for wasting resources on the secondary is one of the reasons why this team has little depth and is weak along the front 7. 2. This has been debated ad nauseum. I could care less if his players love him. I love my son, my wife, and my mother, but under no circumstance are they qualified and/or competent enough to be a HC of an NFL team. 3. Wouldn't matter. As we have seen, Jauron has significant influence on how the offense operates. Do you honestly expect him to just STOP because the Bills brought in somebody different? Make no mistake. The offense we see and have been tortured with these past 4 years is Jauron's 100%. Bringing in somebody different will not change a thing, as Dickie will want/demand the offense to operate in way he is comfortable with. Bottom line: As a HC, Jauron is loser, and that has been consistently proven. Even by the parameters he recognizes as the "standard".

That kind of talk would continue regardless. Whether it's about undefeated teams or 1 loss teams. The second sentence says it all. That would wipe out "better" regular season scheduling. Higher profile teams would seek out even "weaker" competition in attempt to "preserve" their record. In short, OOC games would become even a bigger joke than they are now. I do not agree at all. #9 has no chance to win, yet who's to say they couldn't have beaten team 'x'? Got 9 undefeated teams? One of them is left out. 5 undefeated teams, and 10 one loss teams? 7 one loss teams will be left out. Who decides which 3 makes it? What's the criteria? What about those conferences that have championship games? There is the potential those conferences would be 'punished' as 2 undefeated teams would play, thus potentially eliminating one of them from entering the playoff. It would make more sense for the conference to send 2 undefeated teams to the playoffs instead of one.

What are you going to do, send it COD? Ooooo, such wrath ...