Rocky Landing

There are certainly a myriad of theories to answer that question. I find the notion that LA is populated by a rare breed of uninterested fan to be intellectually lazy. Certainly, I would agree that "big city" fans tend to be a little more bandwagonish (didn't Fireman Ed quit the Jets last year?). But, I still maintain that LA would embrace a team, and that the reasons are far more political, and economic. Here is a pretty good link that illustrates the political aspect: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/09/the-politics-behind-why-los-angeles-doesnt-have-an-nfl-team/ I agree with the assessments of many pundits that there is a greater financial push now for a team to move to LA than there has been in the last 20 years. It does seem to be a slow process, though.

I would be interested in learning what CJ's numbers are for his runs up the middle. If they averaged over a yard, I would be surprised. If they averaged negative yards, I would not be surprised.

"...the Raiders, and that's a limited, strange, isolated clan." No argument there! My point regarding the UCLA, and USC games is that there are football fans in LA. I know more than a few people who go to those games who are not alumni. But, more to your point, LA is a great sports town. And, there would be some deep pockets marketing an LA franchise. I remember reading somewhere, quite a while ago, that it is now a league rule that when a team relocates, they are required to change their name. But, I don't remember where I read that, and I'm not sure if it's true. But, if a team did move to LA, I suspect they would change their name, and be heavily marketed. And, even a die-hard Bills fan like yourself, with over 28,000 posts, would start to pay attention to them. You'd (maybe secretly, at first) start to root for them when they were playing anyone but the Bills. Fan bases aren't created overnight. The next time you are in Los Angeles, go to a Dodgers game, or a USC, or UCLA game, or the Clippers, or Lakers, or Kings, and your questions will be answered. Edit: For that matter, go to the NHRA Winter Nationals in Pomona, and see how many people are willing to spend their hard earned dollars to be utterly assaulted by the top-fuel dragsters!

I've been living in Los Angeles since 1991 (suck an egg, Buffalo Barbarian!), and my feeling is that there is quite a lot of interest from LA NFL fans for there to be a team here. There is an ENORMOUS contingent of the Raider Nation here. And, quite a few fans are still stinging from the exit of the Rams, which felt like a betrayal to many. Be that as it may, to compare the economic, or social, or sports landscape in Los Angeles to that of 20 years ago is inaccurate. There are certainly no shortage of football fans, and I believe any team that arrived in LA would be embraced. Look at the turnout for USC, and UCLA games. I do agree that LA has been used as a pressure tactic to push for public funding in other cities in the past. But, I certainly don't believe that the NFL has been merely stringing along AEG for such purposes. And AEG did receive a six month contract extension for a stadium deal from the LA City council in October. San Diego has certainly made it clear that they have no intention of moving. In fact, I think they may represent a major stumbling block to a team arriving in Los Angeles. According to Chargers executive Mark Fabiani, 30% of the teams local revenue originates in the LA market. Any team that submits a proposal to move needs a super majority for approval, and I suspect that the Chargers might work behind the scenes to undermine that vote. I haven't read that anywhere-- just my conjecture.

Please don't run him up the middle... Please don't run him up the middle... Please don't run him up the middle... Please don't run him up the middle... Please don't run him up the middle... Please don't run him up the middle... ................................................,

A la Brad Smith?

I agree that he has regressed. But, so has our run game, and I feel like the O-line has regressed as well, even with Urbik starting. Cordy Glenn, especially, looked awful on Sunday. It is not just Orton who needs to snap out of it.

Sure. But, the speed at which that pocket often collapsed on Sunday had nothing to do with Orton's mobility, or lack thereof. Also, I think it's unfair to characterize Orton as "immediately hunching over and waiting for the sack." He has actually been pretty good at getting rid of the ball without intentional grounding.

I'm not disagreeing with that, and I am not "excusing" Orton. But, Orton isn't terrible. He's average. I haven't seen "staring down his receivers" as one of his major deficiencies. Hell, he never has time to stare down his receivers. What I do see as his major deficiencies are poor mobility, and an utter inability to throw on the run, or even throw without setting his feet. ALL of his decent throws (and let's be honest- he's had plenty) have occurred when he has had time to set his feet. These are deficiencies that would be mitigated, and far less critical with some decent protection, and a stable pocket. Am I wrong?

Three field goals qualifies as "absolute domination?" That would have to include a terrible O-line, and a constantly unstable pocket.

You would be more convincing if you at least tried to sound like you weren't on a crusade.

I think this game is going to be much closer than people expect, unless the Raiders are playing for first overall draft pick. And I don't think they are going to. I think they're going to stick with Carr at QB, and not go for Mariota. One win will not make even close enough of a difference in their draft options to make easing off a home game worth it. Especially considering the drama surrounding their stadium, and the tenuous nature of staying in Oakland. The Raiders are going to show up on Sunday to win one at home. Unfortunately, that's a big "if."

I would to add O-line to this. In fact, I think Orton (who's biggest downside is his lack of mobility, IMO) would be a much more effective QB with a stable pocket.

This one comes off as just whiney. There are so many varying opinions on these boards that I don't believe the word "dissent" can really apply. And, at what point are "ignorant fans keeping others from posting?" You've started an entire thread based on what I presume to be what you consider "dissent." And you're still here.

God, I hate it when we're favored...

Jeez, cut it out! Schwarz is excelling at DC, so lets promote him to HC, where in the past, he hasn't excelled. Cut Orton, and EJ, and replace them with... er... somebody else ? Who exactly??? Our team has progressed to 8-6, and next week we play the miserable Raiders. We are likely looking at a 9-7 season, which would be our best since '04- a record that has not been better since '99. But, CUT MARRONE. TIME TO REBUILD!!! What are you smoking??? (I wish there were a bong-smoking emoticon)

I'm going to completely disagree with this. We have an average QB, and the O-line looked utterly horrible. I just don't know how better QB play is going to elevate these guys. Maybe if we had a QB who was the slightest bit mobile, and could run away when the pocket falls apart after 2.2 seconds, we wouldn't notice just how bad they played today, but probably not. Our O-line is a mess!

He was terrible this game, that's for sure.

Really exciting game to watch. Our D is amazing. Schwarz, IMO, is a definite upgrade over Pettine. But, wow, our O-line is terrible! Glenn had a terrible game! TERRIBLE!

I would think this would be a harder match up than Denver- even on home turf. We severely limited Manning's passing game. I don't imagine that sort of success agains Rogers. Also, I think the playoff implications for GB are more profound than for the Bills. GB is still playing for their division, and also home field advantage. GB has one of the best home field advantages in the league, IMO, and I think in their eyes home field advantage puts them in the Super Bowl.

How wild would it be to have Jim Harbough as our OC, and Jim Schwarz as our DC?

Morrone's ability- or lack thereof- notwithstanding, passing off "Marrone = Jauron," as some sort of coherent analysis is silly. Using that as the reason that Manuel has underperformed is even sillier.

Watching Orton try to scramble is like watching Chandler trying to run after a catch.

This makes as much sense as anything I've read on this thread thus far. Although, in the words of Clint Eastwood, "'deserve's' got nothin' to do with it." I highly doubt that. But, perhaps a better question would be: who do you think the wide receiver corp would prefer? If you still think it would be a slight margin for EJ, then I'm going to suggest you have a memory deficiency.

I'm not surprised that you didn't answer the question.