Rocky Landing

True that.

Someone, somewhere on this forum (I think it might have been the author of this thread), posited the idea that in this league which has become utterly pass-happy, and has diminished the value of the run game, and running backs in general, we may be contradicting that trend and building a team with a ground game that may be absolutely deadly. I've been thinking about this myself, and it's an exciting concept. Having four decidedly productive running backs that could stay fresh into the fourth quarter sounds like a lot of fun to watch.

SJ, as you know, has not always play in the slot. And, if we had retained him, I don't think he would have been fourth on the depth chart. If Watkins is everything we hope he will be, SJ would've been our second most versatile WR, and not unlikely, still our most productive. Still, even if we had retained him, it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't have been his last season with the Bills. And, it's impossible to look past the crucial drops of his career (the only reason, imo, that this thread even exists). But, I still think it was a mistake to let him go this year, given the stated "win now" philosophy Whaley is espousing. At the start of the season, even by the standards of the SJ haters, we will have at least three WRs who are less talented than Stevie Johnson.

There's a difference in style also. CJ relies on his speed, and that's great. I'm not familiar enough with Brown to know what kind of running back he is, but many running backs rely less on speed and more on agility. FJ, for example, has the ability to power through people, and if you look at some of Emmet Smith's highlights-- even when he was getting older, but still productive-- he was like a human pinball. I think also that Hackett's fast-paced scheme requires depth at skill positions. If, as most suspect, we start the season with four good RBs, I believe we will see all four of them getting plenty of carries.

Interesting how as this discussion has slowly progressed, the poll has gradually shifted from "yes" to the no-huddle to slightly favoring "no." Many have pointed out that it doesn't have to be used so often-- only when it is effective. That is certainly true. What gives me pause are the statements that Hackett had made regarding his up-tempo, no-huddle philosophy. Here is a link to an interview that serves as a prime example: http://www.buffaloru...o-bills-offense On the plus side, the idea of running more plays to get all of your talent's hands on the ball is great. Four talented running backs? Get the ball to all four of them, and don't give the opposition a chance to adjust. Same with the receivers. That's a great philosophy when you have deep talent in those two positions, which we seem to have. What bothers me in this article, is Hackett's almost cavalier attitude regarding his up-tempo approach. When it was pointed out that his offense, last season, had run the third most plays in the NFL, his response was, "yeah, we should've ran more." It seems to me that the only way we would've run more plays is if we had made more first downs. In other words, if we had played more efficiently. I don't know that speeding up our offense would've increased our efficiency-- quite the opposite. There's a fine line between swagger, and arrogance, and I wonder which side of that line Hackett stands. Up-tempo is great, if your team is efficient. If your team isn't, increasing the tempo (IMO) isn't going to increase your efficiency. As I mentioned before, I want to see our offense running efficiently, against an opposing team, first. Then, increase the tempo.

Payday's not bad. Baby Ruth is better.

Whoops!

Although, Stevie did have more receptions, and more yards than Woods last season. I also don't think it's even relevant to compare Stevie to Woods. We easily could have had both. Personally, I wish he were still a Bill.

Still, it would be a pretty interesting market. I don't believe there is a city in the country with as high a percentage of its occupants vacationing in a hotel. Perhaps a Vegas' teams fan base wouldn't be enormous, but I'll bet all their games would sell out. It's a great idea, but I would add one team to each division, and add two games to the regular season, plus another bye week, making the regular season 20 weeks, 18 games.

I believe this is one of the things that comes with experience. Even if Manuel was good at reading defenses in college, that won't immediately transfer to the NFL. I think another issue with the no-huddle, is that it severely limits the level of communication between players. It's not just Manuel's inexperience that concerns me. Our receiving corp is young, also. That's what bothers me about Hackett's apparent commitment to the no-huddle. That lack of communication might work great in training camp, against a defense (our own) that they know well. But, once they're up against the Bears, for example, I think the huddle is going to be pretty important. I know that limiting of communication happens on both sides of the ball in a no-huddle. But, I have to wonder who that will affect more: the Bear's D, or our O? And, I don't want to wait two or three games to see if it works. I think we should get our offense running smoothly before we start going no-huddle.

I live in Los Angeles, and I would think that the Raiders would win an LA poll. There are still quite a few Raiders fans in LA-- you see a lot of jerseys at bars, and such. Plenty of Chargers fans, also. But, for some reason, I rarely see a Rams jersey. Personally, I'd love to see an expansion team.

Having a really deep backfield is critical in Hackett's fast-paced offensive scheme. I think the season will start with CJ and FJ as starters. But, Hackett has made no secret of his desire to run as many plays as he can. He wants to get as many hands on the ball as possible, so I suspect that Brown, and Dixon will have ample opportunity to move up the depth chart.

Maybe I'm still a little allergic to the no-huddle since Jauron's disastrous attempts. But, I'm a little wary of Hackett's plans for a no-huddle offense. I do believe we have the front line for it. An effective no-huddle, imo, requires giving the QB time in the pocket. I suspect EJ will have that. But, I also think that an effective no-huddle requires a lot more experience-- not just under center, but in our receivers, as well. We've given EJ a lot of weapons to succeed (hopefully, including protection). I just hope that the pace of a no-huddle isn't setting him up for failure. Thoughts?

I have not, nor do I expect, to see, hear, or read anything particularly enlightening from any interview any of our players has with the press this offseason. What I do expect to hear, are the players saying essentially what they are supposed to say. "I'm 100%," "take us where we need to go," "be smarter with the foot bat," etc. Even Watkins recent comments about "trust" with Manual were essentially banal. I think, as a fan, it's interesting to see these things on TV, just to get to know what our players look like, and how they sound. It allows us to feel more personally about them. But, that's about it. Of course, CJ Spiller made his platitudes that EJ will "take us to where we want to go..." What else would he say?

Done.

David Bowie, although he is getting a little long in the tooth.

From what I understand from the article, the A's deal has not yet been ratified, and they could relocate in 2016. But, I think you are making assumptions here. Any deal for the Raiders, or the Bills to move to LA has to be approved by the NFL. I have to believe that any sale of the Bills to a group that was planning on moving them to LA would have that approval ahead of the sale. Otherwise, it would be too risky, and I doubt the NFL would approve the sale, especially if the price were inflated in anticipation of a move to a more lucrative market. If the Raiders have an interest in moving to LA, they could certainly derail that. But, I would think that a group buying the Bills could also derail plans for a Raider move. Either way, it would seem to me that the Bills ownership will be resolved before this Oakland stadium issue is resolved, giving a Bills move the advantage.

More. I want to see EJ play half the series in the first two games, and at least half against the Steelers, and Bucs. We can sit him most of the Lions game. EJ needs to be tuned in the Bears opener. Or, if, as the doubters suspect, he is injury prone, let's find that out in the preseason. Is that harsh?

I'm quite surprised at how many Bills fans there are that aren't from WNY. I'm from Rochester, originally, but have lived in Los Angeles since '91. I know quite a few football fans here, and many of them have what I think of as a band-wagon mentality when it comes to the teams they have aligned themselves with. Consequently, I know Packers fans, Cowboys fans, Saints fans, Bears fans-- all teams with numerous playoff appearances in the last 15 years, or so. But, I've never met a Browns fan, or a Jags fan, or a Lions fan, or a Bills fan here in Los Angeles that wasn't from one of those regions. I realize now that I was wrong. The Bills have a fan base that extends well beyond Western New York. Come to think of it, I think there might only be one team that really fits the description of a team that only people from the team's region are fans of: The Patriots-- the team everyone loves to hate.

Man, it was a freer country back then, wasn't it? Some of the younger posters on here might read the story about kids sneaking in beers and assume that it was bad parenting, but it was just different back then. I remember once, after one of my father's ski races at Bristol Mountain, I was operating the keg, and serving all the adults beers during the after-party and awards ceremony. I was six. Everyone thought it was cute! I can't imagine what would happen today, if a six-year-old were doing that.

The bottom link worked for me, too. The middle link was dead, and the top link was about medical marijuana. Whatchoo smoking', Promo?

I think a lot of fans are sort of in your boat. At the very least, it can be said of everybody posting on here, in July, that we spend more time parsing the game than we do watching it. I'm not sure which I enjoy more, I think it's 50/50. But, that is the amazing thing about football. Does anyone analyze any other sport to the extent that football gets analyzed? With the exception of highlights, does anyone re-watch a baseball game? I can't think of another sport where what is happening on the field at a given time can be so profoundly affected by what had happened ten plays ago. And, the deeper I get into understanding the sport, the more I realize I know jack squat.

This might be an overly simplistic, and even puerile thread topic. But, given the passionate, and, at times, bitter tenor of some of the recent threads on this forum, it would seem an appropriate question to pose: Why are we football fans? And, why the Bills? The latter question is probably about the same for every poster on this forum. Geography. Just about every Bills fan alive was born in Upstate New York, or thereabouts. It's an amazing thing. That cannot be said for every team. I have a friend here in L.A. who is a die-hard Titans fan, and I don't believe that jackass has ever even been to Tennessee. People often become fans of NFL teams that they do not have any geographic connection to. But not the Bills. They are ours, and ours alone. The difference between posters, regarding the former question, 'why are we football fans,' has led to some heated, and even insulting exchanges. In my opinion, football is the greatest spectator sport ever devised. It has something for everybody, regardless of how deep you are willing to go. Statistics, drama, entertainment, strategy, etc. Every type of athlete is represented on the field. I don't believe that any other sport can be parsed, analyzed, and interpreted to the depth than football can. But, the question remains: Why are you a football fan? Is it the dedication to your team? Is it the thrill of victory (and the agony of defeat)? Is it the fascination derived from all the variables, statistics, and/or analysis? Is it just for the fun of it? Some combination of the above? Personally, I find it's a great way to get my family to leave me the hell alone for three hours on a Sunday.

Die thread, die!!!

Is there an actual "0-16 crowd?" I really thought it was just one guy who, mulling his morning coffee and bong load, had authored an ill-advised thread that now won't seem to die.