rsherman12

I assume you're talking about 2010 when he threw 20 tds and 9 picks. The reason he got benched was because he threw 3 picks AND lost a fumble (27.1 rating) against a mediocre Cardinals team. http://espn.go.com/n...ameId=301212022 Tebow played the final 3 games after that and threw for 651 yards (not sure where you got the 72ypg from). The next year (2011), Orton started the first 5 games and went 1-4, throwing 8 tds and 7 picks. It wasn't like he was playing great and the Broncos just dumped him solely to try out a young qb. And you can't blame the lack of weapons around him seeing as he had decent receivers in Lloyd and Decker. Thus, I don't see how anyone could have predicted he would be having a great season 3 years later for another team.

I dunno, it's only been a few games. A few years ago everyone thought Ryan Fitzpatrick had finally found his way. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7160727/ryan-fitzpatrick-buffalo-bills-agrees-new-contract http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/25/harvard-man-ryan-fitzpatrick-has-all-the-answers/

Denver should win this by double digits--superior talent, better receivers, better defense, more consistent. Yes, they blew it last year but I doubt it happens again.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what the record is: there is room for improvement in this particular area.

Doesn't matter, they never rest starters and will probably try 100% to win that game.

We'll be at home for the packers and it's in December so the weather might be bad. Besides, the packers are 2-3 on the road so far and barely squeaked by the Dolphins on the last play.

Walking away is for people like Ray Lewis that had nothing left in the tank. Although it might be fun to go out on top (I think it's overrated), he will definitely play next year barring injury.

This isn't a must win in my opinion. Could lose this one and then beat Raiders, Browns, Dolphins, Packers, and Jets.

Best bet to win 5 more is beating the Dolphins, Jets, Browns, Raiders, and Packers. That would be 10-6.

The biggest problem I thought was how poorly the offensive played right after some of those turnovers. They had great field position in the first half and settled for too many punts and field goals.

It's important to win games like this though. The Pats played bad against Oakland earlier, but got the all important W. You have to be able to win ugly in order to be in contention at the end of the year.

This is the problem with the Bills: they don't act like winners, they act like losers who are not used to having success and have to showboat. Whether it's Stevie, or T.O. talking smack about the patriots before the game, or carrying Schwartz off the field for winning a regular season game, or getting penalties for showboating, they just don't act like they've been there before.

I dunno, I thought some of the offensive calls were pretty good. A couple of deep TDs to Woods and Watkins. It wasn't like they just ran and threw 5 yard passes all game.

Patriots and Bills both scored within like a minute of eachother.

What a start

I'd be interested in seeing how many watched this morning's game. I caught the second half, but it wasn't like I was up at 9am getting ready to watch the whole thing. I'd imagine many others probably did other things like go to church, have a big breakfast, or sleep in.

It's easier said than done to avoid turnovers. Some of it is due to good coverage which causes the qb to either hold on to the ball too long, risking a possible strip sack, or try to force a throw into tight coverage, risking possible interceptions. More creative play calling could help get some guys open quicker, which would help with this.

Ivory looked good last week. If the bills can jump out to an early lead, it will force Geno to make some throws.

The only thing that worries me is Chris Ivory going off for 150 and the Bills having to play the whole game from behind as Geno just burns clock and isn't forced to make a play. Otherwise, this is a very winnable game if the Bills show up.

http://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html Shows combined records, with a separate tab for regular season only. Profootball reference only shows regular season, but you could add the 2-3 record to the 58-48-1 to get the same result. In anycase, the point is that he has had a fairly successful career--certain more than the likes of Orton or Fitzpatrick. I agree with you guys that he looks to be just about done as a starter, but let's not trash the guy as if his whole career has been bad.

Force Geno to play from behind and the game is over. This is a critical division game, the Bills need to come out strong and TAKE the game from the Jets. It seems every year there is one game the Bills have for a chance at being relevant and they always lose it, and fade away into mediocrity. This is that game.

He's 60-51-1 counting his 5 playoff appearances, another thing most Bills qbs have no experience with. I don't see how posting his win-loss record constitutes BS.

Stop the run and force Geno to throw the ball. That's a winning recipe right there.

Yeah he absolutely is. One of the rare times I agree with Casserly.

I think 5 years is enough of a sample size. Even guys like Eli Manning and Alex Smith who struggled their first couple of years eventually got it together. Bradford just doesn't seem to be that good.