BuffOrange

Your case has been made by others many times over the years. The problem with your theory is the underlying assumption that "gambling on a QB" will come at the expense of a slam-dunk elite pass-rusher or whoever. That is just not reality. The need for a good QB isn't why the Bills have foolishly drafted RB's and DB's in the first round. The best point you can make is that we could've had Demarcus Ware instead of trading up for Losman; but even that has more to do with a simple bad evaluation of talent.

I hear you but if they're ever gonna break this playoff drought they're going to have to exceed my expectations one of these years.

I'm not old enough. For those of you that are, how likely was it thought to be that Kelly would eventually play for the Bills in '84/85? Even if it wasn't a slam dunk I have to think it was at least 10 or 20%? For that reason alone I have to give the edge to the current Bills for being worse off. The mid 80's fans at least had hope. Right now there is no hope. I agree with most of your points but yes, Manning fell into Polian's lap. Some in the media jumped on the Leaf bandwagon late, but almost any GM would've taken Manning (similar to how hyping up other QB's while minimizing Luck as a prospect has become the cool thing to do now). And even if that wasn't the case, I don't know how much credit he deserves for it - if you flip a coin you're going to be right 50% of the time.

This sentence reminds me of what Chuck Klosterman wrote last week - both sides of this seem to get off on pretending like they're a repressed minority, courageously speaking out against group think. It's sorta ridiculous. It's no less fashionable to mention their record this year behind Orton/Tebow; as if everyone doesn't know that already.

They're suing JB for saying they would sue for $? Can the Bills sue me for predicting they would suck?

Funny but true. A fairly underwhelming #1, but i still like it. Prepare to hear "first road game of the year" from espn ~872 times this week. I hope we smack NIT State in the mouth.

Yes and it's not close. I agree with Mike22 but he was being kind - neither Amare or Billups can guard a lamppost.

<Sigh> The obvious (or so I thought) point was that when people say "screw stats, X just wins", the 'winner' theory invariably is proven to be FOS in the long run. As it was with supposedly the best example of the last 13 years, who lost 9 consecutive games in San Diego and helped them land the top draft pick when he left a top defense in Buffalo. I honestly think you're just making up distinctions to argue rather than really believe this. You have to come from a bigtime college program but not too bigtime where you have NFL teammates to qualify? C'mon man. Whatever, plenty of guys who never amounted to anything in the pros fit that bill too - Pat White, Graham Harrell, most Oregon, Va Tech & Boise QBs...Regardless, Florida's program was pretty comparable to Texas.

Were up 11 late so I don't think the game was as close as that score. But yah the offense is a concern (still).

Has OP started an "I told you so" thread? I must've missed it. I can link the "I told you so" thread after the Skins game if you'd like.

They waited one whole week to start a hilariously funny "10 sacks isn't sustainable" thread after the Redskin game. Of course no such brilliant mocking thread since.

Ahh my bad, got my years mixed up, I thought that was the year they lost to Ole Miss. I still think what it comes down to though is that like a college basketball fan complaining about seeding, you'll adjust your criteria depending on who is being discussed: how far you go in your conf. tournament, bad losses, good wins, last 10 games, home/road is all stuff that NCAAB fans weigh differently for different teams depending on what's convenient for what they want to argue. Now bad losses are less important than winning your conference when your primary point previously seemed to be OK St having a worse loss...they did win their conference.

Do you think there should have been a Michigan-Ohio St rematch a few years ago? IIRC Florida's loss was to Ole Miss at home, while Michigan's loss was to the #1 team - and it was in Columbus, not Ann Arbor. I think it's fair to say Michigan had the better loss. I like watching the SEC more than other conferences and their top two teams are better than anyone's. I think some of the "SEC haters" come out of the woodwork when you take it any farther than that. A lot of conferences have 3rd & 4th place teams that are comparable to Arkansas and Georgia.

Ha, that is very well put. There are actually some even more asinine anti-playoff points than the ones mentioned in the OP, such as "nobody would care about the other Bowls"...as if anyone cares about Clemson-WVU now. The one defense of the BCS I used to buy was that it was better than the old system. But when you think about it even that's not true much of the time. It's only better when there are two and exactly two undefeated teams. When there's zero, one, or three undefeated teams I'd rather have the old system of a bunch of random bowl matchups and a vote at the end.

Yah I'm not too optimistic that the offense is ever going to be fluid in the halfcourt. They lack both a post presence and a Guard that can penetrate consistently. That pretty much relegates you to screening for open shots, and some NBA style isolation. Sometimes offensive rebounds off missed shots is their best offense.

There are definitely some Flutie-like comparisons, but you're bringing that up because he played for the Bills. And that was 13 years ago. The problem with all of this "winner" nonsense is there are about a dozen other guys between Flutie & Tebow who I remember hearing the same tired song & dance about, that the intangible-obsessed crowd has conveniently forgot about. When Trent Dilfer was exiled from Baltimore he went to Seattle. Hasselbeck was losing, he got hurt, and Dilfer filled in to win a few games. People said Dilfer is a winner, and Holmgren is a stubborn fool for sticking by his guy he knew from GB. The '06 Titans were 0-6 with Kerry Collins and finished up 8-8 with Vince Young, then went to the playoffs the following year. AND he won a nat'l championship - so he's obviously a winner and Collins is a loser. Guess which one was the QB two years later when they went 13-3? It wasn't the winner from Texas. People say stuff like "Oh I'm sure it's a coincidence that the team is playing better now!". As if teams never play better or worse at different points in the year with the same QB. Like the '09 Broncos, who started 6-0 and finished 8-8, or the '86 Jets who started 10-1 and finished 10-6, or the '93 Oilers who started 1-4 and finished 12-4, or the '08 Bills, or the '11 Bills, or a zillion and one other teams. If you want to draft Jordan Jefferson because he's a proven winner then I want you in the front office of 1 of my rivals. Five years from now we'll be having this same ridiculous "winner" discussions about someone like him, at which point people will care about Tebow about as much as anyone cares about Vince Young now.

Yah the pick was clearly justified today. RB's never have these kind of games in the league unless they're top 10 picks.

I heard that & agree with Whitlock's assessment of him. Bernie you sick F-&*

Good win, thought they looked much better than they did in NY.

You know this already, but the discrepancy between those two scenarios (which is more like 1,200 than 12,000) is what matters, not one or the other. If the future owner moves he's going to move - without a blackout they'll find another excuse.

Yah, how people don't get this in 2011 is beyond me.

Yah it's not like the Bills to make mistakes.

It wasn't just espn that had the tape - the Post Standard had it too. They also felt the tape was not corroboration because Laurie Fine never said she witnessed anything. Mike Waters did a 30min interview on Francesca yesterday - you can find it on wfan's site.

All true.

Oh, I didn't realize the Eagles game was at home. Homefield is so crucial in that series that the visiting team has a winning record the last umpteen years. The last game of the year @Minnesota (a playoff team) they didn't try and lost by a point and the reason they didn't try was because they beat the #2 seeded Panthers in a shootout the week before. But why would anyone trust a site respected for empirical data over some guy trying to make a point on the internet.