BuffOrange

Still to be determined. The truth is very few people are capable of comparing 3-0 to 3-0, so they just compare 3-0 to 7-9.

So now we're complaining about them picking the Bills? Great.

Yah. On a board that generally loves to jump to conclusions way too soon, I'm not sure why everyone is giving OP a hard time. All of it is true. They can't run it. Their OL isn't what it was - although they are getting Mangold back. Sanchez isn't good. Tough schedule upcoming. And Ryan is exactly the kind of coach media/fans will turn on after a few losses. Suddenly the machismo will look like hot air. Also, they had no business winning the Dallas game.

If NE wins that game in Foxboro, that 2.5 games is really 1 game. You don't win a tie-breaker for splitting the series.

Prove you wrong? You're the one who brought up "only in America" with the only "proof" being your personal/arbitrary/anecdotal experience (and one that is not shared by others). Why don't you prove yourself right before saying "only in America".

And you find this contradictory because?

It won't be considered a big game because he won. If he had lost it would've been another huge game he choked away.

Not that I didn't already know espn sucked, but listening to all of the espn podcasts today, they really do suck more than even I thought. Scott Van Pelt seems to be the only guy who "gets it". Are the Bills in this thing for the long haul? Who the hell knows. Today, I don't really care. I'll worry about that in November. Today, it just feels good to be a Bills fan and that's really all I care about for now. Pretending to go out on a limb by saying we won't be better than NE in the end is pretty much the easiest, most chickens*&^t prediction you can make. That way you can set yourself up to say "I told you so" if we 'only' win 9 games after they picked 3-13 before the season. As for Woody Paige, he picked against Syracuse every game in 2003 as they rolled thru his beloved Big12 (the only championship i've experienced as a fan) so to me that's a pretty good omen.

Yah, he's not very good. I like Tony Bruno - not because he's particularly informative but at least he is funny and entertaining. You must be either funny or informative for me to listen regularly. Most are neither.

Correct. That was a Sunday night rematch of a 17-10 shootout win for the Bills.

That's the thing - he wasn't that good pre-injury. His 2nd yr in '94 he carried an upstart team without much defense to the playoffs. OK, good. In '95 they fell back to 6-10. OK, that happens with upstart teams. Now on to '96 - the SB year he gets so much credit for - he had a good year, but how good? They were fortunate to get a 1st round bye @11-5, which usually doesn't happen. They were fortunate their defense and Curtis Martin destroyed the Steelers. To Drew's credit he played pretty well in that game too in less than optimal conditions - but that game was probably the highlight of his postseason career. The next week vs. Jacksonville was a 13-6 game before the defense clinched it with a TD. The 94 playoff exit was a 13-3 loss in Cleveland. The '97 exit was a 7-6 loss in Pittsburgh after the Pats defense won a low-scoring wildcard game vs. Miami. NE's defense by this time was legit. And the offense was loaded with a HoF RB, a great TE, and a good OL. In '98 they were giftwrapped a playoff birth by the refs, as we all know. And then they became an irrelevant franchise mostly in '99. Too bad for Romo the Cowboys defense couldn't hold the Seahawks or Giants to 3 and 6 points in the postseason, or maybe Bledsoe would have the same "playoff choke" rep.

Philly radio has been so off the charts bad. "Andy Reid worst coach ever!" That must be why they win 10+ games nearly ever year. Yah I guess they could be 2-4 but they could just as easily be 3-3 or 4-2. It's not their first slow start. Maybe Vick had a brilliant plan to take all the attention away from the defense and their abysmal tackling yesterday with his postgame comments. But of course nothing is ever the players' fault.

Be honest - who else was sad he didn't take Brady's head off on the Florence int? Looked like a perfect opportunity.

I can buy that. But as unsustainable in the long-term as picking off Brady 4 times may be, so was NE's lack of turnovers for a team that's been throwing the ball as much as they have for the last year+. It works both ways too - the Chargers probably won't shoot themselves in the foot as much if you play them again. NE was overdue from some bad bounces and sure, maybe the Bills were fortunate that those bounces finally happened against them. But I mean the tipped ball int's were only 2-1 so it wasn't like it was a perfect storm of fluke plays in the Bills favor.

As the league gets more finesse each year, the theory of "angry teams" becomes more and more meaningless & stupid. NE never had a reason to be angry vs. the Bills, yet they won 15 in a row. People said the Steelers were "angry" last week, but I think they just won big because they were playing one of the worst teams in the league at home; not because they were embarrassed the previous week. The Colts had plenty reason to be angry and lost to Cleveland at home. Bottom line is when Brady is on his A game that team is tough to beat. When he's not they're beatable as they obviously have a lot of flaws. But I really don't see how a QB being angry helps him throw the ball better. You just either execute or you don't.

I don't know, it's too early to play the "common opponents" game. For example, NE needing a zillion Chargers mistakes to win at home looks pretty bad now after SD squeaked by KC at home today.... It will just make your head spin thinking about all this stuff after 3 weeks... I think most people knew this Oakland team was pretty solid. From where I sit even before today, the Jets are just a grossly overrated football team. That's not to say they're not good or that they're clearly inferior to the Bills. But these power rankings that had them #3, give me a break. They won a plethora of flukey games last year, which continued this yr in week 1 when they were beaten up by the Cowboys in every phase of the game except special teams.

I was watching in a bar so didn't know how many time outs NE had, which makes a huge difference. With 1 time out being down at the 1 as happened was optimal. If they had all 3 I would take the immediate TD there every time.

Yes.

Not much of a surprise. +3.5 was like free $.

Meh, it goes without saying that we need to beat the Bengals if we're going to make any meaningful noise this year. I mean, look at the schedule. We don't play an easier road game the rest of the year.

Exactly what were you expecting out of that series? If you don't think he had final say in what made that show you are kidding yourself. Like you said, most of the in-dept X's&O's preparation wasn't going to be broadcast for everyone (although the comment on Ed Reed letting Vincent Jackson run right by him because he knew the ball was going elsewhere was interesting). It also means he didn't care about the public seeing his self-critical comments during the Saints beating. And why should he care? That was the coach of a 10-6 team talking like they were 6-10.

As others have mentioned, I'll happily eat crow if '03 or '08 don't repeat themselves. Heck the first two games of Jauron in '06 looked promising after splitting (and very nearly sweeping) two division road games.

Absolutely nothing. Just wow @ the sophomoric "shut up and play" posters. Shut up and watch.

What makes it even worse is that game would've been in Oakland if they didn't cheat vs. our lousy 3-13 team in Week 16 that year G/L vs the Jest.

Pretty shocking that we get the 3rd or 4th string CBS team for this game (not that I need Nantz/Simms).