krazykat

And I notice that you didn't address the notion that Schonert is likely then either lying, is already proving that he doesn't know WTF he's doing, or wasn't effective in lobbying his head coach to get the tools that he says will be necessary in the running of his offense. Instead, it's off the races with vague, arbitrary, and unsubstantive statements ignoring the entire point that I made. Again, Schonert said earlier, shortly after he was hired, that the FB would be a pivotal part of the offense this year and the set would often feature a two-RB set including a FB. Well, not we know that that FB will be Barnes more than likely and if another then may the sweet mother of mercy help us all. Meanwhile, in spite of glimpses that something ain't right here, the excuses are flying like dollar bills around a titty bar.

LOL Does anyone here besides a select few even comprehend written English?

Not at all true. I think that the Bills moves are more likely to not work out for one reason and one reason only after my own analyses and assessments, and that reason is that this team, it's management, it's coaching has failed far more often than it has succeeded in "their moves" since they've been here. But in your mind all of a sudden this cast of losers finally got it right. Well, OK, but please allow me to default to the standard here and not gross unfounded exceptions that haven't even occurred yet. And what with those that talked about how great Viti would be? They're already 180 degrees wrong on one count and training camp hasn't even begun. Yet they will continue to expect everyone to believe them that the rest of their hopes are well grounded. Sure. Otherwise I don't think that the Jets and Fins' moves are any less likely to work out than ours while you and everyone else automatically assume that they're gonna suck again. What do you think their fans thinK? I'm guessing here the opposite of you. But hey, that's what happens when your bias guides your thinking. You end up with opinions lacking objectivity. If the Bills sweep those teams again I'll buy you an ice cream! LOL And suppose they do! Suppose the Fins and Jets suck again and we sweep them and four other sh-- teams, barely in most cases like last year, and not on solid fundamental football, and go 8-8? Would that mean that we're good in your mind, or better necessarily?

First of all, the default here is that the Bills' brain trust is out to lunch on this one because they've pretty much been out to lunch since they got here and the biggest splashes of them all, Levy, is gone. Fairchild was also given the red carpet treatment by the same people on your side of this argument, as was McGahee, Bledsoe, Milloy, Vincent, etc., etc., etc. And if you think that the Bills' brain trust hasn't been out to lunch since they got here, well, I don't know where you've been, but it hasn't been paying attention to this team. 1. I think we've heard this a million times already. Is there anything new? 2. I'm not putting blinders on to anything, you are. I'll play along though. Matt Jones entered this league a lot higher prospect than Hardy and with significantly better measurables relatively speaking. Yet, in spite of being an inch taller than Hardy, hasn't even managed an an average of 5 TDs or 500 yards receiving. Now you will make up a list of more exccuses why that didn't happen, but there are probably equal arguments as to why he didn't than there are why he should have over Hardy on the Bills. But the fact of the matter, is that Hardy may very well do nothing. It wouldn't at all in the least be unusual for him to struggle to the extent that simply isn't effective. Am I saying that that will happen? No, and nothing I've written supports the notion that I did. But what I am saying is that let's suppose he gets 5 TDs and 500 yards as a rookie, along with to whatever extent he "opens things up for the rest of the WRs," which you and others tremendously overrate, that alone won't be enough to help an offense that couldn't score more than 1 TD/game under Edwards as an offensive unit. Even if that doubles to 2 TDs/game from the O, it still will suck in spite of meaning an extra 16 O TDs on the season, with only 5 from Hardy. You don't seem to understand that and how bad we were last year. And if Hardy craps out then where will we be? 3. The pick of Hardy once again revealed to fans and media that this team thinks that both lines are solid. I disagree and last year's D and O rankings should support me on that. As well, it all believes whether or not you think that the start of any good football teams is the "trenches" or lines. If not, then that would explain much of the difference in our perspectives. But didn't the Donahoe era very much validate that you can have all the skill position players that you want, but without lines you can kiss success out the window. And how did the Giants beat the Pats in the SB and how does every SB winner annually win? By getting better line play which was obvious this past SB. 4. I have no idea what you're talking about with your statistical statements. It's very confusing. Otherwise, this WR class will in general play out exactly like every other one. Although there were no WRs taken in round 1, there were 15 taken in rounds 2 and 3. Of those 2-4 will do anything even remotely impressive this season as rookies and the other 10+ will do absolutely nothing noteworthy. The question is which group will Hardy be in. Then another one or a few more from rounds 4 and lower will do something that shows something, which in our case could very well be Johnson. But when I say that, the optimism of that statement is shot down. Go figure. Either way, since we don't know which of those 15 2nd/3rd round WRs will "shine," the chances of Hardy playing such that he even approaches making the kind of difference that you say should be a given for all intents and purposes here, are less than 1 in 3. That's a fact based on past history. It's an absurdly greater reach to suggest that this year's WRs will not follow the pattern that has existed like clockwork year in and year out within a very reasonable margin of error. We'll see but this case does not look as bleak as you seem to imply. The chances of it occurring as you say are against it happening. Does that mean it won't? No. But Jones didn't do it and he was pretty much exactly the same as Hardy plus some since he also had the ability to stretch the field. So if anything, I'd say that that even increases, not decreases, the chances that Hardy's in that small group. Either way, if he craps out, you won't admit that you're wrong. You and everyone else will continue to repeat what you do every year talking about how "this year" they're finally "headed in the right direction." Meanwhile, where's the outrage on your part that the buffoons running this team cannot produce a winner for you and the rest of the fans with their erroneous strategies that change with you changing your undies? Why aren't you more irate at their perennially screwing the pooch?

Well my point is that it doesn't matter how we all hope. Quite a lot of you seem to think that just because you hope for something and ask for it like you do at Christmas, it's got a better chance of occurring. How we hope doesn't make one bit of difference. Why is that so difficult for some to understand? The Bills winning is a lot more important to me than me being told the truth. Me too. But I'm telling you now, get ready for disappointment this season then just as I will once again be disappointed.

Listen to you on spin cycle! LOL You could hold your own ladies tea.

Meanwhile, has anyone questioned the coaching staff that is supposed to be so good defensively as to why they're even switching and basically giving up on their original system? I didn't think so.

You too miss my points entirely. He could very well turn out like Burress. But the number of WRs that actually match even a respectable amount of their draft hype is so ridiculously low that the odds are against it. That's all. Otherwise he was a round 2/3 projection by many. Here is last year's WR class for rounds 1/2/3: 2007 - Wide Receivers Rd Sel # Player School Team 1 2 Calvin Johnson Georgia Tech Detroit Lions 1 9 Ted Ginn Jr. Ohio State Miami Dolphins 1 23 Dwayne Bowe Louisiana State Kansas City Chiefs 1 27 Robert Meachem Tennessee New Orleans Saints 1 30 Craig Davis Louisiana State San Diego Chargers 1 32 Anthony Gonzalez Ohio State Indianapolis Colts 2 44 Sidney Rice South Carolina Minnesota Vikings 2 45 Dwayne Jarrett USC Carolina Panthers 2 51 Steve Smith USC New York Giants 3 73 Jacoby Jones Lane Houston Texans 3 74 Yamon Figurs Kansas State Baltimore Ravens 3 75 Laurent Robinson Illinois State Atlanta Falcons 3 76 Jason Hill Washington State San Francisco 49ers 3 78 James Jones San Jose State Green Bay Packers 3 79 Mike Walker Central Florida Jacksonville Jaguars 3 80 Paul Williams Fresno State Tennessee Titans 3 99 Johnnie Lee Higgins Texas-El Paso Oakland Raiders Here are the stats for last year's rookie WRs with 20+ catches and their rank (took out TEs and RBs): Rank Player Team Pos Rec Yds Avg Yds/G Lng TD 20+ 40+ 1st 1st% FUM 1 Dwayne Bowe KC WR 70 995 14.2 62.2 58 5 13 2 51 72.9 0 2 Calvin Johnson DET WR 48 756 15.8 50.4 49 4 12 1 38 79.2 1 3 James Jones GB WR 47 676 14.4 42.2 79T 2 10 2 29 61.7 3 6 Anthony Gonzalez IND WR 37 576 15.6 44.3 57T 3 11 2 27 73.0 0 6 Laurent Robinson ATL WR 37 437 11.8 29.1 74T 1 5 2 14 37.8 1 9 Ted Ginn Jr. MIA WR 34 420 12.4 26.2 54 2 5 1 18 52.9 0 10 Sidney Rice MIN WR 31 396 12.8 30.5 60T 4 3 2 25 80.6 0 14 Craig Davis SD WR 20 188 9.4 13.4 18 1 0 0 12 60.0 0 Of 17 WRs selected in rounds 1-3, only 8 show up as having had 20 or more receptions. Of those, I would argue that four did anything significant; Bowe, Johnson, Gonzalez, and Rice. That's it of 17 WR selections in day one. Johnson was part of an aerial circus in Detroit in spite of its ineffectiveness. Gonzalez had Manning throwing to him on the Colt O. It's even worse for 2006 and no new WRs stepped up in '07 either. So the odds are against Hardy doing much. What that means is that there's probably less than a 25% chance that he does anything even close to what some are hoping and better than a 50% chance that he will bust. Now, the same is true for every other WR drafted in rounds 1-3 however.

Well, if that's true then, then Schonert is lying.

I'll say week 10.

LOL

If they are then they will have to revise their basis for hope.

What do you think now about the FB situation? Just curious. And it looks to me that you're one step closer to being wrong.

LOL

But that same question can't be applied to anything Bills, right? If it can, then why are so few people here admitting it? Same applies to rookies. You guys talk as if all rookie WRs for example end up being good or better. Others are and were enthused however. We're getting some real riiculous feedback here. How many QBs did play in ideal conditions? Did Pennington? Clemens? Lemon? I can think of one or two, Manning and Brady. Even Eli Manning didn't play under ideal conditions. Come on VOR, work with me here. And Edwards "being a rookie" is merely an excuse, it's not a reason as to why he will improve. That's a fact. Coles is not as good as Evans. He's been tremendously inconsistent throughout his career. Cotchery has had two decent seasons in four but scored only 2 TDs last year in his best and has 8 total career TDs in four years. I view Evans, Reed, and Parrish as at least as good as what the Jets had, and Lynch is clearly a better RB than anyone that was healthy on either the Fins or Jets. What's funny, is that you and others arguing with me, seem to disapprove of my statements suggesting that we're better than the Fins and Jets when it's convenient for you and them, but when it's not, then I'm nuts, a troll, etc. I mean honestly, how do you guys keep a straight face while posting? Again, entirely not the point. But staying on point doesn't even seem to make any difference here. Well yeah, I can understand that being among the best as a return man is insignificant to you. And Moorman's just a punter and Parrish pretty much only has value as a return man too. BFD there too then? Somehow I'm guessing not. And now what, all of a sudden the Bills STs play has been insignificant in Buffalo in recent seasons? That's not gonna go over well with your buddies here. You talked about how the Denver game was close? Did a return have anything to do with that VOR? How about the Dallas Game that our offense couldn't score in? Did a return have anything to do with our being in that game at all? Otherwise what you're saying is that the return game really doesn't matter. Sure. Woody is a backup? I'm starting to see here why we are arguing much of this. Faneca and Richardson were good pickups, but they could also end-up like Jones, i.e. washed-up, and one has to wonder why their former teams were willing to part with them. Right, but Stroud and his injury/steroid issues are all 100% past him. Got it. And Mitchell can't possibly return to his play of the former four seasons when he wasn't surrounded by Pro Bowl caliber defensive talent. And Spencer Johnson hasn't been a backup. And both the Vikes and Giants tried arduously to keep both players You're funny. I'm not trashing anyone. I'm refuting the ridiculous assessments of some here that suggest that the chances of success of our rookies is drastically different than that for other teams all things being equal. In fact I've said some very positive things about some other of our players and the ones doing the "trashing" are you and others, not me. Again, I suppose that it depends entirely whether people say positive things about the players that you approve of. You guys talk about the Bills as if the odds of rookies working out are five times what they are for other teams, or how backups on other teams here will shine as starters, or how players with issues see their issues vaporize the minute they sign their contracts with us. And you do it all while completely ignoring the completely opposite history of the Bills in this way with the cast of current people on the team and others that have recently been promoted but without a shred of evidence to suggest that they will be much different. Feel free, but you cannot reasonably expect everyone to buy in. And oh yeah, then as a last resort when things fall apart for you argumentatively, you levy false charges, call people trolls, and ignore what positive they say about players and tell them that they only trash the team and its players. And let's not forget insisting that return games are all but meaningless. Tell Marv Levy that.

Hardly. It's the attitude that you and others bring to posts about the Bills. Once again, your extremely limited nitpicking my post reveals more of the same. You ask questions like why is Calvin Pace so great but will naturally support the notion that Spencer Johnson is going to make some kind of relevant difference for us no doubt. And then you have the audacity to make the statements you make above. No my friend, the one who's view is skewed away from the objective is yours. You just won't admit it because you fan status obscures reality in that way. Once again, in your view the Bills are different than 31 other teams in this league regarding reality.

And if the Bills were in this shape, you would be talking about how the team won't make the playoffs but how 6 or 7 wins can be expected simply due to the improvements made there. Jets: Thomas Jones predictably proved to be washed up and they had no depth or running game otherwise. I'd say that's relevant, wouldn't you? After all, if Lynch is the 5th highest rated RB, what's Jones? Where would that rank their running game next to ours in that way only? Kellen Clemens started half their games, and in spite of playing just like Edwards statistically, I'm sure that according to you he will have sucked. And you really think that either Coles or Cotchery is better than Evans? Otherwise Coles missed most of the second half of the season or was hampered in the few games he played. Ever heard of Jonathon Vilma? IR Justin Miller? Nah, he sucks right? IR So you're right, nothing to see here. Their OL wasn't good. They did sign cruddy linemen like Damian Woody and Alan Faneca, so there's no reason to think that they may improve. Now if their uniforms had a Buffalo on them, then they would assuredly be positioned to do better than their 10-6 mark of two years ago. Otherwise they suck too no doubt in your book. And of course Bubba Franks, Tony Richardson, Jesse Chatman, or Calvin Pace won't make any difference for them. Now if we had signed those guys you'd be talking Super Bowl no doubt. LOL Good demonstration of knowledge and research however. Yeah.

What specifically did Mitchell do last year VOR? I see that he sacked Edwards twice and Cleo Lemon once. Yes, very impressive. LOL Oh yeah, forgot one INT against the Bills (Edwards) which was thrown right to him. Great job. We should all applaud him. So basically he had a heyday v. the Bills and has no verfiable stats other than tackles in any other game. And you think that's "playing exceptionally well?" I'm sure you'll go off about his intangibles now and how the Giant D unit wouldn't have come together without him or something like that. Or that he ranked 4th on the team in tackles when at WLB he should have ranked 2nd behind Peirce, 3rd at worst given his position, yet he only managed to rank 4th. There were few if any games that he was the primary factor on D in as well. You overrate Mitchell. As to Jake Long, again, you missed the point entirely. You challenged me as to the notion that the Fins had not improved. I gave you the list. You then proceed to make my point and try to show how Miami hasn't improved although they've done more than we have. So my case has merely been reinforced. As to Johnson, he was more impressive last year in college than Hardy was and that's all but fact. The only reason why he wasn't ranked much higher in the draft is because he posted only one solid season rather than the two good ones and one outstanding one numbers wise for Hardy. Could he be a flash in the pan? Absolutely. But the fact remains, he beat better DBs and Ds far more frequently as a Sr. in school than Hardy did. What that ends up being worth remains to be seen.

What's shortsighted is thinking that the only team that showed up on Sunday last season with issues was the Bills. The Jets and Fins had plenty of them and losing Ronnie Brown meant more to the Fins than any three injuries total that we had easily last year.

No, it really isn't. I'm just not ready to annoint a mediocre LB that sucked for four years and a backup DT as anything other than merely adequate starters tops, or depth players otherwise. Just because I don't insist that Mitchell is going to begin playing like he never has should be considered reasonable. Rookies are rookies and just as happens every year, a bunch of 1st-rounders and other day one picks don't do squat. As Bills fans we should be well aware of that by now. Regardless, in actuality your take is the exact opposite, which I was refuting using the same logic. You think that everyone that the Bills sign will step up while what other teams, particularly those in our division, sign won't. You see that favorably but not unfavorably, which is unrealistic. Obviously. i.e., you're the one with the skewed outlook in this way. I'm merely suggesting that our draft picks are not exempt from similar analyses imposed on other teams. I'm just not big on Hardy. I like Johnson, so how come you're not lauding me for suggesting that Johnson may have been one of the steals of the draft? Instead all I hear here is how he sucks and isn't better than Hardy. So once again, I guess it's which of our pre-approved players you support that gets you in favor here.

That was evident by our schedule last year. At the beginning of the season we had a top-3 most difficult schedule. By the end of the season it was ranked 18th in difficulty and that was primarily because we played the Pats and their 16-0 record twice. Remove them and I'd say it's likely that it would have dropped into the low 20s. This year's is supposed to be easy, and no matter what it will probably be in the top half of the easiest, but you're right, many teams will improve while many will regress. The Bills are not immune to that either. We could go either way. We each see which way it will go differently based on our own individual assessments. Right now we have what, the 26th toughest schedule or somewhere around there. If it ends up at 12th it shouldn't surprise anyone. If the Jets rebound to 10-6 and the Fins hit 7-9, that alone may do it with just one or two other teams moving up.

PS Show me another QB axp that threw for 0 TDs in 2/3 of his games and led his team to fewer than 10 offensive points in most of his games and yet had his team post a winning record on his watch? Can you find any? If you can't, then I would suggest looking for other reasons as to why we won those games.

It's been pretty good so far, but if this keeps up, I won't respond to you anymore. So when the Bills lose to Denver in a "completely flukey game" or lose to the Cowboys in a "completely flukey game" that was because we suck and can't play with the good teams. That's pretty much a fact regarding those two games. We were dominated by both teams! Denver ran at will on us and hit nearly 500 net yards. I'm sorry if you think that was a good, solid defensive effort in spite of their inability, under the Pro Bowl QB Cutler, to get into the EZ. Without our PR-TD we score 7 in that game, typically enough on a week to week basis for 0-16. As to Dallas, ditto there. We couldn't stop Dallas, they stopped themselves. Rather Romo stopped them. In fact, if news came out that he threw that game for bucks would it shock anyone? His INTs were horrible and nowhere near the receivers in most cases. Otherwise, how many times in a season of 256 games does a team score three D/STs TDs? Is it a common occurrence? Something that you can count on? Something that is designed? If so, then why didn't we do it more often, particularly against far worse teams? But to suggest that we played well for even one quarter much less four is absurd. We had three fortunate plays in that game aided by Romo with a pathetic performance otherwise. The Redskins were not good last year axp, and we only won, or were at least aided in the win, because of Gibbs' blunder, remember? And can you think of any other reason as to why the Skins may not have been at the top of their game that week last year! And what about our close wins vs. Miami, the Jets, Ravens? How come the things that you argue in favor of the Bills don't seem to apply against them using the same exact logic yet going the other way? You're not being honest here. The rookie QB that you seem to think is the worst in NFL history based on some of your prior posts, was 5-4 with those horrible stats, and he played well enough to keep us in a couple of close games that with even minimal improvement we would win next year. I don't even know what to say there. If you think that Edwards was the "reason" why we were in close games last year with his pathetic performances, either statistically, from a TDs thrown perspective, TD/INT ratio, team offensive scoring, or whatever perspective, then think what you will since it's clear that in your mind the primary reason for a win any given week is the QB regardless of the circumstances. I just cannot think like that. What I see, or don't see, in Edwards will bear itself out as either correct or incorrect this season. Really no need to discuss it until then.

Not at all VOR. Hardy is clearly not a #1 WR type. No #1 WR has limited speed, difficulty with routes, questionable hands at times, etc. He's a purely #2 WR to begin with. If you're expecting more, then you will likely be very disappointed. Having said that, it's not as if he's going to line up against the scrubs of the league each week at DB/LB either. And don't think LBs can cover him? I say they can since he's not that fast nor is a deep WR. I think we'll see faster LBs covering him or at least helping out frequently. But it's not as if our team is so loaded with weapons that teams will have to choose between Hardy as the #2 or which other firepower Pro Bowl talent decides to cross the line of scrimmage, which is where your limited assessment falls flat on its face. Teams won't have any trouble covering Hardy systematically. The question is how good will Hardy be relative to the people on him, can Edwards get him the ball, will we have enough balance otherwise on O, and will Schonert prove that he knows what he's doing. You can't answer those right now, so we will simply have to wait and see. But to act as if, and assuming that Hardy is all that as a #2, teams having to cover two decent WRs is somehow foreign to them is ridiculous. Many teams have two or even three or four very good WRs. We have one until proven otherwise.