Casey D

It's funny, but over on the Colts board, there actually is discussion about whether the Colts could get a first round pick for Manning because he is a choker. Most think no because of his cap figure. It really is true that fans everywhere tend to focus just on the QB when things go wrong--even when he is the league MVP-- and little else. Simplicity must give people comfort, I guess that's why Bush is president too.

It really helps that Indy had a totally inept approach on offense. NE's defense is vulnerable to outside and deep passes, Tennessee showed that last year in the playoffs. In fact, Tennessee would have won last year except McNair was very inaccurate in his throws. NE's problem has been greatly increased with all their secondary injuries. So what did Indy do? They threw nothing deep and very little outside. They threw short passes over the middle, playing into NE's greatest strength, it's LBs. What a brain freeze by Indy, they did not even give it a decent shot with that game plan.

Excellent post. People here think JP will surely be better than Manning next year and that will carry us to victory. It is a team game, and although Indy is flashy, at the end of the day they are not that good a TEAM...CD

I was simply drawing the same conclusions, based on similar empirical evidence as between Bledsoe and Manning, that many people make vis Bledsoe. Even though the Bills finished 9-3 under Bledsoe, the need to can Bledsoe now is supported with arguments such as (1) he didn't win the big game against Pittsburgh, which proves he can't win big games, (2) he can't beat New England, (3) he can't lead the Bills to a Super Bowl win. All these arguments apply with equal force--perhaps greater-- to Manning, yet as RuntheDamnBall observed, the idea of cutting Manning is absurd. Yet he has shown he can't even be competitive against New England. 3 points? So the excuse is to get him a defense? Nice thought, but he, along with James and his receivers, get paid way too much for Indy to have a good defense--there is only so much money to go around. My post was simply to show the irony of some of the arguments made here--which are often sophistry upon examination. Whether we should start Bledsoe or Losman is up to the coaching staff in my opinion, I just want them to play the guy that gives us the best chance of winning in 2005.

Thank you...

My post was tongue in cheek as JoeSixPack understood . But when a team spends all its money on one side of the ball--the offense accounts for almost 80% of the Colts payroll--you are supposed to win by outscoring the other team, not asking your defense to shut out NE. The Colts scored 3 points. I think blaming their defense is silly.

The Colts defense played pretty well. 0-6 against NE shows he can't win a big game. Cut Manning, add some beef to the defense, and the Colts might do something... CD

It's obvious that the Colts will never win a Super Bowl with Manning. Given the amount of money he is paid, it's time for the Colts to move him and start Jim Sorgi. If they need an interim QB, I think Kurt Warner would work for them. But Manning is through...CD

Please, let's give this a rest. If Bledsoe is only good enough to get you beat, then why, as he learned the offense, did the Bills go 9-3 the last 3/4ths of the season. You are basically saying because the team won only 6 in a row, as opposed to 7 in a row, the team can't win with Bledsoe. Personally, my only interest is in seeing the Bills make the playoffs next year, and hopefully win in them. That would be another step forward in 2005. If Bledsoe will get us there but not Losman--in the coaching staff's expert opinion--then I'm for Bledsoe. If there will be no step backward--or, even better, a step forward--with Losman, I'm for Losman. What I do not agree with is exchanging an 11-5 season with Bledsoe at the helm--if he is the better QB in 2005--for a 9-7 season with Losman as the QB in order to season him. In the NFL, the future is now, and those who want to lose more games in 2005 because Bledsoe will only take you so far, well I disagree. I want the best QB to play in 2005. And, it is altogether possible that at some time during the 2005 season, the better QB might go from Bledsoe to Losman, I just don't know. Let this coaching staff coach and make this decision. I think they earned our trust with what they accomplished in 2005. I trust their judgment on this a whole lot more than a bunch of fans who have far less insight and understanding of the game. And those who say they want Losman even if it means more losses say that now because they don't think he will lose more games, but if it happens they will be the first to B word .. CD

During the introduction of yesterday's GB/Minn game, Fox in Washington, DC was covering the moment of silence for Reggie White. In the middle of the moment of silence, Fox cut to a commercial for Levitra or something. Was that done everywhere? Was this Fox's commentary on a moment of silence for White, or what happened?

No, his point was that the defense did not play that well either, and contributed to the team's defeat. This is in contrast to those who feel the D played great, and Bledsoe was to blame for everything...CD

But the defense has not been on the field an undue amount when the Steelers got the ball with 11:15 left in the fourth quarter. From then on, the Steelers time of possession v. Buffalo was about 10 minutes to 1, or a nine minute differential. Since the game differential was about 10 minutes total, it means that at the 11:15 mark, Pittsburgh had possessed the ball for about 25 minutes on offense, while the Bills had 24 minutes. Hardly an argument that the Bills defense collapsed at the 11:15 mark due to fatigue, or am I missing something...CD

I understand how you feel, but you are not running the team and it will not happen that way...CD

While everyone can rant and rave about dumping Bledsoe, it seems pretty clear cut how the QB situation will work out. First, Bledsoe is a classy vet and the Bills are a classy organization. Accordingly, they will not do what a weak organization like Cincinnati did and simply tell Bledsoe to grab some pine while Losman loses winnable games early in 2005. That would be throwing away games and the whole team would be upset because the organization is not doing its best to win now. Remember, guys like Spikes, Milloy, Vincent, Williams(assuming he's back), Fletcher, Adams are at their peak, and perhaps starting downhill shortly. These guys can't be thinking about 2006 or 2007, especially when they just finished up 9-3. Second, notwithstanding fan and media criticism, the team loves Bledsoe. He is their guy. You just yank the job from him, and you will not like what you will see. So, what happens. Either fate will step in or it will follow the Henry/McGahee approach. Coming into 2005, there will be very high expectations for this team. Bledsoe will start. One of three things will happen. One is the team plays well right out of the box, goes 12-4 or something, goes to the playoffs and Losman gets another year to be tutored and get spot duty. Second, Bledsoe could get some injury, like Maddox, and Losman gets the chance to start. If he plays as good or better than Bledsoe, he keeps playing even when Bledsoe gets well. Third, the team stumbles out of the box, and the coaches feel the team needs a spark and starts Losman, say in game 4 or 5. Again, if he sparks the team as McGahee did, he keeps playing. Under either scenario 2 or 3, the vets will not have any animosity towards Losman for getting a job handed to him. And if he plays well, they will love him. The foregoing scenarios are the options(no we are not going to get Kurt Warner or some other washed up vet like Mark Brunell, who everyone wanted a year ago), as it is the way a classy organization like the Bills will do things, and it is the samrt way to go. So you can scream about Bledsoe if it is therapeutic for you, but I am confident this is what will happen...CD

Bingo. If any one of the three units played lights out, we would have won. The real issue is, how far below their best did each unit play. We already knew this team is unlikely to win by Bledsoe and the offense putting the team on its shoulders and winning, it is not that good. What is special about this team is its defense and ST. The offense played slightly below its norm, which is pretty low. The ST was way below its norm, and the defense pretty far below its norm, especially when it could not stop a one dimensional offense from racking up 160 yards of rushing offense. In absolute terms, the defense played the best game, followed by the offense and special teams. But in relative terms-- based on what we've come to need and expect from each unit-- the offense and defense were equally bad, and the special teams horrendous. But I guess some people refuse to accept that.

And as to playing most of the game, when Pitt got the ball with 11:15 remaining, Pitt led the time of possession battle by about 1 minute. And the problem with that was that Pitt was 8/18 on third down conversions, and 1/1 on fourth. That's not good defense...CD

Why are you such an apologist for the defense. They are very good, but they failed at key times yesterday. After the missed FG--and they had been off the field about 15 minutes at that point--rather than stuff Pitts third string QB and RB, they ripped a 60 yard run. They failed in the clutch. Fatigue, that's absurd at that point in time. Defense also failed in Jax game and first NYJ game. That's not to say they aren't really good, they are. But if they want to be considered an elite defense, they need to hold leads and take control late in the game...CD

No one is "pinning" the loss on the defense--it was a team loss. If you think the defense's performance was top-notch, I disagree. Buffalo was winning 17-16 with a quarter to play--no scoring, Bills win. Did the defense give up that 60 yard run than led to Pittsburgh going ahead for good? Thought so. This is a really good defense, but it was average yesterday, especially when all the chips were on the line...CD

It is interesting to see how many people want to pin the loss entirely on Bledsoe. I was at the game and just watched the game on tape, and this was, most assuredly, a team loss. Let's take a look: Coaching-- extremely cautious game plan. On both sides of the ball, very few chances were taken. We played to "not lose," not to win. No downfield passing. Horrible decision to run gadget play with Williams substituting for a dinged McGahee. Going for the missed FG instead of a first down--although not clearly wrong--certainly did not show a go for the jugular attitude. Understandable errors and meekness from a rookie staff--hopefully a tough lesson learned. Special teams--worse game of the year. Fumble on first punt of the game set up Pittsburgh 3-0. 4 penalties on returns. Moorman's punting was horrible, as were Lindell's kickoffs(especially when compared to Pitt, who kiced off into the endzone consistently). And of course, the 28 yard field goal miss. Defense-- no answer for Pittsburgh's running game. Allowed 60 yard run right after missed FG. Allowed a 9 minute all run drive with 11:30 left in the game for a FG. The line was simply getting blown off the ball by a very physical Pittsburgh O-line. Offense-- four dropped passes, Evans did not make a catch until 2 minutes left. Line with injuries did not provide much time to throw or running room. Lack of real TE's hurt. Bledsoe-- not good. Could have had 3-4 picks. Tried to make too much happen by holding ball too long on Pitt. fumble TD(although Reed failed to recognize he was the hot receiver and left Bledsoe in a world of hurt), after Bills had fallen behind. Penalties--12 overall, to go with 3 turnovers. Reed's stupid and totally unnecessary pass interference on Burns' first down at 5 probably prevented the Bills from opening up an 8 point lead with a quarter to go. If Bills fix just a couple of these things, they win. That said, the Bills finished 9-3. They went 3-4 against playoff teams, which is not good enough, but not terrible either. They have two decent QBs--hopefully Losman can come along to the satisfaction of the coaches to start, but until he is Bledsoe has shown he can win games while the kid learns. A little help up front on the O-line, a better third receiver(Reed has to go), and a fully healthy McGahee with a year of experience and it should be a great year next year... CD

Actually, he is not an idiot at all. He picks the Jets and Denver to win in close games. So his prediction is--say--that the chances of the Jets and Denver each winning is 60%. That being the case, multiplying those probabilites together, he believes it is 36% likely that BOTH the Jets and Broncos will win, or that there is a 64% chance the Bills will get the help they need. Myself, I think the Jets have about a 60% chance of winning, and the Broncos 70%. That means there is a 42% chance that both will win, or a 58% chance to get the help they need...CD

The lines are from Las Vegas and/or off-shore. But your math is wrong. Assuming the accuracy of your winning % claim, the Jets have 3/5 of winning, and Denver 4/5. To find the chances of both winning, you multiply 3/5 by 4/5, which yields a 12/25 chance of both teams winning, with a 13/25 chance of one or both teams losing. If you say the Bills have an 80% chance to win, 4/5, multiply that times 13/25, and you get 52/125, or about 41.6%. If you are correct on the straight-up probabilities on these point spreads, then 41.6% would be the probability the Bills will be in the playoffs...CD

The Bills are now a whopping 9 point favorite over Pittsburgh. Similarly, Denver is a 9 point favorite over Indy--which indicates those in the know believe Indy will be resting its players, notwithstanding published reports to the contrary. Rams opened as a 2 point fav over Jets, but the line moved quickly to make the Jets three point favorites at this time... CD

No, that's the line. It will change depending on tonight's game of course. If you'd like to see the lines, go to www.sportsnetwork.com, then go to the NFL page, and then click on odds...CD

No, assuming the Bills win, if each event has 7/10 of happening, the likelihood of both events happening is found by muliplying the two probabilities(assuming they are not interrelated). So here, squaring 7/10ths= 49/100, or 49%. You can change the odds anyway you like, so if you think 80% chance of Denver winning, and 60% chance of NYJ winning, you would get a probability of 12/25 of both events occuring, or 48%. You get the idea. Of course, if you say the Bills have a 50% of winning, then you would halve the probability to 24%.

Buffalo -3.5 Rams -2.5 Colts +3/+7.5-- depending on bookmaker(Sportsbook v. Stardust) If you figure that Denver has a 70% chance of winning, and say the Jets have a 70% chance of winning, the chances of both things happening is only 49%... so if the Bills win, better than 50% chance of getting in, based on these probabilities...CD