Dibs

Yeah.....he should have saved his thoughts for after a game where we lose. "Bills loss doesn't change the fact that they are heading in the right direction" makes far more sense. But agreed.....it was a decent read.

You need to watch it again. On the odd chance that the Play-by-Play was incorrect, I just watched it again myself. They were definitely different formations(2nd was shotgun & delay).....and to my eye, Summers run to a different gap.

What IF we do the unthinkable on Sunday?... A2M?

I thought using Summers was quite unpredictable. I also think it quite strange that certain people somehow saw it as being an example of Hackett being predictable.

Hackett may well be an unimaginative and predictable coach.......but how anybody could claim to know either way at this point is beyond me. There are two main factors for being unable to tell..... Execution of Plays: If the players on the field are incapable of taking full advantage of a play.....i.e. the QB doesn't find his open receivers downfield or across the middle, and checks down to the RB on the line of scrimmage where there are 2 defenders 2 yards away from him.....or worst still, panics and gets sacked. Not only does it look like a "bad playcall" but perhaps makes the OC less inclined to call the play in the future. Instead, opting for a basic run play which might have slim big play potential.....but due to having a good running game(and it has been a good running game), the chances of positive yards are higher than the extremely patchy passing game. (To make matters worse, in the last few games he has had hobbled RBs(and WR) on top of an inexperienced QB situation. Damned if he passes.....and damned if he runs. Is it that surprising that Summers got some carries last week?) Marrone/Hackett philosophy: I don't recall this ever being brought up in these arguments but to me it has been obvious since week 1. Marrone made several comments relating to his righting of the ship at Syracuse......about running a limited playbook and running the same basic plays until the players could execute them without flaw.....then progressively expanding the playbook as previous plays were mastered. When starting the season with a rookie QB, this philosophy made some sense. Bring him along progressively, build his confidence, etc. One can however easily argue over the merits of this philosophy.....but assuming that it has been used throughout the season(with 2 new QBs).....it cancels any argument over whether Hackett has done a bad job. How can one assess Hackett's playcalling ability and diversity when he is using a limited playbook. As Hackett was known to be a dynamic OC in Syracuse, it seems quite obvious that his playbook is only being fractionally used at this point. The final point is one of simple observation. Considering all of the adversity the Offense has had so far this season.....we are still managing to move the ball more yards/game than 14 other teams.....and score better/game than 16 other teams. To make the bold statement that Hackett is terrible certainly seems premature to anybody who understands anything about football.

The "summary" you put is incongruous to the statement you made earlier in the post.....which was...."it is time to start thinking about drafting a QB high next year, because according to the statistics and facts presented so far there does not appear a potential Franchise QB on our roster." Don't have a go at me for editing your post when you make two different comments on a subject in it. Both comments I might add basically ignore the concept of player potential as determined by the NFL experts(particularly the Bills experts).

Whether intentional or not, the numbers you have chosen here are very cherry picked to suit your argument. Perhaps better numbers are.....NFL wide.....8 teams with 13+ takeaways. These 8 teams have a combined record of 32-22.

Actually.....it's "English teachers".

Actually it is pretty much exactly what you said. You said.... "I waited for someone to persuade me with facts and statistics that either Lewis or EJ deserved to be considered a potential Franchise OB. Or even a decent starting QB. After this thread has progressed, the only thing it has persuaded me is that it is time to start thinking about drafting a QB high next year, because according to the statistics and facts presented so far there does not appear a potential Franchise QB on our roster." To which I responded that looking for EJs replacement after 5 starts was premature. No biggy though. As for your argument that if EJ and Thad are playing at similar levels they should fight it out for the starting spot..... This has been repeatedly addressed in the thread......including one long explanatory post from myself directed to you. In summary of the points made....Thad has been assessed across the league as having miniscule chance to become a good NFL starter.....and EJ has been recently assessed by the Bills to have a decent chance to become a good NFL starter. That being the case, you don't give valuable playing time to a guy who you think might be a decent backup.....you give it to the guy who you think might become a good starter.

Cause and effect. Winning more games than you lose tends to lead to a bigger point differential.

I totally agree. If a rookie, particularly a QB, hasn't shown that they are going to be a good player within their first 5 starts, they should be benched and look to the next years draft to find their replacement.

Have you at least considered the possibility that maybe....just maybe....if we had a good QB rather than a backup's backup or a rookie.....and we had healthy and experienced play makers on the O rather than the hobbled and inexperienced WRs/RBs that we have.......that the plays that have been called would be executed in a totally different manner to that which we have been witnessing?

Okay, I'll bite.... I think that most posters saying that EJ is our Franchise QB are somewhat paraphrasing.....or at least I hope they are. What I assume that most mean is that EJ has the better chance to become the Bills Franchise QB.....not that he is actually good enough to be called one at this point in time. The concept of "1st round pick" is not what you seem to think it is. The argument isn't that a player was picked in the first round.....therefore they are a better player, it is instead that they are perceived to have a better chance of becoming a better player. Statistics show this to be a truism. When you look at the percentage success(dividing the number of successes from the number of selections), it is clear that QBs selected within the first 36 draft selections of the draft have an enormously higher success rate than those picked after the #36 pick. For clarification......this isn't to say that those drafted higher will become great(the facts show that the odds are still low for that to occur)... ...and it also doesn't say that you can't find a great QB later in the draft(hello Mr Brady).......just that the odds are much better for those determined to have 1st round potential than those that don't. Relating it to the EJ/Thad situation..... The Bills have already determined that EJ has great potential to become a top NFL QB(that's why they selected him at #16). Thad on the other hand has had every NFL scout determine that his potential to become a great NFL QB was minimal at best.....if at all. Even if Thad's play is somewhat better than EJ's at this point, the experts(specifically the Bills experts) don't see much chance of a future for Thad as an NFL starter......and they obviously would still see a much greater chance for a future for EJ. With that in mind, the concept of giving QBs playing time in order to maximize their NFL improvements becomes the main issue. When faced with 2 inexperienced QBs who at this point are not good players.......there is no question that you give the starting nod to the guy who you view has the better chance to help the team down the road......rather than waste valuable playing time on a guy who you expect might improve to become a solid backup. All that said, there is always a chance that Thad will become a top NFL QB.......but the odds are extraordinarily slim.

Have you considered getting engaged and having a lengthy delay before you get married? That way you can have your everlasting love and commitment to each other publicly proclaimed.....for the small price of the cost of a ring(likely to be well offset by the presents you receive from an engagement party). .....and if the Mrs doesn't want a big elaborate wedding the costs of getting married could be minimal.

Well said. In this QB dominated league, I can't help but imagining if we had solid(or better) QB play from a solid(or better) QB. What would our record be? This injury hobbled team directed by first time coaches would likely be at least 6-1 with a stable QB situation. IMO there is good reason indeed to be very optimistic about the future of the Buffalo Bills.

Lol

Upon intercepting the ball, team possession changes. It changed from being the Dolphins ball to become the Bills ball. Direction of play thus changes with the possession.....thus forward progression becomes heading out of the end zone.

In all fairness to the board, it is only 2 very vocal and persistent posters who have made this thread a clown show. If you put them on ignore then I think you'll find the show to be a lot less clownish.

Shhhh!!! You're talking way too much sense for a gameday thread.

2 hobbled RBs and a walk on QB.....what are people actually expecting from the O?

No tackles for Kiko so far

2 injured RBs maybe?

Correct call by refs. Forward progress.

In 11.2 above the ball does break the plane(around the outside of the cone). Different situation.

Start a haiku thread Don't explain how to write one Laugh at dumb posters