The Big Cat

Yeah, I reject using clickbait and negativity as the explanation. This feels far more insidious and calculated. And I think it does have much more to do with the symbiotic relationship between professional sports teams and local "journalism" coming apart at the seams. I think it's quite clear who needs who.

No doubt. But it's impossible to say negative drives MORE for them since we have no positive control.

For the last two decades, the Bills have given local writers nothing but mediocre, uninspiring football to write about and analyze. All around the league, teams go from zero to hero and make runs from championships, while we consistently hover around 7 wins and twice a year get a front row seat to the chasm separating our squad from arguably the most dominant sports dynasty of all time. If I were a writer covering this team, if the bulk of my career now spanned a record-long drought, I imagine I'd be burned out too. But lately it's felt different. It seems that in the last couple years it's taken a turn. For the personal. We've gone beyond if it bleeds it reads. Now it feels like the motto is make it bleed. I don't know how much good it will to rehash the last couple weeks of coverage/conduct, instead I'd like to offer an explanation for why there seems to be a growing sentiment among the fans that the likes of Graham, Carucci, Sully, Skurski and Gleason have really taken to honing in on the negative side/spin/angle of every Bills story. They're fighting for survival. The Bills are no longer a football team. They're a media company. They writers that cover them compete with the team for: Access--WGR, the "official home of the Buffalo Bills" gets weekly exclusives with marquee members of the organization, ditto the Bills web properties, the MSG network, et al. Eyeballs--The Bills web properties, the MSG network, WGR, PSE, these all tie back to the Pegulas. They (and the team by proxy) have final authorship on content that TBN now has to compete with. Relevance--Not only can the team's channels outdo them from a content standpoint, so can the national guys. It's not just ESPN and SI that have their angles on the Bills anymore, now the league has its own 24/7 network to further marginalize the need for the local guys to cover. What exactly do the Bills need TBN for? Nothing, it turns out. In fact, TBN is a liability for them, hence the move to tighten the reigns on what outside media can and can't cover. More and more I see TBN guys tweeting about this Buffalo Guild mumbo jumbo. It's 2016. The local paper free fall began a decade ago. They're desperate. So is it any surprise--when the chips are down, when the team you cover is doing all that it can to eradicate your purpose--that your response would be to smear them any way possible? Fortunately for them, the Bills don't make it very difficult. All of this seemed to really take flight when the Pegulas took over. And given everything I'm mentioned above, is the conclusion here really that wild?

Doug Whaley shouldn't have to clarify something that was falsely reported on.

I don't think it's that simple, frankly. Tough to do all the things you mention above when you turnover the administration and strategy every 30 months. Also tough to evaluate that way relative to other teams, particularly those set at the most important position. The article only needed to be 20 words long: You need a QB to win in the NFL. Doug Whaley has not done a good enough job getting one.

Right about what? That the Bills are mediocre. HOLY **** BALLS STOP THE PRESSES Right about his team building theory? That's debatable. At best.

I don't know. Pretty clear to me that Graham's never had a nice thing to say about the Bills and that he's cherry picking some make believe metric to continue his streak. Call it a narrative, call it an agenda (I have a theory for a later date, but we'll get to that), but he's adamantly pursuing logic that's wildly flawed and contradictory and he's using it as a means to his same old same old ends. You can call that whatever you want. It's pretty clear to me what it is.

The difference we're looking for is a QB who get the ball out on time and in a spot that lets his receivers make a play. That's. It.

yeah! exactly!! and if we're lucky, may be we'll crack the top 29 in a passing category!!

Bradford would be a stud in this offense. Just saying.

Yeah, I member.

Right. You deemed an above average/good defense to be a failure. Well understood at this point. No need to keep belaboring.

And just so we're clear, when you have the 31/32 ranked passing attack, then here's how you should evaluate coaching when facing those teams: Loss: Should be expected Win: Coaching triumph So if Rex is a failure because his D isn't dominant and he's not a spectacular coach, then so be it. At least we're all clear as to what the standards are.

Good, because if you want to make the playoffs, you gotta be better than the teams you're supposed to beat. And we are. Consistently. Was that your point?

Is Gus Bradley some QB I've never heard of?

When people say he "ruined a great defense," do they understand that "great" defenses tend to last for more than one season? Did they forget that two short years prior to "greatness" we were among the worst--if not the worst--defenses in franchise history? And that the season immediately preceding "greatness" we were 28th in the league against the run? The 2014 references and the pining for its "greatness" make it seem like it was emblematic of some kind of legacy. It wasn't. It was an immediate, sudden and very dramatic spike. We have regressed to "above average." 2010: horrible 2011: horrible 2012: horrible 2013: below average 2014: great 2015: average/above average 2016: above average Can we please toss out the phrase "he ruined a great defense?"

Correct. But they have a 3 win QB that averages them out.

Then what the hell do the backup QB's in our last two games have to do with anything? Why keep making that qualifier if you're not "dis" qualifying anything?

I have zero issue with the run-first philosophy. But it doesn't work when you don't have a QB who can/will PASS to make defenses pay for not playing honest. It boggles the mind that we can rack up the kind of rushing stats we have absent that. Here are the four games when we couldn't run, let me know if you see a pattern here: BAL MIA PIT NYJ* *Yes, the DB's got torched, but the McCoy had 59 yards on 15 carries and the offense couldn't sustain jack ****, just like the second half against Miami and the fourth quarter against OAK... Run-first works when you run the ball and KEEP the ball. Buffalo's inability to KEEP the ball has much to do with not having a balanced attack (read: the QB can't be relied on to make plays). Once you get to six wins, losing to sustain your draft position is pointless.

Only if it means having him on a five inch leash with a viable replacement, vet, rookie or otherwise waiting to step in when he shows his same bad habits. That said, I'd only be in support of THAT if TT's contract is aggressively re-negotiated. So, not exactly an overwhelming "yes." I think a clear line needs to be drawn in the sand between the GM and HC. And if the GM is telling the HC it's time to address QB, the HC has to listen. The GM should be the HC's boss, IMO.

If you're going to disqualify wins (or potential ones), then I'm looking forward to your list of disqualified losses because of the personnel issues our team was going through.

Argument to keep him: same as it's been since last year: why fire the coach when the quarterback is your impediment to success. We can chicken or egg this thing all you want, but I haven't changed my stance on this since 2006 when I first signed up for this board. It's been a god damned carousel of HC's in Buffalo, we're 4-3, now we're 3-4, oop, back to 4-3 again, let's try 3-4 again...what's it gotten us? The argument for continuity anymore is simply an argument against upheaval. The argument against upheaval: it's the only thing we actually have tried, and what the hell has it gotten us? Meanwhile: we've had serious performance issues on the field at safety and QB this year. You might believe the HC should be blamed for this, I don't. Quarterbacks hide deficiencies all over the field, and the inverse is also true. The Pats* don't break stride if Dareus is suspended, the loss of Aaron Williams doesn't hurt as bad, they can manage with a scrap heap of WR's, why? GOAT QB. We don't have that luxury. We don't even have a QB who breaks the top 25 THIS year, let alone all time. So when other areas of the roster start going south, it's magnified for us. And I just don't put that on the coach. I think we're close. I think we just need an efficient, reliable QB and we're right in the thick of it. Hell, we could be playing the first meaningful week 17 game in over a decade this year without one! Going through another HC upheaval doesn't seem appropriate at this time. YES! 1,000,000 times YES! I've got a half-baked theory on the media that I'll share when all this noise quiets down and we can do a little hindsight autopsy.

96 posters have cast votes now. More than half (52) say he should be retained. I read somewhere last week that only two people here felt that way. Huh.

Exactly.