Bills were NOT ahead or tied going into the 4th QTR in 14 of 16 games

[Rico]

Right. Nice try. Do you want to go and delete all your previous posts where you did indeed question those of us who referred to his lack of dedication in college? You seemed to care an awful lot about his "college stuff" in those posts. This is the FIRST time you try to deflect that bs by suggesting you don't care about college stuff once a guy gets in the pros.

 

So, how do you approach each annual draft when you don't care about a player's "college stuff?" I'm sure you don't even keep up with it then seeing as how it's irrelevant to you. Every GM, HC, Scout, Player Personnel Director, etc. in the league cares A TON about a player's "college stuff" but I'm glad you can just rest easy with it.

 

I don't mind your naivete when it comes to the game of football. Many around here are on a learning curve in that regard. You're still learning obviously. So feel free to ask questions and create posts that show your improving knowledge but please don't try to get away with pure bs. Don't question others and their facts when you leave yourself open for the same scrutiny. There's a word for it but I'm nodding off and can't think of it at the moment.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[mpl6876]

You have to look at it from both sides though.

 

Sure we COULD have won a lot of those games. But we also COULD have lost a lot of the games we won.

 

KC - Chris Chambers dropped TD pass with under 2 mins to go

Mia - Losing their PB caliber NT to injury and us actually being able to run on them

Jets- haveing 6 interceptions and winning in OT on a FG

 

Some are saying "We arent far off from the playoffs"

One could just as easily say "We arent that far off from drafting 1st overall"

 

Im not saying we coulda shoulda won this game lost that game, I just wanted to point out there are two sides to the picture.

 

Im mean, IMO the Blls coulda went 16-0, I mean, they were tied at one point in every single game!!!

 

Fantastic post illustrating another valid view point.

[Thurman#1]

Right. Nice try. Do you want to go and delete all your previous posts where you did indeed question those of us who referred to his lack of dedication in college? You seemed to care an awful lot about his "college stuff" in those posts. This is the FIRST time you try to deflect that bs by suggesting you don't care about college stuff once a guy gets in the pros.

 

 

LINKAGE?

 

 

So, how do you approach each annual draft when you don't care about a player's "college stuff?" I'm sure you don't even keep up with it then seeing as how it's irrelevant to you. Every GM, HC, Scout, Player Personnel Director, etc. in the league cares A TON about a player's "college stuff" but I'm glad you can just rest easy with it.

 

 

It would all be much easier if you had just read my post. I already answered this. So I'll just copy from my previous post:

 

 

Excerpted from post #16:

 

Frankly, I don't care about college stuff once a guy gets to the pros. Before the draft, your college record is all that matters. After the draft, nothing but the pros matters. That's why I can't stand these people who want to try to evaluate people who've been playing in the pros for three years by looking at their college evals. It could not be more beside the point.

 

See where I'm coming from?

 

 

 

I don't mind your naivete when it comes to the game of football. Many around here are on a learning curve in that regard. You're still learning obviously. So feel free to ask questions and create posts that show your improving knowledge but please don't try to get away with pure bs. Don't question others and their facts when you leave yourself open for the same scrutiny. There's a word for it but I'm nodding off and can't think of it at the moment.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

Eat me. I know more about football than you.

 

I was interested in your post till I reached this part. When you start with the personal stuff, I lose interest. I won't be reading any more of your posts in this thread. If you want to contact me on other threads, keep it about the football.

 

EDIT: Although I will still be waiting for your links in which I showed all this interest in Maryland football. Is it possible I may have done so once in a weird mood or when I was sleep-deprived or something? Yeah, maybe, though I don't remember. Many times? Simply did not happen. Prove me wrong, and I WILL eat my words. I've been wrong before, but I don't think this is one of those times.

 

I'll be waiting for all your links, but won't be reading anything else from you in this post, because once you descend to the "you don't know anything" level, then I descent to the "eat me" level, and that's boring to me.

[mpl6876]

I swear, this thurman and mpl6876 are the same person.

 

Your wrong and please leave my name outta your post and I will do the same for you.

 

I am done fighting with you and I want to concentrate on football issues. You are free to critique anything I say football wise.

 

Obviously, we don't like each other and I doubt that will change but at least we can keep the BS attacks off the post

[Thurman#1]

Just so everyone's clear, in 14 of 16 games, the Bills were within one score at some point in the 4th Quarter.

 

 

 

You may be right - at this point I am too tired to check, and it's certainly about right - but that surely can't be a surprising statistic. Within 7 (or are you arguing that 8 is within one score?) at some point in the 4th quarter?

 

So, put another way, only two of our games were absolute slaughters.

 

This doesn't give me a lot of hope, frankly, particularly when you figure that of all those games which were at least vaguely with reach, we won so few of them. The reason being, we just weren't good enough.

[Thurman#1]

I wanted to see if this kind of thing is unusual, so I did a bit of research. Took about an hour. Last year, nobody else had the same record, so I grabbed one of the 4 - 12 teams, the Skins, to look at a comparable team in a comparable way.

 

Skins 2009:

 

1) At the start of the 4th, the Giants were up by 7, 17 - 10. Skins never got closer than 7

 

2) Skins beat the Rams 9 - 7, with no scoring in the fourth.

 

3) Lions were up by six, 13 - 7 after three. Lions TD and didn't convert the two-point attempt, then Skins TD, game over. Lions 19 - 14. This game was the one where the Lions broke their 19 game losing streak. The Skins look awfully tough so far.

 

4) Skins rally and beat the Bucs 16 - 13. Going into the 4th, the Skins were up by 6, 16 - 10.

 

5) The Panthers came back from 15 points down to win. 17 - 9 Skins at the end of the 3rd. Panthers score 11 to win by three.

 

6) Chiefs get their first win. At the start of the 4th, it was tied 6 - 6. Chiefs go field goal, field goal, safety to win by eight.

 

7) Eagles whup the Skins in a 27 - 17 loss. At the start of the fourth, it was 27 - 10, Eagles. The first game where the Skins were never within a score in the 4th.

 

8) Bye

 

9) Atlanta wins 31 - 17. At the end of the third, it was 24 - 10. The second game where the Skins were never within a score in the 4th.

 

10) Washington beats the Broncos, 27 - 17. Skins down by three entering the 4th and go FG, TD, FG.

 

11) Skins were up 6 - 0 at the beginning of the 4th. They lose 7 - 6.

 

12) Skins ahead 21 - 16 at the start of the 4th. They lose to the Eagles 27 - 24.

 

13) Skins over New Orleans by seven at the end of the 3rd, 27 - 20. Saints pull even and win with an overtime FG, 33 - 30.

 

14) Skins beat the Raiders. Skins up by four, 17 - 13 after three.

 

15) Giants up 38 - 12 after three, and the Skins lose 45 - 12. The third game where the Skins were never within a score in the fourth.

 

16) Cowboys up by 14 at the end of the 3rd. Skins lose 17 - 0. The fourth game where the Skins were never within a score in the fourth.

 

17) Skins up 17 - 13 after three, but lose 23 - 20 to the Chargers.

 

 

Side by side, that looks like this:

 

In 7/16 the Bills were winning entering the 4th quarter.

In 8/16 the Skins were winning entering the 4th quarter

 

In 10/16 the Bills were winning or tied entering the 4th quarter.

In 9/16, the Skins were winning or tied entering the 4th quarter

 

In 11/16 the Bills were winning, tied, or within 3 entering the 4th quarter.

In 10/16, the Skins were winning, tied or within 3 entering the 4th quarter

 

In 13/16 the Bills were winning, tied, or within 7 entering the 4th quarter.

In 12/16, the Skins were winning, tied or within 7 entering the 4th quarter

 

In 14/16, the Bills were ever within one score in the 4th

In 12/16, the Skins were ever within one score in the 4th

 

In other words, the two are very close and this kind of thing isn't rare. The Skins were even a worse team, going 4 - 12 while beating only the Rams, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders and yet they were in most games, like us. Again, that's the way these things usually go. I would guess most teams with comparable records would be somewhat similar in terms of how many games they were competitive in, though there would probably be outliers also.

 

Since many here are saying the Bills were almost good, the Skins must have been almost good too. Gosh, they probably didn't even need to pick up Shanny, McNabb and Jammal Brown. They were just like us, just on the cusp.

[BUFFALOKIE]

This was already covered in the other thread. This smacks of trolling to me.

 

Once again HOSSAGE, shutup dude. I've seen no bigger "TROLL" than yourself. I've yet to see a single constructive post by you. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the OP or anyone else, but you are the pot calling the kettle black.

[John Adams]

Once again HOSSAGE, shutup dude. I've seen no bigger "TROLL" than yourself. I've yet to see a single constructive post by you. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the OP or anyone else, but you are the pot calling the kettle black.

 

You're just upset because his avatar makes you question your sexuality.

[BUFFALOKIE]

You're just upset because his avatar makes you question your sexuality.

 

Riiiiiiiiight.

 

If anyone else is interested, there seems to be a more mature croud at: http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=9

[John Adams]

Riiiiiiiiight.

 

If anyone else is interested, there seems to be a more mature croud at:

 

Half the page is ads. The other half are people's graphical sigs. Looks less mature.

 

Stop staring at his horn you perv.

[K-9]

LINKAGE?

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?showtopic=113772&hl=

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...=113877&hl=

In the first you say only his academic motivation was in question while in college.

In the second you say he was "never once accused of football-related motivation questions" while in college.

 

I won't post the link to the Baltimore Sun article quoting his college coach saying he HAD to bench Gaither because he couldn't justify playing him to his other players because Gaither didn't want to work as hard. I've posted the link several times but you simply chose to ignore it. I wonder why that is? Also, there have been other posters who've tried to give you this information as well. Why do you resist helpful information offered in the spirit of clarification?

 

Need I go on?

 

Eat me. I know more about football than you.

 

I was interested in your post till I reached this part. When you start with the personal stuff, I lose interest. I won't be reading any more of your posts in this thread. If you want to contact me on other threads, keep it about the football.

 

EDIT: Although I will still be waiting for your links in which I showed all this interest in Maryland football. Is it possible I may have done so once in a weird mood or when I was sleep-deprived or something? Yeah, maybe, though I don't remember. Many times? Simply did not happen. Prove me wrong, and I WILL eat my words. I've been wrong before, but I don't think this is one of those times.

 

I'll be waiting for all your links, but won't be reading anything else from you in this post, because once you descend to the "you don't know anything" level, then I descent to the "eat me" level, and that's boring to me.

 

Eat me? Really? Get your panties in a wad much? I never said "you don't know anything." I said you are naive about the game. There's a difference.

 

As for knowing more about the game than I? Well, if you've grown up in and around it and still participate in its periphery then I'll grant you that. But this isn't about who knows more about the game, is it?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Steely Dan]

Maybe Im missing the point here.......but I dont think of conditioning when I see that stat I see

 

"play not to lose"

 

DJ's philosphy was to keep the scoring down on both offenses....and find a way to win at the end of the game.

 

 

I hate that philosophy........while i have no problem with a 3 point win.......I hate the fact that we put so much pressure on our defense to keep us in games.....also it keeps them from gambling on defense and giving up first down after first down.......keeping our defense on the field and causing defensive players to get nicked up......

 

For the love of god.....lets play for touchdowns this year not field goals

 

What he said.

[yungmack]

It seems to me this discussion has gotten far away from the main point of the original post. Whether or not the Bills were tied or ahead in 14 or 12 games, whether or not they were within a score, whether or not they "played not to lose" or were worn down, the point is that the Bills were NOT horrible, or the worst, or a complete embarrassment. What they were was mediocre, which doesn't mean horrible (o-16, 1-15-2-14, that's horrible), it means "somewhere in the middle of the pack." Had they won that very winnable NE game or any one other, they would have finished 7-9, which is just about the very definition of mediocre.

 

The heart of the argument in this thread seems to be a disagreement between the pessimists, who think the Bills could easily have lost 13 or more games, and the optimists who think the Bills were a play or two away from 11 or 12 wins. I think both are correct. Last season could have been much worse...or much better. I personally fall on the optimists side, believing that a change in attitude, in defensive scheme, in some key personnel and in offensive philosophy will make all the difference in the world this coming season, making 10 wins very achievable and 11 or 12 not at all out of the question. And much of that success will come in precisely those sorts of close games that the Bills tended to lose last season.

 

Hope springs eternal.

[Hossage]

So we know mpl, thurman, and buffalokie are the same person. Who else wants to own up to trollhood?

[Thurman#1]

Eat me? Really? Get your panties in a wad much? I never said "you don't know anything." I said you are naive about the game. There's a difference.

 

As for knowing more about the game than I? Well, if you've grown up in and around it and still participate in its periphery then I'll grant you that. But this isn't about who knows more about the game, is it?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

Oh, I see. When I first saw this, I thought it was only the bottom part.

 

As for the bottom part, eat me again. You were rude. So was I. Anything else to say on the subject? If so, eat me.

 

As for the stuff above re: the links, I'm pretty tired, it's really late here. I'll check the links you posted tomorrow and get back to you. As I say, if you found places where I said this, I'll eat crow. I'll evaluate tomorrow.

[Hossage]

Once again HOSSAGE, shutup dude. I've seen no bigger "TROLL" than yourself. I've yet to see a single constructive post by you. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the OP or anyone else, but you are the pot calling the kettle black.

 

You have 11 posts, and a crush on Joey from Full House.

[K-9]

Oh, I see. When I first saw this, I thought it was only the bottom part.

 

As for the bottom part, eat me again. You were rude. So was I. Anything else to say on the subject? If so, eat me.

 

As for the stuff above re: the links, I'm pretty tired, it's really late he. I'll check the links you posted tomorrow and get back to you. As I say, if you found places where I said this, I'll eat crow. I'll evaluate tomorrow.

 

If saying you are naive is "rude" then accept my apologies. Being rude was NOT my intention.

 

Personally, I don't think there is anything left to evaluate. Your posts that I cited are what they are: a focus on Gaither's college career where you clearly state that he only had motivation issues in the classroom. That contradicts your recent posts suggesting you don't care about a player's college "stuff" (as you put it) once he reaches the pros. What's more is that they point to an intractable stance when I and previous posters tried to offer clarification on his (well documented) motivational issues regarding football in the spirit of just offering information to perhaps have you at least entertain a different perspective.

 

I couldn't care less who's right or wrong. I'm not sure those extremes apply anyway. This is just a forum of shared and often differing opinions. No need to get ruffled about right and wrong.

 

But what I find rude isn't the "eat me" comment. It's your seeming refusal to accept clarification on matters that are offered in the spirit of just that, clarification. I've noticed in the past, as have others, that when one offers contradicory material to your own, especially more than once, you seem to digress to that condescending attitude.

 

I realize that black and white, two-dimensional limitations of words on a screen don't always convey context and the spirit of which words are written here so I'll just chalk up those digressions to that aspect of posting in a forum.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Hossage]

Go read the other thread again. More than half the posters never read anything but the first post, and think that that stat is true.

 

And frankly, I don't care what smacks of trolling to you ...

 

EDIT: ... I hadn't said a thing to you in this thread and you're getting personal. The mark of a jerk or a troll.

 

Thurman, the next time you want to write a post to me, extend both of your thumbs and sit on them, that way we can both be happy.

[Rob's House]

Once again HOSSAGE, shutup dude. I've seen no bigger "TROLL" than yourself. I've yet to see a single constructive post by you. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the OP or anyone else, but you are the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Hey pal, there is a subtle difference between trolling and playing whack-a-mole (thank you Alaska Darin).

 

Picking on mpl6876 may be a little childish, but aren't we entitled to a few guilty pleasures? I don't see Hossage belittling you for listening to Cold Play, so how about returning the favor.

 

Also, it is a bit coincidental that you and mpl6876 joined the board within a week of each other.

[Mark Long Beach]

I wanted to see if this kind of thing is unusual, so I did a bit of research. Took about an hour. Last year, nobody else had the same record, so I grabbed one of the 4 - 12 teams, the Skins, to look at a comparable team in a comparable way.

 

Skins 2009:

 

1) At the start of the 4th, the Giants were up by 7, 17 - 10. Skins never got closer than 7

 

2) Skins beat the Rams 9 - 7, with no scoring in the fourth.

 

3) Lions were up by six, 13 - 7 after three. Lions TD and didn't convert the two-point attempt, then Skins TD, game over. Lions 19 - 14. This game was the one where the Lions broke their 19 game losing streak. The Skins look awfully tough so far.

 

4) Skins rally and beat the Bucs 16 - 13. Going into the 4th, the Skins were up by 6, 16 - 10.

 

5) The Panthers came back from 15 points down to win. 17 - 9 Skins at the end of the 3rd. Panthers score 11 to win by three.

 

6) Chiefs get their first win. At the start of the 4th, it was tied 6 - 6. Chiefs go field goal, field goal, safety to win by eight.

 

7) Eagles whup the Skins in a 27 - 17 loss. At the start of the fourth, it was 27 - 10, Eagles. The first game where the Skins were never within a score in the 4th.

 

8) Bye

 

9) Atlanta wins 31 - 17. At the end of the third, it was 24 - 10. The second game where the Skins were never within a score in the 4th.

 

10) Washington beats the Broncos, 27 - 17. Skins down by three entering the 4th and go FG, TD, FG.

 

11) Skins were up 6 - 0 at the beginning of the 4th. They lose 7 - 6.

 

12) Skins ahead 21 - 16 at the start of the 4th. They lose to the Eagles 27 - 24.

 

13) Skins over New Orleans by seven at the end of the 3rd, 27 - 20. Saints pull even and win with an overtime FG, 33 - 30.

 

14) Skins beat the Raiders. Skins up by four, 17 - 13 after three.

 

15) Giants up 38 - 12 after three, and the Skins lose 45 - 12. The third game where the Skins were never within a score in the fourth.

 

16) Cowboys up by 14 at the end of the 3rd. Skins lose 17 - 0. The fourth game where the Skins were never within a score in the fourth.

 

17) Skins up 17 - 13 after three, but lose 23 - 20 to the Chargers.

 

 

Side by side, that looks like this:

 

In 7/16 the Bills were winning entering the 4th quarter.

In 8/16 the Skins were winning entering the 4th quarter

 

In 10/16 the Bills were winning or tied entering the 4th quarter.

In 9/16, the Skins were winning or tied entering the 4th quarter

 

In 11/16 the Bills were winning, tied, or within 3 entering the 4th quarter.

In 10/16, the Skins were winning, tied or within 3 entering the 4th quarter

 

In 13/16 the Bills were winning, tied, or within 7 entering the 4th quarter.

In 12/16, the Skins were winning, tied or within 7 entering the 4th quarter

 

In 14/16, the Bills were ever within one score in the 4th

In 12/16, the Skins were ever within one score in the 4th

 

In other words, the two are very close and this kind of thing isn't rare. The Skins were even a worse team, going 4 - 12 while beating only the Rams, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders and yet they were in most games, like us. Again, that's the way these things usually go. I would guess most teams with comparable records would be somewhat similar in terms of how many games they were competitive in, though there would probably be outliers also.

 

Since many here are saying the Bills were almost good, the Skins must have been almost good too. Gosh, they probably didn't even need to pick up Shanny, McNabb and Jammal Brown. They were just like us, just on the cusp.

 

 

Nice work! It's tough to say what it really means, other than it's not so rare to be still in most of the games. Perhaps it does mean that Skins are close! Of course we ALSO changed our coaches and staff, our GM, our offensive and defensive schemes, etc!

 

I think that it shows the margin for a "strong" winning season like 10 games and losing 10 games isn't that much for a lot of teams. Some of the difference is luck, but some of it is due to a fundamental flaw or set of flaws on the team that get exposed over the course of a grueling 60 minutes of football.

 

Both us and the skins have plenty of flaws that got exposed just enough to let the other team win, but not necessarily walk away with the game.