I love Gailey's style. I think he's right for this team right

[TC in St. Louis]

I think it's obvious that Chan Gailey is a football man. He's got years and years experience running teams and offenses at many levels. He's uncompromising, and he has achieved a pretty good level of success. He kept Dallas in the playoffs, and Jones says he shouldn't have fired him. He had Pittsburgh flowing with Kordell as QB. He had Miami in the playoffs with a lousy quarterback. He managed to move the ball in KC with a guy named Thigpen at QB.

 

I now believe we have the right man in place. I am of the belief that we will make the playoffs this year. I believe it.

 

You fans join me. Let's rock.

 

Now, let's rock again.

 

They may say I'm drinking the Kool-aid, but I don't think the Bills have been jamming Gailey down our throats. If anything, they've been preaching patience. I don't think Gailey is particularly patient. I think he's gonna win.

[PromoTheRobot]

He's the perfect coach for an underachieving team. The Bills have some talent, but its rarely been put to proper use. (See: Roscoe Parrish) Also no Bills coach I can remember has stressed fundamentals and accountability like Chan does. Doing it half-assed is not acceptable. Doing it right is no excuse to take it easy. However good or bad these Bills are, Chan will have them performing at the best of their ability.

 

PTR

[bisonbrigade]

I would love to see the Bills in the playoffs this year, but i am also a realist. They are not that good yet.

[PromoTheRobot]

I would love to see the Bills in the playoffs this year, but i am also a realist. They are not that good yet.

Never say never. How bad were we last year and the year before that, and we still won 6-7 games? The playoffs are not that far out of reach.

 

PTR

[Alphadawg7]

Never say never. How bad were we last year and the year before that, and we still won 6-7 games? The playoffs are not that far out of reach.

 

PTR

 

Yeah, but the issue then is the same now...who is going to throw the ball? Until Chan turns one of our QB's into at least a solid starter we will not make the playoffs. That being said, I bought into what Chan is doing and bringing to the table too. I really like the direction this team is going and I feel like that what ever happens this season it will be a step in the right direction, especially in really getting a our younger guys out there.

 

If one of our QBs starts to really develop under Chan into a solid QB then we may surprise some folks this year.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Alphadawg7

[PromoTheRobot]

Yeah, but the issue then is the same now...who is going to throw the ball? Until Chan turns one of our QB's into at least a solid starter we will not make the playoffs. That being said, I bought into what Chan is doing and bringing to the table too. I really like the direction this team is going and I feel like that what ever happens this season it will be a step in the right direction, especially in really getting a our younger guys out there.

 

If one of our QBs starts to really develop under Chan into a solid QB then we may surprise some folks this year.

Spiller and Roscoe are going to make us better because Chan will figure out how to exploit teams that crowd the line of scrimmage. That bomb to Evans was a great example. We don't have to throw 20-30 yards. All we need to do is get the ball to Spiller or Parrish in open space. Teams will have to adjust to our attack, which will take pressure off Edwards (or whoever) because they will not be able to put 9 in the box without getting burned. I'm very excited to see some of the real Bills offense under Gailey.

 

PTR

[Dan]

Spiller and Roscoe are going to make us better because Chan will figure out how to exploit teams that crowd the line of scrimmage. That bomb to Evans was a great example. We don't have to throw 20-30 yards. All we need to do is get the ball to Spiller or Parrish in open space. Teams will have to adjust to our attack, which will take pressure off Edwards (or whoever) because they will not be able to put 9 in the box without getting burned. I'm very excited to see some of the real Bills offense under Gailey.

 

PTR

That will be the key to our season. I think teams will, once again, stack the box and dare Trent to beat them with quick passes. He's not been able to do that. If Chan can get him to do that, then we're in business.

[Phil Hansen Forever]

Never say never. How bad were we last year and the year before that, and we still won 6-7 games? The playoffs are not that far out of reach.

 

PTR

Good point, even with the wins, the team was close on three others. The coaching sucked and the players attitudes were in the tank. With Chan, they appear to be finding themselves and trusting in their coach.

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

Yeah, but the issue then is the same now...who is going to throw the ball? Until Chan turns one of our QB's into at least a solid starter we will not make the playoffs. That being said, I bought into what Chan is doing and bringing to the table too. I really like the direction this team is going and I feel like that what ever happens this season it will be a step in the right direction, especially in really getting a our younger guys out there.

 

If one of our QBs starts to really develop under Chan into a solid QB then we may surprise some folks this year.

 

Yep it's all going to boil down to QB play. It has been so long since we've seen a QB actually get better through out the year. It's been so long its almost like I've gotten into a lull that that's normal. But it's abnormal for a QB to deteriorate and for a team as a whole to progressively get worse QB play as the season goes on. We all sort of expect Trent to fail, but realistically with the right coach he should get better. If that is the case I think we can at least get one monkey off our back, and that's stop being the whipping post and gain some respectability.

[CarolinaBill]

I dont think chan is going to ask any of our qb's to take over a game, IMO they will be asked to manage games enough to keep us in it. We will win with toughness and discipline

[Alphadawg7]

Spiller and Roscoe are going to make us better because Chan will figure out how to exploit teams that crowd the line of scrimmage. That bomb to Evans was a great example. We don't have to throw 20-30 yards. All we need to do is get the ball to Spiller or Parrish in open space. Teams will have to adjust to our attack, which will take pressure off Edwards (or whoever) because they will not be able to put 9 in the box without getting burned. I'm very excited to see some of the real Bills offense under Gailey.

 

PTR

 

I totally agree with everything you just said...for it to work though we need one of our QB's be able to step up and be solid in executing Chans offense. They will need to throw crisp, decisive, quick passes...and right now, Trent seems to be the front runner and I dont have a lot of faith he can execute that consistently.

 

You did mention that long pass which has been a hop topic around here. Thats the problem I am having in fully buying in right now, as I dont see that long pass as a thing to come as much as it was a relatively easy throw to a wide open WR on broken coverage. Somehow that one pass has made some people forget the rest of his preseason and I just dont get it.

 

This is Trents performance the entire preseason...not exactly exciting.

 

11 of 20 (55%) for 151 yards (7.55 yds/att), 1 TD, 1 INT = QB rating of 75.2

 

Now look at what happens if you take out the one bomb:

 

10 of 19 (52%) for 81 yards (4.26 yds/att), 0 TDs, 1 Int = QB rating of 41.78

 

Sadly, he should have had another INT which would have been a pick 6 if the DB didnt drop it on the 2nd series of the Indy game. His QB rating would be 56.45 on the preseason if the DB doesnt drop it...doesnt exactly build a lot of confidence for me.

 

So while the one bomb was a great throw, the reality is he hasnt been very good as a whole this preseason and that concerns me a lot more than the one bomb has given me hope. For me, beyond the stats, he just hasnt looked very poised, decisive or confident much this preseason either. He has made a couple of nice throws but also made a lot of bad ones and bad decisions.

 

The good news is that Chan has good history with QBs, so I hope he can mold one of ours to be effective in his offense. If he does, this offense could be dangerous, but only if he can turn Trent around or develop Brohm.

[PNW_Bills_Fan]

Ok but we can play the what if games all day long. Long passes are passes. He made the play. Does it help his stats....yes...but he made the play.

[Alphadawg7]

Ok but we can play the what if games all day long. Long passes are passes. He made the play. Does it help his stats....yes...but he made the play.

 

What "what if" game? There is no what if...his QB rating for the preseason is 75...not very good. In close to a full game of play combined he has 150 yards 1 TD and 1 INT...how is that much different than what we have seen from him in the past? And almost half those yards were on 1 play with blown coverage by a safety. Outside of the one play he has a QB rating in the forties...that's not what if, that's fact.

 

Even worse are how few first downs our starters have generated...

[PNW_Bills_Fan]

First game was with a make shift line. Second game was with our starting line. We are playing with a limited backfield. So you can complain about TE and play games with his QB rating. We will know nothing till the season starts.

[EastRochBillsfan]

I totally agree with everything you just said...for it to work though we need one of our QB's be able to step up and be solid in executing Chans offense. They will need to throw crisp, decisive, quick passes...and right now, Trent seems to be the front runner and I dont have a lot of faith he can execute that consistently.

 

You did mention that long pass which has been a hop topic around here. Thats the problem I am having in fully buying in right now, as I dont see that long pass as a thing to come as much as it was a relatively easy throw to a wide open WR on broken coverage. Somehow that one pass has made some people forget the rest of his preseason and I just dont get it.

 

This is Trents performance the entire preseason...not exactly exciting.

 

11 of 20 (55%) for 151 yards (7.55 yds/att), 1 TD, 1 INT = QB rating of 75.2

 

Now look at what happens if you take out the one bomb:

 

10 of 19 (52%) for 81 yards (4.26 yds/att), 0 TDs, 1 Int = QB rating of 41.78

 

Sadly, he should have had another INT which would have been a pick 6 if the DB didnt drop it on the 2nd series of the Indy game. His QB rating would be 56.45 on the preseason if the DB doesnt drop it...doesnt exactly build a lot of confidence for me.

 

So while the one bomb was a great throw, the reality is he hasnt been very good as a whole this preseason and that concerns me a lot more than the one bomb has given me hope. For me, beyond the stats, he just hasnt looked very poised, decisive or confident much this preseason either. He has made a couple of nice throws but also made a lot of bad ones and bad decisions.

 

The good news is that Chan has good history with QBs, so I hope he can mold one of ours to be effective in his offense. If he does, this offense could be dangerous, but only if he can turn Trent around or develop Brohm.

dawg, I'm with you in not trusting trent to do well consistently. Once bitten, twice shy.

 

but as for the bolded stuff, I think this IS something we are going to see more of. That was all Chan. Lee was wide open by design. That broken coverage was because we made it broken. If we can get a good ground game going all we need is decent play out of edwards, or Brohm or whoever is throwing the ball this year. All they gotta do is hit one of those long plays a game and then the opponent has to repect the long ball. And then the ground game is even better.

[Thurman#1]

Good point, even with the wins, the team was close on three others. The coaching sucked and the players attitudes were in the tank. With Chan, they appear to be finding themselves and trusting in their coach.

 

 

The team was also close to losing two games it won. How come you guys always forget that when you're reaching for pie in the sky.

 

Don't kid yourself. We sent two guys out on a pattern. The guy on the right, Evans, went long. The guy on the left went across the middle and ended up behind Evans. I'm sorry, but that's not some masterstroke in play design. Every team does that kind of thing over and over again, and that includes us last year. We didn't make that broken coverage happen. It happened because it's the preseason and teams are still ironing out the kinks.

 

Here's what a good play design CAN do. It can force a safety to choose between two WRs, thereby producing single coverage on one reciever. Here's what good play design CAN'T do. It can't produce ZERO ON ONE coverage. If that happens, it's a defensive mistake, and that happens during the season - nobody's perfect - but much less than once a game. And when it does happen, it's a mistake, a blown coverage. That's what happened on the long ball to Lee last week. Nobody was on him. That's not good play design. It's blown coverage.

 

The only way to produce a ZERO ON ONE situation with good play design is some kind of trick play, like tackle eligible or ten guys on the field, one guy standing by the sidelines but still on the field, trying to look invisible.

 

And that's not what happened last week. It was a blown coverage.

 

dawg, I'm with you in not trusting trent to do well consistently. Once bitten, twice shy.

 

but as for the bolded stuff, I think this IS something we are going to see more of. That was all Chan. Lee was wide open by design. That broken coverage was because we made it broken. If we can get a good ground game going all we need is decent play out of edwards, or Brohm or whoever is throwing the ball this year. All they gotta do is hit one of those long plays a game and then the opponent has to repect the long ball. And then the ground game is even better.

 

 

 

Don't kid yourself. We sent two guys out on a pattern. The guy on the right, Evans, went long. The guy on the left went across the middle and ended up behind Evans. I'm sorry, but that's not some masterstroke in play design. Every team does that kind of thing over and over again, and that includes us last year. We didn't make that broken coverage happen. It happened because it's the preseason and teams are still ironing out the kinks.

 

Here's what a good play design CAN do. It can force a safety to choose between two WRs, thereby producing single coverage on one reciever. Here's what good play design CAN'T do. It can't produce ZERO ON ONE coverage. If that happens, it's a defensive mistake, and that happens during the season - nobody's perfect - but much less than once a game. And when it does happen, it's a mistake, a blown coverage. That's what happened on the long ball to Lee last week. Nobody was on him. That's not good play design. It's blown coverage.

 

The only way to produce a ZERO ON ONE situation with good play design is some kind of trick play, like tackle eligible or ten guys on the field, one guy standing by the sidelines but still on the field, trying to look invisible.

 

And that's not what happened last week. It was a blown coverage.

[timba]

I totally agree with everything you just said...for it to work though we need one of our QB's be able to step up and be solid in executing Chans offense. They will need to throw crisp, decisive, quick passes...and right now, Trent seems to be the front runner and I dont have a lot of faith he can execute that consistently.

 

You did mention that long pass which has been a hop topic around here. Thats the problem I am having in fully buying in right now, as I dont see that long pass as a thing to come as much as it was a relatively easy throw to a wide open WR on broken coverage. Somehow that one pass has made some people forget the rest of his preseason and I just dont get it.

 

This is Trents performance the entire preseason...not exactly exciting.

 

11 of 20 (55%) for 151 yards (7.55 yds/att), 1 TD, 1 INT = QB rating of 75.2

 

Now look at what happens if you take out the one bomb:

 

10 of 19 (52%) for 81 yards (4.26 yds/att), 0 TDs, 1 Int = QB rating of 41.78

 

Sadly, he should have had another INT which would have been a pick 6 if the DB didnt drop it on the 2nd series of the Indy game. His QB rating would be 56.45 on the preseason if the DB doesnt drop it...doesnt exactly build a lot of confidence for me.

 

So while the one bomb was a great throw, the reality is he hasnt been very good as a whole this preseason and that concerns me a lot more than the one bomb has given me hope. For me, beyond the stats, he just hasnt looked very poised, decisive or confident much this preseason either. He has made a couple of nice throws but also made a lot of bad ones and bad decisions.

 

The good news is that Chan has good history with QBs, so I hope he can mold one of ours to be effective in his offense. If he does, this offense could be dangerous, but only if he can turn Trent around or develop Brohm.

 

Just curious about what happens to his rating if he doesn't have the pick six? I don't know how to calculate it otherwise I would.

 

EDIT: Just decided to look up a calculator.

11 of 19 (57.89%) for 151 yards (7.94 yds/att), 1 TD, 0 INT = QB rating of 100.9

Edited August 25, 2010 by timba

[K Gun Special]

The team was also close to losing two games it won. How come you guys always forget that when you're reaching for pie in the sky.

 

Don't kid yourself. We sent two guys out on a pattern. The guy on the right, Evans, went long. The guy on the left went across the middle and ended up behind Evans. I'm sorry, but that's not some masterstroke in play design. Every team does that kind of thing over and over again, and that includes us last year. We didn't make that broken coverage happen. It happened because it's the preseason and teams are still ironing out the kinks.

 

Here's what a good play design CAN do. It can force a safety to choose between two WRs, thereby producing single coverage on one reciever. Here's what good play design CAN'T do. It can't produce ZERO ON ONE coverage. If that happens, it's a defensive mistake, and that happens during the season - nobody's perfect - but much less than once a game. And when it does happen, it's a mistake, a blown coverage. That's what happened on the long ball to Lee last week. Nobody was on him. That's not good play design. It's blown coverage.

 

The only way to produce a ZERO ON ONE situation with good play design is some kind of trick play, like tackle eligible or ten guys on the field, one guy standing by the sidelines but still on the field, trying to look invisible.

 

And that's not what happened last week. It was a blown coverage.

 

 

 

 

 

Don't kid yourself. We sent two guys out on a pattern. The guy on the right, Evans, went long. The guy on the left went across the middle and ended up behind Evans. I'm sorry, but that's not some masterstroke in play design. Every team does that kind of thing over and over again, and that includes us last year. We didn't make that broken coverage happen. It happened because it's the preseason and teams are still ironing out the kinks.

 

Here's what a good play design CAN do. It can force a safety to choose between two WRs, thereby producing single coverage on one reciever. Here's what good play design CAN'T do. It can't produce ZERO ON ONE coverage. If that happens, it's a defensive mistake, and that happens during the season - nobody's perfect - but much less than once a game. And when it does happen, it's a mistake, a blown coverage. That's what happened on the long ball to Lee last week. Nobody was on him. That's not good play design. It's blown coverage.

 

The only way to produce a ZERO ON ONE situation with good play design is some kind of trick play, like tackle eligible or ten guys on the field, one guy standing by the sidelines but still on the field, trying to look invisible.

 

And that's not what happened last week. It was a blown coverage.

 

 

Generally, you are right, but youre being too absolute. Putting three RBs in the backfield makes the D cheat run and more susceptible to blowing coverage.

 

Playcalling involves dialing up a series of plays sometimes just to set up a home run.

[Mike in Syracuse]

The team was also close to losing two games it won. How come you guys always forget that when you're reaching for pie in the sky.

 

Don't kid yourself. We sent two guys out on a pattern. The guy on the right, Evans, went long. The guy on the left went across the middle and ended up behind Evans. I'm sorry, but that's not some masterstroke in play design. Every team does that kind of thing over and over again, and that includes us last year. We didn't make that broken coverage happen. It happened because it's the preseason and teams are still ironing out the kinks.

 

Here's what a good play design CAN do. It can force a safety to choose between two WRs, thereby producing single coverage on one reciever. Here's what good play design CAN'T do. It can't produce ZERO ON ONE coverage. If that happens, it's a defensive mistake, and that happens during the season - nobody's perfect - but much less than once a game. And when it does happen, it's a mistake, a blown coverage. That's what happened on the long ball to Lee last week. Nobody was on him. That's not good play design. It's blown coverage.

 

The only way to produce a ZERO ON ONE situation with good play design is some kind of trick play, like tackle eligible or ten guys on the field, one guy standing by the sidelines but still on the field, trying to look invisible.

 

And that's not what happened last week. It was a blown coverage.

 

Why do you keep acting like a blown coverage isn't part of a regular football game? It really doesn't matter that it was a blown coverage, I don't understand why you keep harping on it, the QB saw it and made the play.

 

In the NFL no one cares how you score your points. Fumbles, interceptions, great plays, broken plays, blown coverages, missed tackles etc. are all part of the game and all contribute to the final score. Your logic seems to state that unless it's a well designed play that's executed perfectly then you can dismiss the outcome. That's just absurd logic. I don't care how the Bills score their points this year as long as they score more than the other team.

 

If Spiller breaks a tackle and runs for 60 yards and a TD we still get to count the score. We don't get 3 points because it was a missed tackle. Insisting that a "blown coverage" somehow counts less is pretty bizarre.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Mike in Syracuse

[Thurman#1]

I dont think chan is going to ask any of our qb's to take over a game, IMO they will be asked to manage games enough to keep us in it. We will win with toughness and discipline

 

 

 

This year, not very often.