In climb back to contention, franchise needs to bottom out

[DC Grid]

Jerry puts on his peter king hat and hands us another pile of BS. Here are some teams that seemed to build a winner without "completely bottoming out". Now a lot of them did have a Dick Juron type of era with fewer wins than losses, but you wont find a great deal of horrific seasons in this group.

 

Minnesota Vikings

New York Jets

New England Patriots

San Diego Chargers

Green Bay Packers

Pittsburgh Steelers

Baltimore Ravens

[Kelly the Dog]

Maybe the know nothing knows something.

An unexpected season, a magical season, a historical season is waiting for some unsuspecting team. History proves it.

 

In each of the past seven seasons, and in nine of the 10 seasons from this decade, one of the NFL's last-place teams has gone from worst to first.

 

[Rob's House]

 

The very thesis of his latest piece is flawed in such a basic and elementary way that could be avoided if he actually engaged the people here who are much more serious observers of football than he is.

 

Do you think Sully frequents this board?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Do you think Sully frequents this board?

No I don't.

 

If he did, there are enough outstanding posters here that he would have better informed opinions than he presently does.

 

Also, from what I've seen of Sullivan's work ethic and his self-confessed ambivalence to many things on the sports landscape…I would say that he's too indifferent and not diligent enough to frequent these sites (as I would certainly do) if I had his job.

 

No, Jerry is "above" us and I think that's evident by his body of work.

 

He'd be a better commentator on the sports scene if he deigned to engage us, even anonymously.

[KOKBILLS]

By tanking the season I would say that would be (arbitrarily) in the top three picks. In that case, there were 14 of them before Stafford and Bradford where the jury is still out (although for the benefit of the doubt, I would say I would love to have either of them on my team right now, even not knowing their future).

 

I'd rather have My little Sister QB the Bills over Sanchez...The single thing I want from this NFL Season, after The Bills success of coarse, would be Sanchez bombing so bad Fatasaurus Rex has to hold a special Presser just to apologize to the NFL world for the over-hyping of "The Sanchise."

 

Honestly, I wish I knew why I hate the Kid as much as I do...But I do...I REALLY do...

[DerekJ]

Jerry is a writer and NOT a football player; Even if he was young and with the physical tools he has NO heart to play this amazing game. I witnessed Mike Utley get paralyzed in Detroit, Ive seen teammates in college get maimed and their careers vanished.The force and energy of football must be played at full speed and players cannot take plays off especially at the professional level. NO TAKING PLAYS OFF bc not only do you risk getting hurt, but a teammate may suffer if you do not try your hardest. Each team must play their hardest for the entire season. the effort may or may not equate into Wins but at least the game was played right. Franchise QBs can be found in lower rounds (Brady)they can be discovered when theyre 2nd or 3rd strings (Favre at atlanta). So Sullivan wants to be the bad ass to pop the excitment bubble well its not gonna work bc this is the NFL and on any given Sunday. Its been proven over and over again that underdogs can rise. A losing season hurts everybody, the value of a player, the value of the franchise, job security and fan base. The minute this team lays down im done w/ them they can go 0-16 and I'd still be down w them so long as they WENT BALLS OUT trying. One positive thing about Sullivan's article is that perhaps it will help the fins underestimate our team. Perhaps that was the only way that this a manipulator can help us win. You don't manipulate the spirit of the game; you must play it hard and with all your might despite whatever off season mistakes or bad risks were made.

Nicely put.

[tennesseeboy]

TB, an appraisal of the team is irrelevant. The discussion is:

 

a) Have the Bills "bottomed out?"

b) Is bottoming out necessary for a team to begin improving?

c) Why have so many excellent organizations and recent Super Bowl teams NOT bottomed out?

d) Why have so many perennially sucky organizations who keep bottoming out never improve?

I think your questions c and d kind of answer question b. The bottom happens when you stop digging. To say we haven't "bottomed out" is saying we still have to continue doing the wrong things or to continue to fail to do the right things. The bills "bottomed out" last year with poor coaching, bizarre coaching changes and injuries...and may have exacerbated ( that has nothing to do with playing with oneself) the situation by some of their personnel moves (getting rid of Reed, Owens, Incognito and failing to get available players in positions of need, failing to draft, trade for or sign free agents to fill needs) but we made some moves that appear to be positive. The quarterback is showing new life and the o-line doesn't seem to as terrible as predicted. Spiller is turning out to be a very good choice and with Lynch and Jackson makes for a nice running game. Parrish has new life. The 3-4 probably lost us Schobel and we'll have to see how that works out....This is a long way of saying that there is no reason this team should think it will have a shot at the number one draft pick. I for one think they could even have a winning season this year.

 

The bottoming out has already happened and I see rapid improvement ahead.

[bkc]

Dispite somehow winning 6 games last year it sure felt like rock bottom . I think more bad then good days this year but heading in the right direction

 

In Buddy we trust

 

 

[SteamRoller67]

I'd offer rock bottom happened last year, before the season started, with the lousy pre-season and firing of the offensive coordinator.

 

I remain surprised at the lack of respect for talent on this football team. The players won 6 games despite the very best Dick Jauron could throw at them in lousy coaching, game planning and coaching chaos and the epidemic of injuries.

 

And somehow, this year, with a competent coaching staff and a smooth 2-2 preseason (that easily could have been 3-1), there's lesser expectation. I don't get it.

 

If you feel 2009 was "rock bottom", take some time and research the 1984-85 Bills.

 

Sully is right, that was a well thought out, truthful article.

6-10 is the reality of 2010. 8-8 being the best case scenario.

This team is, once again, 2 years away from be a playoff challenger.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Every time I hear someone put forth this "lose now, win later" theory, I get a little angry. Makes no sense to me. Even if it were true (which it isn't), how would you go about executing the plan? No one involved in the organization, from ball boy to owner, could possibly function with this goal in mind. You're where you are because you want to win. That's what you do, you play to win! Period.

 

 

That is loser thinking. Stop thinking like a loser by wanting to win. Instead think like a winner by wanting to lose. !?! Plenty of good QB's that were picked up by teams that were not Drafting #1. Here are todays Starters and where they were picked.

 

overall name starter

1 Alex Smith 49ers

1 Carson Palmer Bengals

1 Eli Manning Giants

1 Peyton Manning Colts

1 Matthew Stafford Lions

1 Sam Bradford Rams

2 Donovan McNabb Redskins

3 Matt Ryan Falcons

3 Vince Young Titans

4 Philip Rivers Chargers

5 Mark Sanchez Jets

11 Jay Cutler Chicago

11 Ben Roethlisberger Steelers

17 Josh Freeman Buccaneers

18 Joe Flacco Ravens

24 Aaron Rodgers Packers

32 Drew Brees Saints

33 Brett Favre Vikings

36 Kevin Kolb Eagles

57 Chad Henne Dolphins

90 Matt Schaub Falcons

92 Trent Edwards Bills

106 Kyle Orton Broncos

108 David Garrard Jaguars

187 Matt Hasselbeck Seahawks

194 Bruce Gradkowski Raiders

199 Tom Brady Patriots

213 Derek Anderson Cardinals

230 Matt Cassel Chiefs

UDFA Jake Delhome Browns

UDFA Tony Romo Dallas

UDFA Matt Moore Panthers

Edited September 9, 2010 by over 20 years of fanhood

[Koufax]

I'm not a fan of the losing to help winning, land a draft pick stuff that people love to suggest since Peyton Manning was picked #1.

 

I know many (including myself) will be happy to see us with a 9-7 playoff birth at some point in the coming years, but let's be honest. As four time AFC champs, what we are all really interested in is a Super Bowl win...not back to the playoffs and losing, so here are some details of Super Bowl teams and any bottoming out they might have done:

 

Of the last 10 Super Bowl WINNERS:

 

0 in 10: NEVER did the champion have a 0-16, 1-15, or 2-14 season in the six years prior to winning.

 

1 in 10: ONCE (2005 Saints) did the champion have a 3 win season in the six years prior to winning. And they were not bottoming out having won 8,8, and 9 in the years before 3-13.

 

And only five team seasons out of that group failed to win at least six games: 97 and 98 Rams (when Kurt Warner was bagging groceries), 96 Ravens, 2000 Patriots, and the above mentioned 2005 Saints.

 

So if you look at Super Bowl champions, there is almost never a bottoming out necessary leading up to their win. Almost always it is just solid winning seasons, with a lot of missed playoffs 8-8 and 9-7 thrown in.

 

Perhaps most interesting, but purely random and amusing, is that while there were plenty of 6,8,9 win seasons sprinkled in with the more common double digits, there was not a single time when these last ten winners went 7-9 in any of their recent seasons.

 

But the evidence shows very little correlation between being great and having a terrible bottoming out year. The best thing we can do this year to help our future is to WIN FOOTBALL GAMES. It might happen or it might not happen, but there just simply isn't a benefit in losing games to try to get better.

 

Go Bills! Looking for 1-0 after Sunday!

[Special_K]

I'd offer rock bottom happened last year, before the season started, with the lousy pre-season and firing of the offensive coordinator.

 

I remain surprised at the lack of respect for talent on this football team. The players won 6 games despite the very best Dick Jauron could throw at them in lousy coaching, game planning and coaching chaos and the epidemic of injuries.

 

And somehow, this year, with a competent coaching staff and a smooth 2-2 preseason (that easily could have been 3-1), there's lesser expectation. I don't get it.

I agree with you. We won 6 games in spite of ourselves. We were signing offensive linemen on Tuesday to start on Sunday. The only player we really lost was TO and honestly how much of a loss is that? Is that a 3 to 4 game difference? I doubt it. His loss is more than off-set by Spiller's entry. Did the defense get worse against the run? Is that really possible?

 

I'm not saying we're world beaters but I don't get the math that suddenly puts us in St Louis and Detroit territory because we fired a terrible coach and lost TO

 

1 in 10: ONCE (2005 Saints) did the champion have a 3 win season in the six years prior to winning. And they were not bottoming out having won 8,8, and 9 in the years before 3-13.

That was also the Katrina year where they played the whole year on the road. They get a bit of a pass and I might even exclude them from this comparison on that basis.

[dave mcbride]

That was a terrible article, IMO. The team should just lose to get a top pick so we can draft a QB that has a 25% chance of becoming decent? This is a better idea than the team playing together and getting better and better as the season moves on as they get used to the new schemes, each other, and Gailey? As the OL finally gets a chance to have the same five guys in there at the same time? The players learning how to trust one another and their coach that they are on the right track?

 

The comparison to Greggo's first year is a crappy one, too. We got rid of most of our good players before the season started. We lost our best player who was on the verge of being a superstar in the first half of the first game. We had a coach who knew nothing about being a head coach.

Um ... he never advocated that they should try to lose; he's basically saying that they *will* lose. As for 2001, I remember quite clearly that the preseason prognostications for the Bills were mostly clear, 78 degrees, and sunny. They had been 8-8 the year before, and the media generally loved Donohoe. They thought he was an upgrade and that Williams was a great hire. As for the board, I distinctly recall near-unbridled enthusiasm for the squad prior to the New Orleans opener.

 

This is only tangentially related, but I strongly recommend reading Peter King's feature article in the NFL preview issue of SI (it is *not* on the web). It is an in-depth look at blitzing and qb-ing, and he spoke with numerous coaches and personnel people. The basic gist is that in today's NFL, it all comes down to strong QB play (particularly when facing a withering pass rush), the ability to pass block, the receiving corps, the pass rush, and corners that can play man. I don't have it in front of me so I can't quote, but sources in the article said that relying on a running game to win was a fool's errand. There was a great quote from the now-deceased Jim Johnson who said that he didn't worry about rushing attacks much because that wasn't how you scored points in the NFL.

 

Basically, the Bills are shaky at QB, have a sub-mediocre receiving corps, a poor group of pass rushers, a lousy o-line (especially on the edges) and good DBs who are nevertheless very questionable in man coverage (Florence was dreadful when asked to play man his one season in Jacksonville). They do have excellent RBs. As for comparing this year's squad vs. last, I don't see much of an upgrade in quality outside of Spiller.

 

Having said all of this, I sincerely hope that the Bills prove everyone wrong and rush for 2800 yards while going 12-4.

[Special_K]

There was a great quote from the now-deceased Jim Johnson who said that he didn't worry about rushing attacks much because that wasn't how you scored points in the NFL.

The late Jim Johnson also lost the NFC Championship game 4 times, giving up 29, 27, 14 and 32 points respectively. The game they gave up 14 the Panthers ran for 155 yards and their backs averaged over 4 yards a pop. He also lost a Super Bowl in which his defense gave up 24 points - and over 100 yards rushing.

 

It might not be how you score points, but you can still control a game that way. The Eagles lost those above games as much because their own offense turned the ball over constantly...via interceptions. So perhaps if the offense ran the ball a little more they'd have not turned it over as often and not screwed over the defense and put up more points, if only field goals... The Eagles turned it over 4 times vs. the Pats. One more FG instead of INT would have gotten them overtime.

 

I'm confused about how analysts can print this and then pick the Jets. Sanchez is gonna throw all over the place now? I thought we were all slurping Rex Ryan because he's gonna pound the rock? Also, were'nt we all over Tony Sparano's junk for the Wildcat which is running the ball?

 

It's not about running or passing - it's about offensive creativity that creates big plays. Chris Johnson is as big a big play threat as there is and he's a running back.

[Koufax]

Um ... he never advocated that they should try to lose; he's basically saying that they *will* lose.

 

He used "needs to bottom out" in his title, and "The best thing for the Bills is to pick high in next year's draft" and "Bills management needs to be honest and admit they need to bottom out" and "what's to be gained by winning six or seven."

 

Hmmm...I think he definitely appears to say that losing would be BETTER than winning. And he cites that "Bills management" needs to agree with this. I however think it is complete garbage. If we have a 3-13 season I will stay on the bandwagon and get ready for our 2011 bounce back. But I think that 6,7,8, or 9 wins are a lot more helpful for this team making it back to the playoffs, not a hindrance.

 

I'll take the over Jerry...just PM me with your paypal address and wager amount.

 

[disclaimer: Koufax does not gamble. All offers of gambling are for chest-beating and entertainment purposes only. Offer void in Upstate New York and Sunny San Diego. Gambling may resume temporarily if the Bills make it back to the Super Bowl in the future.]

[The Dean]

Do you think Sully frequents this board?

 

 

I doubt it as I don't really think he has any real love or passion for football, let alone the bills.

 

If he did, he would probably focus on the least articulate and most negative of the posters, as that melds with his preconceived attitude, in general.

 

If you feel 2009 was "rock bottom", take some time and research the 1984-85 Bills.

 

Sully is right, that was a well thought out, truthful article.

6-10 is the reality of 2010. 8-8 being the best case scenario.

This team is, once again, 2 years away from be a playoff challenger.

 

 

Neither 6-10 nor 8-8 represents "bottoming out". As usual Sully is clueless.

[todd]

That's a good article by Sully, I must say.

 

Jerry Sullivan is obsessed with failure. He won't know what to do if the Bills succeed. I don't know the guy personally, but hearing him and reading him makes me think he's a major douchebag.

[Another Point of View]

Don't kid yourself, Jerry Sullivan is the voice of the rather large crowd of oppressed Bills fans.

 

He is the Mike Schoop of the typewriter.

 

Some fans love this stuff, it makes them feel like somebody will fix the team because Jerry says so!

Edited September 9, 2010 by Another Point of View

[The Dean]

Don't kid yourself, Jerry Sullivan is the voice of the rather large crowd of oppressed Bills fans.

 

He is the Mike Schoop of the typewriter.

 

Some fans love this stuff, it makes them feel like somebody will fix the team because Jerry says so!

 

 

Bingo! Schoop and Sully are Big Men on the Moron Campus.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

The Bills were worse in the Joe Dufek era. But it doesn't matter. The Pittsburgh Steelers don't need to finish at the bottom to climb back to the top.

 

http://www.nflteamhistory.com/nfl_teams/pittsburgh_steelers/year_by_year_results.html

 

They seem to be able to keep it reasonably together between contending seasons. They basically are able to tread water until they can find a good QB. Perhaps they are the exception that proves the rule, but I don't think so.

 

The Bills need to find a QB that's all. It might be easier to get one with a top pick, but they MIGHT be able draft one in the middle of the 1st, or get lucky some other way.

 

Jerry Sullivan has to write an article every other day or something. It also has to have some kinda dissent provoking opinion. Who reads the Buffalo News anyway? It's dead.

Edited September 10, 2010 by ThrowIt