dave mcbride Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 (edited) 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. Note how you didn't mention the Eagles victory in the NFC championship game. Nor did you mention how good the Pats offense was in 2004. No matter - you're talking about a DC who repeatedly had his units in the playoffs, NFC championshp games, and (once) the Super Bowl. Moreover, their stats during the regular season on average were top tier. Ah ... if only the Bills had a guy like that (they did - Lebeau - but he elected to leave). PS - read the actual article I referred to before passing judgment. Honestly, do you reall think that the Bills will be competitive this year??? Moreover, you're talking about championship game performances?? Let's talk about getting to .500 (much less the playoffs) before passing judgement on Jim Johnson ... Edited September 10, 2010 by dave mcbride
MRW Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 Um ... he never advocated that they should try to lose; he's basically saying that they *will* lose. I honestly don't have a problem with most of his article, but you tell me what he's saying when he says: You don't dig this deep a hole and pull yourself out overnight. That was Donahoe's mistake, trying to rebuild the public's faith before he rebuilt the roster. You need to be honest. Bills management needs to be honest and admit they need to bottom out before starting the road back to a genuine contender. I know, they got the No. 4 overall pick after '01 and wasted it on Mike Williams. That's no reason to be fearful of picking high. It's loser thinking. The higher you pick, the better chance of getting a great player. The best thing for the Bills is to pick high in next year's draft, which is a good one for quarterbacks, and get a franchise QB. Rooting for the team to lose so they get a better draft pick is the epitome of loser thinking (contrary to Sullivan's assertions above) and I certainly don't think team management should be throwing in the towel before the season starts. But that seems to me to be what Sullivan is suggesting here.
Benjamin Barker Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 (edited) Some franchises are simply run better than other franchises. That is not to say that many franchises have totally incompetent people at the ownership or management level, just that the fact of the matter is that someone is the best, and someone is the worst (even if the worst is still not really THAT bad relatively speaking). The Patriots, for example, over the last decade have done a good job of finding good talent in the draft, and of attracting quality free agents. They have clearly done a better job of this than some other franchises. They don't need to bottom out as long as they have the same quality leadership and decision making in the front office. If you are a below average team, you don't do as well on the whole in the draft or in free agency, so you end up with less talent year in and year out. You also don't attract top coaching prospects as easily. It's a vicious cycle, and its really not an easy thing to break out of endless state of mediocrity. The easiest way to get over the hump is to get lucky in the draft and end up with a Pro Bowl quarterback. Getting a top quarterback can immediately turn a franchise around, and also help attract better free agents. There are other ways, but that is the most common. Although there are certainly late round draft gem QBs out there, your most likely chance of getting a franchise QB is with a top draft pick. So, your best chance of turning your unsuccessful franchise around is with a top draft pick - which you get by bottoming out. Edited September 10, 2010 by Benjamin Barker
Wing Man Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 The optimist sees the glass as half full. The pessimist sees the glass as half empty. And the Buffalo News Sports Columnist sees that you have twice as much glass as you need.
eball Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 Agree with other posters that Sully's comparison between 2001 and 2010 is apples and oranges. I don't even get annoyed by his editorials any more; it's clear he needs to fill space and the Bills are an easy target.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article185119.ece Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, you are killing me here! I think he is saying we should lose just to get the higher draft pick! Well he hinted at it anyway! Sully does the "hint" equivalent of your girlfriend backing up a loaded Uhaul to hint she should move in with you. I don't get the "win less to get better" thing. Let's see how well that's working for the Rams and the Lions. Losing gets to be a habit, just like anything else a person keeps doing.
bowery4 Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 (edited) Maybe the know nothing knows something. #1 he says one sentence about Bflo. doing that "Maybe it's the Bills. Or the Browns. Or the Jaguars. Or the Chiefs. Or the Redskins. Or the Lions. Or the Buccaneers. Or the Rams." covering all the bases, I hate reading his drivel #2 he later gives the Dolphplugs the props One of the league's only certainties is its uncertainty. Proof: For 14 consecutive seasons at least five teams made the playoffs that did not qualify the year before. Here are five worthy choices for this season: 1) Atlanta -- No team ever has repeated as the NFC South champion, and the Falcons are the second-best team in the division; 2) New York Giants -- There are questions along the offensive line, but there also are improvements that have been made across the roster; 3) San Francisco 49ers -- With Kurt Warner retired in Arizona, the division is ripe for San Francisco; 4) Miami -- It's a tough division, but the Dolphins have built a tough team; 5) Houston -- The Texans were the sleeper pick last season and might be ready to achieve some of those expectations this season. #3 SQUISH THE BLOW HOLES Edited September 10, 2010 by bowery4
Ramius Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 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. Interesting that you bring up Rex Ryan. Ryan was also quoted in the article and he said that what he wants is a QB and a CB. He wants a QB that can make throws and move the offense, and CBs that can lock down their WRs in man to man. Ryan said that when the CBs can hold their own, it allows him to do so much more with his front 7.
Recommended Posts