Dibs Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 ..... I think if we had last year's schedule, we'd be a 10 win team this year. But we haven't improved enough to overcome the schedule we have this year.... I don't understand why people keep saying that we have a much harder schedule this season compared to last season. Based upon the number of wins teams had last year, our shedule is exactly thd same overall. Last seasons oponents wins(127): 12 12 12 11 11 11 8 8 7 7 6 6 4 4 4 4 This seasons oponents wins(127): 13 12 12 11 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 5 4 4 2 Based upon last seasons results, this year actually looks easier as there are less strong teams(11+ wins) we have to play.
Rocky Landing Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) I don't understand why people keep saying that we have a much harder schedule this season compared to last season. Based upon the number of wins teams had last year, our shedule is exactly thd same overall. Last seasons oponents wins(127): 12 12 12 11 11 11 8 8 7 7 6 6 4 4 4 4 This seasons oponents wins(127): 13 12 12 11 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 5 4 4 2 Based upon last seasons results, this year actually looks easier as there are less strong teams(11+ wins) we have to play. Quite a "glass half full" perspective you got, there. There are several other, less optimistic, ways you could have interpreted those numbers. For example, you rather arbitrarily picked 11+ teams as the litmus. I think that might apply better had we been somewhere in the neighborhood of nine or ten wins ourselves, last season, or the season before. But, of course, we weren't. We've been 6-10, or worse, for the last five seasons. A more realistic litmus for teams better than us would be 8+. That would be 11 (8+) teams this season, as opposed to 8 (8+) teams last season. Edited August 23, 2014 by Rocky Landing
Kemp Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 I look forward to representing you at foreign soirees. Seriously though, 'going in the wrong direction' would imply the moves made in the offseason have set the team further back. How could that possibly be the case when our biggest concerns were run defense and WR and we went out and got the best run-stuffing MLB in the league and a defensive coordinator whose specialty is..stopping the run? THEN we grabbed something we've been lacking for quite some time, a red zone receiver in Mike Williams, AND we got he consensus-best WR in the draft who's only managed to distance himself from the scrum competing for second place. The only thing they might point to, from a personnel standpoint, is the loss of Byrd, which--until his bum hip was revealed--was a debatable loss. I like Watkins, but how exactly has he distanced himself from the others?
Kirby Jackson Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 I like Watkins, but how exactly has he distanced himself from the others? Let him play some games. I've seen a lot of him and he is different. There have been 3 or 4 1st team All-Americans as freshman: Watkins, Hershel Walker, Peterson and maybe one more (maybe not). He isn't a solid prospect; he's different. Watkins didn't come cheap but is special.
Justice Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) There are some reasons to be both ptimistic and concerned, this season. I won't be surprised if we finish in last or first. Here's why: Reasons to be optimistic: 1. Players on the rise A. Williams, Robey, Woods, Bradham, and Hughes will all have career years. These are all young athletes that are on the verge of greatness. 2. Improved Roster We lost Kiko and Jairus, but we gained Seantrel, Sammy, M. Williams, Rivers, Spikes, Brown, Dixon, and Graham. All of these guys are upgrades from their predecessors. I even think Spikes will have a greater impact than Kiko did because of his ability to stop the run, which was our greatest defensive weakness last year. 3. Depth Charles, Cohen, Lawson, Graham, Robey, Hairston, Urbik, Brown and Dixon all improve the overall depth on our roster from last year. 4. Year number 2 EJ, Marrone and Hackett were all rookies last year. I expect significant improvement from all three guys this year, not to mention another year in the system. This can only help. Cause for concern: 1. Nickel linebacker This is where the loss of Alonso hurts the most. Who will assume these duties? 2. Schedule difficulty We have a very difficult schedule this year. Much tougher than last years'. 3. EJ Yeah, I know, I have EJ in both categories, but facts are facts. He is in year number 2 so he SHOULD improve, but so far we haven't really seen evidence that he has. Our red zone struggles so far this preseason and Manuel's inaccuracy and lack of deep throws leaves me worried about his abilities. It can go either way. Edited August 23, 2014 by NoJustice
Dibs Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 Quite a "glass half full" perspective you got, there. There are several other, less optimistic, ways you could have interpreted those numbers. For example, you rather arbitrarily picked 11+ teams as the litmus. I think that might apply better had we been somewhere in the neighborhood of nine or ten wins ourselves, last season, or the season before. But, of course, we weren't. We've been 6-10, or worse, for the last five seasons. A more realistic litmus for teams better than us would be 8+. That would be 11 (8+) teams this season, as opposed to 8 (8+) teams last season. My base point was to question the veracity of the premise that this year's schedule is much harder than last year's schedule. As to my point about apearing potentially easier......that was pretty much a throw away line. I don't personally believe that one can assess the strength of a schedule till after the season(when the teams have shown just how tough/easy they were that year). That said however....I do actually believe that a scedule with a lot of games against tough opponents makes for a harder schedule than one with fewer tough oponents, fewer slightly weaker oponent, and more mediocre oponents.
Wayne Cubed Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 I don't understand why people keep saying that we have a much harder schedule this season compared to last season. Based upon the number of wins teams had last year, our shedule is exactly thd same overall. Last seasons oponents wins(127): 12 12 12 11 11 11 8 8 7 7 6 6 4 4 4 4 This seasons oponents wins(127): 13 12 12 11 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 5 4 4 2 Based upon last seasons results, this year actually looks easier as there are less strong teams(11+ wins) we have to play. Dibs, you sure you got your numbers right? Bills opponents in 2013, and their record from the previous season (2012) going into 2013: Pats* (12-4) Jest (7-9) Dolphins (7-9) Panthers (7-9) Saints (7-9) Falcons (13-3) Buccaneers (7-9) Steelers (8-8) Ravens (10-6) Browns (5-11) Bengals (10-6) Jags (2-14) Chiefs (2-14) So it should be 13, 12, 12, 10, 10, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 5, 2, 2 (123 wins). So a the beginning of the season it looked like an easier schedule but ended up being harder with 133 total wins. If you compare last year who we played (133 wins) to this year who we are going to play (127 wins) it could be easier if we were playing last years teams, last year. But as you say you can't really assess strength of schedule til you've actually played the teams... Basically we won't really know how hard it was until the end of this season.
Dibs Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) Dibs, you sure you got your numbers right? Bills opponents in 2013, and their record from the previous season (2012) going into 2013: Pats* (12-4) Jest (7-9) Dolphins (7-9) Panthers (7-9) Saints (7-9) Falcons (13-3) Buccaneers (7-9) Steelers (8-8) Ravens (10-6) Browns (5-11) Bengals (10-6) Jags (2-14) Chiefs (2-14) So it should be 13, 12, 12, 10, 10, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 5, 2, 2 (123 wins). So a the beginning of the season it looked like an easier schedule but ended up being harder with 133 total wins. If you compare last year who we played (133 wins) to this year who we are going to play (127 wins) it could be easier if we were playing last years teams, last year. But as you say you can't really assess strength of schedule til you've actually played the teams... Basically we won't really know how hard it was until the end of this season. I was basing both sets of numbers on the final results of last season. I did it that way because people are not saying that we have a harder schedule this year than the one we thought we were going to have last year......they are saying it is a harder schedule than the one we actually had last year. You are definitely correct though. The previous year's assumed strength of schedule looks to be harder than this year's assumed strength of schedule......which pretty much highlights my view that one cannot reliably predict how good/bad a team is going to be based upon the previous season(in most cases).....therefore looking at strength of schedule prior to a season is a rather futile activity. I really only listed the numbers because.....well.....if one is going to make a claim about something(harder strength of schedule for example), then one should really have some sort of evidence that can back up that claim. Edited August 23, 2014 by Dibs
Wayne Cubed Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 ...You are definitely correct though. The previous year's assumed strength of schedule looks to be harder than this year's assumed strength of schedule......which pretty much highlights my view that one cannot reliably predict how good/bad a team is going to be based upon the previous season(in most cases).....therefore looking at strength of schedule prior to a season is a rather futile activity... Gotcha, I wasn't sure which way you went with it. But I agree, it's impossible to know how weak or strong a schedule actually is until the games are play.
Kemp Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 Let him play some games. I've seen a lot of him and he is different. There have been 3 or 4 1st team All-Americans as freshman: Watkins, Hershel Walker, Peterson and maybe one more (maybe not). He isn't a solid prospect; he's different. Watkins didn't come cheap but is special. I am not disputing what he might become. What has he done to distance himself from the others?
Kirby Jackson Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 I am not disputing what he might become. What has he done to distance himself from the others? He hasn't played a game yet. By all accounts he has been phenomenal all camp. His floor and ceiling are both incredibly high.
Dibs Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 Let him play some games. I've seen a lot of him and he is different. There have been 3 or 4 1st team All-Americans as freshman: Watkins, Hershel Walker, Peterson and maybe one more (maybe not). He isn't a solid prospect; he's different. Watkins didn't come cheap but is special. There have been 4. Marshall Faulk was the one you missed.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 There have been 4. Marshall Faulk was the one you missed. Thanks!! I thought that there was but couldn't remember who it was (should've googled it). That's pretty good company.
GA BILLS FAN Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 We have to see it in real games, but Watkins so far, looks the part.
Keukasmallies Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 Based on two preseason games? Why is it that every year people forget that the preseason doesn't mean anything? Let's see how their OL looks come September. Actually, the proportion of preseason wins usually extrapolates out close to the # of regular season wins in the case of the Bills. It's the old lipstick - pig thing at play.
Recommended Posts