Negativity v Reality

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Well that's what I mean proper depth. Some positions we couldn't even field true starters.

Still, that doesn't mean it will never happen.

 

Reading about camps and OTA's McD has already done some Belichickian things and I'm glad for it.

[Iron Maiden]

I haven't seen many predicting 5-11....we have our usual 7-9 to 10-6 crowd....I would bet real $ that the 2017 Bills fall into that range....5-11 would take some serious injuries and/or coach McD being a lesser HC than Rexy.....I just don't see it.....

[Figster]

I haven't seen many predicting 5-11....we have our usual 7-9 to 10-6 crowd....I would bet real $ that the 2017 Bills fall into that range....5-11 would take some serious injuries and/or coach McD being a lesser HC than Rexy.....I just don't see it.....

better coaching, better systems, T T going into his 3rd season as a starter,

 

I don't see it happening

[Peevo]

I just can't process how anyone, even correctly, predicting 7-9, 8-8, 9-7, is somehow either A) satisfied with that performance, and/or B) thinks that's somehow a mark of a successful NFL season.

 

Vegas has the Bills at +/- 6 wins. Those that make insane profits on correctly predicting sports outcomes don't think the Bills will do too well this season.

[BuffaloHokie13]

I just can't process how anyone, even correctly, predicting 7-9, 8-8, 9-7, is somehow either A) satisfied with that performance, and/or B) thinks that's somehow a mark of a successful NFL season.

 

Vegas has the Bills at +/- 6 wins. Those that make insane profits on correctly predicting the general public's opinion on sports outcomes don't think the Bills will do too well this season.

Vegas sets lines based on public perception, not what they expect to happen.

[teef]

I just can't process how anyone, even correctly, predicting 7-9, 8-8, 9-7, is somehow either A) satisfied with that performance, and/or B) thinks that's somehow a mark of a successful NFL season.

 

Vegas has the Bills at +/- 6 wins. Those that make insane profits on correctly predicting sports outcomes don't think the Bills will do too well this season.

i haven't seen anyone satisfied with this, nor have i seen anyone think it's successful. it's just a prediction.

[John from Riverside]

I just can't process how anyone, even correctly, predicting 7-9, 8-8, 9-7, is somehow either A) satisfied with that performance, and/or B) thinks that's somehow a mark of a successful NFL season.

 

Vegas has the Bills at +/- 6 wins. Those that make insane profits on correctly predicting sports outcomes don't think the Bills will do too well this season.

I wouldnt call it successfull

 

but a 3-13 season is a bad season

 

it just flows right along with "mediocre" which is not good enough

[Scott7975]

Still, that doesn't mean it will never happen.

 

Reading about camps and OTA's McD has already done some Belichickian things and I'm glad for it.

Oh I don't mean never. I'm enthusiastic about the new hires thus far.

[gr8billsfan]

This topic is useless = negative

This topic debating the "ifs" about every scenario in a pessimistic rhetoric = realistic

 

Just wait until the season starts and then worry about it.

Edited June 27, 2017 by gr8billsfan

[wilcoam]

I think most Bills fans fell a sense of continuity on offense as there was very little change regarding starters from 2016 to this upcoming season - What we lost in losing Woods, Goodwin and others, we gained in getting a hopefully Sammy, Zay, Dawkins, and Dimarco - We should be able to run the ball successfully, we have an above average O-line, and a stud RB, we should get lots of first downs, score points, and be a top 10-15 offense, despite a poor array of wide outs, and a middling QB

 

However the reality is we saw a major non-continuous overhaul on our back 7 D this off season so its hard to predict/project if these changes will result in more wins, less, or the same - Clearly if Ragland can stop the run, and Hyde can become an NFL starter, and Shag/Hughes can rush the passer and hold the edge, the future look very bright, and we could surprise many in 2017, maybe winning 9 games plus

 

But by the same token, if Hyde only turns out to be what he was last year, a backup on a subpar secondary, and Ragland plays like a rookie, and Shag does not develop quicker, and Hughes can't stop the run, this could be a rather loooong year with more loses than wins because we still won't have the kind of team D that can overcome not having a better starting QB

 

Its not being negative to say I'm still not convinced we win more than 8, the reality is I like what HC Sean brings, but we still need an upgrade in on field talent, especially Q, WR's, CB's, Safeties, LB's, to go with the better coaching - But hey maybe TT has a better year, the D come together in the 2nd half, and folks here are correct, its a thin line between winning 7 and winning 10, breaks go your way, its in the realm of probability

 

jc

[Thurman#1]

While it's no surprise the local media is completely negative on Bills playoff chances, I am surprised at the widespread belief that this team is floating in the area of a 5 win season. Yes of course the QB is vitally important and remains a question mark. But this QB has produced solid if not spectacular results, and if his offense can produce an average of 26 points per game (as it did last year), I will take it - right now.

 

But leaving the QB issue aside, most agree that successful NFL teams are built from the inside out ie strong offensive & defensive lines. Any neutral observer would agree that the O & D lines of the Bills are their strength. Both lines are talented, experienced and proven. That's huge in the NFL. Sprinkle in some great playmakers like McCoy and Watkins and you have a recipe for NFL success.

 

It was the defense that was the main problem last year. I don't believe the talent level on defense is any less than what Schwartz had in 2014 when our defense was great. Ryan's game management and his defensive schemes were abysmal, and McDermott doesn't need to be a defensive genius to produce far better result. Good defense coupled with offensive production even slightly better than last year can produce a 10 or 11 win season. Last years win total of 7 would have been much higher with a decent defense.

 

 

 

The D-line looks strong ... if you look at things through rose-colored glasses. Dareus wasn't all that great last year. Will he repeat that or be a wrecking ball again? Or will a cup of urine be his downfall? Will Kyle Williams start to show signs of age? Will Hughes be what he's been the past two years averaging, what? around 6 sacks a year? Or back to his old self? How good is our other DE? We really have almost nothing to go on. And what do we have for DE depth when the starters need a breather? A lot less than we had in that Schwartz year, that's for sure.

 

To me, what you're saying is that if everything goes almost perfectly, we could be good. But you could say that every year. Things don't go almost perfectly.

 

And our CBs look an awful lot more questionable than they did in Schwartz's year. Plus in Schwartz's year the defense had looked pretty frightening the year before. They hadn't put it all together but they'd been immensely good at rushing the passer the year before. We aren't coming off a year where the defense looked good in any way, really.

 

The o-line looked terrific last year but the scheme was one of the best run schemes ever, really. How will they look in a more normal scheme? Pretty good still, I'd bet, but I'd also bet they won't look as good as last year in the run game. And RT still looks pretty questionable. Hard to know what will happen there.

 

The local media is saying what everyone is saying. And they're all saying more or less the same thing for good reason. You never know, but if you had to bet the rent, you should put it on "not very good." Yet. It's a young regime.

Vegas sets lines based on public perception, not what they expect to happen.

 

 

 

Yup.

 

But they've also been pretty much on target for a long long time.

Negativity

* The Bills have a terrible roster (legacy of Whaley et al) and will win 3-4 games.

* The Bills don't have a NFL quarterback.

* Now that Beane and McD are Bills, they're losers until proven otherwise

* All the players who were injured in the past (Sammy, etc) are likely to get injured again this year

 

Reality

* The Bills roster has a number of strengths and weaknesses - akin to the average NFL team.

* Tyrod has good legs but lacks elite passing skills

* The coaching staff seems strong enough on paper but remains an unknown until games are played.

* The new personnel staff seems to be well-qualified but hasn't done much yet and it's way too early to rate them

* This season - like any NFL season - will depend to a large extent on injuries and none of us knows who will get hurt this year or for how long.

 

 

"Lacks elite passing skills."? And that's reality? More like reality with a really sweet little lagniappe of positive spin.

 

Our lineup was 7-9 last year and overall probably got a bit worse, though maybe more promising in the long run with the two firsts next year and some possible rookies with potential. We aren't average in personnel. We're somewhat below.

 

Agreed on a lot of your other points, including injuries, but what we can say is that there will be some injuries whether a lot or a few and there is very little depth on this team.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Thurman#1

[oldmanfan]

 

 

 

The D-line looks strong ... if you look at things through rose-colored glasses. Dareus wasn't all that great last year. Will he repeat that or be a wrecking ball again? Or will a cup of urine be his downfall? Will Kyle Williams start to show signs of age? Will Hughes be what he's been the past two years averaging, what? around 6 sacks a year? Or back to his old self? How good is our other DE? We really have almost nothing to go on. And what do we have for DE depth when the starters need a breather? A lot less than we had in that Schwartz year, that's for sure.

 

To me, what you're saying is that if everything goes almost perfectly, we could be good. But you could say that every year. Things don't go almost perfectly.

 

And our CBs look an awful lot more questionable than they did in Schwartz's year. Plus in Schwartz's year the defense had looked pretty frightening the year before. They hadn't put it all together but they'd been immensely good at rushing the passer the year before. We aren't coming off a year where the defense looked good in any way, really.

 

The o-line looked terrific last year but the scheme was one of the best run schemes ever, really. How will they look in a more normal scheme? Pretty good still, I'd bet, but I'd also bet they won't look as good as last year in the run game. And RT still looks pretty questionable. Hard to know what will happen there.

 

The local media is saying what everyone is saying. And they're all saying more or less the same thing for good reason. You never know, but if you had to bet the rent, you should put it on "not very good." Yet. It's a young regime.

 

 

 

 

Yup.

 

But they've also been pretty much on target for a long long time.

 

 

 

"Lacks elite passing skills."? And that's reality? More like reality with a really sweet little lagniappe of positive spin.

 

Our lineup was 7-9 last year and overall probably got a bit worse, though maybe more promising in the long run with the two firsts next year and some possible rookies with potential. We aren't average in personnel. We're somewhat below.

 

Agreed on a lot of your other points, including injuries, but what we can say is that there will be some injuries whether a lot or a few and there is very little depth on this team.

You're ignoring the fact that they are going back to a base 4-3 alignment in which Hughes and Dareus did much better. But then talk about how the O line could be worse because the scheme changes. Ignore a scheme change in one side of the ball, use a scheme change to justify negativity on the other side. Not terribly consistent.

[hondo in seattle]

 

 

 

The D-line looks strong ... if you look at things through rose-colored glasses. Dareus wasn't all that great last year. Will he repeat that or be a wrecking ball again? Or will a cup of urine be his downfall? Will Kyle Williams start to show signs of age? Will Hughes be what he's been the past two years averaging, what? around 6 sacks a year? Or back to his old self? How good is our other DE? We really have almost nothing to go on. And what do we have for DE depth when the starters need a breather? A lot less than we had in that Schwartz year, that's for sure.

 

To me, what you're saying is that if everything goes almost perfectly, we could be good. But you could say that every year. Things don't go almost perfectly.

 

And our CBs look an awful lot more questionable than they did in Schwartz's year. Plus in Schwartz's year the defense had looked pretty frightening the year before. They hadn't put it all together but they'd been immensely good at rushing the passer the year before. We aren't coming off a year where the defense looked good in any way, really.

 

The o-line looked terrific last year but the scheme was one of the best run schemes ever, really. How will they look in a more normal scheme? Pretty good still, I'd bet, but I'd also bet they won't look as good as last year in the run game. And RT still looks pretty questionable. Hard to know what will happen there.

 

The local media is saying what everyone is saying. And they're all saying more or less the same thing for good reason. You never know, but if you had to bet the rent, you should put it on "not very good." Yet. It's a young regime.

 

 

 

Yup.

 

But they've also been pretty much on target for a long long time.

 

 

"Lacks elite passing skills."? And that's reality? More like reality with a really sweet little lagniappe of positive spin.

 

Our lineup was 7-9 last year and overall probably got a bit worse, though maybe more promising in the long run with the two firsts next year and some possible rookies with potential. We aren't average in personnel. We're somewhat below.

 

Agreed on a lot of your other points, including injuries, but what we can say is that there will be some injuries whether a lot or a few and there is very little depth on this team.

 

"Lacks elite passing skills." There's a lot of disagreement about Tyrod's ability. I was searching for a broad enough expression that many/most could agree with as a realistic assessment.

 

"Lagniappe" - love this. First time I can remember that a poster sent me to Google to look up the meaning of a word: "a small gift given to a customer by a merchant at the time of a purchase."

 

"Think" might be too strong a word for this sentence but I do "hope" this team can make the playoffs if the roster stays healthy and McD surprises us as a HC. But injuries to the wrong players would quickly kill that hope.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I see 2-6 with both wins coming from the Jets. Taylor is benched and then the true rebuild begins.

[Fan in San Diego]

Vegas sets lines based on public perception, not what they expect to happen.

Yes and no. Vegas lines are set and adjusted to entice an equal amount of betting above and below the line. Vegas wants the over money equal to the under money so they can skim their 10% off the top. Vegas never really cares who wins or loses, they just want to take their skim. This is why thinking Vegas would attempt to alter the outcome of football game or sporting event is a fallacy.

[3rdand12]

 

Right. im excited to see Darby in a zone scheme and Tre White after all the buzz surrounding him at OTAs

and Kevon ! I really like this kid.

Darby is trained mostly for man. but he does have the traits to be a very good corner. I have seen him make great plays on the ball. and i have seen him turn late. But his makeup speed (eye test for me ) is truly one of a kind.

Zone stuff might be his best suit once settled in

Who is that other guy..

Shareece Wright? Scheme guy?

White is the Coaches favorite i am guessing

reality is yet to be perceived.

 

 

Secondary could be quite good even though it has been questioned often. If the D Line does their job? I feel comfortable about the secondary each and all

 

except Poyer.

Him, i am just hoping on

You're ignoring the fact that they are going back to a base 4-3 alignment in which Hughes and Dareus did much better. But then talk about how the O line could be worse because the scheme changes. Ignore a scheme change in one side of the ball, use a scheme change to justify negativity on the other side. Not terribly consistent.

No question the "4-3" line up suits these players. Both Washington and Lawson are better suited.

We already know Williams and Hughes excel in this type of rushing. Kyle bull rushing and Jerry stunting was a fearsome combo. Dareus will likely return to form.

and if Lawson can just do his task we should see more pressures from better gaps this season. it just seems logical.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Yes and no. Vegas lines are set and adjusted to entice an equal amount of betting above and below the line. Vegas wants the over money equal to the under money so they can skim their 10% off the top. Vegas never really cares who wins or loses, they just want to take their skim. This is why thinking Vegas would attempt to alter the outcome of football game or sporting event is a fallacy.

Right. Should've said they don't set the lines based on what they expect to happen in the game. It is all about what they expect people to put their money on.

[JM2009]

I see 2-6 with both wins coming from the Jets. Taylor is benched and then the true rebuild begins.

You see wrong.

[CodeMonkey]

Yes and no. Vegas lines are set and adjusted to entice an equal amount of betting above and below the line. Vegas wants the over money equal to the under money so they can skim their 10% off the top. Vegas never really cares who wins or loses, they just want to take their skim. This is why thinking Vegas would attempt to alter the outcome of football game or sporting event is a fallacy.

Vegas as a whole, no. Individual huge betters, yes.

[Fan in San Diego]

Vegas as a whole, no. Individual huge betters, yes.

As a whole I agree with you. But I was thinking about this some more. An individual who has enough money to pay some one to affect the outcome of a sporting event, would they be betting on sports in such large amounts that they would care? I mean if you have that amount of money why screw around betting anyways? I would have way better things to do with my time and money.