Next year, it’s our Lombardi.

[Buffalo03]

3 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Is this one of those oxymoron types of things?

No. Just truth

[Sweats]

1 hour ago, ALLinALLEN said:

 

The Bengals and Bills are both 3-2 in their last 5 games against the Chiefs. I wouldn't say they are the "Blueprint to beat KC".

 

 

The Bengals have beaten KC more times in the playoffs.....i'm thinking that means something.

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

It's not "this" version of the Bills.  It was "those" versions of the Bills.  It's a different team every year.

 

But my point was that EVERY team "chokes" against the Chiefs.   The Bills, in fact, "choke" a little less than all the other teams, because (1) they get closer than everyone else who "chokes," and (2) they actually beat the Chiefs in the regular season.  

 

One or two things have to happen for the Bills to win the Super Bowl.  The Bills have to get a little better and/or the Chiefs have to get a little worse.  The Bills are working very hard on their piece of the puzzle, and they don't need to do a lot to get better and win it all.  

And that’s where it comes down to your definition of getting ‘better’…and where I believe you and I disagree. Many on here opine about if we can only load up on some mythical amount of talent, we’re bound to win. Nope. We can beat every other team including KC, with the talent we have. But, if at the moment of key decision and playmaking our talent has a brain cramp, it doesn’t mean squat….and it definitely hasn’t for the last three years. Rinse and repeat over and over again. The exhausting part for us fans is we have to wait entire year for the situation to present itself again only to witness the same head scratching failure. 

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And that’s where it comes down to your definition of getting ‘better’…and where I believe you and I disagree. Many on here opine about if we can only load up on some mythical amount of talent, we’re bound to win. Nope. We can beat every other team including KC, with the talent we have. But, if at the moment of key decision and playmaking our talent has a brain cramp, it doesn’t mean squat….and it definitely hasn’t for the last three years. Rinse and repeat over and over again. The exhausting part for us fans is we have to wait entire year for the situation to present itself again only to witness the same head scratching failure. 

Well, I agree with the first half.  I've been saying here for years that people over-emphasize the importance of acquiring more talent.  The NFL is designed to be sure that it's practically impossible to out-talent the rest of the teams in the league.  You have to win with a few stars and a bunch of ordinary talent.   Which means the success of teams depends on coaching.  

 

Where we disagree is on McDermott.  You're saying, in some many words, that McDermott isn't a winner.   I'm saying that he just hasn't won yet.   That is, I believe in and the possibility, actually the likelihood, that McDermott will win, probably win more than once.  You believe that the Bills that we've seen in the past is the most we can expect to get so long as McDermott is the coach.  It's exactly what Eagles fans said about Reid.  

 

I think people learn and improve, and McDermott is dedicated to that principle, to the max.  If anyone is going to improve, it's McDermott.

 

It's very hard to win a Lombardi - very hard, and a lot of luck is required, too.  There have been a few exceptions:  Reid now, Belichick, Walsh, maybe Landry, Paul Brown, Noll, probably Shula.   Most of the coaches who've won have been one and done, and they were fortunate to get one.  

[Royale with Cheese]

1 hour ago, Buffalo03 said:

No. Just truth

 

This guy was speaking the truth as well.

 

https://forums.denverbroncos.com/forum/broncos-football/broncos-football-aa/223365-we-will-not-win-a-super-bowl-with-peyton-manning-end-of-story

[Buffalo03]

Lo

25 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

This guy was speaking the truth as well.

 

https://forums.denverbroncos.com/forum/broncos-football/broncos-football-aa/223365-we-will-not-win-a-super-bowl-with-peyton-manning-end-of-story

Lol. They also had 2 championships with Elway. Big difference. If they didn't win with Manning. It wouldn't have been a big deal

Edited February 13 by Buffalo03

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

Lo

Lol. They also had 2 championships with Elway. Big difference. If they didn't win with Manning. It wouldn't have been a big deal

 

Are you completely missing the entire point of this on purpose?  

[Buffalo03]

23 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Are you completely missing the entire point of this on purpose?  

I'm not missing the point. I know the point you are trying to make. What I am telling you is, no matter what you show me, we are not winning a championship 

[Billsfanatic8989]

It's our Lombardi or else McDermott is done imo. I don't even think an AFC title game appearance saves him. 

 

To win the title, we need legit weapons sans Diggs. We need a huge upgrade on D. And a special assistant coach to help McD with time management etc. 

 

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, I agree with the first half.  I've been saying here for years that people over-emphasize the importance of acquiring more talent.  The NFL is designed to be sure that it's practically impossible to out-talent the rest of the teams in the league.  You have to win with a few stars and a bunch of ordinary talent.   Which means the success of teams depends on coaching.  

 

Where we disagree is on McDermott.  You're saying, in some many words, that McDermott isn't a winner.   I'm saying that he just hasn't won yet.   That is, I believe in and the possibility, actually the likelihood, that McDermott will win, probably win more than once.  You believe that the Bills that we've seen in the past is the most we can expect to get so long as McDermott is the coach.  It's exactly what Eagles fans said about Reid.  

 

I think people learn and improve, and McDermott is dedicated to that principle, to the max.  If anyone is going to improve, it's McDermott.

 

It's very hard to win a Lombardi - very hard, and a lot of luck is required, too.  There have been a few exceptions:  Reid now, Belichick, Walsh, maybe Landry, Paul Brown, Noll, probably Shula.   Most of the coaches who've won have been one and done, and they were fortunate to get one.  

I’d really love to hear what McD (or you) thinks he needs to ‘improve’ on. You seem to think he knows. I definitely do not. 

[Dr. Who]

4 hours ago, stinky finger said:

Full stop after first sentence. If the remedy is as easy as you make it out to be, then we have the wrong people at the helm. 

 

I don't think it is easy. Nothing meaningful in life is easy. They could miss, sure, but this is a deep draft for WR. If they take at least two, one early, there's a reasonable chance they upgrade the WR room in a way that moves the needle. They are replacing a bunch of aging DL that for the most part is mediocre at best. Getting younger is easy; draft some. The hard part is getting good players that fit your system, but I think it's not a very high bar to match what they are replacing. Safety is a harder nut to crack, because Poyer and Hyde are exceptional, though grizzled vets. There's a surplus of good FA safeties this year, and it's a position that often cannot command high numbers. I think we will sign someone there, might keep Poyer one more year, and draft a rookie with promise. I have confidence in the coaches when it comes to safety.

 

In short, the case for probable is not outlandish, and it does not require replacing Beane or McD.

[ShakAttack]

6 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks for this.

 

First, maybe I should go back and look at your other thread.  I never opened it simply because of the title - I didn't see the point in talking about your or my emotional reaction to two Chiefs games.  I like this explanation about your point there.  

 

I think the only difference between you and me is perspective.  I think the proper perspective is that the league often has periods where there is a dominant team.  The Niners were like that when they had Montana, Young, and Rice.  They didn't win every year, but there was a feeling, a little bit, of the inevitably of losing to them when you played them.  Then the Cowboys for a few years with Aikman and Smith.  And while the Niners and Cowboys were doing that, the Bills were right behind them - the whole AFC felt that same inevitability.  But the Bills were still just outside, knocking on the door.  Then we had 20 years of the Patriots, a remarkable run, and now the Chiefs are doing it.  Unfortunately, when the Bills finally got good and blew past the Pats, there were the Chiefs.  What's truly unfortunate is that the team to emerge as the top dog is in the AFC, so there's an unusually big challenge standing the way for the Bills.  The Bengals beat the Chiefs because the Bills had beaten up the Chiefs in the 13-second game.

 

I choose to look at what's happened from the NFL perspective, not the Bills' perspective.  From the NFL perspective, the Chiefs are the best team in the league.  Period.  No one beats them.  It's why Mahomes and Kelce kept talking about being the underdogs.   From their point of view, they were thinking, "Who are you kidding.  We're the best team in the league."  And they are.  

 

So, from my perspective, yes, of course, we can ask, "What's wrong with the Bills and how can they fix it?," but 30 other teams in the league are (mostly to a greater extent) asking the same thing.  The only difference between the Bills and most of those 30 others is that the Bills are a lot closer to being able to answer that question.   

 

The Bills are in the same position the Manning Colts were in trying to get past the Patriots.   The same position the 1950s Dodgers were in facing the Yankees in the World Series every year.  

 

Yes, the Bills have to get better, and yes, we want them to have a period of domination like the Chiefs are having now.  That would be great.  But it may just be the case that the Chiefs, like the Pats and the Yankees, always will be one step ahead, and the best the best challenger can do is break through one year, win one championship, and be satisfied with that.  

 

Now, people will say I'm a loser and I'm giving the Bills a pass, and I'm satisfied just with making the playoffs.   That's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that Bills are very good - the Bills are date the Chiefs circle on the calendar every year, but that simply is very difficult to improve enough to get over a very high bar:  Beating a generationally good team.  The Colts kept losing to the Pats in different ways, and the Bills are losing to the Chiefs in different ways.  

 

(In fact, and this is not my point, but it is interesting, that Brady was the GOAT and Peyton, top-five all time, kept losing to him, and now Allen, who himself may end up top-five all time, keeps losing to Mahomes, whom people are starting to compare to Brady.)   

 

So, yeah, I really hate losing in various ugly fashions to the Chiefs, but the reality is the Bills were 13 seconds away from beating them once in the playoffs, and a Josh Allen step away from beating them last month in the playoffs, and there is no other team in the league that has played the Chiefs that tough consistently.  And, yeah, there are things that the Bills could have done better to beat the Chiefs, and yeah, the Bills need to get better to achieve their goals.  All of that.  But that doesn't mean the Bills should change coaches or change GMs.  The only reason the Niners haven't lost more to the Chiefs is that they play in the other conference, and the two chances Shanahan had, in the Super Bowl, he lost.   Shanahan and McDermott are the only two coaches who have gotten their teams close to beating the Chiefs, and the fact that they haven't won is more a commentary on the Chiefs than on them.  

 

The Bills aren't losers.   The Chiefs are winners.  McDermott has his team knocking the door.  The Bills know it, and the Chiefs know it.   The way I look at it, of all the situations I can find my team in, the Bills are in the second best.  They aren't hopeless losers, they aren't .500, hoping stick their noses under the playoff tent.  They are a team that pretty much everyone who knows football understands to be on the very best teams in the league, with a quarterback who is well on his way to the Hall of Fame.   I love being in this situation, and I want - oh, I want it so badly! - for the Bills to be the best in the league.  They aren't quite there, but they're knocking on the door.  Next year may be the year they blow down the door burst into the hall of champions.  

 

In short, without putting words in your mouth, your perspective is that something is wrong with the Bills and they can't do it better.  My perspective is that the Bills are very good and just haven't been able to beat the dominant team of the era.  It's just another step for the Bills to become the new dominant team, and 2024 is their next chance to do it. 

 

 

Thank you for this great post.  After reading this, I have a more "positive" take on our Chiefs problem.  Well, positive, but with a caveat. 

 

As you stated, the Chiefs are a generationally good team; they are the team that "no one beats". 

 

But here is the difference between the Bills vs. Chiefs (in the playoffs) and other teams that chased dynasties in the past and could never get past them:

 

The last 2 times we lost to KC, I would have to say the Bills beat themselves more-so than the Chiefs beat the Bills...

 

As "mighty" as the Chiefs are, the Bills were in a GREAT situation, both times!  

 

Why did we lose both games?  Our own coaching in 13 seconds and this year it was our own execution (for example, not throwing to a wide open Diggs even though we had successfully executed a dink and dunk attack that drained 6 minutes off the clock in the 4th quarter. During that particular drive, I was fooled into thinking, "Wow. We actually did learn. We actually do know how to win this game without giving Mahomes another chance!"  I think Joe Brady and Mcdermott were on the same page there, but perhaps Allen was not, which goes back to my "if it isn't one thing, it's another" feeling when things go wrong with the Bills). 

 

So, my point is both of those games were completely on US.   The Bills beat the Bills.  Plain and simple.

 

Now, typically this would be a (relatively) good thing because is it not better to be the team that beats itself against the very best as opposed to being just another team that gets flat out beat by the very best?  

 

Yeah, I'd say so. But in our case, we have shown, time and time again, in different situations, but especially this one, that we are NOT learning from our mistakes as much as we should.

 

First thing that comes to mind is the Bills defending Hail Marys. After "Hail Murray" went down, I think we all expected that to be something that couldn't possibly happen again, and to be fair, it hasn't happened again, but...

 

The very next week Herbert completed a Hail Mary against us.  Fortunately, it did not impact the outcome.  And this past year vs. Tampa, we lucked out with Godwin's back being turned. It just seems like this team repeats the same mistakes more often than a great team should.

 

And that where my positivity turns to pessimism and it is what I meant by "I'll believe it when I see it".   Which, I don't believe is the same thing as saying "they can't do it better", which is how you had interpreted it.  I would say my perspective is more like, "Yes, we are fully capable of getting past KC, but until we PROVE that we can get out of our own way in game-winning moments, I am not going to expect it".

 

I also agree with you 100% about Mcdermott.  I think coaching far too often gets blame for issues that they shouldn't.  And a lot of the time our blame is misplaced because a lot of situations/plays/decisions are more complicated than we could possibly know. 

[Dr. Who]

4 minutes ago, BobBelcher said:

 

 

Thank you for this great post.  After reading this, I have a more "positive" take on our Chiefs problem.  Well, positive, but with a caveat. 

 

As you stated, the Chiefs are a generationally good team; they are the team that "no one beats". 

 

But here is the difference between the Bills vs. Chiefs (in the playoffs) and other teams that chased dynasties in the past and could never get past them:

 

The last 2 times we lost to KC, I would have to say the Bills beat themselves more-so than the Chiefs beat the Bills...

 

As "mighty" as the Chiefs are, the Bills were in a GREAT situation, both times!  

 

Why did we lose both games?  Our own coaching in 13 seconds and this year it was our own execution (for example, not throwing to a wide open Diggs even though we had successfully executed a dink and dunk attack that drained 6 minutes off the clock in the 4th quarter. During that particular drive, I was fooled into thinking, "Wow. We actually did learn. We actually do know how to win this game without giving Mahomes another chance!"  I think Joe Brady and Mcdermott were on the same page there, but perhaps Allen was not, which goes back to my "if it isn't one thing, it's another" feeling when things go wrong with the Bills). 

 

So, my point is both of those games were completely on US.   The Bills beat the Bills.  Plain and simple.

 

Now, typically this would be a (relatively) good thing because is it not better to be the team that beats itself against the very best as opposed to being just another team that gets flat out beat by the very best?  

 

Yeah, I'd say so. But in our case, we have shown, time and time again, in different situations, but especially this one, that we are NOT learning from our mistakes as much as we should.

 

First thing that comes to mind is the Bills defending Hail Marys. After "Hail Murray" went down, I think we all expected that to be something that couldn't possibly happen again, and to be fair, it hasn't happened again, but...

 

The very next week Herbert completed a Hail Mary against us.  Fortunately, it did not impact the outcome.  And this past year vs. Tampa, we lucked out with Godwin's back being turned. It just seems like this team repeats the same mistakes more often than a great team should.

 

And that where my positivity turns to pessimism and it is what I meant by "I'll believe it when I see it".   Which, I don't believe is the same thing as saying "they can't do it better", which is how you had interpreted it.  I would say my perspective is more like, "Yes, we are fully capable of getting past KC, but until we PROVE that we can get out of our own way in game-winning moments, I am not going to expect it".

 

I also agree with you 100% about Mcdermott.  I think coaching far too often gets blame for issues that they shouldn't.  And a lot of the time our blame is misplaced because a lot of situations/plays/decisions are more complicated than we could possibly know. 

I agree with a fair amount of this, and I certainly can empathize with the feeling. I still think @GunnerBill and @BADOLBILZ are correct that the relative lack of elite playmakers vs. a team like the Chiefs is the more abiding deficiency. If you add an exceptional WR and someone on D that can do what we hoped Von Miller would contribute, the margin for error gets much bigger. 

 

[Shaw66]

26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’d really love to hear what McD (or you) thinks he needs to ‘improve’ on. You seem to think he knows. I definitely do not. 

I'd like to hear it too.  

 

The Bills have a process.  It's about continuous improvement.  One part of the process is self-evaluation, which includes what isn't working well enough and why.   Based on what they learn, they adjust what they're doing.  Coach differently, emphasize different things, adjust strategies, all of that.  McDermott is evaluated, too. 

 

Now, they probably don't always succeed at improving what they targeted; no one succeeds all the time.  But it's a proven process that leads to improvement, permanent improvement, over time.  

 

Now, you'll say they haven't improved over four years, but that's true only based on the final outcome:  no Lombardi.   But if you could see what their self-evaluation said each year and how they evolved and change in response to it, I'm sure you'd see that it's generally working in the way it was intended.  

 

There's an interesting interview with Belichick, maybe in March, after they'd beaten the Falcons in overtime.  They were sitting in a restaurant/bar in Annapolis.  The interviewer asked what they have to do to go back-to-back.  He said he didn't know.   (Well, I'm sure, he could talk about things in generalities, but as to specifics, he actually didn't know.)  Instead he said everyone except him was back in Foxboro, doing what they were supposed to be doing today.  Stuff like studying film, developing offensive and defensive strategies, etc.  It was all designed to get better, to build on what they already knew.  It was the off-season version of what he says in-season - we are focused on today and tomorrow and not on anything beyond this week's game.  

 

The process determines where improvement is necessary, who's responsible for the improvement, and what the strategies for improvement are. 

 

I think it would be really cool to sit in, maybe once a week or more, on various meetings, hear what they're targeting for improvement.  It would be interesting.  

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I agree with a fair amount of this, and I certainly can empathize with the feeling. I still think @GunnerBill and @BADOLBILZ are correct that the relative lack of elite playmakers vs. a team like the Chiefs is the more abiding deficiency. If you add an exceptional WR and someone on D that can do what we hoped Von Miller would contribute, the margin for error gets much bigger. 

 

Well, I haven't seen the posts from Gunner and Bado, but I agree with this.  I said it somewhere a couple days ago.  One thing I don't like is that McDermott, and therefore Beane, go a bit too far with the philosophy that the Bills need great versatility in their players.   Everyone has to be able to do everything that a person in their position can to.  For receivers, for example, catch, run deep patterns, run short patterns.   Offensive linemen have to be good at pulling, good at pass pro, good at road grading.  Romo was right about Chris Jones the other night - he's a special talent because he makes big plays when the team needs one.   Milano may be the only player the Bills have whose superior combination of talent and skills makes him a special playmaker.  Niners have three on offense PLUS a couple on defense.  Chiefs have at least Jones and Kelce.  

 

Of course, that point of view suggests that big game failures are more related to players rather than coaches.  

 

I don't think this problem is lost on McBeane, either.  This problem is exactly why the Bills signed Von Miller.  Exactly.  His job when he came to Buffalo was to pressure the QB, and Mahomes in particular.   He did in regular season in 2022.   He hadn't recovered to be a factor this time around.   But the point isn't whether Miller worked, or will work next season.  The point is that McBeane are aware of the fact that they need game-changing talent somewhere in the lineup.  Kincaid may be one of them.  Milano is one.  Bernard may actually be one.  I'd guess that there will be on free agent the Bills sign who they want to be a game changer, probably a receiver. 

[BufBills83]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, I agree with the first half.  I've been saying here for years that people over-emphasize the importance of acquiring more talent.  The NFL is designed to be sure that it's practically impossible to out-talent the rest of the teams in the league.  You have to win with a few stars and a bunch of ordinary talent.   Which means the success of teams depends on coaching.  

 

Where we disagree is on McDermott.  You're saying, in some many words, that McDermott isn't a winner.   I'm saying that he just hasn't won yet.   That is, I believe in and the possibility, actually the likelihood, that McDermott will win, probably win more than once.  You believe that the Bills that we've seen in the past is the most we can expect to get so long as McDermott is the coach.  It's exactly what Eagles fans said about Reid.  

 

I think people learn and improve, and McDermott is dedicated to that principle, to the max.  If anyone is going to improve, it's McDermott.

 

It's very hard to win a Lombardi - very hard, and a lot of luck is required, too.  There have been a few exceptions:  Reid now, Belichick, Walsh, maybe Landry, Paul Brown, Noll, probably Shula.   Most of the coaches who've won have been one and done, and they were fortunate to get one.  

 

I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said in this thread.  Yes, in the moment when we lose to KC, everyone is upset, frustrated, me included.  It feels like we'll never get past them in the playoffs.  But the difference in these games is so close that one of these times we're going to score 1 more point than they do and we're going to get past them.  I mean if you watch the divisional round game this year, what tells you that if we were to run it back with same quality rosters that we couldn't win it?  If the two teams played 10 times, maybe KC wins 6 and we win 4?  Maybe it's 5 and 5.  KC certainly wouldn't win 9 or 10 times.

 

I think the plan going forward should be to put more resources into offense and then get younger on defense.  Our defense has been good but it doesn't seem to matter how good it is when we play KC in the playoffs.  I want to draft 1, maybe 2 wide receivers, preferably with speed to help spread the field.  Possibly draft a RB mid to late rounds that tough between the tackles runner that complements Cook.  I want to run the oline back because they were very good and should be even better with more time together.  TE's are fine.

 

I don't want to ignore the defense, but I want to get younger and not pour a ton of FA money into it.  Draft D line, safety.  We're getting Milano and Bernard back who didn't play against KC.  CBs are pretty good.  Get younger and faster on D, add legit receiving threats on offense and I think we could certainly be better next year.

 

 

[Chicken Boo]

Too many holes to fill for that kind of optimism.  

 

Right now, the hope is that Diggs is still the guy we remember.  For 11 straight weeks he didn't look like it.  

Edited February 13 by Chicken Boo

[BufBills83]

1 minute ago, Chicken Boo said:

Too many holes to fill for that kind of optimism.  

 

Right now, the hope is that Diggs is still the guy we remember.  For 11 straight weeks he didn't look like it.  

 

How are there too many holes to fill?  We need help at receiver, safety, Dline, and some depth.  I want to draft a receiver early, and possibly a second one mid-round.  I want to draft at least one Dline and 1 safety.  It will depend on where the value is and who the Bills like on where these players are picked, but these are the positions I would like them to target.  Possibly a center to take over for Morse in a year or two.

 

For FA I would like a veteran brought in to help with the transition to the rookies playing more, a veteran safety, and maybe Dline.  They would all be mid-range FA obviously, no high priced FA.

 

The entire Oline is under contract next year.  TE's are fine, RBs we can pick up a cheap FA or draft one in mid to late rounds.  CB is fine, LB is fine as we get Milano and Bernard back.

[SoCal Deek]

25 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I'd like to hear it too.  

 

The Bills have a process.  It's about continuous improvement.  One part of the process is self-evaluation, which includes what isn't working well enough and why.   Based on what they learn, they adjust what they're doing.  Coach differently, emphasize different things, adjust strategies, all of that.  McDermott is evaluated, too. 

 

Now, they probably don't always succeed at improving what they targeted; no one succeeds all the time.  But it's a proven process that leads to improvement, permanent improvement, over time.  

 

Now, you'll say they haven't improved over four years, but that's true only based on the final outcome:  no Lombardi.   But if you could see what their self-evaluation said each year and how they evolved and change in response to it, I'm sure you'd see that it's generally working in the way it was intended.  

 

There's an interesting interview with Belichick, maybe in March, after they'd beaten the Falcons in overtime.  They were sitting in a restaurant/bar in Annapolis.  The interviewer asked what they have to do to go back-to-back.  He said he didn't know.   (Well, I'm sure, he could talk about things in generalities, but as to specifics, he actually didn't know.)  Instead he said everyone except him was back in Foxboro, doing what they were supposed to be doing today.  Stuff like studying film, developing offensive and defensive strategies, etc.  It was all designed to get better, to build on what they already knew.  It was the off-season version of what he says in-season - we are focused on today and tomorrow and not on anything beyond this week's game.  

 

The process determines where improvement is necessary, who's responsible for the improvement, and what the strategies for improvement are. 

 

I think it would be really cool to sit in, maybe once a week or more, on various meetings, hear what they're targeting for improvement.  It would be interesting.  

And you’ve clearly articulated why it isn’t working. They’re working on improving the wrong stuff. 

[Shaw66]

22 minutes ago, BobBelcher said:

 

And that where my positivity turns to pessimism and it is what I meant by "I'll believe it when I see it".   Which, I don't believe is the same thing as saying "they can't do it better", which is how you had interpreted it.  I would say my perspective is more like, "Yes, we are fully capable of getting past KC, but until we PROVE that we can get out of our own way in game-winning moments, I am not going to expect it".

 

On second down in red zone at the end of the game, you didn't "expect" Allen to get the touchdown?   I did.  

 

Each season is different.  I didn't expect the Bills to go anywhere in the playoffs last season.  I was prepared for the Bills to lose to the Bengals.   I did expect more this season.  

 

I don't see why I have to wait for the Bills to prove it before I can expect that they will win.  Waiting for them to prove is taking a negative attitude - "I'll believe when I see it" means, literally, "I don't believe it now."  Why don't you believe it now?   Because you believe that there is something wrong that keeps them from winning, based on previous performances.   I don't believe previous performances control future outcomes.  

 

Think about this.  Dawkins holds his ground for a fraction of a second longer against Jones and Allen hits Shakir in the end zone.  Chiefs have the ball with a minute 43 and need a touchdown?   Do they get it?   I don't know.  Most people around the league would say, yes, they get the TD.  Why?  Because Mahomes seems to ALWAYS get that score in that situation.  So, if that's true, is it really the Bills fault that they lost?   The point is, losing to the Chiefs is not the measure that something is wrong.  Everyone loses to the Chiefs.  The Bills are the only team good enough to have seen them in the playoffs for three of the last four years.  That history doesn't justify not believing the Bills can win it all.  All that needs to happen is for Dawkins to get a little better or the Bills to get better in some other way, and/or the Chiefs getting past their prime.  

 

Today, February 13, 2024, I believe they can do it.  I don't have to see it first.  

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And you’ve clearly articulated why it isn’t working. They’re working on improving the wrong stuff. 

Well, maybe some of what they've been doing is working on the wrong stuff.  Or they've been attacking it the wrong way.

 

But the whole point of the process is to figure it out, whatever it is, and fix it.   Day after day, year after, work at continuous improvement.  And multiple businesses in the US, here and around the world, use this process.