dave mcbride Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 If you use the mid-80s Bills as a rebuilding model, 4-6 years, ending up in the Super Bowl. You'll find that most teams that do end up in the SB go through a similar reconstruction time period. Using the Bills as an example, here's their fall and rise during the '80s: 81 - 10-6 (playoffs) 82 - 4-5 (strike) 83 - 8-8 84 - 2-14 85 - 2-14 86 - 4-12 87 - 7-8 (strike) 88 - 12-4 (Div Champs) 89 - 9-7 (Div Champs) 90 - 13-3 (SB) So 6 seasons between playoff appearances, during which time they built a team that would post over 100 wins in the 1990s. And here's the record break-down since the last playoff appearance: 99 - 10-6 (playoffs) 00 - 8-8 01 - 3-13 (TD's first year) 02 - 8-8 03 - 6-10 04 - 9-7 It would be wrong to make a complete comparison between the teams of these two eras, but there are a couple of interesting similarities: --Both teams followed up their last playoff year (in '81 and '99) with a .500ish record. They were at the end of their runs, and were erroded by age. The 80's team, having no salary cap consideration, was able to eek out one more .500 season before collapsing. Donahoe, under cap constraints, started rebuilding sooner. -- Both teams bottomed out, hard, and both had chaotic QB situations. Donahoe was able to stabilize the QB position with Bledsoe, which is why the team was able to rebound more quickly than the 80's squad, who suffered through Kofler and Dufek before Kelly arrived. --The biggest increase in season-to-season wins is 5 games for both teams. Polian's team jumped from 7 to 12 wins, while Donahoe's jumped from 3 to 8. Donahoe's jump happened earlier in his tenure. So if you're a long-time Bills fan, you seen this type of rebuilding effort before. You understand the up-and-down cycles that NFLs parity-promoting rules cause. And if you judge Donahoe's record against the last rebuilding effort for the team, you see that he does have the team on a good track, not out of the realm of reasonablity for creating a strong and solid team that can win season after season. 380022[/snapback] i take all of your points, although the one big difference between 1988 and now is that kelly was already good when he came into the league, and was entering his third nfl season that year. with no disrespect to smith, bennett, thomas, etc., kelly is the primary reason the bills became so consistently good. obviously, our qb situation isn't so settled. one similarity - in '87, the bills choked bigtime at the end of the season (kelly in particular against the pats at home) and it cost them the playoffs.
dave mcbride Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 How long is this "haul" going to take and where is it going to end up? 379985[/snapback] "in the long run we'll all be dead" - john maynard keynes
IDBillzFan Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Don't bring up winnning and losing, or record. It's not about thatapparently. GMs aren't judged on win-loss record. At least not ours. TD is great, the record doesn't matter because the Bills sell a lot of T-shirts and jackets, Oh yeah, you left out going into the season with an unknown at LT. 379981[/snapback] Do you even read what people write in response to your comments? Once more. Using crayons, if it helps you. In fact, I'll make it real easy and use your words but just add one more. If you get stumped on the last word, let me know and we'll break it down for you. "GMs aren't judged on win-loss records"...okay, here comes the extra word...try to make it all fit, okay? The last, extra word is "alone." Now, let's put it all together and look at our new sentence. GMs aren't judged on win-loss records alone. Excellent. Now that we have "statements" down pat, tomorrow we'll try "questions." Here's one you can practice with until tomorrow: "How can SoCal Surf be so critical of what people write when it's clear he never takes the time to actually read what they wrote in the first place?"
jad1 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 i take all of your points, although the one big difference between 1988 and now is that kelly was already good when he came into the league, and was entering his third nfl season that year. with no disrespect to smith, bennett, thomas, etc., kelly is the primary reason the bills became so consistently good. obviously, our qb situation isn't so settled. one similarity - in '87, the bills choked bigtime at the end of the season (kelly in particular against the pats at home) and it cost them the playoffs. 380051[/snapback] He also didn't have a good running game until '88, when Thomas was drafted. On the defensive side, the team was young in '87, with Conlan and Bennett (and Odoms?) being rookies, and Bennett didn't play a full season. Losman will have a better running game and a more solid defense to rely on than Kelly had in his first Buffalo years. I doubt the team will need to rely on Losman as heavily as the Bills relied on Kelly in '86 and '87.
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Don't get too excited yet Pat, last I looked Mike Tice is still the coach. Looking for another .500 season for the Purple People Eaters. 378452[/snapback] There's a felony indictment on that team somewhere.....could be Pat.
San-O Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Do you even read what people write in response to your comments? Once more. Using crayons, if it helps you. In fact, I'll make it real easy and use your words but just add one more. If you get stumped on the last word, let me know and we'll break it down for you. "GMs aren't judged on win-loss records"...okay, here comes the extra word...try to make it all fit, okay? The last, extra word is "alone." Now, let's put it all together and look at our new sentence. GMs aren't judged on win-loss records alone. Excellent. Now that we have "statements" down pat, tomorrow we'll try "questions." Here's one you can practice with until tomorrow: "How can SoCal Surf be so critical of what people write when it's clear he never takes the time to actually read what they wrote in the first place?" 380057[/snapback] No, I mean yes, I mean no, I mean... uhhh, wait: people respond to my comments? They don't really let me have crayons that much any more, besides they all taste the same. So, GMs aren't judged on win-loss records alooone. I'm learning. Mr. SoCal takes care of me at the hospital, and sometimes lets me use the computer during lunch. I've got to go now. I have to take my medications.
Adam Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Vikings | Super Bowl Here We Come: P. WilliamsSun, 10 Jul 2005 06:14:11 -0700 Paul J. Letlow, of the News Star, reports Minnesota Vikings DT Pat Williams is very confident of the team's chances in 2005. "Oh, we're going to the Super Bowl," Williams said. "Mark that down. Tell everybody. 'We're going to the Super Bowl.' We'll be in Detroit." The team signed him to clog the middle along with All-Pro DT Kevin Williams. Williams was hurt when the Buffalo Bills did not re-sign him. "It was hard when they decided not to re-sign me," Williams said. "They hurt me some. But management there now isn't good." Williams likes the leadership in Minnesota saying the major free agent acquisitions by the Vikings are all leaders. Williams said he signed with Minnesota for a chance to get "the ring." 378449[/snapback] They arent even a lock to win their division- Lindy's picked Detroit, who could have a potent offense....I think Chicago could be good if Grossman can step it up right after the injury. Tampa Bay will be good offensively with Cadillac Williams as well. Williams better take one step at a time, especially at his age.
jad1 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 They arent even a lock to win their division- Lindy's picked Detroit, who could have a potent offense....I think Chicago could be good if Grossman can step it up right after the injury. Tampa Bay will be good offensively with Cadillac Williams as well. Williams better take one step at a time, especially at his age. 380087[/snapback] Tampa's in the NFC South now. It'll be interesting to see if there will be more pressure on the Vikes running game, now that Moss is gone. They could probably use a strong between-the-tackles, every-down back. Anyone know where they can get one of those?
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Tampa's in the NFC South now. It'll be interesting to see if there will be more pressure on the Vikes running game, now that Moss is gone. They could probably use a strong between-the-tackles, every-down back. Anyone know where they can get one of those? 380108[/snapback] as good as moss is -- and he's great -- the key is culpepper, an absolutely sensational player. they racked up the points when moss was out last year, as i recall. also, kleinsasser will be healthy, and he's possibly the best blocking TE in the league. they are also very strong at the majority of o-line positions. i haven't seen the WR they drafted from s. carolina, but all reports suggest he's gonna be great. unbelievably fast, strong, and polished - sorta like laverneus coles after he'd been in the league a couple of years.
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 i haven't seen the WR they drafted from s. carolina, but all reports suggest he's gonna be great. unbelievably fast, strong, and polished - sorta like laverneus coles after he'd been in the league a couple of years. 380286[/snapback] Ah, so their rookie WR is gonna be great based on published reports but JP Losman is a question mark? Got it.
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Ah, so their rookie WR is gonna be great based on published reports but JP Losman is a question mark? Got it. 380289[/snapback] what's the deal? are you trying to start some sort of posting board feud? what's the freakin' point? i bear no ill will towards you. in any event, he's not the primary guy -- burleson is -- and as you may have sussed out if you've read what i've written above, i don't regard the second receiver as the key engine of an offense. among the guys drafted up through evans last year, all of them did pretty well except for reggie williams of jax. comparing the #2 receiver with the qb is the proverbial apples-oranges thing ...
IDBillzFan Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 what's the deal? are you trying to start some sort of posting board feud? what's the freakin' point? i bear no ill will towards you. 380300[/snapback] Don't mind him. The sun hasn't set for six weeks and he's a bit fuzzy right now.
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Don't mind him. The sun hasn't set for six weeks and he's a bit fuzzy right now. 380301[/snapback] There is that.
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 what's the deal? are you trying to start some sort of posting board feud? what's the freakin' point? i bear no ill will towards you. in any event, he's not the primary guy -- burleson is -- and as you may have sussed out if you've read what i've written above, i don't regard the second receiver as the key engine of an offense. among the guys drafted up through evans last year, all of them did pretty well except for reggie williams of jax. comparing the #2 receiver with the qb is the proverbial apples-oranges thing ... 380300[/snapback] I'm sorry Dave, I'll stop asking for clarification now that I know you take things personally. Seriously, it takes all 11 men on offense to get the job done. Saying the #2 wideout isn't a key engine in an offense means you must have missed the 2003 season. That's the same as saying interior linemen can be cobbled together from the scrap heap - another factoid that Pucillo ALONE debunked in about 4 starts.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 in any event, he's not the primary guy -- burleson is -- and as you may have sussed out if you've read what i've written above, i don't regard the second receiver as the key engine of an offense. among the guys drafted up through evans last year, all of them did pretty well except for reggie williams of jax. comparing the #2 receiver with the qb is the proverbial apples-oranges thing ... So WHO is the #1 WR for the Vikes now? Burleson? The rookie? Compared to Moss these past 7 years? Thems some big shoes to fill.
AJ1 Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 A decent performance by either our QB or starting RB in a couple of the first 4 games meant an 11-5 record while playing in the toughest division in football. But let's blame the GM for those two meatheads not playing up to their pedigree. - Because it's conVENient. I really hate the offseason and the seeming short attention span theater our culture is so ripe with. 379767[/snapback] I'm really unhappy a bear missed a potentially tasty meal. I believe fatheads are a delicacy.
My Friends Call Me Tebucky Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 It doesn't really make sense that an overweight, declining run stuffer that has never anchored a good run defense without a 380 pounder at his side would be burning bridges like this. If he falls flat on his face in Minnesota and gets cut after a year or two, he would have been a great candidate to come back to Buffalo as a depth player being a fan favorite and all...oh well.
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 I'm sorry Dave, I'll stop asking for clarification now that I know you take things personally. Seriously, it takes all 11 men on offense to get the job done. Saying the #2 wideout isn't a key engine in an offense means you must have missed the 2003 season. That's the same as saying interior linemen can be cobbled together from the scrap heap - another factoid that Pucillo ALONE debunked in about 4 starts. 380306[/snapback] i'm not saying that one inept guy can't ruin an offense. what i'm saying is that there are varying levels of importance in an offense, and a qb is usually #1. in the case of the vikes -- who averaged something like 30+ points when moss was gone last year (check it on pro football reference if you're curious) -- culpepper was clearly the straw that stirred the drink. moreover, they have one of the best centers in the league and are very solid at the tackle spots. when kleinsasser -- a guy donohoe allegedly covets -- is healthy (and he's supposed to be healthy now), he's one of the best all around TEs in the game. wiggins is a lousy blocker, but as a short range receiver you'll find few who are more reliable. burleson played really well last year, and the new guy is by all accounts quite good. if he's as good as evans was last year, then the vikes are in good shape. it's a lot less of a stretch for a WR to come in and perform reasonably well than a qb, although i haven't ruled it out for losman (read through my posts - i've never predicted anything approaching failure for the guy). with regard to the #2 slot on the bills, i assume you're referring to the 03 season. that's not fair, because moulds' injury would have made him a #3 level talent on a good team. josh reed couldn't get it done, and bobby shaw was what he was -- a former 6th round possession guy who had lost a step. plus no tight ends and no fullbacks who could get open. that's hardly comparable to the vikes situation.
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Don't mind him. The sun hasn't set for six weeks and he's a bit fuzzy right now. 380301[/snapback] believe it or not, i actually do sorta know what i'm talking about ...
Recommended Posts