San-O Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 We beat Hoston, but lost to New Orleans. What does it all mean? I DON"T KNOW!!!! I think we are a good 6 - 10 team, but definitely not a 8 - 8 team.
jarthur31 Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 I think they suck. Truly. And the real problems aren't being addresses at all. I see a major overhaul next year. That means bye bye to Spikes, Fletcher, Adams, Vincent, Milloy, Nate, and Shoebel. We need to bring players who want to play here. The first 4 picks better address that pathetic O-line.
San-O Posted November 21, 2005 Author Posted November 21, 2005 I think they suck. Truly. And the real problems aren't being addresses at all. I see a major overhaul next year. That means bye bye to Spikes, Fletcher, Adams, Vincent, Milloy, Nate, and Shoebel. We need to bring players who want to play here. The first 4 picks better address that pathetic O-line. 508605[/snapback] I'm pretty sure they suck too, but quit calling me TRULY!
Mikie2times Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 I think they suck. Truly. And the real problems aren't being addresses at all. I see a major overhaul next year. That means bye bye to Spikes, Fletcher, Adams, Vincent, Milloy, Nate, and Shoebel. We need to bring players who want to play here. The first 4 picks better address that pathetic O-line. 508605[/snapback] I think a little of this is just frustration from the loss, because if your being realistic that won't happen. This is how these players probably pan out in 2006, this isn't what I necessarily want to happen, but it's what I think will happen. Staying Spikes, Fletcher, Schobel, Milloy Regardless of how you feel about these guys all four will probably be back next year. TD is not that drastic of a GM, and these players are in workable contract years. Spikes will be given a chance to return from injury, and Schobel will still finish top 10 in Sacks. While London’s very Zach Thomas like this year, he just needs some DT's keeping blockers off him. Milloy isn't great in coverage, but given how we played without him in 2004 I'm just not sure he gets let go. All these guys are high profile guys, with cap hits we expected to have for next year. Going Nate and Adams Nate figures to be gone, and probably Adams, one for cap reasons and FA and the other for irreconcilable differences. We have a ton of needs, and options exist via the draft and FA to replace these players. Despite today Nate is still a great corner, and will be missed, but other areas are much more desperate for that cap space. Adams just plays to inconsistently, focus in on him and it’s obvious. He takes 80% of the plays off, then on the other 20% shows you why it's impossible to block him, but that’s only when he is motivated. Right now he simply doesn't show the interest, and as his playing time dwindles so will his career with Buffalo. Who Knows Vincent Vincent could be gone if TD feels like he can get more athletic and natural at the position. What Vincent does have going for him with Teflon is he was a recent signing, and fairly high profile. In addition he did just make a position change not to long ago, and many other CB's made the effective switch to FS at even older ages. For those reason I would be surprised but not shocked if Vincent departed next season. By the way Jarthur I was going to make a post on the status of some of these guys for next year but you beat me to it. I hope that explains the FFS like length.
Buftex Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 I think they suck. Truly. And the real problems aren't being addresses at all. I see a major overhaul next year. That means bye bye to Spikes, Fletcher, Adams, Vincent, Milloy, Nate, and Shoebel. We need to bring players who want to play here. The first 4 picks better address that pathetic O-line. 508605[/snapback] I think Spikes and Schoebel will be back. I also don't think Vincent has played near as poorly as some here seem to feel. He may very well decide to retire. The rest could very well be gone....I know you are frustrated, but I don't really get the feeling that none of these guys really want to be in Buffalo (which I think you are implying). Maybe not Adams at this point. I don't really see a lack of effort on the defense (except for Clements from time to time), just a unit that is weak in key areas, and is being outcoached (or is it un-coached?). I agree, overall, however, the defense could use an infusion of youth... This team just cannot play well on the road, particularly the West Coast, aganst decent teams. They are much better at home...even at the begining of the season, when my hopes were fairly high for this team, I had the Chargers game penciled in as a "definite loss".
inkman Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 We beat Hoston, but lost to New Orleans. What does it all mean? I DON"T KNOW!!!! I think we are a good 6 - 10 team, but definitely not a 8 - 8 team. 508604[/snapback] I think the fundamental problem with your statement is that you felt as if the Bills are "rated", if you will. I believe most people posting on this board with half a brain know that they weren't very good to begin with. Average home team, league's worst road team.
Spiderweb Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 I'm pretty sure they suck too, but quit calling me TRULY! 508608[/snapback] Ah, nothing like recycled "Airplane/Leslie Nielsen" humor.....
mravenger Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 The bottom line is this team needs to be set out with the trash any team that gets whipped like yesterday is pathetic, we looked worse than the 2002 Bungles and look what they are like now!
Recommended Posts