Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 I am bitterly reminded of just how BAD the Bills are. And I furhtermore have more feelings of abject hatred toward Tom Donahoe. If Simon is to be believed, he "built" this Steeler team that is just B word-slapping Cincinatti. He must have been asleep at the wheel in Buffalo. That's the only explanation. Here's to hoping the octogenarian brigade can turn things around. We're starting to resemble the Bungles of old.
jester43 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 it's absurd to say he "built" the team that's playing today. he built the team that almost beat dallas in the 96 superbowl...i'll give him credit for that. but i think cowher deserves maybe just a LITTLE credit for his TENTH playoff appearance in 14 years. and yeah the bills suck, but did you realize that 5 of the 6 nfc playoff teams won between 5 and 7 games last year? the talent margin in the nfl is slim. you're never as far away as you think.
MDH Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 and yeah the bills suck, but did you realize that 5 of the 6 nfc playoff teams won between 5 and 7 games last year? the talent margin in the nfl is slim. you're never as far away as you think. 559386[/snapback] Unfortunately we're not in the NFC.
jester43 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 how many games did cinci and jacksonville win last year? that is the MAJORITY of this years playoff teams losing more than they won last year. i am as jaded as the next guy (with the possible exception of joe), but i think the evidence is pretty clear that losing teams CAN turn it around quick in this league.
jester43 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 how many games did cinci and jacksonville win last year? that is the MAJORITY of this years playoff teams losing more than they won last year. i am as jaded as the next guy (with the possible exception of joe), but i think the evidence is pretty clear that losing teams CAN turn it around quick in this league. 559390[/snapback] forget it...i see they were 8-8 and 9-7 last year. forget what i said before....the bills suck and they're doomed forever.
KD in CA Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 forget what i said before....the bills suck and they're doomed forever. 559392[/snapback] Nice to see you getting with the program finally.
zow2 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Watching the playoffs I'm once again reminded that winning teams: ...use gadget plays anywhere on the field no matter down or distance ....pass on critical 3rd and very short yardage plays ....pass on 1st and goal from in close ....throw 4 yard passes on 3rd and 10 Basically the winning teams do the same stuff that the Bills get criticized for every week.
Alaska Darin Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Watching the playoffs I'm once again reminded that winning teams:...use gadget plays anywhere on the field no matter down or distance ....pass on critical 3rd and very short yardage plays ....pass on 1st and goal from in close ....throw 4 yard passes on 3rd and 10 Basically the winning teams do the same stuff that the Bills get criticized for every week. 559398[/snapback] The difference is they are successful no matter what the play selection is. The Steelers are able to execute trick plays because teams fear their running game first and foremost. They also pick up short yardage with ease.
Kultarr Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 The difference is they are success no matter what the play selection is. The Steelers are able to execute trick plays because teams fear their running game first and foremost. They also pick up short yardage with ease. 559410[/snapback] Yeah. It helps when the team can execute the basic stuff.
Bill from NYC Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 The difference is they are success no matter what the play selection is. The Steelers are able to execute trick plays because teams fear their running game first and foremost. They also pick up short yardage with ease. 559410[/snapback] Exactly. The Bills are weak and cannot play fundamental football. They are unable to block nor tackle up front, and their young quarterback scares nobody, nor does their old one. We are simply overpowered, week after week. Teams are able to beat us by ramming the football down our throats on the ground. If this fails, they simply wait for 3rd and long and complete passes at their will. None of this will change until the philosophy of the organization takes a different approach to buiding a football team. This year, there seems to be a glut of good blockers available in the draft. Whether or not we select them will serve to determine our future. This mess could be turned around in 2 years imo, or never if the necessary steps are not taken.
East Brady Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 forget it...i see they were 8-8 and 9-7 last year. forget what i said before....the bills suck and they're doomed forever. 559392[/snapback] Holy smokes, it took you an hour of hard thinking to figure that out?
oregonbbfan Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Anyone else pick-up on the fact that both New England and Carolina who we had statistically in our game, on the ropes and couldn't put them away both won convincingly. The other, Cinci. we beat with their #1 QB, didn't do as well but was in the playoffs and might have faired better with Palmer. We have some talent when our game plan is good and takes advantage our players and exploits theirs. That's what bugs me. So what gives me hope is with Marv, some tweeking of personnel and better conditioning we can turn it around.
zow2 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 The difference is they are successful no matter what the play selection is. The Steelers are able to execute trick plays because teams fear their running game first and foremost. They also pick up short yardage with ease. 559410[/snapback] No, they are not always successful. Are you watching any of the games?!? Gruden goes for a crucial 4th and half a yard from the Redskins 19 and decides to do a pass out to the flats instead of ramming it up the middle. The 'Skins had it perfectly defended. Bettis tries to do a halfback option from inside the Bengals 10 and bumbles it instead of hitting a wide open man. These are just 2 examples. My point is that when the BIlls try a gadget play here or there people go nuts, but sometimes you have to be innovative to get the ball in the endzone or get a 1st down.
Mark VI Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 The difference is they are successful no matter what the play selection is. The Steelers are able to execute trick plays because teams fear their running game first and foremost. They also pick up short yardage with ease. 559410[/snapback] I only hope Marv can club this into Prancers 14 point melon.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 9, 2006 Author Posted January 9, 2006 The difference is they are successful no matter what the play selection is. The Steelers are able to execute trick plays because teams fear their running game first and foremost. They also pick up short yardage with ease. 559410[/snapback] Exactly. And they're physically dominant. Roethlisberger passed only 19 times in that game, I think, and 3 of those passes were for touchdowns. Furhter proof that if you RUN THE DAMN BALL, good thing happen.
Fezmid Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 No, they are not always successful. Are you watching any of the games?!? Gruden goes for a crucial 4th and half a yard from the Redskins 19 and decides to do a pass out to the flats instead of ramming it up the middle. The 'Skins had it perfectly defended. Bettis tries to do a halfback option from inside the Bengals 10 and bumbles it instead of hitting a wide open man. These are just 2 examples. My point is that when the BIlls try a gadget play here or there people go nuts, but sometimes you have to be innovative to get the ball in the endzone or get a 1st down. 559695[/snapback] Another example - Pittsburgh attempted a WR pass play on 2nd and goal (?) from the 3. The receiver nearly lost 20 yards on the play, but managed to throw it away at the very last millisecond. CW
zow2 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Roethlisberger passed only 19 times in that game, I think, and 3 of those passes were for touchdowns. Furhter proof that if you RUN THE DAMN BALL, good thing happen. 559700[/snapback] And Roethlisberger is incredibly poised and accurate...and i will never forgive TD for not leapfrogging Pittsburgh in that draft to grab Big Ben (I'm not arm-chair quarterbacking here, at the time, i was screaming for TD to make Houston an offer they can't refuse to get that spot in front of Pittsburgh). Ben has that rare "feel for the game" that so many young QB's lack. He's a big reason that Pittsburgh's running game is successful and they churn out 3rd down conversions on offense.
plenzmd1 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Anyone else pick-up on the fact that both New England and Carolina who we had statistically in our game, on the ropes and couldn't put them away both won convincingly. The other, Cinci. we beat with their #1 QB, didn't do as well but was in the playoffs and might have faired better with Palmer. We have some talent when our game plan is good and takes advantage our players and exploits theirs. That's what bugs me. So what gives me hope is with Marv, some tweeking of personnel and better conditioning we can turn it around. 559501[/snapback] This was my thought more than the original pony of the thread. Some of these teams looked god awful, and I was thinking, Lordy, how in the hell did they make the playoffs, they suck. And that includes a team that won, the Redskins. The friggen NFL, outside of the the elite 4 teams or so, is really a crap shoot
Simon Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Watching the playoffs... I am bitterly reminded of just how BAD the Bills are. Did you see that pathetic "effort" from the Jags? Did you watch the Giants putrid performacne at home? Did you see the Bengals struggling when they lost a single starter from their line-up? A remotely healthy Buffalo team would have likely played a superior game to any of those pretenders. How on Earth could those awful exhibitions have made any rational individual lower their opinion of the Bills? If Simon is to be believed, he "built" this Steeler team that is just B word-slapping Cincinatti. You don't have to believe me. Just look for yourself at their roster and you'll find the heart and soul of that team is comprised of guys like: HWard (1 TD) JBettis (1 TD) K Von Oelhoffen (knocked CPalmer out) JPorter (their best LB) A Smith (their best DE) A Faneca (thier best OLineman) D Townsend (their best corner) You could also add solid starters like Danny Kreider, Marvel Smith, Jerame Tuman, Clark Haggans, etc. That's 11 guys right there which is almost half their starters and most of the best players on their team a full 5 years after Donahoe left. While you're at it you can even take a peek on the sidelines and see two head coaches who were also hired by Donahoe. But don't believe my fool ass, go to nfl.com, pull up a Stillers roster and believe your own eyes. And I furhtermore have more feelings of abject hatred toward Tom Donahoe..... He must have been asleep at the wheel in Buffalo. That's the only explanation. Yes, because a simple operation like building a football team has so few variables that the predicatable results could certainly only have a single explanation. Maybe you ought to try examining things with a little more depth, eh?
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 I am reminded that the first NFL playoff weekend removes the frauds of the season.
Recommended Posts