Why do some believe so much in TN, GB, DET etc.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

Could also be because these teams have better defenses than the Bills.

[Scraps]

I also feel a bit better about facing SD at home.  This likely Bills loss in my initial equation could even turn into a likely Bills win if Rivers has the same young Q@B struggles as many NFL QBs in their first year.

717768[/snapback]

 

What difference will that make when the best running back in the NFL is running all over our puny defensive line?

[Scraps]

Those other teams have also shown no ability to win at home either and last time I checked they all had the same record 0-0

 

This is a very different team thne what we have seen the past couple years and with new players, schemes and coaches, going off of previous seasons to evaluate how this team will be this year is not possible because alot has changed That is why Buffalo has as good of a chance of going 16-0 as the do of going 0-16

 

And I also ask the questions of if the Bills are so bad, what have the Jets, Texans, Lions, Packers, Raiders, Titans, 49ers or any other team that didn't make the playoffs do in the offseason that makes them so much better then Buffalo that they are guaranteed a win against them?????

717734[/snapback]

 

I tend to believe a team that lacks talent, got weaker personnel wise in the off season and hired a retread coach with a losing record will be much closer to 0-16 than 16-0.

[Ramius]

What difference will that make when the best running back in the NFL is running all over our puny defensive line?

717926[/snapback]

 

this comment shows you have absoltuely NO knowledge about the Cover 2/Tampa 2 Defense. Tampa's, Indy's, Chicago's "puny" d-lines do NO get run over.

[Dibs]

I tend to believe a team that lacks talent, got weaker personnel wise in the off season and hired a retread coach with a losing record will be much closer to 0-16 than 16-0.

717930[/snapback]

Um....you do realize that PG was saying we will be closer to 0-16 than 16-0 don't you?

[apuszczalowski]

I tend to believe a team that lacks talent, got weaker personnel wise in the off season and hired a retread coach with a losing record will be much closer to 0-16 than 16-0.

717930[/snapback]

I guess you are watching another team them what I'm looking at.

 

Buffalo doesn't have talent? Spikes, McGee, Clements (who had just one bad year), Evans, Willis, a top ranked Special Teams, yeah they really lack talent. Are you really that depressed Moulds is gone? Did he buy you lap dances at the 'Downer?

 

Got weaker personnel wise? TD would have been better to keep around? Mularky was just getting into his groove right? Our offence and Defencive Co-ordinators just didn't have talented players for their schemes to work, right? I will let the coaches and GM's show what they can do before I pass judgement on who was better. But in my opinion, just getting TD and MM out of Buffalo was already an improvement.

 

And yes, we have all heard it before, Jauron is a loser cause he doesn't have a winning record, so since you keep brining this up, I will bring up the same old reply, neither did a certain coach of the Patriots. Also, what coach would have had a winning record with what Jauron had to work with in Chicago and Detroit at that time. I will hold off running him out of town until I atleast see what he can do during a game. Let me guess, you were hoping for Sherman to replace MM last year, or are you Shermen still pissed the Bills passed on you for "a guy with a losing record" (who never had the luxury of a QB like Favre to lead his team).

 

I know everyone is frustrated that Buffalo has been a bad team for a while, but it will take time to get better, they weren't going to become a Super Bowl Contender over one offseason. Marv and Jauron seem to be putting the Bills back on track and building a team that will be competitive. but it will require an offseason or 2 to complete.

[Scraps]

Um....you do realize that PG was saying we will be closer to 0-16 than 16-0 don't you?

718024[/snapback]

 

Yes, but my comment was in response to apuszczalowski.

[krazykat]

Actually thank you too for a thoughtful post.

 

I agree with your general analysis and you are correct in saying that the general cliche about any given weekend and that generally this is a bad team.  it would be foolish to predict total victory on our part based on either the any given Sunday cliche or on an assessment of our team.

 

That is not at all what I am trying to do.

 

What I am trying to do is point out:

 

1. The any given Sunday maxim makes it also foolish to purport this team is going to go winless, or 1-15 and probably it is foolish to even predict 3-13.  In this league where worse to first is possible like never before, one side effect is that it is really difficult for a team to only win 3 (Houston bottomed out at 4 last year) and you have to go back to SF the year before that to find a team bottoming out at 2 as SF did that.

 

2. A look at some of the real bad opponents we are facing also makes it a huge jump to conclude that even if we agree we are bad we are going to lose to these teams. The NFL still attempts to balance the shchedule so that worse teams do not have as tough a schedule as good teams.  The schedule is weighted toward intradivisional bias and set years in advance now so this is not perfect.

 

However, this schedule does have us playing some of the worst of the worst (we cannot play ourselves, but oh well) and also gives us the benefit of playing some of the tougher non-playoff teams in our house (Jax and MN) while playing a chunk of the bad teams on the road (DET, Hou).  If we are going to beat average teams and steal games on the road this is the schedule built for that.

 

When one adds into this, that we join 3 of our division rivals in being questionable teams and even the best of the division NE shows signs of implosion, it will actually be quite surprising if the lionshare of the Bills games are not competivie this year.

 

I am not arguing that we are going to the SB (or even the playoffs nor would I even argue this team is definitely going to have a winning record).

 

I am arguing, that a simple look at where the NFL is right now in terms of producing match-ups and where with good fortune we happen to be with the match-ups we have that for anyone to argue this team is going winless, with one win or even 3-13 is pretty irrational even if one concludes this is a bad team.

 

What this post is looking for are some rational assessments of the opponents and I am getting a little of that.

 

So far, I feel worse about our prospects in Detroit (they should be favored unless Matt Millwn has made yet another bad coaching choice in Marinelli which is certainly not impossible at all given his lack of a resume and the way he bollickeds the hiring of both Morningwheg and and even a good HC like Mariucci).  Also the Moulds factor in Houston was something I had not thought about and your bringing this up gives me pause in thinking about how bad they are and whether they might catch us.

 

I do though feel a bit better about facing Chicago after reading a bit of analysis of this opponent.  I still would put this one as a probable loss for us, but I'm backing off the certainty I have of this that I would lump them in with Indy and NE on the road as definite losses.

 

I also feel a bit better about facing SD at home.  This likely Bills loss in my initial equation could even turn into a likely Bills win if Rivers has the same young Q@B struggles as many NFL QBs in their first year.

 

I pretty much agree with folks that we will not be a good team.  What I am simply pointing out is that in this league that does not necessarily mean that you are going to have a 5-11 record in this league and that actually it is quite unlikely you will not win at all or only get 1 or 2 wins.

 

Pete Rozelle is probably a very happy guy up there, because given the way his structure has played out and the vagaries of how the Fins, NYJ and NE are doing, I actually think that though making the playoffs and us going winless are incredibly unlikely, one can actually see a an odd series of events, breaks and events occuring so that we make the playoffs  as greater small probability than the small probabiliy we go winless or only have a victory or two.

717768[/snapback]

San Diego is going to score on us even in Buffalo. Gates is going to have a huge day over Fletcher with Phillips pitching.

 

As to our playing Chicago, check out how many TDs they allowed at Soldier field last season. Hint: You can count them on one hand.

 

I hear what you're saying. You're right about going winless or 1-15. It's as likely as going 15-1 or 16-0 for a really good team. But when you discuss our opponents, the assumption is first of all that we are good when we're not.

 

We have no talent really other than a few players. We don't have any talent where it counts, on the lines, and that's the difference.

 

You also seem to assume that other bad teams have only gotten worse or were in fact worse off than we were last season. We only won our games almost by mistake. The Chiefs outplayed us but lost because Green had a rare off day. Our interceptions of him weren't great defensive moves or the result of pressure, they were simply bad throws.

 

We lucked out in a Frerotte gimme fest too. The Texans in week one at home for us? We scored 1 TD and wasn't that a trick play to Peters? If we were even half good shouldn't we have been able to score a couple of normal offensive TDs in that game.

 

Green Bay only won 4 games but one was Seattle. Another Atlanta.

 

Detroit had a very tough schedule last season and lost a lot of games to playoff teams.

 

You can't just assume that we got better, which is highly questionable, and that other teams all got worse and suck more than we do. Those teams look at us the same way. Throw in the fact that we only won one road game last year, a lucky win against Cincinnati, and it just doesn't say much.

 

We haven't bolstered our lines like Minnesota and Houston have, or the Jets even.

 

It would be stupid for anyone to say that we'll go 0-16 or 1-15 but IMO we're closer to 1-15 than we are to 6-10.

 

In review, we have a questionable QB situation with no proven player there behind a line featuring two new players, maybe three depending upon camp. You need chemistry even with talent on the line. We don't have talent.

 

On our DL we have two new starters next to Kelsay who isn't good with Schobel once more trying to provide most of our pass rush.

 

Everyone's hootin' and hollerin' about our draft, but let's be real, how much are a bunch of junior DBs gonna do when our opponents don't even have to throw the ball to score 21 points?

 

Can we even score 21 points in most games? Last season we scored 21 or more points in only four games.

 

Meanwhile, our star and biggest defensive player is coming back from an injury that no one to my knowledge has ever come back from whose strength was speedd. Marino did it, but he didn't need his legs.

 

Fletcher's getting older. Villarrial's a dinosaur by NFL standards for linemen. He's not even that good to begin with. McGahee's overrated in a big way. Evans can't do it all especially if our QBs don't have time to throw. Last season our biggest success was on short throws. Is this where Evans shines? Robert Royal? What can we expect from him? More than we got from Campbell?

 

As a fan you have to hope, but at some point you have to also ask yourself what you're hoping for and what your hopes are based on.

 

Essentially we seem to be expecting a group of average players with many that would be backups on other teams, and were yet who are now starting for us, to somehow play like a veteran good football team. I just don't see it.

 

But right now, teams that were better than we were last season include all but Tennessee, Green Bay, the Jets, and Houston. Detroit was better, Minnesota was better, even Baltimore was better. Most of them have at least made some solid moves. We haven't. Most of the players that we've signed many Bills fans had never even heard of before they came to the Bills. Most were also backups elsewhere. Reyes was a starter, but only a marginal one. Fowler was a backup. Price was cut. Royal was a backup that had the dropsies. Tripplett was a backup.

 

All of a sudden they're gonna play Pro Bowl ball? Not likely. Throw in a tentative QB situation. What's Jauron gonna do if the QB he selects to start the season goes 1-4 to start with our only win over the Jets and losses to Miami, NE, and Chicago all on the road and Minnesota at home? What if the Jets beat us too? Can't happen? Why not? They at least have a QB. Their line is also better than ours in spite of maybe only marginally so.

 

By the time we play Green Bay we could easily be 1-6. And I wouldn't rule out a loss to Green Bay too. They're not good, but neither is our D. GB and Favre beat Atlanta, Detroit, and Seattle last year. Surely they can beat us. By the time we get to play Tennessee the season will be long over. Will anyone care? What if we're 2-12 by then? Will anyone be up for the game? Or will free agents like Clements and Fletcher just be looking forward to ending the season and leaving?

 

A lot of what you throw up can easily be applied to other teams and their circumstances. And teams like Green Bay will be getting a lot from AJ Hawk by the time they play us. What will we be getting from Whitner who's not even old enough to buy beer yet on a team that can't stop the run?

 

It's all gonna come to whether or not we can score though. While some fans seem to think that our line is improved, all that we have done is perform our usual backup shuffle there removing some failed formerly backup linemen with others. Will that iimprove the line? Maybe. But it could also get worse. And even if it does improve, by how much will it improve?

 

Last season we scored 17 or fewer points in 10 games. We lost 9 of those.

 

But you know what, even if we do win 5 or 6 games against teams that do happen to be worse than we are, is that a good thing? Is that anyone's expectation as a fan? Only to beat teams that suck worse than we do and hope that our schedule is full of them every season?

 

Lastly, our analysis of the season doesn't factor in any injuries. Can you imagine if Schobel goes down! Word replaces him. Or McGahee? I know he's not as good as we hoped, but he's a solid starter anyway. Or Evans. And suppose Spikes is only 50% which would be typical for that injury.

 

There are just too many questionmarks for this team to post a better record than last season. Just as PFT's ranking said, "But this organization has more question marks than the Riddler's longjohns, and for now it deserves to be regarded as the worst in the league."

 

They're right. We may not deserve 32nd, but we deserve the bottom group. At that point who wants to argue whether we should be 32nd or 28th. Not me.

[krazykat]

And yes, we have all heard it before, Jauron is a loser cause he doesn't have a winning record, so since you keep brining this up, I will bring up the same old reply, neither did a certain coach of the Patriots. Also, what coach would have had a winning record with what Jauron had to work with in Chicago and Detroit at that time.

718028[/snapback]

That's such a lame argument. Do you have any idea how many coaches had bad records that continued to have bad records even after that unlike Belichick.

 

Meawhile, all that talent you say we have we had last seaosn. What happened then. Spikes may never come back and be the player he was and that's the likely outcome with him. He's also no spring chicken and not getting any younger.

 

McGee's a returner that isn't good as a CB. We had a great return game last season and still couldn't cross the goal line. So no one's challenging the fact that he'll once again bring it in the return game. Litlte good it did us last season.

 

As to the "talent that Jauron had in Chicago," you prove your ignorance there. He had plenty contrary to the party line on that. He had quite a few Pro Bowlers over there and one of the best MLBs in the game today. He definitely had more talent than he has here. So if that's your measuring stick, yes, we're in trouble.

[Pyrite Gal]

San Diego is going to score on us even in Buffalo.  Gates is going to have a huge day over Fletcher with Phillips pitching. 

 

Most of the players that we've signed many Bills fans had never even heard of before they came to the Bills.  Most were also backups elsewhere.  Reyes was a starter, but only a marginal one.  Fowler was a backup.  Price was cut.  Royal was a backup that had the dropsies.  Tripplett was a backup. 

 

All of a sudden they're gonna play Pro Bowl ball?  Not likely.

718253[/snapback]

 

Thanks for your thoughtful and lengthy post. i will respond to a few items with the time I have before heading off for evening 7/4 activities.

 

The key point regarding how the SD game plays for us is how effective their pass game is with Rivers (I assume this is who you mean when you cite Phillips) pitching and not the simple fact we are home (a definite advantage for us but not one that in itself can cause a bad team to beat a good one).

 

In answer to a post above that cited Tomlinson running all over the Bills even if the QB is learning the game still (as normally happens for a first full year pro) Just like last year when SD missed out of the playoffs losing critical end of the season games after Brees went down, if Rivers goes through the typical young QB growing pains, this will allow opponents to put 8 in the box and limit Tomlinson's ability to run at will.

 

I think Tomlinson is a stud back who will get his yards almost regardless of how he is defensed. However, the key result is not LD's yardage total but the final score. If SD needs to run LD a few more times for his to get his 100 and several of their drives get stopped because he happens to get held to 9.5 yards in his 3 carries that series rather than producing 10.5 then SD can be be beaten. It really depends a lot on how successful their O proves to be whether they or the Bills should be favored when this game comes around. Odds are I think we will still lose, but one would be foolish to write this one off as a definite loss at this way too early point.

 

Reagarding Gates, my sense is that a Cover 2 scheme will not result in Fletcher being lined up against Gates as a defined match-up. In order to pick on Fletch in what likely will be the Bills version of the Tampa 2, then Gates woul need to run patterns into the 1/3 of the deep coverage that Fletch has split with the two safeties. A stud player like Gates (barring injury or nicks to him which cannot really be barred by a predictor for any player) will have some obvious advantages over Fletcher if he tries to take advantage of this match-up but:

 

1. In order for the Bills to have a good shot in this game, one thing that must happen is for Rivers to be experiencing the normal growing pains of a first year starter. Its possible he will not, but it is not unlikely that he will. Throwing deep routes to the TE will be a real test for Rivers and if the game rests of this happening I'm sure the Bills will take their chances on this.

 

2. Deep routes provide a chance for the Bills pass rush to do their thing. None of our 4 likly DL starters is a sack monster (yet?). However, trying to hit deeper routes which take time for the TE to lumber down the field (even a good athlete like Gates) plays to the strength of sackers Schobel and Kelsay who are high motor guys who need time to do a couple of moves to pressure the QB. Likewise Triplett and likely McCargo were chosen because they have demonstrated in real life an ability to penetrate with their first moves. Again if SD is gonna tend toward deep routes to Gates as their bread and butter the Bills will likely take this bet.

 

3. The game occuring in December has the potential for the game to be in wintry Bills weather where even good QBs have trouble throwing the deep route so again counting on Gates as your bread and butter may not be a good bet.

 

4. I do not think that the events which have occured in real life support dismissing Fletcher's pass coverage ability.

 

A. He is D captain for a reason and this reason is he knows what is going on on the field. His experience allowing him to diagnose plays before and as they happen will hold him in good stead playing centerfielder duty in a Tampa 2. My guess is that a signifcant number of pass plays into his zone will not even be thrown because the QB will see that the only chance he will have for a completion is if he throws it perfectly and Gates wins the jump ball with Fletcher. If Rivers has already shown that his throws as he learns are not perfect it will eliminate Gates as a target.

 

B. Fletcher is shorter than the norm for an LB, but he covers ground well and has a high motot as seen by his accumulated tackle numbers over the last5 seasons. Again the switch to a Tampa 2 plays toward his game.

 

C. It is also proven that Fletcher judges and handles the ball extremely well in flight. This is seen in his routine and flawless on his part usage by the Bills as a short kick return guy. Though I wish he was a couple of inches taller, I have no fear of Fletcher judging the ball and laying a little body on the player he is competing with in a jump ball situation

 

I simply do not see Gates or any other TE repetitively picking on Fketcher all game going into his deep zone in a Tampa 2. The Bills will probably love it if that is the opponents strategy. The key is whether you have belief in Rivers or not. If his first full year looks like Roethlisburger SD has a good shot (though the main use of Gates would be to provide a threat so the bills cannot line up 8 in the box to stop LD) but if it looks like Eli Manning's then the Bills should do quite well.

 

Also, what my original post was looking for was why folks had such confidence in Matt Millen and Marinelli finally getting it right in Deroit (there are few signs they will after his Morningwheg misassement and Mariucci managling). However, I think your judgment of what the Bils acquisitions bring to the table do not accord to the facts so I will note them.

 

 

 

Reyes was a starter, but only a marginal one. - I think that Reyes rather than being a marginal starter, the evidence indicates he was a solid one. NC was ready to go with Evan Mathis at RG last year and if Reyes had been marginal they would have done so. Because Reyes was a solid starter than the running game was productive with him and Delhomme could chuck the ball with him protecting they did not make the switch. The big difference this off-season was that Reyes was an FA and it made no sense for NC to pay him starter money when they were prepared to go with Mathis. i think there are few objective signs he was marginal and this view does not line up with the facts of assessing him.

 

 

Fowler was a backup. - Yes, he was a back-up, but he was a back-up to Withrow (who backed up multiple Pro Bowler Birk who got IR'ed). The Vikes wanted to start Withrow because he was drafted by them and he practiced as a back-up in their system for several years. Yet, the ike lost 3 of 4 games with Withrow and Fowler beat him out. Fowler not only kept the job for 9 games until an injury knocked him out of the line-up, but production in terms of W/L improved for the Vikes with Fowler snapping to Culpepper and they even pulled off a six game winning streak with Fowler snapping to Johnson.

 

It was Johnson's quick release (which also improved the play of OL players like McKinnie) that had more to do with the Ws than Fowler's play. However, one cannot simply ignore the facts that the game results with Fiwker were better after he started (with either QB than the guy he backed up for) nor ignore the fact that the run game not only improved with Fowler playing in the Vikes, but that he was also productive blocking for Suggs in CLE.

 

Like Reyes, Fowler was available because the Vikes clearly (and correctly) were gonna go with Birk at C now that he has healed and they were not gonna pay Fowler the starter money the market was going to give him after his good play in 2005. Fowler has a couple of questions to answered:

 

A, Can he start a full 16 at C as he has never done this before and he ended his good play last year with an injury.

B. To what extent has he twice been on the market because better players were available to the team which had him like Burk (losing out to one of the best Cs in the game does not make one a bad player) or Faine in CLE (I was hoping the Bills would draft him).

 

However, merely descriving him as a back-up is essentially inaccurate as it does not take into account the full facts that happened last year.

 

Price was cut. - Yep he was cut. However, AT correctly cut him because the contract he signed paid him to be a #1 WR when he was not capable of that production to be a #1. We are going to use him as a #2 (a role he has performed at in real life) and actually can even use him well if he is only good enough now to be a #3 as we will get his speed and his rep in 3 WRs sets.

 

One could attempt to ignore this reality if all one chose to consider was that he was cut by Dallas. However, even using this to dismiss PP calls for ignoring the fact that he was not going to beat out #1 producing WRs Glenn and TO and that the market certainly judged PP as being worth more than the #3 or 4 role Dallas could give him.

 

Assumng his eyesight and health are good, the Bills having him as their #2 (or 3 if Parrish steps up) is a good bet for the Bills to make if our docs proves as good as they were assessing WM's health.

 

 

Royal was a backup that had the dropsies. - My understanding is that Joe Guibbs and the Skins' had Royal penciled in as their starter at TE playing a pass blocking role. This is how we plan to use him in our O. He clearly is no Gonzalez, but A: no Gonzeles was available to us and B: I have enough concerns about our OL last year that emphasizing blocking skill from our TE makes a lot of sense to me. Particularly if the TE can make good seal blocks and allow the WM stiff arm to come back, using Royal is fine with me. I have not heard a lot of concern about any Royal droppsies because we have no plans to utilize him to make our O productive as a safety valve. In fact, we appear to be planning to use WM in the Marshall Faulk role (though he shows no signs of being as productive receiver as he has been a runner in terms of yards gained, but we are not looking for an all world receiver yet). I see little reality that your Royak concrns are based on. He and Everett represent a pretty clear upgrade for us at TE where Campbell and Euhus were both coming off of major knee inuries and delivered the inconsistent performance consistent with that.

 

Tripplett was a backup. - Again merely labeling him a back-up does not describe the reality of the situation. The Bills paid Triplett a salary in accordance with what the market dictated based on his play. For IN, he was a central player in there DL rotation who commanded a signficiant number of minutes and a number of game starts last year based on their judgments of the match-ups involved.

 

His sack and tackle production numbers last year support the conventional wisdom that he is an active player who started or did not start by match up choice rather than by talent level. Merely dismissing him as a back-up is a mistake in assessment.

[Acantha]

When did this turn into a congressional hearing?

[Bflojohn]

This is the simple solution to the "dilemma" (A joy for me!!) of having to watch the Buffalo Bills in 2006, at least for some of you.... Are the players giving everything they have? I think that this squad will be VERY competitive against this particular schedule. Do we see young players maturing under the guidance of this coaching staff? I believe that Losman and Peters and Anderson and King and Preston among all the others will make noticable improvements to their games. Will the outlook for 2007 be better than this year? I'd say that the purge of overpriced veterans will continue next offseason ( Vincent and Villarrial come to mind) and less dead cap space will enable the Bills to make a quantum leap in expectation by way of free agency. Finally, are the Bills forging a tough minded group of young, hungry players who yearn to be great? Let Jauron and his staff answer this question by way of proving the point. Getting there is a lot of fun guys and gals.... the mid 80's taught me that....

[Scraps]

Thanks for your thoughtful and lengthy post.  i will respond to a few items with the time I have before heading off for evening 7/4 activities.

 

The key point regarding how the SD game plays for us is how effective their pass game is with Rivers (I assume this is who you mean when you cite Phillips) pitching and not the simple fact we are home (a definite advantage for us but not one that in itself can cause a bad team to beat a good one).

 

In answer to a post above that cited Tomlinson running all over the Bills even if the QB is learning the game still (as normally happens for a first full year pro)  Just like last year when SD missed out of the playoffs losing critical end of the season games after Brees went down, if Rivers goes through the typical young QB growing pains, this will allow opponents to put 8 in the box and limit Tomlinson's ability to run at will.

 

I think Tomlinson is a stud back who will get his yards almost regardless of how he is  defensed. However, the key result is not LD's yardage total but the final score.  If SD needs to run LD a few more times for his to get his 100 and several of their drives get stopped because he happens to get held to 9.5 yards in his 3 carries that series rather than producing 10.5 then SD can be be beaten.  It really depends a lot on how successful their O proves to be whether they or the Bills should be favored when this game comes around.  Odds are I think we will still lose, but one would be foolish to write this one off as a definite loss at this way too early point.

718310[/snapback]

 

In other words, you agree with everyone your arguing with.