2006 Prediction

[Dwight Drane]

9-7

 

The biggest psychological phenomenon when it comes to valuation of an object in which emotion is involved is the "double-overreaction". This can happen in the stock market, real estate, and even covering sports. People tend to latch on to something positive, overstate both it's actual effect and potential, and then run wild with it as others do the same. Only when the valuation is proven to be inflated and never attained in reality do people realize their previous mistake. In a psychological coverup, these same people "cover their mental @ss" and devaluate this same object to such a low point, that it actually becomes a great bargain. Thus we have our beloved Buffalo Bills.

 

1) Mularkey was almost worthless as a leader and is gone

2) Defensive core is still here from 2 years ago

3) Quantity, not quality in skill players, much like Sabres

 

 

This Defense really only has questions on the line, and I believe that Jauron can minimize their weakness, if they even have one. If Triplett and McCargo can play solid ball, we are again a top5-10 defense.

 

Other than McGahee, the offense is pretty much a bunch of guys. If the coaching staff can make Willis shove his ego up his rear and make him play team ball, they have a shot at playing with Chemistry.

[stuckincincy]

9-7

 

The biggest psychological phenomenon when it comes to valuation of an object in which emotion is involved is the "double-overreaction". This can happen in the stock market, real estate, and even covering sports. People tend to latch on to something positive, overstate both it's actual effect and potential, and then run wild with it as others do the same. Only when the valuation is proven to be inflated and never attained in reality do people realize their previous mistake. In a psychological coverup, these same people "cover their mental @ss" and devaluate this same object to such a low point, that it actually becomes a great bargain.

732048[/snapback]

 

You have a great future selling Japanese cars.

[Chalkie Gerzowski]

Unfortunately I see 5-11, 6-10.

 

 

For some reason I see hanging with New England again (away/opener), like last year, then losing in the 4th quarter again.

 

@ NE 23-34 0-1

 

@ MIA 17-26 0-2

 

vs NYJ 27-17 1-2

 

vs MIN 13-24 1-3

 

@ CHI 6-34 1-4

 

@ DET 30-24 2-4

 

vs NE 17-26 2-5

 

vs GB 37-31 3-5

 

@ IND 3-44 3-6

 

@ HOU 17-23 OT 3-7

 

vs JAX 24-21 4-7

 

vs SD 19-27 4-8

 

@ NYJ 22-17 5-8

 

vs MIA 17-27 5-9

 

vs TEN 30-17 6-9

 

@ BAL 10-33 6-10

[Dwight Drane]

You have a great future selling Japanese cars.

732055[/snapback]

 

I find your choice of smileys, racist!

 

 

I'm not predicting SuperBowl, I just know they have 85% of a great D from '04 still intact...while the LB's are a little slower, the CB's are entering their prime.

 

I predicted 6-10 before last year because I saw Donahoe for the suit he was. We are by no means a favorite, but if Jauron can get the most out of these guys, the games in December might mean something. At this point, that is all we can ask for.

[BuffOrange]

9-7

 

The biggest psychological phenomenon when it comes to valuation of an object in which emotion is involved is the "double-overreaction". This can happen in the stock market, real estate, and even covering sports. People tend to latch on to something positive, overstate both it's actual effect and potential, and then run wild with it as others do the same. Only when the valuation is proven to be inflated and never attained in reality do people realize their previous mistake. In a psychological coverup, these same people "cover their mental @ss" and devaluate this same object to such a low point, that it actually becomes a great bargain. Thus we have our beloved Buffalo Bills.

 

Good point. This is why Vegas is smart too. During the season, average fan looks at the previous 2 weeks and thinks "OMG how are the Bills favored over the Rams? Bet the mortgage" They don't take into account desparation, intangibles, homefield, Mike Martz on the road, etc. 2 points wasn't nearly enough as that game in 2004 was my lock of the season. Both Dallas-Philly games last year were good examples as well. Dallas destroyed Philly and Joe Gambler in Game 1. In Game 2 Joe Gambler lucked out when Roy Williams picked off a McNabb floater after Philly dominated the entire game.

 

1) Mularkey was almost worthless as a leader and is gone

2) Defensive core is still here from 2 years ago

3) Quantity, not quality in skill players, much like Sabres

This Defense really only has questions on the line, and I believe that Jauron can minimize their weakness, if they even have one. If Triplett and McCargo can play solid ball, we are again a top5-10 defense.

 

This part is a matter of perception and this is also where I disagree. You think people undervalue these things. I would say "Mularkey being gone" falls under your previously mentioned "inflating and overstating the positive" category. It is the third time in six years Bills fans on the internet have thought a coaching change meant 3 more automatic wins. We know how the previous two instances turned out. It sounds good to say Jauron's experience makes this instance different, but remember for every Bill Bellicheck there are about a half dozen Dave Wandsteadt's. You're right about #2 and hopefully the defense will return to '04 form.

 

Other than McGahee, the offense is pretty much a bunch of guys. If the coaching staff can make Willis shove his ego up his rear and make him play team ball, they have a shot at playing with Chemistry.

732048[/snapback]

 

I agree, Willis needs to play harder. Keep in mind we had a top 5 defense and a bunch of guys on offense in 2003 and in 1997 and we lost 10 games each year. The offense as per usual will be the key to this team's success IMO.

[Phlegm Alley]

9-7

 

The biggest psychological phenomenon when it comes to valuation of an object in which emotion is involved is the "double-overreaction". This can happen in the stock market, real estate, and even covering sports. People tend to latch on to something positive, overstate both it's actual effect and potential, and then run wild with it as others do the same. Only when the valuation is proven to be inflated and never attained in reality do people realize their previous mistake. In a psychological coverup, these same people "cover their mental @ss" and devaluate this same object to such a low point, that it actually becomes a great bargain. Thus we have our beloved Buffalo Bills.

 

1) Mularkey was almost worthless as a leader and is gone

2) Defensive core is still here from 2 years ago

3) Quantity, not quality in skill players, much like Sabres

This Defense really only has questions on the line, and I believe that Jauron can minimize their weakness, if they even have one. If Triplett and McCargo can play solid ball, we are again a top5-10 defense.

 

Other than McGahee, the offense is pretty much a bunch of guys. If the coaching staff can make Willis shove his ego up his rear and make him play team ball, they have a shot at playing with Chemistry.

732048[/snapback]

 

1) I agree that Meathead lost control of the ship and the inmates ended up running tha asylum and running him out of the HC job. Maybe DJ can right that ship, and provide a leadership role from the HC position, something that MM was unable to do because of his lack of coaching experience. Does this equate to more wins? I think it can't hurt to have a HC with previous coaching experience who is considered to be a "player's coach". Getting your players to show up everyday and buy into what your selling, is a great way to start.

 

Which leads to your second point...

 

2) We have retained a good majority of our #2 ranked defense from a couple of years ago, and maybe (emphasis on maybe) we filled the tremendous void that was created with the Pat WIlliams departure with the 3 headed monster of Triplett/McCargo/Kyle Williams. The remainder of the players from the #2 defense of 2 years ago will have to learn a whole new defense in the Tampa Cover 2. It usually takes time to adhere to a new scheme, not only from a player's perspective, but also from a coaching perspective. Marv and Co. have begun to bring in players that fit their scheme. I think it will take more time than a season in order to run the scheme efficiently, and another offseason to bring in the personnel that fits into your defensive Tampa Cover 2 scheme. Another unknown variable to that #2 defense depends on how much the heart and soul of that defense, Takeo, returns to his natural form.

 

3) We do have pretty good depth in the skill positions, but there are players who seem to have a ton of potential, but have yet to prove themselves. Can LE step up and become a #1 reciever? Who is going to be our #2, PP or JR? Can WM step up and be the "best RB in the league"? Is JP going to mature, be a leader on this young offense, and silence the critics and prove that he CAN be a franchise QB? While we have a lot of "quantity" at the skill positions, we also have a lot of question marks as well.

 

The Sabres are a good analogy, and I think that this team could surprise a lot of people, but I don't think it will happen until later in the season when the team shows they have learned the system, and show cohesion not only on the field with each other, but with the coaching staff and front office as well.

[Orton's Arm]

2) Defensive core is still here from 2 years ago

Good point about the double overreaction. But I'll take issue with this point. Look at the defense of 2004:

 

2004 DE: Kelsay/Denny. Present: still here, but so what?

2004 DT: a very effective Sam Adams. Present: Gone.

2004 DT: Pat Williams. Present: Gone.

2004 DE: Schobel. Present: still here.

2004 OLB: Jeff Posey. Present: still here, and upgraded by Crowell.

2004 LB: London Fletcher. Present: still here, but getting a little older

2004 OLB: Takeo Spikes. Present: same player, but will likely be slowed by injury.

2004 SS: Lawyer Milloy. Present: Gone, replaced by a rookie.

2004 FS: Troy Vincent. Present: Still here, but older and slower.

2004 CB: Nate Clements. Present: Still here, but will he be as good as he was in 2004, or as bad as in 2005?

2004 CB: Terrence McGee. Present: Still here.

 

Aaron Schobel and Terrence McGee are good players from 2004 who are likely to provide the same level of play in 2006. Everyone else from 2004 either wasn't very good to begin with, or isn't likely to play at the same level this year as he did in 2004.

[Swift Sylvan]

Good point about the double overreaction.  But I'll take issue with this point.  Look at the defense of 2004:

 

2004 DE: Kelsay/Denny.  Present: still here, but so what?

2004 DT: a very effective Sam Adams.  Present: Gone.

2004 DT: Pat Williams.  Present: Gone.

2004 DE: Schobel.  Present: still here.

2004 OLB: Jeff Posey.  Present: still here, and upgraded by Crowell.

2004 LB: London Fletcher.  Present: still here, but getting a little older

2004 OLB: Takeo Spikes.  Present: same player, but will likely be slowed by injury.

2004 SS: Lawyer Milloy.  Present: Gone, replaced by a rookie.

2004 FS: Troy Vincent.  Present: Still here, but older and slower.

2004 CB: Nate Clements.  Present: Still here, but will he be as good as he was in 2004, or as bad as in 2005?

2004 CB: Terrence McGee.  Present: Still here.

 

Aaron Schobel and Terrence McGee are good players from 2004 who are likely to provide the same level of play in 2006.  Everyone else from 2004 either wasn't very good to begin with, or isn't likely to play at the same level this year as he did in 2004.

732165[/snapback]

 

However, If TKO, London, Nate and Troy perform at 90% of what they did in 04 they will still be well above average. Crowell is a + as you said, it seems like the question comes down to the trenches.

[Orton's Arm]

However, If TKO, London, Nate and Troy perform at 90% of what they did in 04 they will still be well above average.

Welcome to the boards! Asking Troy to play at 90% of what he did in 2004 may be a little much, because of his age. As for Spikes, I'm a lot more concerned about that injury than most people on these boards. Bryce Paup was a better linebacker than Spikes in his prime. But after Paup's injury, he was only a shadow of his former self. Then there was Sam Cowart, a player who was about the equal of Spikes. At least before Cowart's devastating injury; one which he never fully recovered from. I've heard the logic that even if Spikes only comes back 90%, he'd still be better than most starting LBs in the league. But post-injury, Paup and Cowart were below average for starters.

[Swift Sylvan]

Welcome to the boards!  Asking Troy to play at 90% of what he did in 2004 may be a little much, because of his age.  As for Spikes, I'm a lot more concerned about that injury than most people on these boards.  Bryce Paup was a better linebacker than Spikes in his prime.  But after Paup's injury, he was only a shadow of his former self.  Then there was Sam Cowart, a player who was about the equal of Spikes.  At least before Cowart's devastating injury; one which he never fully recovered from.  I've heard the logic that even if Spikes only comes back 90%, he'd still be better than most starting LBs in the league.  But post-injury, Paup and Cowart were below average for starters.

732519[/snapback]

 

Ideally, with Crowell and Fletcher, we wouldn't need Spikes to be what he used to be, however, I see your point. The next question I have for you then, is how much emphasis can we put on Spikes being back as the emotional leader. Psychologically, how important is it to have him back in there pushing our D to lock down on those third down plays, assuming that his presence will help.

[BuffOrange]

Welcome to the boards!  Asking Troy to play at 90% of what he did in 2004 may be a little much, because of his age.  As for Spikes, I'm a lot more concerned about that injury than most people on these boards.  Bryce Paup was a better linebacker than Spikes in his prime.  But after Paup's injury, he was only a shadow of his former self.  Then there was Sam Cowart, a player who was about the equal of Spikes.  At least before Cowart's devastating injury; one which he never fully recovered from.  I've heard the logic that even if Spikes only comes back 90%, he'd still be better than most starting LBs in the league.  But post-injury, Paup and Cowart were below average for starters.

732519[/snapback]

 

I think your posts are just about always dead on, but WTF? In their primes I'd rank both Spikes & Cowart ahead of Paup. If you take away one season (1995) Paup was just a solid player on par with maybe Daryl Talley.

[Kelly the Dog]

Good point about the double overreaction.  But I'll take issue with this point.  Look at the defense of 2004:

 

2004 DE: Kelsay/Denny.  Present: still here, but so what?

2004 DT: a very effective Sam Adams.  Present: Gone.

2004 DT: Pat Williams.  Present: Gone.

2004 DE: Schobel.  Present: still here.

2004 OLB: Jeff Posey.  Present: still here, and upgraded by Crowell.

2004 LB: London Fletcher.  Present: still here, but getting a little older

2004 OLB: Takeo Spikes.  Present: same player, but will likely be slowed by injury.

2004 SS: Lawyer Milloy.  Present: Gone, replaced by a rookie.

2004 FS: Troy Vincent.  Present: Still here, but older and slower.

2004 CB: Nate Clements.  Present: Still here, but will he be as good as he was in 2004, or as bad as in 2005?

2004 CB: Terrence McGee.  Present: Still here.

 

Aaron Schobel and Terrence McGee are good players from 2004 who are likely to provide the same level of play in 2006.  Everyone else from 2004 either wasn't very good to begin with, or isn't likely to play at the same level this year as he did in 2004.

732165[/snapback]

Denney is significantly better now than he was in 2004.

Schobel is significantly better now than he was in 2004.

McGee is light years ahead of what he was in 2004.

There is almost no chance Nate is as bad this year as last.

Vincent barely played half the year in 2004 and the first few games were at CB.

Fletcher's play has increased on a yearly basis not decreased.

[Dibs]

2004 DE: Kelsay/Denny.  Present: still here, but so what?

2004 DT: a very effective Sam Adams.  Present: Gone.

2004 DT: Pat Williams.  Present: Gone.

2004 DE: Schobel.  Present: seemed to regress a bit in 2004, improved in 2005...should play better than 2004.

2004 OLB: Jeff Posey.  Present: still here, and upgraded by Crowell.

2004 LB: London Fletcher.  Present: Last year was better for him(statistically) than 2004.  He is only in his 9th year....some players last longer than others.

2004 OLB: Takeo Spikes.  Present: same player, but will likely be slowed by injury.

2004 SS: Lawyer Milloy.  Present: Gone, replaced by a rookie...who should be an improvement....we never got top play out of Milloy anyway.

2004 FS: Troy Vincent.  Only played 7 injured games in 2004 should be an improvement over that year.

2004 CB: Nate Clements.  Present: Still here, but will he be as good as he was in 2004, or as bad as in 2005?

2004 CB: Terrence McGee. Vastly improved over 2004

732519[/snapback]

I count that as 6 improvements and only 4...(what's the opposite of improvement? )....4 that are potentially worse.

 

This could easily be a top 10 Defence.

[Bill from NYC]

As for Spikes, I'm a lot more concerned about that injury than most people on these boards.  Bryce Paup was a better linebacker than Spikes in his prime.  But after Paup's injury, he was only a shadow of his former self. 

732519[/snapback]

 

I really like talking about stuff like this!

 

For one thing, Bryce tore his groing muscle as I recall. Isn't this worse than a knee? I honestly don't know.

 

As for Bruce being better than TKO, I don't think so. Paup (one of my all-time favorites to watch) was certainly a better pass rusher. A case could also be made that he was stronger than TKO (it would be close).

The huge difference imo is speed. TKO waws much faster, and could take over a game in many ways, to include a sack, pick, forced fumble, or a run stop in the backfield. Imo, TKO was on his way to Canton before this injury.

I certainly hope he regains his form, and if nothing else, you gotta admire his positive attitude.

[Kelly the Dog]

Bryce Paup was a better linebacker than Spikes in his prime.  But after Paup's injury, he was only a shadow of his former self.

732519[/snapback]

Well that certainly puts significant light on why you would think Holcomb is a better option or player than Losman.

[Orton's Arm]

I think your posts are just about always dead on, but WTF?  In their primes I'd rank both Spikes & Cowart ahead of Paup.  If you take away one season (1995) Paup was just a solid player on par with maybe Daryl Talley.

732555[/snapback]

That one year is what I'm looking at. Before 1995, Paup couldn't reach his full potential because he was a 3-4 linebacker in a 4-3 defense. After that year, he got hurt.

 

But what an amazing year! An incredible 17 1/2 sacks, 2 interceptions, a bunch of other good stats. That year, he was declared defensive MVP for the whole NFL.

 

How dominating was Paup? When Bruce Smith got sick for that playoff game, the Steelers ran practically every play on the opposite side of the field to where Paup was. Very few players command that much attention or that much respect.

[Kelly the Dog]

How dominating was Paup?  When Bruce Smith got sick for that playoff game, the Steelers ran practically every play on the opposite side of the field to where Paup was.

732715[/snapback]

Geniuses! The Steelers were geniuses I say! Who else would have thought of running plays against a back-up who rarely saw the field?! No wonder they won the SB last year! Brilliant! Who else would think of that?!

[Orton's Arm]

Geniuses! The Steelers were geniuses I say! Who else would have thought of running plays against a back-up who rarely saw the field?! No wonder they won the SB last year! Brilliant! Who else would think of that?! 

732717[/snapback]

Ummm . . . you just don't get it, do you? If Paup was on the left side of the field, the Steelers ran the play to the right. If Paup moved over to the right side, the Steelers ran the play to the left. Before the ball was snapped, Neil O'Donnell would call out "opposite" meaning run the play to the opposite side of Paup. This meant run the play opposite Paup regardless of where he was with respect to Bruce Smith's replacement.

[Kelly the Dog]

Ummm . . . you just don't get it, do you?  If Paup was on the left side of the field, the Steelers ran the play to the right.  If Paup moved over to the right side, the Steelers ran the play to the left.  Before the ball was snapped, Neil O'Donnell would call out "opposite" meaning run the play to the opposite side of Paup.  This meant run the play opposite Paup regardless of where he was with respect to Bruce Smith's replacement. 

732740[/snapback]

No, it meant that either there was NO ONE on the other side or a second stringer on the other side. Geniuses I say!

 

I would imagine that they had the same respect for Paup whether or not Bruce was playing. In your weird world, they would have run all plays right against Bruce even if he was in there because they were terrified of Paup. Do you think perhaps Paup may have gotten a lot of those 17 sacks because teams focused on stopping one of the 2-3 best pass rushers in the history of the NFL on the other side?

[nodnarb]

9-7. Why? Because I just looked at LaBillsFan's avatar.