Yoho Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 I don't know what to think. The New England team we are facing has so many holes (Wr's, lb's) it is ridiculous, but because they are Bellichek and the three time Super Bowl champ, it is hard to believe theyare not really good (not to mention the pre seaason). So, I am going into the first week with the hope that Losman has turned it around, Willis is really healthy, the d-line can actually apply some pressure and the Special Teams can carry us to a victory. Go Bills and hopefully life is fair.
cantankerous Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 Their D-Line is really good though, and their secondary isn't shabby either...I hope we go after Harrison right away to test that surgically repaired knee of his. This will be his first game since Week 3 last year... But they do have Tom Brady and the almighty himself Bruschi...I hope Brady gets his clock cleaned...TKO time for him...GO BILLS!
Mile High Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 Overall I will be looking at the lines. I'm more concerend about the offensive line than the defensive. Fowler had a good camp and a good preseason so I'm interested how his calls on the line are going to fair against the Pats dline. Reyes looks like a definate upgrade over Anderson. I think Peters and Gandy will be fine but Vallerial seems to have health issues of late and looks to be a concern. Then JPL... We are all praying to the man himself that this kid has indeed matured with this past offseason. Will the departure of Moulds haunt the Bills more than we think? Lee looks great but is he double team great the way Moulds once was? The new cover 2 should be interesting as well. How will our players (that were there before) adapt to it? And will the dline be an upgrade from what we had in Buffalo during the 2005 season?
Pyrite Gal Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 I think the Bills brdt hopes of winning lie in two areas which seem quite obvious to identify: 1. The Bills O performs even better than is expected- I think it is reasonable to asaum it has improved if only because it was so pathetic last year. 2. NE finally implodes as happens at some point to every SB winner. Though I think these points are likely to be the focus, it is another question as to how these two points will actually turn out in reality. My sense is that though the O production should be much improved over the disrupted cluster thang that was the end of last season. A. The OL has better players than the crew which started last season. The back-ups are best unproven (and I mean at best) the early games are when this crew may be at its best and at any rate a unit based around Reyes, Fowler and Peters should be better than a unit based around Anderson, Teague and Wiiliams. B. WM will be used as a 3rd down back which is better than his non-use last year and better than a Shaud Williams led attack on 3rd down. C. Losman was putrid last year and should be a season better than last year. D. The WRs have more deptg and speed than last year. The question is how much is much and we will see. My guess this unit has better personnel and seems to have a better structure as Fairchild learns at Martz's knee. The question I think is whether NE has begun the implosion which always occurs with SB teams with their finally missing the SB last year, My guess is that Brady has in the past and can make marginal players better. However the bragging of some Pats fans of 14 wins really sounds like whistling in the dark as the loss of their top two receivers from last year could easily become a struggle. Seau escaping from retirement to actually win a starting job is a clear demonstration of the limits of the talents at LB. The last two seasons have seen Seau play 8 games and 7 games. Anyone who does not have an expectation that he is gonna be around for less than half the season is simply deluding themselves. The Pats probably will not break down in this game, but it really is merely a question of when rather than if.
capetide Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 I think the Bills brdt hopes of winning lie in two areas which seem quite obvious to identify: 1. The Bills O performs even better than is expected- I think it is reasonable to asaum it has improved if only because it was so pathetic last year. 2. NE finally implodes as happens at some point to every SB winner. Though I think these points are likely to be the focus, it is another question as to how these two points will actually turn out in reality. My sense is that though the O production should be much improved over the disrupted cluster thang that was the end of last season. A. The OL has better players than the crew which started last season. The back-ups are best unproven (and I mean at best) the early games are when this crew may be at its best and at any rate a unit based around Reyes, Fowler and Peters should be better than a unit based around Anderson, Teague and Wiiliams. B. WM will be used as a 3rd down back which is better than his non-use last year and better than a Shaud Williams led attack on 3rd down. C. Losman was putrid last year and should be a season better than last year. D. The WRs have more deptg and speed than last year. The question is how much is much and we will see. My guess this unit has better personnel and seems to have a better structure as Fairchild learns at Martz's knee. The question I think is whether NE has begun the implosion which always occurs with SB teams with their finally missing the SB last year, My guess is that Brady has in the past and can make marginal players better. However the bragging of some Pats fans of 14 wins really sounds like whistling in the dark as the loss of their top two receivers from last year could easily become a struggle. Seau escaping from retirement to actually win a starting job is a clear demonstration of the limits of the talents at LB. The last two seasons have seen Seau play 8 games and 7 games. Anyone who does not have an expectation that he is gonna be around for less than half the season is simply deluding themselves. The Pats probably will not break down in this game, but it really is merely a question of when rather than if. 765740[/snapback] THey missed the playoffs after winning the SB in 2001 then won 2 more SBs afer that. Last year they were decimated by injuries, playing 4th and 5th strings DBs and 3rd string OL. AND they said Harrison was washed up when he left San Diego so lets wait on Seau before saying they are weak at LB. They still have Brushi, Vrabel, and Colvin, 3 or 4 starters from last year. And McGinnest was like 50 years old or something.
JStranger76 Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 I definitley don't get the Patriots are weak at LB theory either. The WR's are not to bad either. Troy Brown is a crafty vet, Caldwell isn't too bad either. The TE's make up for this. Chad Jackson won't play so this does give us the upper hand for now.
OJ's Glove Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 2. NE finally implodes as happens at some point to every SB winner. 765740[/snapback] It took the 49ers over 15 years to "implode" and become a team that other teams actually wanted on their schedule. They didn't win the SB every year, but they had ten or more wins every single year and the last SB that they won was a completely different team than the first one - including the QB and head coach. Don't assume these things automatically happen. Don't expect the Patriots to win the SB every year, but don't assume a crash-and-burn either.
Dan Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 It took the 49ers over 15 years to "implode" and become a team that other teams actually wanted on their schedule. They didn't win the SB every year, but they had ten or more wins every single year and the last SB that they won was a completely different team than the first one - including the QB and head coach. Don't assume these things automatically happen. Don't expect the Patriots to win the SB every year, but don't assume a crash-and-burn either. 765949[/snapback] Good Points. However, remember that sandwiched between the Pats SB wins was a pretty miserable season. This year has that potential for them as well. They've lost alot of talent. Perhaps this has the makings of a miserable year for them as well due to all the lost talent. Although competitive they may be, Superbowl bound seems highly unlikely for them.
BRH Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 It took the 49ers over 15 years to "implode" and become a team that other teams actually wanted on their schedule. They didn't win the SB every year, but they had ten or more wins every single year and the last SB that they won was a completely different team than the first one - including the QB and head coach. Don't assume these things automatically happen. Don't expect the Patriots to win the SB every year, but don't assume a crash-and-burn either. 765949[/snapback] Of course, about ten of those fifteen years took place in the pre-free-agency era when it was much easier to keep a team's core together. Bad comparison.
OJ's Glove Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 Of course, about ten of those fifteen years took place in the pre-free-agency era when it was much easier to keep a team's core together. Bad comparison. 765955[/snapback] You missed the point. I said the 94 SB winner was completely different than the team that won the SB in 81. The fact that there wasn't any free agency didn't matter. The "cores" of the two teams were completely different. The Niners had plenty of turnover from 81 to 96 (hard to avoid turnover over such a long period), and never once were they a team that had no hope of sniffing the playoffs - and they were usually a lot better than that. The Raiders were the same way (but not as dramatic) between the late 60's and early 80's. Very high winning percentage and very few losing seasons. You can argue it's harder now, but we already have precedent for a team that was consistently good because of the top-down organization, rather than any one player. Don't assume some team is ready to "implode". It's just wishful thinking. Bob Kraft has owned the Patriots for 12 years and they've only had 2 losing seasons.
OJ's Glove Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 Good Points. However, remember that sandwiched between the Pats SB wins was a pretty miserable season. 765952[/snapback] It was? They were 9-7, tied for the division lead and missed the playoffs on a tiebreaker. Brady led the league in TD's. 2002 could have been better, but I certainly wouldn't call it miserable.
Dan Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 Perhaps its just my selective memeory that wishes to paint the Pats as a bad team that year. You can't blame me for that can you?
OJ's Glove Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 Perhaps its just my selective memeory that wishes to paint the Pats as a bad team that year. You can't blame me for that can you? 765978[/snapback] Not really. Look, for all I know the Patriots are headed right for 4-12, and soon. All I'm saying is don't bet on it. It seems repeated on this board often that The Patriots are all done and sooner rather than later - it's just a matter of time. I don't really buy that. No team is permanently good. Look at the Niners and Raiders right now. But that doesn't mean a currently very good team is headed for "implosion".
IDBillzFan Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 Looks like the Pats are more concerned about this game than one would think. According to Chris Brown's blog, they cut Fast Freddie. Bring him in, give him some cash, make him spill his guts, and cut him free. Yeah. They're probably concerned.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 Looks like the Pats are more concerned about this game than one would think. According to Chris Brown's blog, they cut Fast Freddie. Bring him in, give him some cash, make him spill his guts, and cut him free. Yeah. They're probably concerned. Or prepared.
Recommended Posts