If the improbable happens and this team goes 7-9

[mcjeff215]

That 3rd string argument is weak, and getting weaker every day.  First, Pitt had their entire starting OL playing.  Second, their backup running back was starting, but guess what?  He's in the Pro Bowl this year, so obviously wasn't a scrub.

 

To answer the original question - if we get blown out the next two games, that won't be good.  If the games are close and hard-faught, then I'd be ok with it.

 

I'm bummed that I won't get to watch the game this week since my inlawls don't have DirecTV

874625[/snapback]

 

 

This one MATTERS to TN. Pitt had it wrapped up by that point. Buffalo had everything to play for that game and they didn't show up. If they play hard and lose this to a TN team that's played just as hard, I'll be disappointed but I'll consider the season a success. If they screw the proverbial pooch, I'll still consider this season a big improvement with a lot more work ahead.

[Fezmid]

This one MATTERS to TN. Pitt had it wrapped up by that point. Buffalo had everything to play for that game and they didn't show up.  If they play hard and lose this to a TN team that's played just as hard, I'll be disappointed but I'll consider the season a success.  If they screw the proverbial pooch, I'll still consider this season a big improvement with a lot more work ahead.

874673[/snapback]

Oh yeah, I'm not saying that Pitt had anything to play for or anything like that; but the "we were beat by scrubs!" isn't really entirely accurate. I just meant that because a game doesn't mean anything in the standings for a team doesn't mean they don't play tough.

[rockpile]

Would you view it as a successful season considering your expectations?

874429[/snapback]

 

Yes, I picked them to go 6-10.

 

Since the bye week they have made a lot of progress, and I hope they continue to move forward.

[Koufax]

7-9 or 9-7 this is a successful season. The team has grown a lot, learned a lot about itself, and is poised for a productive off season and a good 2007. So whether they have two bad Sundays or make the playoffs, it is the same team here, with a lot of good things going, but still some holes and some youth. But that said, there is a huge difference to the development of the team left in these final weeks. Playing down to the last minute of the last game in Baltimore or of making the miracle run to the playoffs has its own value and will improve how this team is able to compete in 2007.

 

So yes, a success, but these last 8 quarters (or playoffs if they happen) will have an impact by the taste it leaves in everyone's mouth and the confidence levels it will inspire in the players.

[BB2004]

Would you view it as a successful season considering your expectations?

874429[/snapback]

 

Good question that's for sure. It will still exceed expectations, however, if we look bad the final two games and especially this game coming up at home then that is going to leave some bad feelings heading into the offseason.

[Bungee Jumper]

Would you view it as a successful season considering your expectations?

874429[/snapback]

 

I'm sorry...you lost me at "improbable". Neither of the next two games is against pushovers. Particularly Baltimore. You make it sound as though 7-9 would be a complete disappointment after achieving 7-7...after going 2-5 in the first 7.

 

So I guess the answer to your question is: yes, I would.

[nodnarb]

y'know, I'd almost rather see us finish 7-9 than finish 9-7 and be out of the playoffs watching 1, possibly 2 NFC teams finish 8-8 and enter the contest.

 

almost.

 

The NFL playoffs should be seeded. Easterbrook is DEAD ON

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...terbrook/061219

[Arkady Renko]

I'm sorry...you lost me at "improbable".  Neither of the next two games is against pushovers.  Particularly Baltimore.  You make it sound as though 7-9 would be a complete disappointment after achieving 7-7...after going 2-5 in the first 7. 

 

So I guess the answer to your question is: yes, I would.

874696[/snapback]

 

I am calling it "improbable" because well, I am trying to fight my pessimistic nature.

[Pyrite Gal]

LOL.  Don't be a dick, dude.

It's already absurd to claim to "know" a person just by their meaningless preseason prediction of how a football team does.

But predict 3 wins, and you're a self-hating loser?  And predict 5 games, and you're fine and dandy?  Psychology is that simple and granular, huh?  If someone predicted 4 games, are they unhappy, but only because their parents beat them?

874571[/snapback]

 

I also think that it would be absurd to claim to "know" a person based on their meaningless prediction, etc. I simply said that this prediction likely says more about the predictor than it does about the team and a good or even reasonable football assessment.

 

Do you disagree about which thing it probably says more about.

 

One does not have to watch very much NFL ball to see that in 2005 (and many years before that) no team has gone winless and in fact no team only won 1 game. This made any prediction of a one win or winless Bills season silly as far as rational prediction. Bad team simply sometimes beat good teams in the NFL and such a prediction might (and its a big MIGHT) be rational in exaggerating to make a point. However, I remember several folks not only making this prediction but even repeating it a few times such that it came across as a rant to even a fan with moderate interest.

 

Even sillier about such a prediction is that it seems to assume reasonable things about the caliber of various Bills opponents. The prediction of a winless or one win season was really an endorsement of some combination of GB, Houston, Miami a couple of times and other opponents beating the Bills.

 

If any semblance of rational football thinking was not the rational behind these predictions, then what do you think was?

 

I do not claim to know these people (thank gosh), nor do I claim to know their irrationale. Unlike you I do not draw the conclusion from my statement that these folks are self-hating losers (though perhaps you are right about this theory). I simply claim that it more likely says something about their thinking as it says little rationally about the Bills or the NFL.

[Ozymandius]

I also think that it would be absurd to claim to "know" a person based on their meaningless prediction, etc.  I simply said that this prediction likely says more about the predictor than it does about the team and a good or even reasonable football assessment.

 

Do you disagree about which thing it probably says more about.

 

One does not have to watch very much NFL ball to see that in 2005 (and many years before that) no team has gone winless and in fact no team only won 1 game.  This made any prediction of a one win or winless Bills season silly as far as rational prediction.  Bad team simply sometimes beat good teams in the NFL and such a prediction might (and its a big MIGHT) be rational in exaggerating to make a point.  However, I remember several folks not only making this prediction but even repeating it a few times such that it came across as a rant to even a fan with moderate interest.

 

Even sillier about such a prediction is that it seems to assume reasonable things about the caliber of various Bills opponents.  The prediction of a winless or one win season was really an endorsement of some combination of GB, Houston, Miami a couple of times and other opponents beating the Bills.

 

If any semblance of rational football thinking was not the rational behind these predictions, then what do you think was?

 

I do not claim to know these people (thank gosh), nor do I claim to know their irrationale.  Unlike you I do not draw the conclusion from my statement that these folks are self-hating losers (though perhaps you are right about this theory).  I simply claim that it more likely says something about their thinking as it says little rationally about the Bills or the NFL.

874729[/snapback]

 

Look, you've backed off your original claim. That's all I really wanted to see. What you HAD said was this: predictions they would only win 1 to 3 games were simply silly and say more about the predictor and their lame attitude toward life than about the team, predictions they would merely repeat their 5 win season of last year were not outrageous.

 

That is absurd on two levels... (1) first, the "lame attitude toward life"??? and (2) the exactness of the claim. 3 wins = lame attitude, but 5 = fine and dandy. What is 4 then?

 

Also: "If any semblance of rational football thinking was not the rational behind these predictions, then what do you think was?"

 

I think it was rational football thinking. If somebody predicted 2 wins, they probably looked at the schedule and figured the Bills were worse than every team but 2. It doesn't mean they have a lame attitude towards life. It just means they were wrong.

[Pyrite Gal]

Look, you've backed off your original claim.  That's all I really wanted to see.  What you HAD said was this: predictions they would only win 1 to 3 games were simply silly and say more about the predictor and their lame attitude toward life than about the team, predictions they would merely repeat their 5 win season of last year were not outrageous.

 

That is absurd on two levels... (1) first, the "lame attitude toward life"??? and (2) the exactness of the claim.  3 wins = lame attitude, but 5 = fine and dandy.  What is 4 then?

 

Also: "If any semblance of rational football thinking was not the rational behind these predictions, then what do you think was?"

 

I think it was rational football thinking.  If somebody predicted 2 wins, they probably looked at the schedule and figured the Bills were worse than every team but 2.  It doesn't mean they have a lame attitude towards life.  It just means they were wrong.

874736[/snapback]

 

But do you thhink it was rational to look at the Bill's schedule even if one concluded they would be a bad team which because this person incorrectly agreed with the ESPN pundits about the Bills draft, did not believe that Jauron had anything to offer (despite his once being named NFL Coach of the Year, judged Losman to be a failure as a QB though making this judgment not only would have been premature given the conventional wisdom that one needs to wait three year before drawing conclusions about players), judged a number of young Bills like McGahee and Evans who had actually produced quite well as young players based on their numbers as failed players (and one needs to make such widespread conclusions which all turned out to be false in order to believe the Bills would have fewer wins than any NFL team achieved last year) and as many other bad things that once chooses to believe in AND then after drawing these or other conclusions that add up to the Bills being a bad team then somehow also judge teams like the Packers and Fins who were goshawful last year as somehow improved enough that the Bills would go winless or at most win one game against them AND that we would not be able to "steal" one against Houston (one of the teams which had recently only won two games in a season) or from the Vikes, Lions, Jets a couple of times, etc.

 

I allowed the last sentence to run on as an indicator of how many bad things would have to happen AND how much one would have to believe in our schedule full of medicure and bad teams to somehow conclude that the Bills would totally blow away past precedent and go winless, have one win or even only two wins.

 

I simply see no rational way that one could conclude that the Bills would only get 1, 2,3 or even a mere, 4 wins whether one did a game by game analysis or took it as a whole.

 

I do not remember drawing any conclusions about what dementia these folks suffered from beyond saying that a lame attitude was PROBABLY a better explanation than any rational football analysis.

 

Perhaps this is harsh, but I totally stand by this judgement which does not draw any conclusions about self-hatred (though again your own explanation and not mine of this sounds credible to me).

 

Hinddsight clearly shows how fortunately silly this prediction was and even with foresight a prediction of zerp. one, two and yeas even three wins was actually forseeably silly even in foresight.

 

Do you disagree?

[Dibs]

.....Perhaps this is harsh, but I totally stand by this judgement which does not draw any conclusions about self-hatred (though again your own explanation and not mine of this sounds credible to me).....

874741[/snapback]

Personally I agree(& agreed) with all you said regarding 3 wins etc.....however.....you drew the conclusion of stating "their lame attitude toward life" which is not only insulting but also an illogical conclusion. Predicting 3 wins could have meant many, many things.

It might mean they were so disheartened after 7 years of disappointment that they can't bring themselves to see anything brighter.....they might have disagreed with the choice of GM/HC/Drafting/FA acquisitions/Coordinators chosen/Offensive of Defensive scheme used/dislike the QB....any of which could cloud their judgement on how we might do in the coming season......none of which would mean they necessarily have a 'lame attitude on life'.

[Ozymandius]

Blah blah blah

 

Do you disagree?

874741[/snapback]

 

I obviously DO disagree. I already said I did.

Yes, a person could've rationally predicted 4 wins or less. No, it does not make them irrational. No, it does not mean they have a lame attitude toward life. Yes it's absurd/stupid/insulting of you to say that AND to draw a line at a prediction of 4 wins to determine "football rationality"? What?? How?? I'd ask for your methodology of drawing that line there but I don't want to read War and Peace.

 

Here's how someone could've rationally predicted 4 wins or less (and I'd estimate about a quarter of the people on this board DID predict that -- are they all irrational??) They take a 5-win team, which the Bills were last year. They see that team lose Sam Adams, Lawyer Milloy, and Eric Moulds, all players who produced for us even though they were getting older. They see those players are replaced by unproven journeymen or rookies, the latter of which can be RATIONALLY predicted to take awhile to adjust to the league. They see a brand new coaching staff come aboard and install brand new systems. They RATIONALLY figure there will be a one year adjustment period as the players get used to the new coaches and systems. This is RATIONAL. They see a young QB who will be entering his first complete year starting and RATIONALLY decide that he would struggle. Seeing all this, they predict less than 5 wins.

 

It's not hard to understand. And it certainly isn't irrational.

[Dibs]

Here's how someone could've rationally predicted 4 wins or less (and I'd estimate about a quarter of the people on this board DID predict that -- are they all irrational??)  They take a 5-win team, which the Bills were last year.  They see that team lose Sam Adams, Lawyer Milloy, and Eric Moulds, all players who produced for us even though they were getting older.  They see those players are replaced by unproven journeymen or rookies, the latter of which can be RATIONALLY predicted to take awhile to adjust to the league.  They see a brand new coaching staff come aboard and install brand new systems.  They RATIONALLY figure there will be a one year adjustment period as the players get used to the new coaches and systems.  This is RATIONAL.  They see a young QB who will be entering his first complete year starting and RATIONALLY decide that he would struggle.  Seeing all this, they predict less than 5 wins.

 

It's not hard to understand.  And it certainly isn't irrational.

874743[/snapback]

I know you don't need others to vindicate you but.....since I'm here....& I'm a little bored.....

Even if your reasons(for argument sake) were not as likely to occur as the reasons put forward by an 8-8er, it does not mean your reasons are irrational....nor does it mean they could not have come to pass. Many, many, many a time the consensus opinion on how a team will perform in the upcoming season is totally wrong. We see teams that most predict will finish 4-12 win superbowls & teams that are predicted to win them end bottom 10.

I'm really happy that you were wrong in this case(on the positive side that is) & I might have even argued with your predictions at the time....& probably quite strongly.....but in the end they are predictions and any reasoning is about as good as any other(until proven otherwise in the fullness of time).

Thanks for letting me but in....again.

[Pyrite Gal]

I obviously DO disagree.  I already said I did.

Yes, a person could've rationally predicted 4 wins or less.  No, it does not make them irrational.  No, it does not mean they have a lame attitude toward life.  Yes it's absurd/stupid/insulting of you to say that AND to draw a line at a prediction of 4 wins to determine "football rationality"?  What??  How??  I'd ask for your methodology of drawing that line there but I don't want to read War and Peace.

 

Here's how someone could've rationally predicted 4 wins or less (and I'd estimate about a quarter of the people on this board DID predict that -- are they all irrational??)  They take a 5-win team, which the Bills were last year.  They see that team lose Sam Adams, Lawyer Milloy, and Eric Moulds, all players who produced for us even though they were getting older.  They see those players are replaced by unproven journeymen or rookies, the latter of which can be RATIONALLY predicted to take awhile to adjust to the league.  They see a brand new coaching staff come aboard and install brand new systems.  They RATIONALLY figure there will be a one year adjustment period as the players get used to the new coaches and systems.  This is RATIONAL.  They see a young QB who will be entering his first complete year starting and RATIONALLY decide that he would struggle.  Seeing all this, they predict less than 5 wins.

 

It's not hard to understand.  And it certainly isn't irrational.

874743[/snapback]

 

These are the points that make a prediction of a winless season, or a one win season wholely irrational, and predictions of a two or three win season slightly less but still pretty irrational:

 

1. In 2005, 04, 03 no team had zero or even 1 win. To make a prediction of an unprecedented meltdown based on recent NFL history strikes me as possible (like a meteor falling on your car at the drive-in on your first date, it could happen but to worry about it or predict it will happen is irrational.

 

2. The two teams which had a mere two wins in this period has fairly specific reasons beyond the fact they were simply rebuilding badly to describe why they won a mere two games (still finishing above the winless and one win predictions of some for the 06 Bills) in that Houston is an expansion team that is still building rather than re-building and SF had a nasty ownershio battle and federal efforts at a criminal conviction for the team owner. In 03 in fact no team won fewer than 4 games.

 

3. In order for the Bills to have a meltdown of such proportions calls upon a belief of a frankly incredible series of player meltdowns that not only do the youngsters need to adjust (not irrational in and of itself), AND Losman shows no improvement and Holcomb does not step in for him again or if he does he is worse than mediocre, AND there actually is a regression by the fastest RB to gain 2000 yards rushing and the far better than Moulds first two years of Ecans, AND Jauron turns out to show none of the achievements he has shown in the past, ANF none of the several returning Bills (McGee, Clements) who have made the Pro Bowl show much this year.

 

Actually, you only need most of these things to happen to go winless or only win a couple rather than all of them, but even though any individual piece can rationally be expected to go badly it is simply irrational to conclude all or even most of these variables will go badly.

 

4. A game-by-game analysis before the season began actually is not the key to rationally predicting we are DOOMED, but actually the lame records and prospects of our specific opponents should have been the key for anyone realizing that even a bad team should go 5-11 against this crew.

 

In order to believe we would go winless or get one win or even do worse than last year, the predictor is endorsing the concept that teams like:

 

A. We were gonna get beaten in the majority of 5 games against opponents who actually had worse records last year than our paltry 5 wins (2 against NYJ, TN, GB and Houston).

 

B. Further, this predictor for whatever reason has faith in us losing virtually all of the 6 additional games against teams which did not make the playoffs last year (2 against MI, DET, MIN, SD, BAL). Again, it is not irrational to comclude that we might lose to any of these individual teams, However, it strikes me as wholly irrational to conclude we would lose to ALL or even most of these teams. As it happened, Detroit did steal one from us and SD handled us, however, if one is going to predict that we would go winless or only win 1-3, then we almost certainly have to lose all or virtually all of these games to do this. To conclude that all these things which MIGHT go badly WOULD in fact go badly is simply an irrational judgement/

 

A prediction that this team would end up repeating the 3-13 season we had when we were forced by the cap to demolish the team would have actually required some plane crash or other We Are Marshall like occurence (the Saints for example had only 3 wins last year when their home stadium and town was wiped out by a hurricane.

 

Predicting that the Bills would have as bad a 2006 as 2005 would have been a pessimistic prediction but at least a rational one. Predicting that this team would actually regress in the record produced under a GM and HC who left the team and only have 4 wins was unlikely given the lame records of most of our opponents but at least would have been rationally defensible.

 

However, to predict we would only squeeze out 3 victories was an insdicator that the predictor was looking at this as pessimistically as possible and their football knowledge was quite questionable.

 

To have predicted only 2 wins raised the serious question of whether the predictor had taken leave of his senses. To predict only 1 or no wins simply removes all doubt that the predictor had lost it if they ever had it.

 

I know what you think. I am merely asking why. There seems to me to be no football based intelligent reason for concluding this team would go winless, or have one win as everything would need to break wrong for this team which like a meteor might happen, but even if the irrational happened, a game by game analysis simply shows that over half of our games were against an opponent that could likely lose on any give particular Sunday,

 

The adjustment every thing breaks wrong theory seems irrational to me even if the individual pieces COULD happen and when you add into that the mediocre state of our opponents, a no or low win prediction seems to me to be PROBABLY by hiw this predictor chooses or is forced to view things rather than by rational football assessment.

[Fezmid]

y'know, I'd almost rather see us finish 7-9 than finish 9-7 and be out of the playoffs watching 1, possibly 2 NFC teams finish 8-8 and enter the contest.

874700[/snapback]

You mean like what happened in '04? And to make matters worse, we even beat one of those 8-8 teams (Rams), along with a 9-7 team (Seahawks).

[ganesh]

Oh yeah, I'm not saying that Pitt had anything to play for or anything like that; but the "we were beat by scrubs!" isn't really entirely accurate.  I just meant that because a game doesn't mean anything in the standings for a team doesn't mean they don't play tough.

874674[/snapback]

 

Actually Pitt had a lot to play for....It was the 1st game for Cowher against his old buddy Donahoe....He wasn't going to come into that building and lose a game to tell the Rooneys that they made a mistake in choosing between the two.

[ko12010]

If they lose this game in all out suck fashion like they lost that game, you can expect to see the same reaction.  The big difference is they're not going to be playing 3rd string wieners this time.

874444[/snapback]

 

 

 

One of those wieners is doing great as a starting RB for Pittsburgh

[merlin]

Before the season, I thought the Bills would finish 7-9 or 8-8. I had penciled in "W's" in the games with Miami, Jets, Lions, Texans, Packers, and Titans, who I thought would all be much worse than the Bills. That would be 8 wins right there, though I allowed for the possibility of a "fluke loss" to at least one of those teams (I thought Miami in Miami would be the toughest ... never imagined them being able to lose to Detroit!). I assumed they would lose to the Patsies (twice), Bears, Colts, and Chargers. The "wild-cards" (too close to call) would be Vikings, Ravens, and Jaguars, and I hoped they would win one or 2 of those.

 

So, they are about where I expected they would be at this point. But I honestly didn't think they would be playing any "meaningful games" this late in December, and because of that, they've exceeded my expectations.

 

GO BILLS!

[Pyrite Gal]

Before the season, I thought the Bills would finish 7-9  or 8-8.  I had penciled in "W's" in the games with Miami, Jets, Lions, Texans, Packers, and Titans, who I thought would all be much worse than the Bills.  That would be 8 wins right there, though I allowed for the possibility of a "fluke loss" to at least one of those teams (I thought Miami in Miami would be the toughest ... never imagined them being able to lose to Detroit!).  I assumed they would lose to the Patsies (twice), Bears, Colts, and Chargers.  The "wild-cards" (too close to call) would be Vikings, Ravens, and Jaguars, and I hoped they would win one or 2 of those. 

 

So, they are about where I expected they would be at this point.  But I honestly didn't think they would be playing any "meaningful games" this late in December, and because of that, they've exceeded my expectations. 

 

GO BILLS!

875006[/snapback]

 

Exactly, this type of thinking is why I felt a game-by-game analysis of the possibilities actually thouroughlt undercut any doubt had (which were individually rational fears that JP might develop, OR the rookies would need time to adjust , OR McGahee and Evans would regress, OR myriad other rational individual fears).

 

However, the fear or prediction that ALL of these bad things would happen was incredibly unlikely. When your overlaid these bad possibilities over a game-by-game analysis which also revealed the weakness of a large number of our opponents like GB and Houston, the predictions of some that this team would go winless was pretty irrational.

 

I think you took the most accurate approach in your estimate that it would likely be the case that we would have a fluke loss (the Lions game was somewhat a surprise for me, but it was the Jets game at home which was the big surprise for me as D'Brick and Mangold really produced quicker than the norm) but these flukes are balanced off by us winning 3 games on the road (if we somehow beat the Ravens I will be very impressed by us finishing .500 on the road) and thus your prediction of a .500 finish for us is bearing out.

 

A game by game analysis simply shows how irrational some folks can be with their predictions.