Rudyc80 Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 I will give you a list of teams we are DEFINETLY better than. Chicago Arizona 49ers Miami Bengals Oakland...the NFl sent an apology saying we basically beat them. maybe the Packers maybe the Titans but to say all those teams are better than us....CRAZY!!! These punks on ESPN like Salsbury just look at record rather than what the team actually accomplises each week and we could be 3-2 at worst...give us wins vs the jags and raiders!
gantrules Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 if we could win some games and then we will have room to back it up.
Like A Mofo Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 I will give you a list of teams we are DEFINETLY better than. Chicago Arizona 49ers Miami Bengals Oakland...the NFl sent an apology saying we basically beat them. maybe the Packers maybe the Titans but to say all those teams are better than us....CRAZY!!! These punks on ESPN like Salsbury just look at record rather than what the team actually accomplises each week and we could be 3-2 at worst...give us wins vs the jags and raiders! 74763[/snapback] One mistake you made: NEVER listen to punks like $ali$bury on e$pn...Buffalo isnt a team they like on that station... And I agree....we are better then most of the teams you listed above..or at least they CAN be
jayg Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 One mistake you made: NEVER listen to punks like $ali$bury on e$pn...Buffalo isnt a team they like on that station... And I agree....we are better then most of the teams you listed above..or at least they CAN be 74765[/snapback] Buffalo isn't a team they like on that station? What does that mean? What's your reasoning for saything this? Chris Berman seems to like the Bills. I agree with your comment about them just looking at the record and forming an opinion some times.
stevestojan Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 Remind me again how we are better? Because we have more famous names? Chicago 1-4 nope Arizona 1-4 nope 49ers 1-5 nope, they just played one more game so far Miami 0-6 OK, I'll give ya that Bengals 1-4 nope Oakland 2-4 nope Packers 2-4 nope Titans 2-4 nope So, Rudy, we are not "better" than ANY of these teams. If you want to count potential, maybe. But ya know what potential gets you? A big heaping pile of NOTHING. We came "so close" to beating Jax- well guess what? We lost. We had no right to be within 1 TD of NE, and we showed it, but completly fu-king up at the end. The Jets? We fell apart at the end. Oakland just beat us - bad calls? Yes. But you dont think in the last TWENTY consecutive games, the Pats have had a bad call or two against them? Even a questionable one? PLEASE. And they seem to just find a way to win. Good teams win. Bad teams dig for excuses when they lose.
jester43 Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 i hope every commentator in the country says we suck, and i hope the players read/hear it. the worst thing that could happen to this team right now is to think like they are somehow better than everyone else just because they beat the 0-6 fish. these guys don't have the character to handle success just yet. they need to just do their jobs. without doing dumb stuff.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 I agree with you. I would also add: Cleveland, Houston, Dallas, Washington and Tampa Bay. And to those of you who dispute this, the idea isn't who are we better than "record-wise" right now--but instead talent-wise and where, I believe, we'll end up at season's end.
gantrules Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 Lol...if big names = wins why hasn't Washington done anything in forever and NE been winning 20 straight. Because it doesn't matter. 1-4 folks. And we beat the worst team in the NFL.
jarthur31 Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 Buffalo isn't a team they like on that station? What does that mean? What's your reasoning for saything this? Chris Berman seems to like the Bills. I agree with your comment about them just looking at the record and forming an opinion some times. 74775[/snapback] He's the only one who does! It's a good thing he runs ESPN now or Buffalo would never get any love from any sports station. If you were to poll the people who work there, you'd be surprised to see that most would pick the Clippers over the Bills.
renfruzetz Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 If we played the Cards or Bears this weekend, on a neutral field with no line, you would bet cash money on our opponent? The BCS is wrong. Strength of schedule and margin of victory matter.
BuffOrange Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 If we played the Cards or Bears this weekend, on a neutral field with no line, you would bet cash money on our opponent? 75196[/snapback] Good point - I've never payed any attention to these power rankings, but that's the question I would always ask myself if I were putting together a list. I mean, if you're going to go strictly by record, then what's the point of these things? Might as well just list the overall league standings. I definitely think we'd beat the 49ers, Cards, Bears, Raiders, Bengals, Dolphins, Redskins, and Bucs on a nuetral field right now. After that there are a handful of teams on the same level as the Bills - like the Lions, Panthers, Chiefs, Cowboys, Packers, Titans, Browns, etc.
Buftex Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 These punks on ESPN like Salsbury just look at record rather than what the team actually accomplises each week and we could be 3-2 at worst...give us wins vs the jags and raiders! 74763[/snapback] Of course all they look at is their record, because their record is precisely what they have accomplished, a 1-4 record. Rudy, who cares what they say? We see them every week, we know what we have. No way any of those guys could watch every game. That being said, I started to sense that the Bills offense "woke up" in the second half of that Jets game. I don't know if anyone buys into body language, but Bledsoe, in particular, has looked sharp the last two games. The fire seems to be back. It was stomped out of him somewhere around that Dallas/Houston debacle of last season. I think he is going to return to his early 2002 form over the next few weeks. I really don't think this guy is done being a productive NFL starter just yet. Other than one int last week against the Jets (Moulds may have run the wrong rout), Bledsoe has kept negative plays to a minimum, and has made postive plays out of bad situations. He is always going to take some sacks, that is part of the game. But, the last few weeks he has held on to the ball... Going out on a limb, I can still see this team maybe going 9-7, or 10-6 this year. It is not unprecidented, and like you Rudy, I know this team is better than what it has done. I don't say this because we beat the Dolphins, a hapless team, but because of the way we beat them. It wasn't the pathetic 3-2 game all the a-holes in the national media joked it would be. Things seem to finally be clikcing. We still need to score more points, I know. The defense still needs to lock it down on third down, but you can see improvement each week. I am happy as hell that Mularkey has the stones to bench guys like Sam Adams when they are not playing well. Ends up that maybe Ron Edwards can contribute, and is maybe just not a wasted roster space. Let guys like Sam Aiken show what they can do. Willis finally got to play some, and had a great game. Now we know we have two running backs who can play, we are not just speculating. Mularkey will play who ever is playing best. That is the way it should always be.
Recommended Posts