krazykat Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 In Allen Wilson's preview which came out today or yesterday, he says the following: During Jauron’s first two seasons, the Bills had many growing pains, from being forced to play inexperienced people to enduring a ridiculous amount of injuries. Yet both of those squads were in playoff contention until the last month of the season. Nothing unusual there and many commentators make those kinds of comments. But what does it really mean? Week 13 (12 game played, 4 remaining) took us through November last year with the next week's games in December. So what Wilson is saying here is that the Bills were still in the playoff hunt then. OK, I just looked at the standings at the week 13 mark and if the playoffs had begun that week the Pats, Steelers, Browns or Titans, Colts, Jags, and Chargers would have made them. The weakest of the teams from a records standpoint was the Browns or Titans at 7-5 slugging it out for the sixth seed as it ended up. So in essence, since there's four weeks left, it is possible that a team within four games of the Browns/Titans, or any team with a record of 3-9 or better was technically still in the playoff hunt pending the various configurations of which team played which one along with tiebreakers. Theoretically the Browns and Titans could lose all four of their next games and the 3-9 team win them all and with some help, make the playoffs. We all know that's not realistic, but most people are far enough from realistic here to warrant this post. Regardless, what that means is that every team in the AFC with a record of 3-9 following week 13's games was still "in playoff contention" as Wilson puts it. OK, that means that of the 16 teams in the conference, all but one, the 0-12 Dolphins were in playoff contention. OK, so we'll slide that one week. Weak link is now still the Browns at 8-5 following another win. So then any team with a record of 5-8 is technically still "in playoff contention" reducing the field from 15 teams to 11 of 16. So I ask, why is this even cited as if it means that a team was close to making the playoffs? In this case we're talking about the Bills, but we could just as easily have been talking about the Bengals, Texans, or Broncos too as four of five teams out from those 11 including the Bills. Either way, four games out means that any team four games from the sixth seed at that time is still in contention. Considering that that sixth seed doesn't have a great record to begin with, why is that impressive. IMO it's a stupid thing to cite and a notch above entirely meaningless. Hell, if you're not mathematically in the playoff hunt after week 12, then it can only mean that you really really suck. Would it have been impressive if Allen had stated that the only team that wasn't in the playoff hunt was the 0-12 Dolphins and that as Bills fans we should all be jacked that we came "that close" to making them? Just checking because some of you seem to think so.
Chilly Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 You're taking a subjective statement and making it technical. There's about 0 chance that Wilson would have said the Bills were still in playoff contention if they were 3-9 at that point.
krazykat Posted July 18, 2008 Author Posted July 18, 2008 After week 15 with two games left 9 of 16 teams in the AFC were still in they playoff hunt including the Texans. Over in the NFC 12 of 16 teams were still in it after 15 weeks.
krazykat Posted July 18, 2008 Author Posted July 18, 2008 You're taking a subjective statement and making it technical. There's about 0 chance that Wilson would have said the Bills were still in playoff contention if they were 3-9 at that point. LOL We were 6-6, had given up nearly a hundred more points than we had gotten ourselves (a greater deficit than any other team in the AFC by then except the 0-12 Fins), had barely averaged 15 ppg, were ranked poorly across the board, and hadn't beaten one winning team. Wilson was using it as a reason to suggest that we may be close this year which is as silly as can be.
Hazed and Amuzed Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Why are you picking it apart. You speak of relevance yet how is picking apart this statement relevant? The guy made a simple and irrelevant statement... big whoop.
hit and marshawn Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 After week 15 with two games left 9 of 16 teams in the AFC were still in they playoff hunt including the Texans. Over in the NFC 12 of 16 teams were still in it after 15 weeks. exactly, so what he is saying is that Jauron was able to keep his team fighting with the rest of the league even with the insane amount of injuries, this is a stupid argument
krazykat Posted July 18, 2008 Author Posted July 18, 2008 Why are you picking it apart. You speak of relevance yet how is picking apart this statement relevant? The guy made a simple and irrelevant statement... big whoop. I'm saying that we weren't any closer to making the NFL playoffs last season that the local Pop Warner team was of making the NFL playoffs. For people to cite our mathematical standing and to use it as an "almost," which is exactly what Wilson and others here have done in the past, is bogus. But people seem to draw meaning from it as if there is actually any. Otherwise, I just threw it up as a discussion topic, not necessarily something for all the Bills fan ball washers to get their panties in a wad over.
Chilly Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 LOL We were 6-6, had given up nearly a hundred more points than we had gotten ourselves (a greater deficit than any other team in the AFC by then except the 0-12 Fins), had barely averaged 15 ppg, were ranked poorly across the board, and hadn't beaten one winning team. Congrats, you don't agree we were in playoff contention. There were people on the board split into two separate camps last year as well - those who felt the 6-6 record was a sign of progress, and those who didn't. Wilson was using it as a reason to suggest that we may be close this year which is as silly as can be. Using "3-9 teams were still in playoff contention see!!!!!" is as silly as can be as well. You don't agree that the Bills were really in playoff contention - fine. That's subjective.
krazykat Posted July 18, 2008 Author Posted July 18, 2008 exactly, so what he is saying is that Jauron was able to keep his team fighting with the rest of the league even with the insane amount of injuries, this is a stupid argument That's another issue that was tremendously overplayed. You talk as if our starters did a fine job but that since we had no depth we just fell apart in the 4th Q constantly when the reality is that even our starters sucked and we hardly had any injuries to them at all besides Poz an Simpson. Lynch got hurt but played 13 games and frankly we got good production when he was out except in the Jax and NE games when he wouldn't have done much anyway and certainly not to make a win. If the injured reserve players were so critical, then why are so few still on the team? Many were preseason injuries anyway and most were the caliber of players that can be picked up off the waiver wire. You overrate the extent of our injuries. If our starters had played well early in games then it would have made a difference. STs played just fine. So instead of just citing the lengthy list of nobodies on our IR last year, how about for once explaining in detail how not having guys like Aaron Merz, Peerless Price, Kiwaukee Thomas, Al Wallace, Copeland Bryan, Kevin Harrison and Matt Murphy really hurt us at all. I mean do you even know who Kevin Harrison is?
krazykat Posted July 18, 2008 Author Posted July 18, 2008 You're taking a subjective statement and making it technical. There's about 0 chance that Wilson would have said the Bills were still in playoff contention if they were 3-9 at that point. There was a 0-percent chance that playing such that you can't score and allow the largest negative point differential over any other team but the Dolphins means you aren't in contention either. Wilson is saying that based entirely on our 6-6 record, apart from the fact that our offense couldn't score, our defense couldn't stop anyone, our coaching was not good, and that generally speaking we just sucked by pretty much any measure you want to use besides that very fortunate 6-6 mark, that we were in playoff contention. It's dumb.
Hazed and Amuzed Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 I'm saying that we weren't any closer to making the NFL playoffs last season that the local Pop Warner team was of making the NFL playoffs. For people to cite our mathematical standing and to use it as an "almost," which is exactly what Wilson and others here have done in the past, is bogus. But people seem to draw meaning from it as if there is actually any. Otherwise, I just threw it up as a discussion topic, not necessarily something for all the Bills fan ball washers to get their panties in a wad over. Seriously, why are you a Bills fan? If their is nothing you like then why are you a fan?
keepthefaith Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 In Allen Wilson's preview which came out today or yesterday, he says the following: During Jauron’s first two seasons, the Bills had many growing pains, from being forced to play inexperienced people to enduring a ridiculous amount of injuries. Yet both of those squads were in playoff contention until the last month of the season. Nothing unusual there and many commentators make those kinds of comments. But what does it really mean? Week 13 (12 game played, 4 remaining) took us through November last year with the next week's games in December. So what Wilson is saying here is that the Bills were still in the playoff hunt then. OK, I just looked at the standings at the week 13 mark and if the playoffs had begun that week the Pats, Steelers, Browns or Titans, Colts, Jags, and Chargers would have made them. The weakest of the teams from a records standpoint was the Browns or Titans at 7-5 slugging it out for the sixth seed as it ended up. So in essence, since there's four weeks left, it is possible that a team within four games of the Browns/Titans, or any team with a record of 3-9 or better was technically still in the playoff hunt pending the various configurations of which team played which one along with tiebreakers. Theoretically the Browns and Titans could lose all four of their next games and the 3-9 team win them all and with some help, make the playoffs. We all know that's not realistic, but most people are far enough from realistic here to warrant this post. Regardless, what that means is that every team in the AFC with a record of 3-9 following week 13's games was still "in playoff contention" as Wilson puts it. OK, that means that of the 16 teams in the conference, all but one, the 0-12 Dolphins were in playoff contention. OK, so we'll slide that one week. Weak link is now still the Browns at 8-5 following another win. So then any team with a record of 5-8 is technically still "in playoff contention" reducing the field from 15 teams to 11 of 16. So I ask, why is this even cited as if it means that a team was close to making the playoffs? In this case we're talking about the Bills, but we could just as easily have been talking about the Bengals, Texans, or Broncos too as four of five teams out from those 11 including the Bills. Either way, four games out means that any team four games from the sixth seed at that time is still in contention. Considering that that sixth seed doesn't have a great record to begin with, why is that impressive. IMO it's a stupid thing to cite and a notch above entirely meaningless. Hell, if you're not mathematically in the playoff hunt after week 12, then it can only mean that you really really suck. Would it have been impressive if Allen had stated that the only team that wasn't in the playoff hunt was the 0-12 Dolphins and that as Bills fans we should all be jacked that we came "that close" to making them? Just checking because some of you seem to think so. From a practical standpoint, the Bills were not in the playoff hunt because they had demonstrated all year that they could not beat a good team.
Chilly Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 There was a 0-percent chance that playing such that you can't score and allow the largest negative point differential over any other team but the Dolphins means you aren't in contention either. Wilson is saying that based entirely on our 6-6 record, apart from the fact that our offense couldn't score, our defense couldn't stop anyone, our coaching was not good, and that generally speaking we just sucked by pretty much any measure you want to use besides that very fortunate 6-6 mark, that we were in playoff contention. It's dumb. Great, you don't agree with it, doesn't make your original post any more valid.
Beerball Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 In Allen Wilson's preview which came out today or yesterday, he says the following: During Jauron’s first two seasons, the Bills had many growing pains, from being forced to play inexperienced people to enduring a ridiculous amount of injuries. Yet both of those squads were in playoff contention until the last month of the season. Nothing unusual there and many commentators make those kinds of comments. But what does it really mean? Week 13 (12 game played, 4 remaining) took us through November last year with the next week's games in December. So what Wilson is saying here is that the Bills were still in the playoff hunt then. OK, I just looked at the standings at the week 13 mark and if the playoffs had begun that week the Pats, Steelers, Browns or Titans, Colts, Jags, and Chargers would have made them. The weakest of the teams from a records standpoint was the Browns or Titans at 7-5 slugging it out for the sixth seed as it ended up. So in essence, since there's four weeks left, it is possible that a team within four games of the Browns/Titans, or any team with a record of 3-9 or better was technically still in the playoff hunt pending the various configurations of which team played which one along with tiebreakers. Theoretically the Browns and Titans could lose all four of their next games and the 3-9 team win them all and with some help, make the playoffs. We all know that's not realistic, but most people are far enough from realistic here to warrant this post. Regardless, what that means is that every team in the AFC with a record of 3-9 following week 13's games was still "in playoff contention" as Wilson puts it. OK, that means that of the 16 teams in the conference, all but one, the 0-12 Dolphins were in playoff contention. OK, so we'll slide that one week. Weak link is now still the Browns at 8-5 following another win. So then any team with a record of 5-8 is technically still "in playoff contention" reducing the field from 15 teams to 11 of 16. So I ask, why is this even cited as if it means that a team was close to making the playoffs? In this case we're talking about the Bills, but we could just as easily have been talking about the Bengals, Texans, or Broncos too as four of five teams out from those 11 including the Bills. Either way, four games out means that any team four games from the sixth seed at that time is still in contention. Considering that that sixth seed doesn't have a great record to begin with, why is that impressive. IMO it's a stupid thing to cite and a notch above entirely meaningless. Hell, if you're not mathematically in the playoff hunt after week 12, then it can only mean that you really really suck. Would it have been impressive if Allen had stated that the only team that wasn't in the playoff hunt was the 0-12 Dolphins and that as Bills fans we should all be jacked that we came "that close" to making them? Just checking because some of you seem to think so. And this was important to you why now...?
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Seeing as how Jim Kelly retired in 1998, I fail to see your point.
hit and marshawn Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 That's another issue that was tremendously overplayed. You talk as if our starters did a fine job but that since we had no depth we just fell apart in the 4th Q constantly when the reality is that even our starters sucked and we hardly had any injuries to them at all besides Poz an Simpson. Lynch got hurt but played 13 games and frankly we got good production when he was out except in the Jax and NE games when he wouldn't have done much anyway and certainly not to make a win. If the injured reserve players were so critical, then why are so few still on the team? Many were preseason injuries anyway and most were the caliber of players that can be picked up off the waiver wire. You overrate the extent of our injuries. If our starters had played well early in games then it would have made a difference. STs played just fine. So instead of just citing the lengthy list of nobodies on our IR last year, how about for once explaining in detail how not having guys like Aaron Merz, Peerless Price, Kiwaukee Thomas, Al Wallace, Copeland Bryan, Kevin Harrison and Matt Murphy really hurt us at all. I mean do you even know who Kevin Harrison is? if they were so uninportant, then why were they on the field ahead of the guys who replaced them, all of your posts are enjoyable to read, you must be really fun to watch the games with, and must really enjoy being a fan. What is the point of watching sports, which should be enjoyable, if all you do is B word and gripe about how bad the team is. anyone who says that we werent one of the top 4 teams looking for a wild card spot last year is stupid in my opinion, we fell apart in the cleveland game, and then lost it as a team. also to say that injuries had nothing to do with it is ignorant
Adam Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 if they were so uninportant, then why were they on the field ahead of the guys who replaced them, all of your posts are enjoyable to read, you must be really fun to watch the games with, and must really enjoy being a fan. What is the point of watching sports, which should be enjoyable, if all you do is B word and gripe about how bad the team is. anyone who says that we werent one of the top 4 teams looking for a wild card spot last year is stupid in my opinion, we fell apart in the cleveland game, and then lost it as a team. also to say that injuries had nothing to do with it is ignorant I agree with much of what you said, but Cleveland was flat out better than us. They took advantage of having better lines than us and pounded the ball down our throat at the end.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 I agree with much of what you said, but Cleveland was flat out better than us. They took advantage of having better lines than us and pounded the ball down our throat at the end. Not really, as I remember it... despite the pounding, the Bills had the ball many times down the stretch, and were on the 10 in the last minute... play calling made the difference, and three bad bounces--one on the deflected pass that led to the first FG, one for the second FG that bounced through, and one on the bad punt snap. I am not sure that the Browns were that much better.
John from Riverside Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 LOL We were 6-6, had given up nearly a hundred more points than we had gotten ourselves (a greater deficit than any other team in the AFC by then except the 0-12 Fins), had barely averaged 15 ppg, were ranked poorly across the board, and hadn't beaten one winning team. Wilson was using it as a reason to suggest that we may be close this year which is as silly as can be. I may be totally off base.....but didn't last years Super Bowl champions drop a string of games at one point and then go on a tear? My point is in football....ANYTHING can happen.
Recommended Posts