MadBuffaloDisease Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I have no idea what point you're trying to make. You start by saying this team has no talent, and you end by saying Bledsoe's words are going to motivate everyone to play better. If they're as bad as you say (which they might be), maybe they're not capable of playing any better? Whoa, hold on there! Talk about strawman arguments. I never said the Bills have "no talent" on offense, just that in comparison to what Kelly had to work with, it's not even comparable. And by "play better," I mean DO THEIR FUGGIN' JOBS, like catching passes, blocking, and playing with discipline. I mean when Moulds has to come out and say that the TEAM is dogging it, you know something's wrong beyond just the QB position. Obviously, the team is not as talented as it was in 1991. But what about 95 - Our last division title? Thurman was decent but not dominant, Lofton was retired, Reed was injured the entire year, the go-to WR was Billy Brooks, and the OL was rebuilding & being anchored by a rookie named Rueben Brown. Like the current team, that was a defensive oriented team. Unlike the current team, the QB was able to raise the level of play of the guys around him to SCORE enough points to win more often than not. Not necessarily 31 pts, but at least a respectable 17-20 more often than not - and Kelly wasn't even in the prime of his career at that point. How many 13-10 games do we have to lose until you realize Deadsoe is not capable of doing that? You may have forgotten but that 1995 team was great at generating sacks and turnovers, thanks to Bruce, Bennett, and Paup. That gave the offense more scoring opps and in good position more often than not. And STILL the Bills' O-line was infinitely better back then than it is now, Thurman was still in his prime and a 2-way threat (not to mention he was a great blitz-picker-upper), and the players knew their roles and how to do their jobs. If you think Kelly would have success with this offense, much less escape injury (since he got injured behind a great O-line like the one he had), you're deluded. But wait, Kelly would have made them play better, right? Thurman, Reed, Lofton, Hull, etc. were all scrubs who Kelly made look good, right? I loved Kelly, but he had some great players around him, and I'll never forgive him for pissing away his SB chances because he was out partying until the wee hours of the morning on the day of the SB. Please, anything but the tired "Drew is not the only problem" straw-man argument - I'm sick of it almost as much as I'm sick of Drew. 88924[/snapback] Probably about as sick as I am of people wanting to see Matthews and Losman in there. Great, a journeyman QB who wasn't even playing football last year, and a rookie who broke his leg in practice. Sorry I still hold out hope that the ENTIRE offense will get their collective heads out of their asses and start doing something, so I'mn not ready to piss-away the season by playing lesser talent. Maybe when the Bills reach 8 losses I'll realize the offense and season is hopeless, but in the meantime, a rushing TD would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 You may have forgotten but that 1995 team was great at generating sacks and turnovers, thanks to Bruce, Bennett, and Paup. That gave the offense more scoring opps and in good position more often than not. And STILL the Bills' O-line was infinitely better back then than it is now, Thurman was still in his prime and a 2-way threat (not to mention he was a great blitz-picker-upper), and the players knew their roles and how to do their jobs. If you think Kelly would have success with this offense, much less escape injury (since he got injured behind a great O-line like the one he had), you're deluded. But wait, Kelly would have made them play better, right? Thurman, Reed, Lofton, Hull, etc. were all scrubs who Kelly made look good, right? 88934[/snapback] As I've pointed out already, Lofton & Reed weren't on the field in '95. The overall talent may have been slightly better, but nowhere near the discrepancy that the numbers would indicate. Our current defense isn't the best in the turnover department, but when they do create them, the offense doesn't do anything with it. Nothing last week after getting the ball at the 22 yd line. Nothing vs. Jacksonville after getting the ball on the 3 yard line. Nothing vs. a lousy Houston defense last year after a rare Winfield int deep in their territory. Nothing vs. NE last year when Posey sacked Brady & forced a fumble. Nothing vs. KC after a safety... Whatever....if watching Deadsoe play the last 2 years hasn't changed your mind about him, then nothing will - certainly not any post on a message board. Once JP is behind center in 3 weeks, it won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 That's a valid comparison. LT would make our offensive line look MUCH better than it is. Great players do that. 88703[/snapback] Let's hope Willis is our LT. In my opinion LT was worth the Vick trade. Time may prove me wrong but he is a very special back getting ignored in Charger hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Sorry I still hold out hope that the ENTIRE offense will get their collective heads out of their asses and start doing something, so I'mn not ready to piss-away the season by playing lesser talent. Maybe when the Bills reach 8 losses I'll realize the offense and season is hopeless, but in the meantime, a rushing TD would be nice. 88934[/snapback] I think the point may be that Drew is such a head case now that he IS the lesser talent. I'm not saying Drew can't have his moments, but what is more valuable to our team at this juncture? Losing a few games with JP or losing them with Drew? Witness Pittsburgh. Everyone thought their season was destined for the crapper with a rookie starter coming in for game 2. If you're not going to win, playing the guy "who gives you the best chance to win" is meaningless. Especially if you have an unknown element in Losman. JP may in fact be the best chance to win, if for no other reason than that opposing defenses don't have the book on him (kinda like Pennington when he first came in -- he wasn't spectacular but he was not what was expected). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts