Pondslider

Too bad about those meaningless games in October and November.

I'm not asking for anything. I answered the OP and responded to the assertion that the Broncos were a good team last year. In the post you quoted I was pointing out that whether the Broncos count as a good team or not the Bills' record against "good" teams has been pretty bleak lately so splitting hairs over an 8-8 division winner seems pointless.

Hahaha. Because that's exactly what I said. Better to wax nostalgic about that epic 20-16 win over the 5-11Jacksonville Jaguars, I guess.

2008 Wins against Seattle, Jacksonville, San Diego combine for a 17-31 record. San Diego was the best of the group at 8-8. 2009 Jets were 9-7 and an up and coming team. The Panthers were 8-8. The Colts rested their starters for almost the entire game, but they were technically a "good team." 2010 My mind kind of boggles that beating a 7-9 Dolphins team is considered a signature win. Holy **** what low expectations. 2011 "Co-division champs" were .500. I guess that's good? The Patriots were inarguably a good team that the Bills beat. 2012 The Cardinals haven't won a game since week 4. Let me get my zubaz so we can plan the parade.

Haha. Ok. So let's the say the Broncos were a good team by your definition. That's two good teams the Bills have beaten in the last three years. Unless you'd like to make an argument for the 2010 7-9 Dolphins. That Chad Henne has potential. I guess facts just make me a negative person who hates his life and takes it out on the poor oppressed Bills.

The Bills sucking has no bearing on my life. It's been true so long it's just something that is accepted. It barely even registers anymore. The question was when was the last time they beat a good team. I don't think the Broncos were really that good because they finished .500 and made it the playoffs because of a weak division. Their offense finished 23rd and their defense finished 20th They get credit for beating the Steelers but it doesn't suddenly make them a good team. You seem to be taking this more personally than anybody else here, Champ.

They were 8-8 with a decent defense. The Bills beat them at home with a time zone difference.

The Patriots last year. The Broncos were not a good team. They were better than the Bills but that's faint praise.

The Bills haven't been an awful team for over a decade because of a culture of losing. They have been awful because they've had less talent playing and coaching than other teams have had. Anything that allows this group to deem this terrible season (and if they fail to make the playoffs then it's terrible regardless of the record) as making progress sets the team back even further. I don't think anybody is suggesting that the team loses intentionally, but I can't believe there are people who don't think that losing out is better for this team long term.

If the Bills are only a "couple of pieces" (QB, Three LBs, C, WR, CB, S?) away, then wouldn't it be better for the Bills to lose out and have a better shot at obtaining those pieces? Especially if, as you say, they are better than their record indicates -- though I'm not sure what evidence there is for that.

Nice. I'm hoping for a second punter though.

I don't hate Fitzpatrick for being mediocre. I hate Chan Gailey and Buddy Nix for continuing to pretend he isn't mediocre.

Fitz sucks AND the defense sucks. Win/Win.

The Jaguars are barely an NFL team and the Bills beat them in awful weather. I don't think anybody should read too much into it. Spiller was still severely underused. Chan hasn't learned a thing.

Would 8-8 or 9-7 only beating other really bad teams really be a success? So far their 5 wins are against Kansas City Cleveland Arizona Miami Jacksonville They have a combined record of 16-43. Let's say the Bills run the table. Would anybody really be proud of a 9-7 record beating 8 sub-.500 teams, still missing the playoffs and allowing Nix and Gailey to call it progress? I can't believe anybody really thinks that would be a positive.

Just think of all the moral victories left to win!

Fitzpatrick being Fitzpatrick and David Nelson getting hurt early on messed him up.

Why settle? Aaron Rodgers and a 1st or no deal.

Even if it was Fred Jackson there's no way the Packers would offer Jordy Nelson. Probably more like a 3rd or 4th round pick.

Maybe the Raiders would send Derek Hagan back.

The Bills approach is looking more like the Steelers before they got Ben Roethlisberger. They didn't go out and draft a QB every year or reach for someone to annoint. They went through journeyman waiting for their guy. The Steelers were farther along than the Bills in other parts of the game (cough defense cough cough) before they got him, but I think it lowers expectations a little more this way. Nobody expects the Bills to win with Fitzpatrick or the Steelers with Tommy Maddox, but as soon as you draft that guy it all changes, so you better be sure. On the other hand you have to pick someone at some point. If the Steelers had passed on Roethlisberger in favor of their journeyman-of-the-month, then Cowher probably doesn't last long enough to win a Super Bowl.

Opponents avg. starting field position includes after punts right?

Is that right?