SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

Yea. Nobody is rushing up the middle, and despite the fact we haven't recorded a lot of sacks, there has been consistent pressure on QBs all season. You can check our interception totals for evidence of this. Some people just lack the understanding of the dynamics of football to be able to accurately assess talent and/or effectiveness. I would assume you are part of this group, considering how you actually reference Lee Evans in your screen name.

Personally I think they play the games because nobody would by tickets otherwise, but then again, I'm very cynical.

I think I would prefer the proven loser actually. Tim Tebow is going to be a winning NFL QB. I watched him play for 4 years from the perspective of an opposing fan. The guy will beat you. It might not be the prettiest throw, but to be perfectly honest, they are way overplaying his passing deficiencies. The guy can hum it. I don't care what he does in practice. I saw him SHRED SEC defenses week in and week out. You can blame it on the system he played in if you want, but look, he completely obliterated most major collegiate passing records, even far outshining Peyton Manning. I saw what he does over and over and over. He will win in the NFL. You can take it to the bank now. Broncos fans are right for calling for Tebow. They should be. If I hear one more pundit or analyst say that Kyle Orton is the better QB, I will puke my guts up. We haven't even see Tebow play in a meaningful stretch of games, so unequivocally calling him worse than quite possibly the worst starting QB in pro football seems absurd beyond all reason. If it wasn't for the emergence of Fitz, I would still regret that we didn't draft Tim Tebow. Yea, my opinion is obviously in the minority. Then again I watched from start to finish probably at least 20 Tebow games at Florida, and most of you simply formulated your opinions based on what the ESPN people told you to think so...

As a Braves fan, I truly enjoy my annual "Phillies early post-season exit" celebration.

What, because the rest of his team isn't very good? You can't blame this loss on Vick - he played well. Every interception was CAUSED by the Bills horrible porous defense - Vick could not have prevented them in any way. In fact, I'm not sure you can blame any losses on Vick. In fact, Vick is the only good thing the Eagles have going for them. Just because you hate the guy doesn't make him less of a player. The same is true when he played for the Falcons...he was the team. Period. Proof? He goes to prison, the Falcons fall apart, their coach leaves mid season, they flounder like...well...the Falcons. Oh no..this loss was not on Vick. For all the criticism, a majority of the credit for the Bills win goes squarely to their defense. Technically, it wasn't anything in the Bills game design that stopped Vick. It was flat out superiority of our athletes versus their athletes. Vick could not stand in the pocket and throw without getting pressured, and he was battered all game long (again). They couldn't run the ball to take the pressure off Vick (other than what Vick contributed on the ground himself). Their defense was pretty bad for large chunks of the game. Seriously, blaming it on Vick strikes me as incredibly ignorant.

If anyone doesn't like how the Bills are playing, pick a different team and root for them. Then you don't have to worry about our defense, and we don't have to listen to you B word. The Patriots have sustained that winning style for oh a decade or so. Quit whining.

Well if we join the Pac-10, we can probably do that every week.

I disagree. We hadn't beaten the Eagles in like what, 12 years? No,I'd much prefer that win. Bengals loss still blows donkey turds though. So? Are you saying you don't still want to punish them if you can?

Nice.

I see a lot of negative posts about our terrible defense, lucky turnovers, etc. But I think those people are missing a big part of the picture. For substantial stretches of every game this season, the Bills have been flat out dominant - for at least 2 straight quarters in each game. Their weakness has been the inability to play consistently from start to finish. Just imagine, if they played the Pats for 4 quarters the way they played for 2 1/2 quarters. I see no reason to think that as the younger players continue to gain experience they will not learn to be more consistent from start to finish. It seems a natural progression. Even still, with inconsistency at times, they are 4-1. So really, just stop bitching about it.

Yea so...remember the Patriots? They built a dynasty on wins like these.

Wouldn't it be fun if we could pull of the sweep against the NFC east this year, thereby avenging each of our SB losses, en route to the most improbable Super Bowl Championship in NFL history? Bills, let us dream a bit longer.

No, that isn't what the NFL cares about. If it was, there would not be a salary cap. It is the media that cares about the large markets, and that is because they are a business driven by ratings. You love FOX? WHY?

Uh...so you are using the logic that because they dealt Evans, they would pass on T.O.? You my friend are still suffering from an acute "Evans is a good player" delusions. There is a MASSIVE difference between T.O. and Lee Evans, even this late in T.O's career. At T.O.'s worst, he is 2-3 times more valuable than Evans ever was or will be. Look I mean after 4 games, the guy has 2 catches. LEE EVANS IS NOT GOOD.

Uh..to make them drive 80 yards? Instead of giving them the opportunity to break off a big return? I mean a kick-off return is by far the easiest play to break open...why test the fates? It doesn't make sense...what for a potential difference of maybe 5 yards at best? Comon...this should not need to be explained.

No, that is bad strategy. You put them at the 20 if you can. Period.

We are getting really fast pressure on Vick. Nobody should be complaining at all about not getting sacks. The pressure is obviously there.

Did you just make that up?

Really? 3.9 YPC is averaging a first down every three plays. It's greater than what you need for your running game to be effective. 3.9 YPC will do just fine.

lol @ Lee Evans

I don't think they are better than we thought. They played an inspired game, most likely that 11 game losing streak to us (I never realized it was that long) and last year's big comeback providing them with said inspiration. They played a hell of a game, but they are still a 6 win team. I don't think they are better than we thought. They played an inspired game, most likely that 11 game losing streak to us (I never realized it was that long) and last year's big comeback providing them with said inspiration. They played a hell of a game, but they are still a 6 win team. But I do give their defense credit - I was very impressed with how physical they were. A defense like that could see them develop into a contender - I just doubt it will be this year.

I understand what you guys are saying about not being in a situation where one call can cost you the game. But here's the thing. It was a 3 point margin of victory, and that one call very likely changed the final outcome. Beyond that, it's not like we played a terrible game and lost due to a bad call. We played a solid game all the way around, as did the Bengals, and we needed the correct call for a hard fought, tough victory. I feel like that call was garbage and it absolutely was the difference between a winning effort and a losing effort. If the call had been correct, the Bills are most likely 4-0. That's a major blown call and should not be overlooked at all.

I'm impressed with the Bengals' physical defense.

Personally I feel like you are just talking out of your ass. Nobody ever sacks Brady much, and when teams do, its from pressure up the middle most of the time. News flash: he doesn't hold the ball. And pressure off the edge has never bothered Brady in the least, he just steps up into the pocket and throws it. You know what, I think you don't really understand what you're watching. We've played two run-dominant teams and the Patriots. It shouldn't come as any surprise we haven't registered many sacks. Your expectations simply do not match reality.

Incorrect. When a team defers, that means they defer their option until the second half, not that they defer their option to the other team. At half time, the deferring team then can choose to either kick off or receive. I played in a HS game once where we deferred and they chose to kick off. They were really pissed when they had to kick it off again at halftime. Likewise, if they do not defer, they get the option to kick or receive in the first half, and the other team gets the same option in the second half. So were they to choose to kick, the other team would get their option at halftime and would force them to kick off again. And then someone would lose their job.