billsfan1959

Unless I'm mistaken...isn't Missouri the state that elected a dead guy as senator in the 2000 elections? Just sayin'

Love what the Bills did overall today. I think the run defense is much improved but needs to (and will IMO) just be more consistent about not giving up the big runs. KC's rushes today: 18 total. 14 for 37 yards and a 2.6 average - but the other 4 rushes went for 71 yards and and a 17.8 average. Again, looking at in context of the score and the nature/design of those runs, I am not going to be overly critical. I am ecstatic about how the team played today and I do think they will get more consistent in the run defense...they are already head and shoulders above what I saw the last couple of years. They played very solidly as a team from beginning to end in this game. Setting aside the W and the score (a pleasant bonus)...that is what I really have been waiting to see... Here's hoping they continue that trend

Evans - 0 catches on four balls thrown his way

You are certainly welcome to your opinion and free to express it all you want. You can make an intelligent argument to support what you believe; however, equally intelligent arguments can be made to support different beliefs. You can believe the owner is cheap and could care less about winning, and that Nix and Gailey are merely puppets of the financial guys. I have been following the team passionately since 1968. What I have observed during that time leads me to believe that the owner wants a winning team and there are times his decisions are made accordingly. There are also times his decisions are based on the fact that it is a business (and he has every right to treat it as such). On many occasions decisions appear to be based on a complicated mixture of the two. Bad decisions at times? Yes. Hiring the wrong people at times and allowing them to make bad decisions? Yes. But in the end I believe Ralph Wilson would like to give the fans a winning team. In addition, my observations over the last two years lead me to believe that Nix and Gailey are trying to build a winning team and are not merely puppets of a cheap owner and his financial minions. Based on what I have seen, I am willing to give them a chance to succeed. My point is this: Based on my own observations, I believe differently than you do. So, (1) why do I have to believe what you do? and (2) Why is it so important to you that I do?

Agreed. Sheppard looked very good for first game action. I also liked Morrison (for just joining the team) and Heard (really got consistent push on the O line; and I really hope they find room for Aiken - I think he has looked pretty strong all pre-season

Two of his sacks were definitely his fault rather than the O line, he rarely put a ball where he should have for his receivers, and couldn't read a blitz if it was signaled to him on the score board. He has been bad all pre-season and was even worse tonight. Brown hasn't been appreciably better but has much more upside IMO

Really like Sheppard....but about to have an aneurysm watching Thigpen...just horrible

Welcome back

That post wasn't intended to indicate any of what you wrote. It was in response to the OP claiming that the TD/Int ratio was such an important stat. It was sarcasm to illustrate how using a single stat in a vacuum is ridiculous.

There is no single player that has the most effect on the turnover margin. That's the point. There are a number of factors that play into every turnover: from a missed block, to a tipped pass, to a bad route on a timing pattern, to a bad throw, to the weather, etc., etc, etc. There is plenty of blame to go around in a team sport...it would literally take a break down on film of each and every turnover to assign the proper blame. And that is on the offensive side of the ball. Forcing turnovers on defense is an entirely different analysis and just as important - that's why they call it a turnover/take away margin. In the post you began this thread with, you singled out Fitzpatrick without any real supporting argument and completely ignored any other factors that may have contributed to the turnover margin. My apologies, but I just don't find that to be a logical argument in explaining the team's +/- differential.

Point taken

With all due respect, the OP started this thread talking about the +/- margins of NFL teams in 2010. He then stated the Buffalo Bills had the worst margin. He then supplied Ryan Fitzpatrick's career numbers, which, as far as I can tell, have no relevance to the 2010 turnover margin. He then supplied only the number of interceptions and fumbles Fitzpatrick had in 2010 - under the heading of "ugly." He mentioned nothing else. So the rational, logical flow of the post was that the Buffalo Bills had the worst turnover margin in 2010 and the reason was Fitzpatrick. I have no problem with anyone expressing their opinion. But as I told all of my children as they were growing up: You have the right to believe whatever you want. However, if you are going to express your opinion, be able to articulate a legitimate foundation for why you believe what you believe. Since it is logical to conclude from the OP's post that he blamed Fitzpatrick for the Buffalo Bills' bad turnover margin in 2010 - then we should be able to counter that argument with Fitzpatrick's statistics from 2010. As such, his career statistics are irrelevant. The fact is that Fitzpatrick passed for 3000 yards, threw 23 touchdowns, threw 15 interceptions, had a TD/Int ratio of 1.53, and fumbled 8 times. Those numbers are average numbers for a QB in any season (and compare favorably to the career average numbers of many of the QBs mentioned in the article you cited). The fact that he did it after being thrown in as the starter behind an offensive line that kept him running for his life and constantly in 2nd or 3rd and long (and many other factors)certainly is relevant - nothing happens in a vacuum. And even more relevant to the argument by the OP is the fact that the defense was horrendous in forcing turnovers. You will not find one post I have ever written where I championed Fitzpatrick in any way. However, he did a decent job on a bad team last year. His performance last year had far less to do with our turnover margin than many other factors - and his career stats have no relevance to the 2010 turnover margin at all.

Terry Bradshaw (1), Jim Kelly (1.35), Troy Aikman (1.17), and John Elway (1.32), just to name a few, all had career TD to Interception ratios that were worse than what Fitz posted last year (1.53). Pretty "ugly" stuff for a stat that is so important. Perhaps we should have them removed from the Hall of Fame…

You're right. Tom Brady did have an elite year in 2010. He also had an elite year in 2007. But those kinds of years are rare for any quarterback, even the "elite" quarterbacks like Brady, Manning, etc. Ryan Fitzpatrick is not an elite quarterback; however, your analysis is really pretty simplistic and his "ugly" stats for 2010 are actually average stats for a quarterback: 23 touchdowns, 15 interceptions, a touchdown/interception ratio of 1.53, an attempts/interception ratio of 30, and 8 fumbles. For the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2009, Tom Brady averaged 25 touchdowns, 13 interceptions, a touchdown/interception ratio of 1.9, an attempts/interception ratio of 40, and 9 fumbles. Fairly similar and pretty ugly by your standards - yet, he somehow managed to win some super bowls; which he didn't win in either of his two elite years. Is Fitzpatrick in the same category as Tom Brady? Absolutely not. Just sayin' having winning seasons is a lot more complicated than a stat line - and your singling out of Fitzpatrick for this team's woes is a little misguided.

Aaron Rodgers Peyton Manning Drew Brees Tom Brady Phillip Rivers Eli Manning Ben Roethlisberger Tony Romo Michael Vick Matt Ryan Matthew Stafford Kyle Orton Jay Cutler Joe Flacco Matt Schaub Ryan Fitzpatrick Mark Sanchez Donovan McNabb Sam Bradford Matt Hasselbeck David Garrard Alex Smith Josh Freeman John Beck/Rex Grossman Kevin Kolb Colt McCoy Matt Cassel Jason Campbell Andy Dalton Chad Henne Cameron Newton Tarvaris Jackson

Nice to see Maybin putting his best foot forward for the Jets. You're right, it's clear Rex has helped Maybin with his footwork the way he came around that corner...and sacked that quarterback, what, 10 or fifteen feet behind the line of scrimmage? Of, course he better keep it up or Rex will put a foot up his... PS: F-E-E-T. Feet. Feet. Feet.

Didn't Ralph own the team during our Super Bowl years?

I'm pretty sure they do...

The Bills screwed up yet again. How the hell did they come away from the 2011 NFL Draft without a quarterback? Ryan Fitzpatrick is not the answer. Every football person outside of Buffalo knows this, yet the Bills stubbornly continue to settle for mediocrity at the most important position in football. So, let's see what Walterfootball.com had to say about the quarterbacks that went in the first round after Buffalo's pick: Locker at #8 - "Locker's accuracy is abysmal and his football IQ is pretty low" Gabbert at #10 - "I think Gabbert will be OK. I like the fact that he can sit behind David Garrard for a year or two Ponder at #12 - "A reach that would make Inspector Gadget proud" I'm not sure which one of those would have been worthy of a number three pick by their own descriptions. let's look at what they had to say about the top quarterbacks that Buffalo passed on in the 2nd: Dalton at #35 - "received mixed reviews from the scouting community, so it remains to be seen how he'll perform" Kaepernick at #36 - "may not start in 2011, but that's OK. He's a project Mallett at #74 - "has JaMarcus Russell-like character concerns and a Byron Leftwich-like release. There's upside, but that's about it.": So, it doesn't sound as if walterfootball.com was sold on any of these quarterbacks as having "franchise potential" or even rising above "mediocrity" (to use their own term). Sort of idiotic to question the intelligence of those who agree with you... As an aside, they also offered these stunning gems of analyses: About the Mallett pick: "I have no doubt in my mind that Belichick doesn't plan on playing Mallett at all. He's going to trade him in a year or two to a quarterback-hungry team for a much higher pick" - Really. Tom Brady as the starter...signed through 2014...and they figured that out all on their own? About Cam Newton: "I don't think he'll ever be great..I liken Cam Newton to Vince Young. Like Young, Newton possesses an amazing skill set, but doesn't appear to love the game of football enough to put hundreds of hours into film study...[but] has the intangibles to be a great leader for this Carolina franchise" - So, he doesn't have the heart or motivation for the game? This just in..those are the "intangibles". "Tangibles" are the skills... Idiots...

That Jerry is a pro. Pretty simple. I don't why some of you are so jealous that he's considered a pro. OK...you got me curious now. Are you Jerry - or Jerry's mom?

I am also one of the older fans - over 50 and have passionately followed the Bills since I was 8 years old. I have followed them through the lowest of lows, the highest of highs, and everything in between. I can become angry, dismayed, disgusted, cynical, or (place your favorite adjective here) like any Bills fan. However, they are the team of my childhood, a passion I have shared with friends and family for most of my life, the source of a lot of wonderful memories (the ones that really matter like the first game I ever went to and the first game I ever took my son to - both losses by the way, but the final scores meant nothing compared to the experiences themselves) - and the only football team I can truly root for. It is what it is. I've been here before - and things will get better (sooner rather than later I hope ). But, in the end, they are my team. So I try to hope for the best, not to stress too much over things I can't control, and remember that it is only a game.

And you really should use a semicolon before, and a comma after, a conjuntive adverb when joining two independent clauses Just sayin'