vegas55

It pains me to point this out about who has been one of my favorite Bills over the years, but Eric Woods performance this year has been a huge disappointment. For a number one draft pick who was given a second, substantial contract, his performance has been completely underwhelming. The "leader" of the Bills O line has been anything but. Numerous mistakes in the red zone, multiple examples of getting blown off the line of scrimmage, etc etc. Suffice it to say, given his draft status, his veteran status and his contract, he needs to be quite a bit better than the 20th ranked center in the NFL; quite frankly, Eric and his O line have been an embarrassment most of this year. Yesterday was the worst.

Actually as noted, he screwed up in the exact same way more than once. Of course, mistakes happen all the time. But it's the critical moments that count, and both those came at critical times. It isn't just criticism of a physical mistake, it's criticism of a complete mental lapse at the worst possible time - twice

Given his veteran status, is there a dumber player on this team than Graham? On 3rd and 22, with one on one coverage, he basically stops/slows his coverage to gauge, I guess where the ball might be thrown. His explanation? He wanted to make a play (interception). And of course the receiver and play get past him. Hey dope, most interceptions of long balls like that result in the db being tackled on the spot - which is what a punt would have yielded anyway. In any event, it's beyond stupid to risk giving up a long pass in that situation for the possibility of an interception. The worst part is that Graham did the EXACT same thing earlier in the year in the Houston game. With very little time left in first half, and the Bills holding a nice lead, he has one on one coverage on Houstons fastest receiver and gives up a long TD by stopping/slowing his coverage just like yesterday. And let Houston right back in the game. Hey Corey - please, just cover your guy. Not giving up huge plays in big situations is far more important than you possibly coming up with an interception 40 yards down the field.

It wasn't even close to a full yard, but that is beside the point. If you "trust the defense" then trust them to stop KC from scoring a touchdown in the (statistically) unlikely event your offense can't pick up 36 (or less) inches. If you trust our defense to hold KC to a field goal, you are not much worse off - the offense has to score a TD in either event. Yes the defense made a stop after we punted - but that took time off the clock when what we needed then was time and possessions.

Analytics matter. In a league where talent levels are fairly even, and close games are the norm, strategic game management based on mathematically valid analytics, vs the "gut feeling" of a coach can often spell the difference between a win or loss. Marrone does have his strengths as a head coach, but he pays lip service to analytics, and consistently ignores them and goes with his gut and "experience". He is so often wrong, and it costs the Bills dearly. Analytics screams out that with the rules changes the NFL has made, this a pass first, pass happy league. The passing game sets up the running game, not vice versa. Yet the Bills have strived all year to be a run first, "balanced" offense, with the intent to set up the passing game with the run. It's been a very predictable failure. If the league passes rule after rule to encourage the pass, and passes no rules to help the running game, it's the height of stupidity to keep emphasizing the run. Finally yesterday, the Bills gave in, with many passes on first down and an overall emphasis on the passing game. And surprise surprise, the running game finally started to click. The passing game set up the running game. Analytics screams out that on that 4th and inches in the fourth quarter the correct call is to go for it. And Marrone, ever scornful of analytics, but enamored with his gut feelings, declines to do so. The percentages of making a first down there are extremely high, but hey, why pay attention to statistics when your one and half years of experience as an NFL coach tells you to (once again) punt. The strategic game management has been awful all year, and yesterday was an example of how costly it can be. Hey the Bills may have lost anyway, but bad decisions limit their options and reduce their chances of winning

So only if you have a franchise QB can you take advantage of rules changes. It's pretty clear from the responses on this topic that if the NFL were to change the rules and allow offensive lineman to hold on pass plays, many would still insist that Marrone is right and that we should continue to have a "balanced" offense. The 2014 stats are clear, please research them before you respond. In 2014 QB sacks are at a five year low, defensive holding on pass plays is at an all time (by far) high. So keep on advocating for a run game which fails to take advantage of the radical rules changes that the NFL has adopted. That's what losers do.

Watch NFL rewind, or read related articles. Marrone had punt team set to take the field, Orton waived them off. Or watch the game. So your point is, the NFL has radically changed the enforcement of rules to FAVOR passing, but that it should in no way alter your offensive strategy in terms of your mix of passing or running. Okay, that makes just a ton of sense.

I have tried to be a supporter of Doug Marrone, and for sake of continuity, I am in no way advocating that he be fired. And truth be told, many NFL coaches suffer from game management/strategy failures. But wow, Doug is testing the limits. I won't rehash this seasons strategy missteps, including mangling time management and the continual wrong decisions as to punting the ball v going for it on 4th down. Suffice to say this was highlighted when Kyle Orton vetoed Marrone's decision to punt on 4th down when he was trailing by 16, in the 4th quarter v Pats. Orton did pick up that 1st down. EJ would have never questioned Maronne's bone headed decision to punt then. But from an overall strategy view point, what is especially troubling is Marrone's statements that he would love to achieve a 50/50 ratio in pass v run. Said the same thing in 2013. BUT THE GAME HAS CHANGED in the course of one year. With defensive holding penalties being emphasized and enforced, the NFL has made the passing game the way to go. So how does Doug respond to this seismic shift in the rules change favoring the pass game? Well by re emphasizing an ( unproductive) running game, accompanied by a short passing game that does not yield those defensive holding calls (5 yards downfield) that have plagued Bills secondary. Only Orton has saved Doug from his worst intentions. But you simply have to question a head coach who does not recognize how seismic shifts in NFL rules enforcement SHOULD absolutely shape how you fashion your offensive strategy.

No argument there

Former offensive coordinator Jerry Sullivan weighed in this morning in the Buffalo News about all the things the Bills need to do to improve the offense. This, I am sure, was written only after his extensive study of game film, his consultation with football experts and of course his vast experience in playing, coaching and breaking down football games. After ripping Chan Gailey back when for not using a power run game, he now calls for the very same spread offense Gailey ran. Because don't you see, that at 3-3, the Bills need to totally revamp the offense, and go back to the very offense Jerry ripped several years ago. BTW - all the critics of Hackett consistently miss the fact that Marrone has a huge impact in the offensive design and game plan. Since he leaves the defense completely to the defensive coordinator, what is it that you think Marrone does all day. The fact is that Marrone is a former NFL OC, and he is NOT going to leave his head coaching future completely in the hands of Hackett. This offensive is Marrone's. Look I don't expect Jerry Sullivan to break down game film or have prior coaching/playing football experience. But is it really too much to expect, after decades of covering this team, to develop a source, a former player or coach who does enjoy breaking down game film and who does have a football background, to consult with before offering your own superficial diagnosis as to what an NFL team should or should not do. Otherwise you are just throwing out completely uninformed opinions that have no more basis than the local drunk at the bar who watches just as much (if not more) football than you do. And your columns reflect that ignorance; they simply amount to second guessing after every loss, and why Gaileys spread offense is the way to go now, but was wrong when Gailey was coaching (and losing)

It was interesting to listen last week to so many critics, including the two afternoon clowns at WGR, concluding what a terrible mistake Whaley made in trading up for Watkins. The nitwits had two main points, both of which were, unsurprisingly, completely wrong. First point was they moved up to acquire a weapon for EJ, and so now that EJ is benched the move was a major mistake. As if EJ is the only QB who needs great receivers. Every QB in the NFL could use mega talented receivers. Certainly Orton did yesterday. And you don't think Stafford terribly missed not having Calvin Johnson healthy yesterday? Their second point is that Bills gave up 2015 number one draft pick, which they would need to draft a franchise QB in case EJ fails. But it's obvious that the Bills have a lot of talent, and even last year, with an oft injured rookie EJ at QB, they still managed to win 6 games. No matter how mediocre Bills QB is in 2014, it's extremely unlikely they would win less than 6. And that's gives you the 9th or 10th pick, and you are never getting a sure fire, franchise QB that late in the round. It just doesn't happen. Atlanta made a similiar move several years ago, trading way up to get Julio Jones. I NEVER hear criticism of that trade.

Among the dumbest things negative Nancy constantly does is refer back to Bills teams in the past as if they have any bearing on the 2014 team. Sullivan is constantly referencing "same old Bills" and the miscues of players, coaches and front office personal who are no longer associated with the team, as if there is some relevance to today's team. In today's column, in commenting on the crossing route passes thrown to Watkins, he write " weren't we screaming for "them" to throw crossing route passes to Lee Evans". Hey Jerry, who is "them"? A coaching staff that has not had anything to do with the Bills organization in years. And what in the world does that have to do with the coaches, players and front office which constitute the 2014 team. And I guess you were screaming for more crossing routes way back then based on your years of NFL experience and your extensive film studies of the games way back when.

Last week v Bears, I thought the sack and hit that Mario Williams layed on Cutler affected him for the rest of game. Today Mario had the sack, but it was Spikes who finished it with hit on Miami QB that had a huge affect on him.

Well look if you start at your own 10 yard line, complete an 85 yard pass, and then run it three times from the five yard for the score ; I guess your point would be 3 running plays to one passing play means a conservative approach. The WHOLE point is that when the Bills were behind, they threw downfield. Ahead 17-7, no downfield throws despite facing a 9 man front. Chicago comes back,ties the game, we start throwing downfield again. Sammy Watkins caught 3 passes first quarter, was barely targeted rest of game. Can't sit on a lead in the NFL. BTW, what would be your explanation as to why Bills lose so many games when they win turnover battle, which was the gist of the original post.

Please - look at the context. The 3 passing plays accounted for the vast majority of the yards gained in that drive. Sure when they get close to the end zone, a couple of runs, including EJ on the 3 yard TD run. None of the running plays gained significant yardage; it was the downfield passes that made that drive

But if you review that third quarter +, it was clearly not a case of EJ checking down. The pass plays, when called, were designed as short passes, screens etc

Yes EJ did throw big downfield passes late in the game. But that's my point - he did this at a time when the game was tied. Just like early in the first quarter when they were down he also threw great downfield passes. My point was when they get a decent lead (often due to turnovers) they stop throwing downfield and go into a shell. They only emerge from that shell when the other team comes back and ties or takes a lead. This is why the Bills often defy the odds, and lose games where they won the turnover battle.

Great opening day win but that game continued a troubling pattern for the Bills. Despite the tried and true statement that the team that wins the turnover battle wins the game, the Bills continue to struggle in games where they actually win the turnover battle. Last year they lost several games when they won the turnover battle, including the opening game against Pats, a game remarkably similiar to the Bears game. When an NFL team wins the turnover battle by a factor of two, they win 82% of the time. Yet we accomplish that yet have to go into OT to win. Last years game v Ravens very similar, win turnover battle by two, barely squeak out game. The reason for this is pretty obvious. When Bills grab a decent lead, the offense goes into a shell. Against the Bears, a 17-7 lead vanishes as Bills continually attempt to run into a 9 man front, or throw designated (very) short passes. It was a pattern they followed last year. It's interesting what happened when the Bills suddenly found themselves down 7-0. They came out throwing, and throwing the ball downfield. It was not the running game that got them back into the game, but it was the overly conservative play calls that later allowed Bears back in the game.

That's always the easy answer, and I don't disagree. But after all this is the Bills station, and John Murphy and Kelso are great. And I have no problem pointing out the terrible deficiencies in local radio. Why not?

How does it get much worse than Paul Hamilton. He goes off yesterday on his own misquote of Marrone where he states that it's "unbelievable" that Marrone, in response to a question about CJ returning kick offs, stated "what risk"? Of course, that was an edited quote taken completely out of context. What Marrone actually said was that statistics show that very few kick returners ever suffer an injury, and that most kick offs these days are not returnable anyway. That was the context of his rhetorical question "what risk". Hey Paul, unlike you, Marrone has actually played and coached in the NFL for decades, and it goes without saying that he understands that EVERY play in the NFL involves risk. But go ahead, misquote, take out of context, every statement Marrone makes. Because you know zero about football. You never played the game, you never coached the game, you never consult with anybody with knowledge of the game. But incredibly, there are worse WGR reporters than you. So Schnoop and his lapdog tell us during the week that a Bills win is "inconcievable". Then host an entire post game show without owning up to that statement. Two clueless cowards.

Well who knew. There was no real need to sell games to Toronto, the Bills back then simply had to replace a few of their food stands with Tim Hortons and Duffs and they would have been good to go. I am 100 positive that the enhanced revenue is more than zero too, but that's saying virtually nothing. The only facts that are known is that the Buffalo Bills did not require the extra revenue that the Toronto games produced to remain very profitable and remain in Buffalo. I don't need to imagine that I have a "pretty good sense for revenue streams in pro sports" (whatever that might mean). The actual numbers, long made public, demonstrate that the Bills were very profitable with or WITHOUT the sale of games to Toronto. The actual numbers (not projections) demonstrate that Ralph made well over a billion dollars from his ownership of the Bills. And my original post touched on the greed of people who make billions, but would do things like sacrifice the teams competitive advantage for an extra few million dollars profit, while making the teams fans/taxpayers pay for your stadium.

Wow I thought only potential buyers were given access to the Bills financial records. Somehow you received access and determined that the extra revenue generated from a few chicken wing and coffee stands make the Toronto deal no longer financially necessary. You have no idea what the revenue figures are, you have no idea about any extra generated revenue amounts because you really have no access to that kind of info. You are simply guessing and making crap up. Because you had no real answer as to why the Toronto deal was no longer necessary. But my post was ignorant

You mean the improvements that the taxpayers, not Ralph, payed for. And by the way, you don't know, nor does anybody know, that the improvements will generate extra revenue. And not only do you pretend to know that the improvements will generate extra revenue, you somehow compute that it will make up for the 8 million dollars Toronto deal generated. And as for ignorant, if you think that that an extra 8 million Toronto brought in made a difference in keeping this team in Buffalo, well please. But that 8 million must have made a huge difference to multi billionaire Wilson, who sacrificed a competitive advantage for that money that he and his heirs so desperately needed.

It's interesting on this board when someone has no substantive answer to a post, they characterize the post as trolling. Let's examine what exactly you are saying in your post aside from the trolling characterization. According to your financial expertise, it was "necessary" to move the games to Toronto. But the Bills have stopped the Toronto games, so why exactly was it necessary then but it's no longer necessary. And at the time Ralph sold the games to Toronto, the Bills were making a annual net profit of between 30 - 40 million dollars. The extra money the Toronto games brought it in was NOT the difference between making the Bills very profitable, it simply impacted how much profit Ralph earned ( in addition to the 1 billion+ in franchise appreciation). So if you maintain that it was "necessary" to sell the games to Toronto to keep the team in WNY, when did it become unnecessary to sell games to Toronto, and why?

Incompetent in terms of a franchise having so many losing seasons. Incompetent in terms of actually losing the number one pick in NFL draft to the CFL. Incompetent in terms of losing Jim Kelly to the USFL. Most pro franchise owners want and should make money, but want to win as well. Wilson only made money