PolishDave

You're exactly right. People also forget (or maybe many here aren't old enough to have experienced it) that in the 1990's, the great Bills team and the great Broncos team were both incredibly successful using incredibly simple and limited offensive schemes. The logic behind simplifying your offense is to allow the players to "play more natural football" and using your raw talent to beat the opponent instead of calling complicated plays that players have to think about a lot in order to execute. In a complicated system it is also much harder to have everyone on the same page. If the quarterback tries to think and analyze too much it can affect his play in a negative way. He may hesitate for a second that effs up the play. If a receiver or blocker has a mental misstep, it can result in a sack or an interception. How many times have you seen plays where the receiver runs one route and the QB expected him to do something else? Simplifying an offense is a way to reduce those types of problems and get your talent guys playing more natural football focusing on their raw talent rather than trying to outsmart the other team. I think it is a very smart decision to simplify the offense and it is a positive step in the right direction based on the productivity so far.

That's not on Rex. That is on Whaley.

Dude...Rex isn't their dad.. Even if he was and told them to quit hitting the weed and quit eating 4 cheeseburgers at dinner time, it is very unlikely they would have listened to him. You can blame Rex for a lot, but not any of that. Those are all personal character issues that are not Rex's fault at all. Sorry, they're not. Hate Rex all you want....But don't blame him for **** he doesn't control.

Percentage wise in the win column, I have a strong suspicion you will be proven hugely wrong. And I hope you are. Maybe not, but that is a tad bit pessimistic. It never plays out that way and the Bills always end up winning games they aren't expected to win.

Ya know what...One thing comes to mind that does bother me about Tyrod.... He should grab this team (well at least the offense) by the balls and make it his team and dictate what is going to happen. He seems more like a follower to me than a leader..,, and maybe that is his biggest shortcoming. With his talent, if he was a great leader (maybe he will become one) he should have been taking the offense into his hands and doing whatever it is he knows needs to be done to get the production. I can fault him for not doing that. At times he could have almost literally given Roman the finger (if that really is the problem) and just gone and played quarterback as Baltimore challenged him to do and gone and made the plays that had to be made. I liken Tyrod's physical talent to that of Doug Flutie except I see Tyrod as having a better arm. But he lack's Flutie's leadership and decisiveness and ability to find a way to get it done. Of course he is younger with less experience too. He might really become a better version of Flutie? Am I smoking crack?

Yes. I agree. The offense should be able to move the chains. If you can't, then you won't be a dominant team. But move the chains in chunks and don't focus too much on moving the chains when you have just as good of chance at scoring 6. Often times, especially in today's NFL, I feel like so many teams (too many teams) are more focused on first downs instead of touchdowns. They aren't aggressive enough on offense. I think this includes the Bills. I don't want to use 3 downs to get a first down unless it is the fourth quarter and we are up by 21. And I sure as hell don't want to try to put together a 24 play 80 yard drive that leads to 6 points if I can get those 6 points in 5 or 6 plays instead. Because I believe, if you have the homerun talent on the team, then you actually have a higher likelihood of scoring a touchdown if you try to go for the homerun every 6 plays or so rather than trying to take 24 plays to get there. I think it is downright stupid for offensive coordinators to expect their offense to execute 15 plays or more in a series in order to score a touchdown. After all, a touchdown only takes one play from anywhere on the field. It is a shortcoming of today's offensive philosophies. If it is third down, it is because your first and second down plays either sucked by design or were poorly executed or (even less commonly) the defense made 2 great plays in a row. I get so sick of watching the Bills struggle to get first downs when the goal is to get a touchdown. At times it seems like all they care about is getting that first down. Why are you trying to sell yourself short if you honestly have the capability of making huge plays? Quit this dink and dunk crap. Go get yards in chunks like the 90's Bills did. Quit effing around. You have the talent. Friggen use it. And I blame that (mostly) on coaching. It is a mentality. Its a mindset. This team has the potential to be getting yards in large chunks in the passing game and running game. And it should be. So I am not surprised when they get 6 on a play. I am just wondering why they aren't moving the ball in 10 and 15 yard chunks at a time with confidence on many series during the game. They should be. Right now it seems the only thing they are getting done is those homerun plays. That proves the talent is there. Its undeniable in my opinion.

Perfect wording thank you. Scoring trumps time of possession. Only Dick Jauron would argue otherwise. He would rather keep a game close and exciting than to just go win the game by outscoring the opponent. Okay... i'm exaggerating.

Defense is irrelevant when considering whether or not the offense should score on any given play. The goal of the offense is to score. The more points they score the better. The goal of the offense is not to play defense by hanging onto the ball. The only time that should ever be a factor is if you are blowing the other team out. Then I can see taking as much time as possible to eat clock. Otherwise, you score as early and as often as you can. If you want to see the logic then think about this: If you are on offense and you knew you could score on the next play - why in the hell would you ever choose not to? Regardless of whether it is the first play of the drive or the 10th or whatever? Unless like I said - you are blowing the other team out or if you are in a situation at the end of the game where the other team could outscore you with more time.

The point about scoring too fast is not a valid one. The point about not sustaining drives is valid on drives that do not end in 6. If they end in 6 - the time it takes is completely irrelevant. The faster the better. The only time you can really argue a team scored too fast is at the end of a game if they leave enough time on the clock for the opponent to score game winning points. Otherwise, scoring too fast is a complete and total myth.

Only a Bills fan could hate their quarterback for scoring too fast on too few of plays..... I thought the goal on offense was to score every play if possible? If they score on the 3rd play in a drive, how in the hell is that not a good thing? Tryod has is faults for sure. But his greatest strength is his ability to make those homerun plays happen, whether they are broken plays or not. The Bills should be exploiting that strength more often in my opinion by finding ways to put him in the position to score like that more often without them needing to be broken plays.

I have sat all over in that stadium. From my experience the only really bad seats are the 200 level seats directly behind the endzones on both sides of the field. Don't sit there. The endzones aren't that bad if you sit lower and some people like to be there so that they are in the middle of the action when teams are on the goal line. The upper deck corners (rear corners) are also not very pleasant especially in the colder games. Other than that, it depends on what type of person you are as to which other seats you might like best. For example, I like to sit close enough to the field where I can yell at a player and actually have them hear me. To do that you have to be within the first 20 rows of the field, lower being better. I know a lot of people (almost everyone else I go to games with) who would rather sit up higher to be able to see more of the whole field at a steeper angle. When I sit in the upper deck I get the feeling that I am away from the game too far. When I sit in the lower bowl, I feel like I am more (part) of the real game atmosphere. If you are worried about the cold, one option is to look for 200 level seats on either side between the endzones. Those areas have heat lamps to keep you toasty and out of the rain. You will pay a premium for that. And generally you will pay more for seats as you get lower and closer to the 50 yard line. But if the Bills' season keeps going the way it has, by December, the tickets should be cheap anywhere.

Sorry if I don't follow you around and read every post you have ever written. I didn't know that was a requirement of discussing football here. You're right that I made that comment based on what I read from you today and no it had nothing to do with the "make him a quarterback" quote. It was based on other comments in other threads. Sorry if it is not the impression you wanted to portray or not the real mindset you have toward the guy. I'm just calling as I see it based on what I read tonight. It honestly looked like you were just a bandwagon guy who was going with the attitude that everything wrong with this team is Tyrod's fault. You say your not. Fine by me. I'll take you at your word.

Its a mostly free country still. You can say whatever you want about the guy. Its just an opinion. And you are free to mock the guy like he is the worst qb in the league out of one side of your mouth as you claim to want him to succeed out of the other side of your mouth. I'm just saying your actions don't backup what you claim your opinion of him is. Not trying to pick a fight with you. But your **** stinks too.

If that is true, you sure have a funny way of showing it. In fact, your actions speak so loudly I can't hear what you are saying.

I saw that yesterday. Hey Adrian, while you're here do you want a shot and a beer to numb some of the pain in your knee?

You're nuts bud. Look at the play again pre-snap. Goodwin is one on one to the outside with VERY soft coverage. The snap happens and the safety doesn't cheat to Goodwin and the coverage remains soft- That is all Tyrod needs to see to make the decision to throw him the ball. Neither Sammy or Woods is open on that play until after the ball is released. They come open after/as the ball is released. You could argue Tyrod could have thrown a back shoulder to Sammy, but the coverage on Sammy was much tighter than the coverage on Goodwin. It was a good decision by Tyrod - poorly executed. You can fault him for the execution. If you fault him for throwing the ball to an open receiver on the sideline in a 2 minute drill instead of throwing it to an open receiver in the middle of the field, you are just being nitpicky. I can't help but think if Tyrod throws the ball to anyone else on this play and it goes incomplete - People would be saying look at how soft the coverage was on Goodwin. Tyrod should have seen that pre-snap and gone to Goodwin as the first option.

And you expect your quarterback to analyze that and think about all that in the 2 seconds he has to decide where to throw the ball? Nonsense. He is coached to throw the ball to the sideline if the receiver is open. How can you fault the guy for that? The guy is not a perfect QB and is certainly not a perfect pocket passer. I don't know why fans expect him to be. Nobody ever said he was. He's just the best QB on this team right now.

Yes. It is easy to say otherwise in hindsight.

I think this is a huge part of it. When the offense is moving the chains it makes the QB look effective even if you are running the ball. When you can't run and then miss a throw it makes it look like the QB is killing drives. They get too much credit and too much blame at times depending on the circumstances. I remember last year when Tyrod was competing for QB, when other quarterbacks were commanding the offense, the offense didn't move the chains well at all. When Tyrod was in there, they moved the chains consistently and made it look easy. (This was preseason of course.) But when comparing offenses with him in there compared to EJ it was night and day difference. I am certain that a lot of that was Tyrod using his legs to sustain drives too though. He hasn't done as much of that effectively this year.

Typical Tyrod hater. Can't even give the guy credit when he does make a play. Whatever dude...You wear your blind hatred on your sleeve. Your boss probably considers himself lucky if you happen to show up for work accidentally too.

I have no problem firing the guy after the season is over if he doesn't turn things around and make this team look respectable. I get the fact that you have no faith in him as a coach. That is how I felt about Dick Jauron when he was here. Dick Jauron had the team well prepared and I think he was a great coach in between games. But on gameday, the guy would make the most horrible decisions and be so ridiculously conservative it was maddening. And for that reason alone I knew he would never take the Bills to the Superbowl and because of that I wanted him gone. So if that is how you feel about Rex (because you just don't think he is a good enough coach) then I totally get your point. For me I am just sick of hearing about how a lot of people want to fire the guy now and tank the season already when it is two games in. Obviously you're not one of those guys.

The Bills could have done a lot worse than hiring Rex. At least they got a guy in here who knows the AFC East and has plenty of NFL coaching experience. In years past he has had some pretty good seasons with the Jets with subpar talent on them. And he has won lots of games where people said they had no chance of winning. I am not happy with where this team is at right now either. But I don't think that firing the head coach after 2 games makes any sense whatsoever. The games were lost, but they weren't lost because of complete head coaching bafoonery. This team is losing games because they haven't run the ball well enough. If they can't fix that, then this season will go down in flames most likely. If they can fix that, then this team changes in a hurry. It is still entirely possible that this team could turn this season right back around and start beating teams that nobody gives them the slightest chance at right now. And I think Rex has the potential to pull that off. People just love to hate Rex. Many of them think that firing Roman was a stage show, that he was just a scapegoat. I don't believe that was the case. I think Rex realized Roman was holding this team's running game / offensive production back and Rex is trying to do something about it before it is too late. That is what a good manager/leader/coach does. Maybe Rex will ultimately fail here. If he does, then fine, fire him. But right now isn't the time for that. He hasn't been given enough time. And if the Bills did fire him right now, then they would have a really hard time getting any other big name coaches to come here.

Ain't gonna happen.

And the vast majority of people around here who want him fired now, have no idea whatsoever about who the Bills could/should replace him with. They just want to be appeased by firing him. I swear, it seems like fans around here just love to be miserable. And they will continue to repeat the same stupid things that keep them miserable.

Can you name any situations where a coach got rehired by a team after being fired by a team and then led them to success? I blame the idiots whining about Wade not wearing a headset for his departure from Buffalo. He could have had success here if given more time. He was the last really successful coach we had.