yungmack

That's not what she told me.

The defense is the key for the Bills to have a successful season (8 wins or better, and competitive in most of the losses). At the most optimistic, the O-line is a work in progress (even if all 5 guys were great, they are for the most part only in their second season together. And all 5 aren't great) and the QB position is a major source of worry (though I think it will be somewhat better than the last two or three years). Add the uncertainty surrounding the receivers and the TE and the totality adds up to an offense that in the best light will probably be middling. I would imagine that it will be rough and raw for the first few games as they work into the new offense, as Trent tries to find his way, as the new receivers get comfortable with the game, and as the coaches get a better fix on the offense in real game situations. If the team is truly heading in the right direction, then we should see steady improvement in the offensive game throughout the season. So the defense is going to be of the utmost importance. If it improves substantially against the run, and if the pass defense is at least as good as last year (it should be better), then we should see lots more three-and-outs. And hopefully the end of all those third-and-long conversions that drive us all up the wall. In other words, the D is going to have to limit the opponent's time of possession (and chances to score), while giving what we presume is a so-so offense as many chances as possible to score. And I believe Gailey will use the run-first approach to use those possessions to eat up lots of clock, giving the opponent even less time to score. Do all that and the Bills surprise a whole lot of people who are not named Corey Chavous.

Very nice. Thanks for doing this.

Just posted by Chris Brown. http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-3...8d-7638334e5e0d

Great report. I love these on-the-spot reports. Keep 'em coming, all you guys who can get out to the practices.

Interesting stat. My guess is that had last year's team had a more imaginative approach, that stat would have been higher. Based on Gailey's history, look for a whole lot more 3rd down conversions this season.

I dealt with all of those factors in my original post. So here again: the new defense and the new coach are pluses. And if Gailey can coach up two QBs and get his line to moderate success, then the Bills will be in the fight all season long. Big Ifs of course. But I also said that already. So...to reiterate, if the D and the Coach are improvements over last season, and the offense is at least decent, I see no reason whatsoever to think the Bills will come in at the bottom of the AFCE nor 31st in the league. And at this moment, there is no reason to think they can't win the AFCE. Maybe they won't. But I for one see nothing spectacular about the other three teams in the AFCE, not this year.

Why not?

What is the rule on players who do not report, vis a vis, counting against the roster? I've assumed -- always a dangerous thing to do (see Fox NEWS) -- that this was the case. Also, if a player doesn't report and then is cut for that specific reason, and the player then signs with another team, doesn't the previous team retain his rights?

After closely following the Bills throughout the off-season and paying as much attention as I can to the rest of the division, here's what I think: The Bills will be much improved against the run. And against the pass, they will be crazy good. They will dominate the Dolphins offense in both games, and unravel Sanchez. And with the Pats seeming to be in disarray/decline, the AFCE is wide open. The Big Question for the Bills then is, Can the offense produce enough to take advantage of this situation? Right now I just don't know. They certainly have several excellent pieces (a couple of really good linemen, three to six really good RBs, what looks like a strong receiving corps, and maybe two good TEs, and a head coach with a record of offensive innovation and success). However, the rest of the line and the QBs remain large question marks. Really, really large question marks. IF Chan can prepare a solid 1-2 tandem with the QBs, and IF he can coach up the line to at least the mid-range of performance overall and IF the key offensive players can remain healthy, then there's a very good chance the Bills will be in the thick of the AFCE all season long. And with a break here or there, there's no reason they can't win it outright. There is certainly no reason to write them off as sure losers, as Tim Graham just did.

I think they both wound up unconscious.

My goodness! (Goodness had nothing to do with it). Was that an intentional Marx Brothers reference? If so, I give you the highest props.

Here's a suggestion...after a long day of tailgating and a Bills victory, pull out of The Ralph onto Rt. 20 and head west. It'll take you right through the heart of Yellowstone. It also goes right past Chadron State University and we all know who went there. Adds new meaning to "It's right down the road."

And Dodger Stadium is now the third oldest baseball stadium in the majors. And has been for sometime now. It opened about ten or so years before Rich/No Name/Ralph Wilson stadium.

Clearly you never went to a Raiders game in LA.

The NFL, along with just about every other business/industry/vocation/avocation on the globe, is facing a topping-out, followed by a substantial decline, eventually settling into a pattern of "new normality." The current economic problems are the opening salvo in this change and, stuff such as Elliot Wave entrail reading aside, there will never by a recovery to the way things were 30-40 years ago. Why? Demographics. With the glaring exception of the Muslim "world," birthrates are in rapid decline around the globe. In much of Europe, it is below replacement level. Same for Japan. China's One-Child policy should cut that nation's population in half by the end of the century. If Russia continues on its current trajectory (life-expectancy for men has fallen to 56!!!), the Russian "race" will virtually vanish within three generations. Mexico's birthrate is 2.2 children, an all-time low. Etc., etc. A smaller population needs less of everything (aka, Supply and Demand). After WWII, there was a world-wide birth explosion, the "baby boom," the greatest birthrate in history. This led to a huge growth in everything from tennis shoes to hamburgers to cars to colleges to video games to sports franchises. Those "kids" are now beginning to retire, and they'll be selling off houses, Harleys, stocks, season tickets, and all the rest. But they will be selling off into a smaller market. It's obvious that a smaller population base can only sop up so much of all that stuff (housing included. NFL tickets too). The growth in the population of the US overall has long been fueled in the main by immigration. Take that away and the economic collapse would have already occurred years ago. Anyone from WNY has already seen this phenomenon in action. A lessening population has meant the abandonment of housing for which there is no market, the decline of infrastructure maintenance as the lower population led to lower tax receipts, demolition of "redundant" factories, closure of churches and schools, and so forth. How drastic is this change in only one century? In 1900, Buffalo was the 8th largest city in the US, and had the highest per capita concentration of millionaires in the world. Much of the financial growth in sports, like the NFL, had to do with the massive growth in population tied to technological innovation (television in particular) which, like the invention of the CD and the DVD, opened the market for the basic product, repackaged (from no national television broadcasts in the 50s, to two leagues, to multiple channels competing for the product, to cable, satellite to computers to smart phones, and so on). It appears that not only has the NFL just about sucked up the available money from every conceivable source, but that overall ratings are now in decline in tandem with having reached its peak of income generation. To sum it all up, Demographics are Destiny. But, hey, just like the Bills still exist, still have rabid fans, still make money, the NFL will continue to be around for a long time to come. There just won't be as much easy money lying around. The days of any knucklehead with an NFL franchise being able to extort cities for stadiums, or fans for "personal licenses," or networks for more and more dough, are coming to an end. What I think the successful franchises in this new environment will look like is a lot like...the Buffalo Bills. Sorry for going on so long.

Well, now you've done it: injecting facts into the "debate" over Flutie and Johnson. Prepare for incoming.

Dude, don't go all Mel Gibson on me. That isn't my quote, it's Pete Prisco's in his article. And for what it's worth, though this probably won't matter to you, he was comparing Edward's 2008 stats with Sanchez's 2009 ones, which seems a fair way to do it as they were both at about the same level of their careers at that point. As to Edwards's 2009 season, I don't think the Bills would have won much more than two additional games (if that) with Tom Brady behind that learning-on-the-job O line and with that god-awful approach to offense and the endless injuries, etc.

Good info. Thanks for that. I highlighted part of your statement because this is what perplexes me about the (non-Bills fans) detractors of this team (like the NFL network clowns). To them, the Jets are faaaabulous with a great QB star in the making while the Bills are doomed. To me, it's all about the bandwagon effect of hype. Once the image of a player or a team is set, it's very difficult for them to be perceived in a different light. The only thing that will change those perceptions is winning.

Here's a link to an interesting story by Pete Prisco at CBS Sports about the Bills QB situation: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/13644093 And here's the quote that stood out to me: Because of the uncertainty at quarterback, the Bills are considered a lock for the bottom of the AFC East. It is a division with three other teams that don't have quarterback issues. The New England Patriots have Tom Brady, the New York Jets have Mark Sanchez and the Miami Dolphins have Chad Henne. Brady is established as a star, and the thinking is that Sanchez and Henne are ready to take the next step. But you might find interesting: Edwards' 2008 season was significantly better stat-wise than the seasons Sanchez and Henne had in 2009. Yet the latter two are considered rising quarterbacks and Edwards is fighting for his job.

Yup.

Simple answer: yes. 1) The Bills already beat the Colts with Rob Freakin' Johnson at QB, toying with them while giving Andre the shot at the receiver record. 2) Rob Johnson simply stunk. Whether you love Flutie or hate him, he had lots of very good performances while Johnson had zero. 3) Football is unlike most other team sports in that the players tend to get better as a team if they play together week in and week out. Which is why it was insanely stupid to replace Flutie at that point in the season with Johnson. Though it will always remain a "what if" question, it seems highly probable the Bills would have done much better against the Titans with Flutie under center. ( I also think it was insanely stupid of Levy to start a still-ailing Jim Kelly in the Super Bowl after a healthy Frank Reich had his great playoff run. Don't know if the Bills would have beat the 'Boys that year but I have to think they had a much better chance sticking with Reich for that game. That's my big "what if" question, second only to "what if" the Bills had gone to the very first Super Bowl, which they should have in my not-so-humble opinion). 4) If you accept that the Bills were a better team than the Titans with Flutie at QB, and factor in the easy win over the Colts in the previous game, in which the Bills appeared to be vastly better than Indy, then the only conclusion you can come to is that the Bills woulda-shoulda-coulda beat the Colts and then the Rams in the SB. At the very least, starting Flutie would have made this infernal question moot.

It seems to me this discussion has gotten far away from the main point of the original post. Whether or not the Bills were tied or ahead in 14 or 12 games, whether or not they were within a score, whether or not they "played not to lose" or were worn down, the point is that the Bills were NOT horrible, or the worst, or a complete embarrassment. What they were was mediocre, which doesn't mean horrible (o-16, 1-15-2-14, that's horrible), it means "somewhere in the middle of the pack." Had they won that very winnable NE game or any one other, they would have finished 7-9, which is just about the very definition of mediocre. The heart of the argument in this thread seems to be a disagreement between the pessimists, who think the Bills could easily have lost 13 or more games, and the optimists who think the Bills were a play or two away from 11 or 12 wins. I think both are correct. Last season could have been much worse...or much better. I personally fall on the optimists side, believing that a change in attitude, in defensive scheme, in some key personnel and in offensive philosophy will make all the difference in the world this coming season, making 10 wins very achievable and 11 or 12 not at all out of the question. And much of that success will come in precisely those sorts of close games that the Bills tended to lose last season. Hope springs eternal.

Butler was handcuffed by the salary cap, something Polian didn't have to deal with in his Buffalo days.

I believe we are in fundamental agreement and your final sentence is a much more concise summation of what I was trying to say with all my blather.