silvermike

That's a very expensive backup QB for the 49ers. They can try to talk Alex Smith into accepting his role, or go grab Jason Campbell or some other backup from the heap. I don't think Fitz tempts them.

I'm not going to quit on the team because they make bad decisions. If I did, I would have been gone years ago. But retaining Chan Gailey would be a horrible decision, a meek move toward continuity on a team that has obviously shown us what it can do. It's never to early to fire a bad coach. When the GM knows, it's time to pull the plug, and I think Nix figured that out. Chan with a good QB is Norv Turner. And he's done too, after turning an insanely-talented team into a joke.

Once Red Zone became available on Time Warner, and WGR started streaming the audio of the game, I'm happy.

I remained shocked that nobody on the team speaks out about the situation. A lot of these guys, for whatever reason - really like Chan Gailey.

I think Buddy has to fire Chan or cut Lindell at the end of the season. Either Chan's right, and Lindell can't be trusted, which means we absolutely need a K who can hit a 50 yard FG. But I don't believe that, and Buddy hasn't looked for a new K, which means he has to part ways with the coach who can't bear to even try it.

I guess the question is if you're more worried about a bad snap than the kickoff return for a TD. And, on top of that, a bad snap recovery still probably would have put us out of field goal range. It makes some sense - especially given our botched snap on an extra point - but what was more frustrating was the refusal to try to score a touchdown on that drive.

Rivers has just been so, so bad this year. It's painful to watch. He's clearly behind Fitz, and this ain't Fitz at the top of his game.

If you want a math-heavy analysis, look here: http://www.footballperspective.com/game-scripts-part-iii-2012-results/ Adjusted for average game situation (you run with a lead, pass when behind), we're one of the more run-heavy teams this season. And that doesn't include last week's game. But I agree it doesn't feel right. I think a big part of it is that we're such a better rushing team than a passing team, so far out of proportion to the rest of the league, normalized numbers don't add up for us. Especially in a league that's pass-heavy by default. We run a lot, compared to the league, but it still doesn't mean we run as much as we should.

I'm fairly sure they do - it'd be far too much effort to edit out each set for different markets, I think. We are getting an early game, BTW. Fox switched.

I want to be the kind of team that wins five games in a row. So I want to be 9-7. But if we win five games on freak plays and forfeits, I don't get some kind of thrill out of it.

It's fair to add. People say that you can't keep firing coaches, but the truth is that you can't keep firing good coaches. Bad coaches, you should fire immediately. Maybe you can let some wins and losses slide as a new system comes into place or if the bounces go against you. But when you know you've got a dud, cut bait. Immediately. Nothing wrong with doing it after one year. Williams, Mularkey, Jauron: none of those guys were going to get better if we kept them around just a little longer. Neither will Chan. He's bad at the end of Year Three for the same reasons he was bad at the end of Year One. For the same reasons he was bad in Dallas. When you know, you know. Find and keep good coaches. Don't spend five years waiting to have what you already know proven to you.

The only first-year coaches with a worse record than Chan are Dennis Allen and, sigh, Mike Mularkey. Tampa Bay didn't win any draft lottery. Neither did Miami. But their new coaches have put together better records this year than Chan's managed.

This has been a season where we looked bad in the preseason then looked bad in all the same ways in the regular season. I've given up the excuse "well, it's just preseason" and won't bring it up in future years. It's not perfect, and there are plenty of years where the matchup isn't good. But the pattern for the past decade for the Bills is that we all get pumped up in July, watch them come out flat in August, make excuses, and watch them play exactly as flat in September. There are exceptions, but not enough of them for me to relax if we're losing by 20 points come August 2013. In the meantime, though, I'm going to spend my time being worried about the 2012 regular season.

If you've got more research in you, look only at first half passing. That should mute the effects of garbage time and comeback attempts.

The offense isn't failing because of miscommunications, guys out of position, or general chaos. It fails because Fitz misses open WRs. They know where they're supposed to be, Fitz knows where they're supposed to be, the ball goes to the right guy at the right time. The passes just aren't good enough.

In both cases, they got a few breaks in the first half that kept the score close. Missed field goals and fumbles, penalties wiping out big plays, etc. They got the breaks and they got the calls, and so it was close. Then the luck evened out and we collapsed.

It seems hard to police, and you wouldn't get more excitement anyway. You'd have handoffs to RBs who drop at first contact, or flop on their own. Yeah, there's some chance of a strip, but since the RB is literally uninterested in gaining a single yard, I think they'd mostly make it to the ground. It'd be just as boring, except for a blown handoff or two per season. Seems like it's not worth the effort.

Sometimes, you've just gotta realize someone's trolling you.

I had it last year. It was mostly fine, but when it started going bad, it was unfixable. You just need to wait it out. It's rarely your setup.

Apparently, the rule seems to be that a great 2nd round QB emerges once per decade: Brett Favre 1991, Drew Brees 2001, and Andy Dalton was set up for 2011. This low-sample size theory must prevail!

RIght now, I think the problem is more Fitz than Chan. Chan can't change QBs; we don't have anyone else to go to. So it can't be that Fitz is the wrong QB for Chan's offense because there's no other options. If you don't like Fitz, call the GM. The question has to be whether the offense is right for the QB. Last season is fading, but from the Jets game, my impression is that this is the offense that lets you get the most out of Fitz. The problem is that that's still not enough. We set up in the spread so often because Fitz does have a quick release and we do have good pass-blockers up front: it means that we can send all five guys out on routes, or at least four. We run these short, speedy passes because Fitz doesn't have the deep-ball accuracy to make it worth our while to have things set up downfiled. Lots of options, lots of reads to make before the snap: those are Fitz's strengths. The spread maximizes those by putting catchers past the line of scrimmage, and someone will draw single coverage. Somebody will get a step on a cut and catch a pass. If we were going bigger - more fullbacks and tight ends, that means Donald Jones going to get doubled. And he's never going to be open. Our WRs are bad, but their strenghth is that they don't get worse. There's Stevie, but after that, who cares if it's Donald Jones or Brad Smith. Somebody's going to have a better matchup. It also means it takes a lot for a backup to get ready, but Thigpen was so bad it's not like we needed to worry about it. We were going to suck on offense regardless of whether or not the backup understood it. In the Jets game, Fitz wasn't making bad decisions, he was making bad throws. HIgh, short, long, late, early. He knew what he was supposed to do, he just misfired. And those passes weren't difficult ones: they were the middle stuff that our offense used to work off of. Five, six yards. When that's happening, Chan starts to run out of options. If your QB can't reliably complete any passes, what's left to do? You can run the ball, of course. And without a doubt, Chan could stand to add a few more handoffs to the playbook. But alone, it's not enough. We ran on most of our first downs last week, and those carries would get stuffed. Now it's 2nd and 11, 2nd and 9, and everyone starts getting nervous. Or worse, we take some dumbass false start and it's 1st and 15. Those are deep holes when you only have a running game. You need some kind of plausible passing attack in the NFL. It's not that we'd need CJ and Freddie to average 6 yards per carry, they'd need to do it every time. We'd have to be mortified of 3rd and 8. We can run more, but we can never run enough to win if Fitz is going to be as bad as he's been lately. This offense does everything it can to make Fitz an NFL-worthy starter. Sometimes it gets there, but usually it doesn't. We can run more and just pray on 3rd downs, or we can hope Fitz improves. But I think that's all we've got.

The Bills sure have done a great job defying his predictions of doom and gloom every summer.

You know what would be a great playoff record for a Bills coach? 0-1. After 12 years of 0-0, it'd feel like a frakking super bowl.

Given the way Fitz and the defense played today, I'm much more worried about our starters than our backups.

I was rooting for Roosevelt, of course, but I can buy it. Maybe in two weeks, we'll see him restored to the roster when Thigpen gets cut.