MRW

Captain Caveman is absolutely right when he asks who will come here after the coaching staff is fired one game into the season. Look, I was appalled when the team gave Jauron that extension, but non-joke NFL franchises don't just can everyone after the first game. What coach in his right mind would want to work for an organization that does that? Now, if the team limps into mid-season at 1-7, 2-6, 0-8, then fine. There's ample precedent for firing an underachieving coach after a few games are under their belt. But what you're advocating is a recipe for a never-ending treadmill of hiring losers who are desperate enough to work for a dysfunctional organization.

Trent often had to step up in the pocket - but the difference from last year was that there was actually a pocket to step up into. These guys aren't going to stonewall the rushers on every play but improved play in the middle was clearly the primary goal for this offseason, and I think they achieved that.

I prefer to pretend he was making a play on words, like he meant "choking staff".

That post you cite did not come from someone with a pathological hatred of the Bills starting QB, just the opposite in fact, so it tends to undercut your point.

It's bad enough that the kids might face criminal charges, but they'll also have to deal with Child Protective Services being called in since their parents are raising them to be Bills fans.

Man, I hear you. After last night's game I had about two minutes of mildly annoyed grumbling, then I was pretty much over it. The Dallas game, the Cleveland game - those stuck with me a lot longer. I expect that by the next ridiculous loss I can hone my recovery time even further.

I can buy that that's been the tendency, but I didn't really see it out of the Bills last night. Maybe maintaining the discipline to run plays slowly is difficult to do over the course of a season. But the problems I saw last night do not seem to be related to the Bills running the offense at a noticeably faster pace than the Patriots.

The Bills' final scoring drive to go up by 11 was 14 plays and took 6:11 off the clock. The first touchdown drive was quick but that was because they got big chunks of yardage to get down in scoring range - only 6 plays, 3:17, 68 yards. The number of plays is not irrelevant, it in fact accounts for the TOP disparity. NE converted on third downs and sustained drives, the Bills (especially early) did not. The more I look at the actual drives from last night, the more I don't see the no-huddle being at fault.

Yeah, you're arguing against a point I'm not making as far as I can tell. All I'm saying is that the TOP difference was not due to the no-huddle, at least not in the simple sense that the Bills were rushing plays out noticeably quicker than the Patriots.

Sorry, misplaced my sarcasm tags. I agree with you, a guy getting paid like Evans especially needs to make that catch.

Maybe he's saying that he shouldn't have passed it to Evans if there was a risk of him getting hit by a defender?

I think the Bills are like the police officer who shows up to catch the killer, only to be killed in a humiliating fashion that everyone watching saw coming.

Yep yep, that's the potential problem I see cropping up with the no-huddle. But the focus on TOP is a red herring IMO (unless it's just used as a stand-in for offensive ineffectiveness and inability to sustain drives).

Thanks, I understand better what you're saying now (and thanks for taking the time to bring in actual stats! Unlike me and TMQ). But looking at a time per play breakdown I come up with Buffalo - 28.58 sec, NE - 28.935 sec. Not so different, and I'm skeptical that a 0.35 second difference per play amounts to a big difference in TOP as compared to the simple disparity in # of plays run.

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying here (or in your previous post). I stand by my original comments, most people I see commenting on the offense seem to use no-huddle when what they really mean is hurry-up (which the Bills were not running). The potential problems with a no-huddle are not the same as the problems with a hurry-up and do not inherently cause TOP problems.

It's not just TMQ (although this sort of off-the-cuff superficial analysis is par for the course for him). I've seen an awful lot of conflation of no-huddle and hurry-up going on.

Good point, although that also tends to skew things from a TOP perspective.

You know, I see the no huddle get blamed a lot for the TOP disparity. But if the Bills went out, huddled up, and had the same three and outs they had early in the game, how much of a difference would it make? It's fashionable to say that the no huddle is at fault but if Owens/Evans hang on to those passes in the first half, drives stay alive, and TOP is a lot closer. That's not a question of huddling or not.

Yeah, but don't you just have to laugh at this point? I don't understand how people continue to take these losses so much to heart after the last several years. I guess I've moved on to acceptance and I just have to shake my head in admiration for the ability of the Bills to find new ways to lose.

Yeah, I really like that announcing team. Two analysts actually interested in discussing the game as opposed to trading wisecracks, and a play-by-play guy in Tirico who doesn't get in their way.

Sounds like he's Stupar-fied.

That's gonna be a tough division. But you have to figure Favre is good for one or two games where he can't get his head out of his ass. I think Minn, GB, and Chi will have a really strong competition for the division.

Seriously.

Why are you posting this? This post, right here, adds nothing to the board whatsoever.

Would you say that every absolute statement annoys you?