SouthernMan

What was the deal with offside calls on Hughs? Both were beautifully timed, and watching replays, it was clear he did not cross the line before the ball was snapped. It sucks that he was penalized for stellar play and great instincts.

In other words, Pegula had a plan, it didn't work. Then he came up with another plan. It didn't work. Now, there's a whole new plan and everyone is sure that this one has to work! WIley Coyote? Ah yes. Genius. Super genius. Hope he has a real world plan for the Bills. It should be no more difficult than this: find the best coach, QB, and personnel man/men/women money can buy and follow the Patriot's blueprint. The end

Gee, sorry guys if the topic has been discussed. I don't live at The Stadium Wall like some of you do. Haven't seen this discussed. How recently was it posted? Help me out here. What should would the search criteria be? Hate to bore you with the same topics over an over. I KNOW - let's talk about the uniforms for this coming week!!!!!

Not trying to be a wiseguy and I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation, so humor me. When Pegula bought the Sabres, weren't all the Buffalo faithful praising the move, saying he would soon bring a Stanley Cup to Buffalo. Fast forward. Weren't the Sabres one of the worst teams in the NHL last year? Have they been successful at all since Pegula took ownership? (I actually don't know since I don't follow hockey very much) Considering his short record as a professional sports team owner, what gives Bills fans hope to believe he will make the Bills a winner? I just wonder if we'll be hearing about that "cheapskate Pegula" in a couple of years and wishing Trump or someone else would have bought the team. He may turn out to be a top notch owner - I have no idea. Just wondering - what makes so many Bills fans excited about Peguala as owner, other than his pledge to keep the team in Buffalo?

First, I need to say I'm thrilled with a win on opening day. The team deserves some respect. Still, I have a few concerns that I hope are addressed. 1. wasted play calling - CJ up the middle is usually the equivalent of giving up one of the four downs. When he runs east-west, he hesitates too long to make his cut. NFL defenders are too fast and close in quickly. When he gets an opening, he can be a real threat to go all the way, but he's too reliant on there being a gaping hole. Trade bait. If you disagree, here's the question - what is his value in a trade? Maybe a 3rd rounder? 2. Not trying to be overly harsh on EJ who did a decent job, but he consistently throws the pass behind crossing receivers and too high on the long balls. If he would throw the ball about 3 feet beyond where he thinks it needs to be, the receivers on slant patterns will stretch out their arms in stride and have a chance for some runs after catch yardage. 3. Where's Sammy? When are they going to unveil their star WR? Haven't seen them make much use of him in preseason or game 1. Other than the overthrown ball on the long ball, he didn't have much opportunity to show off his talents we heard so much about in training camp. 4. Dixon - wow! What a run. Kudos to him for wrapping the ball up and protecting it with both arms when it was inevitable that the defenders would soon catch up to him before the made it to the end zone. 5. When are we going to see the tight end used as a receiver? Championship teams use TE/LB mismatches to gain an advantage. For years, it's been one of the Patriots strengths. Chandler didn't have his best game, but I think he'll be used more in the future. 6. EJ had his share of tipped balls in preseason. Are they now afraid to go over the middle or use slant patterns for fear of being intercepted or tipped? 7. Defensive line was not in top form. Cutler had too much time in the pocket too often. On the plus side - the Bills didn't throw in the towel when the Bears came back and tied the game. That's huge. That shows they had a winner's mentality. That tenacity can be the difference in those close games that determine whether they're a playoff team or not. Bring on the Dolphins.

Knocking the Edwards hiring is kind of stupid. There are so many factors that lead to the success of any coach or player, and they all have to be in place for that to happen. Presumably, Edwards interviewed well with the Vikes. Pete Carroll and Bill Belichick weren't overwhelming successful in their first time as head coaches. Other assistants that didn't fare well in Buffalo (G Williams, Gilbride) went on to get superbowl rings. I'm sure there are others. Did Edwards have the personnel in Buffalo he needed to have a solid defense? Was the offense productive enough to make it better for the defense? Is it possible that his experience in Buffalo and other stops has made him a better coach, or do we assume his skills haven't improved? I know I'm much better at my job with experience as a teacher? Here's the big question you homers should ask: what's the one common thread of so many players and coaches who failed in Orchard Park but went on to success elsewhere? Ummm,,,,maybe the real problem is a hapless organization that hasn't been to the playoffs in 14 years - the Buffalo Bills. Another example of a once failed/fired coach that is now the Hall of Fame - Marv Levy. Marv wasn't regarded as an X's and O's genius, but rather a great motivator and organizer. Maybe Edwards has those same talents. But passing judgement in a condescending way on the Edwards hire sounds immature IMO. I wish him well when he's not facing the Bills, and hope he'll motivate his guys to beat our divisional rivals.

31 game? No, actually it's a brilliant idea. In fact, I've been thinking about this...why not 40 weeks? September through June. No preseason. BUT...here's the rub...the rosters have 140 players, and each man can only play in 16 games, not including playoffs. Obviously, the talent would be somewhat watered down but the gamesmanship would be interesting. Do we dress our best QB for this New England game, or save him for a different matchup? 9 months of NFL football! Fk Yeah!

Perhaps he was being punished for poor use of grammar that included double negative expressions such as "it's not nothing..."

...and catch the friggin' ball AND protect it if they do happen to catch it. The number of "easy" catches that were dropped by Bills' receivers is ridiculous. Lots of drives ended because of it. Find a reliable receiver or two with great hands.

Totally agree TE should be a priority. Been saying this for a while. Citing the history of successful teams that win superbowls, they almost always have a stud TE, LB, Center, and QB. Obviously, the other players are important too, but these seem to be the constants and anchors of competitive teams. Having a TE that is a game changer and has to be accounted for on every offensive play makes life easier for the other skill positions such as WR and RB.

I thought the same thing. 4 possibilities: incomplete pass, complete pass inside 5 or RAC TD, pass interference penalty with 1st down inside the 5, or it's intercepted inside the 5 with a Bill there to make the tackle. Anyone of these is better than simply throwing it away out of bounds when the 3 positives would be negated. Very smart play by Manuel.

I'm not impressed with the Bills lack of imagination in regard to the offensive play calling, yet it's difficult to maintain drives when the receivers can't be relied on to catch balls thrown their way. It's been frustrating watching the number of dropped balls. I watch the Patriots, and year after year, no matter who they plug into their receiving corps, their receivers/TEs/RBs catch the football, even when they have to make shoestring grabs. Belichick and Brady don't tolerate players who don't give 100%. Maybe the Bills should put more emphasis on recruiting receivers with better concentration, who are willing to fight for the ball, than they do on speedy receivers who can't catch a cold. The Bills QBs haven't always been perfect with their throws, but I've see numerous plays in which the ball was catchable if the receiver made a little more effort. Quit drafting track stars and find players who can actually battle for and hang onto the ball. Those drops are drive killers.

Regarding primetime scheduling - I don't think the team's record is as much of a factor as star power and name recognition of an individual team member. The media wants to focus on a personality. They want a story line. Put Tebow on the team (not that I'd want that move) and the Bills get 2 prime time games. Prime time is geared towards the lowest common denominator: casual fans, semi-disinterested girlfriends of football fans at bars, etc. Cindy and Ashley sitting at the bar won't turn away from their conversation about nails and hair when the broadcasters are describing the Arizona Cardinals latest roster move, but show Tebow, Manning, Rogers, or some name they recognize from Dancing with the Stars and they'll be all ears and tuned in when the Budweiser commercial follows. Sunday afternoon is for the hardcore fans. The Bills don't have any "household name" players and haven't had any since "T.O." was on the team. Outside of Buffalo, Bills games aren't a "must see" event. Considering their post-Kelly/Levy history in primetime, I'm fine with Sunday afternoon only.

Wouldn't surprise me if this is misinformation. Somebody confusing Bud with Bum. A lot of people are basically stupid.

"Bills fans are half-wits without any comedy sense, so I hope nobody starts a thread on a Bills message board about captioning this photo"

And how is that different than every other year? The only difference between Lucy and The Bills are intent with malice (Lucy) and incompetence (Bills office). Same results.

Fan Over Bored

Groundhog Day.....we went through this last year. Though the players hadn't played a down, they "looked great on paper"!!!! I was skeptical, having experienced the yearly off-season hype too many times. Rob Johnson, Bledsoe, T.O., Mario, etc, etc, etc. Every year some new messiah of a player or coach gets all the Bills failthful amped up to where they start believing this is the year the Bills finally turn it around. Last year around this time I changed my avatar to the "on paper" trophy. Well, we all know what happened last year. Same old same old. So now we've got a rookie QB and coach and they're going to steal the division title away from Brady and Belichick? I'll take that bet. Nothing wrong with being optimistic, but that doesn't mean we should heap unearned praise on a squad and coaching staff that haven't proven anything. Maybe hopeful would be a better position than optimistic. To re-fry my analogy from last year.....Is Charlie Brown optimistic or a frigging idiot for thinking Lucy will actually hold the damn football instead of pulling it out so he can fall on his back? If I'm Charile Brown, I kick the be-yotch right between the camel toes and be done with it.

How about the contradictory penalties (or non penalty)? A QB can be called for grounding the ball to avoid a sack, yet spiking a ball to stop the clock is allowed? Spiking seems like a backdoor way to get an abbreviated timeout - at the expense of a down of course, but still, it doesn't seem within the spirit of the game. When did that become allowable? My other pet peeve? The referee hand signal for an endzone safety. It's super gay! Make it the finger across the throat or something else more fitting for creaming the QB or runner in the endzone.

I made the statement recently that the whole "snow thing" is sooooo overrated and exaggerated. Over the past 10 years, how many Bills home games have been in freezing blizzard conditions or even a heavy snow that covered the field? I honestly can't remember too many. For the sake of argument, let's say there were 10 - though I highly doubt there were more than 5. So, even with 10 games that might conjure the image of "the frozen tundra", that's all of 6% of all regular season games played in winter conditions. Every player with those other outdoor northern ( or Denver) teams has experienced those conditions at least occasionally. Maybe more. My recollection in recent years is that the Atlantic seaboard teams have seen lot more snow than Buffalo. Players with Miami have experienced those conditions as a visiting team. My point is that a player with the Bills will experience some cold weather games, but it's not so disproportional to players from other teams that it should be the leading questions in every interview with a national reporter. The wind is a bigger factor for QBs, WRs, and Kickers than cold or snow. I believe Miami has some fairly windy conditions on occasion too. I don't know if the reporters are just shallow or if they're expected by their producers and bosses to ask that question every time. "don't forget to ask about the snow!" Do they ever ask the players in Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, New Orleans, etc about how they're going to deal with training camp in 98 degree heat and 100% humidity?

I believe you meant "prolific", though "eloquent" or "articulate" would serve the statement better. Class dismissed. :-)

My point is that if an inferior QB translates to 2 less wins, that's usually enough to negate the home field January games anyway, and as previous stated, if they do get a home game in January, both QBs will be playing under the same conditions. If he's superior and a good "bad-weather" QB, all the better, but I wouldn't make that the deciding factor. There are too many other elements of quarterbacking that are the difference between and top tier QB and a journeyman. I believe in the case of EJ Manuel, the Bills think he'll be a better presence on the field in any conditions, and the fact that he has the hands and arm to make plays in windy conditions is an added bonus. If you were to calculate the windy games and the instances when a long ball is required in those matches, the percentage is probably well less than 5% of all plays the QB has to make for an entire season - not enough for the "bad-weather" QB factor to be the make or break decider.

FWIW - I always think the "bad weather" factor is soooo overrated. As an example, the Bills play1 game after November 17 in Buffalo. Every year, there are maybe 3 games played in Buffalo within the last 6 or 7 weeks. Is it assumed that all of those will have horrible conditions? I can remember a lot of December games in recent years when the game announcers commented how "unseasonably warm (or mild) the temps in Buffalo were. The blustery wintery games are burned into our memories as if they're far more frequent than games when there were more tolerable weather conditions. Yes, I don't deny that there are and have been some arctic-like conditions at Bills homes games, but I don't thing they're nearly as frequent as the common perception suggests. Teams like Miami, Atlanta, Oakland, etc have had to endure plenty of cold weather games as well. I'm not going to bother researching all the weather statistics, but I'd be willing to bet that on average, Miami plays maybe 1 less "bad weather" game than the Bills. What about those pre-season and early season games in places like Tampa, Miami, Carolina, etc when it's 88 degrees and 90% humidity. Is that really preferable to the 300 lb lineman who's sucking oxygen on the sidelines? Again, don't have stats in hand, but it seems to me that last season there was more snow and foul weather at games for the Patriots, Steelers, Jets, Giants, and all the others along the Atlantic coast. Denver has their share, and it can come anytime beginning in October. All things being equal, If it came down to having an overall inferior QB with a better arm, I'll take the superior QB who can win games in the early part of the season. Whatever team and QB they play in December will be subjected to the same weather conditions.

The answer is "no". Despite the push by various factions for an NFL team in the 5th most populouse NFL city, Toronto is a hockey town and has not shown much interest in the NFL games played there in the past 5 years. It's much like here in Atlanta where despite the large volume of people, can't or won't support a hockey team. 2 NHL teams have come and gone. Not likely there'll be another. Let the market decide what it wants an quit trying to force teams on places like L.A. and Toronto. A large population doesn't automatically translate into a good fan base. Conversely, Green Bay is one of the smallest cities in major league sports, and yet their season ticket waiting list is something like 40 years and they have some of the most rabid fans in all of sports, buying merchandise like crazy. NFL - quit wasting your time thinking about an NFL team in Toronto. Stupid idea.

Superbowls, conventions, Olympics, final four, etc., etc Unlike The Ralph, the GA Dome has gotten a lot more use than only 10 football games each year. I find it amusing that places like Atlanta don't spend years doing studies before engaging in a major project. They just do it. For all the money and time spent in WNY on studies for the waterfront, peace bridge, stadium...they could have constructed something of use. Meanwhile, everything costs 3 times what it did when they first started talking about it. If the Falcons build this state of the art facility, I wonder if Jerry Jones is going to want a new home in 10 years. FWIW - I wouldn't want all the bells and whistles and constant video images and music booming. I was happy to just have a nice seat to watch a football game outside during nice crisp fall weather. Now major league sports want to bring the carnival into every stadium. Maybe I'm just old school, but I can do without it and will probably avoid live sports when there's constant chaos surrounding me.