Casey D

I think it is the coaching, and a work ethic and ethos that a certain type of player brings to the table. NE seems good at finding these kinds of guys. We have some, but not nearly enough up and down the roster.

Thanks. And yeah, just to be in the playoffs again would be great. It's so much fun to be in the post-season dance, just to hope. 6 years in a row w/ no playoffs--and not much hope as this team is not progressing--is just dismal. It's not much fun to be a Bills fan right now.

Over the past few years. Because yesterday it became painfully clear that after 5 years under Donahoe, the QB issue is a relatively small one for this team. After 5 years, we have a team with horrible offensive and defensive lines. I've tried to be hopeful and give them the benefit of the doubt because I love this team, but the reality is that at the fundamentals--the trench play--this team is well below the NFL average. Losman will be fine, but it's really clear now that the problems with Bledsoe were 25% Drew and 75% the fact that the line can't block. No one can play QB when you have about 1 second to set up. At least Losman can move, but no one can play QB well under these circumstances. Bledsoe was a scapegoat--and I am happy he has moved on because I think Losman will be better-- for an offensive line which is consistently dreadful. At the end of the day, this team was built with a few big splashes in free agency, draft or trade-- Bledsoe, Milloy, Spikes, Fletcher, Vincent, M. Williams, Losman-- which gives the common fan hope because the guys have names. But the team lacks enough players who are willing to stick their nose in it and get dirty, without fanfare. When you see New England at 6-4 with half the roster comprised of street players because of injury, you can't help but conclude that our front office is totally outclassed at finding 52 guys who can play decently and consistently with a high degree of effort. This pains me to no end, because I truly like Wilson, Donahoe and Mularkey. But at this point, 5 years after Butler and Wadeo left, the team has spun its wheels and accomplished absolutely nothing. I really don't know what there is to do, it's just terribly frustrating that the management lacks competence to put at least an above average product on the field after all this time... CD

I think that is about right. Unless the Bills win a game they plainly should not--like on the road against SD or Cin-- then there is no getting those easier games back. The Bills need to pull a surprise or two to really get in this-- or for NE to lose a game or two you would not expect...

Looking at the schedule, I'd rank the difficulty of opponents of the Bills as follows, taking into account venue: 1.San Diego 2.Cincinnati 3/4. Carolina/Denver(about the same) 5.Miami 6.New England 7.NY Jets For New England: 1/2. KC/Buffalo(these are must lose if Bills are to have a chance) 3. Tampa 4. at NYJ 5. Miami 6. New Orleans 7. NYJ If the Bills win their 3 divisional games, they need to split the other 4 to get to 9-7. New England almost certainly will not lose at home to NO, Miami or NYJ, so the margin of error for the Bills is extremely small. It seems to me even if Buffalo can go 5-2 down the stretch--a big if-- we are going to need some unlikely help for New England to lose 3 more. The win for them at Miami on Sunday was pretty big, looking at their remaining schedule...CD

These guys have been on top for so long, and accomplished so much, do you think with the beating they took last night--and the realization that they won't win it all this year--that they might be too mentally spent simply to strive for an AFC East title? It seems possible that they could be like the Bills in 1994 and end up at 7-9, even with a relatively easy schedule. They probably will be back next year to some extent, but I just wonder how fired up they can be to just get a 4 seed in the playoffs. Just a thought, but I really think this thing is more wide open than ever.

I think we will need 9 wins. Seems unlikely, but Bills must win against KC and Pats at home, and beat Miami and Jets on road to get enough wins and tiebreaker advantage. Then they need to find 2 wins(or 1 if you think 8-8 makes it with TB) against SD, Cin, Carolina and Denver. But at least they have a chance given the Pats fall, and winning the AFC East and hosting a home playoff game in January would be fun for a franchise not in the playoffs since 1999, even though they certainly will get bounced from the playoffs in the first or second round... CD

Sullivan is a sour puss, but that line about handing off to a lineman or the equipment guy was very funny...CD

It's really true. Even Mike Vick looked like a great pocket passer--because he was always throwing to someone who was open by 3-5 yards. Don't need to be too accurate when the receivers are that wide open.

I mean, they just got their ass@s kicked by a 1-4 team. That second half was ugly, the Bills were physically manhandled. This is 2003 all over again. But this time it is the defense that is fugly beyond words. It is amazing to see how bad they are compared to the last two years. And if I have to see one more two yard pass, I'll puke. If Holcomb can't, or won't, throw the ball more than 10 yard, get him out. Bring back JP and let him take his lumps. This team is done, and 2006 will be another retooling year. We won't be sniffing the playoffs for years at the current rate of progress...CD

Agreed. As I wrote to start, especially having lost on the road to NO already, this week is a must win road game if the Bills are to realistically have a playoff chance. Starting 0-3 on the road, with remaining road games at NE, SD, Cincy, Miami and NYJ, means it is really over, in my opinion. If they go 3-5 into the break, Losman should be starting the rest of the year.

I get your point, I think it's interesting to think about it this way, but you have the Bills going 6-2 on the road, and only 4-4 at home on your list. If you are to make the playoffs at 10-6, it's got to be the other way around, 6-2 at home, .500 on the road. I think Tampa on the road is much harder than Carolina at home, so I'd switch those. Same with KC at home v. Cincinnati on the road, those should be switched in my opinion. I think NO on the road was a game we should have had, along with Oakland, NYJ and some other road game. So I'd say we are 1 behind right now, not 2. If we were 4-2 right now, I'd say we were having a good year so far. 3-3 is much more precarious...CD

Three games the Bills must have to stay in the playoff chase. The first is next week against Oakland. Oakland is no pushover, but if they can't beat a team like Oakland on the road right now, it's over. They must, of course, get some road wins. Next must win is at home against NE in December--must have a split against NE and the Bills almost certainly won't win in NE given the history, NE's bye, etc. Last game against the Jets on the road on 1/1. Jets should be running for the bus, they've got to sweep against at least one team in East. If the Bills can win these three games, they have a shot. They would need to win 2 of 3 against KC, Carolina and Denver at home(which won't be easy, but possible), and another road game against either NE(very unlikely)SD(equally unlikely) Cincinnati(possible late in season) Miami(best chance as game is in December and Miami may be reeling by then--also the best game to win from a TB standpoint). Any of these scenarios could be mixed and matched, so long as they get at least 3 wins from these 7 games. This scenario gets the Bills to 9-7, with a good chance to hold the tiebreakers against all other AFC East teams--could be enough to win the division. One more win to get to 10 almost certainly will be enough. But w/o the win this week--assuming no miracle in NE--I think the Bills' realistic chances are over. So unless they win this week, I will continue to limit my expectations for this team--and I am by no means sanguine they will win this week given what I have seen the last two weeks...CD

I was focusing on the offense, but you are right, w/o Spikes the defense will suffer all year. Which makes it even more important for the offense to do more, not less, than what was expected of it, which was not that much...CD

Sorry about the typo on Villarrial.. what kind of name is that, Dutch?

to see if the return of Williams, Villarrial and Euhus, along with the possiblility of Parrish playing, will give this offense a significant boost. With Holcomb at QB, and the starting O-line having a chance to play together for the first time since early in game 2, the O should be much better if it is inherently any good at all. We should get a much better idea of what we really have after Sunday... CD

He's not on the injury list this week. Villareal is listed as probable.

Come on man, be honest at least. You set up a straw man with a fictitious quote, and then pat yourself on the back for demolishing the straw man. He said KH was brought in to be a possible alternative(i.e., an insurance policy) if Losman was awful. That not only is true, it was written about at the time KH was signed...CD

Bingo. Good post! At least give credit to what the Bills are thinking here, even if you disagree.

Uh Rush, where did Indy Mark use the words "open competition?" I think he wrote Holcomb was an alternative. Losman was handed the job w/o competition. He has, at least for now, lost the job. Where was it ever said he could never lose his job? Can't anyone lose a job?

But you incorrectly assume that this is somehow a permanent decision--it is not. If the Bills suck as you suggest, Losman will be back in to get the experience for next year. If the Bills are 2-6 at the break,for example, Losman is in for the rest of the year. Shoot, I bet if they lose Sunday, he's back in for the Jets.

I am not sure if I like the move or not, but it makes sense to do this now if you are going to do it at all . Despite being 1-3, the AFC East seems wide open and the Bills have no conference or division losses, so they are in it if they can start to win. If they win the next two games with Holcomb, people will be happy because the Bills will be in it. But at whatever point the Bills playoff chances are realistically done, Losman goes back in and gets the experience he needs for next year. So as I see it, KH is in until the Bills are out of the hunt. If the Bills truly have the other pieces in place to win(which looks doubtful right now to me), we may see KH for a while. If the Bills are not a contender at all-- as Jerry Sullivan says and may be right-- Losman will be back in for the rest of the year in a couple of weeks, because at that point the games will truly mean nothing from a standings perspective. It will be like Manning with the Giants last year. So either way, the rest of the season will have some interest, either because the Bills are in the AFC East race or we get to see Losman's development. So I get the strategy here...CD

This thread is what a Bush Administration cabinet meeting must be like.

You really have an interesting way of thinking. And your use of hyperbole is just super. Notwithstanding your once again condescending writing, the articles are not primarily opinion pieces, and they contain many quotes from players and the DC on what some of the problems are on defense. They are wholly consistent with what I have seen at the Houston game live, and as best I can tell from television in the other to games--although it is hard for me to tell too much from a network broadcast. You don't have to get anything from the author to determine that my views are are consistent with just about all the statements made by the professionals in the articles. Yours are not. Does not make me right, or you wrong. It does suggest that your basic position that I have no idea what I am talking about, and that your views are indisputably correct, is wrong. But I should stop upsetting you by challenging your world view, so I will go now. Take care.

No offense taken. No one is arguing that Edwards is a great tackle. The issue is whether all, or most, of the poor play on defense can be attributed to Edwards. I think fairly read, while I agree that they would not single out Edwards(but the article does even more than not single out Edwards, it indicates that Gray says he has been steadier than most), the article tells us that there have been lots of defensive breakdowns, and that Edwards is not the primary reason that the run defense has been gashed--it has required lots of mistakes from lots of people on defense. That to me not only is a fair reading, it seems a fair assessment of what I have seen so far from the defense.