folz

No comment on preseason meaning anything, but... winning an opposing team's home opener in their house is a tough ask for any team (unless the teams are so unevenly matched) and I think Baltimore was much better than their record last year and will have a bounce back season. So, originally, I was chalking up week one as a loss (and it still may be), but lately I've been thinking that we might have an X factor in Tyrod. The Ravens didn't treat him poorly or anything, but I think he is gonna want to shine in that game against his old team and in front of the Baltimore fans. Plus you know he feels comfortable in that stadium/field. And if the defense is as improved as they appear to be, we might just take that game yet.

Completely agree with Johnny H! Gunner, thanks for starting this thread and I think you're pretty much on point, but I also saw Groy get blown up quite a few times. I expect he'll make the roster, but I would be very worried about our run game if he had to see much action this year.

If you listen to the interview with Duke on the John Murphy show (August 16) it seems mostly that his attitude has changed. I think between Ed Reed coaching them to be professionals and Rex's "All In," it seems that Duke has rededicated himself. He basically said that he didn't do what he needed to do last year (buy in, study more, etc.). Maybe he was one of the guys influenced by the malcontents last year (my speculation). He probably also realized with the year he had last year and the new guys that they brought in that his job was on the line. He seems hungry this year. The whole team does, each for their own reasons, and I think this is a very positive development. True culture change, not banners in the field house. http://www.buffalobills.com/video/audio/The_John_Murphy_Show_August_16/d35f9a60-264d-451e-8806-306006d75a03 Interview starts at like 56:50

Could be Moorman, since they did that trial run a few weeks back (where he co-hosted for two nights). But I would love it to be Reuben Brown. The last two times he was on the show, I was thoroughly impressed with his knowledge of the game. He knows how to break things down (plays, schemes, player responsibilities) to where they are understandable to the average listener. And he has a player's perspective and can tell you what players are probably thinking/feeling, how things might be perceived in the locker room, etc. I really enjoy listening to him when he is on.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

I think all of the backs are important. Shady's gonna be Shady, which is a top 5 back in the league. Able to cut and change directions on a dime and always a threat. Karlos is a different style back, he's got the power and also has a nose for the endzone. Gillislee proved his worth too. And the rookie was great value where taken and a good insurance policy for Karlos's possible concussion issues, being a bigger back himself. But, the fact that all three of the backs from last year excelled speaks as much to G-ROs schemes and the play of the Oline as it does to their individual talents. Having said that, no doubt, this is a top 5 backfield, talent-wise and I think they will all be utilized (including the fullbacks). Think of the options that a creative run game coordinator has with that group. Everything is open to you. You have power and finesse, you can pound the middle and turn the corner, each guy has proven he can be a homerun threat, they can all catch out of the backfield---opening up screens and disguised pass plays, the play action threat, etc. I think this offense is poised to takeoff and everyone of the parts will be key to the whole. But, I'm with you on the love for Karlos OP!

So, Rex has been a DC or HC for 11 years and you're saying, well if you throw out his first 7 or 8 years, he sucks. You may not like the guy, but you can't erase 3/4 of his career to try to prove your point. 9 of his 11 years, Rex's defense was top 8 in yards allowed, 6 of those years top 10 in points allowed (and some of the low years in points with the Jets were probably due to an anemic offense and lack of defensive personnel). He had 4 years (2 with the Ravens and 2 with the Jets) that you could arguably say that he had the best defense in the NFL (that's more than 1/3 of the years he's coached). And I was never a fan of Buddy, but you have to give the guy his due. He created a defense, the "46", that gave HOF coaches like Bill Walsh headaches. Walsh said, "It's really the most singular innovation in defensive football in the last twenty years." In 14 of the16 years as DC/HC, Buddy's defense ranked top 15 in points allowed (8 of those years in the top 5) and 9 of those years his defense was top 12 in yards given up. He had 6 years of having one of the best (top 5) defenses overall in the NFL and of course, the one year where he had one of the best defenses of all-time. Now, I agree, that looking at Rob's DC rankings (based solely on yards and points allowed) is not pretty. 2 or 3 good years out of 12. But, Rob is not our defensive coordinator!!!! Rex and DT are. And just as some guys are great coordinators, but not great head coaches (Buddy for example); other guys may be great coaches, but not suited for the coordinator role. Rob may be a great coach who can help out in so many areas, beyond just being great support for his brother and it doesn't matter what his record was as a DC, because that is not his role with this team. And maybe, just, maybe, being twins, Rex and Rob will actually be better together than they were apart. I don't know if things will work out with Rex as our HC, I certainly hope so and my gut says it will, but nothing is certain. But, like them or hate them, it's pretty hard to say that the Ryan's impact on the NFL (i.e., their name) is nonsense.

As much as I love having the internet, TBD, and getting as much info about my favorite team as possible, part of me longs for the old days where very little of what went on within the building at One Bills Drive was ever made public. Back then, we never would have heard about the team's media policy, we wouldn't be worried about or maybe even know about injuries and surgeries until at least August, and something (stupid or not) being said by the GM of a football team in May wouldn't cause a stir at all. No wonder the team is restricting the media more, look at how they've handled these last few stories. It is always in an accusing, over-reacting, and exploitative manner. And we, as the public, are no better when we react to it (and we have all been guilty of this at times, be it with the Biils, politics, religion, race, etc.). This is all Much Ado About Nothing.

I know I'll probably get lambasted for this, but why are you all so sure that he committed the crimes he was accused of? Do you all have more information than the jury was privy to? I watched that trial from start to finish and I wouldn't have convicted if I were on that jury and it had nothing to do with me being a Bills fan. There were so many questions and holes in the story. The cops were convinced O.J. did it right from the beginning and therefore did not follow up on leads like the two guys dressed all in black running through the neighborhood...spotted by neighbors just moments after the crime; they didn't interview O.J.'s eldest son who was not only mentally disturbed, had a history of violence, worked as a chef so would carry his set of knives with him to and from work, but he was also in love with Nicole and had no alibi for the time of the murders; they handled the blood samples improperly (the cop took them home with him overnight!); at least Furman (if not others on the police force) had it in for O.J. due to prior incidents; for someone to commit that crime in the brutal way they did, they would have been covered in blood from head-to-toe, yet all they found were a couple of drips on a sock and a couple of drips in the Bronco (did anyone watch "The Making of a Murderer?"...cops planting evidence doesn't seem as outrageous in 2016 as it might have back then); and some say the way they were killed looked like a "hit" (done in a ritualistic manner or mafia-style); yet not one other suspect was ever thought of---they didn't look into Ron's life at all, what if someone was after him not Nicole, no, they just zoomed in immediately and solely on O.J.; the only thing connecting O.J. to the glove was Kato's testimony (a mooching, actor who wanted the limelight) and even with that, he said he heard something but he didn't see anything, plus that back alley was searched a couple of times before the glove magically appeared on I believe the third search...I could go on, but you get the point. Anyhow, I don't know for a fact one way or the other if O.J. committed the murders, or didn't but helped cover them up, or had nothing to do with them. But there were mountains of reasonable doubts for me. Let's face it, because of the media coverage, O.J. was convicted in the court of public opinion before the trial even started. That's the sad part of American justice these days. It is almost impossible to have a fair trial in a high profile case because everyone has already made up their minds before seeing all of the evidence. I don't know what happened, but neither does anyone else who wasn't there and yet most of this country takes it as 100% fact that he did it despite all of the holes in the prosecution's (and the police's) stories/case. Why? I know this probably won't convince any of you otherwise...I guess I've just had this issue on my chest for a long time and this seemed like the right time and place to finally let it out. Sorry...and Flame away! Anyhow, to the topic, regardless of whether O.J. did it or not, I agree with those who say you can't erase history. And if you eliminated the work of anyone who might have been an unsavory character, or corrupt, or committed a crime, or who thought differently from you, etc. our history books would be pretty slim and you would have to give up most of your heroes (be they musicians, artists, writers, politicians and state leaders, actors, directors, CEOs, athletes, etc.). And, yeah, as far as the team goes, for PR reasons due to public opinion, I would leave it status quo as others have said. Don't retire it and don't issue it

Thanks for responding with a specific example that bothered you. At the time, I just took it as him kidding around. But I can see how that could feel disrespectful to the player(s) and become bulletin board material. Ah, ok. Yeah, he definitely wouldn't think that way if he read TBD regularly. It just bothers me (not referring to your comment yungmack, but the current tenor of the board) when good football talk turns into just personal attacks. The "clown" "buffoon" "fat brother" comments, etc. Let's talk football guys, not just hate on our coach and certain players cause we're all disappointed about 16 years of no Playoffs. I have no problem with someone saying they don't think Rex will turn it around and here's why I think that. Or as Pete, above, stated, this is what bothered me, when he said this. Or even saying he should be fired, fine, I'll listen, debate, and discuss. But the seeming hatred of the man by so many just seems totally overblown and unwarranted to me. Does he need to prove himself on the field? Absolutely. But, he's not a bad person. He is well-liked by his players and others he works with. He's not some total dick, which is what seems to be the current perception of him to a lot of people on this board. Rex is our coach for at least this upcoming season and nothing anyone writes on here is going to change that. I just think it is time to turn the page on the disappointment of last year. As section 122's excellent post pointed out, there are a lot of things to look forward to this upcoming season. And yes, reason to hope. And remember, without Rex we most likely don't have Tyrod or G-Ro either.

Would you prefer a coach who actually thinks he's mediocre and says so? If you don't have confidence in this league, you're never gonna win. I know this year was disappointing, but I'm having a hard time understanding all of the hatred towards Rex. I really don't get the "buffoon" label. I thought he composed himself quite well this year. I don't understand what people are reacting to other than he had really high expectations and didn't meet them last season. Really, when was he a "clown" or "buffoon" this past season. What are the incidents that really bothered so many of you? Honestly, tell me...cause I just don't see what was sooooo wrong other than the 8-8 season.

Really good to hear from Preston. I think he is a proud kid and will back up those words. Let's face it, this defense was really hurt by the loss of Aaron Williams and Kyle Williams. Not only are they excellent players, but they were THE two leaders on the defense. When they went down, by default (due to age, money, ability) Mario and Dareus were the defacto leaders. And neither of them are fire you up, vocal leaders. And once they decided the coaches were wrong, and no one else felt they could speak up to them, the defense was doomed. This doesn't forgive Rex for other things, trying to mix systems, assuming the players would just buy in, communication issues (both with players and with getting calls in on time), etc. but, the leadership issue really hurt the team badly. Dareus eventually came around and by the end of the season, Manny and Corey took over the leadership role as best they could. But if Kyle had been around all year, he wouldn't have accepted Mario loafing and he would have kept Dareus in line. If Aaron was around, the backfield communication would have been much better. I don't think you can underestimate how losing those two specific players hurt the D. If Aaron and Kyle are back and then Preston steps up, we'd have a leader at each level of the defense, and the cancer is gone, and everyone now has a year in the system, and Rex and the coaches know the players better, and you add Blake, Rob, and Ed to the coaching staff, (I think these are all good additions no matter what others may say), I really think this defense will rebound next season. Yes, last year was disappointing and frustrating, but let's give Rex some support. I really think he'll turn it around this year.

Just to clarify, since your post was obviously only from your recollection: 20 years as NFL Head Coach: 10 winning seasons 8 losing seasons 2 seasons of .500 9 Playoff appearances 4 Championship games 2 Superbowl wins (also won a SuperBowl as an assistant coach) Playoff record 12-7 He only had 1 losing season in his first 9 years with the Giants and then of course finished with 3 losing seasons (the last three years). I'm not saying he's the greatest coach around, but there are a lot of coaches and teams who would be happy with that track record. It was probably time for the Giants to move on, but don't diminish what the guy accomplished.

I stand corrected. You are right aristocrat and apparently the NFL offices have even given up their tax exemption status. My bad. I guess that is what I get for only looking at headlines or listening to loud detractors and not digging into it myself. http://www.sbnation.com/2015/4/28/8508905/nfl-tax-exempt-nonprofit-roger-goodell-salary http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exempt/

Yet, they get tax exemption like a charity!

I'm in the camp that can't understand the posters saying we need to upgrade Corey Graham. Guys, he had a monster year... 127 tackles, 1 sack, 6 passes defended, 2 INTs, 2 FRs, and a TD He had the second most tackles of all safeties in the NFL AND he had the 8th most tackles in the entire NFL (all positions). More tackles than all NFL players except for 6 LBs and one other Safety! He and Manny were the defensive MVPs down the stretch of the season. You aren't missing too many tackles as a Free Safety if you have 127 on the year. And maybe some of the problems in the passing game that people talk about was more due to the communication issues that plagued the secondary early in the season in Rex's system and with Aaron going down (playing with younger and/or less experienced guys). Not saying he was perfect, no one is, but no upgrade needed, thank you very much. Corey Graham is a hometown baller!

Marv may not have been a Bill Walsh or Belichick when it came to Xs and Os, but he sure had a lot of other HOF worthy characteristics. There were a lot of egos on that team and Marv brought them all together, he LED those men, getting them to fight for each other, and to be resilient. His focus on special teams allowed Steve Tasker and Mark Pike to become names and win us some games with the kicking teams. Many other coaches at that time didn't pay as much attention to special teams. He and Marchibroda came up with and/or endorsed the K-gun offense. Yes, it was a talented team, but it had its flaws too. One that became all too apparent in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Superbowls, was that our defensive front was undersized in comparison to the behemoths on the offensive lines of both Washington and Dallas. Jeff Wright was our nose tackle, for Christ's sake. No offense to Jeff, he just wasn't huge and an All-Pro. The year of the first Superbowl, in Week 15, the Bills beat the Giants in Giants Stadium 17-13. Then lost by 1 point to them in the Superbowl that was decided by a last second field goal that missed by about two feet. And that was against the combined genius of both Parcells and Belichick. Obviously, those two teams were so evenly matched, like a yin and yang. I don't think you can say he was totally outcoached. I also don't think that the partying affected things much. Just look at the game in week 15 (similar, low-scoring, grind it out game) and look at teams like the '85 Bears, who partied and still won. And you can't fault him for going in to the game with the plan that got them there. They just beat the Dolphins 44-34 and the Raiders 51-3 in the two previous playoff games (and the Giants back in week 15). Now, yes, the other 3 Superbowls were ugly...Washington just had some kind of miracle year and then Dallas was probably the better team in the last two bowls (talent-wise). So, I do not think that you can surmise, without a doubt, that another coach would have won 3 Superbowls with that team. I know one thing at least, no other coach would have got them to four in a row (win or lose), that was all Marv. With a different coach, maybe the bickering Bills never gel and come together, maybe another coach doesn't install an offense that suits the players or one that let's Jim run the show on the field. Another coach might not have gotten along with Polian or Ralph. The comeback game may have never happened if it wasn't for Marv's belief and the resiliency that he taught his team, etc. 5 AFC East titles and 5 AFC Championship game appearances in 6 years, 4 consecutive Super Bowls, an 80-32 record over that 6 year period (a 73% win pct.)---so he wasn't getting out coached that much. There are just way too many Ifs and way too many of Marv's attributes that you are overlooking to be able to say that another coach would have even gone to one Superbowl with that team, or have led them to four, let alone as you said, win at least 3 Superbowls with that team. First of all, there are only 4 coaches in the history of the league that have won 3 Superbowls (and none were able to do 3 consecutively) and there have been plenty of teams with as much talent as that Bills team. And only one other coach (Don Shula) ever got his team to three SBs in a row (he went 2-1). So, maybe one of those 5 other Hall of Fame, Greatest of All Time Coaches could have won a Superbowl with this team (and maybe not), but when you say, "a better coach would have won 3 Superbowls with that team," you make it sound like Marv sucked and tons of coaches could have done better with that team and I think that assessment is way off base. Marv is clearly and deservedly a Hall of Fame coach. Some more food for thought, Bud Grant (0-4), Don Shula (2-4), and Dan Reeves (0-4) all lost 4 Superbowls; Tom Landry (2-3) lost 3 Superbowls; even Holmgren (1-2) and the great Belichik (4-2) have lost two Superbowls each. Do those coaches suck and not deserve the HOF? Would those teams have won them all with different coaches? Like it or not, Marv was the right coach at the right time for that Bills team and I wouldn't have traded him for any other coach over those years! Go Bills!

Uh-oh, do I have to pull out my Marv speech again? First of all, that statement is completely false...but how can any Bills fan have Marv on a most hated coaches of all time list???? It makes no sense whatsoever!

1. Jimmy Johnson 2. Bill Belichick 3. Pete Carroll 4. Jim Harbaugh 5. Gregg Williams 6. Doug Marrone Have too much respect for guys like Landry, Parcells, and Shula to hate them, even though I hated their teams.

Great point Lovemesomebills...you're right Sammy did really become a leader down the stretch and it usually is the best players on the team or the QB who become the leaders (as long as they're not head cases). You can see it in the Leodis McKelvin "Wired for sound" video from the final game at like 2:50-2:56---after Tarpley's INT. Sammy runs out and greets Leo and they excitedly slap each other's helmets (and this is in a game that technically means nothing to them). There were a lot of moments like that from Sammy over the last handful of games. But I also agree with Triple Threat, that on a 53 man roster, you need multiple leaders. I think Sammy and Tyrod should be good on offense, but it would be nice to have at least one defensive guy. If Aaron and Kyle Williams both come back and are playing well, they could handle it, but still good to have coaches who can fire the guys up if we end up in the same situation again (with the leaders going down).

Leadership can't be discounted. I still think the team made a mistake of letting Freddie go one year too early. He was the main team leader. And Freddie's protege was? Aaron Williams. Aaron and Kyle Williams were the only leaders on that defense and when they went down early, it really hurt the D. Stephon, Dareus, and Mario are all quiet guys, Hughes is the wild one, and the rest of the guys were young or backup guys still trying to prove themselves. At season's end, as far as leaders, you had maybe Corey Graham and Manny Lawson, but they seem to be more lead by example guys. Without the two leaders and Mario disgruntled, it really hurt the defense. In comes Rob Ryan and Ed Reed. Say what you want about Rob Ryan as a D coordinator, but from most reports, he is a fire-you-up type of coach and players liked playing for him. I give Rex and the team credit, they are already attempting to resolve issues from last year. 1. In case we don't have players to lead and fire each other up, we better have some coaches who can do so; 2. Reed can really teach they system and help with the communication issues. (addendum: In the long run, getting rid of Freddie may have worked out because it forced Tyrod to become more of a leader, which should pay dividends next year and we found ourselves a couple of good RBs, but for just the 2015 season, his loss in leadership and the loss of an extra set of legs when McCoy and Karlos went down really hurt the team.)

But I just read in a thread yesterday that he was old and washed up. What to believe? The number after his age: or his play on the field each week? He and Graham have been the best defensive players on the field for most of the year and I agree with the OP, Lawson had a monster game today!

I know, another topic about the officiating, sorry...but I just wanted to give my impression of the inadvertent whistle play, because it is driving me nuts that everyone (since Mike Tirico first said it), keeps saying the Pats got robbed of a touchdown on that play. I think this all comes down to the Brady Rule, you know, the one where he gets extra protection from the zebras, but this time it backfired on them. Brady was fading to the sidelines pursued by Corbin Bryant. If the whistle doesn't blow, Brady may have still got the ball off, but he was going to take a shot from Bryant. The ref blew the whistle so Tommy didn't get crushed or because he assumed Brady was just going to step out rather than take the hit. If Bryant doesn't let up at the whistle, Brady might not have gotten it off, or Bryant might have tipped it, or distracted Brady enough so that the ball isn't on target. So, if the whistle doesn't blow, the pass may not have been completed. Secondly, Darby is chasing Amendola everywhere. Amendola might have got a step on him on his last spin upfield, but Darby also lets up at the whistle. Remember the whistle blew while the ball was still in the air, before reaching Darby and Amendola. So, if Darby doesn't let up at the whistle, maybe he breaks up that play. Even if not, he is in position to make the tackle if he doesn't pull up at the whistle. So, even if everything else went right for the Pats, Brady does get the ball off cleanly, no whistle, and Amendola makes the grab, they still would have had only a first down, not a TD. The ref blew the whistle to protect Brady. Then when he sees Amendola catch the ball, the ref goes "Oh sh%t." The refs huddle for an eternity and without taking into account that the Bills stopped playing at the whistle, or that the rule states it should be a do over because the whistle blew before the catch, they decide they owe the Pats something, and give them 30 free yards. The ref who blew the whistle then comes up with the excuse of coach interference to make his mistake ("protect Brady") look like it was somehow rex's fault, so the ref can try to save face. If you see the sideline video, you can see the ref is blowing the whistle so Brady doesn't get hit rather than because Rex is in his way. Sick of hearing how the Pats got robbed of a touchdown. The Bills were the only ones wronged on that play. My two cents.

My take on the whistle was not interference, but Brady protection whistle. He blew the whistle so Brady wouldn't get leveled. Then realized he !@#$ed up because the play should have still been live. Our guy lets up and doesn't paste Brady, and Gilmore stopped his pursuit when he heard the whistle, so it wouldn't have been a 70 yard td Tirico.

ROCbillsfan87 has taken the ticket. Sorry K-Apps. Thanks everyone! Go Bills!