Rubes

How do you people find these things?

Wow.

That was a really interesting post, thanks. My belief is not that Bledsoe is to blame for the sacks, or the offensive line is to blame for the sacks, or whoever. The real reason for all the sacks? We just have a bunch of guys on offense that, after all these years of playing football, still can't recognize a blitz and react appropriately, whatever position you're talking about (OL, RB, QB, WR,...)

No, although here in Utah everybody knows a whole lot about her now. And about her husband. Very odd story. I know Mark Hacking's brother a little, we work in the same hospital. Very sad.

How is a rooster-a-roach named Edjuardo actually Irish?

I'd go for the 0-16 myself, too. Problem is, if we manage to win this Pats game, then we'd only be one game out of first if the Jets lose to the Fins. Ah, big deal. 0-16 is much better.

1. A Bills win. 2. Another helmet-dislodging hit on Brady by Clements.

27 years ago today it was a Saturday and I was waiting anxiously for the next day's Bills game. The previous year was disappointing and we finished with a 10-game losing streak, in which we scored only 15 points per game. We ended the season with a sound thumping in the final game on the road at the hands of a hated AFC East opponent. We were then 0-2 after losing to two AFC teams and about to play that same AFC East opponent that creamed us in the final game the previous season. They had a strong, young QB who was tearing up the opposition. We had a new coach who we all hoped would turn things around, but it didn't look good. But it was still the Bills and I loved them regardless. 27 years later and things don't seem to have changed much, have they! We ended up losing by 3. (It was Baltimore, by the way. We ended up 3-11 that year. Ugh!)

I might think that's the case if the Pats didn't have two weeks to prepare for this one...

You could have said the exact same thing about Buffalo last year after week 2. Seattle may be the best in the league after week 3 this year, but that may have nothing to do with the way they finish.

Perhaps the question should have been, in twenty years, given either of those outcomes, which outcome would ultimately make you happier at that time in the future?

...which is probably nothing more than wishful thinking, is that Mularkey and Co. have been looking at this week's game against New England the same way that Lovie and Co. in Chicago were looking at the Green Bay game. If nothing else, beat New England. To do that, Mularkey and Co. believed that they need to keep as much of the offense as possible under wraps in order to have enough surprises up their collective sleeves when Billy and friends come to town. The thinking, presumably, is that they felt we could use a fairly bland offense in the first two games against mediocre opponents and get away with it, at the very least being 1-1 when this year's first Pats showdown arrived. Unfortunately, too many mistakes derailed that express, but at least they didn't show their hand too quickly. A multifaceted surprise offensive against the Pats defense could be enough to get this team back on track. At least that's what I'm hoping. I expect to see some fireworks from the offense this week. Well, at least some fireworks being lit. Whether or not they explode is another thing.

Maybe for Oakland....

Only if Sunday is November 1st....

That was great...especially the 'sight adjustment' one!

Perhaps, but some of us believe that vomiting is a vital body function.

What a barnburner...both QB's have combined for less than 200 yards and 3 INTs in the 4th quarter. Ugh.

Outstanding! Wife's asking what I'm laughing about.

I agree...and I think a win against the Pats (which I definitely think is possible) can start this team on a serious roll.

ICE, I'm totally with you on this, but at the same time it's tough to make a strong argument when you're 0-2. I do feel that we have been up against two tough defenses in JAX and OAK, and while our defense has been up to the task as well, the offense still needs to score when the opportunities are there...including not taking sacks to get us out of FG position. I think the offense WILL improve as the season goes on, but if we're 1-7 or 2-6 at the halfway point, maybe we really ARE that bad. Time will tell. But I agree with you that it's still too early to know for certain if we're really as bad as it seems. I think we're in position to improve.

True, although half of their defensive stats came against us! I agree, though, their defense really isn't bad. We have played two good defensive teams so far and we're obviously struggling a bit. But I do expect us to show more as the season goes on. It may be for naught, but whatever.

We may not have GB's or Indy's offense.... ...but then again, we definitely don't have their defense

Hindsight is so sweet, isn't it? Shayne sucked when he was here, and we couldn't vote him out of here fast enough. Maybe it took him some time to mature, but spare us the longing.

5 TDs and over 300 yards in the first half. Does Bledsoe have that for the entire season yet?

Regardless, it does show that Buffalo's offensive struggles are not unique. I think most people here think Denver and Tennessee have better offenses than Buffalo, yet Denver couldn't score a TD against JAX and Tennessee, supposed to threaten for their division crown, couldn't beat them at home either. We're really down on the Bills offense so far (and rightfully so), but let's keep things in perspective here: JAX has a very good defense. (I won't say the same about Oakland, though)