Koufax

I agree with the initial post. The Saints are a good team, but they are overrated right now and while being a high flying offense, they are not a dominant team. I also think our pass defense actually matches up well against them, especially as our kickers give us good field position to work with. Brees can move the ball half the field as much as he wants, and he can get 2-3 touchdowns as well, and we still win this game. We need to get some pressure with our front 4 (he is smart against the blitz) and not worry about Brees's fantasy numbers, but instead just the football scoreboard.

Yep. But most importantly, we don't try to beat Brees this week. We beat the Saints. While going 2-6 on the road last year, Brees put up some pretty amazing numbers in losses, going over 400 yards once. Let the fantasy football people get excited about their offense, let's hope for some rain, and play good D, get a couple picks out of his 50 passes, and score some touchdowns instead of field goals. I can see this game going 30-28 Bills pretty easily (two offensive TDs, three FGs, one ST TD for example, and Brees getting four touchdowns and passing for 330 with an INT). Either way I can't wait and like our chances. Right now the Saints might be a better team than we are, but they are overrated, and allowed 27 points to Detroit, and scored big against Philly with McNabb out and some points off turnovers.

Vegas doesn't show respect to teams. Vegas tries to get even dollars on either side and make money on the vig. So the 6 points represents Vegas' estimates of the betting world's opinion. The spread is not predicting results...it is predicting bettor sentiment. So that said, Vegas doesn't think that the Saints, 2-6 on the road last year despite a similarly high powered offense, are enough of a favorite among bettors to get more than the 6 points on the road against a Buffalo team that has played two very good games with rain likely. I happen to think that making NO a 6 point favorite is a representation of fans misguided Saints enthusiasm. The Saints can lose with Brees passing for 400 yards (they did it last year), and Buffalo has a good shot of winning this game. Go Bills

No, it is a Power Rankings, not a standings. To view the standings with us above Miami click the link at the top that says "Standings". I thought it was funny that we stayed where we were, but beating a bad team at home vs, almost upsetting the #1 team on the road...I'm not sure that adds up to a huge move in terms of what analysts expect from the Bills. A win this week would certainly change things though...

Don't have to stop Brees. He lost last year with 300+ and 400+ yards. It is about beating the Saints, not about having Brees have a bad fantasy football week. You have to get some pressure without the blitzes, get a pick or two, and limit his scoring to 2 or 3 touchdowns and make sure you score 4. I posted some more details of the Saints losses in another discussion, but winning 30-24 is very reasonable. I don't think the Saints are much better than Tampa on defense, so don't have a problem seeing us get to 27-35 points, so the key is not allowing the fourth and fifth Saints touchdowns, not feeling you need to stop Brees and not allow any points.

Obviously it is a new year, but this was a high powered offense last year too, and here are some of the results: Lost @WAS 29-24 week 2. Washington held the ball for 34minutes, intercepted Brees twice, ran 15 more plays, but only had two sacks. Lost @DEN 34-32 week 3. Despite 421 yards passing for Brees with no INTs, and Denver losing ToP 27 to 33, Denver won a normal shoot out sacking Brees only once, but just having the little things go their way and putting up points. Lost @ MIN 30-27 week 5. Brees threw for 330, but only 1 TD and two INTs. Only sacked once, and MIN won the ToP 32 to 28. Despite Peterson rushing for only 32 yds on 21 carries and giving up a Reggie Bush punt TD, Minnesota had the little things go right to win. Lost @ CAR 30-7. Brees only 21/39 for 231 and no TDs, 1 INT. Carolina only sacked him once, but won ToP 33-27 and managed to force a lot of incompletes. Lost @ATL 34-20. Brees passed for 422, but was picked off 3 times including first play from scrimmage, only sacked once. 31-29 ToP for ATL. Lost @TB 23-20. RAIN!!!, Brees picked off three times, sacked once, even ToP. Lost @CHI 27-24 Overtime Brees only 232 yards and 2 INT, Bears win even though Orton is terrible and the team doesn't run the ball. Brees sacked only once, NO wins ToP 26-36, but KO Return for TD helps Bears stay in it. Lost at home against CAR, 33-31. Brees goes for 386, 4TDs, 1INT. Car gets a TD of a fumble return to build an early lead, and wins ToP 37-23. Brees throws three 4th quarter TDs to almost rally from down 30-10 to start the 4th. DeShaun Williams rushes for 178 in building that Carolina lead. So as you can see, most of their losses were 30-27ish on the road, and in many Brees got his yards, but the opposing teams managed to pick him off or hold him to FGs a few times. Sacks were not part of the losses, and he clearly knows how to get rid of the ball, but interceptions were almost always a factor. Based on that, I think we play our game offensively, hope for some good special teams, a pick or two, and don't cry if they get in the end zone a couple times, just try to make it 2-3 times and not 4-5. I think this could be the kind of game that has fans worried and mad during the game, blaming Jauron for doing dumb things, and then we find a way to come out on top 30-27. Rain would be nice too...

Yep, the expectation is to have him around the bye, and if it were not possible he would be on IR already. Expect him back and able to play at a top level.

Don't root for it, because the football gods will give you sunshine just to show you who is in charge, but I think bad weather favors the Bills.

As a football fan I always like going for it. And if we make it it is a dagger in their hearts. But the smart choice in improving our chances of winning is kicking. They had just stuffed us, and while if we get a 1st we win, we probably win if we kick it anyway. Their best chance of winning the game is stopping us on 4th, getting that momentum, and realizing that they need just one big TD drive and a field goal. So keeping them away from that best chance to win in my mind is the best thing to do. Going for it and failing is a little worse than people are saying here.

I don't think we are a better team with Stevie Johnson over Roscoe right now, and am concerned about the punt return game which he is generally pretty damn good at. I think as was pointed out he might be overrated because he is quick to let one bounce and roll back 20yds that Welker might have fielded and gained 5, but he clearly is a weapon. However with our current offense, I don't see a way to get him the ball much, and that has been the problem in his career. I wish that our coaches could come up with a way to use him a little more like Welker for short quick passes, since I think he would be able to turn those into productive offense but more importantly have defenses have to adjust and make more space for TO and Lee.

How many did Detroit score against them? I'll take my chances playing our game that their offense comes back down to earth on Sunday, and the way their D plays and the way Freddie is going with TO and Lee starting to get Trent throwing downfield that we can stick to our game an play our football and do fine. Now as mentioned, running down the playclock a little further in our no huddle will probably make sense, but the key will still be scoring points when we have the ball and stopping them from scoring when they have the ball. Reinventing our offense to try to cut a couple possessions off their end doesn't seem to make much sense.

Yep, Bell got beat with the game on the line, had a bunch of penalties, and overall played like it was his first game and he had just missed a whole lot of practice snaps to injury...OH WAIT...THAT'S BECAUSE IT WAS AND HE DID! I don't think anybody was going to confuse us on Monday for the 80s Redskins, but this line exceeded everybody's expectations for the game at hand, helping us put up 17 points, but also more importantly showed a lot of promise for what can unfold over the next 15 games and the next several years.

No, my explanation is a BREAKDOWN of the worst case scenario and how the runback vs. kneeldown affects that outcome. Anything other than the worst case scenario and we win in either case, and anything other than the worst worst case scenario and there is no fumble in either case. I understand your point, but don't view a three and out as a rare/terrible/unlucky thing that we shouldn't expect. Especially if we commit to the run and not risk an incompletion or sack or int which I think we would have done, and if New England for the first time all game commits to stacking the box instead of double-teaming our receivers. Even with that situation I would try running Freddie three straight times, hoping he can average 3.4 yards and ice it for us, and knowing if that coin comes up tails, we are still in good shape.

I still think this is a dead horse: Hands team just in case of an onsides....CHECK Running the ball out for field position and clock management....CHECK Protecting the football....FAIL So I think we had good coaching decisions on the play, good decision to run the ball out on the play, bad execution of protecting the football and that killed us. However...for the kneel down crowd: 1) We kneel down and have the ball at the 20 with 2:06 and 3 patriots timeouts 2) 1st and 10, 2:06: We run up the middle, patriots stack the box, we get 2 yards, timeout #1 at 2:01 3) 2nd and 8, 2:01: We run up the middle, pats stack the box, we get 1 yard, two minute warning 4) 3rd and 7, 1:54: We run up the middle, pats stack the box, we get 2 yards, timeout #2 Pats 5) 4th and 4 at our 25, 1:49: We punt the ball 45 yards, 10 return, brady gets the ball at the NE 39 So if we knelt down and couldn't get a first, Brady has the ball with 1:37, one timeout and 60 yards to go instead of 30 and 2:06 and three timeouts. While certainly harder to get a touchdown, we don't have the game locked up without getting a first down. So running it back and not fumbling helps us by using up 6 seconds, gaining 10 yards and costing the Pats their final timeout if we don't get a 1st. Meaning on a three and out they get the ball 10 yards further back, without a timeout, and a few seconds less time. OUR MISTAKE WAS FUMBLING, WHICH IS ALWAYS A MISTAKE!

Running it out was the right decision, costs a full timeout for NE as we are trying to run out the clock, and gets us an extra 10 yards field position in the event we can't run out the clock. Fumbling it and trying for extra yardage instead of going down and protecting it was a bad play / decision. Now that we are all in agreement on these very obvious things, let's start to get ready for week 2.

You are tired of the excuses but you are also off base in your evaluation. I would have preferred getting the ball to TO and Lee more than we did, and that is something we are going to have to improve on, but do you think this has anything to do with what the defense did? Did you realize that our screen passes went berserk? That our rookie tight end caught a huge touchdown? Because those are better players than Lee and TO? No, but because New England decided to focus on Lee and TO and that opened up other things for us. I was a big Losman fan, but in a similar situation he would have thrown some deep incompletions and INTs, and taken some sacks by standing there and looking down field too much. I'm pretty happy with the 17 points our offense put up in this game and think it was enough to win. And I don't think other teams will be as effective stopping Lee and TO in the coming weeks, and with some confidence in the O-Line and our offense we will take more shots downfield.

I completely agree. 1) Coming out of the endzone on the 2:06 kickoff is clearly the right decision, and he made it to the THIRTY, ten yards better for a subsequent punt if we can't run out the clock with a first down, plus pushed us to the two minute warning which is the primary goal. 2) McKelvin's super power is Rocket Mode, not Beast Mode. He obviously should have done a better job protecting the ball and not fighting for extra yardage. Everybody knows this in hindsight. 3) Coming out of the end zone on the final kickoff is also a no brainer. We need yardage there for our last minute field goal. Having McKelvin try to get to the 30 or 40 or more is obviously completely worth it. He just got tackled at the 20...that happens too. 4) If he had kneeled down on the fumble play we all would have gone crazy about the two minute warning, the best special teams in football, field position, etc. Besides it would have been playing scared and not to lose instead of to win. So let's come to terms with it. We lost a heart breaker to a better football team who largely outplayed us. We had a chance to win and couldn't make that one extra play down to the wire, most notably McKelvin protecting the football, but also coverage on the two TDs and the sack on the second to last play. But let's realize that our team is better than anybody gave us credit for going in including many on this board, and there is a lot to be optimistic about going forward.

Agreed here. Kneeling down would have been a mistake, but once there is contact protect the football and go down.

No Way! LM doesn't fumble and we win. Staying in the end zone would have been a chicken sh(t playing scared playing not to lose instead of to win attitude. He stays in the end zone and we have 10 yards less field position. He stays in the end zone and the Patriots have the two minute warning after the first play from scrimmage. How many times have you seen McKelvin fumble? That play broke my heart and probably cost us the game, but not because he should have kneeled down, but because he should have held on to the ball.

I agree. The only thing better than this would have been a 24-19 or 27-25 win. I know everybody wants to cry for their mommies and start the pity parade, but I am very heartbroken but excited by this game. It hurts right now, but we didn't choke it away, instead coming up just short on what would have been a shocking stunning upset. If you picked the Bills to go 13-3 (a ridiculous prediction) you would have this as one of your 3 losses. If you picked the Bills to go 9-7 you would have this as one of your seven losses. It is hard to come so close and come up short, and I feel for McKelvin, but I am very excited about watching this team the next 15 weeks, and am not going to go in to any "poor me, I am a Bills fan and they are the worst thing ever" syndrome. Go Bills!

s Yeah, like the 2006 opener or the 2009 finale. The only possible outcome of this game is 112-0, and I am not even sure if Buffalo will have football player in Foxboro or if they will just text message some formations to Bellichick and he can reply if he would score a touchdown against it or not, and they can total their points on a paper napkin. Because actually playing the game makes no sense. It is hard in the current lending environment, but I am trying to get a quick home equity loan so that I can take that Pats at 10.5 with everything I own, because you know nothing is as predictable as NFL football games. Anybody who wastes time watching this game with any hopes whatsoever is a complete idiot since it has already been transcribed into the standings, and the Bills are getting ready to rebound in week 2. Whoa...sorry about that. I seem to have had SARCASM LOCK pressed on my keyboad...I hate when that happens. It is our toughest game all year, and a game I would expect would be one of our 5 losses in a miracle 11-5 season and one of our 9 losses in a boring 7-9 season, and one of our 12 losses in a disappointing 4-12 season. I think that lets us play without pressure, take some chances, and see what happens. I know Dick has a strong likelihood of pissing us off if we don't stay in the game, but I hope we bring pressure, knock Brady down early and often (not dirty, but push the envelope and accept 15 yards if it happens), throw some bombs and see if Lee and TO can outplay a DB, and have some fun. However it goes it is the first step with 15 more to follow.

So how much money do you have down on the game? It seems like if you are that sure it would make sense to but some serious cash on the Patriots right? Go down to the Money Tree, get a payday loan for a couple of grand, and go to an online site and put your money where your mouth is. I don't bet on sports because I am somewhat less sure of things than you are. There are lots of NE victories that could be under 10 points but still no chance for us, and there are different ways the Bills pull the upset. I think a big NE victory covering the spread is more likely than not, but I laugh at the certainty of the pessimism that is pervasive on this board.

I have heard this a lot and I don't agree at all. I think we are remembering what was the weakness of the K-Gun...which was having our D on the field a lot whether it was a 1:15 three and out or a 3:25 TD drive. 3 and outs will kill this offense whether it stalls 30 seconds more or not. I don't think the difference between the two is significant enough when factored in TV timeouts, opponents 15 play drives, etc. What will kill us is not moving the chains. That is a complete and absolute reality no matter how long we huddle or don't. I agree it will kill us slightly faster if we don't huddle, all things being equal. But the point is that the no-huddle is supposed to not make all things equal. It is designed to HELP us get MORE first downs, move the ball more effectively, and score more often. If our coaching staff is mistaken and the no huddle will not increase our offensive productivity, then the increased tempo will work against us slightly, but not as significantly as I think some think. If instead it helps our productivity by getting simpler defenses, tiring out opponents snap to snap, then I think that will easily offset the disadvantage of giving the ball back sooner when it goes right (quick score) or when it goes wrong (quick 3 and out). Can anybody with game tapes compare the total time between opponents snaps on some of our no huddle 3 and outs in the preseason and normal huddling 3 and outs last year? I'm curious what it means in terms of both game time and real world time.

If he is better than Butler than I would go for it. Heck, if Butler-Runyan is better than Levitre-Butler we should go for it too. So if he is healthy and worked out well and interested, I am very much for this signing. However, why would he prefer Buffalo to Philly? I don't think we can get him if someone else is interested right now. I would make an offer and let him decide, but I wouldn't get my hopes up as a fan.

Why does nobody seem to have flashbacks to the last time the Bills opened the season in NE (2006, 19-17 loss when Willis didn't know it was 4th). I see WAY more similarities to that game than the last national TV game you are referring to. I wouldn't put any money on this game I couldn't stand to lose, and think it is are hardest game of the year in a season which I am predicting us to lose at least 1 game, but here is my prediction as a fan: Bills 25 - Pats 21