Koufax

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

These are the five things we need to do to win? I think you are overstating it significantly. 1) 200+ yards Freddie AND 2) ZERO turnovers AND 3) Turnover inducing pressure all game long AND 4) Multiple long TDs for TO and Lee AND 5) Big plays from unknowns Hmmm...those all seem like good things that would be nice to have, but I don't think by any stretch of the imagination those five things have to all happen for the Bills to win, so I think your fundamental premise is flawed. If all five of those things happen we would likely win big right? And we could likely win 24-20 or 17-14 without all five of those things happening, but just some assorted good things happening. I see a lot of similarities with the 2006 Opener @NE which we lost 19-17, in which Losman threw for more yardage and fewer INTs than Brady, Willis didn't know what down it was, and the first play from scrimmage was a Brady fumble/Fletcher TD. That was a winnable game we let get away, and I think we are a stronger defense now, and I think the 2006 Pats* team is more similar to this year's than the 16-0 2007 or the Matt Cassel 2008. I'm not saying that it is going to happen, but NONE of the things you listed happened in that game and we could have won it quite easily despite it being on the road and the participation of Brady and Bellichick. So Monday is a very hard game, and if things go wrong it could be an ugly loss, but I think people are both underestimating the Bills, and overestimating the Walker-less Pats* with a bunch of losses on D, and Brady's first start in a year.

Yeah, and last year you would have seen sure wins against week 1 power rankings #2 San Diego, #5 Jacksonville, #9 Seattle? Come on. The fan perception looking at the calendar in week 1 and remembering what we think these teams are is not in step with the ever changing NFL. Betting the under on 7 is fine, it is your right as a legal gambler to gamble your dollars how you might choose. But zero wins for this team is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. I would say the same about the chances of being 1-15 or 2-14...this team is just not that bad. It could be a fun season, it could be a rough season, but it will fall in between 3-13 and 11-5 99.9% likely.

Okay, so I know Power Rankings count about as much as the preseason, but I also think predicted strength of schedule does as well. Remember last year when we had Chargers, Jaguars, and Seahawks as top 10 opponents? None of them turned out to be that. So everyone is talking top five draft pick based on our tough schedule, but here is what I found. I am using ESPN Power Rankings here, which means a large grain of salt. 2008 Schedule based on week 1 rankings: Average Opponent: #17.5 Average of victories: #17.7 (#2, #5, #9, #22, #27, #28, #31) Opponent Breakdown: 5 @ top 10, 3 @ 11-19, 8 @ 20+ 2008 Schedule based on Week 18 power rankings: Average Opponent #19 Average of Victories: #24.8!!! (#12, #22, #25, #26, #28, #30, #31) Opponent Breakdown: 4 @ top 10, 4 @ 11-19, 8 @ 20+ Now compare that to our 2009 Schedule: Average Opponent #16.4 Opponent Breakdown: 5 @ top 10, 5 @ 11-19, 6 @ 20+ My points being the following: 1) Our 2009 schedule as of week 1 is not much harder than our 2008, but is a little harder 2) You never know, and our opponents will likely finish up the year very different than our current estimations. Could be harder, could be easier, but it is guaranteed not to be exactly what we or the pundits expect. Last year beating San Diego would have been considered a no chance, and most people would be filling out their guesses with us beating a weak Arizona team. The Seahawks were a Super Bowl contender and so were the Jags. The Dolphins were push overs. None of that turned out to be true. So what are the surprises going to be this year? Tennessee a middle of the pack team? Houston a playoff team? Saints picking in the top 5 after a couple injuries? Carolina in the bottom 10 or the top 10? This is what makes the NFL season so fun. While the general attitude in Bills Nation has gone from frustrated with mediocrity after three 7-9s to worrying who we are going to pick with our top 5 draft pick, there is so much that can happen in the course of a season, and I find that in itself reason for optimism. Go Bills!

I too thought that was an embarrassing article by someone who clearly does not get it. There is a chance that they could go 0-16 just like there is a chance that they could go 16-0. But this is a team that for all their terrible struggles has won SEVEN games three years in a row, and that has been disappointing. I just don't get how we are seven games worse when: D-Line: Way better with Schobel and Maybin added Linebackers: Better as they play together and Poz develops Secondary: Better as the whole unit is still on the upside of their career and playing together. Special Teams: A push, but the best in the league all around Receivers: Better than last year with the addition of TO Backs: Probably worse to have Lynch sit three, but Freddie is good and Marshawn is still young and will be fresh for 13 Tight Ends: Couldn't be worse than last year really, negligible but at least as good. QB: I would have to expect better than last year with another year experience. O-Line: Where everyone has their doom coming from, but really: RT: Walker 2008 vs Butler 2009? Butler was good enough to have Walker cut, and Walker was uninspiring last year RG: Butler 2008 vs Levitre 2009. I consider this a downgrade for now as I liked Butler at guard C: Can't consider this a downgrade since we were pretty weak, but I have to see how it plays out LG: Dockery 2008 vs Wood 2009. Early to say, but I will put my money on Wood over the $49m bust LT: Peters 2008 vs Bell 2009. Obviously this is an unknown and a downgrade, but Peters was not stellar last year and Bell is athletic and motivated, so while this is the focus point of attention right now, I don't see it as a 7 win swing. Schedule: Harder, but you never know before the season starts how the schedule plays out. We play better 2008 teams than last year, but when we beat the Seahawks last year everybody thought they were a playoff team, and when we lost to the Cardinals everyone thought that was a shock, so let's not overemphasize the importance of this quite yet. My prediction: we probably start 0-1 and DiCesare will be 15 games away from calling it, but I will take the over on his 4 any time with as much money as I can scramble together, and I will obviously take the over on his 0,1,2,3 possible wins :D

I know a lot of people are jumping off bridges, but I think the release of Walker makes us a better football team, and I think it is what Bellichick would have done if in the same situation on Tuesday (although he would have been smart enough to avoid getting in that position in the first place). I think this would have happened sooner if Bell had been healthy. I think Bell and Butler are both better than Walker, and while I kept my fingers crossed since I expected him to start, he was a mistake like Dockery when signed, and today we are past that mistake. I think our line for Monday is the best line we have had in place in a while, and while it will make some mistakes as the three newbies get some playing time, this move increases our (slim) chances at getting to the playoffs, increases our chances of going 8-8 or better, and is a positive step in this team's goal to win a Super Bowl. And remember, whether we were to go 12-4 or 4-12, this New England game was very likely to be on the loss side of things, and while I hope we shock the NFL with an upset, it is week 2 that is our first game that we really need to / should win.

I personally feel it is likely we will lose this game and it is likely we will lose this game by more than 10.5 points, but I laugh at the people who are convinced that it is a certainty or that 10.5 is not a reasonable starting line. First off, Vegas isn't picking the Pats*, Vegas is trying to get even money on both sides. Second 10.5 is a lot in the NFL. And we don't yet know if these are the 16-0 Patriots just because Brady is playing. I think Bellichick starts the season probably erring a little on the side of caution and being methodical, and I don't think he has any reason to have Brady run up the score, or drop back and throw bombs and risk meeting Mr. Maybin or his old friend Mr. Schobel on his fixed knee more than is necessary to ensure victory. I can see this being a 23-6 game that the Bills score a late touchdown in to make a 23-13 and cover, or something like that. Plus, the Bills defense is better than people think and the offense isn't going to be quite as bad as people think. Don't get me wrong, if I had to pick I would pick the Pats even with the 10.5, and I think it could very likely be ugly if things start going wrong, because no-huddle 3 and outs are MUCH worse than the slow boring 75 yard drives followed by a FG that we have come to hate. But this is the NFL, this is opening week of a QB who missed all season after a horrific injury, and I don't think this is college football like blowout is a certainty (although it is a possibility), and I think Vegas would be silly to make this a 16.5 or a 21.5 just because we feel like the Pats can score 50 and we might not score 5.

I love the move, but this was Ralph, not Dick. For whatever they say in the press conference, if Dick were deciding he would say "Turk is a good guy, he's working really hard trying to get better, and we expect a lot out of him" and settle for sucking. I don't think we can be worse than Turk, and a little fire under Alex will be good. As far as it being a disaster with timing as some others have said NO WAY! Van Pelt has been involved so nothing is taking a step backwards or retooling, but the fresh blood getting involved for our couldn't-be-worse offense could really be a positive. This does not affect our opening game which Turk was not going to do anything to help us cover the spread much less win. So the wild card aspect of it improves our chances in the opener, which is a game we should probably end up losing on a path to 5-11 or 11-5. As for the fifteen games that follow, I think this is a positive move for us. Would have been better to get a real coordinator in February, but I'll take what I can get now. Go Alex!

I think the first unit should have played some as punishment, etc. but I am not an NFL coach. Here are some of the decisions made by NFL coaches tonight: NOT PLAYING: Peyton Manning, Brady, McNabb, Flacco, Ryan, Carson Palmer D. Anderson, Brady Quinn, Cutler, Brees 1 SERIES: Collins, Rodgers, Sanchez, Eli Manning, Rothlisberger, Del Homme - 1 Series More than one series: Pennington, Warner So while I think we would probably want to err on the side of playing and getting something going, not playing the starters this week is not rocket science. Teams would rather have a bye than have to play, and I don't think this is a mistake necessarily.

Before telling someone what to do please ready the post. He did not compare him to Bruce, he compared him to all Bills TEs _since_ Bruce, which is a pretty unimpressive group, and then he compared him to Derrick Thomas (which is probably the unfair comparison and the one you should have addressed if you were feeling critical).

I like this. Taking them out to rest their Endzone-Free behinds doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

I have to agree with the general line of reasoning in this post. While I will never actually bet against the Bills (and in general think "strategic" sports betting instead of twenty bucks between rival fans is pretty stupid), I don't tihnk 10.5 is fair, and I don't think Vegas has realized the downside of the no huddle when overmatched. It gives more plays in which to be overmatched and makes the game longer. Bills teams of the past could have been solid at 10.5 not because they were better, but because they played a different slow down the game punt the ball deep style that could shorten games and lead to uninspiring 9 pt losses. So while I remain optimistic about the season, I think we might just get slaughtered in week 1 in front of the national audience. The good news is if you lose by 1.5 or by 21.5, you are still just 0-1 trying to get to .500 six days later against a beatable opponent.

Do you think Tebow falls to #11? Or you have reason other than preseason results to think that this team is substantially worse than last year's team. I look up and down the roster and don't think that our LT downgrade and loss of Greer outweigh our improved guards, more experienced QB, addition of an HOF receiver, addition of a 1st round pass rush specialist, addition of Schobel for the final 10 games at least on paper, additional experience for our very young defense who except for Stroud should all be on the upswing of their career getting a year more familiar with the defensive scheme. I would love to be pessimistic and join the sky is falling crowd, because it seems kind of a fun way to kill time during the preaseason, but I just don't see the substance of why this team is dramatically worse than last year. Sure the schedule could shape up harder (but you NEVER know going in, and I don't buy the BS valuations of the 2010 schedule based on 2009 performances...too early). Sure other injuries could happen. Sure Walker and then Bell could prove a complete disaster at LT (although I doubt both will be that bad). But right now I think this team is stronger than last year, despite the frustrating preseason performance, and despite the likely butt kicking we will receive in Foxboro as we drop to 0-1.