Koufax

6-10 will get the stench of losing and not knowing how to win games a little deeper into the skin of the many young players who will be returning. I'm sure as hell hoping we finish 9-7 and pick 18th or so, but if we lose another game I will hope for 8-8, and if another 7-9. Winning football games is much more important than a draft spot or two.

It is win 10 since that is what the Bills haven't done in that period, and it is lose 12 because that is what the Bills hadn't done. So if they had been 6-10 instead of 5-11 I would have done this differently. I do not consider 5-11 fine and 4-12 not so, they both suck. But I wanted to see based on the Bills not having a top pick since Mike Williams in this range, what other teams had stayed in that range. So other than the fact that five wins keeps you out of top five picks and 10 wins are needed for the playoffs (with some exceptions), the range was just taking the Bills range. But yes, this analysis was showing how the Bills have been unusually consistent pretty bad team, while most teams in a similar period experience highs and lows. I am certainly not saying that is a good thing, and in fact I think it is pretty rotten, and likely represents some organizational flaws which are again pretty obvious to us all. Just as I line up for "7-9 again, if we can pull an upset somewhere" I realize how that is probably more frustrating to me as a Bills fan than a 3-13 season building into a 10-6 season down to a 7-9 season up to an 11-5 season or whatever...the runs most other teams have had in this period.

We are not that bad. We are just stuck in average-slightly below average and don't really seem to have the ability to get out of it. Since the 3-13 2001 and the move to four divisions, we have won between 5 and 9 games each year, never one of the leagues worst teams (1-4 wins) never double digit wins and a playoff spot. Now you all knew that part already, but do you know that in that time: The only teams not to have at least one 10 win season: (5) BILLS, Texans, Vikings, Lions, Cardinals (Vikings and Cardinals could get there this year) The Vikings won a playoff game at 8-8 in 2004. The Cardinals end their longer drought this year, and the Lions and Texans are the two most pathetic teams in football this decade. AND the only teams to not have at least one 12 loss season: (13) BILLS, Pats, Steelers, Ravens, Indy, Denver, Jags, Eagles, Redskins, Cowboys, Vikings, Panthers, Seahawks (Jags and Seahawks could get there this season) 8 of the 13 have appeared in a super bowl in the last 10 years (expanded slightly for Denver and Baltimore). That leaves BILLS, Jags, Redskins, Cowboys, Vikings as the only five to not appear in a recent super bowl despite not having a 12 loss season. So the two most mediocre teams over the last seven years are the Bills and Vikings. No other team failed both to win 10 games and avoided every losing 12 games. We win the tie-breaker because they won a playoff game (albeit with an embarassing 8-8 to get there), so we are not terrible. We are consistently mediocre, and that tends to feel worse because it keeps you believing at times. This is a league of turnover, the ability for 1-15 teams to compete for the division the next year, and vice versa, but we are built to plug along winning just enough to keep from cleaning house, but not enough to actually feel good about it. So next time you think we are terrible, realize that at least we could hang our hat on that...we are mediocre, and need to shake things this off season and find a way off that track.

I hope we pick at about #18. Winning a few games down the stretch for the 35+ guys coming back is worth more to the future of this team than a few spots in the draft crapshoot.

Yes, and bad moves by the owner could prevent any chance of it turning around. However the owner bringing in a new and fully empowered GM/HC (one person or two) is enough of a change to make it happen and turn things around. That new HC would turn over the coaching staff, which is relatively easy, and if empowered he could bring in quality people. I don't honestly think based on evidence that Ralph will do it and could actually pursue, pay, and empower the right person. But it can happen. Remember that the Yankees were terrible for the 80s as Steinbrenner mismanaged and interfered. Then he wised up and got empowered baseball people to make the actual decisions and the became a power again. If Ralph doesn't have a change of understanding and keeps living (as I consult my actuarial table) then it will be hard for things to turn around without dumb luck (like Jauron's 13-3 season). But maybe the old guy will look at the last couple weeks and say "Enough is enough, I want to see this team win before I go".

I would like to say again, as I repeat every time this comes up: The experience of winning an extra game spread across the 35+ players who will be back with your team the following year exceeds the value of increased draft position due to an extra loss. I think this is a universal truth, difficult to contest, and the "if we lose a couple more games we could draft as high as xth" line of reasoning sucks tremendously, and represents both a lack of understanding of football and a general loser mentality. I certainly have been frustrated with our team and want Jauron gone as soon as possible and replaced with an exceptional head coach. But I really want us to win our 7th game as soon as possible, and have a chance at an 8th win, and if we somehow manage that have a chance at a 9th win. I can't wait to see this team back in the playoffs, back in the super bowl, and most importantly winning the super bowl. Lots of things I think can be improved to help make that happen (many I worry will not be until Ralph is gone...he frankly would rather die with lots of money than accomplish something meaningful that would bring him great joy). However I do not think in this league losing any game is ever a good thing. If the right QB is available to draft I think that would be nice, but I also think that Edwards has a history of being an accurate passer with good vision and decision making, and I do not think he needs to be written off after a concussion and sophomore slump.

Cowher over Peppers in a heart beat. This team needs a great coach. I actually think our talent is heavily underrated by all of us right now. We are not getting a pass rush without Schobel and we need Hardy to grow into a good receiver (few generally have an impact at that position as a rookie, so there is more hope for him than for Roscoe) and we need a tight end and center, but I think overall the talent on our team is good, and an exceptional head coach is what we need most of all.

It would help if he is better. Change for the sake of change isn't going to do it. DJ has angered me greatly over this losing stretch, and I don't think he is a very good coach, so I am eager for him to be replaced. But there is a little step back before a step forward with a new coach and a new system, so it is crucial that our next coach be better than Jauron, not just a new face. I am very wary of a change in the shuffle of below average coaches, and hope we can find a way go get someone who will actually be very good at his job, and not just at "getting his guys to play hard".

I know this won't matter, and we have the whole beast mode thing, but on a desperation 4th and 15 completion to you, the ball is in your hands, you cannot be tackled with the ball. This has come up before, and it is common sense, football instinct/awareness, whatever. Lynch is getting swarmed and Roscoe is positioning himself for a lateral, and my beloved Marshawn holds on to the ball. While that tough grip would have been nice on his 1st half fumble play, it is unacceptable on a 4th down game on the line play. Clearly nit-picking in a day with many greater failures and disappointments, but every time I see this in a football game I leave a big red handprint on my forehead. I expect JP to dump and not actually try to throw the ball to Lee, or get out of the pocket to buy some more dime because he is, well, JP. But I want to know why Beast-mode wouldn't have that concept in his head. C'mon...where is that Berkley education? Even The-U Roscoe knew how it works.

11-5 gets us in, 9-7 doesn't. Won't be able to be sure about 10-6 ahead of time. But I'm just excited about trying to get to 7-5 and keep this talk up another week

Exactly. If you don't keep hope alive week in week out with this team, what is the point of following them closely enough to write in a forum? We play our 12th game this weekend with playoffs still a possibility. I'm not running to Vegas to put the rent money on it, but instead trying to enjoy one game at a time as deep in the season as we can go. When we finally make it back to the playoffs (this year or in the future) I will enjoy one playoff game at a time as deep in the playoffs as we can go. When we finally win a Super Bowl, then I will be really happy . The Cleveland loss really got me down a little, and made the playoff picture that much harder, but right now we have a winnable SF game that can put us at 7-5 and keep our hopes alive another week. Then we have a winnable Dolphins game that can put us at 8-5 and keep our hopes alive another week. Winning two of three at the Jets at the Broncos, and at home against the Pats isn't very likely, and 9-7 will not make the playoffs with three 7-4 teams ahead of us, but I'm not worried about those games yet. I'm excited about the 49ers and a shot at 7-5. I stick with my overall assessment I had at 0-0, 4-0, and 5-5 that this team is a 9-7 team, and anything better than that is good luck and overachievment, anything less than that is bad luck and underachievement, and 9-7 doesn't get you in the playoffs. My hope is in good luck and overachievement to end the playoff drought, otherwise having enjoyed the ride with lots of optimism getting exited about this team being more mature and better next season. So pretending we are eliminated and shouldn't delude ourselves with playoffs to me just defeats the point of rooting for a small town home town underdog which I personally enjoy a great deal. Go Bills

We are a 9-7 football team, and that is the reality that I thought when we were 4-0 and I think now that we are 5-5. That doesn't mean we are a lock to finish the season 9-7, but in my minds it means that 10-6 would be some lucky overachieving, 11-5 would be really catching the breaks, 8-8 some disappointing underachieving, and 7-9 a big disappointment. We have a young talented team that still is not ready. I am very disappointed with Trent's slide, and thought he was worse last night than the numbers indicated. But he is not as bad as he seems now, and he isn't as good as everyone wanted to believe when he was 4-0. Last night was so frustrating for me as a Bills fan, because in spite of our team's short comings, Trent's disastrous day, and everything else, we still had a chance to beat an inferior opponent at home and move to 6-4, and failed to come up with that one extra play to make it happen. Could have been: Lindell hitting the FG Trent finding Lee one time (maybe that last series). Dockery deciding to blow open a hole for Marshawn in that last series even if they were stacking the box. Corner actually brushing shoulders with the left tackle on the blitz which would have had him hit Quinn in the pocket and not whiff. In football terms, when they hit a 56 yarder and you miss a 47 yarder, you shake your head and it didn't go your way, but there are so many individual moments that could have prevented those situations from happening, and that makes it such a disappointing loss, which takes away any real playoff consideration completely (a tough road going in), and puts us in the try to win one game at a time, and add them up only after week 17. With the playoff dreams crushed (if we get to 7-5 maybe I will watch the standings a little), what matters now is playing good confident winning football and trying to win one game at a time and build this core of young talent into winners. But that should have been our approach last night when we played not to lose instead...

And all game long there was no anticipation, no hitting a receiver as he made his cut. It was all wait wait wait and then either gun it or dump it. Terrible terrible game by Trent. The o-line and the running game and special teams almost made it a much needed win nonetheless. Also, why was there no attempt to get to the line and run a play after the reversed INT? Whether it was a catch or not, you try to get a play off, or is that not an option on change of possession (not sure on rules). As for bashing the play calling on the last three plays, I don't necessarily agree there. While I can't believe Trent ended the night not finding Evans once, when your QB is clearly having a terrible game and your 4th quarter running game yardage is: 18, 14, 3, 4, 6, 28, 1(TD) I think you can try to run it. Probably not all three plays, since I'm sure a play action would have helped more than that. Getting from a 52 yarder to a 47 yarder is nice, but I do think that your goal has to be to get a first down, and given the defense passing should have been part of that.

Highs shouldn't have been as high as we acted (4-0) lows aren't as low as they feel now. We are a young talented football team, and when things go right we are capable of being good, and when things go wrong our inexperience shows and we can look pretty bad. I'm not always a big DJ fan, but I think he will be capable of winning with this team. We were not in the playoffs at 4-0, and we are not out of them now. Realistically I think we are a 9-7 team at our foundation which early found a way to win some losable games, and now has found a way to lose some winnable games. 4-4 in the second half puts us at 9-7 which is probably about fair, but given our four quick wins and our easy schedule I think 10-6 is very possible. But 5-3 now is about right, and is only this disappointing because we were 4-0. If we split with NE we have a decent shot at the division, and if we get swept by NE we never had a shot at it. A lot of football left. One game at a time with a lot of optimism, and we will see what happens. A lot of band wagons one could get on, but I'm happy being a Bills fan, and like having a nice young talented team sitting at 5-3.

I think McKelvin remains a great pick. Have to wait and see what he will contribute over his first five years (the way winning teams evaluate picks), but I don't think we had any evidence then or have any now to put anybody higher. As we become a better football team we will have to shake off our bad decade, and realize we aren't drafting to cover our weakest position with an immediate starter each time, but instead trying to get the best football players we can get and evaluate their contribution over five years not 1. Youboty has gone from useless to star in year 3 (granted he wasn't the #11 pick). I am still very happy with McKelvin, and am excited at what I think he can do to help this team win football games over the next five years, and his contribution will start this season...

I really like our team, and I really like our chances to be in the playoffs and hopefully try to win some games once there, but I think the only week 2 ranking that matters is that we are 2-0. I would personally put us around #10, and think #5 is very high but entertaining. If it has any impact at all, I think we would be better off being behind the Patriots* and still underdogs until we either have a better record than they do or until we actually beat them in week 10. (they have won 20 consecutive non super bowl games and are pretty good even without Marsha). I am looking for validation in the standings and in Foxboro and the post season, not in the eyes of the media. Go Bills.

and pretty impressive as a LT/RT combo...that helps too

12-4 is possibile and 8-8 is possible. There is a lot of football ahead of us, and I like our chances of being a playoff team, but expected results 15 weeks out is always going to be a stretch. I'm just hoping we win the first game we are supposed to win and move to 3-0 after the Raiders.

How do you figure? Let's walk through some percentages... Let's go ahead and be generous and call the extra point 100% and take out the minute chance of a miss. What is the percentage chance that the Broncos convert the 2-point conversion? What is the percentage chance that they win if the game goes to overtime? I think that the chance of winning of the game goes to overtime might have favored the Broncos slightly, especially with the emotional blow to the Chargers in the final seconds, but realistically it would be about 50/50 right? Two evenly matched teams who scored at will and played an evenly matched 38-38 game with two evenly matched kickers. Probably not exactly 50%, but something pretty close and not too many reasons to think it is significantly different (Chargers have an edge in the return game which would work against the Broncos slightly too, but I digress and I will leave this at 50%). What is the likelihood that the Broncos convert the 2-point conversion? If it is greater than the number we assigned to the above question, then they should go for two. Generally in recent experience the success rate in the NFL is in the neighborhood of 50%. But given conservative coaches in general, I think that this could be assumed to include a fair number of desperate gambles when teams need the 2 points, not when they think it is the best risk/reward. So the high powered 36 completion, 350 passing yards, 4 passing TDs Denver offense vs. SD defense of that day is probably better than the typical 2-point conversion situation to put it lightly....the same pass D that 7 days earlier gave up 23 completions for 247 including the game winner. I'm going to put in a make believe conservative 55% here. I realistically think it would be a bunch more than that, but it doesn't need to be for this argument. So in my mind: #1 Chances of Broncos winning if they go for 1 and play OT: 50% #2 Chances of Broncos winning if they go for 2 at least 55% So unless one or both of my numbers above is off that the first number above is GREATER than the second number, then NOT going for two would have been the dumb risky move. Giving up a better than even chance at winning a game right there to a 50/50 hope you can pull it out in overtime. I don't know if Shannahan felt all "Gambler-ish" and daring, but I very strongly think that when you actually think about it there is nothing actually daring about it, and it was simply the decision that gave his team the best chance for a win. I guess it was gutsy because if they missed it it would be "his" fault and if they lost in overtime they could blame the coin or something, but in terms of his team winning the football game it was the most rational logical choice. I even go so far as to say it is a little embarrassing that the majority of head coaches would have made a mistake and kicked the extra point, and all of our journalists think that going for it was taking a big risk.

Um...I am not worried. He is a rookie on a team with multiple veteran receivers. We did not have anything in their red zone all day pretty much, when he would have been most likely to be used. And he would have been more obvious than Denny on the fake FG despite being no taller I look forward to some serious contributions from him, McKelvin and others who didn't do much on Sunday as the season progresses, but I don't think we have any urgency or reason for alarm. Rookie receivers can sometimes take a while to get going, his strength is his size and not his polish, so he would take a little longer to hit his stride, and he also had the hamstring setback keeping him away from reps. I don't think he will take multiple years like Youboty, but I am not sounding any alarm bells heading into week 2.

Yeah, Randy had a great look at it from 40 yards downfield trying to pick up the ball he dropped. I do not root for any injuries, even to Brady. It certainly brightens the Bills season, but let's just move on and worry about ourselves and not be the bunch of jerks singing "the witch is dead" before finishing 7-9 again. We don't face the Pats until the second half, so our attention should be completely focused on the Jags and getting to 2-0.

All the reshuffling? Meaning benching some guy who isn't really good, and moving RT Langston Walker to the easier position he played 16 times last year instead of the harder position he doesn't know? And putting a Pro-Bowler at the position he plays well enough to qualify for the pro bowl at? For as mad as I am at Jason for the distraction and missing the first game, I don't think that putting Chambers at LT for one game after not practicing there makes sense, and I don't think they will have a tough time going back to how things were last year for week 2. Let's go get the 'hawks with the 53 we have playing where we have been playing them, and then start putting the pieces back where they belong on Monday to be even better for next week.

As much as it tried my patience, I am back to have him back. He made one big deadline (reporting before the season started) and missed on big one (reporting a week ago so he could play in the opener). If we lose a close one to Seattle on a blindside sack-fumble-touchdown or something like that this wound could take a while to heal, but if we beat Seattle and Peters plays in week 2 this can be under the bridge pretty quickly. What matters now is Peters > Chambers, which is good news. Having him here the whole time would have been even better, but it is what it is. Glad the distraction is past us before the season starts, and hopefully the fallout (team morale, Chambers playing a game, Peters being behind physically or playbook-wise) are minor. But things are without a doubt better than if he had stayed away and Chambers started 16 games.

I too am nearing this point myself. If things change we will see how much can be forgiven and forgotten, but right now I'm fine going with who we have, and watching this blow up in his face. I hope the Bills hold the hard line whatever happens.

NO! We couldn't have taken on the Steelers without Angelo!