BobChalmers

Well, when you consider every other aspect of Jauron's coaching "style", it's not an unreasonable guess at all. Dick played to not lose, because he thought - in his own words "it's hard to win". If he didn't convey that downer risk-averse mindset to his players directly, I guarantee it was spreading implicity. Why not assume he affected Edwards' confidence? JP Losman was the 11th rated passer in the NFL in Dick's first year as HC. He did that by throwing bombs to Evans, and Jauron rewarded him by bringing in TE. Losman regressed every year under that coaching staff, why shouldn't we hope TE regressed from the lightning-release super accurate passer he started as because of the same coaching?

Uhm, going into last season, based on 2008 records, the Bills had the 2nd hardest schedule in the league. This season's schedule is easier than last.

Dude - you shot your credibility to heck with that comment. Kelly's ego lost that game. Norwood was just the poor guy holding the bag at the end. Jimbo hands off to Thurman another 5-10 times in the second half, the Bills win in a laugher. Thomas averaged 10 yards a carry, but Kelly eitehr wanted the MVP for himself, or didn't realize Tuna was daring him to run it. Either way, blaming Norwood for missing a kick at the edge of his range, off of natural grass, is not knowing the team or game. As for the QB's - sure - I said it helps to have a stud QB, obviously, but I'd suggest a lot of those QB's weren't much without a great OL and D. You're giving Elway credit? By the time the Broncos actually won the SB, he was way past his prime and the second option on that offense - that was Terrell Davis' offense. When Elway was putting up the big HoF numbers, the Broncos were getting blown out in the SB or before. Aikman was a talent comnig out of college, but again, he was 2nd fiddle on the Dallas SB teams to Emmitt Smith and their famously massive OL. They didn't throw the ball that much. Rypien was a stiff. He was playing behind the best OL ever that year. They allowed just 11 sacks that year - ALL SEASON! I'm pretty sure any of our QB's has shown as much or more already than Rypien had to that point. Love your Rypien stat: 14-2. Yeah duh, so I guess if you give QB's credit for wins, then they are responsible for winning teams - nice circular logic you've got there. But Rypien just proves my point more - noone had ever heard of the guy before or since - he rode a great team, and played just well enough not to screw it up.

Yeah, but you're being too generous. You can win a super bowl with mediocre QB play. Numerous super bowls have been won by mediocre QB's. Do people really think Trent Dilfer was the engine behind the 2001 Ravens? Brad Johnson with the Buc's? Jeff Hostetler beat the Bills? Really? I kind of thought it was Otis Anderson and the defense (and Kelly being an idiot not giving the ball to Thuman more). When you include the losing SB teams - my goodness: Rex Grossman, Franchise QB for the Bears? Really?? Stan Humphries? Neil O'Donnell?? David Woodley?? Does a top QB help? Of course. Can a top QB win by themselves? How many SB wins did Marino have? Defense wins championships. Offensive Lines make everything work on both offense and defense (by keeping the D off the field for a rest). QB's RB's and WR's are just the icing on the cake that get all the glory and the girls for scoring the TD's.

"because the same coaches that he played under when he was good are not good any longer." No, Jauron and company always sucked as offensive leaders/teachers. You are acting like players never develop or regress over time. Time of expsoure to bad coaching is a factor you have ignored. J.P. Losman was the NFL's 11th rated passer the first year of Jauron's tenure. He steadily regressed under their direction. Trent Edwards was a well-regarded draft pick who impressed experts arround the league in his first showing and after with his quick decision making and pinpoint accuracy. He didn't start out tentative. His mental game trended downward every season under the old regime. It's possible it's too late for him - he's damaged goods now. It's also possible it's just a coincidence that both he and Losman regressed and there was nothing there that can be improved with better coaching. However, it's probable since Losman also regressed, and Jauron has a track-record of bad offense, that it was the bad coaching that caused Edwards to regress and therefore possible he will rebound with the better offensive coach.

Say what???? DJ NEVER showed confidence. "It's hard to win in the NFL." That's Dick Jauron. He was Steely-eyed, sure, but with him it was steely-eyed despair. DJ was tough enough to deal with losing like a man, but winning never seemed to cross his mind.

Dunno - he's got to get past Moorman. I am actually somewhat serious about that.

Seriously - who didn't know FSU was famous for the babes??? When I went there the Female-Male ratio was over 2:1. FSU was originally the Florida Women's College, so there was a lot of legacy. It's down to something like 55:45 girls these days, I gather. (FSU '86 - far too long ago )

That's been my guess too, just based on the sum of all the various camp and OTA reports.

I think there's a fair argument the defense might take a hit adjusting to the change in scheme, although I'm very excited by the change of emhasis from zone to m2m for the DB's - they are the most talented unit, putting the pressure on them is clearly smart. On the other hand, the offense has every reason to improve, unless we think the loss of Josh Reed and T.O. is really that fatal. I've been a fan of what I saw out of Steve Johnson when he had a chance to play last year, so I'm less worried about the WR's. All the talk about the OL and QB being bad justifying the team getting worse is just plain absurd - it's the same young guys, a year more experienced and (so far) healthier. It's been said before, but bears repeating - when the starting 5 OL was healthy and began the season in NE, did you watch that game and say, boy this is a 2-14 team because Trent Edwards and the OL sucked?? They weren't amazing, but they were OK and had the Bills in a position to win that game. So why in hell is it sensible to say Trent and the OL mean a 2-14 team now???

I do think that drafting smaller gets you injured on defense because the less imposing D-Line exposes the back 7 players to more direct contact with OL's and FB's.

And it just sounds dumber every time it's repeated. We were 6-10 last year with the same QB's and OT's, and a harder schedule. How in hell does keeping the same young players a year later cost us four MORE games??? Phil Steele is clearly an imbecile, or more likely, yet another lazy national sports writer who doesn't bother to consider simple details like the one I just offered.

But not smart enough to realize, for all the hype, the 4-12 Redskins are no more likely to contend for anything in the near future, except possibly, "Worst Allocation of Free Agent Money", which they contend for every year.

You guys are missing the OP's point: Those videos are assembled at One Bills Drive. The highlights you see are the ones that the Buffalo Bills want you to see. I noticed the same thing as the OP - almost all the bad QB plays they showed in the final video were Fitz. That was intentional - they are sending us a message: Fitz is gone.

If we're willing to admit that Trent's checking down is a mental rather than physical issue (I am convinced he has shown plenty of arm strength when he chooses to use it) then I am not willing to close the book on him being very good until after a year of him being coached by someone other than Dick "Winning is Hard" Jauron. Jauron coached tentative and it translated to almost every player on his team - the more years under him, the worse they got - which may explain why the rookies - Byrd last year - Trent and Lynch their first year - were always the best players on the team. If you heard Chan Gailey's interview - gotta love it: "You have to expect greatness to get it." (paraphrasing). I'm sure he didn't mean that as a slam on Jauron, but he could not have delivered a more stinging line if he wanted to. Winning is Hard = I don't expect to win = we won't win.

This was a while ago - sorry. It might have been Lombardi I heard quoting Pioli.

And Chiefs GM Scott Pioli said - "I wanted to promote Gailey to HC, but I didn't think I could sell it to the fans." So he hired a new young popular choice, who didn't get along with Gailey and Pioli had to let him go. Great work by all the Bills fans out there trying to prove we're no smarter than Chiefs fans, and that Pioli's right to assume fans are too dumb to look past the national media coverage.

This statement is just tiresome. You are assuming the Cowboys were a good team at the time because they often are, I guess? They were not. Aikman/Smith/Irvin were very much past their prime at this point, but let me put it more simply: Cowboys record 1997-2002: 1997: 6-10 - Gailey takes over as Head Coach 1998: 10-6 division win 1999: 8-8 division win - Gailey fired as HC in what Jerry Jones has later called one of his worst mistakes 2000: 5-11 2001: 5-11 2002: 5-11 I can't imagine a more obvious evidence of success than to have this kind of difference between a team's performance with and without him as HC.

+1

My thoughts are that we didn't sign a starting DE - Dwan Edwards - off the Ravens' roster so he could sit behind two guys - Williams and Stroud - who haven't played the position.

??????????????????????????????????????? Put the pipe down, please. Faulk has underestimated this team EVERY YEAR since he's been on NLFN. No - they aren't great. 3 straight years of 7-9, followed by 6-10 is low-mediocre. But that lazy imbecile Marshall Faulk has been calling for them to get 4 or fewer wins every year. As with some on this board - Faulk doesn't have enough perspective to understand simple things like: They had a ton of injuries last year, they are an extremely young team, they haven't lost anyone of consequence, their schedule is easier this year than last, therefore, it is highly likley they will win more games this year than last. The only way you argue they do worse this year: a) You think Jauron was better than Gailey. (No, not equal - you have to actually think Gailey is worse - and no, not worse than Cowher or Shanahan, you have to think Gailey is worse thah Dick Jauron). b) You think TO is a big loss. c) You think Reed is a big loss. d) You think the switch to a 3-4 will be a big struggle. Yes, they have issues at QB and questions at OL. And yes they play in the AFC East. AND ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN TRUE FOR YEARS NOW. And somehow - even with last year's brutal schedule, they did not go 4-12. As a counter-example, the Redskins actually did go 4-12, but count on Faulk predicting them to be great, yet again, because they overspend on old has-beens, and play in the spotlight in DC.

I would definitely not put the Colts or Ravens DB's ahead of the Bills. I'd have to think about the others.

Why do people get wrapped up in his record at GT when he has an NFL record that's pretty darned clear? Dallas Cowboys record, before, during, after Gailey's tenure as HC: 1997: 6-10 Chan Gailey Named Head Coach 1998: 10-6, playoff loss 1999: 8-8, playoff loss Chan Gailey fired as Head Coach 2000: 5-10 2001: 5-10 2002: 5-10 I should care about his recruiting success at Georgia Tech why?

Oh really? What division do they play in this year? Is it a different one from the one they've played in the last 4 years when they went 7-9, 7-9, 7-9, 6-10 coached by that "winning is hard" defeatist Dick Jauron, and with 1/4 of the roster on IR every year? So why in heck would they suddenly drop to 4-12 with an easier schedule??? There's no logic to that at all - no doubt you too are of the Dick Jauron school of thought. You too think winning is hard - somehow missing the point that half the teams seem, to win each week. In fact, come clean - is your name Dick Jauron?? I say even if none of the new players has a big impact, they still improve tgo 9-7 based on the easier schedule and the massive upgrade in coaching attitude.

OMG. I had no idea we were playing the Pats, Jets, and Dolphins twice each this season!! The NFL schedule makers really screwed the Bills this season!!! Seriously, what is it with all the people who make random statements about how the Bills are bad in one unit or another, and somehow totally forget they said the same thing the prior year, yet somehow they won 6 or 7 games? With the exact same people!!! From 2008 to 2009 the main change was losing Peters, AND they went from an extremely easy schedule in 2008 to an extremely hard one in 2009. They've also been brutalized by injuries three years in a row, btw - far worse than the average team. This year's schedule is easier than last year's by far AND the Bills haven't lost anyone that mattered to the W/L total. (Did TO win a bunch of games for us last season???) Why in hell would they be any worse at all this year? Because of the transition to the 3-4 defense??