Cash

WOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is all.

A dissertation is 4 sentences now? Sign me up for that PhD program. If you'd bother to read beyond the joke portion, you'd have seen that I did address your larger point. At least, I think I did. It's hard to verify whether I addressed it or not when you declare that I didn't get it, but also don't say what it actually was. Just so I'm not guilty of the same, I'll re-state my real point #2: It's not that the people you're arguing with are right, it's that your specific argument against them doesn't hold water. I doubt it as well. Certainly during the Super Bowl years, our fast-paced offense put the D on the field a ton, and that was blamed at the time for a lot of the D's struggles. (Note that that offense executed very well and converted all kinds of 3rd downs, and still brutally lost the TOP battle almost every game.) But once we hired Wade Phillips and signed Ted Washington and Bryce Paup, the D was excellent. Still on the field more than the other defense, which helped inflate the yards allowed stats, but consistently getting stops. Maybe it would've been even better if the offense played slower? I don't know. I do know that the quality of players & coaching was the main reason for the improvement. I'm not going to call for the coaching staff to slow down the offense or scrap the no-huddle or anything, because that's their prerogative, especially in their first year on the job in what looks like a heavy rebuilding year. This year is all about figuring out what works and what we've got that's worth building on. (Still depressing when we lose, though.) I do think it's pretty likely, especially in light of the 2nd-half rushing numbers, that the D is getting worn down from being on the field so much. I don't really think that slowing down the O will have enough impact to change anything, but I'll admit that it's plausible. Mostly around the idea that taking more time at the line of scrimmage would give EJ a better chance to read the D and lead to more offensive success. I don't know if that would really happen, but again, it's plausible. I will say that I like the idea of a no-huddle/hurry-up attack, but I do have some beef with the specific one we seem to have implemented. For example, we never seem to vary our tempo. A good D can adjust to any tempo as long as it's always the same. I'd like to see a little more variation, especially in terms of how long we take between lining up and snapping. But also slow down the pace of getting to the line once in a while -- try to lull the D into making heavy substitutions. If you find a personnel mismatch (they're in the dime against your 2TE set, e.g.), THEN you step back on the gas and run hyper-quick plays to prevent the D from substituting. Of course, the second you commit a penalty, the D has plenty of time to substitute, so you need to play with a lot more discipline than the Bills have shown so far.

Is it too early to give Jeff Tuel a try? Yes. Should Freddy be the starting runningback? No, but he should get about 40% of the workload, which he is currently getting. Have you seen 30 for 30 on earn of Ricky Williams? No. Jerius Byrd carries himself the exact same way as the careless Ricky who walk away from the game! Not a question. Do we re sign Carrington for cheap now during the off season ? I think so. Probably a 1 year deal. Could we move woods to LG and find a center on the market? No. Good centers are usually harder to find than guards. How long has Rus Brandon been serving as president and CEO without the title? Since Ralph's health deteriorated. Is Marrone/Hackett the same as Gaily/Wanstad(spell check that) No. Marrone is much younger than Gailey and Hackett does not have a mustache.

Also a nice gain to Stevie if memory serves. I don't understand the last several Bills' OC's obsession with only throwing short stuff and deep sideline passes. You are allowed to throw between the hashmarks in the NFL, I'm pretty sure.

I think in one of the many Levitre threads during the offseason, a couple of posters made the argument that having a good O-line isn't necessarily about having star players, but about not having any scrubs. (I think it was part of a larger discussion about how best to put resources into the line -- maybe a draft thread discussing 1 of the 1st-round guards?) I think it's generally a pretty good sentiment -- the crux of the idea is that you don't get to decide where the D lines up, and they'll always attack your weakest link, so it doesn't really matter how good your LT is if someone else sucks. I think that's really coming home to roost. Brown has gone up against Vince Wilfork, Star Lotulelei, and a Muhammed Wilkerson/Sheldon Richardson combo in his first 3 weeks, and he'll be going up against Ngata and/or Arthur Jones this week. The opposing D-line really only needs 1 good player and a decent DC to be able to isolate our worst player against a guy he can't come close to handling. The Jets were frequently sending Glenn's man way wide in order to functionally turn Brown into a LT and give Wilkerson space to beat him on the outside. Other teams may follow suit, especially if they don't have a great DT to send at Brown.

Agreed. There are a number of issues exposed here. 1.) This is it, huh? They put 8 in the box and challenge our receivers, and all we've got is a fly pattern down the sidelines. Almost no variation, which would be fine if what we did worked all the time. Not so much when it failed miserably every time. 2.) Whether by design or preference, EJ is consistently ignoring underneath options and throwing the bomb. When this happens on 3rd and medium, this is very Gailey-esque and also Jauron-esque. I like those shots on 1st down, but I prefer lower-risk, lower-reward plays on 3rd down. 3.) Obviously EJ played bad on Sunday; we didn't need a breakdown to know that. But it does reinforce that not only was he inaccurate, he was throwing the ball way too early. That was mostly due to pressure, but we should expect teams to keep bringing pressure. And we should expect Colin Brown to continue to get toasted. So the Bills and EJ need to come up with a better plan, or at least some routes that call for quicker throws. EJ does not have time to wait for a WR to make a double-move before throwing. 4.) Our targeted WRs were not really beating their CB in the first place. Even good throws would've been anyone's ball in most cases. Part of this might be because of the too-early throws, but it's still cause for concern. We don't really have jump-ball type receivers, we have more the shifty guys. If they can't dust a CB with their speed or a move, they probably shouldn't be targeted on a fly route. 5.) Once Rex adjusted by dropping a guy into the short zone, there was NOTHING going on for us. At least on the earlier plays, we could've gotten some nice gains if EJ had gone to the underneath/crossing route. If he tried that on the later plays, it's interception time. (BTW, this is exactly what teams eventually did to Fitz/Gailey to destroy our offense. Many of Fitz's picks came b/c he didn't see the guy dropping into the short zone.) Once Rex made that adjustment, our only winning move was for protection to hold up well enough to give EJ time to throw the deep ball (unlikely), then for EJ to throw a good deep ball (unlikely), then WR to either beat his man or outfight his man for the ball (unlikely). We need some different plays to run against this look, which I guess was the point I made in #1. Since I have now completed the circle, I can end this post.

Umm... that's not how facts work. Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that I'm the world's greatest lover. Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that 3D movies are overrated. Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that the moon landing was faked. My real points are two: 1.) If you want something proved so badly, you do the work. What is this thing where your counterargument is "once you do my homework for me, I'll prove you wrong!"? If we wanted to be bossed around, we'd go back to our day jobs as butlers instead of putzing around on a message board. 2.) Even if someone had the time or inclination to do your homework for you, there's no point. The hypothetical time savings will be more than 30 seconds and less than 30 minutes. Whatever it is, you would probably look at it and think, "not a significant amount." Someone arguing to scrap the no-huddle would probably look at it and think, "very significant." I'm neutral on the whole no-huddle thing (my only stance is that the O & D are both bad and I would like them to improve; it's not my job to come up with how), but it's certainly plausible that the lack of rest is tiring out the D to a point where it affects their play. And so far, the run defense stats support that argument. It's also plausible that even a small amount of additional rest could pay off, because sometimes when your at the extremes, even very small marginal gains can have significant effects. And so far this year, our defense has certainly been at the extreme of lack of rest. Now, maybe with more rest, they'd still be just as bad; that's possible. But it's at least plausible that a little extra rest here and there would keep them fresher in the second half.

Ogden did play G his rookie year, and was quite good!

I guess that's why Northern was moved to defense!

Torry Smith could get 1,000 yards just in this game. Ravens 38-24. Full disclosure: I am starting EJ in fantasy this week. I will either be really happy or really sad.

I like it. Get Goodell on the phone and I'll pitch it to him.

Great, then let's have the AFC play with an extra eligible receiver (4 OL) and the NFC stay the same. Whichever Super Bowl team had the better regular season record gets to decide which rule is in effect for the big game. Your idea seems like it would be a big hit with old-school baseball fans, which I am not. I respectfully pass. But I am enjoying the thread and appreciate the topic. Divisions bring additional fan attention. It is a fair argument to say they shouldn't, because why should I care more about playing the Jets because they're in our division? But the fact of the matter is, they do. Even if the divisional alignments were 100% arbitrary, just the nature of playing X teams twice every year vs. all the other teams 0-1 times per year will create rivalries and fan interest. I would be interested in seeing a reduction to maybe 3 divisions again, or even just 2 if possible. (Caveat: no, it's not possible in the real world, but I mean possible in a hypothetical world where the NFL was more open to change.) There weren't many times in the 3-division era when an inferior team got to host a playoff game by virtue of winning their crappy division, and not as many times when a superior team missed the playoffs in favor of a division winner. If we could go to 2 divisions, both of those possibilities would be very low. The problem with my idea is the scheduling. If we kept the league at 32 teams, we could do 4 total divisions of 8 teams each. Playing each divisional opponent twice puts us at 14 games, which only leaves 1 game each for cross-division and cross-conference foes. That's pretty weak, and mostly destroys any concept of a conference. If you play everyone in your division just once, that leaves us with 9 games left. Maybe 5 vs. the other division & 4 vs. a division in the other conference? Or 6 & 3? Or 5, 2, & 2? None of these sound great. Not impossible, though. For a return to 3 divisions per conference, we'd need to add teams, probably all the way up to 36 total teams. (Hmm, 2 in LA, 1 in San Antonio, and 1 in Ft. Worth just to piss off Jerry Jones.) That gives us 6 teams per division, and a whopping 10 divisional games if we keep the current 2x format. Not impossible, but I doubt we could get buy-in for having divisional games be over half the schedule. I guess it works well enough in college, so maybe? This scenario leaves 6 games for cross-division or cross-conference matchups. You could play 1 whole division I guess. Or 3 from one division in your conference and 3 from one division in the other conference. (Probably the top 3 teams play each other and the bottom 3 play each other.) Our other option would be to chop divisional games down to 5. This makes divisional tiebreakers easy, because someone will have won head-to-head (unless 2 division co-leaders wind up tying in their game). It also gives us 11 additional games, which isn't a very convenient number. So I say we chop 2 games off, go back to a 14 game schedule (this is very plausible), and play 3 games each against the other divisions in your conference and one rotating division in the other conference. Again, top 3 finishers from last year play each other, and same with bottom 3. This is a winning idea that is 100% impractical and impossible.

Brooks has played outside some for the Bills, mostly in preseason. You are correct that he's definitely looked at as a slot guy. And in Week 1, when he was healthy, he played behind Nickell Robey in the slot. You can call Rogers whatever # CB you want, but here's the bottom line: If everyone was healthy, he wouldn't be on the field in the base defense. But if Gilmore got hurt, who comes in to replace him? Rogers. If everyone was healthy, then McKelvin got hurt, who comes in to replace him? Rogers. Rogers is our top backup at outside/boundary CB and the first guy off the bench if either Gilmore or McKelvin can't play. If that makes him a #4 corner because he wouldn't play in the nickel, or #5 because he wouldn't play in the dime either, fine. But he's second-string. Only takes 1 injury to get him on the field. Gilmore was the only CB who was hurt for most of week 1, and Rogers played 87 of 91 snaps. He's not some deep depth chart dude who was only pressed into action out of desperation. He is absolutely the coaching staff's Plan B. As to your question, probably no one. The problem is that if your Plan B sucks, you can't wait till week 3 to address it. You needed to address it in the offseason, when there were decent free agents and draft picks available, and you had time to teach new guys your system. Having said that, I still wouldn't mind seeing some kind of attempt to upgrade the position. It would at least show that the team was being proactive. New England's secondary got a lot better after they traded for Aqib Talib last year, and he didn't exactly know the system. I know that's the exception, and not easily repeatable, but at least it shows that in-season upgrades are possible. Besides, the current plan seems to be to weather the storm till Gilmore and McKelvin both get healthy, but what happens when one of them tweaks a hamstring in 5 weeks? Plan B is still to throw Rogers in there. That's not a great plan. And Plan A (neither starting CB misses any more time once they come back) is pretty unrealistic. Possible, but unrealistic.

Nope. Rogers started in week 1, a healthy Brooks came off the bench: http://www.nfl.com/player/justinrogers/2508135/profile http://www.nfl.com/player/ronbrooks/2533332/profile Rogers played 87 of 91 defensive snaps in week 1. Brooks only played 10 defensive snaps before getting hurt. In the regular season, Rogers has always been ahead of Brooks at outside CB. He is our first guy off the bench if either starter gets hurt.

Would anyone here have been upset or disagreed with Marrone if the Bills had decided to bench Rogers during or after his poor game Sunday? (Either pull him after any of the passes he gave up Sunday, or announce that he won't start next week, or say nothing, but line up Burton with the 1s at practice instead of Rogers.) My guess is no. I do tend to agree that signing a guy off the street probably won't help much, and almost definitely won't help in the short term, but I think I would like to see some repercussions to Rogers for his abysmal game. Don't cut him or anything, just sit him down to send a clear message that performance matters. We hear so much rhetoric about competition and every job on the roster being up for grabs, but if a guy can get toasted that bad and keep his job, is there really any competition? Lastly, a few observations on our CB situation: -The coaching staff seems to view outside CB and slot/nickel CB as different positions. -Stephon Gilmore is our #1 outside CB. Leodis McKelvin is our #2 outside CB. Both are starters. -Justin Rogers is our #3 outside CB, and 2nd-string. If either starter is hurt, Rogers steps into the starting lineup. -Nickell Robey is our #1 slot CB (he played nickel CB over Ron Brooks in week 1 when both were healthy), but will never play on the outside unless forced to via injury. He did play some outside last week, I believe. -Ron Brooks is our #2 slot CB (got injured playing dime DB, I think) and #4 outside CB. This is our 3rd-string outside CB -- it takes 2 injuries to get him in the lineup. -Brandon Burton is our #5 outside CB, and so far has been this coaching staff's answer to Tarvaris Jackson. I would like to see him take the field at some point, especially since we have THREE injured CBs right now. -Johnny Adams is also on the team. Overall, I can't imagine the coaching staff is happy with the depth at CB. I won't pretend that losing both of your top 2 corners is normal or expected, but a team should be able to lose 1 for at least part of a game without collapsing. McKelvin's injury last week didn't really affect us at all, because the Jets were going after Rogers on almost every throw. We don't need 2nd and 3rd stringers to necessarily be as good as the starters, but your top reserve at most positions needs to at least be a competent NFL player. Rogers was not a competent NFL player last week, and it showed. I know we have a ton of injuries at CB, but just throwing up your hands and saying we had no chance is oversimplifying things. If Gilmore and Brooks were both healthy, but McKelvin still got hurt, guess who's playing the rest of the game Sunday? Justin Rogers, that's who. It only takes 1 injury to get a terrible player on the field; that's a problem. If Rogers was in the "Brandon Burton" position and forced into action, I think at that point we throw up our hands and say that we had no chance due to injuries. But when the first guy off the bench is the one that cost us the game, then there needs to be some pressure on the team to get a better top reserve.

If you had "3" in today's "number of posts to turn an unrelated thread into a Byrd-bashing thread" pool, you were right! You can claim your prize tomorrow at the downtown office!

Good post!

Had me going for a bit. Nice one!

I don't know if any Bills fans were clamoring for Alonso pre-draft. To the OP's point, there were definitely a ton of Bills fans on the Glenn bandwagon (including me), and a significant number wanted Woods in the 2nd round.

You don't like the feature where you've read a 5-page thread, which then gets merged with another 5-page thread, and now you sort through the whole thing to find where you left off? What a crybaby. Mods, this thread is discussing the Buffalo Bills, which are being discussed in several other threads on the board. Please merge or delete.

Awesome breakdowns! Keep up the great work!

Interesting. One would think that, going forward, the team could just fit the players for both helmets at the start of the season?

Disagree. Stevan Ridley was an absolute stud last year, and anyone paying attention knew it. The casual fan probably looked at Brady and NE's reputation as a passing team and figured they were more of the same last year. Us fantasy players, however, knew that NE's run game had taken a major step up from 2011.

Thanks! Best of luck to the Panthers the rest of the way, especially against the rest of the AFC East!

Giving up a 5-yard run is hardly something to brag about, unless it was 3rd and 10. Bottom line is that the Bills allowed 35 rushes for 158 yards (4.5 ypc, 7 rushing first downs). That's bad. Every team that's bad against the run whines about how they stopped the other team "except for one or two plays", but that's what being bad against the run is. No one gives up 4+ yards on 80% of the opposing rush attempts. For comparison, the Bills allowed 32 rushes by the Panthers for 125 yards (3.9 ypc, 9 rushing first downs). An improvement over week 1, but still bad. 3.9 ypc would be fine if the volume was much lower, but the volume was high because we couldn't consistently stop their run game. One thing I will readily concede is that the Bills' run D looks a LOT better this year than the past couple, especially via the eyeball test. Unfortunately, our historically-bad run defenses were so far down that it's possible to significantly improve, but only wind up like 25th in the league. Big Cat, we might not be far off here, since your whole original point was that the Bills' run D "was not that bad," which I guess means that you agree it was bad? We've seen a lot worse in recent years (and faced two pretty good rushing teams so far), and there's reason for hope, but I'm just not ready to anoint the run D as even mediocre until they prove it on the field.