Jerry Jabber Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19731181/two-bills-drive "Now let's get something straight: I'm not saying the Bills are going to the top of the AFC East, because they're not. New England is." "That's the idea now in Buffalo: Squeeze the pocket, hurry the quarterback, force the turnovers and shorten the field for Fitzpatrick and the offense. Oh, yeah, one more thing: Catch New England. No, I don't see the Bills doing it, either, but I do see them winning more than they lose and maybe, just maybe, returning to the playoffs." It seems that these so called experts in the media think it's automatic to crown the Pats every year as the AFC division champs. Now, don't get me wrong, the Pats have been division winners for a while now. They have Tom Brady, who is arguably the best QB of our generation, as well as making it to the Superbowl last season. But, they're not the dominant force that they once were when they won 3 superbowls. Let's look at last season. The only team the Pats beat with a winning record last season was the Ravens in the AFC Championship game. IMO, the Ravens "shot themselves in the foot" twice in that game. Next, the Bills snapped the 15-game losing skid to the Pats. Now I could see the media's point if the Bills didn't win that game that you could assume the Pats would win the division, now you can't make that assumption. Last year's defense was terrible under George Edwards, in which they gave up tons of yards and points to opposing offenses, but yet, they beat the AFC champs. Now, add in one of the better defensive coordinators in the league [Wannstedt], plus the additions of Mario Williams, Mark Anderson, a returning & healthy Kyle Williams, along with Marcell Dareus, not only do I feel a wild card spot if possible, but winning the AFC East is a very good possibility. The Giants showed twice in the Superbowl that pressure is the key to beating Brady. The Bills beat Brady last season, just by shortening the pocket and getting hands up in the throwing lane. Now, Brady will have to face the same similiar type of pressure twice a year that the Giants gave them in the Superbowl. On top of that, the Pats had 2 Offensive linemen retire during the offseason, that's another reason to believe that the Pats aren't the invincible force that they used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FluffHead Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Because they have one of the greatest qbs of all time in an era where qb play is more important than ever. And their coach is pretty good too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintmyhouse Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The Bills win was a fluke. They would not have won had Brady not had 4 INTs in that game against that terrible defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The Bills win was a fluke. They would not have won had Brady not had 4 INTs in that game against that terrible defense. Other notable points to consider: the sky is blue, grass is green, and water is wet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19731181/two-bills-drive "Now let's get something straight: I'm not saying the Bills are going to the top of the AFC East, because they're not. New England is." "That's the idea now in Buffalo: Squeeze the pocket, hurry the quarterback, force the turnovers and shorten the field for Fitzpatrick and the offense. Oh, yeah, one more thing: Catch New England. No, I don't see the Bills doing it, either, but I do see them winning more than they lose and maybe, just maybe, returning to the playoffs." It seems that these so called experts in the media think it's automatic to crown the Pats every year as the AFC division champs. Now, don't get me wrong, the Pats have been division winners for a while now. They have Tom Brady, who is arguably the best QB of our generation, as well as making it to the Superbowl last season. But, they're not the dominant force that they once were when they won 3 superbowls. Let's look at last season. The only team the Pats beat with a winning record last season was the Ravens in the AFC Championship game. IMO, the Ravens "shot themselves in the foot" twice in that game. Next, the Bills snapped the 15-game losing skid to the Pats. Now I could see the media's point if the Bills didn't win that game that you could assume the Pats would win the division, now you can't make that assumption. Last year's defense was terrible under George Edwards, in which they gave up tons of yards and points to opposing offenses, but yet, they beat the AFC champs. Now, add in one of the better defensive coordinators in the league [Wannstedt], plus the additions of Mario Williams, Mark Anderson, a returning & healthy Kyle Williams, along with Marcell Dareus, not only do I feel a wild card spot if possible, but winning the AFC East is a very good possibility. The Giants showed twice in the Superbowl that pressure is the key to beating Brady. The Bills beat Brady last season, just by shortening the pocket and getting hands up in the throwing lane. Now, Brady will have to face the same similiar type of pressure twice a year that the Giants gave them in the Superbowl. On top of that, the Pats had 2 Offensive linemen retire during the offseason, that's another reason to believe that the Pats aren't the invincible force that they used to be. They are 27-5 in the last two regular seasons, and were VERY close to winning the super bowl last year. they may not be as great as the SB winning teams, but any demise has been GREATLY exagerated. They are, deservingly so, wearing the division crown until they actually lose it. it may be this season, but its very fair for a majority of analysts to pick them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainwampus Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Looking at the Pats schedule, it's quite possibly the easiest schedule any team has ever been gifted. The 49ers game would be the biggest challenge of all. But it happens to be in NE in mid-December during a probable blizzard. The Bills have a similar schedule but it's much more difficult if you consider playing 49ers in San Fran. Not an easy feat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Because they have one of the greatest qbs of all time in an era where qb play is more important than ever. And their coach is pretty good too Yah, it's not that hard to understand. Also note that you play fewer teams with a winning record when you're 13-3 because to beat a team with a winning record, that team needs to go 9-6 in their other 15 games, or if it's a division team you sweep, 9-5 in their other 14 games to have a winning record. Denver, SD, Oakland, NYJ, Dallas, & Philly all would've had winning records if they had beaten NE & 4 of those games were on the road. Edited August 6, 2012 by BuffOrange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The same reason the media assumes the Yankees will win the AL East every year ... because that's usually the case and it's probably true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The Bills win was a fluke. They would not have won had Brady not had 4 INTs in that game against that terrible defense. The Pats win was a fluke. They would not have won had Stevie Johnson not gotten a ridiculous celebration penalty and if Scott Chandler had not gotten hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The Patriots have, and have had for a long time, the best team in the AFC East. Why is that so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I'm sorry, but this kind of stuff is ridiculous. The Bills squeak out one win against the Pats in 8 years because Brady has his worst day ever as a pro and suddenly NE shouldn't be considered the strong division favorite? Do people realize the Pats addressed their defense with the draft and FA signings too? We were 6-10, they lost the Super Bowl in the final minute. Until proven otherwise on the field, it's not a close call. Oh by the way, the Dolphins swept us badly last year and we haven't beat the Jets since October 2009 so there are plenty of other teams to worry about besides NE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optometric Insight Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The same reason why the most people think that the Bills will suck as they always have, the past. Most analysts want to stick with the mainstream because its the easiest to pick but also the most cowardist. And that's what they are, cowards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAWNDO Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 They are 27-5 in the last two regular seasons, and were VERY close to winning the super bowl last year. they may not be as great as the SB winning teams, but any demise has been GREATLY exagerated. They are, deservingly so, wearing the division crown until they actually lose it. it may be this season, but its very fair for a majority of analysts to pick them. This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The same reason why the most people think that the Bills will suck as they always have, the past. Most analysts want to stick with the mainstream because its the easiest to pick but also the most cowardist. And that's what they are, cowards. You kind of contradict yourself. By your logic, it makes sense to pick the Pats because of the past too. It not cowardly, it's simply a smart choice. Plus, cowards punch women and steal purses from old ladies. It's just a sports prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The Pats came within a hair of winning the SB last year with the 31st ranked defense. Think about that. Then they added (at least) three great young players to their D via the draft, and added a vertical playmaker in Lloyd who knows the offense. They have every reason to be optimistic heading into this season. Plus, no writer is gonna go out on a limb at this point and predict their downfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Because they always do. Durrrrrrrrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The Bills win was a fluke. They would not have won had Brady not had 4 INTs in that game against that terrible defense. You mean the same terrible defense that forced Vick into 4 ints a week later? Gimme a break. The Bills made plays. They also led the Pats 21-0 in the 2nd game. If you had Mario and Mark for that game, that could have changed the final outcome. Obviously, until Brady retires, the Pats should be the favorites for the AFC in general. But the Bills have improved and on paper, are copying the game plan the Giants have used to be the Pats consistently. The gap is closing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHateMe Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Because they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The Bills win was a fluke. They would not have won had Brady not had 4 INTs in that game against that terrible defense. Pardon me... I can't tell if you are serious or not. A fluke? Did you forget that the Putrids STILL have a terrible defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I think this is why. At least the past decade indicates the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts