A Few Thoughts About The Game, in no particular order.....

[FanofFredJackson]

 

Tomorrow is October 1st. Time to take advantage of the CNY fall weather and find better things to do on Sundays.

 

I second that

[Orton's Arm]

I didn't say it was easy. I said the opposite. But good solid organizations over time find ways to adequately staff the most important positon on the team.

 

 

 

The Dolphins used a first round pick on Tannehill in last year's draft. Is he going to be an impact qb? Only time will tell. At least they invested in that position.

The Broncos drafted Cutler in the first round and had him for a number of years before the situation soured. Now they have Peyton Manning.

The Browns drafted Weeden with a lower first round selection. I believe that by next year he will be a good qb. Only time will tell.

The former lunatic owner of the Raiders, crazy Al Davis, used the first pick in the draft to take JaMarcus Russell. It was a mistake. If you want to compare Buffalo to Oakland then you are comparing us to not only a dysfunctional franchise under the former weird owner you are comparing our situation to a chaotic organization when he guided it.

The Chiefs have been struggling for quite some time. They have made some progress but their lack of a high quality qb has kept their franchise from making the leap. Cassell and Fitz are both of the same caliber i.e. below average. The obvious point is that you go nowhere without a good qb.

The Redskins traded a boatload of picks to move a few spots up to draft Robert Griffin III. The key position is now set for a decade or more. He is a scintillating player who will sometimes struggle because he is a rookie but make no mistake about it he is going to be a premier qb who leads his team to much success.

 

You can manufacture all the excuses you want for not acquiring an impact qb in a generation or more. That is one of the primary reasons why this franchise has struggled during that duratiion. Godd organizations find a way; mediocre organizations don't.

I agree with the point you've made in your post, just as I agree with the point apuszczalowski made in his. As apuszczalowski pointed out, franchise level QBs are rare. This is why, statistically, most teams are destined to go long periods without having one. Take the AFC East for example.

 

There has been one franchise QB in Jets' franchise history (Joe Namath).

There have been two franchise QBs in Dolphins' franchise history.

There have been 1.5 franchise QBs in Patriots' history (the first half of Bledsoe's career, and Tom Brady).

There has been one franchise QB in Bills' history (Jim Kelly). For anyone who says Jack Kemp, my response is: look at his stats.

 

Finding a franchise QB is difficult. But it's also the one thing which does the most to separate championship teams from also-rans. If your goal is to win the Super Bowl, not having a franchise QB is not an option.

[C.Biscuit97]

Some people are very accepting of mediocrity as the norm. They have altered their mind-set to dumbing down the standard. In that way they feel much more comfortable wallowing in mediocrity. For those downtrodden and exhausted people the concept of accountability doesn't exist. It's easier for them to make excuses for a generation of ineptitude. I find that attitude simply embarrassing. Ralph Wilson finds that attitude to be a good climate for business.

 

I don't get this at all. What do you want fans to do? Put up another stupid billboard to get someone fired? All offseason, most every fan was on board with all of the offseason moves. This is the team we are going to have for the year, like it or not. They are 2-2. so instead of crying about it, let's play out the rest of the schedule. I don't know one fan who likes losing. But you can only do so much as a fan.

[CodeMonkey]

Some people are very accepting of mediocrity as the norm.

Actually the ChaNix regime is still striving for mediocrity. They haven't achieved it yet.

[zow2]

Is Ruvell Martin coming back this week? because this club is a lot better when Ruvell is out there...

[C.Biscuit97]

Is Ruvell Martin coming back this week? because this club is a lot better when Ruvell is out there...

 

[JohnC]

I agree with the point you've made in your post, just as I agree with the point apuszczalowski made in his. As apuszczalowski pointed out, franchise level QBs are rare. This is why, statistically, most teams are destined to go long periods without having one. Take the AFC East for example.

 

There has been one franchise QB in Jets' franchise history (Joe Namath).

There have been two franchise QBs in Dolphins' franchise history.

There have been 1.5 franchise QBs in Patriots' history (the first half of Bledsoe's career, and Tom Brady).

There has been one franchise QB in Bills' history (Jim Kelly). For anyone who says Jack Kemp, my response is: look at his stats.

 

Finding a franchise QB is difficult. But it's also the one thing which does the most to separate championship teams from also-rans. If your goal is to win the Super Bowl, not having a franchise QB is not an option.

 

No one is saying that getting a high quality qb is easy. I have not said that at all. My point is simple. Good franchises find a way over time to acquire impact qbs through the draft or free agency. The Ravens maneuvered back into the first round to acquire Flacco, who is turning out to be a good qb. The Rams picked up Kurt Warner after he went through a long circuitious route to reach the NFL. They won a SB with him. He was then on the market and was picked up by the Cardinals. He got this long term mediocre franchise into the SB. The Skins gave up a boat load of picks to move up a couple slots to acquire Robert Griffin III. He is going to be a star.

 

As you also noted your team usually doesn't become a serious team unless you have an upper tier qb. We don't have it; and haven't had it for a generation or so. That is a reflection on the organization.

[BuffaloWest]

Did you see Vince Wilfork's wife? That is one seriously ugly dude, errr woman. They kept showing her texting with her big fake Jersey nails, and man haircut. Graned Wilfork is ugly , but he should be able to do better than that-Holy crap!

[Orton's Arm]

No one is saying that getting a high quality qb is easy. I have not said that at all. My point is simple. Good franchises find a way over time to acquire impact qbs through the draft or free agency. The Ravens maneuvered back into the first round to acquire Flacco, who is turning out to be a good qb. The Rams picked up Kurt Warner after he went through a long circuitious route to reach the NFL. They won a SB with him. He was then on the market and was picked up by the Cardinals. He got this long term mediocre franchise into the SB. The Skins gave up a boat load of picks to move up a couple slots to acquire Robert Griffin III. He is going to be a star.

 

As you also noted your team usually doesn't become a serious team unless you have an upper tier qb. We don't have it; and haven't had it for a generation or so. That is a reflection on the organization.

I agree with everything you've written in your post. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, or to suggest that you'd claimed that finding a franchise QB is easy. As you, I, and apuszczalowski have agreed, it's very difficult to find one. Difficult, but vital.

 

I agree the lack of a franchise QB is a reflection on the organization. Finding a franchise QB is like a game of musical chairs, played with 32 people and maybe seven or eight chairs. When playing a game like that, an organization like the Bills can't have a relaxed, "Let the chairs come to you" type attitude. They need to pick a chair, and then do whatever it takes to secure it.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[K-9]

No one is saying that getting a high quality qb is easy. I have not said that at all. My point is simple. Good franchises find a way over time to acquire impact qbs through the draft or free agency. The Ravens maneuvered back into the first round to acquire Flacco, who is turning out to be a good qb. The Rams picked up Kurt Warner after he went through a long circuitious route to reach the NFL. They won a SB with him. He was then on the market and was picked up by the Cardinals. He got this long term mediocre franchise into the SB. The Skins gave up a boat load of picks to move up a couple slots to acquire Robert Griffin III. He is going to be a star.

 

As you also noted your team usually doesn't become a serious team unless you have an upper tier qb. We don't have it; and haven't had it for a generation or so. That is a reflection on the organization.

 

And the Bills have been trying to maneuver for a QB since Kelly. But because the results have sucked you can't see that, let alone give them credit for trying. From Johnson/Flutie to Bledsoe to Losman to Edwards they've spend resources on the position. Big resources. 1st round resources.

 

I'm glad Buddy isn't going to spend big resources for the sake of spending big resources when he's not convinced there is a guy worth investing those resources in. He'll pull the trigger when he's in a position to like he has said all along.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[tennesseeboy]

look at Jack Kemp's stats....he won the AFL championship twice. I think that qualifies him as a franchise qb.

 

As to Gailey, I think the loss is on him. I'm not saying he should be fired this minute. If he gets nine wins he should stay. I'm not overly optimistic about the nine wins, but it might happen.

[Orton's Arm]

look at Jack Kemp's stats....he won the AFL championship twice. I think that qualifies him as a franchise qb.

 

As to Gailey, I think the loss is on him. I'm not saying he should be fired this minute. If he gets nine wins he should stay. I'm not overly optimistic about the nine wins, but it might happen.

Trent Dilfer led the Ravens to a Super Bowl win. No one calls him a franchise QB. Nor should they.

 

As for Jack Kemp's stats: he had a career QB rating of 57.3, and a TD:INT ratio of 0.62. Compare those stats to Alex van Pelt's career QB rating of 64.1, and his TD/INT ratio of 0.67.

 

The one statistical measure in which Jack Kemp outshines Alex van Pelt is in yards per attempt. Kemp averaged a solid 6.9 yards per attempt, as compared to a lowly 6.3 yards per attempt for van Pelt. Yards per attempt correctly indicates that Kemp was a much better QB than van Pelt, even if the other statistical measures seem to say otherwise. But 6.9 yards per attempt is not typically a number I'd expect of a franchise QB, not even after adjusting for different eras. Johnny Unitas played in that same era--albeit in a different league--and averaged 7.8 yards per attempt. You don't have to be Unitas to be a franchise QB, but you do have to be closer to Unitas than you are to Alex van Pelt. By every meaningful statistical measurement--including yards per attempt--Kemp was closer to Alex van Pelt level than to Unitas.

[K-9]

Trent Dilfer led the Ravens to a Super Bowl win. No one calls him a franchise QB. Nor should they.

 

As for Jack Kemp's stats: he had a career QB rating of 57.3, and a TD:INT ratio of 0.62. Compare those stats to Alex van Pelt's career QB rating of 64.1, and his TD/INT ratio of 0.67.

 

The one statistical measure in which Jack Kemp outshines Alex van Pelt is in yards per attempt. Kemp averaged a solid 6.9 yards per attempt, as compared to a lowly 6.3 yards per attempt for van Pelt. Yards per attempt correctly indicates that Kemp was a much better QB than van Pelt, even if the other statistical measures seem to say otherwise. But 6.9 yards per attempt is not typically a number I'd expect of a franchise QB, not even after adjusting for different eras. Johnny Unitas played in that same era--albeit in a different league--and averaged 7.8 yards per attempt. You don't have to be Unitas to be a franchise QB, but you do have to be closer to Unitas than you are to Alex van Pelt. By every meaningful statistical measurement--including yards per attempt--Kemp was closer to Alex van Pelt level than to Unitas.

 

Must be 4:41 pm. Sure enough, it is.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[apuszczalowski]

And the Bills have been trying to maneuver for a QB since Kelly. But because the results have sucked you can't see that, let alone give them credit for trying. From Johnson/Flutie to Bledsoe to Losman to Edwards they've spend resources on the position. Big resources. 1st round resources.

 

I'm glad Buddy isn't going to spend big resources for the sake of spending big resources when he's not convinced there is a guy worth investing those resources in. He'll pull the trigger when he's in a position to like he has said all along.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Exactly my point

 

To go out and say basically say the Dolphins and Browns were better cause they spent a first round pick on a QB doesn't prove anything. The bills have done the same thing they did in previous seasons and it hasn't worked out. They have invested alot of resources/picks in finding a new QB, trading 1sts for Johnson and Bledsoe, Trading back into the first for Losman, Drafting Edwards, etc.

 

The problem isn't that the Bills haven't tried to get a "franchise QB", its that so far it hasn't worked out, and its yet to work out for the Dolphins and Browns too

[Bill from NYC]

People, thanks for the dialogue as always. I have something to add about, "schemes."

 

I have been on this great board since the late 90's. Time and again, I have seen posters write that talent was not the problem. No, it was the "scheme" which was holding us back. Here's an example:

People said that the OLs which consisted of Ostroski, Fina, and other horrible players didn't suck. The old time posters will remember this. Posters blamed it ad-nauseum on the "scheme." Then, we went out and signed McNally, a highly respected OL coach and guess what? The OL still sucked because it had little talent.. This is but one example. Well today, I am going to do something I never thought I would do. This is to jump ship and actually blame the defensive scheme.

 

There are talented players on the Bills DL. This helped players such as Moats and Sheppard, who never really produced much at all, to make plays in our 2 consecutive wins. Please, my memory is foggy.....didn't Moats actually sack Brady last year? So what does Wanny do? He doesn't play them much, and allows NE to run the ball down our throats, in our house. He should have played Sheppard, who looked good so far this season. He should have put Moats in there and even blitzed him at times. Moats was always semi-decent as a pass rusher. Wanny really disgusted me yesterday.

 

Offense is another story. Gailey has a great offensive mind, but someone needs to tap him on the shoulder and alert him to the fact that his qb isn't capable of many of the plays that he sees. Call me old and crusty as you will, but a touch of conservatism beats constant turnovers. And speaking of conservatism, again, these plays before the deuce are killing me.

[JPS]

1. we have no middle linebacker. Might as well play put an extra DB on the field. Shepperd cant play at this level. BRING BACK POZ

 

2. Running Spiller up the middle for a tough yard at the goal line was idiotic. You need a yard and you use your smallest back coming off a shoulder injury? Some times Chan makes the most bone head calls

 

3. Fitz as usual: flat balls that get batted down, too weak to hit deep ones. This wasnt totally on him though, he made some good throws to Chandler

 

4. D-line is average at best. With no help from the MLB Wannstedt needs to get creative and call some blitz from the secondary. Sadly creative isnt the man's forte. Perfect storm brewing on defense

 

5. Where was Steve Johnson? Weird how non-existent he was

 

6. Both Jackson and Spiller showed rust, although thru about 3 qtrs I liked what I was seeing out of FJ: blocking, running and receiving. Would like to have seen Choice get some carries throughout.

 

Where was Steve Johnson? He was targeted 13 times and generally 3 feet below the intended pass.

Edited October 1, 2012 by JPS

[Orton's Arm]

Exactly my point

 

To go out and say basically say the Dolphins and Browns were better cause they spent a first round pick on a QB doesn't prove anything. The bills have done the same thing they did in previous seasons and it hasn't worked out. They have invested alot of resources/picks in finding a new QB, trading 1sts for Johnson and Bledsoe, Trading back into the first for Losman, Drafting Edwards, etc.

 

The problem isn't that the Bills haven't tried to get a "franchise QB", its that so far it hasn't worked out, and its yet to work out for the Dolphins and Browns too

The Bledsoe trade basically amounted to trading away a first round pick for another team's aging backup quarterback. That's not the sort of action I had in mind when I said I wanted the Bills to meaningfully address the QB position. (Which is why I opposed the Bledsoe trade at the time it was made.)

 

Leading up to the 2004 draft, most commentators talked a lot about the big three QBs. TD tried unsuccessfully to trade up for one of the big three QBs--for Roethlisberger, in fact. I vaguely recollect that the trade fell through after Houston's asking price became too high.

 

After the Roethlisberger trade fell through, TD convinced himself that trading back into the first round for Losman was somehow a good idea. "He's just as good a passer as the big three," TD claimed, "and he's a faster runner." Unlike the big three, Losman had not proved himself as a pocket passer at the college level. But Losman had great physical tools. In other words, he fit the profile for a typical first round bust. This is why I was opposed to the Losman pick pretty much from the very beginning.

 

Trent Edwards was a third round pick. The odds are heavily against third round picks at just about any position working out.

 

This isn't just about spending draft day resources on a QB. It's about spending those resources intelligently. It was knowable in advance that the Bledsoe trade and the Losman pick would almost certainly fail. Had the Bills been an intelligently run organization during that time, they would have eschewed those moves, and would instead have used draft day resources on QB moves which had a more realistic chance of long term success.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that, during the last 40 years, the Bills have used their first pick of the draft on a RB 10 different times, on a DB another 10 times, and on a QB never. (Unless you count the Rob Johnson trade.) Based on how the Bills allocate draft day resources, you would think that RB and DB were more important positions than QB.

 

The Bills have basically had two options. 1) Go for the QBs that everyone else wants, and that will typically be taken near the top of the draft. This means spending a king's ransom to trade up. 2) Try to outsmart everyone else by taking a QB outside the top 15, and then hope that the teams who passed on him were wrong. Given that choice, the Bills have almost always chosen option B. The problem with that is that the Bills are not smarter than the other teams in the league--on the contrary. The QBs who get chosen early in the draft are often worth much, much more than the king's ransom it would have taken to have acquired them. The Bills' QB strategy has been penny wise, pound foolish--a foolishness compounded by shortsighted thinking, poor talent evaluation, wishful thinking, and a lack of mental discipline.

[Fan in Chicago]

This is to jump ship and actually blame the defensive scheme.

 

There are talented players on the Bills DL. This helped players such as Moats and Sheppard, who never really produced much at all, to make plays in our 2 consecutive wins. Please, my memory is foggy.....didn't Moats actually sack Brady last year? So what does Wanny do? He doesn't play them much, and allows NE to run the ball down our throats, in our house. He should have played Sheppard, who looked good so far this season. He should have put Moats in there and even blitzed him at times. Moats was always semi-decent as a pass rusher. Wanny really disgusted me yesterday.

 

Offense is another story. Gailey has a great offensive mind, but someone needs to tap him on the shoulder and alert him to the fact that his qb isn't capable of many of the plays that he sees. Call me old and crusty as you will, but a touch of conservatism beats constant turnovers. And speaking of conservatism, again, these plays before the deuce are killing me.

 

I agree on the D scheme part. It is maddening to see how the Pats* adjusted on O in the second half and we just could not do anything to stop them. You don't need a half time to make adjustments. Seeing as they were running between the tackles for huge chunks of yards should have indicated that we need Shep, Moats etc in there. The Pats* counter punched us and Wanny failed to respond. His stubbornness coupled with the total lack of push from Mario W allowed the Pats* to kick us all over the field. So far, I have been an apologist for the D and kept saying that it will take time for the scheme to come together and be effective. But no scheme with so much talent should allow the total disaster we witnessed.

 

I cannot blame the O this time too much. Despite the turnovers in the first half, they looked competent and scored decently. With a sub-average QB and inadequate WR corps, we should not have to lean on the O to carry the load. The Browns game was the perfect example of how we can win - solid D with a slightly above average O. This O cannot keep up with the likes of the Pats* yet. The D's repeated inability to stop them put the O in a hole which it was unable to dig itself out of.

 

One point which bears mentioning is that it was apparent that both CJ and FJax did not appear to be even 90%. While playing them was fine, I thought Choice should have been given way more touches. After all, he did well in relief in the last game. So put Spiller and FJax, but balance the running attack by using the fully healthy Choice and perhaps CMac for the goal line situation. It is weird why Gailey did not try the healthy RBs.

 

All in all, quite an incompetent performance. As good as the first half was, the second half's debacle is mostly on the coaches.

[CardinalScotts]

Heard former Patriot tackle Matt Light on the radio...kinda sounded like a rock head but his observations were kind of interesting. Well Buffalo went small, NE other tight end is basically another tackle so they ran the ball and Buffalo never adjusted. Cant get down like that though good team they were playing a team like Buffalo, next week they have Denver they won't let you back in the game.

[Gray Beard]

Heard former Patriot tackle Matt Light on the radio...kinda sounded like a rock head but his observations were kind of interesting. Well Buffalo went small, NE other tight end is basically another tackle so they ran the ball and Buffalo never adjusted. Cant get down like that though good team they were playing a team like Buffalo, next week they have Denver they won't let you back in the game.

I never understood going small for any length of time during a game. When the small guys are fresh, they are quicker and that makes sense if you are expecting a lot of passes. After a while eveyone gets tired, and smaller guys having to make a lot of tackles is going to wear them down. Eventually it becomes small and tired against big and tired. I'll put my money on big and tired every time.