Bills vow Doug Marrone will make them winners

[Meatloaf Sandwich]

Let's go Bills! I can't handle another regime change, only Mush from A Bronx Tale had this much failure. I refuse to think of the Bills as Mush!

[OCinBuffalo]

 

AMEN brother!!!

 

So...you agree that given a combination of:

1. the NFL's forceful tendency to regress toward the mean,

2. the logic we should have learned in 8th grade

3. the stats we should have learned in high school, perhaps college

 

People who expect the Bills to make the playoffs this year, are in fact being the most realistic?

 

Logically and statistically, they are, in fact, being the most realistic. This is due to the REAL statistical trends of the NFL on the whole(not the ones we magically made up in our heads). Historically, using the real(and not magical) definition of the word, the Bills not making the playoffs for this long is an aberration, that we should be expect will be corrected: immediately.

 

Thus, the Bills making the playoffs, this year, is the most rational statistical expectation. If you want to call that "being positive", or, if you want to call that "tuna on rye"? I do not care, becaue it's irrelevant, statistically.

[Beerball]

One of the hallmarks of our 21st century society, as demonstrated on this message board (and specifically in this thread), remains a complete intolerance of contrarian opinion. Those fans who aren't excited about the "new" Bills are deemed negative, told to get another team, and roundly criticized for questioning the happy training camp talk we typically see this time of year.

 

We're left with ad hominem attacks precipitated by those who won't deign to understand why people don't think like them. Brandon can say what he wants, but talk is cheap. Didn't someone once say to show us the baby first?

I'm not through the thread yet, but I don't see any attacks. If you feel that you or someone else is being attacked please use the report function.

 

The interesting thing about this piece is the degree of inside information. Given everything that has happened over the last several weeks, all of the useful information has been from non-local sources, while all of the tabloid pieces have been TBN and the like. Anyone else get the feeling that the locals have bitten the hand that feeds one too many times, and some of their testiness is a reflection of their dwindling access? You could put Marrone's "blowup (hardly)" in the context of one final shot across the bow.

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/159978-please-put-your-game-face-on/

 

They are not lazy. They are uninspired 4th rate journalists on a 3rd rate paper.

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/159978-please-put-your-game-face-on/

 

Great job by Yahoo that shines a light on the lazy work by some of the folks at the Buffalo News.

 

It's so disappointing how certain members of the News' staff would rather spend time making Mario Williams’ foot a big issue rather than taking the time to do some research and give their readers an interesting piece to read.

 

Do we really need these clowns asking the same question 7 different ways so they can try to get a reaction out of Marrone on which they can fixate?

 

Please give us something insightful for a change.

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/159978-please-put-your-game-face-on/

[JohnC]

 

33%? Sheeeet!

 

I'l bet it's less than half of that. I'll run the numbers and get back to us .

 

Without crunching the numbers I would guess it is in the 15%-18% range. Looking forward to see what you come up with. The point is as bad as the record has been it didn't accurately reflect where the franchise ranked in this parity designed system.

 

I'm still optimistic that this new regime is much more capable of turning things around than the prior regimes. This year the critical issue is not about the record so much as it is about finding out what EJ is capable of doing.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm not through the thread yet, but I don't see any attacks. If you feel that you or someone else is being attacked please use the report function.

Pfft.

 

Let me tell you how this one ends--> When you can't win the argument, argue against having the argument.

 

Or, when you can't win on the content? Start talking about the process.

 

This used to be standard fare over at PPP...no longer.

[Beerball]

My expectations are relative to my team, it's culture and its recent history.

Good point.

[Dorkington]

I refuse. Go back and read the thread, and, specifically look at what I replied to. It will take you 30 seconds.

 

Heh. That's what I thought.

 

I've been participating and reading this thread. I see most everyone is in "wait and see" mode. I see some people who are skeptical of any sale's speech given to us, and I see some that are incredibly optimistic. But apparently it's delved into "OMG YOU GUYZ R IDIOTS FOR THINKING THE BILLS MIGHT SUCK/BE GOOD!!!!"

 

Fun times.

[Beerball]

Pfft.

 

Let me tell you how this one ends--> When you can't win the argument, argue against having the argument.

 

Or, when you can't win on the content? Start talking about the process.

 

This used to be standard fare over at PPP...no longer.

Your point escapes me. If you feel someone has been attacked please point out the post.

[OCinBuffalo]

Heh. That's what I thought.

 

I've been participating and reading this thread. I see most everyone is in "wait and see" mode. I see some people who are skeptical of any sale's speech given to us, and I see some that are incredibly optimistic. But apparently it's delved into "OMG YOU GUYZ R IDIOTS FOR THINKING THE BILLS MIGHT SUCK/BE GOOD!!!!"

 

Fun times.

You thought? What exacty did you think? That I can't point to an example?

 

Why do I have to do your work for you? If you think I haven't responded to those exact words.

 

Prove it.

 

I even told you where to look.

[Dorkington]

WHICH TEAM WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE ?

 

over the course of a Ten Year Period:

 

Team "A" - makes the playoffs 9 of 10 years but does NOT win Super Bowl.

 

Team "B" - misses the playoffs 9 of 10 years but WINS the Super Bowl once.

 

Fun question...

 

I think it really depends on how Team B misses the playoffs. Are they a 8-8/9-7 all the time and finally break through and get to the big one? Or are they a miserable experience of 2 to 7 win teams that are irrelevant way before the season ends?

 

If it's the former, I think I'll take "B". If it's the latter, I'll take "A". I'd much rather watch a team that's relevant every year, than watch a team be horrible every year, then some how get the Superbowl once in there. So, really, it all depends on how Team "B" performs in non Superbowl years, in how I answer the question.

 

Either way, the Bills are:

 

Team "C" - misses the playoffs 10 of 10 years, usually by a fair margin.

 

So I'm not really sure about the relevance of this question to the discussion at hand.

 

 

 

You thought? What exacty did you think? That I can't point to an example?

 

Why do I have to do your work for you? If you think I haven't responded to those exact words.

 

Prove it.

 

I even told you where to look.

 

I asked you a question. My expectation/thought would be that you'd dodge it. And you did. That's really all I need.

 

I stand by my opinion that most everyone here is in the same boat, as far as actual expectations go, but they wear it differently on their emotional sleeves. That's turned into the argument that those who are skeptical are overly negative, and those who are hopeful are overly optimistic.

[OCinBuffalo]

Your point escapes me. If you feel someone has been attacked please point out the post.

I feel the exact opposite. The fact is that BillsVet's post quite literally =

 

I don't like the fact that this argument isn't going the way I'd like it to go, so, not only am I going to say that people are name calling(when nobody is), I'm also going to say that people are intolerant. But worse, I'm going to blame society for this, because lord knows, me losing this argument has to be somebody else's fault....and not mine.

 

Or, in other words: that post is an unmitigated load of crap....and BillsVet is crying message board wolf.

 

I asked you a question. My expectation/thought would be that you'd dodge it. And you did. That's really all I need.

 

I stand by my opinion that most everyone here is in the same boat, as far as actual expectations go, but they wear it differently on their emotional sleeves. That's turned into the argument that those who are skeptical are overly negative, and those who are hopeful are overly optimistic.

Dodge? "You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means."

 

How does: your answer lies clear as day in this thread, if you'd only bother to click on page 2 and scroll down = dodge? I am telling you exactly where to find it. Here's your link, lazy: http://forums.twobil...20#entry2860368

 

Let me explain: dodge means...I don't tell you where to find the answer, and I talk about something else.

 

It doesn't mean I do tell you: 3 times. Hopefully that helps.

 

Carry on.

Edited August 5, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Dorkington]

 

The Bills are finally doing what top notch organizations do, & not just sports organizations. They now have a mission statement. They stuck to it through the hiring process. They appear to have drafted well. I like the staff they have put together. If you (the collective you) cannot see the change and take some encouragement from it then I'm surprised. What does any of this guarantee? Not a gosh darn thing. But...the process to get where they are today vs. one year ago is sound. That encourages me.

 

Missed this...

 

The Bills had a solid mission statement 3/4 years ago at the beginning of the of the Chan/Nix era as well (at least on paper). I know a whole lot of us were excited about it. Chan's nifty offensive schemes, getting big beefy guys for the defense, running something other than the Tampa 2, and then hiring THE STACHE, oh man, things were looking up. Even the National Media was on our side! And then.... Womp Womp.

 

That's basically been my point. We get sold this wholesale change every few years, and then the results end up being the same. This team kind of reminds me of the team that last had the best shot of the playoffs for the Bills, so it should be fun at least.

 

I guess the silver lining is, we get to be excited about a new attempt at success every few years.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

 

Yeah, well unfortunately for Brandon and the rest of the front office weenies he has about as much credibility as a crack ho at this point.

 

Just shut up and have your team do it Russ! You've been talking for a decade and have been the most miserable team in the league over that stretch while hanging us out to dry based on the litany of all of your empty promises.

 

Here's one, if you really believe it, then put your job on the line Russ!!! How about if he doesn't win you quit?

 

No on likes a quitter...

[Dorkington]

 

I feel the exact opposite. The fact is that BillsVet's post quite literally =

 

I don't like the fact that this argument isn't going the way I'd like it to go, so, not only am I going to say that people are name calling(when nobody is), I'm also going to say that people are intolerant. But worse, I'm going to blame society for this, because lord knows, me losing this argument has to be somebody else's fault....and not mine.

 

Or, in other words: that post is an unmitigated load of crap....and BillsVet is crying message board wolf.

 

 

Dodge? "You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means."

 

How does: your answer lies clear as day in this thread, if you'd only bother to click on page 2 and scroll down = dodge? I am telling you exactly where to find it. Here's your link, lazy: http://forums.twobil...20#entry2860368

 

Let me explain: dodge means...I don't tell you where to find the answer, and I talk about something else.

 

It doesn't mean I do tell you: 3 times. Hopefully that helps.

 

Carry on.

 

Ah, yes.... I'm lazy. Even though I *responded* to that quote already. (Meaning I read it, and what you responded to.)

 

The problem with your original assertion is that you assume 31 teams are "failures" because they didn't win the Superbowl. You back off a little by saying 20 teams are failures.

 

But let's actually look at this. Is a team that doesn't win the Superbowl for 13 years but still makes the playoffs, still has multiple runs of relevancy the same amount of "failure" as the Bills?

 

Numbers only play one part in your argument, you forgot the analysis part. The "negative" people aren't "right" because the Bills haven't won the Superbowl/made the playoffs in the last 13 years, but because of HOW the Bills have "failed".

 

But beyond that, I don't see anyone here claiming that it's impossible for the Bills to succeed under this new direction. I see a lot of people who are SKEPTICAL, and it's fair to be as such due to how our team has been run.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

"We didn't get into this to hope to win and sell hope."

 

That is an awesome quote.

 

Hope is all I have. What will they sell instead?

[Dorkington]

 

 

Hope is all I have. What will they sell instead?

 

It's a silly quote.

 

We don't have a recent winning past to sell. We don't have a record yet this season. So, really, logically speaking, all there is is hope, as one can't actually guarantee success in sports with 100% accuracy.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Dorkington

[Glory Bound]

Yeah, well unfortunately for Brandon and the rest of the front office weenies he has about as much credibility as a crack ho at this point.

 

Just shut up and have your team do it Russ! You've been talking for a decade and have been the most miserable team in the league over that stretch while hanging us out to dry based on the litany of all of your empty promises.

 

Here's one, if you really believe it, then put your job on the line Russ!!! How about if he doesn't win you quit?

After laboring through all you've written in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you should switch over to decaf.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Brandon, at the very least, had a huge hand in picking Marrone. And so, the new team president needs the new HC to win or it reflects poorly on him.

 

John Madden is that you? I also understand the only way to win a football game is to score more points than the other team!

 

 

It's a silly quote.

 

We don't have a recent winning past to sell. We don't have a record yet this season. So, really, logically speaking, all there is is hope, as one can't actually guarantee success in sports with 100% accuracy.

 

I settle for you've never seen us try harder not to suck than you will this year.

 

 

Missed this...

 

The Bills had a solid mission statement 3/4 years ago at the beginning of the of the Chan/Nix era as well (at least on paper). I know a whole lot of us were excited about it. Chan's nifty offensive schemes, getting big beefy guys for the defense, running something other than the Tampa 2, and then hiring THE STACHE, oh man, things were looking up. Even the National Media was on our side! And then.... Womp Womp.

 

That's basically been my point. We get sold this wholesale change every few years, and then the results end up being the same. This team kind of reminds me of the team that last had the best shot of the playoffs for the Bills, so it should be fun at least.

 

I guess the silver lining is, we get to be excited about a new attempt at success every few years.

 

The one thing we can say is different, is instead of coaches refusing to interview for the job, there were multiple interested candidates considered candidates by a number of suitors. They also embraced the front office youth movement which was so obviously needed.

[Dorkington]

The one thing we can say is different, is instead of coaches refusing to interview for the job, there were multiple interested candidates considered candidates by a number of suitors. They also embraced the front office youth movement which was so obviously needed.

 

Very fair point.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ah, yes.... I'm lazy. Even though I *responded* to that quote already. (Meaning I read it, and what you responded to.)

 

The problem with your original assertion is that you assume 31 teams are "failures" because they didn't win the Superbowl. You back off a little by saying 20 teams are failures.

Oh cool. A live one.

 

Are you really telling me that your reading comprehension is this bad? "Backing off a little"? Wrong. That's called laying out a premise, by laying out a fact, and then, laying out another one, both of which support the premise. How in the Sam hell you read "backing off a little" into that...is well I don't know...delusion?

 

Let's have some fun with you/this: "there are 7 days in a week, (but, now, I'm going to back off a little, and say,) but, there are only 2 days in a weekend". Yes, I backed right off there. Now, in Dorkingtonland, we can infer that there aren't 7 days in a week, or, at least I'm not as committed to there being 7 as I once was, right? Yes, I've "backed off" that.

 

Heeheee...I have to put my damn phone on mute...because I'm LOLing for real here. Can't wait to read the rest of this hilarity you've been so kind to give me....

But let's actually look at this. Is a team that doesn't win the Superbowl for 13 years but still makes the playoffs, still has multiple runs of relevancy the same amount of "failure" as the Bills?

By all means, let's have a look! What else could possibly go wrong, eh, Dorkington?

 

I can't possibly answer that, because it is an entirely subjective measurement.

 

Is there are relevancy scale someplace? Is it like a Madden score? I don't know, perhaps we should consult ESPN (Insert Big City) and ask them if there's a reason why they aren't covering the Bills...and talking about relevancy...at the same time.

 

I mean seriously, your definition of relevancy could be miles away from the next guy's right? So how the hell I am I supposed to determine, never mind compare, "runs of relevancy"? Some people may see 1 SB as all that matters. If they win 1, and never make the playoffs in the other 12 years, so what? The range from these people, to the people that want to make the playoffs every year, and don't care about SB wins, and including everybody in between, with whatever definition they have?

 

See? I have no way of answering this: logically. IF the Bills were to win the SB this year, what does that do for the arguments of the negative people over the last 13? Nothing, Something, Everything? I can't answer that, because it's: subjective.

Numbers only play one part in your argument, you forgot the analysis part. The "negative" people aren't "right" because the Bills haven't won the Superbowl/made the playoffs in the last 13 years, but because of HOW the Bills have "failed".

Reading really isn't your friend, is it?

 

I did not miss the analysis part. In fact I specifically included and referred to it: http://forums.twobil...60#entry2860492 Yes, another link for you, lazy.

 

Me:

Thus, historically, but really, INEVITABLY, every fan of every team, who says their team will not make the playoffs, is more likely to be right, by a factor of 50%, than they are to be wrong. That is true BEFORE anybody considers, or has a chance to say anything about any player, coach, team. That is true for every team, and every fan.

 

Negative fans have Vegas house odds on their side from minute 1. Now, after we take that into account, we can talk about analysis. We cannot however completely ingore it, and pretend that there's a historical "trend" here that is completely unaffected by it. Again, that is magical thinking, and I will not tolerate it.

 

But beyond that, I don't see anyone here claiming that it's impossible for the Bills to succeed under this new direction. I see a lot of people who are SKEPTICAL, and it's fair to be as such due to how our team has been run.

And, if that was what I was responding to, you'd be right. It's not, so you're not.

 

I've already given you a link to exactly what I was responding to, and you are free to re-read it, if you still don't understand.

Edited August 5, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Dorkington]

Text

 

Wow, you're incredibly condescending.

 

Listen, you failed to define "failure" in any way that was related to the actual opinions in this thread, simply to prove your point. Your follow up "analysis" didn't really prove anything either. People aren't "negative" on this team because it's statistically more likely to not make the playoffs or win the Superbowl. People are "negative" on this team because our team has been consistently bad for the last 12 years (hence, not relevant). But hey, lets throw in insults, let's condescend, let's make lots of "lol" faces at the other person when trying to debate. That really drives it home.

 

This is my last post on the subject. You win. Please tell me and others who are skeptical, what we should do in relation to this forum, and your so called "logic".

Edited August 5, 2013 by Dorkington

[Ronin]

Do you have the stats for the Bills record against winning teams over that same period? I suspect that it is less than 33%.

 

There is a large segment of posters who demand optimism from others pror to the season at the risk of being harshly vilified. That in itself makes little sense. In essence those who have been overwhelmingly more right in their prognostications for almost a full generation are being coerced to toe the crooked line of the same toads who have been consistently overwhelmingly wrong over the same generation. Think about that.

 

My original hunch of it not being more than half of that is correct.

 

OK, since 2000, meaning since Williams took over followed by Mularkey, Jauron, and Gailey, under Donahoe, Levy, and Nix ...

 

Of the 192 games they've played, 96 (exactly half) have been against teams with winning records.

 

The Bills are 14-82 (.146) against those teams.

 

6 of those 14 wins were against teams that finished 9-7

 

10 of those 14 wins were against teams that finished 9-7 or 10-6

 

Only 4 of those wins were against teams that finished 11-5 or better. Of those 4 wins, one was against Indy in week 17 when they were playing scrubs led by Painter for half the game. Another was that 2003 win over the Pats 31-0 to start the season before losing to them by the same score in week 17 and finishing 6-10, and another was also over the Pats in 2011.

 

Outside the division they were 5-47 (.096) against teams with winning records. They beat the 9-7 Seahawks in '04 and 9-7 Skins in '07, the 10-6 Chiefs in '05, and the 11-5 Bengals in '05 besides the aforementioned week 17 game vs. the Colts.

 

Over those 12 years they're 23-51 (.311) in the divsion and 51-67 (.432) outside the division.

 

They're 3-32 (.086) against teams outside the division that were 10-6 or better.

 

Within the division they were 9-36 (.200) against teams with winning records.

 

Against teams that were 6-10 or worse the Bills are 43-17 (.717)

 

Against teams that were 4-12 or worse they were 24-5 (.828)

 

FWIW

[Dorkington]

Thanks for the numbers, TG.

[K-9]

My original hunch of it not being more than half of that is correct.

 

OK, since 2000, meaning since Williams took over followed by Mularkey, Jauron, and Gailey, under Donahoe, Levy, and Nix ...

 

Of the 192 games they've played, 96 (exactly half) have been against teams with winning records.

 

The Bills are 14-82 (.146) against those teams.

 

6 of those 14 wins were against teams that finished 9-7

 

10 of those 14 wins were against teams that finished 9-7 or 10-6

 

Only 4 of those wins were against teams that finished 11-5 or better. Of those 4 wins, one was against Indy in week 17 when they were playing scrubs led by Painter for half the game. Another was that 2003 win over the Pats 31-0 to start the season before losing to them by the same score in week 17 and finishing 6-10, and another was also over the Pats in 2011.

 

Outside the division they were 5-47 (.096) against teams with winning records. They beat the 9-7 Seahawks in '04 and 9-7 Skins in '07, the 10-6 Chiefs in '05, and the 11-5 Bengals in '05 besides the aforementioned week 17 game vs. the Colts.

 

Over those 12 years they're 23-51 (.311) in the divsion and 51-67 (.432) outside the division.

 

They're 3-32 (.086) against teams outside the division that were 10-6 or better.

 

Within the division they were 9-36 (.200) against teams with winning records.

 

Against teams that were 6-10 or worse the Bills are 43-17 (.717)

 

Against teams that were 4-12 or worse they were 24-5 (.828)

 

FWIW

 

All that work just to confirm what has been painfully obvious to even the most casual observer?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[OCinBuffalo]

Wow, you're incredibly condescending.

 

Listen, you failed to define "failure" in any way that was related to the actual opinions in this thread, simply to prove your point. Your follow up "analysis" didn't really prove anything either. People aren't "negative" on this team because it's statistically more likely to not make the playoffs or win the Superbowl. People are "negative" on this team because our team has been consistently bad for the last 12 years (hence, not relevant). But hey, lets throw in insults, let's condescend, let's make lots of "lol" faces at the other person when trying to debate. That really drives it home.

 

This is my last post on the subject. You win. Please tell me and others who are skeptical, what we should do in relation to this forum, and your so called "logic".

Now, its melodrama?

 

I just don't like people who are proven wrong...and then run away from that.

And, I just don't like people who say I'm dodging, when I'm doing the opposite...and then run away from that.

Now, you say I'm condescending. Is that true, or am I showing you exactly the respect you've earned thus far?

 

You tried to play the "I'm superior" angle("that's what I thought")...3 posts ago...and I, correctly, squished you for it. Now, you've got a paragraph above which is basically incoherent babble, and even if it wasn't? It has nothing at all to do with MY posts in this thread.

 

If you've got issues with what OTHER posters have said, why not take it up with them? Why not share the wealth? I am sure they could use a good laugh on a Monday the same as me. Or, you can keep talking to me about things I didn't say, and tell me I didn't say things I did.

 

My position is clear, you just haven't bothered to read/comprehend it. And, again, I had nothing whatsoever bad to say about "wait and see", and have said so, 4 times now. I responded to what is clearly nonsense, and if you still can't tell the difference: I can't help you.

[Dorkington]

See TG's post as to why people might be skeptical. It's not just because they are negative due to it being mathematically probable to miss the playoffs or not win the Superbowl. Stop trolling.

[Ronin]

Lazy man's way out: Steal somebody else's work!

 

http://www.sportingn...-seasons-by-far

 

The AFC East is third overall. However, I have my criticisms:

 

Sounds like you're trying to make a case for the division, if so, it doesn't get any more disingenuous..

 

New England has carried the division's record throughout the Brady-era.

 

I've already taken this up with my Pats fan buddy. The AFCE has been the worst (aka easiest) division in football during the Brady era when we look at the the Bills, Jets, and Fins contrasted with the worst three teams, arbitrarily, not the same three teams each year even, rather the worst in their divisions year by year. I've demonstrated that mathematically.

 

It should be clear to anyone that watches football regularly. A huge part of the reason why the Pats post these gawdy records, apart from leaving their key players in games late that have already been won only to allow them to get hurt, is because they pummel the weak AFCE teams.

 

Even when Miami won the division in '08 they didn't have a strong team. Pats fans rave about how Belicheat was still 11-5, but they beat no one that season. 7 of their 11 wins were against losing teams, the other four were against 11-5 Pennington led Miami, 9-7 Jets, 9-7 Arizona, and 8-8 Denver. They lost their other to Miami and lost both to 12-4 Indy and Pit.

[GG]

What a fun thread Deja vu all over again. Bottom line, nothing will change until they hit the field with real pads on and start winning more than they're losing.

 

As to the article (sorry Beerball, have to add my two cents). For people praising Les Carpenter's dogged journalism and leg work, do people know the job of Yahoo! "columnists" and how they get the scoops for their stories?

[Dorkington]

 

 

Sounds like you're trying to make a case for the division, if so, it doesn't get any more disingenuous..

 

New England has carried the division's record throughout the Brady-era.

 

I've already taken this up with my Pats fan buddy. The AFCE has been the worst (aka easiest) division in football during the Brady era when we look at the the Bills, Jets, and Fins contrasted with the worst three teams, arbitrarily, not the same three teams each year even, rather the worst in their divisions year by year. I've demonstrated that mathematically.

 

It should be clear to anyone that watches football regularly. A huge part of the reason why the Pats post these gawdy records, apart from leaving their key players in games late that have already been won only to allow them to get hurt, is because they pummel the weak AFCE teams.

 

Even when Miami won the division in '08 they didn't have a strong team. Pats fans rave about how Belicheat was still 11-5, but they beat no one that season. 7 of their 11 wins were against losing teams, the other four were against 11-5 Pennington led Miami, 9-7 Jets, 9-7 Arizona, and 8-8 Denver. They lost their other to Miami and lost both to 12-4 Indy and Pit.

 

To be fair, the Jets have had a decently strong team for a couple of those years.

[bladiebla]

Great piece!

[Ronin]

Thanks for the numbers, TG.

 

Anytime, ... that I have time to run them. LOL

 

All that work just to confirm what has been painfully obvious to even the most casual observer?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Doesn't seem so obvious to some, hence the statement that prompted it.

 

I think many other things are "obvious" too, like some notion that turning a team into a .500 team that barely makes a bowl game is something akin to some kind of relevant "turnaround."

[Dorkington]

 

 

Anytime, ... that I have time to run them. LOL

 

 

 

Doesn't seem so obvious to some, hence the statement that prompted it.

 

I think many other things are "obvious" too, like some notion that turning a team into a .500 team that barely makes a bowl game is something akin to some kind of relevant "turnaround."

 

Wouldn't the relevance of that "turnaround" depend on where the team was, and who their players are? I'm not in either camp on Marrone (for or against), as I don't know much about him. But I'm hesitant to simply say ".500 isn't impressive". So here we go... ready to throw more numbers and analysis at us?

[Ronin]

What a fun thread Deja vu all over again. Bottom line, nothing will change until they hit the field with real pads on and start winning more than they're losing.

 

As to the article (sorry Beerball, have to add my two cents). For people praising Les Carpenter's dogged journalism and leg work, do people know the job of Yahoo! "columnists" and how they get the scoops for their stories?

 

It is deja vu all over again, which is part of the entertainment if it weren't for the trolling/persistence part of it. Those on that side are like mosquitoes on a camping trip.

 

Again though, the even more hilarious thing will be if say, and just say for now, Marrone goes 2-14 and doesn't prove that he belongs in the NFL this season. Then at the end of the season nothing will be good enough for these same fans including the violent ouster of anyone and anything at OBD.

 

It's bi-polar city. But hey, I guess that's what happens when one puts their "left brain" in park and let their "right brains" drive the bus. Naturally the emotional volatility is fascinating. Kind of like a forum full of women.

[K-9]

... Doesn't seem so obvious to some, hence the statement that prompted it.

 

I think many other things are "obvious" too, like some notion that turning a team into a .500 team that barely makes a bowl game is something akin to some kind of relevant "turnaround."

 

In that case, I amend my statement to say "should" be painfully obvious."

 

As to your second paragraph, if the Bills do indeed turn into a .500 team, it would be a step in the right direction towards a relevant turnaround. Although, I'm not sure why you feel compelled to include the qualifier "relevant." Is that your way of saying that nothing short of a championship qualifies as a "relevant" turnaround? I would think that a .500 record, given the recent history of this team, would be relevant indeed.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[GG]

It is deja vu all over again, which is part of the entertainment if it weren't for the trolling/persistence part of it. Those on that side are like mosquitoes on a camping trip.

 

Again though, the even more hilarious thing will be if say, and just say for now, Marrone goes 2-14 and doesn't prove that he belongs in the NFL this season. Then at the end of the season nothing will be good enough for these same fans including the violent ouster of anyone and anything at OBD.

 

It's bi-polar city. But hey, I guess that's what happens when one puts their "left brain" in park and let their "right brains" drive the bus. Naturally the emotional volatility is fascinating. Kind of like a forum full of women.

 

It's the eternal re-enactment of Waiting for Godot. And not just for football.

[Ronin]

Wouldn't the relevance of that "turnaround" depend on where the team was, and who their players are? I'm not in either camp on Marrone (for or against), as I don't know much about him. But I'm hesitant to simply say ".500 isn't impressive". So here we go... ready to throw more numbers and analysis at us?

 

Great point, yes, it would. And then contrast that w/ the players that he had w/ what his predecessor had and what kind of a coach his predecessor was.

 

Was there a worse coach in SU history than his immediate predecessor Robinson? If so, which one, because I don't see one.

 

Isn't it quite possible that Robinson was so ridiculously bad that he took a team about as good as what Marrone "produced" from Pasqualoni, and just made it much worse? ... and then when Marrone got the team back, and finally w/ a decent QB, better than Perry Patterson (LOL) whom Pasqualoni had, and simply restored it to what it was prior to having such a vapid coach?

 

I mean if we back up and cut out the Robinson era, do you really see a significant difference from the end of Pasqualoni's time? I don't.

 

Have you considered that?

 

And as long as we're talking about QBs, Robinson had Cameron Dantley in '07 and '08, had you considered that for even a moment? I'll bet that you didn't even know who Dantley was unless you're an SU fan.

 

So what you're telling me is that w/ a QB that was drafted in the NFL, the only one since McNabb, and the only decent QB that the program has seen since McNabb's days, the best that Marrone could do was to go .500 in four seasons and barely squeak into one of if not the most irrelevant and inaugural bowls in the game in two seasons only?

 

Again, what we're talking about here are two entirely different standards of success.

 

For us serious fans we look for a little bit more than that. You'll figure it out too at some point more than likely.

[OCinBuffalo]

Sounds like you're trying to make a case for the division, if so, it doesn't get any more disingenuous..

 

New England has carried the division's record throughout the Brady-era.

 

I've already taken this up with my Pats fan buddy. The AFCE has been the worst (aka easiest) division in football during the Brady era when we look at the the Bills, Jets, and Fins contrasted with the worst three teams, arbitrarily, not the same three teams each year even, rather the worst in their divisions year by year. I've demonstrated that mathematically.

 

It should be clear to anyone that watches football regularly. A huge part of the reason why the Pats post these gawdy records, apart from leaving their key players in games late that have already been won only to allow them to get hurt, is because they pummel the weak AFCE teams.

 

Even when Miami won the division in '08 they didn't have a strong team. Pats fans rave about how Belicheat was still 11-5, but they beat no one that season. 7 of their 11 wins were against losing teams, the other four were against 11-5 Pennington led Miami, 9-7 Jets, 9-7 Arizona, and 8-8 Denver. They lost their other to Miami and lost both to 12-4 Indy and Pit.

yes...that post is 98% about the statistical failings of that study, but your takeaway is, "I'm making a case for the division"?

 

WTF I only make cases for proper use of stats and logic, as you are about to learn, literally:

 

I suppose you haven't considered, in your mathematically proven analysis, that the Pats beating up on the Bills/Jets/Dolphins:

1. is not mutally exclusive from all 4 teams beating up on other divisions

2. says literally nothing about the 3 not Pats teams beating up on each other

3. has nothing to do with every other team in the league NOT having to play the Pats 2 times, instead of one.

 

1-3 says you need logic first, then math. Yes, math, wihout the logic coming along for the ride, is quite useless. Logic tells us why/how to apply the math.

 

Non-divison records and/or point differential is the ONLY objective measurement of "toughness of division". Everything else, especially F'ing about comparing: not the same 3 teams every year, on purpose? (EDIT: And as I said above, there has to be a weighting system for in division, something that can scale up/down ...perhaps based on wins/% relative to the non-division record.)

 

That's called "massaging the data" where I come from. I don't understand what you think you are proving when you do that. The whole point of this exercise is to hold everything but one thing: non-division record, constant, thus creating a proper comparison.

 

The clown in the article almost did that right, but then he FUBARed it by giving extra points to playoff teams...for being in the playoffs, when, the higher, non-division win %, of a division like the NFC North, with 2-3 perennial playoff teams in the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens, would have already reflected that.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how the hell you think comparing 3 different teams to the AFC East every year isn't flat out screwy.

Edited August 5, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Ronin]

In that case, I amend my statement to say "should" be painfully obvious."

 

As to your second paragraph, if the Bills do indeed turn into a .500 team, it would be a step in the right direction towards a relevant turnaround. Although, I'm not sure why you feel compelled to include the qualifier "relevant." Is that your way of saying that nothing short of a championship qualifies as a "relevant" turnaround? I would think that a .500 record, given the recent history of this team, would be relevant indeed.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

So three season from now in '15, if the Bills are 8-8 you'll have considered that a "turnaround" then?

 

I might partially agree with you in that they'll have "turned it around" from slop and crap to mediocrity, but again, I think that depends upon one's standards.

 

Mine are a little higher than that.

 

They're not going to be .500 this year. If Marrone is as good as some here would have us automatically believe, then he shouldn't have any difficulty getting to 500 next season and then 10-6 or better the following.

 

Anything short of 10-6 by 2015 to me is falling short. Anything short of 8-8 next season will be falling short. It also will likely have meant that Manuel has not worked out.

 

And speaking of Manuel, there are some good things about him and were from the Draft, but while everyone likes to point out that he isn't Ryan Leaf because he's a nice guy that everyone gets along with and wants to see win, but he reminds me a lot of Heath Shuler. Trent Dilfer, and Rick Mirer in that way, really nice but could also very well bust like those guys.

 

Not saying either way, I have no idea, but it's foolish to just look at one positive anti-example and ignore a bunch of others similar that never succeeded, wouldn't you say.

 

yes...that post is 98% about the statistical failings of that study, but your takeaway is, "I'm making a case for the division"?

 

WTF I only make cases for proper use of stats and logic, as you are about to learn, literally:

 

I suppose you haven't considered, in your mathematically proven analysis, that the Pats beating up on the Bills/Jets/Dolphins:

1. is not mutally exclusive from all 4 teams beating up on other divisions

2. says literally nothing about the 3 not Pats teams beating up on each other

3. has nothing to do with every other team in the league NOT having to play the Pats 2 times, instead of one.

 

1-3 says you need logic first, then math. Yes, math, wihout the logic coming along for the ride, is quite useless. Logic tells us why/how to apply the math.

 

Non-divison records and/or point differential is the ONLY objective measurement of "toughness of division". Everything else, especially F'ing about comparing: not the same 3 teams every year, on purpose?

 

That's called "massaging the data" where I come from. I don't understand what you think you are proving when you do that. The whole point of this exercise is to hold everything but one thing: non-division record, constant, thus creating a proper comparison.

 

The clown in the article almost did that right, but then he FUBARed it by giving extra points to playoff teams...for being in the playoffs, when, the higher, non-division win %, of a division like the NFC North, with 2-3 perennial playoff teams in the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens, would have already reflected that.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how the hell you think comparing 3 different teams to the AFC East every year isn't flat out screwy.

 

 

LOL, once again hitting on some cylinders on your soft points but missing on the objective ones entirely.

 

Tell me, what was the extent of the analysis that I ran since I did not specify? You obviously know, I'm just curious as to how. Did you hack my PC, the one that the analysis is on?

 

Otherwise, quite right, and in terms of playoff futility, the AFCE after the Pats ranks the worst in the league during the Brady era. That easy task you can go handle yourself.

 

Compare the playoff relevance of the Jets, Fins, and Bills to the worst three teams in any other division, and you'll see a big part of exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Otherwise, in another part of that, put the Pats in another division and then subtract 2 wins per season and see if they still look as impressive.

 

Honestly, am I really arguing this with you.

[Dorkington]

 

 

Great point, yes, it would. And then contrast that w/ the players that he had w/ what his predecessor had and what kind of a coach his predecessor was.

 

Was there a worse coach in SU history than his immediate predecessor Robinson? If so, which one, because I don't see one.

 

Isn't it quite possible that Robinson was so ridiculously bad that he took a team about as good as what Marrone "produced" from Pasqualoni, and just made it much worse? ... and then when Marrone got the team back, and finally w/ a decent QB, better than Perry Patterson (LOL) whom Pasqualoni had, and simply restored it to what it was prior to having such a vapid coach?

 

I mean if we back up and cut out the Robinson era, do you really see a significant difference from the end of Pasqualoni's time? I don't.

 

Have you considered that?

 

And as long as we're talking about QBs, Robinson had Cameron Dantley in '07 and '08, had you considered that for even a moment? I'll bet that you didn't even know who Dantley was unless you're an SU fan.

 

So what you're telling me is that w/ a QB that was drafted in the NFL, the only one since McNabb, and the only decent QB that the program has seen since McNabb's days, the best that Marrone could do was to go .500 in four seasons and barely squeak into one of if not the most irrelevant and inaugural bowls in the game in two seasons only?

 

Again, what we're talking about here are two entirely different standards of success.

 

For us serious fans we look for a little bit more than that. You'll figure it out too at some point more than likely.

 

I know *nothing* about College Football, hence the question. I'm not telling you, or anyone, anything, about Marrone, because I'm fully unqualified to speak on the subject.

[K-9]

So three season from now in '15, if the Bills are 8-8 you'll have considered that a "turnaround" then?

 

No. Weren't we talking about this season? I was under that impression. If the Bills can only improve to .500 after three years of this regime, that wouldn't represent any kind of turnaround.

 

I might partially agree with you in that they'll have "turned it around" from slop and crap to mediocrity, but again, I think that depends upon one's standards.

 

Mine are a little higher than that.

 

Your standards aren't any higher than anyone else's.

 

They're not going to be .500 this year. If Marrone is as good as some here would have us automatically believe, then he shouldn't have any difficulty getting to 500 next season and then 10-6 or better the following.

 

It all remains to be seen. Marrone certainly isn't making any predictions. He doesn't have to, nor should he. I don't understand how anyone can "automatically believe" anything about Marrone at this point. SO FAR, he comes across as a good coach. Nothing more.

 

Anything short of 10-6 by 2015 to me is falling short. Anything short of 8-8 next season will be falling short. It also will likely have meant that Manuel has not worked out.

 

Most reasonable people would agree. Most of all EVERYONE at One Bills Drive.

 

And speaking of Manuel, there are some good things about him and were from the Draft, but while everyone likes to point out that he isn't Ryan Leaf because he's a nice guy that everyone gets along with and wants to see win, but he reminds me a lot of Heath Shuler. Trent Dilfer, and Rick Mirer in that way, really nice but could also very well bust like those guys.

 

Manuel has far more charisma and gravitas than anyone you mention above. Not to mention light years more athletically gifted. You may pooh-pooh that, but next to being able to master the mental aspects of the game, those personality traits are the next most important traits to have in a QB. But again, all we have to go by is what he's shown SO FAR. No use getting ahead of ourselves. Nobody at One Bills Drive is.

 

Not saying either way, I have no idea, but it's foolish to just look at one positive anti-example and ignore a bunch of others similar that never succeeded, wouldn't you say.

 

No, I wouldn't say that at all. Because each circumstance is unique and has nothing to do with one another. Past is prologue would make more sense to me if it were all the same personnel every time. It's a new regime. And I say that knowing that the usual suspects will trot out the "Ralph is still the owner, Littman is still pulling the strings, yada yada yada" rhetoric.

 

GO BILLS!!!