Bills vow Doug Marrone will make them winners

[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!!!