Why the Oakland game has less bearing than we think:

[The Big Cat]

It's all about perspective, folks. Last year we were a couple lucky breaks from 10-6, just like we were a couple lucky breaks from 4-12. After the Dallas game last year, the national media slipped into their ball-washing gloves and lauded the Cowboys for being a team good enough to overcome 5 turnovers and win a close one on the road. We overcome 4 very very costly turnovers to the Raiders, and suddenly there's a question mark next to our record. (even though the official box score says 3, I count 4)

 

The Bills haven't beaten a healthy team, and they almost lost to the Raiders, OH MY! But, if you were to take the perspective the national media adopted after the MNF meltdown, you'd have to acknowledge two things: 1.) turnovers can DRASTICALLY change the course of any game and 2.) it aint over till it's over- when there's 0:00 left on the clock, the better team on that day will be victorious, no matter WHAT happened during the preceeding 60 minutes.

 

Having said all that, let's look at two of the turnovers that had an enormous impact on the closeness of last week's game.

 

Turnover number 1: Lee Evans fumble at the end of the first half. This was a turnover that cost the bills at least 3 points. Had Evans gotten out of bounds, the Bills would have had an opportunity to run one more play, getting inside Lindel's failproof 40 yard range, they could have used their last time out to get the kick away and the score at halftime would have been 10-9 Buffalo. Not to mention, failed field goal attempts/chances always seem to leer their ugly heads in any game decided by less than 3 points.

 

Turnover number 2: The "interception." Not only does this botched call tick me off because Trent should still have 0 int's on the year, but it also setup the Raiders' first touchdown on the day. Having JUST gotten off the field, the defense came back in, gave up two straight 6 yard runs that setup the JRussel sneak. It gave the Raiders an opportunity to take the 16-7 lead that the held until late in the fourth quarter. The worse-case scenario of that drive is that the Bills end up punting one away, and if you go by the stats of the game (Oakland didn't score once when starting a drive in their own territory (exept the 84 yard fluke)- then this a monumental swing in the game- you could even calculate this as a 14 point swing (assuming the Bills end the drive with a TD of their own), and when you add the 3 points we SHOULD have gotten to end the half, we're looking at a 8 point lead and not a 9 point deficit.

 

The reason for presenting all these "what-if's" is because I think a lot of folks are looking at this game and how "close" it was and it's stirring fear for the game against St. Louis. Now, I'll be the first person to tell you that stats don't tell the whole story, but if you look at the numbers in this game, Buffalo DID dominate. The Raiders couldn't do ANYTHING on offense, but because of some costly and timely turnovers, and one very very questionable call, they were able to hang around in this one.

 

I don't see Buffalo catching bad breaks like these two weeks in a row, and travel "fatigue" aside, I don't know how hostile of a road environment this will be facing the WORST team in the league. My opinion is, when you look at the big picture, Buffalo did, in fact, outplay the Raiders, they were the better team, and they got the W accordingly. None of the un-inflicted shortcomings of this team (youth, Roscoe's injury, inconsistent performance from the offense) could possibly add up to a Rams win on Sunday. That would require a host of turnovers, and a serious stroke of bad luck. I don't see it happening.

[eball]

yea

 

(apologies to Deep Voice)

[Coach Tuesday]

Well said. Put another way, last season we kept talking about how we were a few plays away from being 10-6, 11-5, etc. This year we're a few plays away from being 1-2. That's the modern NFL. Good teams make those extra few plays each game to make sure they prevail, bad teams find ways to lose (remember when every Sunday night thread around here was about how we'd found a "new way to lose"?).

[macaroni]

IMHO

 

The Bills are a far way from playing their best football;

 

we have an inexperianced QB

we have a rookie WR that when he "learns the game" will be an additional weapon especially in the red zone

our two additions on the D side of the ball (Stroud and Mitchell) are still getting aclimated to "the scheme" and their teammates.

Poz is still pretty inexperianced

 

The way I see it with every game .... with every snap of the ball ... the Bills are getting better and better as a team. The fact we are getting all of this experiance and STILL able to chalk up wins is a even better yet because qalong with the experiance we are gaining confidance. By the end of the year this team can be scarey good.

[Bill from NYC]

IMHO

 

The Bills are a far way from playing their best football;

 

we have an inexperianced QB

we have a rookie WR that when he "learns the game" will be an additional weapon especially in the red zone

our two additions on the D side of the ball (Stroud and Mitchell) are still getting aclimated to "the scheme" and their teammates.

Poz is still pretty inexperianced

 

The way I see it with every game .... with every snap of the ball ... the Bills are getting better and better as a team. The fact we are getting all of this experiance and STILL able to chalk up wins is a even better yet because qalong with the experiance we are gaining confidance. By the end of the year this team can be scarey good.

 

Very good summary. It is very easy to forget that Trent only has 12 starts because he is playing so well. Another thing to consider is that Peters will only improve, and this of course will help the entire team.

 

If we can stay healthy, we really can be a playoff team, and a division championship is possible too.

[BuffOrange]

A bit of a reach imo to equate -2 turnover table at home, with -5 on the road in a rabid stadium that hasn't hosted MNF in 13 years....

But yeah, I kinda said this a few days ago.

[The Big Cat]

A bit of a reach imo to equate -2 turnover table at home, with -5 on the road in a rabid stadium that hasn't hosted MNF in 13 years....

But yeah, I kinda said this a few days ago.

 

My point was that the game was "close" against Oakland because of a few fluke plays, not because a lousy team like Oakland is as "good" of a team as we are. So in that aspect, this game was analogous to the Dallas game. One thing I DIDN'T mention in my original post: Oakland's special teams were wholly responsible for their first three scores. Thank God they had to settle for field goals. (props, D)

 

You're right to say the magnitude of the two games (Faiders v Cowgirls) are incomparable, since Donte Whitner said the Raiders game was one of the loudest he's ever played in.

 

But, the point of the matter is -and always was in the first place- that fans shouldn't use the Raiders game as a litmus test for this team's ability to dominate significantly weaker opponents, like the Rams we face Sunday.

[murra]

Sounds like you're attempting to apply a little too much logic and analysis to find out where the team "really" is.

 

The team is 3-0. Its kind of that simple. Two teams face, and one team can get a win. Thats how it works. Its really that simple. So far, we've won all our games. I don't know how you can look really in-depth and extrapolate it. In the NFL any team can win any game. The advantage is slight, but it may go to a home team, or sometimes I give the odds in favor of the team with the better record, but a win is a win, and I like having 3 right now.

 

Its not a childish approach. Its the way allllll sports should be looked at. We're 3-0. No game has less bearing. We're 3-0.

[The Big Cat]

Sounds like you're attempting to apply a little too much logic and analysis to find out where the team "really" is.

 

The team is 3-0. Its kind of that simple. Two teams face, and one team can get a win. Thats how it works. Its really that simple. So far, we've won all our games. I don't know how you can look really in-depth and extrapolate it. In the NFL any team can win any game. The advantage is slight, but it may go to a home team, or sometimes I give the odds in favor of the team with the better record, but a win is a win, and I like having 3 right now.

 

Its not a childish approach. Its the way allllll sports should be looked at. We're 3-0. No game has less bearing. We're 3-0.

 

Actually, I was trying to counter the "logic and analysis" being applied to everyone's predictions for the Rams game.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

Truth is that many pundits don't see the games. I heard Marshall Faulk mock our 3-0 record, saying we've played nobody. I'm not sure when the Jags are considered "nobody."

 

I'd be a little worried if I thought the bills were only winning because of our so-called easy schedule. But looking at this team, I'm confident we could play with and beat any team in the NFL.

[renfruzetz]

Is it just me or did the Oakland defense play better than expected?

[The Big Cat]

Is it just me or did the Oakland defense play better than expected?

 

For the last 2-3 seasons, the Oakland D has been (surprisingly) tough, and has even been statistically impressive, despite the team's lack of success.

 

In post-game interviews Trent did admit that they brought more pressure than the Bills game-planned for.

[BuffOrange]

For the last 2-3 seasons, the Oakland D has been (surprisingly) tough, and has even been statistically impressive, despite the team's lack of success.

 

In post-game interviews Trent did admit that they brought more pressure than the Bills game-planned for.

 

IIRC they were very good defensively 2 years ago (despite a hideous offense) but sucked last year. Not sure what to think of them this year - the Charger game should tell us something.

[Peter]

I do not know if this has been posted, but Inside the NFL was gushing about the Bills this week. Both Collinsworth and Cowher had the Bills as a top 5 team.

[The Big Cat]

I do not know if this has been posted, but Inside the NFL was gushing about the Bills this week. Both Collinsworth and Cowher had the Bills as a top 5 team.

 

It has been posted. But thanks for posting it HERE, where it's completely relevant!

[Dante]

So in that aspect, this game was analogous to the Dallas game. One thing I DIDN'T mention in my original post: Oakland's special teams were wholly responsible for their first three scores. Thank God they had to settle for field goals. (props, D)

? Sounds rude! Somehow a word featuring "anal" fits Dallas perfectly.

[The Big Cat]

? Sounds rude! Somehow a word featuring "anal" fits Dallas perfectly.

 

It's a tight fit, actually. Requires some cramming.

[Rock'em Sock'em]

Truth is that many pundits don't see the games. I heard Marshall Faulk mock our 3-0 record, saying we've played nobody. I'm not sure when the Jags are considered "nobody."

 

I'd be a little worried if I thought the bills were only winning because of our so-called easy schedule. But looking at this team, I'm confident we could play with and beat any team in the NFL.

 

Taking aside games against the Bills, our opponents are each 1-1. So based on records alone, I'd say our opponents are average (with Jacksonville having the highest quality win against the Colts.) Go Bills!

[jarthur31]

It's all about perspective, folks. Last year we were a couple lucky breaks from 10-6, just like we were a couple lucky breaks from 4-12. After the Dallas game last year, the national media slipped into their ball-washing gloves and lauded the Cowboys for being a team good enough to overcome 5 turnovers and win a close one on the road. We overcome 4 very very costly turnovers to the Raiders, and suddenly there's a question mark next to our record. (even though the official box score says 3, I count 4)

 

The Bills haven't beaten a healthy team, and they almost lost to the Raiders, OH MY! But, if you were to take the perspective the national media adopted after the MNF meltdown, you'd have to acknowledge two things: 1.) turnovers can DRASTICALLY change the course of any game and 2.) it aint over till it's over- when there's 0:00 left on the clock, the better team on that day will be victorious, no matter WHAT happened during the preceeding 60 minutes.

 

Having said all that, let's look at two of the turnovers that had an enormous impact on the closeness of last week's game.

 

Turnover number 1: Lee Evans fumble at the end of the first half. This was a turnover that cost the bills at least 3 points. Had Evans gotten out of bounds, the Bills would have had an opportunity to run one more play, getting inside Lindel's failproof 40 yard range, they could have used their last time out to get the kick away and the score at halftime would have been 10-9 Buffalo. Not to mention, failed field goal attempts/chances always seem to leer their ugly heads in any game decided by less than 3 points.

 

Turnover number 2: The "interception." Not only does this botched call tick me off because Trent should still have 0 int's on the year, but it also setup the Raiders' first touchdown on the day. Having JUST gotten off the field, the defense came back in, gave up two straight 6 yard runs that setup the JRussel sneak. It gave the Raiders an opportunity to take the 16-7 lead that the held until late in the fourth quarter. The worse-case scenario of that drive is that the Bills end up punting one away, and if you go by the stats of the game (Oakland didn't score once when starting a drive in their own territory (exept the 84 yard fluke)- then this a monumental swing in the game- you could even calculate this as a 14 point swing (assuming the Bills end the drive with a TD of their own), and when you add the 3 points we SHOULD have gotten to end the half, we're looking at a 8 point lead and not a 9 point deficit.

 

The reason for presenting all these "what-if's" is because I think a lot of folks are looking at this game and how "close" it was and it's stirring fear for the game against St. Louis. Now, I'll be the first person to tell you that stats don't tell the whole story, but if you look at the numbers in this game, Buffalo DID dominate. The Raiders couldn't do ANYTHING on offense, but because of some costly and timely turnovers, and one very very questionable call, they were able to hang around in this one.

 

I don't see Buffalo catching bad breaks like these two weeks in a row, and travel "fatigue" aside, I don't know how hostile of a road environment this will be facing the WORST team in the league. My opinion is, when you look at the big picture, Buffalo did, in fact, outplay the Raiders, they were the better team, and they got the W accordingly. None of the un-inflicted shortcomings of this team (youth, Roscoe's injury, inconsistent performance from the offense) could possibly add up to a Rams win on Sunday. That would require a host of turnovers, and a serious stroke of bad luck. I don't see it happening.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said there. What I don't understand is why Lee didn't protest that INT and Jauron not challenging.

[SactoBillFan]

It appeared to me that the faiders actually came to play. Their defense played well I thought, Edwards was under pressure a lot. Our running game wasn't exactly dominating (albeit near the endzone). Turnovers kept the faiders in the game. I'm happy with the outcome espescially living in NoCal. Lambs next, no brainfarts hopefully.