Folks, it's PRESEASON

[Reddy Freddy]

and what are you going to say when they look exactly the same when the regular season starts?

 

At that time, I will say two words, three syllables:

 

"Fire Jauron."

[Reddy Freddy]

I could sip your kool-aid if I had not seen these Dick Jauron Bills (and Bears) for so many years. There simply is no reason to be optimistic. I look and I don't see it (hope that is). Not even T.O. can save this team (especially the defense).

 

Yikes. This from a guy named "KeepTheFaith." Not a good sign. Haha

[BuffaloBill]

Starting offense needs all the starters.( T.O., the best scoring machine in the NFL)

 

 

So your analysis shows if TO is hurt and can't play then the Bills are in trouble? He can also only be a scoring machine if his QB can read freaking coverage and throw him the ball.

 

So far against 3-4 defenses TE has proven to be a deer in headlights. Almost makes you wonder if teams that run a base 4-3 should switch to a 3-4 the week they play the Bills - might be the easiest W they get all season.

[Reddy Freddy]

Exactly right, winning preseason games is irrelevant, they are usually settled by a future truck driver scoring

on a third stringer. Its all about evaluating the guys who are going to play regular season and so far

not good.

 

I would argue that how a player or unit looks in preseason has almost zero correlation to how they will look in the regular season. I'm not just saying wins in the preseason don't translate to wins in the regular season. I'm saying virtually everything you see before Sept 14 should be taken with a grain of salt. I remember Rob Johnson looking great in the pre-season.

[Gale Gilbert]

Preseason affirms or refutes hopes and doubts about a team. Before it started, I was hoping that the Bills would perform well in week 1. I doubted that it would happen.

 

So far, hope refuted, doubt affirmed.

 

I don't care about 2nd half performance in these games. I am watching the first string compete against the opposing first string. Anything else is misleading.

 

If they play well in week 1, I'll feel better about the team. But until then, why should I think otherwise? (It's not rhetorical - please tell me why I should think otherwise)

[eball]

By then, the Pats should have a comfortable 28-0 lead...

We're going to hold them to 28??? Sweet!

[Fan in Chicago]

I would argue that how a player or unit looks in preseason has almost zero correlation to how they will look in the regular season. I'm not just saying wins in the preseason don't translate to wins in the regular season. I'm saying virtually everything you see before Sept 14 should be taken with a grain of salt. I remember Rob Johnson looking great in the pre-season.

You really think so ? I agree that as a team, there is little to no correlation between preseason & regular season records. But for players it is quite different. The training camp and preseason games allow coaches to evaluate players. If they really suck in preseason, they will be bumped down on the depth chart. I think the preseason games are a great chance for players to show what they can do individually. While we may not scheme on offense and defense, that does not stop, say, a WR from getting open consistently or making some tough grabs. For a QB, especially TE, this would be the time to try out the medium to long passes and work on his timing and accuracy for bombs. We cannot take the example of one Rob Johnson and expect an extrapolation to a majority of other players.

[DrFishfinder]

I know this has been said before, but I think it bears repeating:

 

PRESEASON PERFORMANCE HAS ALMOST ZERO CORRELATION TO REGULAR SEASON PERFORMANCE.

 

There are many reasons this is true, and they have been discussed at length already. Some teams run vanilla schemes, don't gameplan, experiment with personnel groupings, and care more about evaluating and staying healthy than winning.

 

Just as often as a team like the Steelers goes 5-0 in the preseason and then wins the Super Bowl, as I believe was the case last year, another team will turn in a 1-3 preseason and then make a deep playoff run. And the reverse is true; often teams with the best preseason records have the worst regular season records.

 

And it's not just about wins and losses in the preseason. Even when starting unites look dreadful in preseason games, there is almost zero evidence that shows that is what they will look like in the regular season. And we all know about pre-season gems who flop when the games really count.

 

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about this year's Bills team. I am simply saying the source of our concern should be the last three year's 7-9 records, not some poor performances in a couple pre-season games this year.

 

In short, withhold your doomsday predictions at least until halftime on Sept 14!

The starting offense and defense has looked bad in preseason. Every sports writer has said as much. Perhaps the starters are being kept under wraps on purpose, but I doubt it. If we see the same performance in the first 4 games of the season, we'll know it wasn't "just preseason".

[Reddy Freddy]

You really think so ? I agree that as a team, there is little to no correlation between preseason & regular season records. But for players it is quite different. The training camp and preseason games allow coaches to evaluate players. If they really suck in preseason, they will be bumped down on the depth chart. I think the preseason games are a great chance for players to show what they can do individually. While we may not scheme on offense and defense, that does not stop, say, a WR from getting open consistently or making some tough grabs. For a QB, especially TE, this would be the time to try out the medium to long passes and work on his timing and accuracy for bombs. We cannot take the example of one Rob Johnson and expect an extrapolation to a majority of other players.

 

You make a good point. I guess I would say that you can evaluate individual players better than you can entire units. For example, Stupar has looked great in preseason. It should be an encouraging sign that he might have a future in the league.

 

But I'm not going to push the panic button because the first-team offense has looked like crap.

 

There are 2 rookie o-linemen getting their very first live game action in the NFL. Against GB, a very raw D Bell was randomly inserted with the first teamers at left tackle to get a look at how he'd do against starters -- an experiment that never would have happened in the regular season. We are for the first time exclusively operating out of the no huddle -- a new scheme that we may or may not use as much in the regular season. We have been without TO, even though in the regular season he would probably be playing. We are almost certainly keeping things vanilla on offense. The list goes on and on.

 

In other words, the game conditions in preseason are so dramatically different than they would be in the regular season that it is impossible to draw significant conclusions about teams.

 

I know it sounds like I'm being an apologist, but that's not my intention. I think we have serious problems. I'm simply saying my concerns have nothing to do with how we've played in a couple preseason games.

[vincec]

We're going to hold them to 28??? Sweet!

That's at halftime...

[Kettle Creek Football]

Not to worry, if the Bills play well this weekend, most will be hyping all over again.

Don't forget, the Bills starters looked good vs the Steelers starters last year in preseason. Robert Royal looked like Antonio Gates... but we all know what happened.