historic problem with bills

[trapezeus]

ever since i was a kid, the bills have lost to weak teams and play down to weaker teams. And they get amped up and give the big dogs a fight for their money. This statement is said on average. there are certainly games where we destroyed weak teams, i'm looking at the 05 bills.

i'm not sure if there is any talking point to this. it's just annoying that we should light up the jets, bengals and miami, and we'll probably win with fieldgoals or even lose one of those games.

but the patriots, i really believe, this team is going to give them a run for their money.

[Mad Bomber]

Re: historic problem with bills

The Bills have a history of playing to the level of their opponents. that has resulted in some really exciting games and some ugly games.

As for giving NE a run for their money, I don't think we'll be in that game. Their passing offense is too good, and our offense has had major problems scoring. You have to score a LOT to beat the Pats.

Hey, we held them to 38 points in their house (which actually isn't so bad in retrospect).

[Wys Guy]

Re: historic problem with bills

ever since i was a kid, the bills have lost to weak teams and play down to weaker teams. And they get amped up and give the big dogs a fight for their money. This statement is said on average. there are certainly games where we destroyed weak teams, i'm looking at the 05 bills.

i'm not sure if there is any talking point to this. it's just annoying that we should light up the jets, bengals and miami, and we'll probably win with fieldgoals or even lose one of those games.

but the patriots, i really believe, this team is going to give them a run for their money.

See, here's the rub with that. That's pretty normal for most teams. If you ask fans around the league you'll find similar sentiments from them on their teams.

Regardless, here's why we suck. We beat a bunch of teams on unlikely things comprised, not of solid fundamental traits of a team, but rather on "happenstance" things that cannot either be relied upon on a weekly basis or cannot be readily reproduced from a performance perspective each week.

Ergo, we build a slate of wins, and the organization/franchise/team uses that to justify the direction(s) that they're going in and the methodologies applied, when those are not producing solid fundamental football. They're aided by fans the like of some here that no matter what happens a win is a win even if the team tripped down the stairs and broke both its hips and collarbone in the fall in the process of backing into it.

Hasn't anyone noticed that "a loss is never a loss" in the same way with those same people? I mean if a win is a win, they how come all of the close games come with a litany of excuses and reasons as to why we should have won, when it's really the same thing reversed. We shouldn't have won the Ravens game and didn't. Well, we also shouldn't have beaten the Cowboys and also didn't.

Then in the offseason come all of the shallow analyses (we lost four games by three points or less) while ignoring the fact that that was about as fortunate an outcome that could possibly happen given the way we played those games instead of saying, as I do in my analyses, "yeah, but we really didn't deserve to even have the game be that close much less win it," while then simultaneously acknowledging that we stunk the joint up from a fundamental perspective and seeking to correct what's wrong instead of grasping at whatever shallow "positive" talking points I can gather merely giving me more steam to do more of what hasn't worked to date to build a fundamentally sound team.

If the team actually took the approach that I did then they'd certainly have made progress. In short, I continuously evaluate the areas in which we suck and seek to correct those regardless of how good I thought we were. The team on the other hand plays up the few little things that we do well and milks y'all, the fans, for every cent they can get from that. Then they begin tinkering with secondary if not tertiary things that really don't address the primary issues with the team that they are entrusted with managing and improving.

Then the process completely repeats itself with us "plugging and playing" varying permutations hoping that, given all that, we just happen to connect on the right combination of unlikely happenstance occurrences that handed Jauron his only winning season in '01 before having the luster come off of his "production" in spades in their only playoff game being completely exposed as pretenders.

Then we blame the coaches, and rightly so, or GM, and rightly so, before moving on and repeating the process because Wilson doesn't have a clue whom to select, or at least what kind of thinker, as a GM or HC.

[trapezeus]

Re: historic problem with bills

nice comment on "loss is a loss". you never hear that. that's pretty astute and funny.

I feel like even with bills teams in the 90's they'd lose to the colts once a year. and the colts sucked! and they'd dance with the 49ers in San Fran. So it's mind boggling.

Currently, yes, we have a weak team. but it seems like other than the colts and patritots, everyone is beatable. if you wanted other teams with the same passion as the bills, you'd see during the game that there are things that team should do better. but when you read about those teams on yahoo, reporters never go into the same depth.

Personally, i feel likeif the bills can have one break out performance in the next two weeks, then you can say, this team is building and going somehwere. if not, then its just cause we get the breaks in our wins.

[Historian]

Re: historic problem with bills

We were 13-3 in 1991.

The Patriots were 6-10.

One win was a 16-13 upset of Buffalo.

In 1980, we finish 11-5.

We would have been 13-3 if we hadn't lost to the hapless Colts twice.

Your point is well taken.

[OpIv37]

Re: historic problem with bills

ever since i was a kid, the bills have lost to weak teams and play down to weaker teams. And they get amped up and give the big dogs a fight for their money. This statement is said on average. there are certainly games where we destroyed weak teams, i'm looking at the 05 bills.

i'm not sure if there is any talking point to this. it's just annoying that we should light up the jets, bengals and miami, and we'll probably win with fieldgoals or even lose one of those games.

but the patriots, i really believe, this team is going to give them a run for their money.

we won't be in the Pats game. They will destroy us. If we hold them to 31, that will be a minor miracle. Most teams play to the level of competition, but for some reason, the Patriots are immune to things like that, they're immune to being affected by injuries, they're immune to off-the-field distractions, etc. Things that would destroy any other team in the league just make them better, and it's infuriating that they're the "chosen" team.

[Mitchy moo]

Re: historic problem with bills

we won't be in the Pats game. They will destroy us. If we hold them to 31, that will be a minor miracle. Most teams play to the level of competition, but for some reason, the Patriots are immune to things like that, they're immune to being affected by injuries, they're immune to off-the-field distractions, etc. Things that would destroy any other team in the league just make them better, and it's infuriating that they're the "chosen" team.

They all drink the blood of Bruschi, buncha vampires.