You know what made this past season so hard, besides the 15 injuries??

[Mitchy moo]

Our schedule:

2007 opponents:
Home: Bengals, Cowboys, Dolphins, Giants, Jets, Patriots, Ravens, Broncos
Away: Browns, Dolphins, Eagles, Jets, Patriots, Redskins, Steelers, Jaguars

Look at this nightmare, almost half of the game we're played against teams making the playoffs & 3 games against the #1 seeds in each conference. 2 of the teams we played are of 4 left that have a chance of winning it all.

[TacklingDummy]

The only team we beat who finished with a winning record is when Trent led us to a win against the Redskins.

The Bills record is inflated by beating terrible teams like Miami, Jets, and Ravens.

[DMBcrew36]

The only team we beat who finished with a winning record is when Trent led us to a win against the Redskins.

The Bills record is inflated by beating terrible teams like Miami, Jets, and Ravens.

This is true. But you could then say that every team has an inflated record. Everyone plays poor teams and has mediochre teams in their division.

Having watched every game, I would say that 7-9 is fair.

[yordad]

You add up the wins and losses for every team we played. Then you can figure win %. It is just above .500. No biggy.

[TacklingDummy]

This is true. But you could then say that every team has an inflated record. Everyone plays poor teams and has mediochre teams in their division.

Having watched every game, I would say that 7-9 is fair.



Agreed, but good teams also have victories against other teams that were good. 7-9 is fair. We should have been 9-7. Injuries, last minute FGs, ineffective offense, poor pass rush, poor run stopping cost us a couple of games.

Buffalo beat a Washington team who just went through the Taylor tragedy.

[Mr. Miyagi]

The AFC East definitely has one of the toughest schedules this year. Yes the Patriots went 16-0 but dude they're in a league of their own. There's no wonder the Dolphins and the Jets combined 5-32. We actually did well by winning 7 games.

[Mitchy moo]

The AFC East definitely has one of the toughest schedules this year. Yes the Patriots went 16-0 but dude they're in a league of their own. There's no wonder the Dolphins and the Jets combined 5-32. We actually did well by winning 7 games.

With alot easier schedule, next year looks even better.

[mybills]

besides the 15 injuries??

musical qb's & ******ed coaching.

[Typ0]

we were more like a 4 - 12 team with really good coaching that kept us in games and won.

[DMBcrew36]

we were more like a 4 - 12 team with really good coaching that kept us in games and won.

That's a very interesting thought. Jauron does have the ability to keep the Bills in games through his coaching and conservatism. I think the playcalling on offense sometimes hindered the Bills with conservatism, too, though.

I guess they could have been 4-12. They may have also been 9-7 with a bounce or two the other way. So 7-9 seems right to me with a law of averages.

[OpIv37]

Our schedule:

2007 opponents:
Home: Bengals, Cowboys, Dolphins, Giants, Jets, Patriots, Ravens, Broncos
Away: Browns, Dolphins, Eagles, Jets, Patriots, Redskins, Steelers, Jaguars

Look at this nightmare, almost half of the game we're played against teams making the playoffs & 3 games against the #1 seeds in each conference. 2 of the teams we played are of 4 left that have a chance of winning it all.

you completely left out the 5 games against the 1-15 Dolphins, the 4-12 Jets, and the 5-11 Ravens (that finished 1-10).

In the end, there are teams on either end skewing the results and it evens out.

Oh, btw, we beat exactly ONE of those playoff teams- the Skins- and we only did it because they had about the most stressful week in the history of pro football leading up to the game.

[Nighthawk]

The cold, hard fact is that this team isn't good enough, nor is the coaching good enough.

[DMBcrew36]

The cold, hard fact is that this team isn't good enough, nor is the coaching good enough.

Nope. Not even close, except in special teams. At least we have one positive area of play.

[Devin]

You can point to beating the loosing teams but thats a catch 22 with bills fans. We suck cause we only beat bad teams, but wed suck even more if we didnt. In large part we beat the teams we should have. Simple as that.

Say what you will, we beat the skins. Circumstance or not.

We beat the teams we should have and as TD said are a few plays from 9-7.

This team isnt a contender by any stretch, but for the most part they played above themselves. Whether that was a result of coaching or not can be argued. As it likely will all offseason.

[yordad]

The Bills won 7 games against teams that won 8.25 games on average. So.... basically, being just below average, while playing just above average teams = pretty average, IMO.

As average as they were though, they could have challenged for the NFC South and NFC West, and probably won either healthy. Especially with adequate offensive coaching.

[Jan Reimers]

Having to watch it?

[djjimkelly]

The only team we beat who finished with a winning record is when Trent led us to a win against the Redskins.

The Bills record is inflated by beating terrible teams like Miami, Jets, and Ravens.


i posted this a few times over last 2 months.

i think if u replaced the jets and phins on our sched with just 2 other bottom feeders from league we might have been a 4-5 win team.

we wont be much better next year either.

[jamze132]

we were more like a 4 - 12 team with really good coaching that kept us in games and won.
I don't we won any game this by outcoaching the opposition. And that isn't necessarily a knock on Jauron, but more on Fairchild and his inept 32 game, 2 season career as the OC.

[justasportsfan]

You know what made this past season so hard, besides the 15 injuries??
Fairchild .

The other stuff you pointed out are excuses.

[Spiderweb]

The Bills won 7 games against teams that won 8.25 games on average. So.... basically, being just below average, while playing just above average teams = pretty average, IMO.

As average as they were though, they could have challenged for the NFC South and NFC West, and probably won either healthy. Especially with adequate offensive coaching.

Exactly. It all begins with wins against teams that should be beaten, then build on it.

[X-Era]

The only team we beat who finished with a winning record is when Trent led us to a win against the Redskins.

The Bills record is inflated by beating terrible teams like Miami, Jets, and Ravens.

Does that mean the Pats record is inflated too? I have no problem taking 6 wins away from them for beating us, the fins, and Jets.

For some odd reason it makes me feel better.

[Typ0]

I don't we won any game this by outcoaching the opposition. And that isn't necessarily a knock on Jauron, but more on Fairchild and his inept 32 game, 2 season career as the OC.

2/3 of which time he was working with a QB who could only close his eyes and huck the ball as far as he could downfield and hope his guy catches it.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

i posted this a few times over last 2 months.

i think if u replaced the jets and phins on our sched with just 2 other bottom feeders from league we might have been a 4-5 win team.

we wont be much better next year either.

I disagree about next year. See my comments below for why I do.


you completely left out the 5 games against the 1-15 Dolphins, the 4-12 Jets, and the 5-11 Ravens (that finished 1-10).

In the end, there are teams on either end skewing the results and it evens out.

Oh, btw, we beat exactly ONE of those playoff teams- the Skins- and we only did it because they had about the most stressful week in the history of pro football leading up to the game.

What are you and all of the others who keep making this point going to say next season?

Let me accept your premise for a moment and say that the Bills suck and have the 11th pick in the first round of the up-coming draft because there were only 10 teams in the league that were worse than them. (Are you guys happy now?)

Then, consider this: while the Bills played 9 games against teams with .500 record or better this season and two more against 7-9 teams, losing one of those by just a point; next season the Bills will 8 games against teams picking ahead of them in the draft on the basis of having worse records than the Bills this season and a total of 10 games against teams that were .500 or worse this season.

As for the better teams on the Bills schedule next season, 4 games are against teams that they played this season (NE, Jax, Cleveland), while 11 win SD and 10 Seattle replace 13 win Dallas, 10 win Pittsburgh and 10 win NY Giants.

If the Bills just beat the teams that they are supposed to beat, ie the teams that are .500 or worse next season, they will win 10 games. If that were to happen and be sufficient to net the team a spot in the playoffs, are you going to complain that the team doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs because they didn't beat any team with a better than .500 record? If so, then, why not advocate that they turn down the playoff spot because they aren't really worthy of it?

Now, I'm not saying that, were that scenario to take place, the team would be a serious playoff contender (on the contrary, there are certain criteria that I think the team needs to meet before I would consider them to be that). But, what I am saying is that the constant harping about the fact that the Bills didn't beat a team with better than a .500 record this season should be tempered by a more realistic appreciation of where the team was going into the season, talent-wise, what the expectations for such a team should be, what occurred during the season that should be seen as legitimately altering those expectations, and, then, judged against the overall level of play around the league.

I understand that that may be difficult to do when you've seen the Bills matching up with little success repeatedly against the top teams in the league the last two seasons (6 games against teams with at least 12 wins, including both SB finalists, in 2006; 4 games against teams with at least 11 wins and a 5th against a 10 win NY Giant team that is playing for the NFC Championship this weekend in 2007)--that's 11 games against vastly superior competition (not counting 3 additional games against other teams that won at least 10 games in the season that the Bills faced them) for a team that has been in the first two years of a virtually complete rebuilding process. While it is true that those 14 games (nearly half of the games that the Bills played during those 2 seasons) were against the quality of teams that we all want the Bills to become--and that they must become in order to contend for a SB title--expecting a team that is in the first or second year of rebuilding to beat teams of that quality is simply not realistic (an occasional upset is possible, but the Bills were lucky to even stay close to the likes of Indy, SD and Dallas) given the talent disparity between the Bills and those teams.

Those who would blame the Bills FO for the talent disparity between the Bills and the top teams in the NFL might want to consider the fact that, on WFAN's Mike and the Mag Dog Show today, Mike Francesa said that his friend, Bill Parcells told him that Miami, which finished ahead of the Bills at the end of the season just prior to M.Levy beginning to rebuild the Bills, is so devoid of talent that it may take four years to bring in enough talent to make that team ready to compete for a playoff berth. That's Bill Parcells, not some Bills flack, talking about a team that went into the offseason between the 2005 and 2006 seasons with more talent than the Bills and estimating how long it would take to make a team, with not much less talent than the Bills had after Levy's purges, competitive. Four years. With a proven talent evaluator like Parcells bringing in the talent. NOw, Parcells may make them competitive faster than that, but consider the fact that the Bills have just finished the second year of their rebuilding process (during which the team suffered a rash of injuries that may well have set their progress back).

Could the Bills have done better this season. Probably. Does the team still have weaknesses that need to be addressed and areas that need significant improvement. No doubt. But, a win is a win is a win. And, the Bills beat the teams that they were supposed to beat (if you accept that they were talented enough to beat those teams) often enough to win 7 games. Under the circumstances, that was pretty good.

Do they need to get better and do more next season. Unquestionably. The up-coming season will be a critical one in the development and maturation of this team and will indicate a lot about its future potential under its current leadership. IMHO a fair assessment of the progress of the rebuilding process initiated by M.Levy following the 2005 season won't really be possible until after this up-coming season, when it should become apparent whether this team will be capable of starting to step up to the next level (which means continuing to beat the teams it should beat and starting to beat some of those 8-10 win teams and/or maybe pulling off a big upset or two).

[Typ0]

What are you and all of the others who keep making this point going to say next season?




I can take a pretty good guess what they are going to say. "great we are in the playoffs, it's about time". And they are going to be completely ignorant of the fact that we have the same crappy team. At least for this fan, it's about striving to get to the top not get some wins and get to the playoffs. I'd rather have ten years of hell and win one than suffer perpetual mediocrity. We aren't going anywhere with RW alive. It really hurts me to be that way with someone's life but the Bills pump blood through WNY and RW is Leukemia.

[OpIv37]

I disagree about next year. See my comments below for why I do.



What are you and all of the others who keep making this point going to say next season?

Let me accept your premise for a moment and say that the Bills suck and have the 11th pick in the first round of the up-coming draft because there were only 10 teams in the league that were worse than them. (Are you guys happy now?)

Then, consider this: while the Bills played 9 games against teams with .500 record or better this season and two more against 7-9 teams, losing one of those by just a point; next season the Bills will 8 games against teams picking ahead of them in the draft on the basis of having worse records than the Bills this season and a total of 10 games against teams that were .500 or worse this season.

As for the better teams on the Bills schedule next season, 4 games are against teams that they played this season (NE, Jax, Cleveland), while 11 win SD and 10 Seattle replace 13 win Dallas, 10 win Pittsburgh and 10 win NY Giants.

If the Bills just beat the teams that they are supposed to beat, ie the teams that are .500 or worse next season, they will win 10 games. If that were to happen and be sufficient to net the team a spot in the playoffs, are you going to complain that the team doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs because they didn't beat any team with a better than .500 record? If so, then, why not advocate that they turn down the playoff spot because they aren't really worthy of it?



if they get in, they deserve to get in. But if they only win 10 games against sub-.500 opponents, they're going to lose in the first round because they're still behind the teams they need to beat to get ahead.

At some point, we have to be able to beat good teams. This team hasn't been able to do that since Kelly retired.

Making the playoffs would be a good start, even with an early exit. But beating crap teams and losing to good ones is not a sustainable situation. It won't even get us in the playoffs 95% of the time.

Your problem is your approach- you see it as people *****ing about wins because they weren't over good teams. It's really people *****ing about us still being mediocre, and it's a legitimate *****. I'm not satisfied with beating up on a bunch of 4 and 5 win teams and losing to .500+ teams year in and year out.

[Mitchy moo]

if they get in, they deserve to get in. But if they only win 10 games against sub-.500 opponents, they're going to lose in the first round because they're still behind the teams they need to beat to get ahead.

At some point, we have to be able to beat good teams. This team hasn't been able to do that since Kelly retired.

Making the playoffs would be a good start, even with an early exit. But beating crap teams and losing to good ones is not a sustainable situation. It won't even get us in the playoffs 95% of the time.

Your problem is your approach- you see it as people *****ing about wins because they weren't over good teams. It's really people *****ing about us still being mediocre, and it's a legitimate *****. I'm not satisfied with beating up on a bunch of 4 and 5 win teams and losing to .500+ teams year in and year out.

step 1.) make playoffs.

[HHURRICANE]

step 1.) make playoffs.

We need to beat some good teams to make the playoffs.

[jamze132]

I'm not satisfied with beating up on a bunch of 4 and 5 win teams and losing to .500+ teams year in and year out.
I don't know man, my self esteem gets a real big boost when I own the paint against a bunch of 5th graders...

[BillsFever21]

Well if only we could play EVERY bad team in the NFL we might have made the playoffs. Get real now. This schedule was fairly easy.

Seven of the 16 games against playoff teams isn't that much. What about the other 9 games? We played some of the WORSE teams in the league. Jets and Dolphins twice, Ravens who only won ONE game in the final 2.5 months. Other losing teams we played we ended up playing them at their worst point in the season like the Bengals.

I'm sure there are a lot of teams that wish they only had to play 7 games against playoff teams with the Patriots inflating the stat. Outside of the Patriot games which were guranteed losses for everyone we only played 5 more games against playoff teams the other 14 of them.

[LtFinFan66]

The Bills won 7 games against teams that won 8.25 games on average. So.... basically, being just below average, while playing just above average teams = pretty average, IMO.

As average as they were though, they could have challenged for the NFC South and NFC West, and probably won either healthy. Especially with adequate offensive coaching.Where did you get this number from? I added up the number of wins combined of the 7 teams you beat and came up with 4.42 avg. wins per team:idunno:

[LifetimeBillsFan]

if they get in, they deserve to get in. But if they only win 10 games against sub-.500 opponents, they're going to lose in the first round because they're still behind the teams they need to beat to get ahead.

At some point, we have to be able to beat good teams. This team hasn't been able to do that since Kelly retired.

Making the playoffs would be a good start, even with an early exit. But beating crap teams and losing to good ones is not a sustainable situation. It won't even get us in the playoffs 95% of the time.

Your problem is your approach- you see it as people *****ing about wins because they weren't over good teams. It's really people *****ing about us still being mediocre, and it's a legitimate *****. I'm not satisfied with beating up on a bunch of 4 and 5 win teams and losing to .500+ teams year in and year out.

You're right, OP: it is not a sustainable situation and, going forward, the Bills are going to have to start beating some good teams. That is a must if they are ultimately going to be what I have often refered to a "serious playoff contenders" (IMHO just making the playoffs is at best a first step, being a "serious playoff contender" means being a team capable of getting to and perhaps even winning a SB title--which is what I believe we all want the Bills to be able to do).

I don't disagree with you about the fact that the Bills are a mediocre team at this stage: that is IMHO quite true. Where we differ is in how we view the context in which that mediocrity exists.

Where you and others will point--with absolute veracity--to the fact that the Bills have not made the playoffs in 8 years and have not won a big game since the Kelly-era, I break that time period into segments based primarily on coaching and management of the team but also including other factors: for example, I look at the mid-90s as the decline of the SB teams; the Butler-Smith-Phillips era as an aborted attempt to rebuild and regain that level of play; the Donahoe era (although I actually break that into two parts); and the Levy-Jauron era. Where you look at that period as a whole, I see the previous eras as being over and focus my attentions on the current regime at OBD and what is happening in the current era (my view being that the past is past and cannot be changed, the present and future are what count).

Where we may also differ is on how bad things were at the end of the 2005 season and when M.Levy took over. Some may see that season, with its 5-11 finish, as being just a continuation of the mediocrity. I see it as something far worse: despite the 5 wins, I see a team riven with dissention hitting bottom as it collapsed internally.

As a result--and I believe that a look at the Bills' roster will support this--I see the Bills as having launched into a complete rebuilding--from the bottom up and the top down--upon Levy taking over the GM's job. A lot of people may not see it the way I do because the Bills did not have a typical 1-4 win first rebuilding season in 2006 (T.Donahoe's rebuilding job netted 3 wins the first year, Oakland, SF, Cleveland, Miami and St.Louis have suffered similar fates recently), but there has been a virtually complete turnover of the way the front office does business, the coaching staff and the roster since the end of 2005 with very few holdovers (and fewer still remaining by the start of the 2008 season, I'll bet).

While some may see the Bills' 7-9 records in 2006 and 2007 as just a continuation of the mediocrity, I see it as quite an achievement: historically there simply haven't been many teams that have been able to even be mediocre while rebuilding and completely turning over their roster. Also, while some people feel that the Bills young players are pros and should play like pros because they are being paid like pros--and that is an understandable sentiment coming from those who are paying their salaries. However, having played on some very good teams and some very bad teams; some experienced teams; some healthy teams, some very young teams, and one that was ravaged by injuries, I have a little different perspective. I know that young players make mistakes that cost teams games, so I'm a little more tolerant and patient with the mistakes that I see young players make than I would be if those same mistakes were being made by talented veterans. Similarly, I also know that young teams have to learn how to win and that it can take a little time for a young team to learn how to win, especially how to win big games.

For that reason, I am more impressed by the fact that, with the exception of their one point loss on Opening Day, the Bills, in their second rebuilding season, beat all of the teams that they were supposed to beat in 2007 than I would have been if they had pulled a big upset against one of the top teams in the league and lost 2-3 games to teams that they should not have lost to (as they did in losing to Detroit in 2006). For a team that is trying to rebuild and move up, beating a top team doesn't mean a thing (oh, maybe it gives the fans some bragging rights of a sort) in the long run if it doesn't take care of business against the teams it needs to pass first on its way back to the top (if my memory serves me correctly, the Bills beat the Jets the year they won SB III and Oakland a couple of years later when they won the SB as they were on their way to dismal seasons--big deal--it didn't make the Bills a good team that year or the year after).

As I see it, the Bills did better than they should have been expected to in 2006 and about what they should have done in 2007 (better when you consider the close losses to Denver and Dallas and all of the injuries) in the first two years of this rebuilding process that M.Levy ushered in. Could they have done better this past season? Perhaps. But, "woulda/coulda/shoulda" means nothing after the fact so long as the team, coaches and players learn from their mistakes. What matters in my estimation is that they did what they were supposed to do and what they should reasonably have been expected to do to indicate that this rebuilding process is moving in the right direction.

Now, here's where I agree with you--and apparently Jauron and Schonert based on their recent comments--the 2008 season is critical: the Bills have to do better next season.

As I pointed out, the Bills potentially could win enough games to make the playoffs next season simply by beating those teams on their schedule that had a worse or only marginally better record than they did this season. Making the playoffs would be nice, but, as I have repeatedly pointed out and you stated above, merely making the playoffs would not necessarily make them a good team or a "serious playoff contender". While it might be good for the Bills' young players to get a taste of playoff competition (most teams need to lose first in the playoffs before they can start to win and make a run at a title) and would boost their self-confidence, as you, rightfully, point out, the Bills need to meet other benchmarks before they can be considered a good team and a "serious playoff contender".

There's no question that "you have to beat the best to be the best". And, that is something that, if this rebuilding process is going to ultimately be successful, the Bills are going to have to do. IMHO that was not something that they were ready to do in 2007, especially with all of the injuries and less than average QB play. However, it is something that they are going to have to at least begin to show that they are beginning to learn how to do and have the capacity to do starting next season.

I don't think that the Bills have to beat the Pats (if they are essentially constituted the way they are now) or even play them really close to do that, but they should show that they can get a win or two against the likes of Cleveland, Seattle and/or pull off an upset against Jacksonville, Indy or SD. To me, that would show me that they are continuing to mature and make progress towards being a "serious playoff contender".

But, I am not going to beat this year's team up for not doing that this season. This was a team that achieved pretty well as much as it was capable of achieving--maybe less than it could have, but certainly more than a lot of people, around the NFL and observers, thought that they could or reasonably expected.

I know the history of the team and I understand your frustration. But, where you see what the team did this season as just a continuation of the franchise's recent history of mediocrity, I see it as having made the proper and necessary step in a reasonable progression from the disastrous, rock-bottom state that the team was in at the end of the 2005 season towards respectability and the goal of becoming a "serious playoff contender".

Now, we will see if the team can make the next step in that progression in 2008. I am not going to judge whether it will or it won't until I see what it does on the field in the fall. But, believe me, I will be looking to see--and expecting--the team to continue making progress towards becoming a "serious playoff contender" next season (I don't expect them to be "serious playoff contenders in 2008, just show that they are on the verge of becoming one--I will also be looking to see if Jauron can show that he is capable of taking the team to that next level as well).

Accepting mediocrity is not the issue. I want the Bills to win as much as any Bills fan, but I don't just want them to win, I want them to become a team that can and will win a Super Bowl title (while I am still going to be able to celebrate and enjoy it!!!). And, I see going from where they were at the end of the 2005 season to a Super Bowl title as something that isn't going to miraculously happen overnight, but as a process of development that has steps and benchmarks along the way that include, but are by no means limited to, the level of, yes, mediocrity that the team was able to achieve this season. However, that should--and must--be just a step in the process, not the end or goal of it and it will be up to the team to prove that to be the case next season by stepping up to the next level in process. And, that is something that I think we all are looking for.

[Bling]

Threads like this are lame. It is what it is.

[OpIv37]

You're right, OP: it is not a sustainable situation and, going forward, the Bills are going to have to start beating some good teams. That is a must if they are ultimately going to be what I have often refered to a "serious playoff contenders" (IMHO just making the playoffs is at best a first step, being a "serious playoff contender" means being a team capable of getting to and perhaps even winning a SB title--which is what I believe we all want the Bills to be able to do).

I don't disagree with you about the fact that the Bills are a mediocre team at this stage: that is IMHO quite true. Where we differ is in how we view the context in which that mediocrity exists.

Where you and others will point--with absolute veracity--to the fact that the Bills have not made the playoffs in 8 years and have not won a big game since the Kelly-era, I break that time period into segments based primarily on coaching and management of the team but also including other factors: for example, I look at the mid-90s as the decline of the SB teams; the Butler-Smith-Phillips era as an aborted attempt to rebuild and regain that level of play; the Donahoe era (although I actually break that into two parts); and the Levy-Jauron era. Where you look at that period as a whole, I see the previous eras as being over and focus my attentions on the current regime at OBD and what is happening in the current era (my view being that the past is past and cannot be changed, the present and future are what count).

Where we may also differ is on how bad things were at the end of the 2005 season and when M.Levy took over. Some may see that season, with its 5-11 finish, as being just a continuation of the mediocrity. I see it as something far worse: despite the 5 wins, I see a team riven with dissention hitting bottom as it collapsed internally.

As a result--and I believe that a look at the Bills' roster will support this--I see the Bills as having launched into a complete rebuilding--from the bottom up and the top down--upon Levy taking over the GM's job. A lot of people may not see it the way I do because the Bills did not have a typical 1-4 win first rebuilding season in 2006 (T.Donahoe's rebuilding job netted 3 wins the first year, Oakland, SF, Cleveland, Miami and St.Louis have suffered similar fates recently), but there has been a virtually complete turnover of the way the front office does business, the coaching staff and the roster since the end of 2005 with very few holdovers (and fewer still remaining by the start of the 2008 season, I'll bet).

While some may see the Bills' 7-9 records in 2006 and 2007 as just a continuation of the mediocrity, I see it as quite an achievement: historically there simply haven't been many teams that have been able to even be mediocre while rebuilding and completely turning over their roster. Also, while some people feel that the Bills young players are pros and should play like pros because they are being paid like pros--and that is an understandable sentiment coming from those who are paying their salaries. However, having played on some very good teams and some very bad teams; some experienced teams; some healthy teams, some very young teams, and one that was ravaged by injuries, I have a little different perspective. I know that young players make mistakes that cost teams games, so I'm a little more tolerant and patient with the mistakes that I see young players make than I would be if those same mistakes were being made by talented veterans. Similarly, I also know that young teams have to learn how to win and that it can take a little time for a young team to learn how to win, especially how to win big games.

For that reason, I am more impressed by the fact that, with the exception of their one point loss on Opening Day, the Bills, in their second rebuilding season, beat all of the teams that they were supposed to beat in 2007 than I would have been if they had pulled a big upset against one of the top teams in the league and lost 2-3 games to teams that they should not have lost to (as they did in losing to Detroit in 2006). For a team that is trying to rebuild and move up, beating a top team doesn't mean a thing (oh, maybe it gives the fans some bragging rights of a sort) in the long run if it doesn't take care of business against the teams it needs to pass first on its way back to the top (if my memory serves me correctly, the Bills beat the Jets the year they won SB III and Oakland a couple of years later when they won the SB as they were on their way to dismal seasons--big deal--it didn't make the Bills a good team that year or the year after).

As I see it, the Bills did better than they should have been expected to in 2006 and about what they should have done in 2007 (better when you consider the close losses to Denver and Dallas and all of the injuries) in the first two years of this rebuilding process that M.Levy ushered in. Could they have done better this past season? Perhaps. But, "woulda/coulda/shoulda" means nothing after the fact so long as the team, coaches and players learn from their mistakes. What matters in my estimation is that they did what they were supposed to do and what they should reasonably have been expected to do to indicate that this rebuilding process is moving in the right direction.

Now, here's where I agree with you--and apparently Jauron and Schonert based on their recent comments--the 2008 season is critical: the Bills have to do better next season.

As I pointed out, the Bills potentially could win enough games to make the playoffs next season simply by beating those teams on their schedule that had a worse or only marginally better record than they did this season. Making the playoffs would be nice, but, as I have repeatedly pointed out and you stated above, merely making the playoffs would not necessarily make them a good team or a "serious playoff contender". While it might be good for the Bills' young players to get a taste of playoff competition (most teams need to lose first in the playoffs before they can start to win and make a run at a title) and would boost their self-confidence, as you, rightfully, point out, the Bills need to meet other benchmarks before they can be considered a good team and a "serious playoff contender".

There's no question that "you have to beat the best to be the best". And, that is something that, if this rebuilding process is going to ultimately be successful, the Bills are going to have to do. IMHO that was not something that they were ready to do in 2007, especially with all of the injuries and less than average QB play. However, it is something that they are going to have to at least begin to show that they are beginning to learn how to do and have the capacity to do starting next season.

I don't think that the Bills have to beat the Pats (if they are essentially constituted the way they are now) or even play them really close to do that, but they should show that they can get a win or two against the likes of Cleveland, Seattle and/or pull off an upset against Jacksonville, Indy or SD. To me, that would show me that they are continuing to mature and make progress towards being a "serious playoff contender".

But, I am not going to beat this year's team up for not doing that this season. This was a team that achieved pretty well as much as it was capable of achieving--maybe less than it could have, but certainly more than a lot of people, around the NFL and observers, thought that they could or reasonably expected.

I know the history of the team and I understand your frustration. But, where you see what the team did this season as just a continuation of the franchise's recent history of mediocrity, I see it as having made the proper and necessary step in a reasonable progression from the disastrous, rock-bottom state that the team was in at the end of the 2005 season towards respectability and the goal of becoming a "serious playoff contender".

Now, we will see if the team can make the next step in that progression in 2008. I am not going to judge whether it will or it won't until I see what it does on the field in the fall. But, believe me, I will be looking to see--and expecting--the team to continue making progress towards becoming a "serious playoff contender" next season (I don't expect them to be "serious playoff contenders in 2008, just show that they are on the verge of becoming one--I will also be looking to see if Jauron can show that he is capable of taking the team to that next level as well).

Accepting mediocrity is not the issue. I want the Bills to win as much as any Bills fan, but I don't just want them to win, I want them to become a team that can and will win a Super Bowl title (while I am still going to be able to celebrate and enjoy it!!!). And, I see going from where they were at the end of the 2005 season to a Super Bowl title as something that isn't going to miraculously happen overnight, but as a process of development that has steps and benchmarks along the way that include, but are by no means limited to, the level of, yes, mediocrity that the team was able to achieve this season. However, that should--and must--be just a step in the process, not the end or goal of it and it will be up to the team to prove that to be the case next season by stepping up to the next level in process. And, that is something that I think we all are looking for.

Good post and I think we agree on a lot.

The one area where we differ: the 7-9 seasons. You make a solid case for the fact that given the circumstances, 7-9 is an accomplishment. The real problem is that those circumstances never should have occurred in the first place. The record books won't contain any asterisks next to the 7-9 that explain the turmoil, the injuries and the history that led to those circumstances. This is what I call "accepting mediocrity." The reality of the situation is that it wasn't easy to get to those records given the situation, but if you follow the causal chain back a few steps, the reality is that we never should have been in that situation in the first place.

But you are right- the past is the past and nothing can be done about it now. So, hopefully they're doing it right for the future. I like some of the youth on this team and I like the fact we're getting contributions from no-names, or guys who were no-names when they came in the league- like Peters and Fred Jackson. I like the fact that we're not overpaying any aging vets who don't perform (well, except Schobel and Kelsay) so we should be in good cap shape for the forseeable future.

I don't like the promotion from within. I don't like the lack of a GM. I don't like the way this team always settles for inexperienced, 2nd-rate coaches. So, we'll see what happens but I'm concerned that this team is dangerously close to repeating mistakes, and if they do that it will waste the talent in Levy and Jauron's youth movement and we'll be right back where we started in another 2-3 seasons.

[yordad]

The Bills won 7 games against teams that won 8.25 games on average. So.... basically, being just below average, while playing just above average teams = pretty average, IMO.

As average as they were though, they could have challenged for the NFC South and NFC West, and probably won either healthy. Especially with adequate offensive coaching.
Where did you get this number from? I added up the number of wins combined of the 7 teams you beat and came up with 4.42 avg. wins per team:idunno:I should have said , "The Bills won 7 out of 16 games against teams that won 8.25 games on average." I was counting all the teams played. Not just won. My bad.

[Losman4Life]

Our schedule:

2007 opponents:
Home: Bengals, Cowboys, Dolphins, Giants, Jets, Patriots, Ravens, Broncos
Away: Browns, Dolphins, Eagles, Jets, Patriots, Redskins, Steelers, Jaguars

Look at this nightmare, almost half of the game we're played against teams making the playoffs & 3 games against the #1 seeds in each conference. 2 of the teams we played are of 4 left that have a chance of winning it all.

It's a lame excuse, good teams win games no matter who is on their schedule. If JP would have been healthy and started all 16 games we might still be playing right now but instead the coaches decided to screw our franchise QB and throw away the season.

[OpIv37]

It's a lame excuse, good teams win games no matter who is on their schedule. If JP would have been healthy and started all 16 games we might still be playing right now but instead the coaches decided to screw our franchise QB and throw away the season.

alias.

Someone is just trying to stir up trouble.

[raphael120]

Our schedule:

2007 opponents:
Home: Bengals, Cowboys, Dolphins, Giants, Jets, Patriots, Ravens, Broncos
Away: Browns, Dolphins, Eagles, Jets, Patriots, Redskins, Steelers, Jaguars

Look at this nightmare, almost half of the game we're played against teams making the playoffs & 3 games against the #1 seeds in each conference. 2 of the teams we played are of 4 left that have a chance of winning it all.

Hate to break it to ya bro-sef, but our schedule was easier than last years.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Good post and I think we agree on a lot.

The one area where we differ: the 7-9 seasons. You make a solid case for the fact that given the circumstances, 7-9 is an accomplishment. The real problem is that those circumstances never should have occurred in the first place. The record books won't contain any asterisks next to the 7-9 that explain the turmoil, the injuries and the history that led to those circumstances. This is what I call "accepting mediocrity." The reality of the situation is that it wasn't easy to get to those records given the situation, but if you follow the causal chain back a few steps, the reality is that we never should have been in that situation in the first place.

But you are right- the past is the past and nothing can be done about it now. So, hopefully they're doing it right for the future. I like some of the youth on this team and I like the fact we're getting contributions from no-names, or guys who were no-names when they came in the league- like Peters and Fred Jackson. I like the fact that we're not overpaying any aging vets who don't perform (well, except Schobel and Kelsay) so we should be in good cap shape for the forseeable future.

I don't like the promotion from within. I don't like the lack of a GM. I don't like the way this team always settles for inexperienced, 2nd-rate coaches. So, we'll see what happens but I'm concerned that this team is dangerously close to repeating mistakes, and if they do that it will waste the talent in Levy and Jauron's youth movement and we'll be right back where we started in another 2-3 seasons.

I think that we do agree on a lot more than we disagree about. I also agree with you about the fact that "those circumstances should not have occured in the first place". But, sadly for all of us, they did.

Not being privy to everything that went on behind the scenes, I don't know why that happened or why Ralph Wilson made some of the other extremely bad decisions that he has made since founding the Bills, but he has made some doozies. To say that his record, when it comes to making decisions for the team, is a chequered one would be an understatement. So, believe me, I understand your concerns!!!

And, while I understand why Wilson has made the moves that he has just made: corporatizing the structure of the Bills front office rather than going with the usual football model with a GM, and promoting from within to fill the openings on the coaching staff; I also see it as a very risky move that could very well backfire in terms of the team's success on the field.

Like you, I have some serious concerns about the ability of this coaching staff to take the team to its ultimate goal.

I can see, from reading Marv's book, why he chose Jauron and the coaches on his staff to come in and work with the young players that Marv was planning to bring in to replace the veterans that he was going to get rid of. Marv was very explicit about the fact that he sees coaches as, first and foremost, being teachers--and no one typifies the old-fashioned, calm, quiet, but firm type of teacher more than Jauron!

And, it is obvious, from the way that the team hung in and continued to play hard this season when they very easily could have quit, that, at the very least, Jauron has gotten through to his players and is communicating with them effectively. Additionally, Fewell (setting aside his in-game decision-making) has done a creditable job of teaching his defensive system to his players: despite lacking talent at some key positions and having to deal with all of the injuries, his defense has played hard and given the Bills a chance to win more often than not. Even Fairchild, for as conservatively and scared as he coached on game-days, was able to get his players able to grasp the offense well enough that the Bills set a team record for the fewest sacks allowed in a 16 game season and two rookies, most importantly a rookie QB, were able to play well enough this year to look like they have promising futures.

That's important--especially for the growth of a very young team. And, it's all well and good. But, are these "teachers" good enough coaches to be able to match wits on gameday with the top coaching-minds in the game?

I honestly don't know. And, from what I have seen from some of the decisions that they have made during games, I have some serious questions about whether they are.

Coaches, especially intelligent ones, can learn from their mistakes, just like players can. There's no better example of this than Bill Belichick, who certainly didn't look like a genius when he was the head coach of the Browns. And, I suppose that Jauron and his staff have done enough, in terms of what they have been able to accomplish as "teachers" with the team to have earned the chance to prove whether they can or not.

But, am I confident that they will. No. Like you, I have some serious doubts and concerns there.

I wonder if Jauron and this staff will be a little like Parcells in Dallas: able to get the team to a point where the system is in place and there are enough players in place to make the team competitive, but it will take different leadership, a coach capable of making better in-game decisions, to take the team to where it can actually be capable of getting to the Super Bowl and winning.

I honestly don't know.

But, what concerns me is that I also don't see a lot of better alternatives out there. Cam Cameron? After seeing how bad his Indiana teams were, the fact that he didn't do very well in Miami didn't surprise me. As a offensive coordinator, how hard is it to figure out that if you have a Ladanian Tomlinson and Antonio Gates, you get the ball in their hands as much as you can? Mike Martz? He sure looked like a genius when he had M.Faulk, T.Holt, I.Bruce, K.Curtis and a QB who could distribute the ball to them, but then what happened? The guy has been fired twice. Why? I could go on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that sometimes coaches who are supposed to be geniuses have baggage (just like some players who hit the FA market do) or are as much products of the players that they have to work with as they are of any special talent that they may have.

Hiring a big-name coach or assistant is no guarantee of success, though. Just look at the Washington Redskins: a proven, Hall of Fame HC, two of the highest paid coordinators in the business, both certified "geniuses", high-priced assistants and big-name players. And, what has that produced? Mediocrity.

On the other hand, cheap, no-name coaches, and recycled losing coaches can sometimes work out very well: who were Bill Parcells or Mike McCarthy before they were hired (I remember the outcry in NY when Parcells got the Giants' HC job when the press asked: Who?); how many wins did Belichick have in his first job and what about Norv Turner?

I have a lot of questions and concerns about the current Bills coaching staff. And, just as many about finding coaches out there to replace them who can do a better job.

To a certain extent, I think that it is good players who make coaches better.

And, here's where I also share your concerns about the Bills front office and the recent moves that Ralph Wilson has made: since a lot of the people in the front office have stayed the same, was it T.Donahoe who made their drafts and acquisitions so bad and M.Levy who made them so much better or was it the approach that those two GMs took that made the difference? If it was the approach, can those same people continue to make the kinds of decisions that were made under Levy (or make even better ones) now that Levy is gone or will they revert to making the kinds of decisions that they made under Donahoe (or worse)?

I don't know what they are going to do. And, naturally, that concerns me. But, the only way that we are going to find out is to wait and see what they do and what the results are on the field (and I know that a lot fans just HATE to do that!!!).

Can a corporate structure work for the front office of a NFL franchise and produce successful results?

I honestly don't know. I suppose that it depends on the people involved.

NFL franchises have been structured around the position of a GM for so long that I honestly don't know if that's because that has always "been the way that it has been done" or because the position is essential to the successful workings of a NFL franchise. There are a lot of industries where successful corporations do not have a General Manager position. And, obviously, there are some that do. But, is the position essential to the structure of a NFL franchise? I guess we're going to find out....

And, obviously, I'm concerned about how this is going to work out for the Bills on the field. But, since I don't know whether it can work, all I can do at this point is hope that it will. But, that doesn't mean that I'm not concerned about it....

I don't think any Bills fan who wants to see the team finally win a Super Bowl doesn't have some serious concerns about the changes in the front office and the coaching staff. And, I think we all share and agree on a lot of those concerns.

But, IMHO, we're going to have to wait and see what the results are before we can judge whether the team is going to be capable of really being able to capture that elusive ring anytime soon. I think that this up-coming season is going to be a critical one in determining just how good this team can be: the front office, the coaching staff, and the players are all going to have to step up to the next level and produce.

Can they? I don't know. And, of course, that worries me. But, I'll give them a chance to show me whether they will. Which I think will make it a very interesting season in 2008.