I'd Like To Start Off the We Suck Threads [Archive] - BillsZone.com

PDA

View Full Version : I'd Like To Start Off the We Suck Threads

Typ0

08-22-2009, 08:32 PM

I saw the first half. We looked really bad. Carry on.

Slim

08-22-2009, 08:36 PM

Totally necessary.

Typ0

08-22-2009, 08:37 PM

The whole time I was watching I kept thinking "it's just a preseason game" and "we're really getting tooled". They handed it to us. Let's hope we don't see a lot of first halfs like that.

BillsWin

08-22-2009, 08:38 PM

*shrugs* oh well.

Buffalogic

08-22-2009, 08:39 PM

Look on the bright side. We would dominate the JP Losman-led Las Vegas Locomotives...

trapezeus

08-22-2009, 09:45 PM

were the packers not a 6-10 football team last year?

OpIv37

08-22-2009, 09:48 PM

I saw the first half. We looked really bad. Carry on.

it's preseason so it doesn't matter. :snicker:

Dr. Pepper

08-22-2009, 10:11 PM

wow that was bad. im a big fan of edwards but after tonight im legitimately worried about his ability to be a top tier QB in this league.... i know its one game, but he does the same **** over and over again.

DraftBoy

08-22-2009, 10:14 PM

You're all nuts, we kicked ass tonight!

SABURZFAN

08-22-2009, 10:23 PM

you get no arguments from me after watching this crap.

lmcshadow

08-22-2009, 10:45 PM

Was it really that bad...at work didnt see it

mysticsoto

08-22-2009, 10:47 PM

Was it really that bad...at work didnt see it

1st half will have you throwing things at your TV set...2nd half was much better. Of course, 2nd half had our backups and not the people we will be seeing every week when the season starts...

TacklingDummy

08-22-2009, 11:13 PM

4-12

jamze132

08-22-2009, 11:18 PM

I wonder if the Bills would be a more competitive team if they used their BUs instead of their starters full time.

schubbard

08-22-2009, 11:18 PM

Was it really that bad...at work didnt see it
Yes.

I just went to check the stats, and mostly they don't look that bad. Just proves that stats lie...

The biggies (stat wise) were turnovers and penalties.

footballhottie

08-23-2009, 01:05 AM

Dont stop billeaving o0o0o0 hold to the feeling street lights peopleeeee

footballhottie

08-23-2009, 01:07 AM

The bill version of believe doesnt look right when you put ing on it

SABURZFAN

08-23-2009, 05:09 AM

Was it really that bad...at work didnt see it

it was more ****ed up than a soup sandwich.

Jan Reimers

08-23-2009, 06:40 AM

We're just keeping our monstrous talents under wraps.

Typ0

08-23-2009, 10:19 AM

Yes.

I just went to check the stats, and mostly they don't look that bad. Just proves that stats lie...

The biggies (stat wise) were turnovers and penalties.

The stats don't lie.

sdbillsfan2

08-23-2009, 10:42 AM

It's Time for Dickie Jauron to "BE-Leavin " ! Bye Bye Dick !!!!!
What the H*ll you been practicing all these weeks?

schubbard

08-23-2009, 12:03 PM

The stats don't lie.
Yes, they do...

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/boxscore?game_id=54749&displayPage=tab_box_score&season=2009&week=PRE2&override=true

We had:

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> Same number of first downs (22)
Better 3rd down efficiency (62% to 41%)
same fourth down efficiency (both teams 0-1)
more yards (363 to 292)
more plays (72 to 63)
more yards/play (5.0 to 4.6)
[I]18 less yards rushing (90 to 108)
less rushing plays (30 to 32)
less gain per rush (3.0 to 3.4)
more net passing yards (273 to 184)
more passing plays (38 to 30)
more sacks allowed (4 to 1)
lower completion % (68% to 70%)
threw more interceptions (2 to 1)
more gain per pass play (6.5 to 5.9)
more penalties (12 to 7)
less fumbles (3 to 4)
better red zone efficiency (3/3, 100% to 4/6, 66%)
less time of possession (29:08 to 30:52)

Based on those statistics, it's a pretty close game. I would give us the statistical advantage. The big ticket difference was turnovers, which we lost 5-1. The first pick should have been called pass interference. They actually fumbled more than we did, we just didn't get to any of their fumbles. Picks + fumbles is even at 5-5. Now, find me anyone who watched that disaster who really thinks that game would have been even if we had covered a couple of those fumbles... Statistics lie.

OpIv37

08-23-2009, 12:17 PM

Yes, they do...

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/boxscore?game_id=54749&displayPage=tab_box_score&season=2009&week=PRE2&override=true

We had:

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> Same number of first downs (22)
Better 3rd down efficiency (62% to 41%)
same fourth down efficiency (both teams 0-1)
more yards (363 to 292)
more plays (72 to 63)
more yards/play (5.0 to 4.6)
[I]18 less yards rushing (90 to 108)
less rushing plays (30 to 32)
less gain per rush (3.0 to 3.4)
more net passing yards (273 to 184)
more passing plays (38 to 30)
more sacks allowed (4 to 1)
lower completion % (68% to 70%)
threw more interceptions (2 to 1)
more gain per pass play (6.5 to 5.9)
more penalties (12 to 7)
less fumbles (3 to 4)
better red zone efficiency (3/3, 100% to 4/6, 66%)
less time of possession (29:08 to 30:52)

Based on those statistics, it's a pretty close game. I would give us the statistical advantage. The big ticket difference was turnovers, which we lost 5-1. The first pick should have been called pass interference. They actually fumbled more than we did, we just didn't get to any of their fumbles. Picks + fumbles is even at 5-5. Now, find me anyone who watched that disaster who really thinks that game would have been even if we had covered a couple of those fumbles... Statistics lie.

Turnovers ARE a statistic. In fact, it's the most telling statistic in terms of predicting outcomes.

Statistics don't lie if they're analyzed properly.

Typ0

08-23-2009, 12:21 PM

Turnovers ARE a statistic. In fact, it's the most telling statistic in terms of predicting outcomes.

Statistics don't lie if they're analyzed properly.

Exactly. You have to look at the whole picture. Isolating statistics and then saying they lie is silly.

Typ0

08-23-2009, 12:22 PM

If we had turned the ball over twice instead of five times we probably would have won.

Yes, they do...

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/boxscore?game_id=54749&displayPage=tab_box_score&season=2009&week=PRE2&override=true

We had:

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> Same number of first downs (22)
Better 3rd down efficiency (62% to 41%)
same fourth down efficiency (both teams 0-1)
more yards (363 to 292)
more plays (72 to 63)
more yards/play (5.0 to 4.6)
[I]18 less yards rushing (90 to 108)
less rushing plays (30 to 32)
less gain per rush (3.0 to 3.4)
more net passing yards (273 to 184)
more passing plays (38 to 30)
more sacks allowed (4 to 1)
lower completion % (68% to 70%)
threw more interceptions (2 to 1)
more gain per pass play (6.5 to 5.9)
more penalties (12 to 7)
less fumbles (3 to 4)
better red zone efficiency (3/3, 100% to 4/6, 66%)
less time of possession (29:08 to 30:52)

Based on those statistics, it's a pretty close game. I would give us the statistical advantage. The big ticket difference was turnovers, which we lost 5-1. The first pick should have been called pass interference. They actually fumbled more than we did, we just didn't get to any of their fumbles. Picks + fumbles is even at 5-5. Now, find me anyone who watched that disaster who really thinks that game would have been even if we had covered a couple of those fumbles... Statistics lie.

schubbard

08-23-2009, 12:23 PM

Turnovers ARE a statistic. In fact, it's the most telling statistic in terms of predicting outcomes.
I agree. However, one was a bad call, so it should have been 4-1. I'm asking who would call that game "even" if we had covered half of their fumbles so turnovers were approximately even (4-3).

schubbard

08-23-2009, 12:32 PM

Exactly. You have to look at the whole picture. Isolating statistics and then saying they lie is silly.
What did I isolate? I went right down the list... I left out the kicking game and the final score (which I think we all know about...).

Typ0

08-23-2009, 12:36 PM

What did I isolate? I went right down the list... I left out the kicking game and the final score (which I think we all know about...).

In all the stats you listed I did not see that we were -4 on the turnover front. I bet you can find LOTS of games where the stats look similar and the team that was -3 or more was the one that lost and in many cases lost big. Once you get behind you have to play different.

schubbard

08-23-2009, 12:43 PM

If we had turned the ball over twice instead of five times we probably would have won.
And if we had won, we were still seriously outplayed... It's preseason. I would like to see them outplay the other team, no matter what the final score ends up (many of the players involved won't make final rosters anyway...). I doubt anyone who watched that game would say we outplayed them in any way (except punting... :^) ). A "W" in preseason is far less important than playing well, and we certainly didn't.

schubbard

08-23-2009, 12:46 PM

In all the stats you listed I did not see that we were -4 on the turnover front. I bet you can find LOTS of games where the stats look similar and the team that was -3 or more was the one that lost and in many cases lost big. Once you get behind you have to play different.

It had the majority of the paragraph at the bottom...