Bills have NFL's easiest remaining schedule

[Ed]

Realistically I don't think this is true, but apparently the Bills remaining opponents currently have the lowest combined winning pct. compared to every other teams remaining schedule. That's kind of surprising considering a team like the Texans still has 4 games against the Jags and Titans, but here's the blog post from ESPN.

We noted earlier this week that the Buffalo Bills are entering a softer patch of their regular-season schedule.

In fact, it doesn't get any easier than this.

Consider this note from ESPN Stats & Information:
The Bills' remaining opponents have a combined 22-29 record (.431 win pct), the easiest remaining schedule in the NFL as we enter Week 6.

We'll chalk it up to a few factors:
The Bills have already played three teams -- the 3-2 Detroit Lions, the 3-2 Houston Texans, and the 4-1 San Diego Chargers -- who have winning records.
The AFC East is matched up with the AFC West and NFC North this season; the Bills have yet to play three of the worst four teams in those divisions.
After finishing fourth in the AFC East last season, the Bills are matched up with the Cleveland Browns (who finished fourth in the AFC North last season). The Browns are 2-2 this season.
The Bills still have two games remaining against the 1-4 New York Jets.
http://espn.go.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/14166/bills-have-nfls-easiest-remaining-schedule

[Buffalogic]

Better than having the hardest! I'll take it!

[Homegrown]

We're #1!!

[Skooby]

No excuses.

[djjimkelly]

about time we get a break from the nfl

orton to the playoffs !!!

[Fletch]

OK, since I might typically pitch this at the end of the season, let's ask what should be the obvious question now.

What if we end up 8-8 or 9-7, everyone's going to say that Marrone's a good coach and so forth.

To what extent will that softest schedule have contributed?

Here's a clue, we saw something similar in 2004.

[JohnnyGold]

OK, since I might typically pitch this at the end of the season, let's ask what should be the obvious question now.

What if we end up 8-8 or 9-7, everyone's going to say that Marrone's a good coach and so forth.

To what extent will that softest schedule have contributed?

Here's a clue, we saw something similar in 2004.

I believe there is a website (PFF?) that says--by whatever statistical measures one would use--that 2004 Bills team is the "best" team in NFL history that DIDN'T make the playoffs.

[imbondz]

I believe there is a website (PFF?) that says--by whatever statistical measures one would use--that 2004 Bills team is the "best" team in NFL history that DIDN'T make the playoffs.

lol. you're not going to give us a link to that? I don't recall that team being that amazing. good, but not 'the best team ever to not make the playoffs' good.

[Ed]

OK, since I might typically pitch this at the end of the season, let's ask what should be the obvious question now.

What if we end up 8-8 or 9-7, everyone's going to say that Marrone's a good coach and so forth.

To what extent will that softest schedule have contributed?

Here's a clue, we saw something similar in 2004.
You're twisting things. First of all, that winning pct. only factors in remaining teams. It doesn't account for the first 5 games where the Bills only played one team that currently has a losing record, the Bears at 2-3. The Bills current SOS is .583. Only 6 teams have a higher SOS right now and only one of those teams has a better record than the Bills, the Broncos at 3-1. Secondly, it's week 6 so all of these records are going to continue to change. That means the SOS for each team is going to continue to change each week. There's no way to proclaim that a team has the "softest" schedule at this point. We won't know the Bills final SOS until the end of the season, but I seriously doubt it will be anywhere near the bottom.

[trapezeus]

statistically, i can see how the numbers say that. The win loss suggests that minny stinks, jets stink (2x), miami is no good, cleveland is bad, oakland blows. So really it's just greenbay, denver and NE (2X). that are tough games, by looking at just the w/l.

However, i think the jets d could give our offense troubles if we aren't getting better from where we are. miami has been volatile. some good games, some stinkers, who knows which one we face. Cleveland actually has consistently put up above 25 points a game. I think the only 2 easy games are minny and possibly oakland, but we haven't won in oakland.

so i still think, until we start having some dominating performances, we should just take this one game at a time and see how it shakes out.

[Buffalogic]

lol. you're not going to give us a link to that? I don't recall that team being that amazing. good, but not 'the best team ever to not make the playoffs' good.
Wasn't that the year we lost to Willie Parker to get bounced out of contention? I remember that year the bills had two 1000 yard receivers and one was Peerless Price. We also had a super highly rated defense lead by Takeo Spikes. Pretty sure that was the year.

[Ed]

Wasn't that the year we lost to Willie Parker to get bounced out of contention? I remember that year the bills had two 1000 yard receivers and one was Peerless Price. We also had a super highly rated defense lead by Takeo Spikes. Pretty sure that was the year.
Yes, that was the year the Bills lost to the Steelers 2nd stringers in the final game to just miss the playoffs. Peerless wasn't on the team though. It was 2002 that Moulds and Price both had over a 1,000 yds and then Price was tagged and traded for Atlanta's 1st rounder, which was used on McGahee. So it was 2 years later that they went 9-7. What's crazy is that they started that season 0-4 and then 1-5 before winning 8 of 9, only to lose that last Steelers game. My most memorable or favorite play of that season was from the Seattle game where they crushed the Seahawks in Seattle. The Bills went for it on 4th and 1 and Bledsoe faked a qb sneak which everyone bit on, only to take a step back, pitch it to McGahee who ran 30 yds for the TD. That was such a cool play and a fun season. Hopefully we can have similar excitement this year.

[Buffalogic]

^ What a memory on you. My 2002 and 2004 blurred together.

[Fletch]

You're twisting things. First of all, that winning pct. only factors in remaining teams. It doesn't account for the first 5 games where the Bills only played one team that currently has a losing record, the Bears at 2-3. The Bills current SOS is .583. Only 6 teams have a higher SOS right now and only one of those teams has a better record than the Bills, the Broncos at 3-1. Secondly, it's week 6 so all of these records are going to continue to change. That means the SOS for each team is going to continue to change each week. There's no way to proclaim that a team has the "softest" schedule at this point. We won't know the Bills final SOS until the end of the season, but I seriously doubt it will be anywhere near the bottom.

Actually I'd argue that you're the one twisting things.

First of all, this last win was pretty lucky. Everyone knows it. Secondly, is it that Detroit team, minus Megatron, Bell, and Bush, primarily Megatron, that is that good? Hardly.

Is it San Diego without Matthews and with Gates and Keenan Allen hobbled that make them that good?

Or Houston with Foster far less than 100% and eventually out of the game as a result that make them that good?

Clearly not. We were fortunate to have been able to play those teams under those circumstances. I realize that you and others are going to spin it any way you want it.

Either way, my point stands, we have the easiest remaining schedule the thread claims.

Seems to me that if we're as good as many here seem to think we are then there's not much excuse for at least 9-7 right now. I mean if we can't go better than .500 against the easiest schedule in the league then it becomes a difficult argument to insist that we're an above average team, wouldn't you agree?

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, that was the year the Bills lost to the Steelers 2nd stringers in the final game to just miss the playoffs. Peerless wasn't on the team though. It was 2002 that Moulds and Price both had over a 1,000 yds and then Price was tagged and traded for Atlanta's 1st rounder, which was used on McGahee. So it was 2 years later that they went 9-7. What's crazy is that they started that season 0-4 and then 1-5 before winning 8 of 9, only to lose that last Steelers game. My most memorable or favorite play of that season was from the Seattle game where they crushed the Seahawks in Seattle. The Bills went for it on 4th and 1 and Bledsoe faked a qb sneak which everyone bit on, only to take a step back, pitch it to McGahee who ran 30 yds for the TD. That was such a cool play and a fun season. Hopefully we can have similar excitement this year.

They even had third stringers in that game. They didn't need the win and our starters couldn't win it, at home.

[Fletch]

statistically, i can see how the numbers say that. The win loss suggests that minny stinks, jets stink (2x), miami is no good, cleveland is bad, oakland blows. So really it's just greenbay, denver and NE (2X). that are tough games, by looking at just the w/l.

However, i think the jets d could give our offense troubles if we aren't getting better from where we are. miami has been volatile. some good games, some stinkers, who knows which one we face. Cleveland actually has consistently put up above 25 points a game. I think the only 2 easy games are minny and possibly oakland, but we haven't won in oakland.

so i still think, until we start having some dominating performances, we should just take this one game at a time and see how it shakes out.

Cleveland is a lot better than a lot of people realize.

[better days]

Actually I'd argue that you're the one twisting things.

First of all, this last win was pretty lucky. Everyone knows it. Secondly, is it that Detroit team, minus Megatron, Bell, and Bush, primarily Megatron, that is that good? Hardly.

Is it San Diego without Matthews and with Gates and Keenan Allen hobbled that make them that good?

Or Houston with Foster far less than 100% and eventually out of the game as a result that make them that good?

Clearly not. We were fortunate to have been able to play those teams under those circumstances. I realize that you and others are going to spin it any way you want it.

Either way, my point stands, we have the easiest remaining schedule the thread claims.

Seems to me that if we're as good as many here seem to think we are then there's not much excuse for at least 9-7 right now. I mean if we can't go better than .500 against the easiest schedule in the league then it becomes a difficult argument to insist that we're an above average team, wouldn't you agree?

Well, I agree with you Fletch.

Injuries not withstanding, I said before if the Bills don't go 8-8 Marrone should be fired.

Now, at 3-2 & with Orton at QB, I think the Bills should go 9-7 or Marrone should be Fired.

[Luisito23]

Anything short of the post season and I want Marrone gone...Hackett on the other hand is a clown who should've never been here to begin with.

[EDS]

Realistically I don't think this is true, but apparently the Bills remaining opponents currently have the lowest combined winning pct. compared to every other teams remaining schedule. That's kind of surprising considering a team like the Texans still has 4 games against the Jags and Titans, but here's the blog post from ESPN.

http://espn.go.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/14166/bills-have-nfls-easiest-remaining-schedule

No excuses now!

[The Jokeman]

Beat the Patriots first then talk about who's next on the schedule.

[Later]

lol. you're not going to give us a link to that? I don't recall that team being that amazing. good, but not 'the best team ever to not make the playoffs' good.

I did a google search and found the link to it. Enjoy: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2010/fo-mailbag-best-dvoa-miss-playoffs

[feldspar]

OK, since I might typically pitch this at the end of the season, let's ask what should be the obvious question now.

What if we end up 8-8 or 9-7, everyone's going to say that Marrone's a good coach and so forth.

To what extent will that softest schedule have contributed?

Here's a clue, we saw something similar in 2004.

LOL at "softest remaining schedule."

You want to take THIS PARTICULAR stat for granted right now? Our run defense is the second best in the league...but you want to "caution" everybody about believing in this particular stat. The Bills have the #1 defense on stopping teams on 3rd down in terms of percentage (less than 32%)...can we trust that to continue? You want to qualify every positive Buffalo Bills stat up to this point in the year, nitpicking everything you can. If you aren't actually trying to belittle a positive Bills stat, you are most often telling everybody that they are premature in trusting those stats.

Yet you seem more than willing to assume that the Bills may very well have the easiest remaining schedule. In fact, you are sounding like you are already planning on how you will call out people later if the Bills do fairly well..."people will be saying this or that." Bet you'll be there to set them all straight, or so you hope.

[imbondz]

Good! I'll take every single break we can get

[Ginger Vitis]

My most memorable or favorite play of that season was from the Seattle game where they crushed the Seahawks in Seattle. The Bills went for it on 4th and 1 and Bledsoe faked a qb sneak which everyone bit on, only to take a step back, pitch it to McGahee who ran 30 yds for the TD. That was such a cool play and a fun season. Hopefully we can have similar excitement this year.

One of my favourite plays from 2004 was Jason Peters blocking a punt against the Bengals and quickly getting up and recovering his own blocked punt in the endzone for a TD.. Just a incredible athletic play for a man his size

[Fletch]

LOL at "softest remaining schedule."

You want to take THIS PARTICULAR stat for granted right now? Our run defense is the second best in the league...but you want to "caution" everybody about believing in this particular stat. The Bills have the #1 defense on stopping teams on 3rd down in terms of percentage (less than 32%)...can we trust that to continue? You want to qualify every positive Buffalo Bills stat up to this point in the year, nitpicking everything you can. If you aren't actually trying to belittle a positive Bills stat, you are most often telling everybody that they are premature in trusting those stats.

Yet you seem more than willing to assume that the Bills may very well have the easiest remaining schedule. In fact, you are sounding like you are already planning on how you will call out people later if the Bills do fairly well..."people will be saying this or that." Bet you'll be there to set them all straight, or so you hope.

I'm assuming that we have the easiest remaining schedule?

What is this, a joke? You'll have to excuse me, but I guess my screen reads something different than the title of this thread reading "Bills have NFL's easiest remaining schedule (http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php/226149-Bills-have-NFL-s-easiest-remaining-schedule)."

Why is it that the substance in these threads is always derailed by statements about posters rather than on the substance of the points made in the thread.

In the meantime feldspar, you ask a fantastic question.


The Bills have the #1 defense on stopping teams on 3rd down in terms of percentage (less than 32%)...can we trust that to continue?

That's my question exactly. Can we?

Against Detroit our D faced an undrafted RB named George Winn. Ever heard of him before Sunday? I hadn't. Ever heard of Corey Fuller who started opposite Golden Tate at WR? I hadn't.

Was that a feat, stopping that offense, which everyone in the media knows and says is no more than half of what it is without Calvin Johnson on the field, like he wasn't, much less with Bell and Bush out. Bush isn't even that good and neither is Bell, but they start which doesn't say much other than for their WRs and passing game.

So does this impress you, that we could stop the likes of Winn on 3rd downs?

Ditto for Lamar Miller, Alfred Blue, and Donald Brown?

Seriously, do you think that those are the caliber of RBs that we're going to be facing over our last 11 games?

Ridley and Vereen aren't very good but they're better than those guys.

So in answering your question you would be a fool to ignore that. I don't suspect that you're a fool, are you?

I'm trying to belittle nothing, I'm attempting to explain why a team that couldn't stop a nosebleed last season all of a sudden you guys are championing as a #1 run D when we've faced no one and the one RB that we did face put up 4.8 ypc against us in limited action.

Sorry, but a simple coaching change doesn't explain that. It may be part of an improvement, but it's not going to propel a D from near last to first.

Unfortunately you'll be seeing exactly what I'm talking about in our remaining games. I'll be sure to bookmark this thread and come back to it to hear your explanation.

[jamze132]

Nothing easy about playing 5 division games and then the Broncos. That's half of our remaining games.

[Fletch]

Nothing easy about playing 5 division games and then the Broncos. That's half of our remaining games.

If the Broncos were to come into the game with Manning out then it would be incredibly easier. Everyone here was talking about how great it was to play SD without Matthews, but then after that game it didn't matter.

So which is it? Either it matters when top talent on other teams can't play, or it doesn't. Seems like it matters before the games but not after. Talk about crazy and mental.

Who wouldn't think that facing the Pats without Gronk would be much easier? Only a fool.

Same thing here, if we face Green Bay without Rodgers or Lacy, or KC without Charles and Davis, of course it matters.

I'll believe that we have a good rushing D that's improved all that much when we can stop legitimate NFL starting RBs, not 2nd and 3rd string backups and failed starters in this league. Big deal. Don't get me wrong, it's nice that it happened to help us win games, but it's not something to point at and say "hey, look what we did, we put a hurtin' on Winn, Blue, Lamar Miller, and Donald Brown."

[Fletch]

Nothing easy about playing 5 division games and then the Broncos. That's half of our remaining games.

There was something easy about playing Miami with Moreno out, and definitely there was something much easier about playing Detroit with Calvin Johnson missing, or Houston with Foster hampered, and San Diego with Matthews out and Gates and Keenan Allen hobbled and then out.

[better days]

If the Broncos were to come into the game with Manning out then it would be incredibly easier. Everyone here was talking about how great it was to play SD without Matthews, but then after that game it didn't matter.

So which is it? Either it matters when top talent on other teams can't play, or it doesn't. Seems like it matters before the games but not after. Talk about crazy and mental.

Who wouldn't think that facing the Pats without Gronk would be much easier? Only a fool.

Same thing here, if we face Green Bay without Rodgers or Lacy, or KC without Charles and Davis, of course it matters.

I'll believe that we have a good rushing D that's improved all that much when we can stop legitimate NFL starting RBs, not 2nd and 3rd string backups and failed starters in this league. Big deal. Don't get me wrong, it's nice that it happened to help us win games, but it's not something to point at and say "hey, look what we did, we put a hurtin' on Winn, Blue, Lamar Miller, and Donald Brown."

We put a hurting on Reggie Bush & Calvin Johnson, knocking both of them out of the Lions game.

[Fletch]

We put a hurting on Reggie Bush & Calvin Johnson, knocking both of them out of the Lions game.

And that changes my points how now?

[better days]

And that changes my points how now?

How about the FACT you have not mentioned Bush in even ONE post where you cite the RB's the Bills have faced?

[better days]

And while the Bills may not have faced an Adrian Peterson, they have the #2 ranked run Defense & are allowing just 71 yds per game on the ground.