What Type of Fan Are You?

[Generalissimus Gibby]

I have been reading some of the threads around here and my God some of you should be professional mourners. I mean I think some of you could ruin the day of someone who just got married to a gorgeous woman who brought a bottle of Viagra and said please take me in every hole and every position, oh and my parents gave us 5 million dollars to do whatever the hell we want with and any kids we have well we'll send em away to a boarding school in Europe and their grandparents will pay their college tuition. I mean some of you --you know who you are, go ahead report me if it makes you feel worse -- would find something to ***** about. So lets see what fans we have.

There's the homers: The Bills could completely self destruct, lose all 9 remaining games by 50-0, and at the end of the day you say, hey that new fifth or sixth string halfback is amazing and our defenders kept playing even when the season was meaningless. I want my seats on the 50 yard line, and hey maybe we're like the Royals 29 years of suck and then we'll have that OMG WE'RE GONNA WIN IT ALL season and you'll say see, I told you this team would eventually get its act together

Cautious Realists: You're the fan who says, maybe not playoffs this season, but definitely next and we are a piece or two from getting there, but we are on the right track. If its december and we are 9-6 going into Foxboro I may just see about getting playoff tickets and planning a road trip.

Realists aka manic depressives: BILLS WIN, WE'RE GOING TO THE SUPERBOWL MUTHAF***AS!!!!! Every Sunday we win until we are eliminated from the post season. Honey hide the guns, the knives, rope and shoe string, and the sleeping pills and what is the suicide hotline's number? Every Sunday after a loss.

Cautiously Pessimistic: We did well, over all we are on the right track, but. . . .

Mortuary Workers: You listen to the game in the cemetery. You wear black, you are expecting your kids to die very young. The sun never shines over you. Chopin's Funeral March is your alarm clock tone, its never going to be a good season. The Bills could win the superbowl, but damn it free agency is a coming and Terry is cheap

The I told you so bunch aka masturbators: These are not actually Bills fans, they are fans of their own neurosis/psychosis. They disappear for weeks on end when the Bills are winning, but oh man get even one loss and there they are. There is another variant of this, and this is when a high draft pick actually pans out. If its Dareus well damn it he'll **** up eventually and then oh yeah, I'm there he sucks or this years strain, the Sammy Watkins Hater fanclub. The president and sole member of this sees that Watkins in his rookie season is so good that he merits coverage by the best current defensive back in the division if not the league and even then makes a couple of very nice catches, and then says Watkins disappears in big games, SEE!!!!! Or never mind what he did against Minnesota, or Miami or that his ribs were hurting against the Bears and others or that he had a nice game against Detroit, I would have drafted someone else.

So be honest, have fun. Tell us what fan type you are.

[Night Train]

Old

[Yasgur's Farm]

Been a fan for over 50 years... If that tells you anything. Always hoping for the best I guess.

[YardRat]

I don't think I fit into any of those.

[Buffalogic]

I fall under the 'Always right' and 'Would manage the team better if I had the opportunity" fan.

[Fletch]

Old

LOL

I'm a ready for a MAJOR change fan.

[feldspar]

I'm the type of fan that watches the games and roots for my team. Most of the time, I manage to enjoy myself. Is this a foreign concept to some people? Any fan's opinion about anything means nothing, really. Doesn't affect the game, whether they are right or wrong. As a Bills fan, I go into every game thinking we can win...as a gambler, I take a different approach, but as a Bills fan, that's what I do. Maybe someone 'round here can tell me how this is wrong.

I don't think there is really all that much to being a fan other than this, for me at least. It's really not all that complicated to sit down and watch a ballgame. Everyone analyzes what happens and has their ideas as to why those things happen, but being a fan means rooting for your team and nothing else. If you don't like "your" team and are in the habit of pissing on them regularly, then I can't see how you are a fan in reality...you are a fan of a pipe-dream, or an idea of what your team "should be." Yeah, "I love this team...just can't stand the sight of them. They make me unhappy always, but I'm still a fan." Sure.

Root for the Bills.

[Fletch]

Some fans look at the bigger picture, others look at just what's in front of them. That's a huge point of dissension among fans.

[coastal]

How about... **** you.

that kind of fan.

[feldspar]

Some fans look at the bigger picture, others look at just what's in front of them. That's a huge point of dissension among fans.

No, that's YOUR problem.

There should be no "dissension among fans," not to your degree. You are a ridiculous "fan." You do realize that it doesn't matter one iota what you think, don't you? Probably not. I certainly see that you don't have the ability to graciously agree to disagree, to say the least. You seem to like to harass the real fans with your self-proclaimed superior insight, or whatever. But none of that has to do anything with being a fan. Interpretation of the game is one thing, but being a fan is not a complicated thing.

"The big picture" for a fan is deciding whether or not to watch the game and root for your team...not much else. Be excited to watch the team on game-day. Lot's of fans just like to shoot the **** about their team, not invest their egos into their opinions. I like those guys. Some humps make it sound like they know how to build a championship team and can't shut up about it...talk about nothing else. I like those guys not so much.

Armchair quarterbacking is one thing, but some douchebags take that to a ridiculous level. The internet is a great place for those guys, because face-to-face (at a bar or the kitchen table or wherever), most people would tune them out very quickly, as it's beyond obnoxious. Social media gives them free reign to be douchebags. Don't worry, I know you don't understand this...just tell me why I'm wrong. I'm all ears...or maybe I just won't read what you write.

[Fletch]

You do realize that it doesn't matter one iota what you think, don't you? Probably not. I certainly see that you don't have the ability to graciously agree to disagree, to say the least.

It's actually quite the opposite. I state often that it doesn't matter what any of us think, particularly myself. If you really knew me and what I write as well as you think you do then you'd know that as a solid fact.

Therein lies a huge part of the problem. You read more the name-calling directed at me and read what other people say about me that are complete lies, like I think that Watkins sucks. Never said that. But you can't even be honest enough to acknowledge that, can you? No, you can't. I don't really think that's much of a measure of a man to not be capable of being honest. This forum is full of those types. You make up what others say to overcome your own shortcomings in faulty asssessments and analysis. You can't handle being wrong so you turn on fellow fans. It happened incessantly long before I began posting here regularly, that much is obvious.

You and other have trouble handling reality, not those of us on this side of the fence.

As to what I do on game days, how I react while watching the games, what I eat, drink, etc., how the **** do you know? I don't recall seeing you at the locations where I watch the games or over at my Jets buddy's house, so what kind of presumptuous ******* do you have to be to insist that you know?

This is exactly the problem here, the intolerance of a whole bunch of people that don't read what some others write, don't care to engage beyond the headline or unsubstantiated opinion or W/L level, and yet feel compelled to slander and put down the posts of people that do.

I've never ever called anyone a name or made a poke at anyone other than in obvious good fun that hasn't first made a non-friendly dig at me. So go figure that out you conceited liar, if no one did it to me or others, guess what there Einstein, it wouldn't ever happen here.

People like you are too shallow to read or engage the likes of OP, Tackledummy, coastal, Spiked, and a bunch of others, but for some ****ing reason you self-serving narcissists always seem to know what they think without reading or engaging further.

I've taken several people on quite civilly lately upon their challenges, funny though, most of them leave those challenges hanging once I start asking the tough questions and challenging their posts. What does that say? Not much.

You think that only you want a winning team? Talk about the height of arrogance.

I actually post here because probably the single biggest thing that I enjoy is watching the self-proclaimed geniuses here stumble all over themselves as they lay out their assinine opinions. There's nothing more entertaining that the progression of opinion throughout the season here amongst you so-called better fans, except of course game day threads which as I said before resemble a 30-year timelapse of a small village of women on going through decades of PMS cycles.

Either way, once again you're wrong, you're just too stubborn, arrogant, and narcissistic to admit it.

Other than that some of us just analyze football better. Sorry to once again be the one to inform you of that. No, not all people are intellectually equal despite anyone's insistance that it's the case.

[ServoBillieves]

Love this team, want them to succeed, obsess if you will: yet every time I see a 3rd and long, or a decent lead, I think "how will they blow this one?" or "who's going to drop this ball?" or "When is the interception coming?"

Ecstatic after a win, whole week is great. A loss? "They are who we thought they were."

It's frustrating, but I believe this team can win and I'm sick of seeing them NOT do it.

[Fletch]

You seem to like to harass the real fans with your self-proclaimed superior insight, or whatever.

And if you want to talk about intelligence, tell me this, I've had in my signature for well over a month Whaley's own admission that he was the one responsible for bringing Manuel here.

Yet, to this day people still argue with me and insist that that's not the case despite the quotes and video of him saying that very thing and even going to the extent that his job should be on the line if it doesn't work out.

Am I supposed to consider them to be intelligent? People make their own perceptions of intelligence, blatantly ignoring reality is hardly one of the means of accomplishing that like so many here do routinely.

[feldspar]

The game your playing on this board is not too difficult to decipher, Fletch; in fact, it's transparent. I don't care if you're really a douchebag or just play one on the Internet. The net result remains the same as far as I'm concerned.

[Mace]

To be honest, I'm a cautious realist homer mortuary attendant, and as Night Train said, old.

I get excited, know better, expect the worst, want the best, suspect it won't work out well and love the games and the team anyway.

I've been through this before, too many years.

[feldspar]

To be honest, I'm a cautious realist homer mortuary attendant, and as Night Train said, old.

I get excited, know better, expect the worst, want the best, suspect it won't work out well and love the games and the team anyway.

I've been through this before, too many years.

Well said.

[OpIv37]

Two things: some of you have this bs notion that if someone criticizes the team on a message board, they don't root for them on Sunday. It's a load of crap. Some of us get into the rah-rah stuff during the games but prefer to engage in some thought and analysis in between.

Second, categorizing fans is nothing but an unnecessary exercise in division. The reality is that this team has been an epic cluster**** for the last 14 years and counting. Anyone still here is a fan and that counts for a lot.

[JoeMama]

I'm the kind that's unnecessarily negative when it suits me, but otherwise the ultimate homer who would gladly step over God, family, friends, gainful employment, and fulfilling romantic relationships in favor of watching my favorite team on any given Sunday.

The Bills are mine on Sunday. And no deity, worldly responsibility, or the affection of loved ones will EVER stand in my way.

I don't do it because I want to. I do it because I must.

#irrationalfandomforever

[feldspar]

some of you have this bs notion that if someone criticizes the team on a message board, they don't root for them on Sunday. .

All fans criticize their team.

That's part of it.

Some go way overboard into the ***** and douchebag categories.

[Herd bull]

I am a old fan both in years and years watching. Many people would call me a homer and I see nothing wrong with being one. If you are a fan you cheer for the
team. If you don't cheer for the team then you are not a fan no matter what you claim.

[Woodman]

Loyal.

[BillsOverDolphins]

and this guy is working on his PhD:rofl:

I'd be a career-student too if I was that useless and had vanilla opinions on everything. Look for this same kind of topic to be regurgitated every other week by the OBD pudsuckers on here

[notacon]

Long suffering.

[Fletch]

The game your playing on this board is not too difficult to decipher, Fletch; in fact, it's transparent. I don't care if you're really a douchebag or just play one on the Internet. The net result remains the same as far as I'm concerned.

What's transparent feldspar is the superficial nature of the posting. It begins early in the season where anything but overstatements of performance are ridiculed, slandered, maligned, etc. with the posters that post concerns entirely in good faith are called trolls among other things.

Then as the season progresses it becomes clear that those that conducted themselves as such are upset for one or more reasons, and begin to take it out on fellow fans rather than perhaps just telling themselves that they were wrong and leaving it at that. I know of none of those on that side of the fence that you might call "pessimists" that initiate any hostilities whatsoever. All they want to do is discuss football in realistic, not hyped up baseless, terms. But that's not permitted until "the mob" says it's OK.

That's what's transparent. The difference between me and some of those others is that I don't put up with nearly as much bull****. That's transparent too.

Anytime you want to talk football, I'm quite happy to do so. If you call me names, jump on bandwagons calling me (or others) names, take for fact what others say I said instead of what I actually wrote, etc., then I'm going to respond and in no uncertain way. Sorry you don't like it, but the easiest way to elminate it is for those that want to engage to bring their facts and those that don't to not make idiotic comments about posts that they don't read, dismiss me as whatever they like without overreacting, and go on about their lives as such. But they can't do that.

[Fletch]

All fans criticize their team.

That's part of it.

Some go way overboard into the ***** and douchebag categories.

Some go way overboard into the ***** and douchebag categories about other fans. It starts during the preseason when those other fans don't wear glasses that see nothing but roses and rainbows.

What do you expect when a majority jumps all over a minority in that way, the exchanging of pleasantries?

Here's the funny thing about it, if at the end of the season they're wrong, then maybe, just maybe, you have a case. But they haven't been. So really, what does that say about people like you and those leading the charge in the preseason and early parts of the season?

[Dr. Lecter]

You have an extremely high opinion of yourself.

Which can complicate things on a message board.

There are a lot of smart people here who come from varied backgrounds and have varied opinions. The best discussions happen when people realize that they can actually learn from one another.

Op is a great example. While critical, he actually reads what write to his comments and respects enough people here that he considers their viewpoint. And does all of that without telling people he is smarter than everybody else.

Which is why he is also well respected here. Not putting up with bull**** is fine. But not putting up with dissent and pretending that you are the only one that watches this game is not so productive.

Serious question - how old are you?

Based on the posting style, I'm guessing mid to late 20s. Maybe early 30s.

[Dr. Lecter]

As to the original question I, like Op, don't get why we need to pigeonhole fans into some kind of category.

Fact is,we are all Bills fans. We have undergone various levels of torture and pain throughout the years. Some remember the AFL championship teams. Some remember the O-fer against Miami in the 70s. Some remember the miiddle 80s with a parade of QBs like Dufek, Ferragamo and Mathiason (three guys that make EJ look like Brady). Some remember the Super Bowl agony.

But at the end of the day we are all fans that want the team to do well. We might have different paths for the team to get there. And we might disagree as to how close they are to making those steps. But we all want them to succeed and finally win a damn Super Bow. And we are all happy that they are now staying in the Buffalo area.

Attempts to further divide Bills fans is silly and futile. It serves no purpose. There are already enough things that do that.

[Fletch]

I am a old fan both in years and years watching. Many people would call me a homer and I see nothing wrong with being one. If you are a fan you cheer for the
team. If you don't cheer for the team then you are not a fan no matter what you claim.

I cannot imagine that we're not all homers on Sundays.

But when there are so many areas where things break down on Sundays, it's very difficult, at least for some of us, to be homers when the games aren't on.

This notion that some of us sit around on Sunday rooting for our opponents is one of those continual slaps in the face from fellow fans that are levied with the infractors looking the other way as if they didn't do anything. I mean honestly, who wouldn't be offended at the notion of that as a fan.

As for me, I stopped actually going to games years ago for several reasons, among which but not limited to, is that feeling you have after going to a game and leaving it with a huge turd at the 50 after the team craps all over itself. When the odds of that occurring became greater than the odds of going to a well-played, well-coached game, regardless of outcome (i.e. all I'd like to see is a well played and well coached game), then I decided that it wasn't worth the time and money to go. I got tired of feeling ripped off and dejected while having to drive 2 hours back home. Another reason the regression in fan behavior that I and those that I've gone to games with have seen. Games were more fun to go to in the '80s even when we weren't much better for that reason alone.

We need a MAJOR change in how this organization does business. I hope it comes after this season.

[Night Train]

What " Kind " of fan goes back to how long you've been on the ride.

I hopped on in 1965 as a kid in kindergarten, being taken to games by a season ticket family. I grew up in Buffalo and know the fans. I saw many down years..more than good ones.

I remember some good AFL teams, The Saban/OJ run, The vastly underrated Chuck Knox years and the great run of the late 80's to mid-90's..a couple good Wade years.

It's all about where you grew up..actual age..history..perspective.

It's like an ink blot test with 20 different descriptions of the same picture. Some have their way of looking at it and wish it to be accepted as gospel.

I'll look at the Bills the way I chose to look at them. In year 50 of viewing them and always willing to see something good happen..like Watkins catch with a second left.

[feldspar]

Here's the funny thing about it, if at the end of the season they're wrong, then maybe, just maybe, you have a case. But they haven't been. So really, what does that say about people like you and those leading the charge in the preseason and early parts of the season?

I already have a strong case that you are a douchebag. That won't change unless your attitude changes, particularly regarding your attitude towards those you disagree with. There is a reason why many, many posters here think that, and it's not the reason you think.

I don't recall leading any kind of charge. Who is "leading the charge," and what's wrong with that?

I really don't go about saying "everybody thinks this or that," because such is not really the case, either. Not sure why you want to lump everyone or most posters into one category all the time. I don't see is as being that way all the time.

[BuffaloRedleg]

It's actually quite the opposite. I state often that it doesn't matter what any of us think, particularly myself. If you really knew me and what I write as well as you think you do then you'd know that as a solid fact.

Therein lies a huge part of the problem. You read more the name-calling directed at me and read what other people say about me that are complete lies, like I think that Watkins sucks. Never said that. But you can't even be honest enough to acknowledge that, can you? No, you can't. I don't really think that's much of a measure of a man to not be capable of being honest. This forum is full of those types. You make up what others say to overcome your own shortcomings in faulty asssessments and analysis. You can't handle being wrong so you turn on fellow fans. It happened incessantly long before I began posting here regularly, that much is obvious.

You and other have trouble handling reality, not those of us on this side of the fence.

As to what I do on game days, how I react while watching the games, what I eat, drink, etc., how the **** do you know? I don't recall seeing you at the locations where I watch the games or over at my Jets buddy's house, so what kind of presumptuous ******* do you have to be to insist that you know?

This is exactly the problem here, the intolerance of a whole bunch of people that don't read what some others write, don't care to engage beyond the headline or unsubstantiated opinion or W/L level, and yet feel compelled to slander and put down the posts of people that do.

I've never ever called anyone a name or made a poke at anyone other than in obvious good fun that hasn't first made a non-friendly dig at me. So go figure that out you conceited liar, if no one did it to me or others, guess what there Einstein, it wouldn't ever happen here.

People like you are too shallow to read or engage the likes of OP, Tackledummy, coastal, Spiked, and a bunch of others, but for some ****ing reason you self-serving narcissists always seem to know what they think without reading or engaging further.

I've taken several people on quite civilly lately upon their challenges, funny though, most of them leave those challenges hanging once I start asking the tough questions and challenging their posts. What does that say? Not much.

You think that only you want a winning team? Talk about the height of arrogance.

I actually post here because probably the single biggest thing that I enjoy is watching the self-proclaimed geniuses here stumble all over themselves as they lay out their assinine opinions. There's nothing more entertaining that the progression of opinion throughout the season here amongst you so-called better fans, except of course game day threads which as I said before resemble a 30-year timelapse of a small village of women on going through decades of PMS cycles.

Either way, once again you're wrong, you're just too stubborn, arrogant, and narcissistic to admit it.

Other than that some of us just analyze football better. Sorry to once again be the one to inform you of that. No, not all people are intellectually equal despite anyone's insistance that it's the case.

Come down from your cross. Your problem is that you don't read other people's posts and you just cherry pick responses and ignore the ones that hurt your argument.

You aren't interested in the truth, you are interested in trying to convince people you are right.

But everyone already knows that, I'm just stating the obvious.

[BuffaloRedleg]

How about the type of fan that gives credit to the team only when they lose?

Oh we lost that is because we are terrible. Oh we won? That is because the other team let one get away we didn't deserve to win.

Those people are the most precious treasures of all.

I think I fall under manic depressive btw. Sundays are just brutal for me and my poor GF that has to put up with it.

[Fletch]

As to the original question I, like Op, don't get why we need to pigeonhole fans into some kind of category.

Fact is,we are all Bills fans. We have undergone various levels of torture and pain throughout the years. Some remember the AFL championship teams. Some remember the O-fer against Miami in the 70s. Some remember the miiddle 80s with a parade of QBs like Dufek, Ferragamo and Mathiason (three guys that make EJ look like Brady). Some remember the Super Bowl agony.

But at the end of the day we are all fans that want the team to do well. We might have different paths for the team to get there. And we might disagree as to how close they are to making those steps. But we all want them to succeed and finally win a damn Super Bow. And we are all happy that they are now staying in the Buffalo area.

Attempts to further divide Bills fans is silly and futile. It serves no purpose. There are already enough things that do that.

I fully agree. But apparently you miss all the posts initiating people in the early part of the season as trolls, etc.

My reactions to posts really aren't the issue. Op complains about the same things but handles it differently maybe. That doesn't address the core problem now, does it.

I don't insist that I'm more intelligent than any particular poster, but tell me, when I have in my signature Whaley himself quoted and on video saying that drafting Manuel was his idea, and moreover saying that he should be the one that bears full responsibility and even look for a new job if Manuel doesn't work out (as he hasn't just by the way), and posters continually challenge me and say that Manuel was Nix's decision, in your view is that an opinion, because it's definitely not a fact, worthy of respect as an intelligent position?

Like I said, unintelligent statements make themselves. There are many homers here that are not unintelligent, but they say some of the most unintelligent things at times. We're all wrong, but there has to be a basis upon which people make statements.

There are two types of posters here, generally speaking that is. The first type is those that either read something or independently determine that "our RBs are elite" for example, or our WRs are tops in the NFL. The basis for it is shallow, as we've now seen on those two topics, yet they throw it out there and the second that someone CIVILLY introduces a contrary opinion they are labeled "trolls" called names, slandered, maligned, etc.

You seem to ignore that in your patrolling of the forum to start, but then also ignore that maybe some fans don't enjoy being treated like that.

On the other side, I'm making a post to you now, no one else, if someone doesn't want to read it, fine, but then to say that they didn't read it but simultaneously know what it says is absurd. But to the point, fine, don't read it, but why the need to comment negatively if they're not interested in reading it?

In the meantime if the person that I engaged wants to engage further, great, let's do it. Trap and I just had an exchange on Watkins. No problem. Now if he comes back and calls me a name, problem, and why shouldn't it be?

The one thing that you ignore is that I'm civil with everyone unless they first turn on me.

You say that you and Op don't get why we need to pigeonhole fans into some kind of category. I'm with you there. But who is the first group to pigeonhole anyone? It's the rosy-eyed people that claim we're going to the playoffs and refuse to listen to anyone else's comments on why caution might be exercised.

I don't recall reading anywhere about this forum to "enter only if you think we're a good team."

Here's the thing, if those people were so right, then maybe they would be justified in their views. Right?

But season after season after season for what now, 15 years, OK, at least 10, they haven't been. So what right do they have to segregate the fans prematurely into ones that are "pessimists"? Haven't we as fans earned the right to be pessimistic?

Op would not agree with you, I don't think, that that isn't the very first division being made here. Neither would any of the others that are classified as pessimists or any other variation of that.

It all rolls from there if you ask me.

I'll admit that I throw out the term "everyone" far too readily and for that I can claim fault. But it stems from situations where I'll post something, even this for example, and there will be a string of posts not addressing any of the content within that post but only slamming me. It happens to others as well.

At some point it just becomes overwhelming and who has time to sift through to see who said what. People don't read it anyway.

There is a "going opinion" in this forum. What I mean by that is that in the preseason the prevalent opinion is typically far more optimistic than it should be. As the season starts usually there too. Then as reality seems to kick in, as many seem to realize will happen but simply ignore until it does, then that prevailing opinion begins to be downgraded.

Usually by the end of the season the people classified as optimists often make the pessimists appear to be optimistic. The ones that haven't changed are the so-called pessimists. Our views, opinions, and analyses are stable and consistent within a reasonable margin of error. The ironic thing is that at the end one of our typical recent seasons anyone not wanting to destroy OBD doesn't know what they're talking about.

My point is simply this, that any opinions that go against the prevailing ones at any given time, which are an enormous moving and evolving one, are met with less than civil responses.

Take this exchange between you and I for example. You said something in a very civil tone and I think I'm answering you in a very civil tone. That's how I post. But if you had said that I'm an *******, which is why I ignored your prior post, then perhaps I wouldn't have been as civil in my reply. But note that I ignored it.

I appreciate your stated opinion in this post, but I will also tell you that you ignore, both in discussion as well as in patroling here, the little jabs by others that have no basis in the original content of the thread yet that cause these threads to disintegrate rapidly.

One example is that I'll post a poll. It's a simple question with no commentary. Yet, people overreact and go bananas and start saying things and calling me names. It was a simple question, such as "Is Manuel a Bust?" Why should that question spark that kind of stuff? Why? Answer that and you'll start seeing much more of the problem.

In the meantime, after all the names I was called, three weeks later most people agree, and on top of that, all of a sudden articles that I've posted for two years from draft day to now, all of a sudden "we should have seen." Well, since they were presented here, numerous times (20?), why weren't they?

They were, but they were ignored. So you can figure out what that says about the matter, how people respond, as well as corporate intelligence.

The intollerance here is primarily fueled by anything that goes against the prevailing opinions, which more often than not early in the season are not based on facts.

I will make a conscious effort to not use the term "everyone" or mass categorize posters though in the future. I don't mean anything by it and I use the term very very generally although there's no way that anyone can know that unless they know me. It's a common criticism of me that I will directly attempt to address here moving ahead. But apart from that consider what I said because I think you've got a lot of it backwards.

[Fletch]

Come down from your cross. Your problem is that you don't read other people's posts and you just cherry pick responses and ignore the ones that hurt your argument.

That's ridiculous. People state often that they don't read my posts. Fine, but then they shouldn't respond as if they did. Right?

I read every post that I reply to, and exactly as in this case will call out the part that I'm responding to.

A ridiculously invalid conclusion on your part.

[imbondz]

I took a knife to my leg after the Cowboys beat us 52-17 in SB #3 and drew blood I was so pissed and depressed. So not sure which one I am, I didn't see that on the list.

[Fletch]

I already have a strong case that you are a douchebag. That won't change unless your attitude changes, particularly regarding your attitude towards those you disagree with. There is a reason why many, many posters here think that, and it's not the reason you think.

Nothing here will ever change until such a time as the mob doesn't call anyone and everything that doesn't agree with the majority of posters a troll and other assorted things. That's always the first stone cast. The rest cascades from there.

I realize won't see it that way.

[THATHURMANATOR]

I love the Bills.

I have been to every home game for the last 14 years.

I have fun regardless and don't let them ruin my life either way.

While at the game I am an emotional roller coaster (anyone sitting near me can attest to that)

[Fletch]

I'll look at the Bills the way I chose to look at them. In year 50 of viewing them and always willing to see something good happen..like Watkins catch with a second left.

I don't think that there's a fan here that didn't cheer when that catch was made. I know I did. I was jacked.

But here's the difference, then the game ends and we analyze it here, and part of that analysis is why did we need a last second catch in a home game against Minnesota, featuring a QB that hadn't even thrown a TD in the NFL, and a rookie RB who's playing in his first season in the NFL and a defense that has no particular strength just to win the game.

I guess some of us are fine sitting here all week until the next game gloating over a game winning drive to post our third score of the game against a team that scored more against our "#1 rushing defense" than they have in 4 of their other 6 games, in our backyard, in a game that we really needed to put away without any issues, while others of us realize that such play isn't matching what we're being told about being a playoff team, or even a #1 rushing D, which is now #5 and could be out of the top 10 if we can't stop the Jets from running on us like they did last season or against NE last week.

Watkins play was great on Sunday, but the play of the rest of the team with only one or two exceptions was not good and far from good enough to win us more games if it doesn't change.

[THATHURMANATOR]

I don't think that there's a fan here that didn't cheer when that catch was made. I know I did. I was jacked.

But here's the difference, then the game ends and we analyze it here, and part of that analysis is why did we need a last second catch in a home game against Minnesota, featuring a QB that hadn't even thrown a TD in the NFL, and a rookie RB who's playing in his first season in the NFL and a defense that has no particular strength just to win the game.

I guess some of us are fine sitting here all week until the next game gloating over a game winning drive to post our third score of the game against a team that scored more against our "#1 rushing defense" than they have in 4 of their other 6 games, in our backyard, in a game that we really needed to put away without any issues, while others of us realize that such play isn't matching what we're being told about being a playoff team, or even a #1 rushing D, which is now #5 and could be out of the top 10 if we can't stop the Jets from running on us like they did last season or against NE last week.

Watkins play was great on Sunday, but the play of the rest of the team with only one or two exceptions was not good and far from good enough to win us more games if it doesn't change.

My buddies and I went nuts when we won the game but walking out we did say that we should have killed that team and got lucky. The crowd wasn't as amped on the way out as you might have expected for such an exciting win.

[SpikedLemonade]

I am a fan who just needs to see hope in the future success of his team.

Even if the Bills improve to 8-8 this year, we are so vulnerable that I don't see us going to 10-6 next year.

[BuffaloRedleg]

That's ridiculous. People state often that they don't read my posts. Fine, but then they shouldn't respond as if they did. Right?

I read every post that I reply to, and exactly as in this case will call out the part that I'm responding to.

A ridiculously invalid conclusion on your part.

You have still refused to address my point that yes the Bills beat the Lions when they had their best player injured, yet the Saints lost to the Lions with essentially the same team. This matters Fletch, this is just basic comparative analysis. This is how you get to to the real answers instead of just making qualitative statements that aren't really provable. I asked you multiple times, but you kept ignoring it.

That is what we're talking about. That is why you are insufferable and piss people off. You aren't really interested in getting to the bottom of anything, you are only interested in yourself. If you are going to put yourself out there like you do then you ought to be fully engaged. It's a free country and an internet forum do what you want, but usually you just kind of look like a coward when backed into a corner instead of actually acknowledging anyone else's points.

[coastal]

Gibby = fletch

17159

[Fletch]

You have still refused to address my point that yes the Bills beat the Lions when they had their best player injured, yet the Saints lost to the Lions with essentially the same team.

OK, I'll address it. Then you address my equally irrelevant questions. Fair?

Who cares about New Orleans. Isn't it quite possible that NO is a struggling team? Who's on NO these days besides Brees? They have no good RBs. Were you aware of that? They have no RB that has ever even sniffed 1,000 rushing yards in a season. Their best, Thomas, who's huge season was less than 800 yards, is now hurt.

Besides Jimmy Graham they really don't have any great WRs. Colston is good, but hardly great, and he's limited in his strengths if you've ever watched him play as I know you have.

Why do you think that NO is some kind of standard here? I don't get it.

OK, now my turn to ask a question.

We barely beat Chicago. Miami pretty much dusted them last week in a very well-rounded style. They also beat NE.

So is Miami a better team than we are?

Same thing.

This kind of reasoning is irrelevant. If you use that as reference points then you can make any team or player better than another.

Brian Quick put up nearly as many receiving yards against Minnesota as Watkins did, is he as good as Watkins now too? Or even close?

Happy?

[Fletch]

My buddies and I went nuts when we won the game but walking out we did say that we should have killed that team and got lucky. The crowd wasn't as amped on the way out as you might have expected for such an exciting win.

My point exactly.

So why are we expected to ride a high of a single drive for an entire week in a game that should have been a romp?

The question isn't necessarily directed at you, just throwing it out there generally speaking.

[Fletch]

I am a fan who just needs to see hope in the future success of his team.

Even if the Bills improve to 8-8 this year, we are so vulnerable that I don't see us going to 10-6 next year.

I don't even see us going 8-8 this year. I have no idea how we beat Denver, GB, or NE. Then we have road games in NY, Miami, and Oakland where we've never won. Part of me says the same thing about that Raiders game, we should win that going away. But will we?

Cleveland's playing better and more consistently than we are too. Which four games are we going to win?

Are we going to start scoring more than 17 points and using all four quarters to do it?

How good is Bryce Brown really? Dixon clearly isn't a 3-down RB.

Why aren't the TDs coming with all of Orton's extra yardage?

How come our "elite and formerly #1 rushing D" can't seem to stop any good RBs that play at full strength? If McKinnon is any indication, playing with Bridgewater, then why shouldn't we expect the Jets to run on us like they just ran all over NE with Smith at the helm?

Why doesn't more than 1 WR usually have a good day?

How is this team going to play without FredEx's contributions in the receiving game and his 3-down presence overall?

Lots of questions and more, I guess we'll know more on Sunday.

[BuffaloRedleg]

OK, I'll address it. Then you address my equally irrelevant questions. Fair?

Who cares about New Orleans. Isn't it quite possible that NO is a struggling team? Who's on NO these days besides Brees? They have no good RBs. Were you aware of that? They have no RB that has ever even sniffed 1,000 rushing yards in a season. Their best, Thomas, who's huge season was less than 800 yards, is now hurt.

Besides Jimmy Graham they really don't have any great WRs. Colston is good, but hardly great, and he's limited in his strengths if you've ever watched him play as I know you have.

Why do you think that NO is some kind of standard here? I don't get it.

OK, now my turn to ask a question.

We barely beat Chicago. Miami pretty much dusted them last week in a very well-rounded style. They also beat NE.

So is Miami a better team than we are?

Same thing.

This kind of reasoning is irrelevant. If you use that as reference points then you can make any team or player better than another.

Brian Quick put up nearly as many receiving yards against Minnesota as Watkins did, is he as good as Watkins now too? Or even close?

Happy?

Nobody is saying they are the be all and end all, but they matter for reference points to get everyone on the same sheet of music. I don't disagree with anything you are saying, in fact I think you are 100% correct. I think the Saints are a struggling team and I don't think they are that good.

The reason I brought it up is because you were adamant that the fact that the Lions were injured somehow makes the Bills win not relevant. Sure it is not as "quality" as if Johnson played, but that doesn't mean it is worthless. At the end of the day a win is a win and you can only criticize so much in a win. After the Bills/Pats game I listened to Bill Burr the comedian and he was flipping out about how bad the Pats played and about how it wasn't a quality win. That of course is nonsense from a Bills fan perspective, because I thought the Pats embarrassed us and looked like they were in a different league. The reality is you win the game and move on, that's just the nature of the game.

My biggest pet peave around here is when people refuse to give credit for wins and give the Bills all the credit in the world when they lose. That is just being dishonest. After the Pats game I give us very little chance of sniffing the playoffs, but I'm not going to sit here and lie. Credit is due where credit is due, even if they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And no, a single player who in a single game against a single team had as many yards as someone else does not make them equal. That is absolutely apples and oranges and you know it.

[Buffalogic]

I mean even on ignore half the page is blocked out because the guy can't shut up. Fletch is diluting the board with his incessant need to respond to every post whether it's directed to him or not. Get a job or something and stop regurgitating every opinion you have onto this board. Nobody cares. He is incredibly annoying even when I can't see what he writes.

[pmoon6]

I'm a "I enjoy watching my team play" type of fan.

I'm also a "Choke the **** out of the douchebag, self described "realists" and self aggrandizing morons" type of fan.

Put us in the same room and they would wish they contracted Ebola or the Plague.

[Meathead]

i can either be a bills fan or burn my self compulsively. sometimes its a tough call

[kscdogbillsfan1221]

i can either be a bills fan or burn my self compulsively. sometimes its a tough call

you sure there's a difference? i'm not.

[Buffalogic]

I'm a "I enjoy watching my team play" type of fan.

I'm also a "Choke the **** out of the douchebag, self described "realists" and self aggrandizing morons" type of fan.

Put us in the same room and they would wish they contracted Ebola or the Plague.You are so fake intimidating.

[Bunion]

I took a knife to my leg after the Cowboys beat us 52-17 in SB #3 and drew blood I was so pissed and depressed. So not sure which one I am, I didn't see that on the list.

The weird thing is, another Bills fan is the only kind of fan I can imagine that would have this reaction.

I used to be the kind of Bills fan that shrugged when they lost and had an extra beer at dinner when they won. Now I'm on the roller coaster.

[pmoon6]

You are so fake intimidating.Maybe so, considering the chances of meeting them are miniscule.

[BillsOverDolphins]

I'm a "I enjoy watching my team play" type of fan.

I'm also a "Choke the **** out of the douchebag, self described "realists" and self aggrandizing morons" type of fan.

Put us in the same room and they would wish they contracted Ebola or the Plague.

:rofl: Homeboy is 5-10 years from being put in a home, but he's still feisty...the nurses are gonna love changing your bedpan

[pmoon6]

:rofl: Homeboy is 5-10 years from being put in a home, but he's still feisty...the nurses are gonna love changing your bedpanWell, you don't really know.

I could have just created an Internet character like you have done so many times.

However, you need to remember one thing so I will relate a story.

My buddy and I went to visit his Dad in East Texas back in the '90's. There was some racial strife in the area due to the Jasper incident. We were sitting on his porch having a few drinks and I asked his Father if he was worried about white boys coming around and starting trouble. He was a thin man, looked kinda like an old blues player and he said something I will never forget. "Son, I'm too old to be worried and I'm too old to get in a fist fight, but I do take precautions". He pulled out a Ruger Blackhawk .44 from underneath the pillow on his rocking chair and said "This here is my persuader, it persuades anybody tryin' to **** with me to get on down the road. We had a good laugh.

Just goes to show ya, even an old dog doesn't have to take any **** from anybody.

[swiper]

I'm a "I enjoy watching my team play" type of fan.

I'm also a "Choke the **** out of the douchebag, self described "realists" and self aggrandizing morons" type of fan.

Put us in the same room and they would wish they contracted Ebola or the Plague.

You're an old, crotchedy fan, and you know it.

[pmoon6]

You're an old, crotchedy fan, and you know it.You'll be there soon.

I will save you a seat at the Bridge Table.

[sudzy]

The last 14 years have made me an impatient fan.

[swiper]

You'll be there soon.

I will save you a seat at the Bridge Table.

I am there too.

[Fletch]

Nobody is saying they are the be all and end all, but they matter for reference points to get everyone on the same sheet of music. I don't disagree with anything you are saying, in fact I think you are 100% correct. I think the Saints are a struggling team and I don't think they are that good.

The reason I brought it up is because you were adamant that the fact that the Lions were injured somehow makes the Bills win not relevant. Sure it is not as "quality" as if Johnson played, but that doesn't mean it is worthless. At the end of the day a win is a win and you can only criticize so much in a win. After the Bills/Pats game I listened to Bill Burr the comedian and he was flipping out about how bad the Pats played and about how it wasn't a quality win. That of course is nonsense from a Bills fan perspective, because I thought the Pats embarrassed us and looked like they were in a different league. The reality is you win the game and move on, that's just the nature of the game.

My biggest pet peave around here is when people refuse to give credit for wins and give the Bills all the credit in the world when they lose. That is just being dishonest. After the Pats game I give us very little chance of sniffing the playoffs, but I'm not going to sit here and lie. Credit is due where credit is due, even if they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And no, a single player who in a single game against a single team had as many yards as someone else does not make them equal. That is absolutely apples and oranges and you know it.

I think you're getting a bit particular and taking it into the realm more of emotion when you talk about people giving credit for a win. Win or lose, after games I look at a number of things including why we won. You've probably heard me state repeatedly over the years that I'd rather see this team go 6-10 but play competitively as a rule for the season than to go 9-7 or 10-6 in the manner that we did it in 2004, by beating a string of teams that were downtrodden.

We've won four games now. In every win we essentially came in at full strength with only minor and insignificant injuries apart from Kiko who we knew would be out all season. Every team has injuries, but not all teams suffer the same injury fates.

After the Detroit game everyone was crowing about our D. Was I upset that we won? Of course not, but for purposes of discussion I didn't see what the big deal was in beating a team that basically had one weapon, Tate, who lit us up and posted a career day. If I were a DC I'd be concerned that we couldn't stop their only notable player, but that wasn't on anyone's radar. I was evaluating the team on the season.

FF to this past Sunday. We beat the Vikes, were you impressed?

A RB named McKinnon put up 103 rushing yards on 5.4 yards per carry. Does this concern you? It concerns me. I'm curious why we allowed a RB like McKinnon, if our D really is as good as everyone seems to insist, to that kind of yardage and 158 on 5.4 overall for the Vikes. The Jets have three times that rushing prowess and three RBs that have historically ripped us apart.

So while everyone's off insisting that a win is a win, I'm trying to figure out how good this team really is if Bridgewater can put up his first NFL TD against us and a no-name RB can do what he did and nearly win them the game, in Buffalo, in a must-win game for us.

So I state those things and that kind of thinking appears to be disallowed here.

Are you not concerned that McKinnon had that kind of game, particularly considering that we now face three RBs that have all had banner if not career days against us in the past? Keep in mind that all Schwartz had to do was come in and shut down their running game because no one in the world had any faith that Bridgewater was going to beat us through the air.

So what happened? Schwartz didn't do the obvious correct thing? He tried but failed, which is what I think, but then the question becomes why?

How much and what kind of credit should be given this team for playing the way that they did on Sunday? I'm curious.

We beat Miami at home in an atmosphere that we won't see again as an advantage, and they lost Moreno early. What's funny is that before games here people get excited if say Chris Ivory were out for the Jets, they like it because they know it's an advantage. But after the games those same people talk as if it wasn't. Of course it is. Who doesn't think that playing Detroit with Calvin Johnson out there isn't a much different ball game than without him? The prevailing opinion here seems to be that Watkins is a huge playmaker that shapes games. If that's even half true then how much more regarding Calvin Johnson?

Chicago's Cutler did everything he could to help us win that game and even put up over 400 yards, closer to 500, and it still took a huge run by Jackson just to put us into OT. Chicago as it turns out is not that good this season.

Make sense?

What of that do you disagree with and why? It seems like most of the disagreement here is over my inability to close my eyes and not insist that beating other teams without their key players is the same as beating them at full strength and what that actually means for us over the entire season, such as in rankings, which are almost all categorically plummeting.

[kscdogbillsfan1221]

Am I wrong to recall that Kyle Williams and Nigel bradhamwere out for one of our wins or was that a loss. I cacan't remember.

[feldspar]

Am I wrong to recall that Kyle Williams and Nigel bradhamwere out for one of our wins or was that a loss. I cacan't remember.

No, you are right.

That was a win against Detroit.

[BillsOverDolphins]

Well, you don't really know.

I could have just created an Internet character like you have done so many times.

However, you need to remember one thing so I will relate a story.

My buddy and I went to visit his Dad in East Texas back in the '90's. There was some racial strife in the area due to the Jasper incident. We were sitting on his porch having a few drinks and I asked his Father if he was worried about white boys coming around and starting trouble. He was a thin man, looked kinda like an old blues player and he said something I will never forget. "Son, I'm too old to be worried and I'm too old to get in a fist fight, but I do take precautions". He pulled out a Ruger Blackhawk .44 from underneath the pillow on his rocking chair and said "This here is my persuader, it persuades anybody tryin' to **** with me to get on down the road. We had a good laugh.

Just goes to show ya, even an old dog doesn't have to take any **** from anybody.

Well that was an amazing anecdote, Mortimer. Riveting stuff

[BuffaloRedleg]

I think you're getting a bit particular and taking it into the realm more of emotion when you talk about people giving credit for a win. Win or lose, after games I look at a number of things including why we won. You've probably heard me state repeatedly over the years that I'd rather see this team go 6-10 but play competitively as a rule for the season than to go 9-7 or 10-6 in the manner that we did it in 2004, by beating a string of teams that were downtrodden.

We've won four games now. In every win we essentially came in at full strength with only minor and insignificant injuries apart from Kiko who we knew would be out all season. Every team has injuries, but not all teams suffer the same injury fates.

After the Detroit game everyone was crowing about our D. Was I upset that we won? Of course not, but for purposes of discussion I didn't see what the big deal was in beating a team that basically had one weapon, Tate, who lit us up and posted a career day. If I were a DC I'd be concerned that we couldn't stop their only notable player, but that wasn't on anyone's radar. I was evaluating the team on the season.

FF to this past Sunday. We beat the Vikes, were you impressed?

A RB named McKinnon put up 103 rushing yards on 5.4 yards per carry. Does this concern you? It concerns me. I'm curious why we allowed a RB like McKinnon, if our D really is as good as everyone seems to insist, to that kind of yardage and 158 on 5.4 overall for the Vikes. The Jets have three times that rushing prowess and three RBs that have historically ripped us apart.

So while everyone's off insisting that a win is a win, I'm trying to figure out how good this team really is if Bridgewater can put up his first NFL TD against us and a no-name RB can do what he did and nearly win them the game, in Buffalo, in a must-win game for us.

So I state those things and that kind of thinking appears to be disallowed here.

Are you not concerned that McKinnon had that kind of game, particularly considering that we now face three RBs that have all had banner if not career days against us in the past? Keep in mind that all Schwartz had to do was come in and shut down their running game because no one in the world had any faith that Bridgewater was going to beat us through the air.

So what happened? Schwartz didn't do the obvious correct thing? He tried but failed, which is what I think, but then the question becomes why?

How much and what kind of credit should be given this team for playing the way that they did on Sunday? I'm curious.

We beat Miami at home in an atmosphere that we won't see again as an advantage, and they lost Moreno early. What's funny is that before games here people get excited if say Chris Ivory were out for the Jets, they like it because they know it's an advantage. But after the games those same people talk as if it wasn't. Of course it is. Who doesn't think that playing Detroit with Calvin Johnson out there isn't a much different ball game than without him? The prevailing opinion here seems to be that Watkins is a huge playmaker that shapes games. If that's even half true then how much more regarding Calvin Johnson?

Chicago's Cutler did everything he could to help us win that game and even put up over 400 yards, closer to 500, and it still took a huge run by Jackson just to put us into OT. Chicago as it turns out is not that good this season.

Make sense?

What of that do you disagree with and why? It seems like most of the disagreement here is over my inability to close my eyes and not insist that beating other teams without their key players is the same as beating them at full strength and what that actually means for us over the entire season, such as in rankings, which are almost all categorically plummeting.

Well when you lay it out like that I can't disagree. Everything you are saying is correct, although I disagree about McKinnon. I think he is a fantastic talent.

My issue is the looking for reasons to not like a victory, and not holding the same standard in losses. If things are more important than wins and losses (which you believe and I believe as well) then they matter for wins and losses. You can't just have blinders to the good things and only look at the bad things.

For example Green Bay:
-Loss vs Seattle where they embarrassed themselves.
-Win vs Jets where they really should have lost if it wasn't for that time out.
-Loss vs Lions who we beat
-Win vs Bears who we beat
-Win vs Vikings who we beat
-Win vs Dolphins who we beat
-Win vs Panthers who are 3-3-1 and not very good

I can make that Green Bay record look bad by saying they haven't beat any good teams this season, just like I can say that about the Bills. The reality is that a lot of teams are deeply flawed in this league and if you are looking for negative things about victories you will always find them. That is just the nature of the league. You get wins where you can get them, nobody is criticizing Green Bay for almost ****ting the bed vs the Jets. They just move on, because that is the way things go.

My issue is never with anyone's opinions as long as they are honest and fair. Refusing to acknowledge anything positive and only looking at the negative is just plain ole' dishonest and I will always address that. For the record, the Minnesota game was terrible and yes we got the win which is great but I'm not impressed. I'm all in against the Jets this week, if we lose we are done done. That goes both ways though, if we win I have to give them credit even if it is sloppy.

If you you are going to make a big stink about how a loss matters, then a win, however ugly it may be, matters as well. To not do so is just being dishonest.

[pmoon6]

Well that was an amazing anecdote, Mortimer. Riveting stuffHey!! My name is not Mortimer.

It's Cletus.

[imbondz]

The weird thing is, another Bills fan is the only kind of fan I can imagine that would have this reaction.

I used to be the kind of Bills fan that shrugged when they lost and had an extra beer at dinner when they won. Now I'm on the roller coaster.

I had some issues back then.

[Bunion]

I had some issues back then.

Sorry to hear that dude. I hope you're feeling better.