This was the Jets

[Fletch]

Look, we needed this game given the snow. The D played lights out ball, at least the front 7 since neither Vick nor Smith was ever much of a threat downfield. Offensively we were due and lit things up. It was fantastic to see Ford Field heavy with Bills fans that could make the trip.

But this was the Jets, it's hardly a benchmark game. The real test is the rest of the season.

Right now there's so much overreaction to a win over a pathetic team that's probably going to be drafting 3rd only because they don't play Jax and are clearly one of the worst teams in the league that will likely see a new owner and head coach after the season.

We have four very difficult games left against teams the likes of which we've been unable to beat this season so far, right now all four of which are slated to make the playoffs.

Let's save the "our defense is great" comments for those games and if our defense is really great then it will prove out that way. I'm sorry, I just can't buy into this notion that our D is great simply because we stomped on one of the most offensively challenged teams in the league.

Have we sunk so low as fans that we need to embellish a win over a team like the Jets, amidst our inability to beat any teams with above average offenses otherwise?

What happened to the days of us not being satisfied unless we could beat the best teams out there, defensively handle the best offenses out there, and dominate the best defenses out there? We suck this season at doing that and unless we do it coming up against those kinds of teams, I'm simply not impressed.

This overreaction is half sickening.

[trapezeus]

this post is entirely sickening.

[Fletch]

I can't believe how low our standards and expectations as fans have sunken in 20 years.

We can't do **** against any above average offenses. Offensively this is one of the worst teams in years. Oh sure, we can hang 40 points on the Jets but trying to crack that 20-point barrier in any other game is the challenge of the ages.

[Joe Fo Sho]

I can't believe how low our standards and expectations as fans have sunken in 20 years.

We can't do **** against any above average offenses. Offensively this is one of the worst teams in years. Oh sure, we can hang 40 points on the Jets but trying to crack that 20-point barrier in any other game is the challenge of the ages.

There's a middle ground though, right? You don't have to be on one end of the spectrum or the other. It's doesn't have to be all doom and gloom, and it doesn't have to be all rainbows and ice cream. People can be satisfied with a solid win, and they can be critical when we underperform. This team has been sub-par for the last 15 years, what's wrong with being happy and excited when our team just played the most dominant game in recent memory?

[Night Train]

The D is good. The lost opportunities against Houston and KC were the lack of an O.

I know why our record isn't better. It's the playcalling and execution (lack of) of the O.

The D has been excellent most of the time.

[OpIv37]

We played a bad team.

We beat them soundly, which is what is supposed to happen against bad teams. What more do you want?

Yes, eventually we need to be able to beat the good teams but a) we can only play the team on the schedule in any given week and b) we are not going to beat the good teams until we can consistently trounce the bad teams.

[kelly2reed4six]

Put your *****ish ways aside for a day and enjoy a great win.

[Novacane]

This is why no one likes you Fletch! You make things up to fit your narrative! Who is over reacting? You take people being happy about the win and turn it into we all think the Bills are going to the Super Bowl.

[Ginger Vitis]

As of last Tuesday... Fletchies favourite website.. Football Outsiders had the Bills defense rated 5th in the NFL.. And after last nights performance the metric numbers FO uses will improve the Bills defensive stats

[kscdogbillsfan1221]

92 yards rushing allowed on the 5th ranked run offense in the league.. just saying

[BillsOwnAll]

Who's overreacting??? Do you love trolling for comments? There was maybe 2 threads started after the game the whole night. Sorry you hate when the bills win.

[Fletch]

There's a middle ground though, right? You don't have to be on one end of the spectrum or the other. It's doesn't have to be all doom and gloom, and it doesn't have to be all rainbows and ice cream. People can be satisfied with a solid win, and they can be critical when we underperform. This team has been sub-par for the last 15 years, what's wrong with being happy and excited when our team just played the most dominant game in recent memory?

That's a good question Joe, about the middle ground!

I guess that depends upon your expectations Joe. For 20 years now I've been desiring a team that is actually capable of competing with the best like our '90s Bills were. To date since then we've not had anything even close to that.

What we have had is opinionated fluff that often pumps this team up to levels that it does not deserve




what's wrong with being happy and excited when our team just played the most dominant game in recent memory?

There's nothing wrong with it. I was happy and excited last night.

But then using that game, the most dominant game in recent memory, really since just about a month ago when we pummeled the exact same team in similar fashion, to then develop a baseline or something akin to that, much less ranting about how our D is great when we were manhandled by Miami a couple of weeks ago, were absolutely decimated by the Pats, and haven't had, by sheer chance, had to play any of the top-15 offenses in the league to date, makes no sense whatsoever.

This was one of two very winnable games left on our schedule and one that had we lost would have been an embarassment, even under the circumstances in Detroit, more so had it been at home. But at the same time, clearly there was an emotional edge to help overcome the week in Buffalo due to all the pent up energy that I think ultimately worked in our favor, presumably you would agree.

So again, using that game as anything other than what it was, a huge win over a terribly poor team that's amongst the worst few in the league would be remiss. Especially since I've pointed out that against the Jets, a now 2-9 team that's beaten the Raiders as one of their two wins, we've averaged 40.5 ppg, whereas elsewhere we've averaged 17.4 ppg.

All this nonsense about our D being great hasn't been proven. Why, because we just held the hapless Jets to 3 points? When we were once again embarrassed by the Pats, worse than we were last season? I'm not seeing it. When we play the Pats and teams like them better I might start to get somewhat excited. We're going to find out what happens then and I'll bet you anything that this forum turns on this D and team during that stretch for that very reason.

I don't think that this D is anywhere near as good as we are hearing here. We'll find out though, very soon. If our D is really that great then we should have no trouble at all holding the Packers, Pats, and Broncos to less than their season averages. If that does not happen I think that it's high time for some realizations to start kicking in here. Wouldn't you agree? Or getting back to that perspective thing, would you be satisfied to just have our D be "great" against below average offenses while being below average against above average offenses? Because that won't cut it for me.

[Fletch]

Sorry you hate when the bills win.

Not at all. I thoroughly enjoyed the game last night. I did go to bed when we hit 31 since after that it was like watching the fight scene in Cool Hand Luke.

But I'm sorry if I don't share the notion here that our D is great or tops simply because we beat the Jets and had a great defensive night amidst almost unanimous agreement here that the Jets, who on top of not playing for anything, showed up completely unprepared.

I think the bigger question becomes why people such as yourself put so much credence into such a game when we still can't beat any teams slated to make the playoffs and when we haven't beaten a single above average offensive team so far this season. Granted, we've only played one, but shouldn't that be a clue as to why our offense might be in danger of being overrated?

[notacon]

this post is entirely sickening.


And 100% correct.

[The King]

We swept a division rival too. Pretty fun game to watch. God forbid we enjoy anything.

[Joe Fo Sho]

That's a good question Joe, about the middle ground!

I guess that depends upon your expectations Joe. For 20 years now I've been desiring a team that is actually capable of competing with the best like our '90s Bills were. To date since then we've not had anything even close to that.

What we have had is opinionated fluff that often pumps this team up to levels that it does not deserve





There's nothing wrong with it. I was happy and excited last night.

But then using that game, the most dominant game in recent memory, really since just about a month ago when we pummeled the exact same team in similar fashion, to then develop a baseline or something akin to that, much less ranting about how our D is great when we were manhandled by Miami a couple of weeks ago, were absolutely decimated by the Pats, and haven't had, by sheer chance, had to play any of the top-15 offenses in the league to date, makes no sense whatsoever.

This was one of two very winnable games left on our schedule and one that had we lost would have been an embarassment, even under the circumstances in Detroit, more so had it been at home. But at the same time, clearly there was an emotional edge to help overcome the week in Buffalo due to all the pent up energy that I think ultimately worked in our favor, presumably you would agree.

So again, using that game as anything other than what it was, a huge win over a terribly poor team that's amongst the worst few in the league would be remiss. Especially since I've pointed out that against the Jets, a now 2-9 team that's beaten the Raiders as one of their two wins, we've averaged 40.5 ppg, whereas elsewhere we've averaged 17.4 ppg.

All this nonsense about our D being great hasn't been proven. Why, because we just held the hapless Jets to 3 points? When we were once again embarrassed by the Pats, worse than we were last season? I'm not seeing it. When we play the Pats and teams like them better I might start to get somewhat excited. We're going to find out what happens then and I'll bet you anything that this forum turns on this D and team during that stretch for that very reason.

I don't think that this D is anywhere near as good as we are hearing here. We'll find out though, very soon. If our D is really that great then we should have no trouble at all holding the Packers, Pats, and Broncos to less than their season averages. If that does not happen I think that it's high time for some realizations to start kicking in here. Wouldn't you agree? Or getting back to that perspective thing, would you be satisfied to just have our D be "great" against below average offenses while being below average against above average offenses? Because that won't cut it for me.

Of course everyone wants this team to be great and dominant like it was in the early 90's. The problem is that teams like that are very few and far between. Setting the bar at 'dominant defense and offense against the best teams in the NFL' is an unrealistic goal. Have there ever been teams that do that? I don't have the stats, but I'm sure if you look at the top offenses and defenses in the NFL this year, there will be games where they have been below average. That's just how the NFL is now.

Everybody on this board understands that we won't be successful unless we can compete with the best the NFL has to offer, and that ultimately starts with the Patriots and winning our division. No, we haven't been close to that in a long time. Unfortunately, we probably won't have a chance at that until Brady retires or Belichick gets caught cheating again. It's disgusting to have to say that, but the same thing can be said for 90% of the NFL.

I think some people confuse optimism for the future with satisfaction with the present. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of this board are not satisfied with anything less than the playoffs. However, some people see optimism for the future and are willing to express that, while others see the same old Bills that show a bit of improvement one season only to regress back the following year. This is what makes talking about the Bills interesting. It's actually why message boards like this exist.

Until we're a top team in the NFL, there are always going to be people critical of every move this team does and people that like every move. Reasonably discussing these moves is the only things us fans can do. Me getting angry about every move I don't agree with doesn't help this team get to the playoffs.

[Fletch]

As of last Tuesday... Fletchies favourite website.. Football Outsiders had the Bills defense rated 5th in the NFL.. And after last nights performance the metric numbers FO uses will improve the Bills defensive stats

Yeah, I can't imagine why. Since apparently you missed it in one of my other high profile posts, here's some info. I'm curious if you don't think that this might impact a stat like that?

Here are the present rankings of the offenses that we've faced so far this season:

Yardage: 7th (L), 16th (W), 17th (sp lit - Miami), 18th (L), 20th (L), 21st (W), 23 rd (L) , 29th ( 2 W's - Jets), 30th (W)

Scoring: 1st (L), 10th (split - Miam i), 13th (L), 15th (L), 16th (L), 20th (W), 27th (W), 28th (W), 30th (2 L's - Jets)

Let me ask, do you really think that that's irrelevant in that ranking? If you do, then we should have no trouble at all stopping GB, Denver, and NE.

Otherwise, we held Chicago to within a point of their season scoring average, SD to their season average, Houston to over their season average, Detroit to 4 points below their season average with all but one of their offensive skill position starters out, who oh by the way posted a career day and the best day of his career, allowed NE 5 points over their season average, and held Minnesota to 2 points below their season average, in Buffalo. The only teams we've held to significantly below their season average are the Jets once, the Fins twice, and the Chiefs with three of those four being home games yesterday's strange but ultimately favorable circumstances aside.

Is that really as impressive as everyone is saying? Most people will ignore that, but it's to their own detriment. That's very relevant information to incorporate into this discussion.

[Fletch]

We swept a division rival too. Pretty fun game to watch. God forbid we enjoy anything.

I don't believe that I was referring to enjoying the game which I did myself. I specifically, I thought obviously, was referring to this ridiculous overemphasis on our D being great.

[Fletch]

Put your *****ish ways aside for a day and enjoy a great win.

I enjoyed the game. I'm not going to make a mountain over a win against a team against which it would have been utterly embarrassing to have lost to and a loss that had it occurred would have given cause for the AMA to send a team of doctors over to the forum to begin the intravenous administration of psychotropic anti-depressant drugs.

[Novacane]

Yeah, I can't imagine why. Since apparently you missed it in one of my other high profile posts, here's some info.





:rofl: High profile post. That's classic :lmao:

- - - Updated - - -


I enjoyed the game. I'm not going to make a mountain over a win against a team against which it would have been utterly embarrassing to have lost to and a loss that had it occurred would have given cause for the AMA to send a team of doctors over to the forum to begin the intravenous administration of psychotropic anti-depressant drugs.

No one else is either. That's why this thread is stupid!

[Dr. Who]

Entirely predictable. Why not just enjoy the win?
Why the "look at me" crap that insists on pissing on a very rare easy triumph?
I don't see a lot of Bills' fans "making a mountain" of this win. Everyone knows the Jets are terrible.

[Fletch]

I don't see a lot of Bills' fans "making a mountain" of this win. Everyone knows the Jets are terrible.

Then you're not looking. People are talking about this D today as if it's one of our all-time best. It isn't even close.

[Fletch]

:rofl: High profile post. That's classic :lmao:

- - - Updated - - -



No one else is either. That's why this thread is stupid!

Oh I'm sorry, for a second there all I thought I was reading about was how great our D is despite the fact that it's pretty much played to the level of the competition, worse against better teams, better against worse teams generally speaking.

I guess I've been hallucinating.

:peace:

[Novacane]

Oh I'm sorry, for a second there all I thought I was reading about was how great our D is despite the fact that it's pretty much played to the level of the competition, worse against better teams, better against worse teams generally speaking.

I guess I've been hallucinating.

:peace:


A couple people always overreact. When you say it's everyone it gets annoying. I actually agree with you that until the D shuts down a good O they don't deserve to be called great. It's your presentation that pisses people off.
The overwhelming majority of us know what last night was. A win over a bad team. It was still fun and a game Bills teams of the past would of lost or bumbled around making into a close game. Why do you want to piss on any hope people have?

[Dr. Who]

Then you're not looking. People are talking about this D today as if it's one of our all-time best. It isn't even close.

It's a good D. A very good front four. A competent offense also helps.
Here's the point. So what if some people overreact? Most people know better.
If you let that sort of thing go, people wouldn't be irritated with you.

[justasportsfan]

Right now there's so much overreaction to a win over a pathetic team

the only one who tends to overreact to make a negative/whinny point is you. No one here says we beat the Pats.

[better days]

It's a good D. A very good front four. A competent offense also helps.
Here's the point. So what if some people overreact? Most people know better.
If you let that sort of thing go, people wouldn't be irritated with you.

Well, I think this is a very good defense with a GREAT front four.

I would put them up there with any front four, past or present.

[Dr. Who]

Well, I think this is a very good defense with a GREAT front four.

I would put them up there with any front four, past or present.

It is a great front four. I think they are historically good.
The rest of the defense is good, imo. If one adds Kiko and one more stellar cb, they would be good enough to carry a team to a super bowl.

You're right to call me out, in any event. I undersold in an attempt to reason with Fletch. I'm getting soft in my old age.

[Fletch]

It is a great front four. I think they are historically good.
The rest of the defense is good, imo. If one adds Kiko and one more stellar cb, they would be good enough to carry a team to a super bowl.

You're right to call me out, in any event. I undersold in an attempt to reason with Fletch. I'm getting soft in my old age.

We're about to find this out.

My entire point is yes, they're "historically good" against the Jets, Vikes, and a couple of other teams minus any decent players. They were far from historically good against NE and SD and several other teams, including Miami just two weeks ago.

We'll see how "historically good" they are against the next stretch of games.

The '90s Bills D was historically good and would give these upcoming teams a run for their money and would have given SD and NE a run for theirs earlier on.

[YardRat]

The Super Bowl defenses were good, but they weren't 'historically good' by any stretch of the imagination.

[Fletch]

The Super Bowl defenses were good, but they weren't 'historically good' by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks for biting. They were better than ours is now.

'90: 16.4 ppg
'91: 19.9
'92: 17.7
'93: 15.1 ppg

2014: 18.8

When you consider that we've only played average to below average offenses for the most part and that the one team we played that was above average put up more than their season average against us, I don't think there's any comparison.

You're going to see that 18.8 end up at 21.5 or so by the end of the season and our ranking for scoring D be around 12th - 16th.

Back then we could expect the D to step up against good offensive teams, this D hasn't come close to showing that. We allowed SD their season average in scoring, here in Buffalo, and we allowed NE 5 points above theirs.

I think that the Packers, Broncos, and Pats are going to dismantle our D.

[jamze132]

Look, we needed this game given the snow. The D played lights out ball, at least the front 7 since neither Vick nor Smith was ever much of a threat downfield. Offensively we were due and lit things up. It was fantastic to see Ford Field heavy with Bills fans that could make the trip.

But this was the Jets, it's hardly a benchmark game. The real test is the rest of the season.

Right now there's so much overreaction to a win over a pathetic team that's probably going to be drafting 3rd only because they don't play Jax and are clearly one of the worst teams in the league that will likely see a new owner and head coach after the season.

We have four very difficult games left against teams the likes of which we've been unable to beat this season so far, right now all four of which are slated to make the playoffs.

Let's save the "our defense is great" comments for those games and if our defense is really great then it will prove out that way. I'm sorry, I just can't buy into this notion that our D is great simply because we stomped on one of the most offensively challenged teams in the league.

Have we sunk so low as fans that we need to embellish a win over a team like the Jets, amidst our inability to beat any teams with above average offenses otherwise?

What happened to the days of us not being satisfied unless we could beat the best teams out there, defensively handle the best offenses out there, and dominate the best defenses out there? We suck this season at doing that and unless we do it coming up against those kinds of teams, I'm simply not impressed.

This overreaction is half sickening.

On the other hand, a good team SHOULD have beaten that crappy team by 5 TDs.

But don't read into me calling the Bills a good team, I'm just making a point.

[YardRat]

Thanks for biting. They were better than ours is now.

'90: 16.4 ppg
'91: 19.9
'92: 17.7
'93: 15.1 ppg

2014: 18.8

When you consider that we've only played average to below average offenses for the most part and that the one team we played that was above average put up more than their season average against us, I don't think there's any comparison.

You're going to see that 18.8 end up at 21.5 or so by the end of the season and our ranking for scoring D be around 12th - 16th.

Back then we could expect the D to step up against good offensive teams, this D hasn't come close to showing that. We allowed SD their season average in scoring, here in Buffalo, and we allowed NE 5 points above theirs.

I think that the Packers, Broncos, and Pats are going to dismantle our D.

Yeah, too bad the avg leaguewide has gone up 3 pts also.

Trying to compare points against in 2014 to the early 90's is pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

[Fletch]

Yeah, too bad the avg leaguewide has gone up 3 pts also.

Trying to compare points against in 2014 to the early 90's is pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

Yup, knew that was coming too.

Nice way to ignore the fact that we have played only pretty much below average offenses. Like I pointed out, our D "held" SD to its season average, if we are that great then we'd have done better under the circumstances. Same with NE whom we allowed 5 more than their season average to.

I'm just curious what you're going to say and what your excuses will be in a few weeks after our PA average sinks dramatically.

But one of the things I have difficulty piecing together is how nearly everyone was talking about how unprepared the Jets were coming into yesterday's game, and how horrible they looked, and that was here in this forum in the GDT, and yet everyone seems to think that this bloodgeoning of that hapless offense by our D was some sort of feat.

I understand it, again, it's emotionalism at its finest. But it's not good form to use that as a relevant data point on the season.

Let's get serious here, if we want to be viewed as a "historically good D," then maybe we should start holding some top 10 or 12 teams to below their season averages.

The problem with the emotionalism around here is that in two weeks many here are going to have their hair on fire over how we suck on D when that's not the case either.

We can bicker over this for days, but let's just reconvene in three weeks after the next three games and sit down and discuss how good we think our D is. Deal?

[kingJofNYC]

Yeah, too bad the avg leaguewide has gone up 3 pts also.

Trying to compare points against in 2014 to the early 90's is pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

Have to adjust for era, no question, but that may change the narrative.

Fletch, stay miserable homie.

[YardRat]

Yup, knew that was coming too.

Nice way to ignore the fact that we have played only pretty much below average offenses. Like I pointed out, our D "held" SD to its season average, if we are that great then we'd have done better under the circumstances. Same with NE whom we allowed 5 more than their season average to.

I'm just curious what you're going to say and what your excuses will be in a few weeks after our PA average sinks dramatically.

But one of the things I have difficulty piecing together is how nearly everyone was talking about how unprepared the Jets were coming into yesterday's game, and how horrible they looked, and that was here in this forum in the GDT, and yet everyone seems to think that this bloodgeoning of that hapless offense by our D was some sort of feat.

I understand it, again, it's emotionalism at its finest. But it's not good form to use that as a relevant data point on the season.

Let's get serious here, if we want to be viewed as a "historically good D," then maybe we should start holding some top 10 or 12 teams to below their season averages.

The problem with the emotionalism around here is that in two weeks many here are going to have their hair on fire over how we suck on D when that's not the case either.

We can bicker over this for days, but let's just reconvene in three weeks after the next three games and sit down and discuss how good we think our D is. Deal?

Something you fail to, or refuse to, comprehend, is I'm not saying the team is going to roll through the rest of the regular season, or that I expect the ppg to remain the same or not go up. You also fail to accept that pretty much nobody is doing cartwheels and thumping their chests over beating the Jets. But, it's your make-believe world, so I guess you can set it up any way you want to so you can feel comfortable inundating the boards with your obvious infinite intelligence and wisdom.

[Fletch]

Have to adjust for era, no question, but that may change the narrative.

Fletch, stay miserable homie.

It is what it is brother.

I'm not going to make a mountain out of beating a team that A, sucks, B, showed up completely unprepared, and C, may be the worst Jets team in 20 years or so.

We've beaten the Jets soundly twice. Besides our first win over Miami not one of our other wins, presently none of which were over what appear to be playoff teams, and all of which were ranked poorly on offense, was impressive.

What's going to be funny is that you think I'm miserable now, just wait a month. LOL Posters here are going to make me look like an optimist.

[kingJofNYC]

It is what it is brother.

I'm not going to make a mountain out of beating a team that A, sucks, B, showed up completely unprepared, and C, may be the worst Jets team in 20 years or so.

We've beaten the Jets soundly twice. Besides our first win over Miami not one of our other wins, presently none of which were over what appear to be playoff teams, and all of which were ranked poorly on offense, was impressive.

What's going to be funny is that you think I'm miserable now, just wait a month. LOL Posters here are going to make me look like an optimist.

I have no doubt there are fans out there that are more miserable, we're Bills fans after all.

Listen, they pasted the Jets, it's what they should have done. It's not a historically good D, few are, but they're above average by a good margin. I'm not a Schwartz fan, I prefer guys like Pettine rather than max coverage guys like Schwartz. Wish we had more range at LB, but I thought that unit would be the weakest and they've held up.

Bottom line, D isn't the problem right now, it may be in a few years but not right now. Key is to have both O and D playing well. Right now we have a good D, with good ST, and a terrible O. Need more than just D and ST to win in this league.

[BillsOwnAll]

Not at all. I thoroughly enjoyed the game last night. I did go to bed when we hit 31 since after that it was like watching the fight scene in Cool Hand Luke.

But I'm sorry if I don't share the notion here that our D is great or tops simply because we beat the Jets and had a great defensive night amidst almost unanimous agreement here that the Jets, who on top of not playing for anything, showed up completely unprepared.

I think the bigger question becomes why people such as yourself put so much credence into such a game when we still can't beat any teams slated to make the playoffs and when we haven't beaten a single above average offensive team so far this season. Granted, we've only played one, but shouldn't that be a clue as to why our offense might be in danger of being overrated?

You just took out one sentence of my post out on context. This is why noones likes you. Go work for the national media or something. Or quote the whole post where it says noones overreacting. Then you reply with why are you overreacting...

[Fletch]

I have no doubt there are fans out there that are more miserable, we're Bills fans after all.

Listen, they pasted the Jets, it's what they should have done. It's not a historically good D, few are, but they're above average by a good margin. I'm not a Schwartz fan, I prefer guys like Pettine rather than max coverage guys like Schwartz. Wish we had more range at LB, but I thought that unit would be the weakest and they've held up.

Bottom line, D isn't the problem right now, it may be in a few years but not right now. Key is to have both O and D playing well. Right now we have a good D, with good ST, and a terrible O. Need more than just D and ST to win in this league.

We agree there.

All I'm saying is that the D needs more work, lots more. The secondary is much weaker than most here seem to believe. The DL is finally at a level that is a great foundation for growth in the D overall, let's just hope that the FO doesn't **** it up this offseason. I want our D to be capable of beating the best in the league and hold them down, but right now we've not done that.

This next string of games will reveal much. Cleveland is very winnable despite the fact that they're a better team, like Miami who's also better but a division rival. We should have no difficulty running on Cleveland. Passing is a different matter. Cleveland's running game isn't good and we should be able to stymy them.

We'll see what happens, but if we allow GB, NE, and Denver all to put up their season averages or more for points then I don't see how an argument can possibly be made that our D is much better than average yet incapable of playoff caliber performance. Whipping up on a bunch of non-playoff caliber teams primarily is hardly convincing.

The differences in views here is that some find data to support their beliefs, others question everything in order to determine what they're beliefs are and don't let the emotional elements of their fan status affect that. Both are understandable, quite. But one only looks at what one wants to see. There isn't a Bills fan in this forum that wouldn't love to have a D that is capable of holding teams like Philly, Dallas, Seattle, San Diego, Denver, New England, and Green Bay to significantly below their season averages like Detroit, KC, and Arizona have done, ranked 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ahead of us. The '90s Bills could be counted on to play that kind of D when called upon to do so. But we haven't done that or been able to. We will find out if we can in December.

Right now two Jets games have skewed our overall statistics in our favor both offensively and defensively. But the Jets suck, this might very well be the worst Jets team in 20 years or so. It is no basis for a benchmark. Besides the two Jets games and our first game against the Fins, all divisional games, win or lose not one of our other games has been impressive. Beating up on three NFCN teams that are bereft of offense and two of which have Ds that also aren't good, while barely winning all three, is hardly a good sign.

What will be a good sign is if we can hold Denver, NE, and the Packers to fewer than 27 points, and a top defense like many are claiming ours is, shouldn't have a whole lot of difficulty doing that. KC did it against NE (14) and Denver (24), Detroit did it against GB. (7) If we allow 30 something points, or 40+ in those games, then we simply do not belong up there in the rankings and aren't that good. There's nothing to prove that wrong except doing that. There is no counterargument if we cannot do that.

So the one point that I'll take issue on is that we are an above average D. That will depend upon how we play defensively in December given that the average offensive ranking of the teams we've played . If as with NE we allow those teams to score above their season averages on average, then I'd say that we are a very average D at best. I mean who's going to argue that notion if we allow 120 points against those teams. Now if we hold them to 80 or fewer collectively then I will be more convinced that we're an above average and even possibly top defense. But let's see it first. To date I think we've played pretty average defense essentially playing to the level of our opponents' offenses, which have not been good.

[mightysimi]

You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand torch the Bills for barely beating a bad Vikings team but then say "yeah but it's the Jets" on the other hand when we easily handle a worse team.

[Fletch]

You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand torch the Bills for barely beating a bad Vikings team but then say "yeah but it's the Jets" on the other hand when we easily handle a worse team.

Presumably you're referring to me. Have you considered what you said?

I don't know what "both ways" is, but barely beating a team like the Vikes at home in a game that had paramount meaning at the time, and taking the last seconds of the game at the end to do it, with the defense essentially allowing par with what the Vikes typically put up, is hardly impressive.

Neither is bloodgeoning the Jets in a game with a huge amount of pent up emotion and energy on our side.

I'll tell you what's trying to have it both ways, people in the GDT all but unanimously if not entirely unanimously, talking about how unprepared the Jets were and how horrible they are then turning around and trying to spin that rout into something more meaningful than what it was.

Take the two Jets games off of our schedule, here's what's left, tell me which of those games you're impressed with?


<colgroup><col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1206; width:25pt" span="3" width="33"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:7168;width:147pt" width="196"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1206;width:25pt" width="33"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1462; width:30pt" span="2" width="40"> <col style="width:48pt" span="2" width="64"> </colgroup><tbody>





PF
PA
1st Downs
Allowed
Total
Net Yards
Against


W
OT
@
Chicago Bears
W
23
20
29
427


W


Miami Dolphins
W
29
10
23
290


L


San Diego Chargers
L
10
22
20
333


L

@
Houston Texans
L
17
23
19
301


W

@
Detroit Lions
W
17
14
13
273


L


New England Patriots
L
22
37
22
396


W


Minnesota Vikings
W
17
16
16
276


L


Kansas City Chiefs
L
13
17
16
278


L

@
Miami Dolphins
L
9
22
24
330

</tbody>

[mightysimi]

What I am saying is that you can't complain that we barely beat a bad team (vikings) and then complain when we kill a bad team (Jets) by dissmissing it that it is because they are bad. I see the stats. I know what they say but take away all of that and it basicaly breaks down to my initial point.


Take the two Jets games off of our schedule, here's what's left, tell me which of those games you're impressed with?

Any one of them with the W beside it. That is all that matters.

[Meathead]

it was fun watching them beat the snot out of the hated jets but i can get only so enthusiastic when i know even just one more loss probably puts them out of the playoffs

[coastal]

Pay attention people... this is how to troll.

with truth.

[HAMMER]

A troll is a troll, you all should be ostracized for being D-Bags.

[Dr. Who]

Thanks for biting. They were better than ours is now.

'90: 16.4 ppg
'91: 19.9
'92: 17.7
'93: 15.1 ppg

2014: 18.8

When you consider that we've only played average to below average offenses for the most part and that the one team we played that was above average put up more than their season average against us, I don't think there's any comparison.

You're going to see that 18.8 end up at 21.5 or so by the end of the season and our ranking for scoring D be around 12th - 16th.

Back then we could expect the D to step up against good offensive teams, this D hasn't come close to showing that. We allowed SD their season average in scoring, here in Buffalo, and we allowed NE 5 points above theirs.

I think that the Packers, Broncos, and Pats are going to dismantle our D.

You have to judge the defense in the context of era and the overall team. You should know better.
The 90s defense benefited from a very prolific offense that often put the opposing offense in catch-up mode. It also played at a time where the rules and the interpretation of the rules was somewhat less biased in favor of the offense.

Don't know how old you are. I was in my mid twenties for those Bills teams. I remember them well. Bruce Smith is an all-time great, but there's no question our current front four is superior, especially if you add in depth considerations.

[Fletch]

What I am saying is that you can't complain that we barely beat a bad team (vikings) and then complain when we kill a bad team (Jets) by dissmissing it that it is because they are bad.

Why not? It seems to me that it depends entirely on what in particular is being discussed.

For example, the Chiefs lost to the Raiders this past Sunday. If we simply limit the context of a discussion to that single game then clearly the Raiders are better than the Chiefs. Who could argue. But we know that to not be the case. Why not? Because there's a whole bunch of other information out there.

Same here, we beat the Jets, twice, who also suck. So unless we overrate the worth of those two wins we must look elsewhere for more info before being able to develop a clear picture. Wouldn't you agree?

That win vs. Minnesota, another game that would have been embarrassing as all **** to lose had we lost it, is hardly any other information that declares that we're better than a team that merely beats the Jets twice. Yet we barely won that game, it was as close as it could possibly have gotten without having been a loss.

Make sense?



Any one of them with the W beside it. That is all that matters.

Sure, if all we're doing is looking at our record. But if we're attempting to dissect how good we really are at the core, is that really all that matters?

Let me ask you, let's suppose we get crushed by Cleveland, Denver, and GB, and then go to Oakland and beat up on them 24-0. Would you start walking around like the **** of the walk and crow about how good we are? It wouldn't make sense to me because we'll have only proven that we aren't better than an average team in the NFL if even that. That's all. Nothing more.

It's kind of a wake me when we beat the Pats and teams like them on a regular basis kinda thing. As of now it's looking like we won't even have ended up beating any playoff teams to date. The Jets, Vikes, and Bears aren't going. Miami's likely not and we split with them anyway with the latest having been a blowout their way, and the Lions aren't likely to either and are so offensively pathetic that their offense is worse than our anemic offense.

I'm sorry, I just can't get upbeat about a 7-9 season with 7 wins against non-playoff teams. Doesn't do much for me.

- - - Updated - - -


You have to judge the defense in the context of era and the overall team. You should know better.
The 90s defense benefited from a very prolific offense that often put the opposing offense in catch-up mode. It also played at a time where the rules and the interpretation of the rules was somewhat less biased in favor of the offense.

Don't know how old you are. I was in my mid twenties for those Bills teams. I remember them well. Bruce Smith is an all-time great, but there's no question our current front four is superior, especially if you add in depth considerations.

I disagree. Read the above post as to why.

Also, Dr. Who & mightysimi, look at the chart in post #42 and tell me which individual games impressed you. Seriously, look at them and say which ones. We can go from there. I'm not particularly impressed with any of them beyond the fact that they were wins.

[Dr. Who]

I blame Galileo for Fletch. This will be far too abstruse for most everyone on this board. Feel free to ignore this as one ignores Fletch's long orations.

Galileo ushered in the reduction of nature to the point vector grid. One could also look to Descartes and Leibniz for all this, but most everyone knows who Galileo is. In any event, Galileo reduces reality to that which is quantifiable. If you can put a number on it, it is objectively real. Consequently, however, the world of qualities was largely reduced to subjective ephemera unworthy of scientific validity. The later dismissal of the arts, philosophy, theology, etc. in favor of science as the only arbiter of the real derives from this early modern move.

This greatly diminished sense of the universe was nonetheless embraced as a tremendous opening of nature, finally freed from the obfuscating superstition of religion. Little did Galileo know that the end result of his efforts would be a Fletch who could only read numbers and never recognize the validity of qualitative understanding derived from actually watching a game.

[Mr. Pink]

You can only beat who you play.

Yes they should have won and they did.

Better than what happened in games versus the Texans and Chiefs.

If this team did a better job at winning all the games they should have won then playoff talk would be legitimate.

[sudzy]

I realize it was the Jets and I realize this team still has problems to be fix, but..... Can we enjoy the win?

[Generalissimus Gibby]

Look, we needed this game given the snow. The D played lights out ball, at least the front 7 since neither Vick nor Smith was ever much of a threat downfield. Offensively we were due and lit things up. It was fantastic to see Ford Field heavy with Bills fans that could make the trip.

But this was the Jets, it's hardly a benchmark game. The real test is the rest of the season.

Right now there's so much overreaction to a win over a pathetic team that's probably going to be drafting 3rd only because they don't play Jax and are clearly one of the worst teams in the league that will likely see a new owner and head coach after the season.

We have four very difficult games left against teams the likes of which we've been unable to beat this season so far, right now all four of which are slated to make the playoffs.

Let's save the "our defense is great" comments for those games and if our defense is really great then it will prove out that way. I'm sorry, I just can't buy into this notion that our D is great simply because we stomped on one of the most offensively challenged teams in the league.

Have we sunk so low as fans that we need to embellish a win over a team like the Jets, amidst our inability to beat any teams with above average offenses otherwise?

What happened to the days of us not being satisfied unless we could beat the best teams out there, defensively handle the best offenses out there, and dominate the best defenses out there? We suck this season at doing that and unless we do it coming up against those kinds of teams, I'm simply not impressed.

This overreaction is half sickening.

A blowout against a bad opponent many did not expect us to sweep. Also, we had a day and a half less to practice than normal. Also, you speak as if the season were already over. IF we beat Cleveland then we are right back in it. Also, Denver does not look as sharp as it has in the past so there is a slim chance (no, I did not say we would win, but that we had a chance of winning) we could win there. We also have Green Bay which is winnable. Honestly, the only game we have on the schedule that I say not a chance in hell is New England. I think this team is one game at a time and if we get a few bounces going our way then we might make the post season.

[Generalissimus Gibby]

I hope we do make the playoffs so that we can hear fletch ***** because we didn't go far enough. Actually, I'd like us to win out, run through the playoffs and hoist the Lombardi Trophy in February just so Fletch can say that they sacrificed the future just for this.

[Night Train]

How in the world did Tampa and the Jets beat Pittsburgh ?

[YardRat]

An incessant use of statistics only reveals how ignorant the user is about the actual game.

[Fletch]

You can only beat who you play.

Yes they should have won and they did.

Better than what happened in games versus the Texans and Chiefs.

If this team did a better job at winning all the games they should have won then playoff talk would be legitimate.

Well that's my point, neither the Texans nor the Chiefs are anything but average teams, just look at any power rankings or the season histories of those two teams.

We played them and did not beat them. We've played two better teams and our D wasn't impressive against either.

The only team that we've played that has a good offense that we've beaten is Miami. That's it, and we beat them in week 2, which is a huge difference considering that two weeks ago they essentially took their turn at mopping the floor with us. So since week 2 we haven't beaten a single team that has an above average offense. 16th, 21st, 29th twice, and 30th.

You can only beat who we play, but we didn't beat any others.

- - - Updated - - -


I hope we do make the playoffs so that we can hear fletch ***** because we didn't go far enough. Actually, I'd like us to win out, run through the playoffs and hoist the Lombardi Trophy in February just so Fletch can say that they sacrificed the future just for this.

I think that the more likely scenario is us going 1-4, our defense ending up ranked average defensively, and everyone else *****ing.

We'll see.

[YardRat]

lol...'power rankings'...even more useless than statistics...

[mightysimi]

Also, Dr. Who & mightysimi, look at the chart in post #42 and tell me which individual games impressed you. Seriously, look at them and say which ones. We can go from there. I'm not particularly impressed with any of them beyond the fact that they were wins.

That's the difference between you and I, it doesn't matter how we get the wins. Only that we get them. I don't care if we barely beat a bad team or we almost beat a good team. Statistics aside, everyone who watches the game can see that our defense is good bordering on excellent. I haven't heard a broadcast team or analyst say different and they get paid to talk football.

The fact that they gave up a bunch of yards also doesn't matter as long as it doesn't translate to score. There are so many variables that go into any of these numbers. Were we leading most of the game? Were we playing a softer d to not give up the big play? Because of game situations not being represented in stats, that's why the W is the important part. The stats can show you areas for imporvement but that's about it. Hopefully on the next win we can win with prettier numbers so you can enjoy it.

[Fletch]

lol...'power rankings'...even more useless than statistics...

So in essence you're taking issue with my point that Houston and KC are nothing more than average teams.

You must therefore think that one or both is above average.

I disagree and you're not going to find anyone that's worth asking to agree with you on that.

[Fletch]

That's the difference between you and I, it doesn't matter how we get the wins. Only that we get them. I don't care if we barely beat a bad team or we almost beat a good team. Statistics aside, everyone who watches the game can see that our defense is good bordering on excellent. I haven't heard a broadcast team or analyst say different and they get paid to talk football.

The fact that they gave up a bunch of yards also doesn't matter as long as it doesn't translate to score. There are so many variables that go into any of these numbers. Were we leading most of the game? Were we playing a softer d to not give up the big play? Because of game situations not being represented in stats, that's why the W is the important part. The stats can show you areas for imporvement but that's about it. Hopefully on the next win we can win with prettier numbers so you can enjoy it.

Well yeah, I guess it does, matter how we get the wins that is.

I've always thought that the goal for all of us was not only to make the playoffs but do something in them besides get smoked in the WC round.

I guess I can say that 15 years of this crap has definitely lowered the expectations of our fans, which is understandable. But yeah, I guess that's the difference then, which is why my posts reflect that. I'm not going to be happy until we are at a point where we have a legitimate shot at beating the Pats everytime that we play them, or teams like SD, GB, Denver, Philly, Seattle and that caliber of team. I'm not saying that I would be unhappy if we didn't beat them every time, just saying that I'd be happy when we are at a point when we have a legitimate shot every week and not just some random "on any given Sunday" kinda shot that's rarely materialized for us and that extended play against the better teams (like playoffs) isn't sustainable with.

For me simply beating up teams that have major issues and no realistic shot at making the playoffs other than in an NFCS 2014 type of scenario just doesn't do much for me. Maybe my expectations are too high, I don't know. Maybe I should just enjoy those victories more and settle for the realization that yeah, we might win 8 or 9 games but play down my hopes of much beyond that.

But I guess that my memories of the late '80s and '90s make that difficult for me. To be honest though, I think I'd just rather stop watching that cash in on that hope. Again, maybe that's wrong or something, and I understand the sentiment on your side of the aisle here, particularly given our history over the last 15 years or so and the notion that just making the playoffs would be a small feat in and of itself, but I just can't bring myself to accept that.

[mightysimi]

Well yeah, I guess it does, matter how we get the wins that is.

I've always thought that the goal for all of us was not only to make the playoffs but do something in them besides get smoked in the WC round.

I guess I can say that 15 years of this crap has definitely lowered the expectations of our fans, which is understandable. But yeah, I guess that's the difference then, which is why my posts reflect that. I'm not going to be happy until we are at a point where we have a legitimate shot at beating the Pats everytime that we play them, or teams like SD, GB, Denver, Philly, Seattle and that caliber of team. I'm not saying that I would be unhappy if we didn't beat them every time, just saying that I'd be happy when we are at a point when we have a legitimate shot every week and not just some random "on any given Sunday" kinda shot that's rarely materialized for us and that extended play against the better teams (like playoffs) isn't sustainable with.

For me simply beating up teams that have major issues and no realistic shot at making the playoffs other than in an NFCS 2014 type of scenario just doesn't do much for me. Maybe my expectations are too high, I don't know. Maybe I should just enjoy those victories more and settle for the realization that yeah, we might win 8 or 9 games but play down my hopes of much beyond that.

But I guess that my memories of the late '80s and '90s make that difficult for me. To be honest though, I think I'd just rather stop watching that cash in on that hope. Again, maybe that's wrong or something, and I understand the sentiment on your side of the aisle here, particularly given our history over the last 15 years or so and the notion that just making the playoffs would be a small feat in and of itself, but I just can't bring myself to accept that.

I can totally understand not accepting mediocrity however, I feel for the first time in 15 that we have talent, direction and are upgrading positions now as opposed to always filling glaring holes. Are we there yet? No but I think we are on our way. Unless we blow it all up then it's another rebuild. To me it feels good talking about a meaningful game in November for a change.

[YardRat]

So in essence you're taking issue with my point that Houston and KC are nothing more than average teams.

You must therefore think that one or both is above average.

I disagree and you're not going to find anyone that's worth asking to agree with you on that.

75% of the league is average, and the other 25% is split between 'above' and 'below'. So what. Also, the other 25% is neither unbeatable, or completely hopeless, depending on which end of the spectrum they fall. The difference between 7-4 and 4-7 isn't a vast disparity in talent, and it sure as hell isn't wrapped up in statistics. It's catching a break here and there, and making a play or two (or lack thereof) that separates the 'winners' from losers. As for the Bills specifically, only a stat whore wouldn't recognize that the team is maybe a half-dozen plays over the course of the season so far from being 8-3/9-2, or 3-8.

[Fletch]

I can totally understand not accepting mediocrity however, I feel for the first time in 15 that we have talent, direction and are upgrading positions now as opposed to always filling glaring holes. Are we there yet? No but I think we are on our way. Unless we blow it all up then it's another rebuild. To me it feels good talking about a meaningful game in November for a change.

Well, again, I tend to separate mathematically meaningful from effectively meaningful. In theory the Texans are playing a meaningful game this weekend as are Minnesota, Carolina, Tampa, Washington, St. Louis, and the Giants.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/standings/playoffrace

I don't see that we're much more than a mediocre team right now based on all the things that I've mentioned. This will shake out one way or another, either everyone's going to be agreeing in a few weeks or I'll have to say "hey, my analysis has been off."

We have played meaningful games in November and even December in recent history. Remember '04, we were fighting to make the playoffs against the Steelers backups.

Three seasons ago in 2011 in a season not all that unlike this one we were very much alive on Thanksgiving weekend at 5-5.

In 2008 we were also 6-5 going into a Nov. 30th game and even after a loss and at 6-6 were still very much "alive" going into December. I see this season mirroring that one and that season we beat the division winning Chargers despite the fact that they were only 8-8.

In 2007 we were 7-6 and also very much "alive" going into mid-December and that season we beat the Skins who made a wild card.

In 2006 we wer 7-7 going into week 16 and also very much alive. KC made a wild card at 9-7.

So yeah, in 2012 and last season we didn't have a "meaningful" game, but other than that 4 of the 6 prior seasons and 4 of the last 8 overall really weren't much different than this season. Whereas I see this season in the same light that you might view our '11, '08, '07, and '06 seasons now, I think in two more seasons you and everyone else will be viewing it the same. Again, I have not seen our ability to make this season any different. Everyone's pinning the entirety of our hopes on the D but the D hasn't proven that it can come close to playing well against good offensive teams, only average and particuarly very poor offensive teams like Detroit, the Jets, Minnesota, and Chicago, all of which rank 20th or lower, three of the four 27th, 28th, and 30th in scoring, and not significantly better in yardage.

The couple of average teams we've played we've more or less held them to their season scoring averages. More against NE and they did a lot of their damage with LaFell and Tyms, Gronk was hardly involved on their scoring drives as I pointed out earlier this year. Yes, I'm sure he helped by drawing coverage, but come on, our D can't cover Tyms and LaFell with single coverage by average DBs? So it comes down to a matter of perspective. That was Tyms only catch on the season. Edelman may hit 1,000 yards this season but for a team that's gonna throw for around 4,500 that's not all that impressive as a second leading WR and his 10 ypr isn't either. LaFell's not going to hit that mark. They're all mediocre WRs.

Will I watch? Of course. Will I be pulling for us? Absolutely. But that's different than sitting here and attempting to discuss reality in an objective manner. I can take my shirt off and paint myself blue and red and tape a Bills flag to my head and run around the parking lot at the Ralph throughout the game, but that's not going to factor into whether or not we can beat teams like GB, NE, and Denver either now or even teams like Indy, KC (since we already lost to them at home), or whichever team wins the Norh, we've proven that we cannot beat teams like that to this point. KC, SD, NE, and recently a tracking Miami team are all losses.

[Fletch]

75% of the league is average, and the other 25% is split between 'above' and 'below'. So what. Also, the other 25% is neither unbeatable, or completely hopeless, depending on which end of the spectrum they fall. The difference between 7-4 and 4-7 isn't a vast disparity in talent, and it sure as hell isn't wrapped up in statistics. It's catching a break here and there, and making a play or two (or lack thereof) that separates the 'winners' from losers. As for the Bills specifically, only a stat whore wouldn't recognize that the team is maybe a half-dozen plays over the course of the season so far from being 8-3/9-2, or 3-8.

Well, that's an opinion that is subjective. I'd argue that average is teams that are generally in that 12th - 18th range, above is 1-12 or so, and below is 18-20 and worse.

Here's part of what I'm saying, of the 12 teams presently slated to make the playoffs, presumably on or about the best 12 with maybe a couple of exceptions like San Fran, Baltimore, Pitt, or Cleveland (we'll see tomorrow on them), we haven't played any in the NFC, and we've played 3 in the AFC, all three at home, and lost all three with our D not being very impressive at all except for mildly so in the KC game, but with KC also being the worst of the three offenses and a very average offense otherwise. We allowed NE to put up 5 more points than their season average and SD their season average when they don't take east coast trips very well and when Matthews didn't even play and Allen was limited. We didn't even get their offensive A-game and still couldn't hold them to below average points here in Buffalo. That's not impressive. It also doesn't show that our D is as primetime as many insist that it is.

So while a bunch of people, most here, are talking about chances of us beating teams like GB, Denver, or Cleveland, so far we haven't beaten two teams that are of that general caliber and two that are worse than two of them. So my point is that presently there is no basis for thinking that we'll beat better teams than the ones we've already lost to.

This conversation changes entirely if we can beat teams like Denver or GB, clearly everyone's thrown in the towel on beating the Pats in Foxboro for understandable reasons. But if we can't even beat Cleveland tomorrow, here at home in a high energy game, a team with a terrible rushing defense and a very average scoring offense, then this discussion ends going the other way.

The thing that most don't seem to have picked up on is how we only win games in which we come up on the positive side of the TO ratio.

We're 5-2 when we have a positive TO ratio. We're 1-3 if we're neutral or negative with our only win there having been against the Vikes in a very unimpressive manner.

Here's the problem for us, GB, NE, Denver, and Cleveland all rank in the top-10 for fewest giveaways. GB and NE are 1st and 2nd.

[mightysimi]

Well, again, I tend to separate mathematically meaningful from effectively meaningful. In theory the Texans are playing a meaningful game this weekend as are Minnesota, Carolina, Tampa, Washington, St. Louis, and the Giants.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/standings/playoffrace

I don't see that we're much more than a mediocre team right now based on all the things that I've mentioned. This will shake out one way or another, either everyone's going to be agreeing in a few weeks or I'll have to say "hey, my analysis has been off."

We have played meaningful games in November and even December in recent history. Remember '04, we were fighting to make the playoffs against the Steelers backups.

Three seasons ago in 2011 in a season not all that unlike this one we were very much alive on Thanksgiving weekend at 5-5.

In 2008 we were also 6-5 going into a Nov. 30th game and even after a loss and at 6-6 were still very much "alive" going into December. I see this season mirroring that one and that season we beat the division winning Chargers despite the fact that they were only 8-8.

In 2007 we were 7-6 and also very much "alive" going into mid-December and that season we beat the Skins who made a wild card.

In 2006 we wer 7-7 going into week 16 and also very much alive. KC made a wild card at 9-7.

So yeah, in 2012 and last season we didn't have a "meaningful" game, but other than that 4 of the 6 prior seasons and 4 of the last 8 overall really weren't much different than this season. Whereas I see this season in the same light that you might view our '11, '08, '07, and '06 seasons now, I think in two more seasons you and everyone else will be viewing it the same. Again, I have not seen our ability to make this season any different. Everyone's pinning the entirety of our hopes on the D but the D hasn't proven that it can come close to playing well against good offensive teams, only average and particuarly very poor offensive teams like Detroit, the Jets, Minnesota, and Chicago, all of which rank 20th or lower, three of the four 27th, 28th, and 30th in scoring, and not significantly better in yardage.

The couple of average teams we've played we've more or less held them to their season scoring averages. More against NE and they did a lot of their damage with LaFell and Tyms, Gronk was hardly involved on their scoring drives as I pointed out earlier this year. Yes, I'm sure he helped by drawing coverage, but come on, our D can't cover Tyms and LaFell with single coverage by average DBs? So it comes down to a matter of perspective. That was Tyms only catch on the season. Edelman may hit 1,000 yards this season but for a team that's gonna throw for around 4,500 that's not all that impressive as a second leading WR and his 10 ypr isn't either. LaFell's not going to hit that mark. They're all mediocre WRs.

Will I watch? Of course. Will I be pulling for us? Absolutely. But that's different than sitting here and attempting to discuss reality in an objective manner. I can take my shirt off and paint myself blue and red and tape a Bills flag to my head and run around the parking lot at the Ralph throughout the game, but that's not going to factor into whether or not we can beat teams like GB, NE, and Denver either now or even teams like Indy, KC (since we already lost to them at home), or whichever team wins the Norh, we've proven that we cannot beat teams like that to this point. KC, SD, NE, and recently a tracking Miami team are all losses.

Your example of recent history is 10 years ago. Yes we had similar records in certain years but this is the first team where I expect to not only challenge but to win. Those other teams it was I hope we don't collapse and grab defeat out of the jaws of victory which has been played out many, many times before. Any of those teams you reference can't hold a candle to this team in terms of pure talent. As much as I would love to smash everyone like the Jets, it itsn't the reality in the NFL without a top QB. I for one will at least enjoy the ride.

[YardRat]

Well, that's an opinion that is subjective. I'd argue that average is teams that are generally in that 12th - 18th range, above is 1-12 or so, and below is 18-20 and worse.

Granted re:subjective, to a certain point, but Sunday results on a weekly basis fly in the face of the contention that there are only 6 teams that are average.

[swiper]

The D is good. The lost opportunities against Houston and KC were the lack of an O.

I know why our record isn't better. It's the playcalling and execution (lack of) of the O.

The D has been excellent most of the time.

Hold the D together with the necessary re-signings.

Tighten up the offense at whatever the cost. Almost. No more giving away #1 draft picks unless its for a franchise QB.

[Fletch]

Your example of recent history is 10 years ago.

No, I cited examples from 3, 5, 6, and 7 seasons ago.

[mightysimi]

No, I cited examples from 3, 5, 6, and 7 seasons ago.


Yes we had similar records in certain years but this is the first team where I expect to not only challenge but to win. Those other teams it was I hope we don't collapse and grab defeat out of the jaws of victory which has been played out many, many times before. Any of those teams you reference can't hold a candle to this team in terms of pure talent. As much as I would love to smash everyone like the Jets, it itsn't the reality in the NFL without a top QB.

[Fletch]

Granted re:subjective, to a certain point, but Sunday results on a weekly basis fly in the face of the contention that there are only 6 teams that are average.

OK then, let's go what, top-10, middle-11, and bottom-11.

I'm not sure this alters either side of our arguments.

[Fletch]

Yes we had similar records in certain years but this is the first team where I expect to not only challenge but to win. Those other teams it was I hope we don't collapse and grab defeat out of the jaws of victory which has been played out many, many times before. Any of those teams you reference can't hold a candle to this team in terms of pure talent. As much as I would love to smash everyone like the Jets, it itsn't the reality in the NFL without a top QB.


Yes, and respectfully, I addressed that.

[Mr. Pink]

Granted re:subjective, to a certain point, but Sunday results on a weekly basis fly in the face of the contention that there are only 6 teams that are average.

There's a handful of teams that are dominant and then there is everyone else followed by a couple bottom feeders.

If you want to call everyone else average, then by all means. But basically every team between like 6-28 is the same.

Unfortunately there's 3 of the handful of teams still left on the schedule.

[The Jokeman]

Hold the D together with the necessary re-signings.

Tighten up the offense at whatever the cost. Almost. No more giving away #1 draft picks unless its for a franchise QB.

There's nothing wrong with "giving" away 1st Round picks as long as get contributions from other draft picks. One good thing under Whaley is we've gotten contributions from guys like Woods, Alonso, P Brown, Henderson

[swiper]

There's nothing wrong with "giving" away 1st Round picks as long as get contributions from other draft picks. One good thing under Whaley is we've gotten contributions from guys like Woods, Alonso, P Brown, Henderson

I am amazed at how "under the radar" Robert Woods continues to be. I like him more and more.

[Fletch]

There's a handful of teams that are dominant and then there is everyone else followed by a couple bottom feeders.

If you want to call everyone else average, then by all means. But basically every team between like 6-28 is the same.

Unfortunately there's 3 of the handful of teams still left on the schedule.

I don't know, that's a pretty bold statement.

Let's take the top 5 teams, say NE, Denver, GB, Philly and what, let's throw Arizona and Dallas in there too. It's all somewhat arbitrary anyway.

Then let's skim off the bottom 4. Jets, Oakland, Jets, and Tennessee? Again, somewhat arbitrary.

What you're saying is that there's no much difference between teams like Tampa, Carolina, Washington and Indy, KC, SD, Seattle, SF.

Do you really believe that?

[pmoon6]

Dildo thread, but typical considering the thread starter.

[Fletch]

Dildo thread, but typical considering the thread starter.

Happy Thanksgiving pmoon.

:peace:

[pmoon6]

Happy Thanksgiving pmoon.

:peace:HaHa, same to you, man.

You almost made me feel bad for jacking with you.........almost.

[SpikedLemonade]

Dildo thread, but typical considering the thread starter.

OK.

Did someone stuff your turkey by taking a big crap in it?

[YardRat]

There's a handful of teams that are dominant and then there is everyone else followed by a couple bottom feeders.

If you want to call everyone else average, then by all means. But basically every team between like 6-28 is the same.

Unfortunately there's 3 of the handful of teams still left on the schedule.

I agree.

[pmoon6]

OK.

Did someone stuff your turkey by taking a big crap in it?Deep frying the turkey, so it's not stuffed......well maybe in Canada.

Speaking of crap, you have been a little quiet lately.

[Fletch]

I agree.

So then you agree with the premise in post #75 then?

[Fletch]

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/misc/quote_icon.pngOriginally Posted by Fletch


Happy Thanksgiving pmoon.

:peace:




HaHa, same to you, man.

Thanks!

[YardRat]

So then you agree with the premise in post #75 then?

Yes, actually I do. Just to cite a few specifics...

Indy gets rolled by the above average teams, just like most others. They've lost to another average team (Pitt), and could've lost a couple more except for a break or play, here and there.

Carolina could be 7-4, if they made a play against other average teams, instead of not.

[Fletch]

Yes, actually I do. Just to cite a few specifics...

Indy gets rolled by the above average teams, just like most others. They've lost to another average team (Pitt), and could've lost a couple more except for a break or play, here and there.

Carolina could be 7-4, if they made a play against other average teams, instead of not.

Well, that's the difference in our perspectives then.

[Fletch]

Yes, actually I do. Just to cite a few specifics...

Indy gets rolled by the above average teams, just like most others. They've lost to another average team (Pitt), and could've lost a couple more except for a break or play, here and there.

Carolina could be 7-4, if they made a play against other average teams, instead of not.

I've been thinking about this since yesterday.

You mention Indy, Pitt, and Carolina, three teams that have sniffed or experienced playoffs in recent seasons and two which are headed there this year. Panthers were in the playoffs last season for example.

But in order for you to believe that, you'd have to think that there's really not much difference between Seattle or Indy and Minnesota or Washington. Or even between a team like Pittsburgh which has been .500 or better for years compared to a team like St. Louis that hasn't had a winning record in years. You're saying that there's very little difference between those two teams. I have trouble getting past that.

You can pick any of the 12 teams that aren't in the "best 5" and use them too instead of Indy and Seattle if you think that those 2 are in the top-5. I think that it's pretty clear that the Jax, Oakland, and Jets belong in the bottom-4 leaving room for only one more team, probably Tampa or Tennessee.

[Mr. Pink]

I don't know, that's a pretty bold statement.

Let's take the top 5 teams, say NE, Denver, GB, Philly and what, let's throw Arizona and Dallas in there too. It's all somewhat arbitrary anyway.

Then let's skim off the bottom 4. Jets, Oakland, Jets, and Tennessee? Again, somewhat arbitrary.

What you're saying is that there's no much difference between teams like Tampa, Carolina, Washington and Indy, KC, SD, Seattle, SF.

Do you really believe that?

Obviously there's teams who aren't dominant but are close to it. The difference between say us and Indy is minuscule in comparison to the difference between us and Denver or us and NYJ. That's not to say that Indy isn't a better team than the Bills but the difference is so minute it pretty much puts all the middle of the pack teams together.

Denver can go out and have a bad game and still be competitive with any team, all of the middle of the pack teams and below go out and have a bad game and they get trounced.

There is parity in the NFL, somewhat, the teams from like 6 to 28 on a yearly basis change and any team in that group can leapfrog one year to the next from 10-6 to 5-11. The teams on the top are good year in and year out and the teams on the bottom are terrible year in and year out.

Even without a schedule or an offseason of moves, you can pencil in Buffalo next year to be around .500, New England to win 11+ games and Oakland to win 2-3.

Every year though you hear teams like New England are in decline, teams like Tampa are on the rise and every year none of that crap is even close to true.

[better days]

Obviously there's teams who aren't dominant but are close to it. The difference between say us and Indy is minuscule in comparison to the difference between us and Denver or us and NYJ. That's not to say that Indy isn't a better team than the Bills but the difference is so minute it pretty much puts all the middle of the pack teams together.

Denver can go out and have a bad game and still be competitive with any team, all of the middle of the pack teams and below go out and have a bad game and they get trounced.

There is parity in the NFL, somewhat, the teams from like 6 to 28 on a yearly basis change and any team in that group can leapfrog one year to the next from 10-6 to 5-11. The teams on the top are good year in and year out and the teams on the bottom are terrible year in and year out.

Even without a schedule or an offseason of moves, you can pencil in Buffalo next year to be around .500, New England to win 11+ games and Oakland to win 2-3.

Every year though you hear teams like New England are in decline, teams like Tampa are on the rise and every year none of that crap is even close to true.

Well, the NFC South is a division where teams go from the cellar to the penthouse on a regular basis.

The Bucs have been down a few years because of terrible Coaching.

This year the Bucs have had some injuries & lost some close games, but I expect much better things from the Bucs next year.

[Fletch]

Even without a schedule or an offseason of moves, you can pencil in Buffalo next year to be around .500, New England to win 11+ games and Oakland to win 2-3.

Every year though you hear teams like New England are in decline, teams like Tampa are on the rise and every year none of that crap is even close to true.

OK, but here's the ongoing problem that I have with that type of analysis. If things were really that close then why over the last, let's just say 10 years or so including this season, haven't we been able to crack that barrier to post even a .500 season while typically only rarely beating teams of the caliber that Indy is this season? Same for teams like St. Louis?

Here's my explanation. Those teams, Indy and Pitt for example, are managed much better, and while they may have an off year they'll bounce back because they are. Whereas teams like us, St. Louis, Jax, Oakland are not run well and are on the other end of things, we typically have bad years, 6-10 or worse, occasionally rise to an average/mediocre season, but then ultimately fall back into being bad.

Teams like Indy and Pitt are now will hover between the top tier of that 6-28 range while we'll hover near the bottom of it, but that doesn't mean that the teams are close.

If things were as close as all that then teams in the bottom end of that 6-28 would make or come close to making the playoffs somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of the time. Looking at this season, and we can adjust this for the sake of discussion if you don't agree, but let's say that the top-5 are NE, GB, Denver, Philly, and Baltimore. (going on point differential here and elevating Denver over Indy)

On the other end, the 29-32 end we have Oakland, Jets, Jags, and Tennessee.

That means that all the other teams really aren't that much different than any of the others. So the ones that in recent years have bounced in and out of the top-5, like Seattle, the reigning SB champs, aren't much different than teams like St. Louis that can't even make the playoffs.

I'll make it even more pronounced, that teams like Seattle, San Fran, Cincinnati, Indy, and Pittsburgh, all teams that typically put up winning seasons in recent years aren't much better than teams like us, Washington, the Rams, the Fins, and Carolina that among them have only put up 2 winnings seasons in recent history. Again, I'm having trouble with that. If they were really that close as you guys argue, then by pure chance of nothing else it would seem that those bottom teams including us would be posting winning seasons, not even necessarily making the playoffs, at least a third of the time, and that those top teams wouldn't be posting winning seasons at least a third of the time, maybe even more than a third in both cases. But that clearly isn't the case.

I think that those bottom teams in that group are closer to the 29-32 than to the top end of that 6-28, which would explain the playoff droughts and lack of winning seasons that those teams have. I mean even of those worst 4 teams this season, the Jets had two .500 seasons and one winning season in that past 5 despite the fact that they've never been close to teams like Seattle, SF, Cincy, Indy, or Pitt. The Raiders had 2 .500 seasons in the last five seasons, we haven't been able to do what the Jets and Raiders have done. Even the Jags posted a .500 and 7-9 season 5 and 6 seasons ago when we haven't been able to those same seasons. We likely will this year, but that hardly counters my take on this, if anything it suggests that maybe this is one of those seasons where perform better than we are and happen to end up with a better yet still not winning or anything but mediocre record.

Anyway, while you would suggest the opposite, I think that we're a good distance from teams like SF, Seattle, Indy, Pitt, and Cincinnati, despite some of their issues which are at an entirely different level than our issues, and a whole lot closer to teams like Oakland, Jax, and the Jets. The caliber of our wins this season really doesn't suggest any different. Four of our six wins have been against the 2-9 Jets, 4-7 Vikes, and 5-7 Bears. None of those teams are any good, none of them have anything even close to positive point differentials, and we beat two of them barely, on in OT and the other on a last-second play at home. The only other wins are against two teams that would fall within my average zone and one is a divisional team that just kicked our ass in similar fashion at a much more critical time of year, the other played us with more injuries in key positions than for any of their other games, including their other three losses.

This far from impressive. Impressive would be beating Cleveland this weekend, beating any one of NE, Denver, or GB, and playing another somewhat close in a loss. For us that would be impressive.

Unless there are GM or coaching changes I see annually about 10 teams that hover in and out as the league's best with exceptions, those are the teams that shuffle in and out of the playoffs every season, about ten teams that hover in and out as the league's worst with statistically insignificant exceptions and that rarely make the playoffs, and then the remaining 12 teams in the middle that I would consider to be average.

Look at this chart of which teams made the playoffs over the last six years. I separated out how I see the separations between best (10), average (11), and worst. (11)


<tbody>

2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
Total


Baltimore Ravens

1
1
1
1
1
5


Green Bay Packers
1
1
1
1
1

5


Indianapolis Colts
1
1

1
1
1
5


New England Patriots
1
1
1
1
1

5


Atlanta Falcons

1
1
1

1
4


Cincinnati Bengals
1
1
1

1

4


New Orleans Saints
1

1
1
1

4


Philadelphia Eagles
1


1
1
1
4


Denver Broncos
1
1
1



3


Minnesota Vikings

1


1
1
3


Pittsburgh Steelers


1
1

1
3


San Diego Chargers
1



1
1
3


San Francisco 49ers
1
1
1



3


Seattle Seahawks
1
1

1


3


Arizona Cardinals




1
1
2


Carolina Panthers
1




1
2


Houston Texans

1
1



2


Kansas City Chiefs
1


1


2


New York Giants


1


1
2


New York Jets



1
1

2


Chicago Bears



1


1


Dallas Cowboys




1

1


Detroit Lions


1



1


Miami Dolphins





1
1


Tennessee Titans





1
1


Washington Redskins

1




1


Buffalo Bills






0


Cleveland Browns






0


Jacksonville Jaguars






0


Oakland Raiders






0


St. Louis Rams






0


Tampa Bay Buccaneers






0

</tbody>


The top 10 teams have 42 playoff appearances among them, 4.2/team, that middle tier has 25, 2.3/team, and that lower tier have 5, not even .1/team.

What you're saying is that there's not much difference between that lower tier and the teams in the last 6 of that top tier and the top 4 of that middle tier in terms of the way that they're run and managed since that's at the core of what we're discussing here. Teams like Cleveland have a major change, which might be why they're out of that category this year, or it could just be one of those years for them that they do better and will come back down next season. If anything this should emphasize why we need that kind of change here.

I just can't buy that on the differences between 6-10 and 25-28 being minor though. There wouldn't be that disparity in playoff appearances between the teams with 3 and 4 playoff appearances and those of whicheever 7 of that bottom 11 bracket you think are the best. Pure chance would see to that if what you suggest is true.

[Fletch]

It would be interesting to do a total W-L table for that same 6-season stretch. I'm done for today though.

[Mr. Pink]

I think the difference between us and teams like Indy, Pitts, Cincy are they have good consistent QB play.

All of the teams middle of the pack are flawed somewhere and that flaw rears its head on a game by game basis or season by season basis at some point.

So really the NFL is the minimally flawed teams, the flawed teams and the overly flawed teams.

Minimal flaw teams can make mistakes and still win any game, flawed teams cannot afford to make a few mistakes per game and overly flawed teams cannot afford to make any.

[Fletch]

Well, even more to my point I'd argue. Of our 6 wins, three have been against teams ranked poorly in that flawed department. Chicago ranks 29th in giveaways and the Jets rank in a 4-way tie for 20th with only four fewer giveaways. Minnesota ranks tied with us, Detroit just behind that, and Miami just behind them all around average in that way. Houston and Miami, also exactly average, beat us, while NE and SD above average beat us.

Left to play are Oakland who's down near the Jets and Chicago in that department, and four teams not flawed in that way and ranked 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 8th.

I'd still insist that if we don't beat at least two of them, then all we are is a team that's capable of taking advantage of only those flawed teams and otherwise incapable of beating teams that are among the top of that 6-28 that we've been discussing and therefore simply not all that close to them in how good we are.

At the end of the season if all we've done is end up having beaten the worst teams on our schedule, with a schedule that just happened to have 2/3 to 3/4 of its games not against teams that are above average, then as they say, you are what you are, and we'd be a team incapable of competing with above average teams.

We'll see starting on Sunday. But if we can't beat the Browns then nothing else makes sense and it'll be highly unlikely that we'll beat the Packers and even more unlikely that we'll beat either Denver or NE on the road.

QB play definitely factors in, but then we need to ask ourselves why our QB play has sucked since Whaley's been in charge and the point-man for personnel since 2010 and why we want someone that clearly doesn't understand how to get good QB play or what good QB play is to be in charge anymore. QB play is far more important than any other position, so while Whaley may have made some good moves, he obviously stinks at solving our QB issues, which is going to keep us down for as long as that is the case. So let's get rid of him.