Congrats Rex

[jamze132]

Congrats on keeping most of your starters healthy through the preseason. Seriously, it takes guts to buck the NFL by not treating the 3rd game as a dress rehearsal. Now we'll get to Baltimore as healthy as can be with a bunch of good players who won't have the stamina and who are definitely not in game shape.

I think when this season is over, we're going to look back at what went wrong and a lot of fans are going to blame injuries, rightfully so.

[feldspar]

Congrats on keeping most of your starters healthy through the preseason. Seriously, it takes guts to buck the NFL by not treating the 3rd game as a dress rehearsal. Now we'll get to Baltimore as healthy as can be with a bunch of good players who won't have the stamina and who are definitely not in game shape.

I think when this season is over, we're going to look back at what went wrong and a lot of fans are going to blame injuries, rightfully so.

What are you saying? That the Bills starters won't be in game shape nor have stamina because they didn't play the whole first half of yesterday's exhibition game, and they are more likely to get injured later on now? If so, I can't disagree any more. In fact, I think it was a smart move to sit those guys and give the bubble players a chance to match-up against the other team's better players in order to make roster evaluations.

While I'm no expert, I don't imagine the Bills players have just been pulling each other's puds all training camp. They'll be as ready as they'd ever be come week 1, regardless of what happened week three of preseason. Hopefully, I won't be lamenting too much about further injuries later on down the line, but that's part of the game too. We'll see about that...nothing any of us can do about it.

[Turf]

What was Marvs preseason record, 2-38?

[Night Train]

I guess there was no camp in Rochester. It was a media creation.

[Novacane]

Please bring back the groan feature!

[stuckincincy]

Congrats on keeping most of your starters healthy through the preseason. Seriously, it takes guts to buck the NFL by not treating the 3rd game as a dress rehearsal. Now we'll get to Baltimore as healthy as can be with a bunch of good players who won't have the stamina and who are definitely not in game shape.

I think when this season is over, we're going to look back at what went wrong and a lot of fans are going to blame injuries, rightfully so.

Rex has a special way with words:

..."Ryan notably pulled Tyrod Taylor after just two drives that saw the starting quarterback absorb a sack and another punishing hit, leading the coach to question if Taylor should have dressed at all.

"Looks like a stupid decision to play him," Ryan said, "because I never expected him to get hit."... :kid:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691079/article/rex-it-was-a-stupid-decision-to-play-tyrod-taylor

[YardRat]

I'm as big of a critic of Wrecks as anybody, but I have no problem with him sitting obvious starters in the third preseason game and 'bucking' the NFL's conventional wisdom. I'd rather keep the front liners as healthy as possible and watch the younger/newer guys that are battling for roster spots anyway.

[Historian]

...and Gragg still tore an ACL.

Sheesh!

[Mr. Pink]

I still think that Watkins shoulda got a little more work in prior to the start of the regular season.

Other than him, no issues on how the starters were used.

[DesertFox24]

He is being sarcastic.

[Mace]

What was Marvs preseason record, 2-38?

These aren't Marv's Bills.

I always go back and forth on this every preseason.
-Not playing starters enough leaves them rustier and questionably conditioned for the season. But they're pro athletes who've been playing the game at high level for years.
-Playing starters too much risks injury. But injuries are going to happen anyway and they're pro athletes who've been playing the game at high level for years.

This year I concluded the coaching staff has to be presumed to know better. Whether they do or not will be proven when the Bills either come out of the gate rusty and have a bunch of conditioning injuries, or fresh and energetic.

Injuries are going to happen anyway though, and Rex Ryan isn't on my list of savvy conditioning experts.

We'll see.

[justasportsfan]

What are you saying? That the Bills starters won't be in game shape nor have stamina because they didn't play the whole first half of yesterday's exhibition game, and they are more likely to get injured later on now? If so, I can't disagree any more. In fact, I think it was a smart move to sit those guys and give the bubble players a chance to match-up against the other team's better players in order to make roster evaluations.

While I'm no expert, I don't imagine the Bills players have just been pulling each other's puds all training camp. They'll be as ready as they'd ever be come week 1, regardless of what happened week three of preseason. Hopefully, I won't be lamenting too much about further injuries later on down the line, but that's part of the game too. We'll see about that...nothing any of us can do about it.

Sailed over your head a lttle bit?

[YardRat]

He is being sarcastic.

It isn't written very well to convey the point, with the individual sentences bouncing from one end of the scale to the other.

Was he being sarcastic in sentences one and three, and sincere in the second...or vice versa?

[OpIv37]

What was Marvs preseason record, 2-38?

Please. Just stop.

The NFL of the 90s has nothing to do with today's game. That was before FA when teams would return 90% of their starters every year. It was the same guys running the same systems every time.

Now, we have a coaching carousel, and even when we have consistency for a year or two in terms of systems, the personnel changes so much. The 90's teams didn't need reps. This team does.

[BuffaloRedleg]

These aren't Marv's Bills.

I always go back and forth on this every preseason.
-Not playing starters enough leaves them rustier and questionably conditioned for the season. But they're pro athletes who've been playing the game at high level for years.
-Playing starters too much risks injury. But injuries are going to happen anyway and they're pro athletes who've been playing the game at high level for years.

This year I concluded the coaching staff has to be presumed to know better. Whether they do or not will be proven when the Bills either come out of the gate rusty and have a bunch of conditioning injuries, or fresh and energetic.

Injuries are going to happen anyway though, and Rex Ryan isn't on my list of savvy conditioning experts.

We'll see.

Has anyone demonstrated any correlation between preseason play time and team success in the regular season?

My guess is there is zero. It's all old timey wisdom that is backed by things like gut feeling and outdates concepts of being "tough" and not actual data and science. The same way we all cringe when we hear about NFL coaches wanting to play smashmouth football.

I did find this tidbit that is slightly unrelated but interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4wwwwi/yes_there_is_actually_a_correlation_between/

[stuckincincy]

Thanks - that was an interesting read.

[Mace]

Has anyone demonstrated any correlation between preseason play time and team success in the regular season?

My guess is there is zero. It's all old timey wisdom that is backed by things like gut feeling and outdates concepts of being "tough" and not actual data and science. The same way we all cringe when we hear about NFL coaches wanting to play smashmouth football.

I did find this tidbit that is slightly unrelated but interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4wwwwi/yes_there_is_actually_a_correlation_between/

It was an interesting read. Thing is, there are too many randoms if you want to go data and science and not enough info unless you can find more pertinent data which I haven't looked for. I didn't say anything about winning, an injury damaged team can still be very successful with mitigating factors. I was talking about rust and injuries. A rusty team can also be very successful if slow out of the gate, so it was a little more than slightly unrelated.

Can the Bills specifically overcome rust and injuries ? I don't know that.

Better teams are more likely to win against bad ones regardless, teams with better offseason conditioning programs are likely to have better conditioned athletes who don't need playing time, more astute coaches are likely to have a better feel for which player needs what prep, and players themselves are going to apply different focus and attention to their conditioning. I don't know how this applies to this years team.

That's why this year I concluded the coaching staff has to be presumed to know better. Whether they do or not will be proven when the Bills either come out of the gate rusty and have a bunch of conditioning injuries, or fresh and energetic. Means it worked fine if it works, didn't if it doesn't.

Has nothing to do with gut instinct though.

[stuckincincy]

I'm as big of a critic of Wrecks as anybody, but I have no problem with him sitting obvious starters in the third preseason game and 'bucking' the NFL's conventional wisdom. I'd rather keep the front liners as healthy as possible and watch the younger/newer guys that are battling for roster spots anyway.

I see what you say, but when most if not all of he other 31 clubs follow the conventional wisdom, and BUF owns the current record for playoff droughts, why not follow that CW? They might have been better served by giving the younger/newer guys more time in the first two games. Keeping the 1st team offense on the field in the first half vs. NYG was odd. To me.

[MikeInRoch]

I see what you say, but when most if not all of he other 31 clubs follow the conventional wisdom, and BUF owns the current record for playoff droughts, why not follow that CW? They might have been better served by giving the younger/newer guys more time in the first two games. Keeping the 1st team offense on the field in the first half vs. NYG was odd. To me.

That would possibly make sense if Buffalo was not following the conventional wisdom for any real portion of that drought...

[stuckincincy]

That would possibly make sense if Buffalo was not following the conventional wisdom for any real portion of that drought...

Well, it didn't work, following the CW or not. In this age of numerous NFL rules targeting parity, the only explanation that makes sense is that the fans keep filling up the stadium while fans of other moribund teams did not.

IMO, Pegula bought the Sabres for that reason - a steady cash cow, a good place to park money with a reliable cash flow.

CIN was a joke franchise throughout the '90's and what changed them was that the children of the owner took over and showed the old man that he doesn't own a club in a big market, so the local gate matters to the bottom line. And if you don't field a competitive team in the B'gals market, folks just won't show up. Not unique - CIN fans still don't trust the owner, and they as well as a couple of other playoff teams were sweating playoff game sell-outs last year.

NFL franchises are billionaires' toys. Nothing is gonna change until the fans stop showing up, and lift their leg on the owner's precious ego.

[OpIv37]

Has anyone demonstrated any correlation between preseason play time and team success in the regular season?

My guess is there is zero. It's all old timey wisdom that is backed by things like gut feeling and outdates concepts of being "tough" and not actual data and science. The same way we all cringe when we hear about NFL coaches wanting to play smashmouth football.

I did find this tidbit that is slightly unrelated but interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4wwwwi/yes_there_is_actually_a_correlation_between/

Yeah, why does a team that was mediocre last year need to practice? They didn't add talent and they didn't work but they will magically be better!

[stuckincincy]

Yeah, why does a team that was mediocre last year need to practice? They didn't add talent and they didn't work but they will magically be better!

It was likely a directive from above...don't put our contractual obligations at risk. Rex was hired to be the bombastic mouthpiece that grabs attention and so deflect criticism of the inner circle.

Rex's statement re game 3, "Looks like a stupid decision to play him (Taylor)," Ryan said, "because I never expected him to get hit." was ludicrous.

[Skooby]

Well, it didn't work, following the CW or not. In this age of numerous NFL rules targeting parity, the only explanation that makes sense is that the fans keep filling up the stadium while fans of other moribund teams did not.

IMO, Pegula bought the Sabres for that reason - a steady cash cow, a good place to park money with a reliable cash flow.

CIN was a joke franchise throughout the '90's and what changed them was that the children of the owner took over and showed the old man that he doesn't own a club in a big market, so the local gate matters to the bottom line. And if you don't field a competitive team in the B'gals market, folks just won't show up. Not unique - CIN fans still don't trust the owner, and they as well as a couple of other playoff teams were sweating playoff game sell-outs last year.

NFL franchises are billionaires' toys. Nothing is gonna change until the fans stop showing up, and lift their leg on the owner's precious ego.

If Pegula wanted to make money, he'd drill a hole. He loves Buffalo and the sports teams, overpaying for both of them so don't ever think it's all for money. He's a billionaire so he's good there, I just hope he gets the franchises successful. So far, they've both languished under his ownership.

[stuckincincy]

:shoothead:
If Pegula wanted to make money, he'd drill a hole. He loves Buffalo and the sports teams, overpaying for both of them so don't ever think it's all for money. He's a billionaire so he's good there, I just hope he gets the franchises successful. So far, they've both languished under his ownership.

Hire the NFL version of the cartoon character Foghorn Leghorn and then hire his brother? Along with retaining Brandon and Whaley?

It's gonna be another long season... :shoothead:

[YardRat]

Well, it didn't work, following the CW or not. In this age of numerous NFL rules targeting parity, the only explanation that makes sense is that the fans keep filling up the stadium while fans of other moribund teams did not.

IMO, Pegula bought the Sabres for that reason - a steady cash cow, a good place to park money with a reliable cash flow.

CIN was a joke franchise throughout the '90's and what changed them was that the children of the owner took over and showed the old man that he doesn't own a club in a big market, so the local gate matters to the bottom line. And if you don't field a competitive team in the B'gals market, folks just won't show up. Not unique - CIN fans still don't trust the owner, and they as well as a couple of other playoff teams were sweating playoff game sell-outs last year.

NFL franchises are billionaires' toys. Nothing is gonna change until the fans stop showing up, and lift their leg on the owner's precious ego.


I think the rule changes over the last couple of decades (especially the last 10-15 years) indicate a philosophy that has moved the priority of the league away from parity and toward bigger money, and bigger money comes from marketing. There really isn't parity anymore, for the most part there are a few teams that are hopeless, a few that are the cash cows and have marketable stars and continuosly make the playoffs, and a bunch of teams that are, and will remain, mediocre until they latch on to somebody (like a QB) that the league can make money off of. Sure, there is parity with all of the middlin' team that go 6-10 to 9-7 every year, and I guess the hopeless ones can be included because they manage to grow to mediocre and 'fight' for a wild card until the last couple of weeks, but there is definitely an elite class that has been established that belies any evidence of true parity.

Buffalo fans have been clamoring for a QB for years now, but we don't need one because his skill set is important as much as we need one that can be sold nationwide for a profit.

[SpikedLemonade]

If Pegula wanted to make money, he'd drill a hole. He loves Buffalo and the sports teams, overpaying for both of them so don't ever think it's all for money. He's a billionaire so he's good there, I just hope he gets the franchises successful. So far, they've both languished under his ownership.


I wish he would and bury Rex in it.

[Jan Reimers]

:shoothead:

Hire the NFL version of the cartoon character Foghorn Leghorn and then hire his brother? Along with retaining Brandon and Whaley?

It's gonna be another long season... :shoothead:

Brandon has nothing to do with the football side of the operation. Firing him will not make us better on the field.

As far as this thread in general, can anyone really blame Rex for sitting our starters, given the number of serious injuries we have already suffered?

[jamze132]

Gees guys I was just really pissed that I purchased NFL Gamepass to watch the "dress rehearsal" and I see a bunch of backups running around missing tackles. Cancel that ****!

[BuffaloRedleg]

Yeah, why does a team that was mediocre last year need to practice? They didn't add talent and they didn't work but they will magically be better!

I asked for stats, and you gave me conventional wisdom.

You're more like Rex Ryan than you'd like to admit.

[BuffaloRedleg]

It was an interesting read. Thing is, there are too many randoms if you want to go data and science and not enough info unless you can find more pertinent data which I haven't looked for. I didn't say anything about winning, an injury damaged team can still be very successful with mitigating factors. I was talking about rust and injuries. A rusty team can also be very successful if slow out of the gate, so it was a little more than slightly unrelated.

Can the Bills specifically overcome rust and injuries ? I don't know that.

Better teams are more likely to win against bad ones regardless, teams with better offseason conditioning programs are likely to have better conditioned athletes who don't need playing time, more astute coaches are likely to have a better feel for which player needs what prep, and players themselves are going to apply different focus and attention to their conditioning. I don't know how this applies to this years team.

That's why this year I concluded the coaching staff has to be presumed to know better. Whether they do or not will be proven when the Bills either come out of the gate rusty and have a bunch of conditioning injuries, or fresh and energetic. Means it worked fine if it works, didn't if it doesn't.

Has nothing to do with gut instinct though.

I think if we stink it will be tough to prove that it had anything to do with how much the starters did or did not play in preseason. People around here tend to project a lot of things on the team that aren't backed by any kind of seriously rigorous analysis, they just fulfill some sort of emotional need of the poster- which is fine. The stats are out there I wish I had time to run a regression on it. I'd be willing to bet that there is absolutely no correlation between preseason play time and team success.

Do already-good teams play their starters less? I imagine so. Do teams get good by playing their starters more? I imagine not, but I really don't have any stats to back that up unfortunately.

For what it's worth I agree with you and I think he smartly played Tyrod very little this preseason. I'm sure someone will start a thread when were finish 8-8 about how the fact that Tyrod didn't play a lot in preseason made him rusty, backed with no evidence other than "he didn't play a lot in preseason and then we stunk so therefore that is the reason." People forget the days when preseason was not even something that was talked about- it was more practice than something fans hyper-analyzed. That's just the NFL machine tricking us into watching and paying attention to something that in reality has far less value than we think.

Edit: I did find this about correlation between preseason and regular season records http://duelingdata.blogspot.com/2014/09/nfl-preseason-performance-doesnt-matter.html (http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nfl/is-pre-season-in-the-nfl-an-indicator-of-regular-season-performance.aspx)

The Bills have never gone over .500 in preseason since 2004, and each time they went .500 they actually did worse in the regular season!

And this, which I haven't finished reading but actually looks slightly counter to my point http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/preseason-football-isnt-totally-meaningless-if-your-team-has-a-new-qb/

Love this stuff.

[mdcas22]

What was Marvs preseason record, 2-38?

Bill Belichick's is 38-30 so whats the point?

[Mace]

I think if we stink it will be tough to prove that it had anything to do with how much the starters did or did not play in preseason. People around here tend to project a lot of things on the team that aren't backed by any kind of seriously rigorous analysis, they just fulfill some sort of emotional need of the poster- which is fine. The stats are out there I wish I had time to run a regression on it. I'd be willing to bet that there is absolutely no correlation between preseason play time and team success.

Do already-good teams play their starters less? I imagine so. Do teams get good by playing their starters more? I imagine not, but I really don't have any stats to back that up unfortunately.

For what it's worth I agree with you and I think he smartly played Tyrod very little this preseason. I'm sure someone will start a thread when were finish 8-8 about how the fact that Tyrod didn't play a lot in preseason made him rusty, backed with no evidence other than "he didn't play a lot in preseason and then we stunk so therefore that is the reason." People forget the days when preseason was not even something that was talked about- it was more practice than something fans hyper-analyzed. That's just the NFL machine tricking us into watching and paying attention to something that in reality has far less value than we think.

Edit: I did find this about correlation between preseason and regular season records http://duelingdata.blogspot.com/2014/09/nfl-preseason-performance-doesnt-matter.html (http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nfl/is-pre-season-in-the-nfl-an-indicator-of-regular-season-performance.aspx)

The Bills have never gone over .500 in preseason since 2004, and each time they went .500 they actually did worse in the regular season!

And this, which I haven't finished reading but actually looks slightly counter to my point http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/preseason-football-isnt-totally-meaningless-if-your-team-has-a-new-qb/

Love this stuff.

Oddly, I read John Harbaugh complaining about preseason games today. And even more oddly I found myself finally agreeing. They really could do the same with controlled scrimmages and maybe only 2 practice games. Article I read Suggs said they really do need a prep game or two.

I'd probably bet that like I said, better teams with better motivated players, better training and conditioning staffs, and more astute coaches will do better with less. One of the best comments I ever read was Carson Palmer commenting on a woeful preseason, said something like preseason is I try what i don't think I can do anyway, take risks and see what happens.

I just really see the preseason as practice games, and it comes back to having to trust the staff on who needs what practice I suppose.

Enjoyed the reads muchly.