PDA

View Full Version : What does having a successful season mean to you?



WG
07-22-2002, 05:38 PM
IYO, what single milestone would constitute a successful season?

Not what you'd like to see, but what you think would demonstrate a good enough demonstration that we're moving in the right direction.

bduff54
07-22-2002, 05:43 PM
atleast 500.

LtBillsFan66
07-22-2002, 05:43 PM
Be better than .500 and lose respectably.

justasportsfan
07-22-2002, 05:45 PM
Based on what we have on paper, at least a wild card. Might be far fetched for some guys but I think we can really make it. GW was talking playoffs with last years line-up before the season started. I think we are better than last years team by far.

angneli
07-22-2002, 05:46 PM
Be better than .500, and at least give ourselves a shot at the playoffs toward the end of the season. Give our players a little extra incentive.

justasportsfan
07-22-2002, 05:46 PM
....and if GW learned how to make coaches challenges during the off season , who knows. SB?lol:beer:

don137
07-22-2002, 07:40 PM
I expect a .500 season. I would consider that status quo. Anything more is considered a success and anything less than .500 is a disappointment.

The Shadow
07-22-2002, 07:46 PM
I voted at least .500 because certainly logic would suggest 8-8 is a remarkable improvement from 3-13 and thus should constitute a 'successful' season.

Logic aside, TD made some really good moves through free agency and the drafts to field a competitive team NOW . This has increased expectations and makes an 8-8 season seem like a disappointment. 10-6 doesn't look quite as difficult as it did just 4 months ago. Whatever happens, it's sure to be a wild ride!

8-8 is still a 'successful' season, IMO.

The Natrix
07-22-2002, 08:32 PM
I want more wins, but I would consider .500 a success. Did I mention that I think we are going to win more than eight games?

I predict: 14-6

bduff54
07-22-2002, 09:27 PM
if we go 14-6 i will be shocked, because we will be the first team to play 20 games

Ð
07-23-2002, 07:00 AM
Bduff, the mathemetician has to rain on the parade :)

SABURZFAN
07-23-2002, 07:05 AM
none of the above


it's SUPER BOWL or bust.

askabry
07-23-2002, 07:38 AM
Simply wins and losses isn't enough. If our wins are mostly the "just barely" variety against the Lions, Texans and Bengals, huge losses against competitive teams and continued questionable coaching even nine wins isn't enough for me.

I can see a 7-9 team being much better than a 9-7 team, because in the end this is a transitional year. If we win games on the ability of players likely on their way out this year (Price, Centers, Hollis), how is it a harbinger for 2003?

I'll take seven wins, a huge step forward for Henry, one defensive player > 10 sacks, Bledsoe getting sacked < 40 times, one Db in the Pro Bowl and Reed with 30 catches.

eyedog
07-23-2002, 07:41 AM
play-offs

WG
07-23-2002, 10:09 AM
ask,

I think you're gonna see Reed w/ 60+ catches by year's end. We're gonna be passing this year. If not for a lot of TDs, then a lot of yards and plays. I figure in a bunch of games, given the rushing teams we play, we're going to be down at times and needing to throw. I'm tellin' ya, Price is gonna lose his job to Reed midway. I see Moulds and Reed being one of the league's best receiving tandems for years to come. I can see Reed averaging 2 or 3 cpg early on and then starting and bumping that up to around 5 or 6.

lordofgun
07-23-2002, 10:11 AM
Peerless Price as a 3rd wide receiver is a nice luxury. :D

Patrick76777
07-23-2002, 10:43 AM
As a fan, I think asking for anything less then the playoffs is unacceptable.

As a Gambling man the story is different

Ebenezer
07-23-2002, 10:55 AM
Lots of improvements were made but there were a lot of holes to fill. I'd go with 8-8 to be satisfied. Anything on top of that is gravy.

The Natrix
12-03-2002, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by bduff54
if we go 14-6 i will be shocked, because we will be the first team to play 20 games

10-6 + 3 playoff wins + SB win = 14-6.

I really think that this is a strong possibility

IMO, it all comes down to the NE. If we can pick up the W, then I will be very confident that we can win the remaining 7.

Lets start believing girls and boys!

LABillsFan
12-03-2002, 01:59 PM
If you look at the teams around the league, there are 15 teams wihin 1 game of .500, 5-7,6-6,7-5 which implies the BIlls are an average team this year, a far better ranking than last year. However, the Bills only have 2 wins against a team that has a winning record and has 2 wins against the division with one to play. Those 2 wins against a team with a winning record are against Miami, those 2 division wins, Miami. .500 would be acceptable if the division wins were more. If the Bills win against NE and maintain a .500 record yes this year has been successful. If the Bills lose against NE and finish .500 it's a tie. 5 more wins than the previous year is not a sign of improvement especially if they are against weak teams, improvement is winning against teams that are at your level or above.

The Natrix
12-03-2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
I'm tellin' ya, Price is gonna lose his job to Reed midway.

:lol:

Dozerdog
12-03-2002, 02:32 PM
92% should be satesfied then, with where we are....

The Natrix
12-03-2002, 02:40 PM
good math skills Dozer. Maybe you can give BDuff some pointers!

The Natrix
12-03-2002, 02:42 PM
actually isn't it more like 67%?

WG
12-03-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by LABillsFan
If you look at the teams around the league, there are 15 teams wihin 1 game of .500, 5-7,6-6,7-5 which implies the BIlls are an average team this year, a far better ranking than last year. However, the Bills only have 2 wins against a team that has a winning record and has 2 wins against the division with one to play. Those 2 wins against a team with a winning record are against Miami, those 2 division wins, Miami. .500 would be acceptable if the division wins were more. If the Bills win against NE and maintain a .500 record yes this year has been successful. If the Bills lose against NE and finish .500 it's a tie. 5 more wins than the previous year is not a sign of improvement especially if they are against weak teams, improvement is winning against teams that are at your level or above.

Nicely stated!

I see us finishing 7-9 still anyway. I just don't see us beating either N.E. or G.B. on the road and I see a struggle against S.D. at home too.

I was at the game on Sunday, and it was cool! Every time the snow kicked around everyone went absolutely bananas! It was awesome. But I took it for what it was. Another self-destruction against a Miami team that's had trouble throwing the ball against us. Wannstedt outcoached himself in that game.

I know many are optimistic, but let's get real. 228 rushing yards on over 8 YPC and 270 total?? If the Phins have any passing game at all and we don't get lucky w/ the TOs, then I'm not sure we even win that one. It's great that we own Miami for now, but we don't get to play them in a blizzard each week. If we allow Tomlinson to get anywhere near 200 we'll lose that one too. Green Bay's playing for all the marbles by the time we play them. N.E. can take one of two major steps needed to clinch the AFCE this Sunday.

Our road will be difficult if not impossible to put up more than 1 more win. N.E., S.D., and G.B. won't fall apart like Miami did w/ only 15 second half passing yards.

casdhf
12-03-2002, 07:50 PM
Well Wys, I don't think Reed got his 6 catches either.

WG
12-04-2002, 07:18 PM
cas,

There's not a doubt in my mind that given the opportunity, even as a rookie, that Reed could have been exactly where Price is now had he been given the opps. I've noticed your continued pokes at this topic.

Price has had a solid season no doubt. But we're 6-6 and all the passing we've done, while great for yardage marks, hasn't necessarily helped us win ballgames. I'd be much happier at 8-4 w/ Price and/or Moulds having hundreds of yards less and Henry having around 1,500 now which is exactly where we'd be if Gilbride didn't think that you needed to have a 5,000 yard QB to win the AFC.

This system, at least the way Gilbride's played it up until the Miami game, is what's responsible for all the yardage, and at the expense of wins IMO.

Patrick76777
12-05-2002, 07:48 AM
Price has had a "solid" season............???????????

Patrick76777
12-05-2002, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by LABillsFan
However, the Bills only have 2 wins against a team that has a winning record and has 2 wins against the division with one to play.


Miami has the same exact division record, New England only has 2 division wins, Sure they have 3 to play. and the Jets have 3 whole wins. Look out.

The Jets have beaten 2 teams with a winning record.
New England has beaten 1 team with a winning record.
Miami has beaten 4 teams with a winning record. But then again, we've beaten them twice.

I'm using your logic and I can't figure out how to rank these teams. I'm at a loss.

Judge
12-05-2002, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
cas,

There's not a doubt in my mind that given the opportunity, even as a rookie, that Reed could have been exactly where Price is now had he been given the opps. I've noticed your continued pokes at this topic.

Price has had a solid season no doubt. But we're 6-6 and all the passing we've done, while great for yardage marks, hasn't necessarily helped us win ballgames. I'd be much happier at 8-4 w/ Price and/or Moulds having hundreds of yards less and Henry having around 1,500 now which is exactly where we'd be if Gilbride didn't think that you needed to have a 5,000 yard QB to win the AFC.

This system, at least the way Gilbride's played it up until the Miami game, is what's responsible for all the yardage, and at the expense of wins IMO.

Wys- are you serious, or just posting nonsense to create an argument?

What you're saying is ridiculous! This team's strength is its star-laden offensive skill players. The powerful vertical passing game has opened things up for Henry, and his remarkable improvement over this season has returned the favor and given Bledsoe an opportunity to do what he does best- throw the long ball.

Gilbride's a genius- he's been astute in his use of the talent that he has. That's what a good offensive coordinator does- do the best he can with the talent he has, as opposed to try to force something that isn't there.

By the way- for all of those people, including me, who posted last year that Peerless Price had already had his breakout year and was going to be arguably the best WR on this team in 2002, I applaud you and pat myself on the back!

:bravo:

For all of those who thought Price would be a #3 to Reed by now:

:rofl:

WG
12-05-2002, 12:51 PM
Really!

Then perhaps you can explain why this team who's "strength is its star-laden offensive skill players. The powerful vertical passing game has opened things up for Henry,..." blah, blah, blah....;

...only managed to score only 24 offensive points against Detroit and when we needed points the most was barely able to generate over 100 yards of total offense in the 2nd half; 7 offensive points against N.E., 16 against K.C. a very weak D nearly as weak as ours, and 13 against the Jets. All down the stretch when our offense should have been finely honed and tuned up?

And if it's been the passing game that has: "The powerful vertical passing game has opened things up for Henry, and his remarkable improvement over this season has returned the favor and given Bledsoe an opportunity to do what he does best- throw the long ball."

Are you then correspondingly saying that it only opened Henry up for:

30 yards v. Minn. when Bledsoe put up 463?

35 yards v. Den. when Bledsoe put up 283?

68 yards v. Chi. when Bledsoe put up 328?

58 yards v. Oak. when Bledsoe put up 417?

64 yards v. Det. when Bledsoe put up 302?

53 yards v. N.E. when Bledsoe put up 302?

GOSH!! I'm impressed! 308 rushing yards to 2,095 passing yards. Let's get real here.

Come on Judge! Everyone here knows that you'll argue with me even if I say the earth is round. But you can do better than that!

;)

OR;

I guess Henry sucks if all he can do is get around 40 or 50 yards w/ Drew "spreading out the D" like that.

Voltron
12-05-2002, 12:53 PM
We Swept the Fins. That is all I ever wanted!!!!

WCoastFin
12-05-2002, 12:58 PM
A succseful season, to me, means having a better than .500 record and making the playoffs....If a team doesnt make the playoffs theyve failed.

WCoastFin
12-05-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Voltron
We Swept the Fins. That is all I ever wanted!!!!

Whats the point of sweeping someone when you go 2-10? that is big time failure....If thats your goal then, congratulations go home your seasons over.

TedMock
12-05-2002, 01:40 PM
I can't understand why this whole Henry - Bledsoe thing is even an issue. They've equally helped eachother's stats. That's just common sense. The early passing helped open things up for Henry and Henry's running after the passing game was taken away helped them re-find the passing game. They were very balanced last week and maybe that's where they're finally headed. Both sides of the offense now have great confidence and this can bode very well for the team. Don't forget that the horrible defensive play will one day improve, I hope, and that will give them more opportunity to be balanced more often.

WG
12-05-2002, 02:46 PM
P.S. I consider an ultimately successful season to win the SuperBowl. After that, I'd rather have us make the playoffs and be capable of beating teams in the playoffs. Simply making them doesn't do much for me since some pretty awful teams have made the playoffs since the 6 team/conference format began.

I'd rather go 9-7 against a rigorous schedule and make the playoffs that way than to be mostly scrub teams, be 11-5, and have no shot at the better teams in them. JMO however.

WG
12-05-2002, 03:46 PM
I think it's an issue b/c Henry's gone largely unused in many games, games that we didn't win. There's an increasing base of fans who realize that this team, in order to give it the "best shot to win each week", needs to run Henry as much as possible and then use that to open up the passing game and not visa versa. Unfortunately we tried to pass our way to wins and success and it has largely not helped in and of itself.

It's been a long known "secret" that the model of success is strong rushing and good D. Since we have no D worthy of mentioning, any success that we do achieve will come via a solid rushing game. That doesn't mean to exclude the passing game. But since Drew got here there's been an unrealistic expectation that we're gonna light things up simply by passing the ball.

Yet, at last check, Henry has 11 TDs to M/P's 16.

The Bills are 3-2 when Henry's been over 100 and neither of the losses were b/c we went to him too often. The Jets loss he was an animal even though Bledsoe didn't have a good game. In the K.C. loss, we lost because we went to the air instead of running Henry more on that last drive. Bledsoe's INT cost us that game.

Many fans want us to see Henry run the ball more. To say he's been getting as many carries as he should have been is not right. 7 of 12 games Henry's had less than 20 carries. 5 games he's had 15 or fewer. Not all of those have been b/c we've been down. They were b/c we chose to pass vice run the ball.

We'll see this Sunday if the coaches have gotten the hint. Half of me thinks we only ran as much as we did last Sunday b/c of the weather. The other half says the coaches, particularly Gilbride, have figured it out. We'll see. B/c in the first game against the Pats, we ran Henry only 11 times. They said it was b/c we were down by 10. Well, if that was the case, then why did we run Henry when we were down by 11 on Sunday.

Anyway, we'll know for sure on Sunday. If we pass as much as we did in game one to try and prove whatever it is we're trying to prove, the result will be the same. If we hope to win, we'll have to make sure Henry gets 30+ carries.

Judge
12-06-2002, 11:35 AM
Wys-

There you go with your "relative statistical analysis" again- picking out a game here and there to back up your point without looking at the whole. It's lame.

:violin:

venis2k1
12-06-2002, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy

We'll see this Sunday if the coaches have gotten the hint. Half of me thinks we only ran as much as we did last Sunday b/c of the weather. The other half says the coaches, particularly Gilbride, have figured it out. We'll see. B/c in the first game against the Pats, we ran Henry only 11 times. They said it was b/c we were down by 10. Well, if that was the case, then why did we run Henry when we were down by 11 on Sunday.


Wys just made a good Point!!!!!!:party: :party: :party:

as much as i hate to admit it, wys is right on this one, we cannot beat the pats unless we give henry 25+ carries, maybe even 30+. I say even let Sammy Morris get a couple of touches, he has done great with the little feild time he has had this year.

TedMock
12-06-2002, 01:55 PM
I agree with wys too, this is the point I was trying to make. Henry and Bledsoe can compliment eachother greatly if used properly. Henry should touch the ball 25 - 30 times per game. I don't even care if 3-5 of those touches are swing passes a la New England's backs. Bledsoe has the arm to put up big numbers, we all know that but wouldn't a huge rushing threat every week help to continue the huge passing threat and vice versa? I hope they've seen the light.

TedMock
12-06-2002, 01:59 PM
Oh I almost forgot that imo success would be going over 500 but proof of going in the right direction is winning at least 6 which is twice as much as last year. I predicted 7 -9 at the beginning of the year but hopefully we exceed my expectations. It's funny, in the early 90's, 10-6 disappointed me.