BuffaloWins Articles

[cookie G]

The 2004 D gave up 284 points, the 2012 D has given up 299 points in 10 games played. Easily a better group of talent in 2004.

That's pretty much the difference. The 04 group was the 2nd best D in the league, meltdown to Pittsburgh notwithstanding.

Of course, the "big name" free agents brought in during 03 (Spikes, Adams), actually produced.

[imbondz]

No one else is bothered that this team's rallying call was a team who choked away the postseason to Pitt's third stringers? I still have flashbacks of that scrub quarterback St. Pierre or something running a bootleg on 4th and 1 and getting it. That game was also Willie Parker's coming out party for Pitts too if I remember right.

nope, I laughed when I heard they brought up 2004's team for a rally call. let's see if we can win 6 straight and still not make the playoffs

[Joebuffalowins]

http://www.buffalowins.com/buffalo-b...let-bowls.html

We are a boring ass football team and we are about to embark onto the part of the schedule with equally boring ass teams for us to play against. It is great to play crappy teams when you are trying to make the playoffs. It is the exact opposite to watch crappy football with nothing at stake besides um... pride or losing a high draft pick. That's pretty much what we have for the next month or so.

Here are your top 5 toilet bowl games I've watched as a Bills fan:

[Buffalogic]

fail

[Joebuffalowins]

http://www.buffalowins.com/buffalo-s...-got-here.html

The annual failure that is the Buffalo Bills has passed well beyond the state of aggravation. It’s just dumb now. In a league where week in and week out, many teams do plenty of stupid things in attempts to lose games, the Bills have persevered to out-stupid most of the AFC, 13 years and counting.Look, we could look forward and discuss the upcoming exciting matchup this Sunday with the Jag-ee-wahrs. Really, we could. But seeing as how I doubt ESPNCBSFOXNBC, or the NFL Network itself will spend even :30 COMBINED on this all-timer Sunday morning, why am I gonna do the heavy lifting for them? Nah, instead let’s treat ourselves to yet another autopsy on the Bills as their season approaches entering rigor mortis before the calendar turns to December.

[Joebuffalowins]

http://www.buffalowins.com/buffalo-b...icles/ego.html
"You can win the World Series without Babe Ruth.''
On a few occasions, Chan Gailey would tell his coaches this before the Bills hired him. Now, you could view it as being a way to say we can get a team full of good players and win without a star player. It is a team game, right? Standard coach speaking. However, after about two and half seasons worth of signs from Chan, I view it a lot more differently.
I view it as a way to say...
"My coaching mind will make any player I come across better than they are. So, who needs Babe Ruth when I can make you into Babe Ruth?"

[GingerP]

I read that article you linked. These in particular struck me:

Gailey went 10-6 in his first year, including a club-record 8-0 mark against the then-five-team NFC East, before losing in the wild-card game to Arizona.

His division record was good at one time?

A couple of coaches who didn't want to become a candidate for the job made no bones about the obstacles: They worry about the hire of a 70-year-old GM everyone thought was on the back nine of his career, Buddy Nix. They worry about owner Ralph Wilson's meddling. They worry about where the franchise might be in two years. They worry about luring free-agents to Buffalo. In short, it's a tough sell to attractive candidates. If Jim Harbaugh's going to have one good shot at an NFL job, why would he leave a place he loves, Stanford, for such an iffy venture in western New York?

Hard to say this has changed at all.

I can guarantee you one of the things that the Bills loved was Gailey's attitude about how you can win without stars in the NFL. In fact, that's the kind of team he prefers. More than once in his career, he's told coaches he worked with: "You can win the World Series without Babe Ruth.'' In Buffalo, he's going to get that chance.

"In fact, that's the kind of team he prefers." - That explains Ryan Fitzpatrick.

[Bill Cody]

Good point you can win the World Series without Babe Ruth. Course Ruth is dead.

[trapezeus]

not when the 9 people to bat all strike out

[ThunderGun]

(yawn)

[BillsFever21]

I read that article you linked. These in particular struck me:



His division record was good at one time?



Hard to say this has changed at all.



"In fact, that's the kind of team he prefers." - That explains Ryan Fitzpatrick.

That's because the division stunk then. Then the following year they won the division with an 8-8 record. Outside of the bad division they were only 2-6 in that season.

Gailey is a bum and needs to go. This is a 60 year old coach and not a young guy adapting to his position. If he hasn't shown he can do it by now then he never will. Same goes for Buddy Nix.

[BertSquirtgum]

Buddy Nix and Chan Gailey are destroying this team.

[ServoBillieves]

We have a bad team? Didn't realize it. Thanks for the info.

[mjt328]

"You can win without Babe Ruth."

Maybe that's Chan's problem. He doesn't realize he's coaching football.


In all seriousness, though... an NFL team can't really expect to win the Super Bowl without a competent quarterback.
In almost 50 years since Super Bowl I, only a handful of teams have won it all without a top level guy under center. And in most cases, those teams had one of the best defensive units of ALL TIME.

It's hard to draft a franchise quarterback.
But it's probably harder to assemble a defense like the 1984 Bears or 2000 Ravens.

[DynaPaul]

Yeah sure, you can win without a major superstar but what you need to do to offset that is a group of highly motivated players who give their all on every single play. We don't have that. We have guys who just saunter to the bench after making blunders and nonchalantly make statements like "You can't win 'em all" after losses.

[better days]

"You can win without Babe Ruth."

Maybe that's Chan's problem. He doesn't realize he's coaching football.


In all seriousness, though... an NFL team can't really expect to win the Super Bowl without a competent quarterback.
In almost 50 years since Super Bowl I, only a handful of teams have won it all without a top level guy under center. And in most cases, those teams had one of the best defensive units of ALL TIME.

It's hard to draft a franchise quarterback.
But it's probably harder to assemble a defense like the 1984 Bears or 2000 Ravens.

Or the 2002 Buccaneers.

[Mr. Pink]

Lost in the 85 Bears Defense is the fact that their offense was pretty good too. Pretty good is an understatement. They were 2nd in scoring in 1985 with a team that had over 3000 yards passing and 2000 yards rushing.

[kishoph]

Gailey gets worse by the day, in the Buffalo News, they wrote about the futility in the red zone, they rank 25th right now, in the last four weeks they have scored on just 29% of their red zone possessions (5 of 17), yet Gailey makes it sound like it's the fault of the running game, “We’ve got to avoid the negative plays,” Bills coach Chan Gailey said. “We get down there and we get a negative play. We get a negative run. We get a missed assignment on a run.” When in fact the Bills have the leagues best yards per carry average in the red zone (3.59), but rank 28th in attempts, 2.6 a game. Is Gailey that stupid or is it he thinks we're that stupid, the problem with the offense is the same in the red zone as it is on the rest of the field, Fitzpatrick. Gailey seems to have no problem throwing the running game under the bus, but he'll never utter a negative word about his prized QB. The two of them are what's destroying this team.

[colin]

good write up. chan't is the worst

[Joebuffalowins]

http://www.buffalowins.com/buffalo-b...e-jaguars.html


http://www.buffalowins.com/buffalo-b...e-jaguars.html