Didn't get to see the game, but from seeing the box score and the highlights, here are my two snap judgments (to steal a phrase):

1.  The thing that impressed me most about the Bills' offense is their ability to sustain very long scoring drives (even ending in TDs).  It seemed they were regularly starting out deep within their own territory, but they sustained those drives and scored TDs on a few of them.  Being able to score TDs even when you have bad field position is a huge credit to this offense and will help them go far this season.

2.  Earlier this week, someone was comparing the Pats' no-huddle offense to the Bills' offense of the early 90s.  Der Jaeger clearly explained how the two offenses are entirely different, and how different Kelly and Brady are/were as QBs.  Well, on the highlights, I certainly saw one aspect of playing the game in which Brady simply doesn't hold a candle to Kelly. 

On the helmet-batted-ball INT by Florence, you see Brady lollygagging over toward the sideline where Florence is heading to the endzone.  That is simply inexcusable.  It's not like the Pats were getting blown out.  In Kelly's day, if he threw an INT, he would just about kill himself rather than let that defender score.  Brady is a great QB, but in that aspect of the game, he simply doesn't match up to Kelly.  IMO, that was a weak play on Brady's part. 

Those are my snap judgments.   And I'm still not Don Banks.

I first posted this comment in MRW's fanshot quote from Chuck Knox from his book, Hard Knox: The Life of an NFL Coach: Chuck Knox (I've been talking up that book since I read it about a month ago) .  Then I was going to post this again as a comment in fansince60's fanpost "Right or Wrong."  So I decided to make it a fanpost of my own.  One thing I think is different in this current situation is that Chuck Knox had a proven record of success.  He won everywhere he went:  LA, Buffalo, Seattle, at least to a certain degree - div. championships, playoff wins.  Knox had proven himself a success as an NFL coach.

In this current setting, Nix has never yet proven himself as a successful GM.  This is his first GM job.  So there is some rightly placed skepticism about Nix in this fanbase.

I currently work in an industry where there is so much money flying around, things don't have to be managed very well in order for a company in that certain industry to succeed.  There are tons of wasted resources (money, time, talent, etc.).  It's also an "inbred" industry - you can only break into it if you know someone and can convince him to take you on and train you up.  It took me 3 1/2 years to break into this industry.  Because it's inbred, it hardly gets anyone from outside the industry with a general understanding of business principles and professionalism who also has the credibility and guts to come in and say, "You guys are wasting so much money it's crazy!  Here's how you could be doing it better."  That hardly happens in my industry, and the industry as a whole and many specific companies in the industry suffer for it. 

In my case, just weeks after starting work, I could see several very specific ways in which this particular company was sloppily managed, and was in many ways extremely unprofessional.  The things I was seeing cut across many industries and simply had to do with professionalism and basic business principles.  I didn't need to have any experience in that industry to see how poorly managed this company was.  In less than 4 months, I got a better job with a much more professionally run company in the same industry. 

This is what I see with the Bills.  The NFL is an inbred industry - you can't break in without knowing someone.  Most of what people don't know to perform a job like NFL GM has to do with lack of ability to break into the industry - not because they don't understand professionalism or general business principles or basic HR principles. 

I don't know what it takes in specifics to be an NFL GM, but this team exists in an industry such that the team (as a corporation) will never fail unless the entire NFL fails.  They could be run pathetically, but they will continue to operate as an NFL team.  But until they prove themselves to be consistent winners, I will know that there are management problems with this organization - problems that have existed for decades.  

In fact, it was a Knox quote (about Ralph Wilson) from the very same book by Chuck Knox that MRW quoted that clued me in to just how poorly run the Bills have always been. Knox knew it – that’s why he left.  We all know that’s exactly what happened with Polian – he’s the one GM who built the Bills into a consistent winner – and he was forced out.  When Polian left, Polian continued to succeed.  When Polian left, the Bills did not. 

Does Buddy Nix want slack from the fan base?  Fine – in his own words, show us the baby.  That is the only thing that will show us that his unconventional decisions are cutting it.  He has gotten plenty of slack from me so far.  I don’t even disagree with the concept of trading Lee Evans, especially if Lee wanted the trade himself (he probably did - no surprise if he did). 

But to use Knox’s quote to suggest that this organization should be given slack is, IMO, faulty.  To suggest that people with any kind of brains and experience are wrong for suspecting incompetence in the Bills' organization by using this Knox quote is the exact opposite of what Knox meant by it.  Knox was the proven winner who came into the Bills organization and showed them they didn’t know what they were doing.  He proved it.  And then when they wouldn’t reward him for his success, he left. Same with Polian. 

So Buddy Nix - you said it.  Show us the baby.  That is the only thing that will convince most of us rational people that the Bills FO isn't still a complete dysfunctional mess.

Someone commented in another thread that the Bills would at some point make a cut that left us all with our jaws dropping.  So, here's your chance to name who this year's surprise cut will be - oh, and by the way, you can't pick Ryan Neill. 

I'll start it off by saying I think John McCargo will be cut in favor of Derrick Jones.  What's my reasoning, you ask?  Absolutely none at all.  Hey, we're talking surprise cuts here, it's not supposed to make sense, at least at first. 

Who are your choices?  Let's hear it!

You know, with the discussion coming up again about taking Jairus Byrd when Everette Brown was still on the board, I've been wondering how much influence Bob Sanders had in the decision.  Not so much Sanders saying, "Pick this guy" or "Don't pick that guy," but more along the lines of Sanders coming in and saying, "I see what you've got in your current D-line; I know I can coach them up to be more successful, especially with the addition of Maybin." 

What do you think?  How much influence did Sanders (and the FO's beliefs about Sanders' coaching abilities) have in the decision to pass up more D-line help (either DE or DT)? 

I have to admit I've become almost numb to any new post about the Oline, but there's one aspect to the Oline that no one has yet discussed (as far as I've seen).  Actually, it's been discussed, but it's always mentioned in a positive light.  However, I see a potential downside.  It's in this little word called versatility.

I'm actually very positive about the additions the Bills have made to the Oline in the offseason (Hangartner, Wood, Levitire).  But I keep hearing how great it is that the Bills have picked this or that player because he is versatile (can play a number of positions).

Ok, I'm no line expert, but isn't the teamwork and communication on line calls hugely important?  How big is it if someone is making mental errors because they're used to their responsibility at one position, only now they've had to switch to another?  With all the position switching occurring on this Oline, there has to be a downside in consistency.  Can't the Bills have a few players who play one position and play it expertly? 

I know that depth is needed for the sake of injuries, but I just can't kick this nagging feeling that switching the position of every player on the line has a significant downside, and that no matter how smart these players are, the resulting confusion could be detrimental to Edwards' health.

In an effort to NOT think about anything related to the Bills right now....

I'm not a huge fan of Peter King.  I don't really consider him a good writer, and he doesn't seem to ever have much good football insight.  I only read his column for the sheer volume of information in it.

Usually when I read his columns, I want to respond by calling him names I shouldn't use and just generally have to allow myself to cool down after reading him.  So it surprised even me when I saw something he wrote about Cris Collinsworth in his MMQB column (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/11/16/week11/1.html - see Quote of the Week II on pg 2) that prompted me to ask him a sane question (did King think Collinsworth would ever consider coaching, or was he happier doing what he was doing?).

Well, if you saw King's MMQB Tuesday edition column, he actually responded to my question (and gave a helpful answer even):  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/11/18/mail/1.html

There's been a lot of talk after the last two Bills' losses about the Bills giving the game away themselves rather than getting beaten by other teams.  I think this distinction is highly subjective and frankly doesn't produce much helpful analysis or discussion.  On the contrary, it seems driven by homerism more than anything else.

Think back to the Bills' wins this season.  One could argue the Seahawks gave away the game by poor tackling and by sloppiness (not paying attention on the fake field goal).  The Jags also tackled poorly, and failed to score TDs on several drives when they either got only FGs or came away with nothing (like the Garrard INT to end the first half)

The Raiders had their game at the Ralph well in hand, and offensively "gave up" when they went 3-and-out to allow the Bills to drive and kick the winning FG.

The Rams also had their game with the Bills in solid shape but gave up a poor pick 6 to lose the lead. 

The Chargers had three turnovers against the Bills.  Didn't they give the game away?

I think it's a silly distinction to draw.  Teams lose and win because of all these things.  One could easily argue that the better team on that day was pressuring the other team into making those mistakes (the same thought process applies to committing penalties).  Edwards' pick 6 against the Jets was forced by a pass rush that was superior to the pass blocking. 

Last year, the Pats went 18-0, but then they lost the Super Bowl.  Because of that, they are no longer the defending league champions.  The Giants were the better team on that day.  Simply put:  you are exactly as good as your record shows (or, in the playoffs, you are only as good as your last win). 

When Edwards has time, he makes good decisions with the ball.  If the receivers get open faster, if the line provides more time, if the running game works better, the pick 6s won't happen.  But all these things are happening because defenses are successfully poking their fingers in the Bills' weaknesses.

Why argue about such an unclear, unhelpful distinction?

After reading the title to this post (my first), no one would question you if you thought I'd be discussing the deep ball to Evans and the subsequent jump ball to Hardy in the endzone for the go-ahead TD.   Both those fourth quarter plays were super calls and executed just the way they had to be.  But I have two other plays in mind, plays that were more subtle but in my mind had a huge impact on the outcome of the game.

They came earlier in that same 4th Q TD drive, and they actually came back to back (just like the two plays that capped off the drive) .  I don't have access to the game film, and my streaming experience was jumpy enough that I didn't always get a great look at every play, so please feel free to correct me on the details. 

The sequence began when the Bills still had the ball in their own territory; they had 2nd and 10.   First, Edwards threw a screen pass to Jackson, and the result was an 8 or 9-yard gain, setting up 3rd and short.  Jackson had had a number of huge plays in the game catching the ball and then making something big happen virtually all by himself, but this particular play was just a great call at just the right time, and Edwards and Jackson ran it perfectly.  The Jags fell victim to the perfect call against  their fast, aggressive defense,

Now, 3rd and short is obviously a much better situation to be in than 3rd and long, but the Bills haven't exactly had a ton of success with their power running game, so I was nervous.  I didn't get a great look at the next play, but on 3rd and a long 1 (or short 2, however you look at it), the Bills set up in the I formation, with a deep back and an up back.  I was expecting the dive up the middle, and was concerned the play would get stuffed and the drive would be over.  I think the Jags' front 7 were salivating, thinking the same thing.  Turk must have counted on this, because the Bills then ran some sort of quick-hitting misdirection play, with the whole flow of the offense going right, while Edwards handed the ball off to the upback (I thought it was Lynch, but I think it may have been Jackson) who went left.  This was an awesome call (again, executed well) because

1.  It was another great play to call (like the screen) against a fast, aggressive defense.    (If you can accurately describe this running play in football terminology, please feel free to elaborate).

2.  It was quick hitting - the RB had the ball in his hands and was practically at or beyond the line of scrimmage before the defense could react to the misdirection.

These two calls, how well they were executed, and the fact that Buffalo got a key first down, putting the ball, if I remember correctly, near the Bills' 40 yd line, were the plays that assured me this was no longer the same old coaching staff and the same old Bills.  It was after these two plays that I actually started to Bill-ieve the Bills would win this game.  And because of that, I'm excited about the Bills' chances this season, given that the offense is still the weakest link in the three phases, if any of them could be called weak at this point. 

I'm a Bill-iever now!