Bills Fan Here...

[reuben.ahmed]

I can't believe this guy thinks the Bills are in the same league as the Bengals. I won't be eating my words either, 1 point or 20 points, they have no chance. Bills going on 16 years of mediocrity and struggling for .500 again this year (no excuses mate). 14 out of 16 years losing record. On to the bye week.

Please come back and give no excuses after the game, the refs, our poor play, our backup QB, we gave the game away. You will lose and this thread has no point. We lost in the playoffs because we had backups playing except Dalton, but nobody cares.

[thebandit27]

(10-16-2015, 06:01 PM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: I can't believe this guy thinks the Bills are in the same league as the Bengals. I won't be eating my words either, 1 point or 20 points, they have no chance. Bills going on 16 years of mediocrity and struggling for .500 again this year (no excuses mate). 14 out of 16 years losing record. On to the bye week.

Please come back and give no excuses after the game, the refs, our poor play, our backup QB, we gave the game away. You will lose and this thread has no point. We lost in the playoffs because we had backups playing except Dalton, but nobody cares.

Don't worry, I'll be back win or lose...and unlike you, I'll quote you and address you directly.

I have a feeling that you haven't watched the Bills much, or you might not be doing your best Rex Ryan impression--they're a good team.

We made Aaron Rodgers look like playoff-Dalton; we can do the same to nearly anyone (except freakin' Brady...ugh).

Oh, and some house-cleaning: if this thread has no point, then what are you doing here? The point, quite clearly, was to give you all an opportunity to converse with a fan from your opponent's team, gain some insight (if you choose to accept it), and perhaps know what to look for in your opponent's game plan. If that doesn't suit your fancy, skip it.

Lastly, you (personally) are getting a bit high over your 4 straight one-and-dones in the playoffs. Ask a Buffalo fan what it means to be a 4-time perennial also-ran: not much.

I sincerely hope your team shares your dismissive opinion of mine...thankfully for you, I doubt that's the case. Thankfully for me, most of your fellow fans don't either.

[*bengalfan74*]

6/7 out of 10 was meant to mean - we win this game 60 to 70 % of the time this season under the current circumstances.

Not 6 out of 7

http://www.syracuse.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2015/10/10_things_buffalo_bills_fans_should_know_about_cincinnati_bengals_for_week_6.html

[J24]

(10-16-2015, 06:01 PM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: I can't believe this guy thinks the Bills are in the same league as the Bengals. I won't be eating my words either, 1 point or 20 points, they have no chance. Bills going on 16 years of mediocrity and struggling for .500 again this year (no excuses mate). 14 out of 16 years losing record. On to the bye week.

Please come back and give no excuses after the game, the refs, our poor play, our backup QB, we gave the game away. You will lose and this thread has no point. We lost in the playoffs because we had backups playing except Dalton, but nobody cares.

The Bills definitely have a chance against us.

[thebandit27]

(10-16-2015, 07:25 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: 6/7 out of 10 was meant to mean - we win this game 60 to 70 % of the time this season under the current circumstances.

Not 6 out of 7

http://www.syracuse.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2015/10/10_things_buffalo_bills_fans_should_know_about_cincinnati_bengals_for_week_6.html

Wow...yeah, your post totally said that too--my reading must be awful LOL 

[thebandit27]

(10-16-2015, 07:47 PM)J24 Wrote: The Bills definitely have a chance against us.

Yeah...I can't imagine there's too many Bengal fans that feel we don't 

[West Union KennyG]

(10-16-2015, 08:03 PM)thebandit27 Wrote: Yeah...I can't imagine there's too many Bengal fans that feel we don't 

I heard even your teams cheerleaders don't like your team:
http://thebiglead.com/2014/12/11/buffalo-bills-cheerleaders-lawsuit-includes-troubling-details/

I read the article, but what it didn't mention was at these golf tournaments, The Bills cheerleaders were tipped before they ended up tipping over the golf carts... j/k - but man is that rule book for your cheerleaders interesting!

Now, seriously, at the beginning of the year I was much more concerned about this particular game than I am now.  First of all, this is a really good Bengals team - and they are very healthy right now.  But secondly, aren't like 25% of your offensive starters questionable to even play this game?  And even if they do they might: a) be a bit gimpy; and b) may not be in Buffalo's long term interest to endanger re aggravating some of those injuries.  Good luck w/ that ... But, you know, not too much luck :)

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-15-2015, 05:23 PM)thebandit27 Wrote: Actually, Marv had zero to do with the No-Huddle; it was Ted Marchibroda that presided over it in Buffalo.  Though in reality, Jim Kelly and Keith McKeller were the driving forces for running it full-time.

Marv sure didn't think much of it in the '88 AFCCG....


What I was alluding to is that there's a misconception out there that using the no huddle throughout a game was a Buffalo innovation.  Marv just happened to be the head man.....

[GodHatesBengals]

It is possible that the Bills will win.

But there is a much better chance that the Bills will not win.

[thebandit27]

(10-16-2015, 11:37 PM)West Union KennyG Wrote: I heard even your teams cheerleaders don't like your team:
http://thebiglead.com/2014/12/11/buffalo-bills-cheerleaders-lawsuit-includes-troubling-details/

I read the article, but what it didn't mention was at these golf tournaments, The Bills cheerleaders were tipped before they ended up tipping over the golf carts... j/k - but man is that rule book for your cheerleaders interesting!

Now, seriously, at the beginning of the year I was much more concerned about this particular game than I am now.  First of all, this is a really good Bengals team - and they are very healthy right now.  But secondly, aren't like 25% of your offensive starters questionable to even play this game?  And even if they do they might: a) be a bit gimpy; and b) may not be in Buffalo's long term interest to endanger re aggravating some of those injuries.  Good luck w/ that ... But, you know, not too much luck :)

Our cheerleaders stunk anyway LOL!

The stampede drumline is far more entertaining.

Injuries certainly are a concern, though I have a feeling most of the Q's will be suited up.

(10-17-2015, 03:14 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: Marv sure didn't think much of it in the '88 AFCCG....


What I was alluding to is that there's a misconception out there that using the no huddle throughout a game was a Buffalo innovation.  Marv just happened to be the head man.....

Yes, I've heard folks say that--I always thought it was plain knowledge that Wyche devised it and Kelly/Marchibroda perfected it.

(10-17-2015, 06:39 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It is possible that the Bills will win.

But there is a much better chance that the Bills will not win.

I agree with greater chance of a loss--not sure about much greater.

[McC]

(10-17-2015, 07:33 AM)thebandit27 Wrote: Our cheerleaders stunk anyway LOL!

The stampede drumline is far more entertaining.

Injuries certainly are a concern, though I have a feeling most of the Q's will be suited up.


Yes, I've heard folks say that--I always thought it was plain knowledge that Wyche devised it and Kelly/Marchibroda perfected it.


I agree with greater chance of a loss--not sure about much greater.

Revisionist history.  Sam's no huddle was already perfected before the Bills ever touched it.  Not so much perfecting as stealing/copying.

[thebandit27]

(10-17-2015, 11:23 AM)McC Wrote: Revisionist history.  Sam's no huddle was already perfected before the Bills ever touched it.  Not so much perfecting as stealing/copying.

And yet one of the two was the class of the conference for the better part of a decade and produced 4 HOFers.

I'd say that qualifies as an improvement on the system.

[McC]

(10-17-2015, 11:51 AM)thebandit27 Wrote: And yet one of the two was the class of the conference for the better part of a decade and produced 4 HOFers.

I'd say that qualifies as an improvement on the system.

I believe God had more to do with the 4 HOFers than Marv Levy.  Kind of a false connection you're making there.

Bottom line, if Sam didn't invent it, Marv would have never been able to use it.  Sorry if you can't give credit where credit is due. 

I remember Marv being so afraid of it, he whined until the league prevented Sam from using it and then Sam beating him without it.  And then he stole it, gave it a goofy name and then took credit for it.  That's how it really happened for the rest of planet Earth outside of Buffalo.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-17-2015, 12:19 PM)McC Wrote: I believe God had more to do with the 4 HOFers than Marv Levy.  Kind of a false connection you're making there.

Bottom line, if Sam didn't invent it, Marv would have never been able to use it.  Sorry if you can't give credit where credit is due. 

I remember Marv being so afraid of it, he whined until the league prevented Sam from using it and then Sam beating him without it.  And then he stole it, gave it a goofy name and then took credit for it.  That's how it really happened for the rest of planet Earth outside of Buffalo.

Exactly

[thebandit27]

(10-17-2015, 12:19 PM)McC Wrote: I believe God had more to do with the 4 HOFers than Marv Levy.  Kind of a false connection you're making there.

Bottom line, if Sam didn't invent it, Marv would have never been able to use it.  Sorry if you can't give credit where credit is due. 

I remember Marv being so afraid of it, he whined until the league prevented Sam from using it and then Sam beating him without it.  And then he stole it, gave it a goofy name and then took credit for it.  That's how it really happened for the rest of planet Earth outside of Buffalo.

Well you officially have me befuddled.

For starters, I belive I said that Marv had nothing to do with the no huddle earlier in this thread.

I subsequently said that I believed it to be common knowledge that Wyche devised the use of it full game, and that Kelly/Marchibroda perfected the use of it.

Thus, your latest response is illogical, ill-crafted, and poorly aimed.

Oh and by the way, the K-Gun was named for Keith McKeller, who (along with Kelly) was the driving force inside the locker room for implementing the no huddle. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-17-2015, 07:33 AM)thebandit27 Wrote: Yes, I've heard folks say that--I always thought it was plain knowledge that Wyche devised it and Kelly/Marchibroda perfected it.

Uhhh. No. 
Wyche and the Bengals perfected it and the Bills copied it. 

[thebandit27]

(10-17-2015, 04:12 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Uhhh. No. 
Wyche and the Bengals perfected it and the Bills copied it. 

Well, to be fair, the Bills were far more successful running the no huddle than the Bengals, so it'd be hard to sell the idea that Cincinnati perfected something that another team improved upon.

That doesn't marginalize Wyche's innovative approach. I don't know why that ruffles feathers 'round these parts.

[McC]

(10-17-2015, 01:58 PM)thebandit27 Wrote: Well you officially have me befuddled.

For starters, I belive I said that Marv had nothing to do with the no huddle earlier in this thread.

I subsequently said that I believed it to be common knowledge that Wyche devised the use of it full game, and that Kelly/Marchibroda perfected the use of it.

Thus, your latest response is illogical, ill-crafted, and poorly aimed.

Oh and by the way, the K-Gun was named for Keith McKeller, who (along with Kelly) was the driving force inside the locker room for implementing the no huddle. 

Please stop with that perfecting crap.  It was already perfect when they copied it.  That's why Marv was so afraid of it.  There was no work even left to do.  Their success had way more to do with the crazy level of talent they had and kept together than whether or not they huddled.  That, and, the defense was every bit as good as the offense. 

They could have been drawing up plays in the dirt.  They should have been that good. 

Too bad they couldn't win the big one in so many tries.  That kind of violates the law of averages.  Honestly, the four SB losses are more of an indictment than an accomplishment.  I'd bet all 4 of those HOFers would trade the yellow jacket for just one of those fancy rings. 

Hopefully, this has cleared up your misconception.

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-17-2015, 04:25 PM)thebandit27 Wrote: Well, to be fair, the Bills were far more successful running the no huddle than the Bengals, so it'd be hard to sell the idea that Cincinnati perfected something that another team improved upon.

That doesn't marginalize Wyche's innovative approach. I don't know why that ruffles feathers 'round these parts.

It's only bothersome when i read articles (I've read a few) where writers, and even players, make it out like they were the innovators (or at the very least, give no credit where it's due), when in reality, Marv hated it and even tried to get the league office to ban it on the morning of the AFCCG in the '88 season. 

Sure, they were "more successful" by getting to 4 straight SBs but that was due to HOF triplets and a much, much better defense. They certainly weren't more successful in running that type of offense. 

Offensive rankings:



The '88 and '90 Bengals teams were the only ones in that era to make the playoffs.

[GodHatesBengals]

The Bills have a stupid name and their colors are boring dude.