Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

22 Sep 2011

ESPN: The Buffalo Bills Offense is For Real

The Bills offense has been quite good so far this year, and it may be more sustainable than you might think. The 1999 Washington Redskins are the best-case comparison, and the 1994 Seattle Seahawks are on the other side of the spectrum.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 22 Sep 2011

9 comments, Last at 24 Sep 2011, 12:09am by tuluse

Comments

1
by Thunderbolt of ... :: Thu, 09/22/2011 - 6:32pm

I can't read the insider piece, but comparing an offense to one quarterbacked by Rick Mirer is a pretty harsh blow.

Also, both those offenses featured a RB rushing for 1400+ yards at more than 4.6 ypc. You must like Fred Jackson a lot better than when KUBIAK ranked him 65th overall coming into the season.

2
by Zheng :: Thu, 09/22/2011 - 10:37pm

Was Buffalo's offensive DVOA last year 10.4%, or -10.4%?

7
by Joseph :: Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:36am

Yeah Aaron, you need to get ESPN's editors to correct the article. It wasn't YOUR mistake, of course--it's that their editors don't know what a negative sign is.

Re: the article--that offense is good. Of course, injuries could set them back--but no one is going to relish going against that offense. The Pats will probably beat them on Sunday (esp. considering that one of the two offenses better than BUF at this point is the Pats), but IMO, if BUF keeps it within a TD while still scoring 24+ points, that bodes well for them down the road. The two games against the Jets will be the key for BUF--can they score enough against Revis & co.? The Jets won't exactly be putting up 30+ ppg. IMO, if they can sweep the Jets, they might edge them out for the other wildcard. If they split, they watch the playoffs from the couch.

3
by Chuck Wagon (not verified) :: Thu, 09/22/2011 - 11:01pm

Why would I pay to read an article by some unknown hack?

4
by Anonymousfool (not verified) :: Thu, 09/22/2011 - 11:13pm

I would pay money not to read stupid comments like yours.

6
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:33am

Because these "unknown hack" might actually put in some work and do some research, instead the more well-established ones that have become so complacent that they have reduced themselves to spewing out random thoughts and unsupported theories.

8
by bravehoptoad :: Fri, 09/23/2011 - 2:44pm

Why would you pay to read an article by a known hack?

9
by tuluse :: Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:09am

+1

5
by Sports-Social (not verified) :: Thu, 09/22/2011 - 11:48pm

I guess we will see how good they are.