Three games into the 2012 season and the Bills are, it's safe to say, uhm, er,uh, what?
Take two. Three games into the 2012 season and the Bills are, it's safe to say, 2-1.
Congratulations on clicking on my post today. How's that for insightful commentary? The Bills won on the road for the first time in more than a year and that's something. Just how much credit we want to give them may depend own what we thought of the Browns going into the game. That's where much of the conversation surrounding the NFL and how meaningful each win is gets tricky/migraine inducing.
The Browns are bad, right? Are they worse than the Chiefs? Before you answer consider that the team the Bills just blew off the field last week won in New Orleans yesterday, coming from 18 points down in the process. Impressive, no? But wait, the Saints are now 0-3 in the backdraft of the bounty scandal and could be a big tire fire so maybe it's not.
The Browns had a great look at beating Philly on opening day and we're used to the Eagles being good so maybe that's kind of impressive. Cleveland also lost to the Bengals, who are better than the Bills, although we probably can't process that because they're, well, the Bengals.
All of that is written in an effort to present how tied up in knots we can make ourselves trying to figure out the quality of wins. It doesn't mean you have to give any of them back at the end. If you get to 9 or 10 and make the playoffs there's a good chance that you'll actually have to beat a good team and then maybe you'll earn some respect.
Until then, maybe you have an easy enough schedule that you can beat all the bad teams on it and get in.
Or you can just beat New England in week four and we'll be pretty sure you're really good. You know, just like last season. That worked out.
I'm not even going to play the game of how good are they with the Patriots. Brady and Belichick are enough to get me worried. New England already has two losses which is about half their average for a given season. Beating them with your banged up backfield would be a tremendous feat, I think. It likely will require Ryan Fitzpatrick to be really good. Not just good for Fitzpatrick. Really good, period, no disclaimers.
If he's not and they can't beat New England, then they will have missed out on an opportunity to really impress us all. Unless you're really starting to think maybe New England isn't that good this year because they just lost to Baltimore who had lost to Philadelphia the previous week and the Eagles just got handled by Arizona and I mean, come on right? The Cardinals?
They're 3-0 for the first time since Gerald Ford was president but that must be some kind of joke. The Cardinals can't be good. They're, you know, the Cardinals.