The Big Cat

Except the Bills offense WASNT significantly better. Buffalo managed 24 more points and 87 more yards. You've had six weeks to refute any of it. In fact you pledged to offset the analysis with your own. Still nothing. Just making it about me, per always. Conference championship? Jesus. The legend of Tyrod and the 2014 defense grows. Conference championship? Jesus. The legend of Tyrod and the 2014 defense grows.

Come on. The 2011/12 defenses were abysmal. 2015 with mediocre. A let down from where it was, granted--and we're light years from a consensus as to why that is. But it was not abysmal. I don't know why we have to make it personal/antagonistic...every time. I feel more secure in my assertions when rebuttals to them are about me.

Great point. Spiller, Jackson, McCoy, Herron, Gillslie, Boobie, Karlos, Felton, Brown, Summers, Wood: we can't profess to know who would have contributed or not have contributed what.

i don't think it's certain either. but i also don't think it's certain he WOULD have been with the team, so it's unfair to take it as a given.

I think the argument would have intensified, actually. Marrone/Schwartz would have likely meant no TT: if, in fact, it was Rex who pushed to bring him in. So who the hell would have been the quarterback? And what the hell kind of impact would he have had on wins/losses? And how much of that would have been blamed on Marrone? How much of it would have been warranted?

I. It does not. This is entirely, and measurably false. We were worst in the league in three and outs. And as that analysis shows, they came in bunches, which is even worse. II. I agree. But then again, may be we do. That is kinda the point.

I don't altogether disagree with any of this. Other than the fact--and I'm sure you'll agree--teams can and do win and make the post season with top QB talent and a mediocre defense, but the inverse is far less likely and even less sustainable. Yes, as you've indicated it does happen, but those teams yo-yo in and out of success/relevancy. The Jets are more of the exception here than the Giants or the Ravens. Since both Eli and Flacco--at their best--are far superior to Tyrod at his. Understood: this point is debatable.

Which games are you talking about? I can think of Washington and KC and may be Pats1--a game in which the offense did virtually nothing for about a quarter and a half while the Pats* took advantage of cakewalk field position and put up (I believe )17 unanswered. But, again, against KC, for some reason, Sammy went from abusing their defense to not getting a single look in the second half. How does that happen? The impact of LONG STRETCHES of offensive inactivity on wins and losses in 2015: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/185043-rex-wont-change/?view=findpost&p=3873518

I think so. Because I think--AGAIN--that complete inactivity from the offense over CONSIDERABLE stretches of NUMEROUS games (I'll post the link to this breakdown if I have time to go searching for it) had more of an impact over wins and losses than our ranking in scoring. That's my opinion. EDIT: here's the link: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/185043-rex-wont-change/?view=findpost&p=3873518

"Yeah but Peyton Manning 2015" is the exact same as "yeah but Trent Dilfer 2000." They're exceptions to the rule and you know it. Tyrod Taylor was an above average QB in efficiency only. Sorry, but he did not produce the volume of work needed to say he's in the top-half of the league. And that was objectively because he was hidden in Roman's scheme. He was not a feature of the Bills offense. I don't for a second think he won't improve. I don't know where you got that from. I certainly don't believe it's a guarantee, though. And I've been saying for months that QB and general offensive malaise cost the team more games in 2015 than the mediocre defense did. I shared a deep dive I did into long stretches of three and outs last year and how they, more than any other factor, were directly tied to losses.

Interesting tactic: trying to string together words you think will make you sound smart in an effort to critique the argument, rather than address anything that's actually been said. Which, again seems to have eluded you throughout this thread. At least your record of providing nothing but snark, sarcasm and criticism for criticism's sake remains perfect! It was neither flippant nor incorrect nor inconsistent with anything said before or since. Tyrod Taylor, at his current level, can be complemented by a dominant defense to the meaningless tune of 10-6 and a wild card loss or complemented by another mediocre defense to the meaningless tune of another 8-8 season and another missed playoffs. So, AGAIN, Tyrod Taylor, at his current level, regardless of defense, won't produce dramatically different outcomes.

If that's the way it SOUNDS then I'm being misinterpreted, which could very well be in the fault of how I've framed the argument. Regardless, look, I'm with you brother. A playoff berth is our Super Bowl. But here's the reality: we're in the bottom half of the league right now in cap space...and we're not paying a quarterback. So, while an upward blip on the drought graph would make for a thoroughly enjoyable start to the 2017 calendar, NFL teams that experience success over the long haul are built around the quarterback. And you can allocate a disproportionate amount of money to the guy because he can hide deficiencies up and down the roster, on both sides of the ball. We don't have that luxury! Instead, we have to hope for a dominant defense to hide our QB's limitations. That's not sustainable, and it doesn't matter who your coach is. So sitting here expecting or hoping for a top 5 defense is nice and all, but it's a lousy position to be in, given the likelihood that games are won or lost based on QB play. Making the "yeah but Trent Dilfer" argument was marginalized for a reason. Just because people make it now by subbing in Peyton Manning doesn't make it suddenly valid. That Broncos defense lost a couple key pieces to FA. We'll see just how sustainable that model was. I have. Several times. And in several ways. I'd actually rather you clarify how you wiffed so badly at what was actually said.

That's not my argument. So no, I'm not committed to it.

The other Super Bowl team had the league MVP as their QB. So... As for Super Bowl participants, the last 13 Superbowls have been won by: Manning x 2 Brady x 3 Wilson Flacco E. Manning x 2 Big Ben x 2 Rodgers Brees The last 13 Super Bowls have been lost by: Newton Wilson Manning x 2 Kaepernick Brady x 2 Big Ben Warner Grossman Hasselbeck McNabb Delhomme So 15 different quarterbacks have played in the last 13 Superbowls. And at least six of them (roughly half) are LOCKS for the HOF.

The Bills can have a winning season and a playoff berth with a dominant defense and TT playing at the same or slightly better level than he was last year. But a championship certainly isn't in the cards. Depends on how we define success. But it doesn't change what I said. Alongside a 2nd ranked defense, an improved Taylor is the difference between the symbolic victory of a 10-6 season and a legitimate run at a Lombardi. If Tyrod stays the same and the defense finishes 20th (no !@#$ing chance this happens, and as the entire board as witness, I will wage the Bills finish better than 20th in defense next year), then we could probably still hope for the symbolic achievement of a non-losing season. So, again. 2nd ranked defense, and TT stays the same: meh. 20th ranked defense and TT stays the same: slightly less entertaining meh. The offense was absolutely the barrier to the playoffs this year. I have roundly made this case, repeatedly, with plenty of data, for months.

Well if you want to argue in cherry-picked specifics, the Super Bowl Broncos are completely irrelevant since they finished...you know...better than 2nd.

Unless TT makes a significant improvement, it really doesn't matter if the defense finishes 2nd or 20th.

Yes or no: injuries and Mario quitting had an impact on the talent in 2015.

It's like some of us have been saying this since October, John.

Well, if that's how you justify it.

Totally fair.

You I like.

Yeah. Exactly. Nothing like the heroes who spend their time on a message board in March, the height of whose intelligence and rhetorical clout relies on "not until I see for myself." IT'S MARCH.

Fixed it.