Poz Second Best At HIs Position In The League?

[Thurman#1]

If you watched the games, do you really need some outside statistic to help you gauge Poz's value?

 

 

 

Depends. Was Poz always on camera when you were watching? Did you keep your eye on him on every play? Did you watch the plays over again if you lost track of him?

 

If any of these answers were no, then yeah, it can do nothing but help. In fact, I can't think of too many situations when getting extra info would hurt.

[Thurman#1]

LOL. Schobel, Poz, KWill, and Stroud. Steel Curtain. And they're not even members of the best defensive unit on our team, the secondary!

 

 

The problem is that four good guys on your front seven sounds great ... till you realize that the rest aren't good at all. Well, maybe Kavika is decent. And that's about it.

 

The problem of course is that Schobel most likely isn't coming back, and that Stroud and Williams will be playing new positions with new requirements and job descriptions in a new scheme.

[Thurman#1]

It must be the team statistics and win/loss columns that lie because this defense was the playmakin'est!

 

 

The two things you are looking at measure completely different things. It's not one or the other. Those guys can play well and the defense can be not particularly good. Both can, and did, happen at the same time.

 

 

Particularly in a gap fill defense where if even one guy misses his gap, you give up a big play.

[CountDorkula]

I agree the defense was on the field a lot last year. Therein lies the problem, at least with the stats cited in the original Chris Brown article. If defender A is on the field for twice as many plays per game as defender B, it stands to reason that defender A will get a lot more positive plays than B will have, even if B is playing at the same or moderately higher level. The Bills' defenders were being graded on a curve--a curve which made them appear better than they actually are.

 

As for why the defense was on the field so much--yes, part of the problem was the offense. But the defense contributed a lot too, by not getting off the field on third downs.

 

Please understand that I'm not dismissing the value of the stat--just pointing out one of its flaws. Even after adjusting for the Bills' defense being on the field more often than other teams' defenses, we'd still probably end up with a milder, somewhat less optimistic version of the conclusions presented in Chris Brown's article.

 

I agree with you there, i just dont think we are in dire straights like evryone makes us out to be. Yes the run D was atrocious at times last year, but i think with the transition to bigger hard nosed tougher, more physical guys, it will help that.

 

 

P.S. Im just excited you didnt tell me to drink bleach or go jump off a bridge. This is what this board needs more, people like you who see the point, bring a counter argument and back it up, while not using words like a$$hat, idiot...

[Thurman#1]

you'd think that with 4 starters who are supposedly amongst the best at their respective positions, the D would have been much better than it was.

 

 

Chris Kelsay.

 

Keith Ellison.

 

Kavika Mitchell.

 

Throw in a bunch of platoon players and injury replacements.

 

Just saying.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Seems to me that LB is one of those positions where a good player on a weak squad can really pile up the numbers especially an MLB in a 4-3 D. Fletcher, Takeo, and even Crowell showed this in the past accumulating lots of tackles....

 

Poz has a nose for the Football and makes plays. He's in on a lot of takles and forced a good number of turnovers.

 

Is his bust ready for canton- no, are the Bills better when he is on the field- yes.

 

 

 

ADD: I know there is a lot of rhetoric about the bills D being horrid, but they were 16th in the league in points allowed. Thats not the best but it's in the top half of the league.

[CountDorkula]

Seems to me that LB is one of those positions where a good player on a weak squad can really pile up the numbers especially an MLB in a 4-3 D. Fletcher, Takeo, and even Crowell showed this in the past accumulating lots of tackles....

 

Poz has a nose for the Football and makes plays. He's in on a lot of takles and forced a good number of turnovers.

 

Is his bust ready for canton- no, are the Bills better when he is on the field- yes.

 

 

 

I hope his bust does not end up there....

[C.Biscuit97]

Poz is going to be really good in a 3-4.

[RyanC883]

Anybody that does see Poz as one of the best ILBs dropping into pass coverage and fast is blinded the color of his skin. Poz is very fast and one of best tacklers in the NFL. Use objective observations and anyone can see this.

 

 

Poz is a beast. The Bills D overall was not bad last year. They were on the feild for way too long. If we have some offsnese to help them out this year look for the D to be a top 15 to top 10 D. And leading that D is.....POZ!!!

[Cynical]

ADD: I know there is a lot of rhetoric about the bills D being horrid, but they were 16th in the league in points allowed. Thats not the best but it's in the top half of the league.

 

Being 16th, is that due to their ability or due to opposing teams being able to run the ball consistently?

 

The Bills defense gave up an average 4.7 yds a pop in the run game, "good" enough to rank in the bottom 5.

The Bills D gave up 19 rushing TD's, again "good" enough to rank in the bottom 5 of the league.

And what was the average points scored against the Bills D? 20.4

 

Seems to me, teams were able to run the ball fairly well, thus controlling the ball, the clock, and the game.

[John from Riverside]

I am starting to see posts on individual players and how they are highly ranked in the stats....

 

My question is.....then WHY ARE WE LOSING

[Meathead]

one word: time of possession

 

bills were 25th in the league, bolstered no doubt by the colts playing scrubs for the last game, so realistically more like 28th in the league

[C.Biscuit97]

Being 16th, is that due to their ability or due to opposing teams being able to run the ball consistently?

 

The Bills defense gave up an average 4.7 yds a pop in the run game, "good" enough to rank in the bottom 5.

The Bills D gave up 19 rushing TD's, again "good" enough to rank in the bottom 5 of the league.

And what was the average points scored against the Bills D? 20.4

 

Seems to me, teams were able to run the ball fairly well, thus controlling the ball, the clock, and the game.

 

 

But those #s are completely skewed. I have trouble finding quarter breakdown, but off the top of my head the Bills shut down the Saints and Texans' run game for 3 quarters, before they finally got wore out in the 4th quarter because they were on the field for so long. If anyone can find those stats, I bet we are pretty solid at stopping the run for 3 quarters and dreadful in the 4th.

 

IMO, the offense deserves a lot of that blame for not being able to sustain drives. Our defense was very solid and if we had even an average offense, we would have won a few more games.

[C.Biscuit97]

one word: time of possession

 

bills were 25th in the league, bolstered no doubt by the colts playing scrubs for the last game, so realistically more like 28th in the league

 

 

Dead on. Our offense deserves blame for our defense's #s.

[OCinBuffalo]

1. Ignoring the idiots, yes, the D was on the field way more than the average. And, yes, that will have a negative effect on a defense. Neither of those are excuses, they are simply facts.

 

2. However, being on the field more....means more stats...tackles at the very least. It can also mean more of all of the other stats...as in, giving up a 26 yard run for a first down, even though you got a 12 yard sack the play before(sound familiar?). The opportunity to get the sack would not have been there, if we had stopped them 20 yards ago when it was 3rd and 8, etc.

 

3. This rating system, unlike Charlie Joyner's ridiculous flailing, attempts to properly create a consistent measure of success and then compare results against it. In a sentence, it gives each down and distance situation rating points, and then, based on what actually happens, rewards or removes additions points.

 

This system makes all the sense in the world if we are talking about an accepted and consistent range of opportunities for success. For example, for a batting average to be "statistically significant", you have to have a minimum # of at bats. A pinch hitter who is hitting .500 but only has 20 at bats on the year isn't going in the record book. This system looks at the 1st and 3rd quarter only(in an effort to remove "garbage time" bias). If you aren't on the field, you don't get a chance to get bonus points, and, your individual success/failure is treated as though it is team's and vice versa.

 

Therefore the weakness of this system is that Poz playing more downs of football than others causes an inherent bias. Good defenders on bad teams that give up a lot of first downs(yards is less significant) will be distorted to look like great players, because they have more opportunity to make big plays on 1st and 10, as opposed to big plays on 3rd and 15, which is rated lower.

 

Example: an INT on 1st and 10 get you more points than an INT on 3rd and 15, and even more if you are in your own red zone. Presumably a "good" team isn't going to let people march 60 yards down the field, and then be bailed out at their own 15 yard line by Poz making an interception....and if Poz was "good" they probably wouldn't have gotten 60 yards to begin with. Or, maybe he is good, but his teammates are so horrible, that he has to do more than other MLBs, so he has more stats....

 

Rather than looking at this as describing "who is the best LB in the league", it's more accurate to conclude "Poz is second only to Vilma, who is on another shoddy/streaky defense, in terms of cleaning up the mess that the other guys on his team consistently make".

[Cynical]

[/b]

 

Maybe he is assuming but it is a safe assumption. Do you truly not think we are going to be better off without the tiny linebackers? Granted, the players we drafted have to produce, as does everyone, but they added some bulk and it should help stop the run this year. And besides, the bills can never seem to play well against the 3-4 so it must be harder.........ah, ok, maybe thats not the best example. Seriously though, I hated that , whats that one guy call it?, tampon 2 defense. It may not be sooooooooo much better, but the 3-4 is better.

 

In essence, there is no difference in running 3-4 as opposed to a 4-3 (Side note: the Tampa 2, like the 46, is just a variation of the 4-3).

 

Both defensive formations have their positives and negatives, and it comes down to the HC having a personal preference for one or the other.

 

And in all cases, you have to have the right personal to run it.

For whatever reason, Jauron seemed to favor smaller, lighter players. It was almost like he was trying to create an 'opportunistic' defense, one that reacted quickly to offensive mistakes, and capitalize on them.

 

and a bonus will be our offense will get to practice against it so that should help them when it comes time to play the teams in our division.

 

Gailey did an interview stating all the reasons why he was switching. And I agree that this is the way to go. are you assuming it'll be worse?

 

The only assumption I made was Gailey needed to acquire the personal to run a 3-4, because we did not have the people to properly run it.

Beyond that, I could care less if we run a 3-4 or a 4-3. Just give me one that's aggressive, and can create opportunities.

[spartacus]

1. Ignoring the idiots, yes, the D was on the field way more than the average. And, yes, that will have a negative effect on a defense. Neither of those are excuses, they are simply facts.

 

2. However, being on the field more....means more stats...tackles at the very least. It can also mean more of all of the other stats...as in, giving up a 26 yard run for a first down, even though you got a 12 yard sack the play before(sound familiar?). The opportunity to get the sack would not have been there, if we had stopped them 20 yards ago when it was 3rd and 8, etc.

 

3. This rating system, unlike Charlie Joyner's ridiculous flailing, attempts to properly create a consistent measure of success and then compare results against it. In a sentence, it gives each down and distance situation rating points, and then, based on what actually happens, rewards or removes additions points.

 

This system makes all the sense in the world if we are talking about an accepted and consistent range of opportunities for success. For example, for a batting average to be "statistically significant", you have to have a minimum # of at bats. A pinch hitter who is hitting .500 but only has 20 at bats on the year isn't going in the record book. This system looks at the 1st and 3rd quarter only(in an effort to remove "garbage time" bias). If you aren't on the field, you don't get a chance to get bonus points, and, your individual success/failure is treated as though it is team's and vice versa.

 

Therefore the weakness of this system is that Poz playing more downs of football than others causes an inherent bias. Good defenders on bad teams that give up a lot of first downs(yards is less significant) will be distorted to look like great players, because they have more opportunity to make big plays on 1st and 10, as opposed to big plays on 3rd and 15, which is rated lower.

 

Example: an INT on 1st and 10 get you more points than an INT on 3rd and 15, and even more if you are in your own red zone. Presumably a "good" team isn't going to let people march 60 yards down the field, and then be bailed out at their own 15 yard line by Poz making an interception....and if Poz was "good" they probably wouldn't have gotten 60 yards to begin with. Or, maybe he is good, but his teammates are so horrible, that he has to do more than other MLBs, so he has more stats....

 

Rather than looking at this as describing "who is the best LB in the league", it's more accurate to conclude "Poz is second only to Vilma, who is on another shoddy/streaky defense, in terms of cleaning up the mess that the other guys on his team consistently make".

 

this is true

 

the ranking is skewed based on what it gives credit for

 

POZ could be on the field for a 12 play drive (which would indicate a poor defense)

but if he happened to fall down next to a RB who tripped in the backfield on play #10, he gets bonus points for making a play

 

that a LB who played on a defense that went 3 and out never had the opportunity for

[Cynical]

But those #s are completely skewed. I have trouble finding quarter breakdown, but off the top of my head the Bills shut down the Saints and Texans' run game for 3 quarters, before they finally got wore out in the 4th quarter because they were on the field for so long. If anyone can find those stats, I bet we are pretty solid at stopping the run for 3 quarters and dreadful in the 4th.

 

You might want to rethink that. I can't get you quarters, but I can get you halves-

 

Saints:

 

1st half - 16 attempts for 89 yards, 5.6 yd. av.

2nd half - 22 attempts for 133 yards, 6.0 yd. av.

Final - 38 attempts for 222 yards, 5.8 yd. av.

 

Texans:

 

1st half - 13 attempts for 67 yards, 5.2 yd. av.

2nd half - 28 attempts for 115 yards, 4.1 yd. av.

Final - 41 attempts for 182 yards, 4.4 yd. av.

 

5.6 and 5.2 averages. That's not "shut down", that's "come on through".

[Sisyphean Bills]

Plus if you knew that your offense was not going to help out what so ever...(score points, get a first down, hell even gain positive yards) would you bust your tail every play?

Actually, yes. Been there, done that.

[dave mcbride]

1. Ignoring the idiots, yes, the D was on the field way more than the average. And, yes, that will have a negative effect on a defense. Neither of those are excuses, they are simply facts.

 

2. However, being on the field more....means more stats...tackles at the very least. It can also mean more of all of the other stats...as in, giving up a 26 yard run for a first down, even though you got a 12 yard sack the play before(sound familiar?). The opportunity to get the sack would not have been there, if we had stopped them 20 yards ago when it was 3rd and 8, etc.

 

3. This rating system, unlike Charlie Joyner's ridiculous flailing, attempts to properly create a consistent measure of success and then compare results against it. In a sentence, it gives each down and distance situation rating points, and then, based on what actually happens, rewards or removes additions points.

 

This system makes all the sense in the world if we are talking about an accepted and consistent range of opportunities for success. For example, for a batting average to be "statistically significant", you have to have a minimum # of at bats. A pinch hitter who is hitting .500 but only has 20 at bats on the year isn't going in the record book. This system looks at the 1st and 3rd quarter only(in an effort to remove "garbage time" bias). If you aren't on the field, you don't get a chance to get bonus points, and, your individual success/failure is treated as though it is team's and vice versa.

 

Therefore the weakness of this system is that Poz playing more downs of football than others causes an inherent bias. Good defenders on bad teams that give up a lot of first downs(yards is less significant) will be distorted to look like great players, because they have more opportunity to make big plays on 1st and 10, as opposed to big plays on 3rd and 15, which is rated lower.

 

Example: an INT on 1st and 10 get you more points than an INT on 3rd and 15, and even more if you are in your own red zone. Presumably a "good" team isn't going to let people march 60 yards down the field, and then be bailed out at their own 15 yard line by Poz making an interception....and if Poz was "good" they probably wouldn't have gotten 60 yards to begin with. Or, maybe he is good, but his teammates are so horrible, that he has to do more than other MLBs, so he has more stats....

 

Rather than looking at this as describing "who is the best LB in the league", it's more accurate to conclude "Poz is second only to Vilma, who is on another shoddy/streaky defense, in terms of cleaning up the mess that the other guys on his team consistently make".

Another quick point - if 3 or 4 players on a team's defense are really unqualified/bad, then the defense will be bad no matter who is playing in the other positions. Good offenses target the weak spots and go after them. The Bills' LB corps outside of Poz this year was a joke, and guys like Byrd - who I like - were horrible against the run.

 

A classic case: in the 1996 draft, 3 defensive players from California were drafted in the first 40 picks - Regan Upshaw at #11, Duane Clemons at #16, and Je'rod Cherry at #40. That's really quite spectacular. And you know what? They all deserved high draft picks - they were excellent players in college. The catch? Despite having three blue chippers on defense, the Golden Bears had the worst defense in the Pac-10. They couldn't stop anyone. However, it wasn't because of those guys; it was because beyond those three players, the D was loaded with poor players. Other teams at that level were good enough to go after them very effectively despite facing truly top tier talent at three positions.