The Bills' method of winning is unsustainable.

[Orton's Arm]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it."

 

But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category.

 

Against the I-95 teams the Bills have played thus far (Patriots and Eagles), the Bills had nine takeaways and no giveaways. And yet, despite that insane +9 turnover differential, the Bills won both games by the skin of their teeth. This means that the Bills were significantly outplayed in the non-turnover aspects of the game, and needed all of those nine turnovers to eke out wins.

 

What happens when the Bills fail to achieve this kind of ridiculously one-sided turnover ratio?

 

Statistically, a good turnover ratio is highly correlated with wins, for obvious reasons. But teams' turnover ratios tend to change significantly from one season to the next. Two seasons ago that worked in the Bills' favor, as there were games Byrd won almost singlehandedly. His turnovers made the Bills' record better than its talent level would otherwise have dictated. Last season Byrd's turnovers dried up, and were no longer available to mask the team's overall lack of talent. That's why the Bills went 4-12. This season the turnovers are back again and (in combination with KC's implosion) are the main pillar of Buffalo's fast start. I do not believe that attaining turnovers at this ridiculous pace is sustainable, any more than the insane pace Byrd set during his rookie year was sustainable.

 

This should not be taken to mean that all is gloom and doom, or an implication that the team will never amount to anything. What it does mean is that Nix's rebuilding process is not as far along as the Bills' current record would seem to indicate. This team needs to play better in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game if its current success is to be sustainable. Maybe some of that can come from younger players already on the roster learning to improve. Byrd himself is a good example of this: he's playing better this year than last year. I also suspect the Bills will need at least one or two good drafts before they can truly become one of the NFL's top teams.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[Coach Tuesday]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2011/week-4-dvoa-ratings

 

Do some reading and get back to us.

[San-O]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it."

 

But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category.

 

 

Don't rain on the parade. People will call you names and stuff.

Edited October 10, 2011 by SoCal-Surf

[jad1]

The Bills beat offenses led by Tom Brady and Mike Vick their last two home games.

 

Honestly, what was the expectation for the Bills defense these two games? Did we really expect them to sack these guys 4 or 5 times? Did we expect them to hold them to 200 passing yards?

 

It's funny how the fan perception values sacks over interceptions. Sacks show you're a dominant defense. Interceptions show that you are a lucky defense. But ask any QB at any level of football if they rather take a sack or throw an interception and what do you think the overwhelming number of them would answer?

[Kelly the Dog]

The Pats are the #1 offense in the league. The Eagles are #3. The Raiders #9.

 

The Chiefs are terrible and we dominated them.

 

Only the Bengals game was one where we shouldn't have given up all those yards, and late scores.

 

We intercepted Brady four times and Vick four times. It looks more like a trend than an aberration. I will take a 489 yard 5 turnover game every single time.

 

It's also foolish, IMO, to make comparisons to the Bills earlier defenses that had a lot of turnovers but we still finished 4-12. Our offense was abysmal that season. If we had this offense with that defensive team, we probably would have won 9-10 games. Plus that team was just terrible against the run. This year it is a much better defense all around, even if we are giving up a ton of yards, and too many points.

[RyanC883]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it."

 

But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category.

 

Against the I-95 teams the Bills have played thus far (Patriots and Eagles), the Bills had nine takeaways and no giveaways. And yet, despite that insane +9 turnover differential, the Bills won both games by the skin of their teeth. This means that the Bills were significantly outplayed in the non-turnover aspects of the game, and needed all of those nine turnovers to eke out wins.

 

What happens when the Bills fail to achieve this kind of ridiculously one-sided turnover ratio?

 

Statistically, a good turnover ratio is highly correlated with wins, for obvious reasons. But teams' turnover ratios tend to change significantly from one season to the next. Two seasons ago that worked in the Bills' favor, as there were games Byrd won almost singlehandedly. His turnovers made the Bills' record better than its talent level would otherwise have dictated. Last season Byrd's turnovers dried up, and were no longer available to mask the team's overall lack of talent. That's why the Bills went 4-12. This season the turnovers are back again and (in combination with KC's implosion) are the main pillar of Buffalo's fast start. I do not believe that attaining turnovers at this ridiculous pace is sustainable, any more than the insane pace Byrd set during his rookie year was sustainable.

 

This should not be taken to mean that all is gloom and doom, or an implication that the team will never amount to anything. What it does mean is that Nix's rebuilding process is not as far along as the Bills' current record would seem to indicate. This team needs to play better in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game if its current success is to be sustainable. Maybe some of that can come from younger players already on the roster learning to improve. Byrd himself is a good example of this: he's playing better this year than last year. I also suspect the Bills will need at least one or two good drafts before they can truly become one of the NFL's top teams.

 

 

This is a very good post. The Bills still have many areas to improve upon. Notably the defense stopping teams without having to rely on turnovers. They still let teams score WAY too many points on them.

[Dan]

You may be right. But, then again, maybe they'll find other ways to win games. I don't know. In the meantime, as long as we're leading the division and are 1 of 9 teams with 1loss or fewer, I have no problem waiting a year or 2 to become a top team.

[Rico]

The more you WIN, the better you get. Problematic things can work themselves out, attitude is key.

 

Just win, baby.

[Tolstoy]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it."

 

But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category.

 

Against the I-95 teams the Bills have played thus far (Patriots and Eagles), the Bills had nine takeaways and no giveaways. And yet, despite that insane +9 turnover differential, the Bills won both games by the skin of their teeth. This means that the Bills were significantly outplayed in the non-turnover aspects of the game, and needed all of those nine turnovers to eke out wins.

 

What happens when the Bills fail to achieve this kind of ridiculously one-sided turnover ratio?

 

Statistically, a good turnover ratio is highly correlated with wins, for obvious reasons. But teams' turnover ratios tend to change significantly from one season to the next. Two seasons ago that worked in the Bills' favor, as there were games Byrd won almost singlehandedly. His turnovers made the Bills' record better than its talent level would otherwise have dictated. Last season Byrd's turnovers dried up, and were no longer available to mask the team's overall lack of talent. That's why the Bills went 4-12. This season the turnovers are back again and (in combination with KC's implosion) are the main pillar of Buffalo's fast start. I do not believe that attaining turnovers at this ridiculous pace is sustainable, any more than the insane pace Byrd set during his rookie year was sustainable.

 

This should not be taken to mean that all is gloom and doom, or an implication that the team will never amount to anything. What it does mean is that Nix's rebuilding process is not as far along as the Bills' current record would seem to indicate. This team needs to play better in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game if its current success is to be sustainable. Maybe some of that can come from younger players already on the roster learning to improve. Byrd himself is a good example of this: he's playing better this year than last year. I also suspect the Bills will need at least one or two good drafts before they can truly become one of the NFL's top teams.

 

A very intelligent post. I wholeheartedly agree. I compare this team with the 90-94 Bills team, and it is day and night. That team, whatever its flaws, had elite talent. I am not sure this team does, with the exception of maybe Fred Jackson, who deserves all the praise one can give. Maybe that makes this team more praiseworthy, and the season more enjoyable, but it is simply not sustainable. This may be a playoff team (I hope!!), but it sure is not a SB championship team.

 

The problem is that this temporary success will undermine the Bills' draft position, which will make it that much harder to draft elite talent. Detroit is benefitting from that now (we have largely squandered it in recent years). How happy would we be if Indianapolis goes 15-1, and drafts Andrew Luck, who leads them to another 15 years of playoff football? Here we are, eking out 4-12 season after 4-12 season, with a 10-5 season mixed in, and Indianapolis has one down year, and drafts a once in a decade QB that we will never see? Ugh.

[BuffOrange]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2011/week-4-dvoa-ratings

 

Do some reading and get back to us.

 

I was going to mention that site too. They pretty much ignore records in their ratings.

We turned the ball over three times in those two games btw, although one was a 4th down play vs NE.

[Beerball]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this,

So, what you're saying is that scoring more points than your opponent will not always lead to a win?

[Dan]

A very intelligent post. I wholeheartedly agree. I compare this team with the 90-94 Bills team, and it is day and night. That team, whatever its flaws, had elite talent. I am not sure this team does, with the exception of maybe Fred Jackson, who deserves all the praise one can give. Maybe that makes this team more praiseworthy, and the season more enjoyable, but it is simply not sustainable. This may be a playoff team (I hope!!), but it sure is not a SB championship team.

 

The problem is that this temporary success will undermine the Bills' draft position, which will make it that much harder to draft elite talent. Detroit is benefitting from that now (we have largely squandered it in recent years). How happy would we be if Indianapolis goes 15-1, and drafts Andrew Luck, who leads them to another 15 years of playoff football? Here we are, eking out 4-12 season after 4-12 season, with a 10-5 season mixed in, and Indianapolis has one down year, and drafts a once in a decade QB that we will never see? Ugh.

Serioualy. First, you compare this team to one that had 4 HOF players, 1 HOF coach, and 1-2 may still be HOF players. Then you pull out the old "our winning is hurting our draft position" argument. I'm guessing this is a good sarcastic post. well played, sir.

[BringBackFlutie]

It's still a matter of tightening a few things up. Defense gives up a few less yards, the offense gets into a better rhythm (hard with your whole WR corps injured), and things are just fine. We play some really really good offenses, and all we really need to do is a better job of keeping up on offense rather than expect the D to do it for us. It CONTINUES to be majorly an issue of playing 1 half per game.

[Momma Pecoraro]

This must be a record year for 400 yard passers even after just 5 games.

[Mike in Syracuse]

At the end of the season no one asks you how you won the games, the only thing that matters is how many.

 

At the end of the season no one cares how many injuries you had.

 

At the end of the season, the scores of the games don't matter.

 

One persons "break" is another persons "great play".

[jr1]

Bend but don't break remix

[DC Grid]

To sustain their current run of winning, all the Bills need to do is stop falling apart on offense in the second half of games as they have the last two weeks. Right now they are basically following the Saints model. Explosive offense and a def that is weak but gwen the ability to generate turnovers at an amazing pace. Right now the Bills look a lot like the 2007 saints. Hopefully like those saints the Bills will work over this next offseason to get another playmaker at WR, and loads more help at LB and CB and then really make a run. Of course this all hindges on Fitz continuing to progress / maintain his level of play from the first 3 weeks.

[The Senator]

So, what you're saying is that scoring more points than your opponent will not always lead to a win?

I thought he was saying we need to lose more games so we can draft better players and be good in 3.5 years

[loyal2dagame]

i'm sure packers fans were thinking the same thing last year with gb winning 4 games by 7 or less and ALL SIX OF THEIR LOSSES BY 4 OR LESS. how'd that turn out?

[Geno Smith's Arm]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it."

 

But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category.

 

Against the I-95 teams the Bills have played thus far (Patriots and Eagles), the Bills had nine takeaways and no giveaways. And yet, despite that insane +9 turnover differential, the Bills won both games by the skin of their teeth. This means that the Bills were significantly outplayed in the non-turnover aspects of the game, and needed all of those nine turnovers to eke out wins.

 

What happens when the Bills fail to achieve this kind of ridiculously one-sided turnover ratio?

 

Statistically, a good turnover ratio is highly correlated with wins, for obvious reasons. But teams' turnover ratios tend to change significantly from one season to the next. Two seasons ago that worked in the Bills' favor, as there were games Byrd won almost singlehandedly. His turnovers made the Bills' record better than its talent level would otherwise have dictated. Last season Byrd's turnovers dried up, and were no longer available to mask the team's overall lack of talent. That's why the Bills went 4-12. This season the turnovers are back again and (in combination with KC's implosion) are the main pillar of Buffalo's fast start. I do not believe that attaining turnovers at this ridiculous pace is sustainable, any more than the insane pace Byrd set during his rookie year was sustainable.

 

This should not be taken to mean that all is gloom and doom, or an implication that the team will never amount to anything. What it does mean is that Nix's rebuilding process is not as far along as the Bills' current record would seem to indicate. This team needs to play better in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game if its current success is to be sustainable. Maybe some of that can come from younger players already on the roster learning to improve. Byrd himself is a good example of this: he's playing better this year than last year. I also suspect the Bills will need at least one or two good drafts before they can truly become one of the NFL's top teams.

 

 

So basically , unless they win the Super Bowl, there is no way to say that you are full of ****. Great insight.

 

I don't believe that this is the ONLY way these Bills can win. I believe that the way the games have unfolded that has forced the Bills to play the style of defense we have seen. They have been playing against wide open offenses, forced into a high risk/reward situations.

 

Let's see how well the defense plays in a tight, low scoring game, OR the Bills get blown out, before you judge them as incapable of winning without a bunch of turnovers.

 

I can tell you are an expert, able to evaluate flaws with a discerning eye, so how about a prediction of the final season record? That would be way more impressive than just saying they aren't going to win the Super Bowl.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Matthews' Bag