QCity Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 When we lost close OT games last year to KC, Balt, and Pitt, everyone was saying "nobody cares about stats, the only one that matters is wins". Now that we're winning, the complaints are that we aren't dominant enough? My how the times have changed.
Malazan Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 When we lost close OT games last year to KC, Balt, and Pitt, everyone was saying "nobody cares about stats, the only one that matters is wins". Now that we're winning, the complaints are that we aren't dominant enough? My how the times have changed. ...and so quickly..before the season many of the 'not winning the right way' crowd was the 0-16 crowd.
Orlando Bills Fan Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 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. Ugh. Come on, guys. Yes, the number of yards the Bills give up is alarming, and certainly would have been a lot more alarming 15 years ago. But, the NFL has changed. It is no longer the "run the ball and stop the run" league. It is truly, all over the league, a pass happy, scoring league. By no means do I think the Bills should start preparing their wardrobes for Super Bowl interviews, but this team is simply falling into line with what the NFL has become. Personally, my hat is off to Chan Gailey for adapting from his "old school" mentality to this "New-Fangled" NFL. And, let's also take into consideration that three of the four games they have won have come against top ten, if not top five offenses. But in today's NFL, it's not about the old grind out the yards and clock stuff...the object is to pair gun slingers against gun slingers and last man standing wins. Personally, I like it.
bizell Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 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? uhh... last year green bay had the #2 scoring defense at 15 points per game.
Austin_Bills_Fan Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 uhh... last year green bay had the #2 scoring defense at 15 points per game. And this year where to we rank defense points per game?
deep2evans Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 And this year where to we rank defense points per game? 14th
John from Riverside Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Here is the thing...you really DONT want your team playing its best ball after 5 games.....that is why the fact that we are 4-1 and not playing our best ball on defense is a GOOD thing..... The defense will come together......and hopefully we will be playing our best ball come playoff time
Formerly Allan in MD Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Don't forget, so many of the current starters have played little in the past or are mere rookies. The more these guys play, the better they should become. So, hopefully, we'll win games in ways other than by turnovers and drawing teams offsides etc. The bye week will be important as we should get a number of the injured guys back and/or rested for the following games. BEAT THE GIANTS!
BillsWatch Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Did you listen to ESPN show with Trent Dilfer, one of the most intelligent, ex-jock announcers? He said (not a quote) that Bills have a madness to method and everything they are doing is planned by coaching staff - they are attacking teams at their weaknesses. Wish there was a transcript of that show.
Numark Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 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. You may be on a roll sir but we turned the ball over twice in the NE game and once today. So we are talking about a +6 turnover differential (+3 per game)not a +9. Also on a side not we did force these turnovers, expecially today. They were a direct result of good plays on defense and were not gimme giveaways by the eagles. Two things. First, yea we are losing the yard war, but winning the turnover and point way (so yea.......I think I will take the turnover win). Two, teams that win the turnover battle tend to win the game. So what exactly are you trying to say? To be proven winners we should be losing the turnover battle, but winning the yard battle? That might be tough to do, as you can ask how good that is working out for the eagles (I think they have over 1000 yards in their last two games...0-2). But tell them not to worry as their losing ways can't be sustained. As long as you get a ton of yards, you will win.
Rubes Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 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. I'm confused. Didn't Fitzy's three INTs come against those two teams?
HarvardHowitzer Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I'd have to agree with the OP here, this is a much much improved team but they they have work to do. that being said i think i can legitimately say they probably were able to skip a year or two in the rebuilding process, at this piint they merit serious talk about the playoffs but not the superbowl, just not enough depth and a few holes to fill yet. The flip side of that is they're finally a good team that's learning and improvong week by week and taking the fans for a great ride. Best I can say is enjoy this season and look forward to the next, remeber the bills have plenty of cap space fo tthe off season and for the first time in years no glaring weaknesses, just a few areas that need polishing.
Orton's Arm Posted October 10, 2011 Author Posted October 10, 2011 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. I agree with the bolded statement, which is why I did not make such comparisons. If you reread my post, you'll see that I wrote the following (more or less) Year 1 of Byrd's career: a ton of interceptions, leading the Bills to get more wins than they otherwise would have had. Year 2 of Byrd's career: few if any interceptions for Byrd, leading to a 4-12 record due to the team's overall lack of talent. Year 3 of Byrd's career (this season): a ton of interceptions by the defense in general, leading to a much better record, thus far, than the team's performance in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game would warrant. Some have written that in the new NFL, the Saints are a good example to follow. They have a high powered passing offense to go with an opportunistic defense that takes risks, forces turnovers, but sometimes gives up the big play. I'll agree that the Saints model can be a successful one, as the Saints themselves demonstrated by coming away with a Super Bowl ring. However, I do not feel the Bills are (yet?) as good a team as the Saints were, on either side of the ball. In the Super Bowl, the Saints defense did generate a turnover or two. But they also showed the ability to frequently stop Peyton Manning and the Colts even without turnovers. It would be an exaggeration to say that the Bills defense will either create a turnover or allow a touchdown: always one or the other. But they certainly seem much less able to stop opposing offenses without using turnovers than the Saints had been. Fitz began the first three games of the season by playing at a higher level than had been the case last year. Even at that higher level, there were still some bad throws which an elite QB like Drew Brees would not have made. Fitz's play has seemingly taken a step downward these last two games; widening the gap between him and Brees. In a duel between gunslinger and gunslinger, the Bills will have to compensate for the fact that their gunslinger uses a significantly inferior and less accurate gun than do outlaws such as Brady. Only by creating a ton of turnovers can that disadvantage be balanced out. On the surface, the Football Outsiders article to which someone had linked seems to suggest that a team which uses a very good turnover differential to create a high DVOA rating will typically be able to sustain its success over the course of a season. However, I would have to look at the nuts and bolts of their DVOA formula before deciding whether that surface impression is accurate or misleading. I do not believe that success fostered primarily by insanely good turnover differentials will typically be sustained over multiple seasons, regardless of whether it can be made to last over the course of one season.
Geno Smith's Arm Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I agree with the bolded statement, which is why I did not make such comparisons. If you reread my post, you'll see that I wrote the following (more or less) Year 1 of Byrd's career: a ton of interceptions, leading the Bills to get more wins than they otherwise would have had. Year 2 of Byrd's career: few if any interceptions for Byrd, leading to a 4-12 record due to the team's overall lack of talent. Year 3 of Byrd's career (this season): a ton of interceptions by the defense in general, leading to a much better record, thus far, than the team's performance in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game would warrant. Some have written that in the new NFL, the Saints are a good example to follow. They have a high powered passing offense to go with an opportunistic defense that takes risks, forces turnovers, but sometimes gives up the big play. I'll agree that the Saints model can be a successful one, as the Saints themselves demonstrated by coming away with a Super Bowl ring. However, I do not feel the Bills are (yet?) as good a team as the Saints were, on either side of the ball. In the Super Bowl, the Saints defense did generate a turnover or two. But they also showed the ability to frequently stop Peyton Manning and the Colts even without turnovers. It would be an exaggeration to say that the Bills defense will either create a turnover or allow a touchdown: always one or the other. But they certainly seem much less able to stop opposing offenses without using turnovers than the Saints had been. Fitz began the first three games of the season by playing at a higher level than had been the case last year. Even at that higher level, there were still some bad throws which an elite QB like Drew Brees would not have made. Fitz's play has seemingly taken a step downward these last two games; widening the gap between him and Brees. In a duel between gunslinger and gunslinger, the Bills will have to compensate for the fact that their gunslinger uses a significantly inferior and less accurate gun than do outlaws such as Brady. Only by creating a ton of turnovers can that disadvantage be balanced out. On the surface, the Football Outsiders article to which someone had linked seems to suggest that a team which uses a very good turnover differential to create a high DVOA rating will typically be able to sustain its success over the course of a season. However, I would have to look at the nuts and bolts of their DVOA formula before deciding whether that surface impression is accurate or misleading. I do not believe that success fostered primarily by insanely good turnover differentials will typically be sustained over multiple seasons, regardless of whether it can be made to last over the course of one season. Okay. So what do you think the Bills final record will be this season?
Malazan Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Just so we have it for reference, the defensive rankings: 1 Cincinnati Bengals 2 Pittsburgh Steelers 3 Baltimore Ravens 4 Dallas Cowboys 5 San Diego Chargers 6 Washington Redskins 7 Houston Texans 8 Jacksonville Jaguars 9 Cleveland Browns 10 Tennessee Titans 11 Detroit Lions 12 New York Jets 13 San Francisco 49ers 14 Minnesota Vikings 15 Philadelphia Eagles 16 New Orleans Saints 17 Seattle Seahawks 18 Carolina Panthers 19 Kansas City Chiefs 20 New York Giants 21 Green Bay Packers 22 Arizona Cardinals 23 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 24 Atlanta Falcons 25 Denver Broncos 26 Indianapolis Colts 27 St. Louis Rams 28 Miami Dolphins 29 Buffalo Bills 30 Oakland Raiders 31 Chicago Bears 32 New England Patriots
Numark Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Why do you keep saying we have these crazy turnover differentials in games. There was a +2 differential in the patriots game. Is that so bizarre and crazy? Dear lord we destroy the chiefs (+2 differential). We beat the raiders with a +1 Turnover differential (convenient you left this win out no?) Have a +2 turnover differential in the patriots game (OMG SO CRAZY) We lose to the bengals We beat the Eagles with a +4 turnover differential (mind you a result of pressure, aggressive play, and batted balls) So in 1 of our 4 wins (25%) we have a large turnover differential...ONE So stop saying silly stuff like: I do not believe that success fostered primarily by insanely good turnover differentials will typically be sustained over multiple seasons Sure our season turnover differential is becoming very good as a result of several games of +1s or +2s. Is that so crazy? I thought that is a direct correlation and something you will find in almost any winning team. Edited October 10, 2011 by Numark
Bill from NYC Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 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. Brother, imo you are a superior poster. That said, your entire post (which made sense btw) really did come down to the above. HOW to draft would be the question, no?
Orton's Arm Posted October 10, 2011 Author Posted October 10, 2011 Okay. So what do you think the Bills final record will be this season? I don't claim to know the answer to that question. Back in his Chicago days, Jauron achieved a 12-4 season in large part by winning the turnover battle. I'll grant there were many differences between what he did and what the Bills are doing. For example, Gailey is clearly a more innovative coach than Jauron could dream of being. Also, that Bears team was defense-oriented, whereas the Bills are currently offense-oriented. The point I'm making here is not that the two teams are mirror images of each other, because they're not. My point is that it's possible to use a very good turnover differential (among other things) to basically pull an entire good season out of one's anal cavity. Jauron has done exactly that! Maybe the Bills will succeed in doing the same thing this season. Maybe some of their younger players will improve as the season goes on, lessening the team's need to rely so heavily on turnovers. Maybe they'll go 4-12 (unlikely) or 7-9, or even 10-6. I can't really say.
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 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. Yea so...remember the Patriots? They built a dynasty on wins like these.
Malazan Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I don't claim to know the answer to that question. Back in his Chicago days, Jauron achieved a 12-4 season in large part by winning the turnover battle. I'll grant there were many differences between what he did and what the Bills are doing. For example, Gailey is clearly a more innovative coach than Jauron could dream of being. Also, that Bears team was defense-oriented, whereas the Bills are currently offense-oriented. The point I'm making here is not that the two teams are mirror images of each other, because they're not. My point is that it's possible to use a very good turnover differential (among other things) to basically pull an entire good season out of one's anal cavity. Jauron has done exactly that! Maybe the Bills will succeed in doing the same thing this season. Maybe some of their younger players will improve as the season goes on, lessening the team's need to rely so heavily on turnovers. Maybe they'll go 4-12 (unlikely) or 7-9, or even 10-6. I can't really say. So to re-cap... Teams not for Real: Bills Patriots Packers Raiders Giants Teams for Real: Browns Jaguars Cowboys Chargers Redskins You are making a bold prediction here and I'll give you props for going out on a limb.
Recommended Posts