Geno Smith's Arm 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. I understand and agree with the assessment of the DJ Bears, but I believe that the turnovers in this Eagles game were brought on by the desperation that the Eagles had to play with. For 3 quarters the defense had to play against a team that was pretty much willing to go 4 downs anytime they had the ball. All the games won't be like this one, but if they are we know that this defense is equipped to play this way. You are basically judging them based on extreme circumstances. They have played well enough to win under those circumstances, but we don't know yet how they well they will play under different conditions, like in a low scoring, close game. I think they will be fine. I thought they played well enough against the Raiders when they had to shut them down to allow for a comeback. Shouldn't that count for something?
Dragonborn10 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Old logic... You are thinking like this is the NFL of the 1970's and early 80's. Run and stop the run. It's all BS lip service that even the coaches find hard to say anymore. It is a passing league and yards will be gained. It's all about turnovers, QB pressures(not necessarily sacks - as evidenced today with at least two QB pressures directly causing INT's), and red zone efficiency on offense and defense. Hell if they moved the kickoff back to where it was last year I would argue that special teams was more important than running the ball or stopping the run due to the huge swings in field position that special teams can make. The Bills couldn't stop the run last year and were 0-5. This year they can't stop the run and are 4-1. Why? Because the offense has scored more points with short fields and defensive scores.
Big Turk Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Tell the Patriots you can't keep winning like this because they've been doing it for years...spread you out, score lots of points, give up lots of yards on D and get lots of turnovers... Apparently this method of winning is sustainable since teams that are winning games are giving up 400 yard passing games on defense like they are passing out candy on Halloween... This is starting a new era in the NFL where 400 yard passing games is the new 300 yards and no lead is safe. One week after the Bills became the first team in NFL history to win consecutive games where they trailed by 18+ points, Detroit became the first team to win consecutive games trailing by 20+ points... Its a different NFL we are in the midst of right now, abd these old "truths", which are questionable at best to begin with no longer hold true
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I don't care how we win just that we win. What I am loving about this team is the never give up attitude. They dont seem to get down and just get up strap it on and get back to work
Dorkington Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 To a point, I agree that our defense has some serious holes. But at the same time, we're getting turnovers for a reason... they are generally off of *good* plays by our players, not just pure luck (though we had a couple haha). Let's take the wins for now, let's hope that our coaching staff can come up with a better scheme this season, and let's draft/trade for/sign some studs during the off season. We're massively over achieving this year, we all thought this would be a three year process, not a two year process, so we're ahead of the curve and still have moves to make. I'll take it.
maryland-bills-fan Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Obviously, we should be trying to lose the close games to make the negative nancy's comfortable.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 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. Polian Derangement Syndrome. Let it go, you will be much happier.
Doc Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I agree it's not likely to be sustainable. But it only means the Bills have an area in which to improve, while they're still 4-1. Again I hope Wanny becomes the DC and/or that they figure things out during the bye week.
zow2 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 The original poster made a good point. I've been thinking the same thing. Because of the uncanny amount of turnovers (breaks, skillful but some luck thrown in)...the BIlls simply have to ride this wave to the playoffs and a deep run at that. This is the kind of year like the Bears had where you get a ton of Defensive and/or special teams TD's and ride it. Next year we could play the same set of five teams and start 1-4. I think we can all admit we're not THAT much better (if at all) than the Pats, Eagles and Raiders. We took advantage of every little break. This team is ball hawking but does not have the personnel yet to physically stop teams at will or score at will imo. I'm just glad after 10 years that the Bills are getting some great bounces for once. Let's enjoy it. We know next year it could be the complete opposite.
tennesseeboy Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 The defense is a little scary in that we don't have a killer pass rush which would allow those defensive backs to be safer in their aggressive playing of receivers and going for the interception and I don't see the pass rush part of the defense getting much better. On the other hand Brady, Vick and, for that matter Dalton are quality passers who will get big yardage no matter what you do. Wait and see...I suspect the defense will be fine.
DaveinElma Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I'm sure week 5 1999 people were saying that the Rams offense was unsustainable.
BuffaloBillsForever 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. Actually a high powered spread offense that doesn't give up the ball a lot and an opportunistic defense that produces a lot of turnovers but gives up a lot of total yardage were sustainable for many recent teams in the superbowl and some winners of it all. This is what the trend of this Bills team is. Cardinals, Saints, Colts (the year they won it against Chicago with the worst run defense in the league), Packers.
Coach Tuesday Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 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. Take a look at the formula EA. It's not just about turnover differential. It measures success in particular situations as compared to the mean. And their historical stats demonstrate that teams that start off like the Bills have overwhelmingly tend to sustain their success over the entire season. The 49ers have one of the best defenses in the league and they gave up scores of yards to the Eagles. The Jets got manhandled by the Patriots last night - do you think the Jets' success is sustainable? They're widely considered a playoff team because of their defense, and frankly, our offense is better than theirs.
dave mcbride Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) 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. i thought your OP was excellent, and I'm in agreement with it. It calls to mind a team's Pythagorean record in baseball statistics, which is generally the best indicator of how good it actually is. The one unmentioned point is that the Bills are very good at protecting the ball on offense, and I don't think that's luck. much of it is the product of a conscious effort by Fitz to get rid of the ball ASAFP. That's important not just regarding INT prevention; it also means that opponents haven't had a real chance at a strip sack all season. For all of his three sacks, he was aware it was coming and he easily protected the ball. That has been huge. Remember, it's not turnovers per se that matter. It's the turnover differential. Edited October 10, 2011 by dave mcbride
Thoner7 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 This must be a record year for 400 yard passers even after just 5 games. Im not so certain our defense is that bad. Defense has been completely ruled out of this league (unfortunate but true). We are thinking they suck because we are comparing them to defenses of past years when now its really apples to oranges.
CSBill Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2011/week-4-dvoa-ratings Do some reading and get back to us. And you wonder why I avoided every stat class I could in college and grad school. Still not sure what any of this says, accept that the Bills are first . . . I think that's good, based on the stats and all.
Just in Atlanta Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 You're right. With four take-aways, they should have scored 14 more points against the Pats, the second best team in the league, and the Eagles, a Superbowl favorite. The Bills suck.
phillyrich 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. I understand what you intending with your post. The big point however, is the Bills are pulling out these games. These close wins win carry us for the rest of the season. How far they carry us, well, lot of football to still be played. Winning close, while the team is still figuring things out, is huge. My opinion, this is a sign of much better things to come.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I understand what you intending with your post. The big point however, is the Bills are pulling out these games. These close wins win carry us for the rest of the season. How far they carry us, well, lot of football to still be played. Winning close, while the team is still figuring things out, is huge. My opinion, this is a sign of much better things to come. This.
shibuya Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 last time I checked this team was 4-12 last year and 4-1 so far this year. yes the D is not good enough, but that wasn't my concern from last year.. my concern was seeing a team playing much better and learning to win.. that mission is being accomplished
Recommended Posts