The Bills' method of winning is unsustainable.

[Hsp08]

Come on, we are 4-1, let's enjoy the Moment! After the crap the last 5-6 years, let's not get picky. Let's see how far this group can take us this year!!

 

I think we all have a pretty good idea of the Bills' strengths & weaknesses.

 

Once we have tasted some success, then let's get more critical of areas to improve in the offseason.

[The Wei 44]

OP is somewhat insightful but misses a very important point. Turnovers should not necessarily be viewed as isolated "wow we got lucky" events. They can sometimes be viewed as symptoms of something more - In our case, on many of the turnovers, they are the result of pressure on the QB, blocking QB's throwing lanes, being super aggressive after the ball is "caught" by the opponent, etc. Those sorts of things are more enduring and give some reason for optimism. I would rather get an interception than a sack, but assuming the intereception was influenced by pressure on the QB, I would be very pleased with either because it suggests we are winning the battle of the trenches (at least on that play).

 

I think what concerns some folks is that our wins have been uncomfortable to watch at times, and I certainly had the feeling that if not for the 5-yard penalty and first down at the end, Eagles were going to get ball back, march down the field, and we were headed to Overtime.

[Just in Atlanta]

Good teams win games in which they didn't play well.

 

We are a good team.

 

We won. We are good enough to make offensive changes to accommodate defenses and injuries at WR and Oline. Our D, which has issues, makes up for it with aggressive play.

 

Analysis on what can be improved is one thing. This is pure negativity. It simply boggles my mind. And it's completely irrational.

 

Enjoy it already.

[KOKBILLS]

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

 

Just win, baby.

 

EXACTLY Bro!

 

I feel like this Team started building character with those close Games last Season, and now they are turning things around and finding a way...They are SO young in SO many different places it's easy to assume they will continue to grow, learn, and like you said, the bumps will start working themselves out...I think this Team is at least a year ahead of Schedule right now based on the way they've played up to this point...Personally I think the way they are winning actually bodes well for the future...Can you imagine how good this Team will be if the D tightens up a bit?

[Juror#8]

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'll argue the logic...cause it's Monday and why not?

 

Your argument presupposes that there is no reproduceable individual effort at play during the course of any one game. You're effectively saying that any effort to interfere (and accomplish changing possession) with the opposing team's offensive progress is fortuitous and it can't be duplicated in similar (though not exact) instances.

 

Turnovers (changing possessions) relies on body placement, defensive positioning, hand-eye coordination, athleticism, spacial recognition, timing, coaching, training, focus, etc.

 

You feel that the above are not "reproduceable" (which I'm using as a synonym for "sustainable.")?

 

SO then....is a statistically good defense (e.g., surrending few yards) "sustainable"? Interestingly enough, they rely on the same exact principles....however arguably more consistently applied throughout the course of the game. That notwithstanding, the parallel is nearly exact.

 

But just for Hunter S. Thompson giggles, lets just say that facilitating turnovers is not "sustainable." How do you know that we wouldn't have won anyway?

 

You can't prove a negative and things don't operate in a vacuum.

 

How do you know what adjustments would/would not have been made? What offensive philosophy would have been employed? What would have been the play after the t.v. timeout if we would have gotten a stop on downs instead of the Nick Barnett pick 6? What if a skinny post to SJ would have been the bill of fare? How would that have affected the Eagles morale? Or ours? How would they have adjusted their defensive game-planning if a Fitz-SJ 59 yard td would have been successful? Would they play the pass and let Freddy run as wild in the second half as he did in the first? Wouldn't a fruitful running game facilitate sustained drives? And with the Bills enjoying sustained drives, how would their offense respond? Would they be cold? Would Vick to Maclin or Avant for 10-20 per be as rhythmic?

 

The point is, you don't know; but yet you're enthusiastically trying to prove the negative. To insinuate that we needed turnovers to win and that that approach is unsustainable suggests a remarkable ability to portend that I'm sure you don't posses.

 

Just a little dialectic on this beautiful Monday. The eighth Juror enjoys logic.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Juror#8

[thewildrabbit]

I agree with the OP

 

 

Last years Patriots had a bad defense statistically and yard wise, but they had a great turnover ratio and they won a lot of games. But that defense with a young secondary with not much pass rush was eliminated in the playoffs by a better defense.

 

The Patriots have a bad defense again this year but are winning games with that Tom Brady run offense, great running game and great set of receivers. It also doesn't hurt that they have one of the top O lines in the NFL that give Brady so much extra time to slide around in the pocket to find an open receiver, sometimes to the tune of +6 seconds on many occasions

 

Like the Patriots the Buffalo Bills have some serious flaws.. While the O line is generally doing a great job, its no where near as good as the Patriots. Because Fitz has such a quick release and is able to find the open receiver in 3 seconds or under it masks a ton of flaws. They weren't able to power run block on close formations to control the clock when needed against the Bengals or Eagles in the 4th QTR It cost them the Bengals game and almost cost them the Eagles game. The same can be said when the opposing defense takes away the quick short passes and make Fitz look for deeper targets it creates havoc with the line and Fitz's mental clock to get the ball out. He starts hurrying his passes and doesn't set up properly, the result is some wild passes.

 

That Buffalo Bills line can get better with more playing experience and continuity, the more they play the better they will get, no question. The line does very well out of the spread formation, but its that closed in formation that needs work, and they need to learn how to drive opponents off the line to make those critical 3rd and short yards by running. This will be especially true once the snow falls, the Bills will need to learn to build a power running game and get Spiller - Smith more involved. The Bills need to learn how to run to control the clock when they have the lead at the end of games

 

 

 

 

The defense as some of their own unique problem that cannot be solved by simply more playing time. They need a better scheme and perhaps a better overall defensive strategist to call the plays and set up the defense. They still aren't very good at stopping the run- 28th overall-28th in rushing defense-25th in passing while #1 in the NFL in turnover ratio. They won't get 5+ turnovers every game. They have the players in the secondary to be an elite defense, they lack an elite DE and LB. The flaws have been masked so far by some lucky breaks, but those breaks won't always be there and they need to improve in stopping the run and getting pressure on the QB

 

 

just my 2 cents

[Maury Ballstein]

You called it Edwards arm......the flak here it comes....

 

I guess we need to have the 85 bears defense and the Kurt Warner era rams offense to make you happy..

 

I have 2 requests for ya.......1st one is i never wanna hear the name edwards again...name change please.........2nd is whatdaFrushmucks complaining about......bills have been TURRRIBle for years and dummys are complaining about 4-1 start........COME ON MAN......lets shut this thread down.......all u shmohawks

 

Whos crashin the meadowlands with me........LETS GO BUFFALO

[Rob's House]

I've seen about a half dozen posts saying this is a playoff team but not a Superbowl team, which to me sounds absolutely ridiculous. Any team that gets in the playoffs (with the possible exception of the dumb luck 7-9 Seahawks) has a legitimate shot of going to the Super Bowl.

 

But maybe I'm wrong, I mean, this year I think we could beat the Jets, but the patriots? NO WAY!!

[clancynut]

 

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.

 

I will be pretty upset if the Colts have this record and draft Andrew Luck!! I don't see the Bills matching 15-1 this year and even though we have Fitzpatrick passing on a once in a lifetime talent such as Luck would be the equivalent of drafting Sam Bowie. Bills Fans would Occupy One Bills Drive!! The Buddy is asleep jokes would be relentless!! There would be billboards all over WNY about how Ralph is cheap!! Not to mention how upset the teams that already beat the Colts this year would be about having to forfeit their wins!!

 

I know the poster meant to post 1-15, just having a little fun.

 

The way I look at it is, it took the Bills five games to win the same amount of games that it took sixteen to win last year. Since going 0-8 to start last year the Bills are now 8-5, this is a good team.

[deep2evans]

I've seen about a half dozen posts saying this is a playoff team but not a Superbowl team, which to me sounds absolutely ridiculous. Any team that gets in the playoffs (with the possible exception of the dumb luck 7-9 Seahawks) has a legitimate shot of going to the Super Bowl.

 

But maybe I'm wrong, I mean, this year I think we could beat the Jets, but the patriots? NO WAY!!

 

i really don't understand what you are trying to say. we already did beat the Pats...

[Buftex]

I've seen about a half dozen posts saying this is a playoff team but not a Superbowl team, which to me sounds absolutely ridiculous. Any team that gets in the playoffs (with the possible exception of the dumb luck 7-9 Seahawks) has a legitimate shot of going to the Super Bowl.

 

But maybe I'm wrong, I mean, this year I think we could beat the Jets, but the patriots? NO WAY!!

 

 

Agreed! Once you are in the playoffs, anything can happen. Even the "dumb-luck Seahawks", who conventional sports wisdom says "had no business being there" knocked off the heavily favored Saints in a playoff game.

 

One thing I kinda like, beyond just talent on the field, I think our head-coach has out-coached pretty much everyone he has faced this year. I am really impressed with Gailey on game-day. Other than not running the ball more in the second half against the Bengals (and a time or two yesterday where I would have run, rather than throw) I have had very few complaints about the way the Bills offense is according itself under Gailey.

 

The guy can just flat out call a game...and this band of nobodys isn't likely to lose many games because their coach didin't put them in the best position to win...been a while since we have seen that in Buffalo.`

Edited October 10, 2011 by Buftex

[Mark80]

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.

 

Blah, blah, blah. The Bills had 2 turnovers in the N.E. game and 1 turnover in the Philly game.

 

Good teams don't make as many mistakes as bad teams and good teams cause turnovers through pressure, confusion, schemes, will powers, and play making ability.

[twist_to_open]

A very well written post...I guess we'll see how far this method of play takes us this year. Hopefully far.

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

EXACTLY Bro!

 

I feel like this Team started building character with those close Games last Season, and now they are turning things around and finding a way...They are SO young in SO many different places it's easy to assume they will continue to grow, learn, and like you said, the bumps will start working themselves out...I think this Team is at least a year ahead of Schedule right now based on the way they've played up to this point...Personally I think the way they are winning actually bodes well for the future...Can you imagine how good this Team will be if the D tightens up a bit?

 

Or if we just play a complete game?

 

I mean what happens if we play 4 quarters against the Patriots, considering we utterly and completed dominated them to the tune of 34-10 over 2.5 quarters. Extrapolating those 2.5 quarters over a 4 quarter time period (which is unrealistic, I understand, but the point is to demonstrate just how dominant we were during that time) yields at WORST somewhere around a 50-20 beat-down, against one of the best teams in the NFL. Again, extrapolating the 2nd half of the Raiders game over a 4 quarter period would yield a whopping 70-28 victory, against a team that by all rights appears to be a legit contender in the AFC west. The only game of the season we did play a complete game yielded a lopsided 41-7 margin. These are substantial time periods of total domination against some pretty solid competition - which explains IMO why we are 4-1 better than anything else.

 

We aren't talking about just squeaking out wins here. We are talking about using complete domination to overcome inconsistent play and nearly insurmountable leads. Once this team learns how to play consistently for four quarters, I see absolutely no reason to think we can't go all the way and even win the SB.

 

And considering turnovers is BY FAR the most influential statistic on the outcomes of each and every game played from high school all the way to the NFL, to simply brush them off seems just silly to me. The number one tactical goal of every team in the NFL is to win the turnover battle - and we are killing everyone in this most important area.

 

So yea, these negative people can really just blow it out their many orifices.

[BillsBytheBay]

14th

But if we keep scoring on "lucky" turnovers.... oh what ever. The people who think this Bills team sucks will find ways to justify their point. What I saw yesterday was a team that DID get hits on the QB. Mike Vick for that matter. Anyone else notice Moats CRUSH Vick on one of those picks. I suppose that was luck too.

[ieatcrayonz]

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.

 

You think you're going to take flak for that?

 

You have some things in there which can be argued back and forth.

 

I was going to start a thread based purely on the FACT that yesterday's win hurt the Bills in every imaginable tie breaker scenario but I decided against it because of all the dust that would stir up and that is even though it is based on FACTS. Your post is based largely on opinions and/or interpretation of facts, therefore you should expect arguments. I shouldn't have to expect arguments but people are emotional and would argue anyway.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

The saints won a superbowl by allowing a lot of yards, but leading the league in total turnovers and in turnover differential. People called gregg williams a genius, but I guess hes just lucky right?

[Gugny]

You think you're going to take flak for that?

 

You have some things in there which can be argued back and forth.

 

I was going to start a thread based purely on the FACT that yesterday's win hurt the Bills in every imaginable tie breaker scenario but I decided against it because of all the dust that would stir up and that is even though it is based on FACTS. Your post is based largely on opinions and/or interpretation of facts, therefore you should expect arguments. I shouldn't have to expect arguments but people are emotional and would argue anyway.

I'd actually like for you to explain to me how yesterday's win hurt the Bills. Not being facetious. I really want to know.

[hondo in seattle]

I'm worried about the defense too. But a positive turnover ratio seems to be becoming a trend so I wonder...

 

Are we playing a high-risk, high reward defense?

 

Because the offense is so potent, do we force opponents to play a high-risk, high-reward offense?

[ieatcrayonz]

I'd actually like for you to explain to me how yesterday's win hurt the Bills. Not being facetious. I really want to know.

In every tie breaker scenario importance is given to certain games. First comes head to head, then division games, then conference games. This leaves non-conference games like the one against the Eagles as the odd man out. Let's say the Bills end up tied with a team that went 0-4 vs the NFC and that the Bills lose their remaining games and finish 1-3. If it is a team we did not play this year and they weren't in our division, then the Bills would lose out because they beat the Eagles.

Edited October 10, 2011 by ieatcrayonz