SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) There is absolutely no way we can continue to count on 9 sacks per game to shut people out. We seriously need to add an average of 4 inches to our vertical leaps across the board or there is no way we can prevent people from ever scoring. I mean dang...do we really want to rely on having to get into field goal range EVERY SINGLE GAME in order to win? Let's not all get too excited. This win was obviously a fluke. Clearly we are not getting enough safeties, and until we do, I just can't truly believe this is a playoff team. Edited October 31, 2011 by SouthGeorgiaBillsFan
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 You're right. I mean, come on, having 9 sacks in one game, still being the leaders in turnover margin and giving up the least points in our division clearly isn't enough to have a decent defense. Oh wait, that's the OPPOSITE of right.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Yes, but we can count on 3.5 sacks per game to win. EDIT: Edwards_Arm = Holcomb's_Arm, right? Edited October 31, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Hate to say it, but I agree. I would have felt much more comfortable if we had allowed somewhere around 10-13 points instead of shutting them out. Between the comebacks and all the turnovers and now a shutout, I wish the Bills could get non-flukish wins. Can't they just be average? Edited October 31, 2011 by SageAgainstTheMachine
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Hate to say it, but I agree. I would have felt much more comfortable if we had allowed somewhere around 10-13 points instead of shutting them out. Between the comebacks and all the turnovers and now a shutout, I wish the Bills could get non-flukish wins. Can't they just be average? Why the hell would you want to be average?
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Why the hell would you want to be average? It's prudent at this point to tell you that I and the OP were being sarcastic and lampooning a prior thread about how the Bills' penchant for getting turnovers meant that our winning was "unsustainable."
OCinBuffalo Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 It's prudent at this point to tell you that I and the OP were being sarcastic and lampooning a prior thread about how the Bills' penchant for getting turnovers meant that our winning was "unsustainable." 3.5, don't forget to tell him about 3.5...
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 Why the hell would you want to be average? Man it would be so nice if people didn't always immediately recognize blatant and obvious sarcasm.
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 It's prudent at this point to tell you that I and the OP were being sarcastic and lampooning a prior thread about how the Bills' penchant for getting turnovers meant that our winning was "unsustainable." Ahh. I got OP's sarcasm but not yours. My apologies.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Ahh. I got OP's sarcasm but not yours. My apologies. I'll take that as a compliment.
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Yea Sage's sarcasm is pretty subtle - kudos on that. I had to consider his original response for a minute before I made up my mind he was in fact being sarcastic. It was the "can't they just be average" part that was just enough to drive it home. Edited October 31, 2011 by SouthGeorgiaBillsFan
r00tabaga Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Ya know Sarcasm ain't just a river in Egypt.
Gray Beard Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I know that this thread is about the defense, but I worry that the offense is also not sustainable. I think it would make the game more interesting if Stevie would drop the ball occasionally. Being confident that he is going to catch the ball every time takes away a lot of the excitement of the game. And consistently catching the ball to keep the drive alive is not sustainable.
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 I know that this thread is about the defense, but I worry that the offense is also not sustainable. I think it would make the game more interesting if Stevie would drop the ball occasionally. Being confident that he is going to catch the ball every time takes away a lot of the excitement of the game. And consistently catching the ball to keep the drive alive is not sustainable. Absolutely true. We MUST start coaxing more pass interference and unnecessary roughness penalties to have a chance.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 There is absolutely no way we can continue to count on 9 sacks per game to shut people out. We seriously need to add an average of 4 inches to our vertical leaps across the board or there is no way we can prevent people from ever scoring. I mean dang...do we really want to rely on having to get into field goal range EVERY SINGLE GAME in order to win? Let's not all get too excited. This win was obviously a fluke. Clearly we are not getting enough safeties, and until we do, I just can't truly believe this is a playoff team.
Cugalabanza Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 There is absolutely no way we can continue to count on 9 sacks per game Awesome post (and thread title)
Captain Caveman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Playing the Washington Redskins for the next 12 weeks (including our playoff run) is unsustainable. There is no way the league would allow a small market team like Buffalo to do that.
Numark Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 BILLS SUCK AND I ROOT FOR THEM TO LOSE (how is that for subtle ay?)
Recommended Posts