Over 29 years of fanhood Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 There is nothing arena about pit,bal, cin, and sf. Let's see how the playoffs shake out before declaring defense is dead. Steelers defense has brought home more championships and sb appearances than any offense.
Beerball Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Do you people understand that you must have PLAYERS? I don't give a rat's patootie what the 'trend' is. We've got a weak armed QB, a line that won't allow more than a 5 step drop, 1 semi-proven WR etc. etc. etc. and a defense that couldn't stop my 89 year old MiL if she got up a decent head of steam. Would I prefer we had GBs offense? Hell yes, but...fact is we don't. You can't just look at this stuff in a vacuum, drive me freakin crazy.
mrags Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Do you people understand that you must have PLAYERS? I don't give a rat's patootie what the 'trend' is. We've got a weak armed QB, a line that won't allow more than a 5 step drop, 1 semi-proven WR etc. etc. etc. and a defense that couldn't stop my 89 year old MiL if she got up a decent head of steam. Would I prefer we had GBs offense? Hell yes, but...fact is we don't. You can't just look at this stuff in a vacuum, drive me freakin crazy. True on all accounts BB. Thanks for stating what should be so obvious. One question...... What/who is a MiL? Lol
papazoid Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 True on all accounts BB. Thanks for stating what should be so obvious. One question...... What/who is a MiL? Lol mother-in-law ?
mrags Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 mother-in-law ? That would make sense. I'm not married YET so I don't have that one down yet.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I agree that you have to run the ball to set up the pass. If the oposing team knows you have no run game then its easy to plan against you
Orton's Arm Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I agree that you have to run the ball to set up the pass. If the oposing team knows you have no run game then its easy to plan against you To an extent you can also use the pass to set up the pass. For example, let's say you're defending a team like the New England Patriots. Early on, you might tell your DBs to give decent cushions to shut down the deep passing game. Brady will respond by killing you with the underneath stuff. If you then tell your CBs to get rid of the cushions and take away the underneath stuff, Brady will respond by killing you with intermediate and deep passes. Choose your poison. The Patriots' running game creates many fewer problems for your defense than does their passing game. The main effect of their running game is that opposing defenses are prevented from selling out 100% against the pass. Edited January 4, 2012 by Edwards' Arm
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Do you people understand that you must have PLAYERS? I don't give a rat's patootie what the 'trend' is. We've got a weak armed QB, a line that won't allow more than a 5 step drop, 1 semi-proven WR etc. etc. etc. and a defense that couldn't stop my 89 year old MiL if she got up a decent head of steam. Would I prefer we had GBs offense? Hell yes, but...fact is we don't. You can't just look at this stuff in a vacuum, drive me freakin crazy. Hardly a revelation. The debate I assume in this post is more strategic run/ stout d vs. Offensive powerhouse and who cares about d. Good players and at what position is more tactical to me. I guess could however raise the question do you form a strategy and then try to draft and acquire your way to it(pit, polian used the same strategy for bills, carolina and Indy), or do you draft BPA and let the guys that turn out to be superstars dictate your strategy(Baltimore, New England)
corey g Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Balanced attacks always win in the end. Balance is the key, GB doesn't win last year without strong playoff games from Starks, and The saints D steeped up a few years back. The bills tried to make passing a strength this year in spite of a weak WR corps and the presence of an all pro RB. They kept passing, putting an awful D on the field more and hurting the team. You must have a balanced attack. A personal guarantee, if NO GB and NE don't have good running games this postseason, as in at least two 100 yard performances for each team they will lose. While teams like SF Pitt and Balt cruise. Only GB will go to a conference title game and the myth of this passing league will shatter
CosmicBills Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Balanced attacks always win in the end. Balance is the key, GB doesn't win last year without strong playoff games from Starks, and The saints D steeped up a few years back. The bills tried to make passing a strength this year in spite of a weak WR corps and the presence of an all pro RB. They kept passing, putting an awful D on the field more and hurting the team. You must have a balanced attack. A personal guarantee, if NO GB and NE don't have good running games this postseason, as in at least two 100 yard performances for each team they will lose. While teams like SF Pitt and Balt cruise. Only GB will go to a conference title game and the myth of this passing league will shatter You're insane. How can you call it a myth when the NFL (and any half way knowledgeable fan of the sport -- not just their team) knows that it's a fact. The NFL wanted more scoring so they changed the rules of the entire sport to neuter DBs ability to impede WRs in their routes. They also changed the way defenders can hit and tackle in an effort to protect the NFL's moneymakers: QBs and big play WRs. You of course need a running attack that will keep a team honest, but you don't need a superstar at RB or anything more than an above average ground attack. However, you simply cannot win a championship in today's NFL without an elite passing attack. Think about that in context of league history. It used to be you couldn't win a championship without an elite running back. Times have changed because the SPORT has changed. So you can either accept that as an organization or you can continue to believe that the way to win in the '70s is still a valid way to win in 2012. It sure has worked out great for Ralph and the Bills so far.
BillsFanFromCincy2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I'm reading a super interesting article from Gregg Easterbrook. I find myself agreeing with him a lot this time. Usually don't agree with him much. This bit really stands out for me. http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7415167/green-bay-new-england-make-history-strong-offenses-weak-defenses It's a valid argument only because the teams who consistantly win have hall of fame quarterback play (Brees, Brady, etc.), however we do not have that elite quarterback yet. The Jets tried to play the "NFL passing league" this year, and Sanchez couldn't do it. We've tried to air it out and Fitz threw a ton of picks. Being from Cincinnati, I am forced to watch the Bengals, and they made it to the playoffs ranked 20th in the pass. If we buff up our defense and control the clock with the run game (similar to what the Bengals did), we can be a legit team. I hope Fitzy can get some weapons on the outside to help us out with the passing game, but for now, having Freddy and a scat back like Spiller will have to do.
CosmicBills Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 It's a valid argument only because the teams who consistantly win have hall of fame quarterback play (Brees, Brady, etc.), however we do not have that elite quarterback yet. The Jets tried to play the "NFL passing league" this year, and Sanchez couldn't do it. We've tried to air it out and Fitz threw a ton of picks. Being from Cincinnati, I am forced to watch the Bengals, and they made it to the playoffs ranked 20th in the pass. If we buff up our defense and control the clock with the run game (similar to what the Bengals did), we can be a legit team. I hope Fitzy can get some weapons on the outside to help us out with the passing game, but for now, having Freddy and a scat back like Spiller will have to do. But isn't the bigger point that if you know the BEST you can be with that sort of team (an offense that relies on its rushing game and defense to win) is to be above average, then shouldn't we be willing to do make the moves necessary to getting that elite QB? Why should we settle for Fitz when we know we can't win a ring with him? Why should we settle for a front office that, for the past 15 years has not grasped that the game was changing? I'd rather do everything possible to get the QB and weapons he needs to win a championship -- even at the expense of wins in 2012 -- than to try to build around a QB and organizational philosophy you know you can't win with. If that means trading up in the draft to get a guy like Luck or RG3, you do it. Even if you wiff and the player busts, you're in no worse shape in the big picture as you would be if you saved those picks. This organization is beyond saving. They need to implode before they can finally win. But that won't happen until Ralph is gone. I realize that. It's just frustrating as all get out.
thewildrabbit Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Look at Drew Brees at QB, arguably one of the most prolific passers in today's NFL, agreed? The Saints usually almost always throw more then they run, just look at last weeks game against Carolina. Brees 28/35 for 389 yards 5 TD's 1 INT. But they also ran quite a bit with 35 attempts rushing. Chris Ivory led the way with 19 rushes for 127 yards. Talk about balance, 35 attempts both rushing and passing. Lets go back and look at last year, the N.O. Saints were desperate to acquire Marshawn Lynch because their RB's were all injured, and they knew they wouldn't get far with just Brees throwing. The previous year to that the all the RB's were all injured and Brees interception rate climbed pretty high, he was under more duress every game and also took more sacks. The guy that just broke Dan Marino's passing record for most yards in a season has FOUR good RB's on the roster, and the Saints use them all. Rookie RB, 1st round pick Mark Ingram, was the starter most of the year. Now on IR Pierre Thomas was the back up Daryn Sproles is the 3rd down back Chris Ivory was the 4th stringer The Saints go with whichever RB has the hot hand in a game and do the same thing with their 4 star receivers. Colston, Meachem, Moore, Henderson. Now they have an all pro TE who had 99 catches this year for 1310 yards and 11 TD's, second only in the NFL to the Patriots Gronk. Both TE set new records for yards, receptions and TD's by TE's. (Jimmy Graham had 8 rec for 97 yards in his last game) The biggest problem I have with the Buffalo Bills offense is Gailey doesn't utilize his RB's or his TE's enough, not nearly enough. Last season the Bills TE's were invisible in the Bills offense, Scott Chandler had one GS, one catch. David Martin was the starter 16 G, 9 GS 7 rec for 43 yards. Shawn Nelson 5 games, 1 GS, 3 rec for 25 yards. Johnathan Stupar 16G, 3 GS, 12 rec for 111 yards 2010 Buffalo Bills TE's 23 receptions for 179 yards...all season. WORST PRODUCTION FOR TE's IN THE ENTIRE NFL in 2010. Not that great for 2011 either. Chandler 38 rec for 389 yards, 6 TD's 2011, better, but not nearly enough. Edited January 4, 2012 by Fear the Beard
Dr. Trooth Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 How do you account for the 12-4 Ravens? Flacco and Fitz are about one QB rating point apart. If the Bills have the Steelers D, no one would even be posting about QB crap.
thewildrabbit Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 How do you account for the 12-4 Ravens? Flacco and Fitz are about one QB rating point apart. If the Bills have the Steelers D, no one would even be posting about QB crap. Good point about Flacco, but did you know that when the Ravens throw 35+ times they lose more then they win, conversely when Ray Rice has 25+ carries they win more then they lose. Flacco has the O line, he has the run game, he has the WRers, he has the TE, and he even has the D. You take Joe Flacco out and put Ryan Fitzpatrick in and I think you have a better team, a better QB who is able to set protections better, and find the open receiver much quicker. Plus he doesn't have cement shoes, if need be Fitz can get a first down by running. OTOH, Flacco might have the stronger arm to throw 60 yard bombs, but how often does that happen? Ex- GM Michael Lombardi thinks Fitz is good enough to win, so does Ex-GM Charlie Casserly. Build a team around him and you have a competitive team
CosmicBills Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 How do you account for the 12-4 Ravens? Flacco and Fitz are about one QB rating point apart. If the Bills have the Steelers D, no one would even be posting about QB crap. I'm talking about winning super bowls. Not just making the playoffs. The goal every season should be to win the Lombardi. Or at the very least, fielding a team capable of backing their way into an accidental championship. So, with that in mind, talk to me about Baltimore when they win the super bowl. Because they're not winning it this year.
Orton's Arm Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 But isn't the bigger point that if you know the BEST you can be with that sort of team (an offense that relies on its rushing game and defense to win) is to be above average, then shouldn't we be willing to do make the moves necessary to getting that elite QB? Why should we settle for Fitz when we know we can't win a ring with him? Why should we settle for a front office that, for the past 15 years has not grasped that the game was changing? I'd rather do everything possible to get the QB and weapons he needs to win a championship -- even at the expense of wins in 2012 -- than to try to build around a QB and organizational philosophy you know you can't win with. If that means trading up in the draft to get a guy like Luck or RG3, you do it. Even if you wiff and the player busts, you're in no worse shape in the big picture as you would be if you saved those picks. This organization is beyond saving. They need to implode before they can finally win. But that won't happen until Ralph is gone. I realize that. It's just frustrating as all get out. This.
Orton's Arm Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 How do you account for the 12-4 Ravens? Flacco and Fitz are about one QB rating point apart. If the Bills have the Steelers D, no one would even be posting about QB crap. QB rating is a deeply flawed stat. John Elway had a QB rating of 79.9, compared to 79.2 for Kelly Holcomb. Does anyone really believe the performance of the two QBs was only 0.8% apart? The problem with QB rating is that it takes completion percentage into account. This means a QB who attempts a lot of short passes--such as Holcomb--will be unfairly rewarded when compared to someone with Elway's playing style. Like Kelly Holcomb, Fitzpatrick also attempts a lot of short passes. (As an aside, Holcomb was a more accurate and consistent passer than Fitzpatrick, but Fitz is better at pre-snap reads.) Holcomb's career yards per attempt was 6.6, as compared to 7.1 for John Elway. Elway was a much better quarterback than Holcomb, and yards per attempt illuminates this in a way that QB rating does not. A QB can inflate his completion percentage--and therefore his QB rating--by completing passes for zero yards, or by relying on short, high percentage passes to the exclusion of his deep passing game. Yards per attempt is a much harder stat to inflate! A zero yard pass is every bit as bad for your yards per attempt stat as an incompletion would have been. Over the course of his career, ]Joe Flacco has averaged 7.1 yards per attempt. This past season, Ryan Fitzpatrick averaged 6.7 yards per attempt. During the 2010 season--his best in the league--he averaged 6.8 yards per attempt. Joe Flacco's usual level of play is clearly a step above Fitzpatrick's best level of play. Admittedly, this past season Flacco had an off year, and only averaged 6.7 yards per attempt. In the playoffs one of two things will likely happen: either Flacco will return to his old self, or the Ravens will get eliminated. Though quite frankly, the Ravens will probably be eliminated even if Flacco does return to his usual form. While Flacco at his usual is a step above Fitzpatrick, he's a step below Brady or Rodgers or the other elite QBs of the league. Nine of the last ten Super Bowls have been won by teams with franchise QBs, which means that teams led by Joe Flacco-level QBs were eliminated at some point in the postseason.
mrags Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I'm talking about winning super bowls. Not just making the playoffs. The goal every season should be to win the Lombardi. Or at the very least, fielding a team capable of backing their way into an accidental championship. So, with that in mind, talk to me about Baltimore when they win the super bowl. Because they're not winning it this year. That's all fine and dandy. And honestly I agree with many of your views but it's not that simple. First off, the past SuperBowl wins since 2000 have been a bit of both. Yes they have had star QBs on thier teams but it's far from why they won. Brady just managed the game in his first 2 SB victories but lost the Giants because they played a ball control game with stout defense and ran the ball well. The Steelers under Big Ben only managed the game over the Seahawks and they were incredibly defensive and had the Bus runnina all over the place with Parker as well. Not far off was thier 2nd SB where Ben had a good game but it was more closely related to his defense that he won that game. A 90+ yard defensive TD tells the story. It was clear that Warner and the Cardinals were the pass happy offense of the game and they lost. The Packers wouldn't have gotten where they were last year if not for Starks and thier defense. And just at the same time when Big Ben became more pas happy and thier defense got a little older, slower, and relied less on the run in Offense. The Bears were able to make the SB with Who? Oh yeah, Rex Grossman. The Ravens win it with Trent Dilfer. Both teams had really good to great defenses and ran the ball extremely well. I'm not saying it isn't important to have that stud QB. Of course it is. I'm just saying your point about having Fitz vs a Stud Franchise guy bring that ine can only back you into the playoffs while the Sutld will win it is not true. Fact is when tje studs relied on thier offenses they lost. It's almost the opposite is factual evidence that the stud QB can get you there but the stud defense or balenced offense is what's going to win it. The 06' Patriots were one of the most dominating offenses of all time. Brady threw over 50 TDs (the most all time), the team went 16-0 in the regular season, yet a balenced offense and a food defense was able to beat them in the most important game in SB history. Just saying. I'll out money in it this year that the more balenced offense and better defense will win the SB this year. It won't be the Packers or the Patriots for sure.
Recommended Posts