swnybillsfan Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 i think the statement the bills are looking to make is that there is a new sheriff in town. they'd best be bringing their proverbial a-games against all the divisional opponants, and particularly the hated patsies. that's where it all begins, whoop @$$ in your own division and let the rest of the league take notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Au contraire. Brady threw 4 interceptions because he was under constant pressure, two of his passes were deflected by leaping defenders, and his route was jumped by an alert Wilson on a third. There is nothing that says we can't pressure Brady into making mistakes this year. In fact our likelihood of doing so has improved considerably. I think the perception is they drafted well on defense, including Tavon Wilson (FS) in the 2nd round. Time will tell.... If last year's Bills team was to play last year's Patriots team ten times, do you think the Bills would come away with 40 interceptions? I don't. Do you think that last year's Bills defense ever had a realistic chance of attaining 64 interceptions over the course of the season? Or that Tom Brady was in danger of having 64 interceptions over the course of the 2011 season? If it's totally unrealistic to suppose that Brady could be intercepted 64 times over the course of a season, or that the Bills defense could attain 64 interceptions, or that the Bills could intercept Brady 40 times over the course of 10 games, then that means the 4 interceptions they achieved in that one game were a statistical anomaly. They beat the Patriots; but did not beat them in a way which was sustainable over the course of an entire season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Beating the JETS, JETS, JETS is paramount. I want us to beat them so handidly that we finish running the clock for a 20 pt spread. Then they will be nervous, the chants for Tebow starts and the second game gets easier at home. The Chiefs will be much tougher with Romeo and a healthy team out there. I don't see a loss with the Browns, and then we get our Darth Vadar in the Patsies. We walk out 3-1 or 4-0 and we have something special. Get ready guys. 19-0! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The real key tothe patriot matchup is now we WONT have to blitz..... Rush four Everyone else drops back into coverage...... Hit Brady early and often....... Jam everything.....force off time throws...... Then we DO force that punt.....Brady cannot see the ball again for like 8 minutes.......keep the ball on offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Agree. if we can just get 1.5 seconds more holding our blocks, I think Stevie will really impress people this year like victor cruz last year, and maybe someone else. We looked like we had a great line but we really had an excellent coach who knew our weaknesses and his them as long as possible. Short throws and run to hide an average o line. Fingers crossed this year is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 If last year's Bills team was to play last year's Patriots team ten times, do you think the Bills would come away with 40 interceptions? I don't. Do you think that last year's Bills defense ever had a realistic chance of attaining 64 interceptions over the course of the season? Or that Tom Brady was in danger of having 64 interceptions over the course of the 2011 season? If it's totally unrealistic to suppose that Brady could be intercepted 64 times over the course of a season, or that the Bills defense could attain 64 interceptions, or that the Bills could intercept Brady 40 times over the course of 10 games, then that means the 4 interceptions they achieved in that one game were a statistical anomaly. They beat the Patriots; but did not beat them in a way which was sustainable over the course of an entire season. Oh, for Toast's sake! I don't even know where to start with this. No football team plays another football team 10x in the course of a season. No one is claiming that Brady would be intercepted 64 times in a season. In debate terms, this is known as reductio ad absurdum or popularly sometimes a "straw man" - the person with whom one is trying to have a discussion, rather than entering into a reasonable discussion of the point at hand, attempts to assert absurd claims that you have not made then argue against them. Quit it. Just don't. The point is that the Bills 4 interceptions were not a "fluke" in the sense of Brady just having an off day. They were the result of strong pressure on the line combined with good heads-up play by our secondary. There were numerous good plays that did not result in INTs by our 2ndary that day - a very nice pass breakup by Barnett, etc. I believe any team on any given Sunday can force Brady into a similar bad day (whether or not it involves 4 INTs is beside the point) by successfully employing a similar strategy - relentless pressure up front, take away the middle of the field with good coverage, and read/jump his routes like Wilson did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Oh, for Toast's sake! I don't even know where to start with this. No football team plays another football team 10x in the course of a season. No one is claiming that Brady would be intercepted 64 times in a season. In debate terms, this is known as reductio ad absurdum or popularly sometimes a "straw man" - the person with whom one is trying to have a discussion, rather than entering into a reasonable discussion of the point at hand, attempts to assert absurd claims that you have not made then argue against them. Quit it. Just don't. The point is that the Bills 4 interceptions were not a "fluke" in the sense of Brady just having an off day. They were the result of strong pressure on the line combined with good heads-up play by our secondary. There were numerous good plays that did not result in INTs by our 2ndary that day - a very nice pass breakup by Barnett, etc. I believe any team on any given Sunday can force Brady into a similar bad day (whether or not it involves 4 INTs is beside the point) by successfully employing a similar strategy - relentless pressure up front, take away the middle of the field with good coverage, and read/jump his routes like Wilson did. > In debate terms, this is known as reductio ad absurdum or popularly sometimes a "straw man" > - the person with whom one is trying to have a discussion, rather than entering into a reasonable > discussion of the point at hand, attempts to assert absurd claims that you have not made then argue > against them. False. I was not trying to define your position. I was defining mine. > The point is that the Bills 4 interceptions were not a "fluke" in the sense of Brady just > having an off day. They were the result of strong pressure on the line combined with good > heads-up play by our secondary. I'll grant that there were elements of skill and strategy involved in making those INTs happen. But we have agreed that if the Bills were to play the Patriots ten times, Brady would not be intercepted a total of 40 times. (Or anywhere close.) The point here being that the skill and strategy you've described yielded much better results on that day than could be expected on a typical day. Had last year's Bills team played last year's Patriots team ten times, then a typical game would have involved Brady having 0 - 1 INTs. The Patriots' defense would have been much less riddled with injuries than the defense Fitz faced in that first game. And the typical result would have been a Patriots' win--by a healthy margin. > I believe any team on any given Sunday can force Brady into a similar bad day (whether or > not it involves 4 INTs is beside the point) by successfully employing a similar strategy - > relentless pressure up front, take away the middle of the field with good coverage, and > read/jump his routes like Wilson did. Whether it involves four INTs is exactly the point. Tom Brady moved the ball very well in that first game when he wasn't being intercepted. Much more effective, in fact, than Fitz was against the Patriots' decimated, injury-riddled defense. It was those four interceptions, and those alone, which allowed the Bills to (barely) compensate for Brady's much greater productivity on non-turnover-related plays. If you want to argue that the Bills' defense didn't have the horses to fully execute the strategy you envision, or that they could have called some plays differently, then fine. But even in the Super Bowl, Brady was effective until late in the game. (At which point he was probably playing with an injury.) The Giants' defense clearly had the horses they needed, and adopted a very solid anti-pass defensive strategy. The point here being that even with the right horses, and with the right strategy, there's only so much you can do to slow down the Patriots' offense. Fortunately for the Giants, they also had a franchise QB capable of going toe-to-toe with Brady. If the Patriots and Giants were to play each other ten times, the Giants would probably win most of those games. The two teams would have roughly comparable QBs, and the Giants would have the better pass defense. You need to have a very good pass defense and a franchise QB to pull ahead of a team like the Patriots. At least on paper, the Bills only have one of those two things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The real key tothe patriot matchup is now we WONT have to blitz..... Rush four Everyone else drops back into coverage...... Hit Brady early and often....... Jam everything.....force off time throws...... Then we DO force that punt.....Brady cannot see the ball again for like 8 minutes.......keep the ball on offense. +1 That is the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 > In debate terms, this is known as reductio ad absurdum or popularly sometimes a "straw man" > - the person with whom one is trying to have a discussion, rather than entering into a reasonable > discussion of the point at hand, attempts to assert absurd claims that you have not made then argue > against them. False. I was not trying to define your position. I was defining mine. Er....OK.....you know that part about using words the same way to achieve communication? When defining your opinion in response to someone else, can you understand how when they read the words "do you think that" repeated several times, it comes across as imputing that view to them, or bringing up that point as a rebuttal to their points? > The point is that the Bills 4 interceptions were not a "fluke" in the sense of Brady just > having an off day. They were the result of strong pressure on the line combined with good > heads-up play by our secondary. I'll grant that there were elements of skill and strategy involved in making those INTs happen. But we have agreed that if the Bills were to play the Patriots ten times, Brady would not be intercepted a total of 40 times. (Or anywhere close.) The point here being that the skill and strategy you've described yielded much better results on that day than could be expected on a typical day. Now we're communicating! Yes, that's my point - there were elements of skill and strategy. And yes, I agree with you, I think it's unlikely that in 40 repeated games Brady would throw a 4 INT game 4x, but the skill and strategy (implemented correctly) would still yield benefits in the form of batted passes (not necessarily intercepted), broken up passes (not necessarily intercepted), throwing the ball away and maybe even the longed-for site of Brady on his back with Williams, Anderson, or Merriman on top of him. And those benefits can yield wins just as readily as INTs did. If your point is that last year's Bills didn't have the horses to implement that strategy, especially after Merriman and Williams were gone for good, I agree completely - we saw as much in the 2nd game. But rattle Marcia, pressure him, knock him down, the Pats offense starts to look human. The point here being that even with the right horses, and with the right strategy, there's only so much you can do to slow down the Patriots' offense. Fortunately for the Giants, they also had a franchise QB capable of going toe-to-toe with Brady. If the Patriots and Giants were to play each other ten times, the Giants would probably win most of those games. The two teams would have roughly comparable QBs, and the Giants would have the better pass defense. You need to have a very good pass defense and a franchise QB to pull ahead of a team like the Patriots. At least on paper, the Bills only have one of those two things. Ah, now here we get to the crux of the disagreement. You're on record consistently and clearly with the opinion Fitz just isn't good enough as the Bills QB - not a "franchise QB", thus we don't have a QB capable of going toe-to-toe with Brady. On a good day, Fitz has shown he certainly is capable of going toe-to-toe with Brady or any other QB in the league- the question where the jury is still out awaiting further information is as to whether he can do this consistently (I also think he may be missing a piece or 2 at WR myself, though I give Jones and Johnson the benefit of the doubt in being injured last year). I also dunno about your definition of "franchise QB" -- nothing personal - it seems to be a total "moving target" to most people to the point where I wince when I read the term. It's kind of like the joke about the definition of pornography "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" sometimes The Giants pass defense isn't bad, but they really run an OL-centered defense just as we plan to under Wannstache. And IMO that's really the key - having an OL that's good enough to generate heavy pressure just with the front four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Er....OK.....you know that part about using words the same way to achieve communication? When defining your opinion in response to someone else, can you understand how when they read the words "do you think that" repeated several times, it comes across as imputing that view to them, or bringing up that point as a rebuttal to their points? Now we're communicating! Yes, that's my point - there were elements of skill and strategy. And yes, I agree with you, I think it's unlikely that in 40 repeated games Brady would throw a 4 INT game 4x, but the skill and strategy (implemented correctly) would still yield benefits in the form of batted passes (not necessarily intercepted), broken up passes (not necessarily intercepted), throwing the ball away and maybe even the longed-for site of Brady on his back with Williams, Anderson, or Merriman on top of him. And those benefits can yield wins just as readily as INTs did. If your point is that last year's Bills didn't have the horses to implement that strategy, especially after Merriman and Williams were gone for good, I agree completely - we saw as much in the 2nd game. But rattle Marcia, pressure him, knock him down, the Pats offense starts to look human. Ah, now here we get to the crux of the disagreement. You're on record consistently and clearly with the opinion Fitz just isn't good enough as the Bills QB - not a "franchise QB", thus we don't have a QB capable of going toe-to-toe with Brady. On a good day, Fitz has shown he certainly is capable of going toe-to-toe with Brady or any other QB in the league- the question where the jury is still out awaiting further information is as to whether he can do this consistently (I also think he may be missing a piece or 2 at WR myself, though I give Jones and Johnson the benefit of the doubt in being injured last year). I also dunno about your definition of "franchise QB" -- nothing personal - it seems to be a total "moving target" to most people to the point where I wince when I read the term. It's kind of like the joke about the definition of pornography "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" sometimes The Giants pass defense isn't bad, but they really run an OL-centered defense just as we plan to under Wannstache. And IMO that's really the key - having an OL that's good enough to generate heavy pressure just with the front four. I think we're doing a better job of communicating; though there are still some points of disagreement. But first the communicating part! > I also dunno about your definition of "franchise QB" -- nothing personal - it seems to be a > total "moving target" to most people to the point where I wince when I read the term. My definition of a "franchise QB" is a QB who has achieved a career average of at least 7.2 - 7.4 yards per pass attempt. Or, failing that, a guy who maybe had a rough start to his career, but who now consistently has seasons in the 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt range or better. In Fitz's best season he had 6.8 yards per attempt. (As compared to a career average of 6.5 yards per attempt for Trent Edwards.) The numbers which would convince me Fitz is a franchise QB just aren't there. Neither is the throwing accuracy. If the latter changes, so too will the former. But until that happens, Fitz will continue to fall firmly in my "non-franchise QB" category. > On a good day, Fitz has shown he certainly is capable of going toe-to-toe with Brady or any other QB in the league- I have very mixed feelings about the above statement. I would argue that the first time the Bills and the Patriots met, the Bills' defense had a much better day than did the injury-riddled Patriots defense. Brady had a very bad day, at least by his standards. Even so, I'd argue that his overall quality of play that day was significantly higher than the quality of Fitz's play. If the Bills won anyway, it was because the Patriots' defenders dropped passes which should have been intercepted; while Bills' defenders were very good at catching interceptable passes. Also, Fred Jackson had a much better day than his Patriots' equivalents. The Patriots had the better quarterback, but the Bills had the better team. The problem with trying to repeat the above strategy is that next time, Tom Brady won't throw four interceptions. > But rattle Marcia, pressure him, knock him down, the Pats offense starts to look human. The above is true, at least to an extent. But even a "human"-looking Brady will still (typically) produce a lot of points. > The Giants pass defense isn't bad, but they really run an OL-centered defense > just as we plan to under Wannstache. And IMO that's really the key - having an > OL that's good enough to generate heavy pressure just with the front four. I like your idea of having an OL good enough to generate pressure with the front four. An even better idea would be to have a DL that's good enough to generate pressure with the front four! On a more serious note, Bill Walsh once said that the key to winning games is to have a good pass rush with your front four in the fourth quarter. (Which requires depth along the DL.) I completely agree that, if you can get a good pass rush with just four guys, it frees you up to drop the other seven back into coverage. And means the QB won't have much time to do anything before he has to get rid of it. I'm excited about the direction in which the Bills' defense is heading. We won't win the Super Bowl without significantly upgrading the level of play we're getting from the QB position. But we can win a lot more games in 2012 than we won in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts