freester Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Gailey has gotten the offense to score points. The rookie QBs are not overwhelming. Maybe we need to dramatically improve our Defense by improving the LB and getting a top coordinator like a Mike Nolan or Wade Phillips (I know those guys arent available).
FireChan Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 They don't exist. We can't seem to pick the right DC ever. Or the talent isn't there. Other than that, I would agree Fitz could get us way more wins if we weren't playing catch up every game.
HeHateMe Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 More wins yes but with his limitations, wouldn't be a factor in the playoffs. They'd have to be top 3...
peterpan Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 If we had a top 10 defense, would Fitz be adequate to win? - No, Fitz would turn the ball over at somepoint during the game that causes us to lose. This would be half his fault and half Chan's faults for not calling enough running plays.
atlbillsfan1975 Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) Lets look at the New England game as a blue print for what you are saying. In the second half Buffalo's D held Brady and NE to 13 points. Pretty respectable. Fitz and the Bills scorred 14 points. The problem was/is that Buffalo could not answer New Englands drives with touchdowns or even field goals a few times. It was almost as if the Bills where answering a NE drive with a similar type of drive. When the Bills held the Pats to a punt, there was the opportunity to go get a touchdown and take the lead or tie. Instead the Bills would punt too. Fitz is the best back up in the league. He just is not a starter. He does not have the 'it' factor. I like him but he is way to inconsistant. Ask yourself a question, when Fitz and the offense got the ball back where you 100% confident they could score a touchdown? We as Bills fans have not had that 100% confidence since Jim Kelly in the earl to mid 90's. Ask Pats, Greenbay, Denver, and even Saints or Falcons fans the same question. They will all tell you they believe they will win the game, and more times then not they do. they do because they know it is a passers league and they got very good to outstanding qb's. There is a guy or two coming out next year. Stats prove it. Every year over the last 15 years atleast 1 franchise QB has come out. Buddy and the FO job is to find that guy. Edited November 15, 2012 by atlbillsfan1975
DDD Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Interesting question. I do think the offense is good enough to squeak into the playoffs. The defense is definitely holding this team back. So yes, if they had a respectable defense I think they would be knocking on the door of the playoffs.
Meathead Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 easiest question ever. yes heck fifteenth or twentieth in the league and they are probably 5-4
WNY Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 They don't exist. We can't seem to pick the right DC ever. Or the talent isn't there. Other than that, I would agree Fitz could get us way more wins if we weren't playing catch up every game. Perry Fewell is a great DC, he would've been able to get more out of this defense.
eSJayDee Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Look at it this way: W/ one of the worst defenses in the league, our offense is middle of the pack (w/ Fitz at QB). An improved Dee will help the offense, to the point where statistically they should probably make top 10. If your Offense & Dee are both top 10, assuming you don't have terrible ST (which we don't), you should easily be among the teams that make the playoffs (roughly equating to the top 12).
Dorkington Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 If we had an average defense, we'd be in the playoff hunt. If we had a good defense, we'd be a playoff team. If we had a dominant defense, we'd be capable of making a Superbowl run. Fitz is average to good at times, but isn't good enough to overcome weaknesses on the other side of the ball.
TheBrownBear Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 If we had an average defense, we'd be in the playoff hunt. If we had a good defense, we'd be a playoff team. If we had a dominant defense, we'd be capable of making a Superbowl run. Fitz is average to good at times, but isn't good enough to overcome weaknesses on the other side of the ball. Perfectly put.
K-9 Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 If we had a top 10 defense there is NO WAY we would be 1-4 when scoring 28 points or more. I'm not sure that's EVER been done before. GO BILLS!!!
TheBlackMamba Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 adequate to win what? this is half the problem with being a Bills fan. We've been starved of winning for so long, we're willing to settle for is he good enough to get us to the playoffs? you think other teams sit back and say "hey, i wonder if i guy can get us to the playoffs?". no! they want to win consistently and make deep runs in the playoffs, not just settle for getting there. (and the answer is no. he cant throw down the field consistently, which is why he struggles against good defenses. what do you think would happen if by the hand Gods chance they made it to the playoffs?)
Alphadawg7 Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) Gailey has gotten the offense to score points. The rookie QBs are not overwhelming. Maybe we need to dramatically improve our Defense by improving the LB and getting a top coordinator like a Mike Nolan or Wade Phillips (I know those guys arent available). People are going to read this and immediately answer yes without using any thought or logic. People act like every play of every game would be the same on offense and that the D being better would mean only the D would change. Its not that simple...NOT ONE SECOND OF ANY GAME would have actually existed with a different defense. This is just common sense. So when people look at a game that we say scored 28 in and lost, they assume we would still score 28 again, or more, with a different D without realizing that the entire game, including all the offensive plays, would have been entirely a different game if we change any variable. So, while its easy and cliche to say yes, the truth of the matter is that we lost a lot of those games because of more than just our D. Fitz made terrible game killing mistakes in games we SHOULD have won...FJ has lost critical fumbles that deeply hurt this teams chances to win...Chan has made horrendous calls in key parts of games we should have won...we have had terrible penalties at awful times that either allow the opponent to keep the ball or take our O off the field...etc etc. Bottom line is in this question in relation to Fitz, you can not discount how bad he has played in crunch time, how much of his stats got padded in bad losses, how inconsistent he is week in and week out, how he misses WRs all the time, how he even puts the ball in bad places on completed passes, etc. Changing the D, does not erase all of that. So, if the D is better, there is no way to know if Fitz, Chan, our O in general, etc would have not still made mistakes to keep the games close and prevent wins like they have this year. Truth is, we should have a better record already, even with this D, if it were not for key mistakes by Fitz and Chan specifically in several games. Why do people assume those kind of mistakes magically dont happen anymore if they change the D? Edited November 15, 2012 by Alphadawg7
Mr. WEO Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 If we had a top 10 defense there is NO WAY we would be 1-4 when scoring 28 points or more. I'm not sure that's EVER been done before. GO BILLS!!! well put. This should end this discussion. People are going to read this and immediately answer yes without using any thought or logic. See above. I think K-9's response reutes yours.
KD in CA Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Win what? -a wild card and quick playoff exist? Probably -a division in a down year for the Pats and maybe one playoff win? Possibly -A Super Bowl appearence (much less a win)? No way The Jets were a top 3 defense and their crappy QB got them as far as two losses in the AFCC game. That's the limit for a bad QB.
Mr. WEO Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Win what? -a wild card and quick playoff exist? Probably -a division in a down year for the Pats and maybe one playoff win? Possibly -A Super Bowl appearence (much less a win)? No way The Jets were a top 3 defense and their crappy QB got them as far as two losses in the AFCC game. That's the limit for a bad QB. Yeah, really! Who would want to even play in consecutive AFCC games with a bad QB. Much better to go 6-10 with one. Or, even better, 4-12!
Alphadawg7 Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 If we had a top 10 defense there is NO WAY we would be 1-4 when scoring 28 points or more. I'm not sure that's EVER been done before. GO BILLS!!! And on what plain of existence would we score 28 in those 5 games? Like I said in my post, if you change the D, then every single second of the entire game is absolutely different. Maybe the offense has the ball more and Fitz throws 2 pick sixes and FJ fumbles which is returned for a TD. Having a better D didnt help that scenario. Maybe we put up 40 and hold them to 3. No one knows...in fact the only thing anyone knows is that the entire game would be completely different in all phases of the game. We also know that Fitz, Chan, FJ, Spiller, the OL, the recievers have all made critical mistakes to cost us games that were already winnable...especially Fitz and Chan, the two biggest factors for the O. So how do you know they dont make other mistakes even with a better D that still cause us to lose some games? I dont disagree that the team is better with a better D...but its silly to assume the offense has the same production or better when you just completely altered the game in a way that not one second would mirror what happened in the actual game that was played.
2003Contenders Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 If we had an average defense, we'd be in the playoff hunt. If we had a good defense, we'd be a playoff team. If we had a dominant defense, we'd be capable of making a Superbowl run. Fitz is average to good at times, but isn't good enough to overcome weaknesses on the other side of the ball. I could not have said it better myself.
Recommended Posts