If we had a top 10 defense, would Fitz be adequate to win?

[section122]

Just heard an excellent stat and this I believe is the perfect place to put it. How many people think Andrew Luck has turned around the colts? Probably a lot of people....

 

Not so fast my friend(s)....

 

The Colts have won 6 games already after winning only 2 last year. Many people are attributing this to Andrew Luck but look closer at the numbers. The Defense is giving up 5 points less a game. Not a big deal you say? Well 4 out of the 6 wins the Colts have are by less than 4 points. The defense improving has directly led to more wins.

 

The Bills currently give up 31.7 ppg. That is good enough for last in the league. The idea that you're pushing Alpha that every game would be different is true but how can you discount what the O is doing with a terrible d? The Titans game and Pats game that people want to put on Fitz's shoulder's were not garbage time points. 31 and 34 points were scored legitimately. If anything a better D would give the ball back faster and more often to the offense. That leads to a tired D on the other team and can only help the Offense.

 

Are there better qbs than Fitz? Of course. Are there worse than him? Of course. To think an improved D wouldn't help him out? Well Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub and best example Alex Smith would all like to disagree with that idea.

Edited November 15, 2012 by section122

[Alphadawg7]

Just heard an excellent stat and this I believe is the perfect place to put it. How many people think Andrew Luck has turned around the colts? Probably a lot of people....

 

Not so fast my friend(s)....

 

The Colts have won 6 games already after winning only 2 last year. Many people are attributing this to Andrew Luck but look closer at the numbers. The Defense is giving up 5 points less a game. Not a big deal you say? Well 4 out of the 6 wins the Colts have are by less than 4 points. The defense improving has directly led to more wins.

 

The Bills currently give up 31.7 ppg. That is good enough for last in the league. The idea that you're pushing Alpha that every game would be different is true but how can you discount what the O is doing with a terrible d? The Titans game and Pats game that people want to put on Fitz's shoulder's were not garbage time points. 31 and 34 points were scored legitimately. If anything a better D would give the ball back faster and more often to the offense. That leads to a tired D on the other team and can only help the Offense.

 

Are there better qbs than Fitz? Of course. Are there worse than him? Of course. To think an improved D wouldn't help him out? Well Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub and best example Alex Smith would all like to disagree with that idea.

 

You don't think the fact that Luck is there has no impact on that D? You do realize that offense was ATROCIOUS last year and they just couldnt stay on the field, sustain many drives, score many points.

 

The personnel is essentially the same on the D. There is ONE common denominator in the last 3 years for the colts...the QB. With Manning, playoff team. With no QB it was a 2 win team and the D was even worse. With Luck...now a playoff team and D isnt giving up as many points but still is not very good.

 

Anyone who wants to deny that the QB in Indy is the difference from picking first in the draft or being in the playoffs is just kidding themselves.

 

And to address your points about the Titans game and such. I did not claim they were garbage time points in every game. I simply said, that its illogical to assume the same offensive production, successes, failures, etc if you completely delete the realm of existence of those things by changing the D. Players stand in different places, fatigue is different, play calls are different, mind sets are different, game plans are different, adjustments are different...every thing you know to exists ceases to exist if you alter the game by changing the D. And given that our O, Chan, Fitz, RB's, OL, etc have all been mistake prone, how do you know that we still score so many points? Maybe we do, maybe we score more, maybe we make more mistakes and score less and lose still.

 

Its just silly to assume the offense is the same if you remove the D and change the game completely. And to be clear, I do feel this team is better with a better D, no doubt. But the bottom line for me is that Fitz has made a lot of bad plays when it counted...Chan has made a lot of bad calls in key points of the game...this team makes a lot of mental errors on all sides of the ball. So, if you change the game and start over with a better D, who knows how the O responds in those games.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Alphadawg7

[CardinalScotts]

YES

[It's in My Blood]

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.

 

Exactly. So why not go defense heavy in the draft and snag a LB in FA to build a dominant defense? The offense is here.

[section122]

You don't think the fact that Luck is there has no impact on that D? You do realize that offense was ATROCIOUS last year and they just couldnt stay on the field, sustain many drives, score many points.

 

The personnel is essentially the same on the D. There is ONE common denominator in the last 3 years for the colts...the QB. With Manning, playoff team. With no QB it was a 2 win team and the D was even worse. With Luck...now a playoff team and D isnt giving up as many points but still is not very good.

 

Anyone who wants to deny that the QB in Indy is the difference from picking first in the draft or being in the playoffs is just kidding themselves.

I don't understand how you see them as mutually exclusive. On D they have changed coaches, schemes, and added players (V Davis most notably). Of course Luck is helping out but the D improving has helped as well. If he was there with no difference in the Defense they would not (imo) have all of the wins they have now.

 

Again see Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub, and again best example Alex Smith how a good/great D HELPS the qb.

[Hazed and Amuzed]

Absolutely

[Captain Hindsight]

31 and 34 points should win games. No question.

[It's in My Blood]

 

 

You don't think the fact that Luck is there has no impact on that D? You do realize that offense was ATROCIOUS last year and they just couldnt stay on the field, sustain many drives, score many points.

 

The personnel is essentially the same on the D. There is ONE common denominator in the last 3 years for the colts...the QB. With Manning, playoff team. With no QB it was a 2 win team and the D was even worse. With Luck...now a playoff team and D isnt giving up as many points but still is not very good.

 

Anyone who wants to deny that the QB in Indy is the difference from picking first in the draft or being in the playoffs is just kidding themselves.

 

And to address your points about the Titans game and such. I did not claim they were garbage time points in every game. I simply said, that its illogical to assume the same offensive production, successes, failures, etc if you completely delete the realm of existence of those things by changing the D. Players stand in different places, fatigue is different, play calls are different, mind sets are different, game plans are different, adjustments are different...every thing you know to exists ceases to exist if you alter the game by changing the D. And given that our O, Chan, Fitz, RB's, OL, etc have all been mistake prone, how do you know that we still score so many points? Maybe we do, maybe we score more, maybe we make more mistakes and score less and lose still.

 

Its just silly to assume the offense is the same if you remove the D and change the game completely.

 

Your overlooking the change in coaching in Indy and the fact that when you lose arguably the best QB to ever play after over a decade of stability @ that position, obviously your're going to see a regression in performance.

 

Another example, look at San Fran. One year with Singletary, they are putrid. The very next year, after adding Harbaugh, they come within a game of the Superbowl.

 

Having a Luck, Brady, Manning, or even guys like Matt Ryan and Big Ben give you a better chance to win obviously, but coaching is key.

[Alphadawg7]

I don't understand how you see them as mutually exclusive. On D they have changed coaches, schemes, and added players (V Davis most notably). Of course Luck is helping out but the D improving has helped as well. If he was there with no difference in the Defense they would not (imo) have all of the wins they have now.

 

Again see Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub, and again best example Alex Smith how a good/great D HELPS the qb.

 

Then how do you explain Playoffs with Manning and 2 wins without Manning when the coaches, players, and schemes were the same? And I am sorry, as much as coaching and schemes do help, they dont magically change talent. Indy has a bad D, always has, and still does. The difference is that QB play and the success of the O can help mask the defense. That defense is still one of the worst in the NFL. They have a bad pass defense and a bad run defense. Its just not as blatant because they get some time on the sidelines with an offense this year that can actually sustain some drives.

 

Dont get me wrong, coaching is and always will be important. But the true difference in the 3 seasons of the Colts has been the QB...D is mostly the same over that span...bad all 3 years...but the QB play is what separates them from top of the draft and playoffs

Edited November 15, 2012 by Alphadawg7

[K-9]

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.

 

I'm not assuming anything. History says I'm right. No team that I can find (and it's only been a cursory search) has EVER had a .200 winning percentage when averaging 28 points or more. There have been 64 teams in history to average 28 points or more. The closest I can find are the 2004 Chiefs who averaged 30 points and had a winning percentage of .438 as their D gave up an average of 27 a game. I guess as long as your offense average more than your defense gives up you'll win more games on average. But that's a helluva tall order. For the Bills to do that this year, we'd have to average MORE than the 32 points per game we currently give up. Only 14 teams in NFL history have done that and their average winning percentage is over .800.

 

There have been only 5 teams IN NFL HISTORY to give up as many points as this defense currently gives up and we have a far better winning percentage than all of them.

 

Everyone understands your point about every game being it's own tapestry and if one thread is different then so is the entire work. We also understand nobody will EVER confuse Fitz with being more than an average QB AT BEST. But we don't have to get that philosophical to know that the Bills would need a historically great offense just to keep pace with their historically bad defense.

 

It is simply NOT the other way around.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited November 15, 2012 by K-9

[shibuya]

that was the plan.

 

Need proof go look at Flutie's best year as a Bill. his numbers are well under Fitz's overall.. but Flutie had a top 5 D that year, and most games were low scoring affairs

 

 

If we had a top 10 D we would be talking playoffs, and no that does not mean I still wouldn't want to upgrade the QB position if the chance comes about

 

But the entire thought process was our D was going to be so good that Fitz would only have to manage games

[Gavin in Va Beach]

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.

 

Sheeeeet. If our crappy QB could get us to a wild card game and a quick playoff exit I'd cry tears of joy and petition to put him on the Wall of Fame.

[Alphadawg7]

I'm not assuming anything. History says I'm right. No team that I can find (and it's only been a cursory search) has EVER had a .200 winning percentage when averaging 28 points or more. There have been 64 teams in history to average 28 points or more. The closest I can find are the 2004 Chiefs who averaged 30 points and had a winning percentage of .438 as their D gave up an average of 27 a game. I guess as long as your offense average more than your defense gives up you'll win more games on average. But that's a helluva tall order. For the Bills to do that this year, we'd have to average MORE than the 32 points per game we currently give up. Only 14 teams in NFL history have done that and their average winning percentage is over .800.

 

Everyone understands your point about every game being it's own tapestry and if one thread is different then so is the entire work. We also understand nobody will EVER confuse Fitz with being more than an average QB AT BEST. But we don't have to get that philosophical to know that the Bills would need a historically great offense just to keep pace with their historically bad defense.

 

It is simply NOT the other way around.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I agree with this and what you said. I was just pointing out that changing the D doesnt change the other ailments that have contributed to our losses. Again, no doubt this team would be better overall with a better D, I mean its absurd how bad its been. I am just not convinced that Fitz and Chan wouldnt still make enough mistakes to still cost us games because they have stripped me of my faith in them to make good decisions in crunch time based on their individual performances. I mean this team makes so many mental mistakes (Chans responsibility), bad play calls, poor choices throwing, ill timed fumbles, etc that its hard for me to see us being that much better if we had a better D. An Elite D, sure, but an average D instead of an atrocious D and I dont know we win that many more games.

[San-O]

YES: Well, maybe. FItz is not a starting QB.

 

 

IF!

 

1. Defense really was a top tier D, yards, scoring, takw aways.

2. Gailey stopped with the nutty wildcat garbage and limited Sh*tzy's throwing to 15 - 20 passes a game. Won't happen.

3. Ran the BALL!

[KD in CA]

Sheeeeet. If our crappy QB could get us to a wild card game and a quick playoff exit I'd cry tears of joy and petition to put him on the Wall of Fame.

 

LOL --- I hear ya. Anything even close to playoff-related would be a welcome improvement.

 

How come people here never ask "if we had a top 10 QB, could we win with our crappy defense"?

[Dean Cain]

Remember last year the first 7 games? Fitzpatrick was 5-2 thanks in large part to a defense & special teams that made huge plays. If our defense doesn't create turnovers and our special teams is pedestrian than of course our average QB won't look good. Look at Jay Cutler in Chicago. I saw a stat the other night saying the Bears Defense & Special Teams accounts for 21% of their total scoring, which is something like 9% higher than the next team.

 

If Ryan Fitzpatrick was in Chicago the Bears would likely be 6-3 or 5-4. Right now they are 7-2, but I'd argue they'd still be a winner with Fitzpatrick.

[RyanC883]

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.

 

This seems about right. We would make a wildcard, perhaps even win the division given how bad the Pats D is, but we wouldn't win more than one playoff game.

[Alphadawg7]

Remember last year the first 7 games? Fitzpatrick was 5-2 thanks in large part to a defense & special teams that made huge plays. If our defense doesn't create turnovers and our special teams is pedestrian than of course our average QB won't look good. Look at Jay Cutler in Chicago. I saw a stat the other night saying the Bears Defense & Special Teams accounts for 21% of their total scoring, which is something like 9% higher than the next team.

 

If Ryan Fitzpatrick was in Chicago the Bears would likely be 6-3 or 5-4. Right now they are 7-2, but I'd argue they'd still be a winner with Fitzpatrick.

 

Thats because the Bears D has 8 TD's on the year which helps the percieved offensive production on the score board. The Bears D has 2 more TD's than Forte and Bush combined. The Bears D is the second leading source of offensive points for that team behind only Cutler. Thats insane, especially on a team with Bush and Forte.

 

If our team had that, sure, this team would have a different record. But thats so incredibly rare and harder than just finding a better QB.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Alphadawg7

[benderbender]

A better question would be if Fitz was not a bottom 10 QB, would our D have won more games?

[DrDawkinstein]

A better question would be if Fitz was not a bottom 10 QB, would our D have won more games?

 

Bottom 10 in which way? He's top-half in Rating and Comp%, and top 10 in TDs...

http://espn.go.com/n...12/seasontype/2

 

 

And YES, without a doubt, if we had a top-10 defense right now we would be more like 6-3 instead of 3-6.

 

I believe someone already showed if we just had the 27th ranked D, instead of 32, we would be 7-2.

Edited November 15, 2012 by DrDareustein