Alaska Darin Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 SEVEN drives that were 3 and out on Sunday. That just doesn't cut it. 192643[/snapback] Not when you needed 8.
LabattBlue Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 SEVEN drives that were 3 and out on Sunday. That just doesn't cut it. 192643[/snapback] The author of this thread used the word "clutch" in the post title.... Main Entry: clutch Function: adjective 1 : made or done in a crucial situation <a clutch hit> 2 : successful in a crucial situation <a clutch pitcher> Clutch defense is when you are down by 9 in the 4th quarter, playing against 2nd and 3rd stringers and your defense forces a 3 and out!
34-78-83 Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 Ahhh....The defensive apologists surface.Until they replace Fletcher, possibly Clements and find a pass rushing end, this defense will be good but never good enough. 192621[/snapback] Fletcher - Let's see... there is likely ONE middle/inside linebacker playing better than he this season in the AFC and that's Farrior. Clements - 6 picks, knack for getting to the endzone, did not get beat deep hardly at all this season. Get rid of him! I'll give you the pass rushing end, although Schobel is a complete player.
ganesh Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 SEVEN drives that were 3 and out on Sunday. That just doesn't cut it. 192643[/snapback] Going the other way, Seven drives from the Steelers chewed up the clock. Bottom line is both the OFfense and Defense have to take the blame for this fiasco. There was that one maddening drive where the steelers complete 3 or 4 3rd and Looooongs to prolog the drive.
BF_in_Indiana Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 Not when you needed 8. 192651[/snapback] He was speaking of our offense. Not the defense.
taterhill Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 I have never see a high quality D give up so many 3rd and longs in my life...I do like the increase in TO's though
ajzepp Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 Our defense has done MUCH more than the offense has to contribute to our success this season........and the same is also true of the game against Pittsburgh. The defense is not the problem.
ajzepp Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 I have never see a high quality D give up so many 3rd and longs in my life...I do like the increase in TO's though 193036[/snapback] Yeah, that is one area the D needs to improve on.....our D is not perfect by any means......but it's much more part of the solution than it is the problem....by far.
KD in CA Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 Every game that they failed (Jets, Steelers, Patriots) was a direct result of an inept offense with poor quarterback play. Go look at the time of posession for each of those games. It's tough to expect a defense to stop a crucial drive when they have been out there the entire game because the offense didn't move the ball or kept turning it over. 192455[/snapback] Gee, didja consider that the defense giving up an 8 minute drive might have some impact on the TOP stats? I'm glad to see you embracing the circular logic, since it's the only kind you appear capable of grasping. By the way, the Jets had the ball for 33 minutes, including their game winning drive after the inept quarterback threw a long TD pass to take the lead in the game. Congrats on the dumbest post of the day.
seq004 Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 While the defense has failed us in some games their would be no winning streak without them. They are a good defense that accels by take-aways not sacks. That said their biggest weakness is at the two ends. We STILL don't have a pass rusher who can put consistant pressure on the QB. How many times can you get a takeaway give it to Drew & Co only to come back on the field after another 3 & out? Every great defense has to have at least a ball control offense but not a high scoring one. Defense let us down, but far from the most glaring weakness on this team.
LabattBlue Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 We STILL don't have a pass rusher who can put consistant pressure on the QB. 193096[/snapback] So I guess now wouldn't be a good time to bring up the fact that one of those two starting DE's who you speak of, just got a huge contract extension during the season.
seq004 Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 So I guess now wouldn't be a good time to bring up the fact that one of those two starting DE's who you speak of, just got a huge contract extension during the season. 193101[/snapback] I was trying really hard to ignore that fact.
Gary M Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 Not when you needed 8. 192651[/snapback] I was talking about the Bills O.
Alaska Darin Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 I was talking about the Bills O. 193133[/snapback] Well they needed NONE, obviously.
Rat-boy Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 For the most part that is true, but in the games that I mentioned I guarantee y ou find a big gap in TOP. The offense couldn't stay on the field in any of those games that I mentioned. 192533[/snapback] Nice recovery following your earlier flawed argument BF! Way to fit the data to match your hypothesis. To which journal will you submit your paper for peer-review? You and the other anti-Bledsoe trolls have the vision of a horse with four pairs of blinders on. You constantly try to blame losses on DB. When the Bills win, they win "in spite of Drew." When they win six in a row you go away and are silent...only to return, OH-SO-VINDICATED when the Bills lose to Pitt, vocal as ever, crying for Drew's head...and every time you choose your data to fit your overwhelming hypothesis that Drew is the source of all Buffalo's ills. Do you have some narcissitic need for attention like ICE? Or do you just get high off saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over.... Nobody's arguing whether or not he had a lousy game against Pitt. Nobody's saying DB doesn't have glaring faults. Just TRY to accept that he's not the only player on this team who screwed up. As many have posted before, and AD reiterated in this thread: "Teams win and lose." Rarely does any NFL quarterback suck enough to have the entire game blamed on him. In the Pitt game, there was plenty of blame to go around. Drew gets his share of it.
ajzepp Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 As many have posted before, and AD reiterated in this thread: "Teams win and lose." Rarely does any NFL quarterback suck enough to have the entire game blamed on him. 193154[/snapback] I completely disagree with that.......there is no other player on the team who can affect the outcome of a game more than the QB. There are myriad examples of this in the NFL. Whether due to injury, ineffectiveness, etc......a change at QB can drastically change the course of a game and the course of a season. If this were not true, turnover differential would not be as powerful an indicator of success as it is.
Rat-boy Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 I completely disagree with that.......there is no other player on the team who can affect the outcome of a game more than the QB. There are myriad examples of this in the NFL. Whether due to injury, ineffectiveness, etc......a change at QB can drastically change the course of a game and the course of a season. If this were not true, turnover differential would not be as powerful an indicator of success as it is. 193166[/snapback] You fail to note that rarely do teams that change quarterbacks leave the playbook completely intact. Many changes are made to take advantages of the strengths of the new guy and minimize his weaknesses. Often there are many simplifications made so that the whole offense doesn't have to think as much. Thus, the change at QB resulting in success and changing a team's season often involves MUCH more than just a new guy behind the center.
ajzepp Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 You fail to note that rarely do teams that change quarterbacks leave the playbook completely intact. Many changes are made to take advantages of the strengths of the new guy and minimize his weaknesses. Often there are many simplifications made so that the whole offense doesn't have to think as much. Thus, the change at QB resulting in success and changing a team's season often involves MUCH more than just a new guy behind the center. 193174[/snapback] yeah, maybe........I just disagree that it's always a "team" win or loss and that the QB can't single-handedly win it or lose it. If the QB turns it over three times, it's hard to compensate for that. Certianly possible......especially if they have a set of TDs to match.......but many coaches consider turnover differential to be the greatest indicator of success in any given game. Our QB is known for having a problem in this department.
Rat-boy Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 yeah, maybe........I just disagree that it's always a "team" win or loss and that the QB can't single-handedly win it or lose it. If the QB turns it over three times, it's hard to compensate for that. Certianly possible......especially if they have a set of TDs to match.......but many coaches consider turnover differential to be the greatest indicator of success in any given game. Our QB is known for having a problem in this department. 193187[/snapback] Point conceded. It's not "always" a team win or loss. If you'll read my original post again, you'll notice I wrote "rarely". It certainly is possible for a bad game by the QB to result in a loss. I disagree only with those who blame EVERY loss by the Bills on Drew and Drew alone. Shouldn't their axe be ground to metal dust by now? Sheesh.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 The Steelers starting O-line are a dominating group. 15 Wins / 1 Loss in the NFL is not accomplished with smoke and mirrors. I don't believe the drop-off from 1st to 2nd / 3rd string offensive skill players is as relevant as that at the offensive lineman position. The concept that our D was man-handled by their subs is a perception that sells papers because it's an inflammatory indictment of our D's intestinal fortitude, but it's not an accurate portrayl of how they played. The Pitt O did little to achieve their halftime lead. After our O's long drive ended with Lindell's miss, Pitt was fortunate that on their first play Posey had a brain-fart and stood unblocked in the hole as the Steeler kid ran past him. But that crap happens in football, and against good teams, you're made to pay. As far as the 4th qtr goes, they just didn't have enough left to stop the best O-line in the league. I think our D is very good. I think our STs are very good. I think our O can be very good. But I'm a Mets fan, and as all Mets fans from a few years ago know, no matter what we might accomplish during the regular season, it would always come down to Armando Benitez coming up big in relief. He could have 40-something saves under his belt, but with the pressure on, in a big spot, he failed every time. You knew you could only get as far as Benitez would let you, and that's not far enough. I like Drew, but Bledsoe = Benitez.
Recommended Posts