ESPN...Teams targeting tired Bills D

[JÂy RÛßeÒ]

This is the jist of Marrone's response to the question of whether the O should slow down - that in his view, it's really a problem of 3rd down conversions, our O not getting enough and our D allowing too many. Valid point - if the D gets the stop and gets off the field, they don't get worn down. If the O converts and stays on the field, the D can sit down.

THANK YOU! Why is everybody solely blaming the offence for the defense being tired? Hey D - why don't you FORCE some 3 and outs to get yourselves some rest? Both units have an equal say in how long the D is on the field.

[boyst]

THANK YOU! Why is everybody solely blaming the offence for the defense being tired? Hey D - why don't you FORCE some 3 and outs to get yourselves some rest? Both units have an equal say in how long the D is on the field.

When you win ball games you do not blame the offense. Look at NE the last few years. Their offense outscored most opponents and their defense was among the worst in the league and on the field a lot.

 

NE could not keep their defense off the field in many games because their offense could not stay on the field. The only difference there vs. here was that NE scored and then turned it over. We turn it over then they score.

[apuszczalowski]

THANK YOU! Why is everybody solely blaming the offence for the defense being tired? Hey D - why don't you FORCE some 3 and outs to get yourselves some rest? Both units have an equal say in how long the D is on the field.

Yup, cause then in a couple minutes your going to be right back on the field when the offence goes 3 and out AGAIN putting you back on the field. Only difference is the offence was given a longer rest cause the other team stayed on the field for a little while longer since their offence didn't try and rush things.

 

Of course the problem is the offence is executing, any moron knows that. Its easy to say that an offence or defence just needs to execute the plays better. Its easy to say that the defence just needs to force the other teams offence into a 3 and out every time, or stop the run. Its easy to say that the WRs just need to get open, or catch the ball, etc. The point is that just saying that they need to execute things better is easy to say, but not fixing anything.

 

Right now the defence is spending way to much time on the field. Some of it is their fault for not just "stopping the other teams offence" to get them off the field, but its not helping that the offence can't sustain drives. Its also not helping that the offence they are running is intended to be fast/quick, and not eating up clock

[K-9]

Yup, cause then in a couple minutes your going to be right back on the field when the offence goes 3 and out AGAIN putting you back on the field. Only difference is the offence was given a longer rest cause the other team stayed on the field for a little while longer since their offence didn't try and rush things.

 

Of course the problem is the offence is executing, any moron knows that. Its easy to say that an offence or defence just needs to execute the plays better. Its easy to say that the defence just needs to force the other teams offence into a 3 and out every time, or stop the run. Its easy to say that the WRs just need to get open, or catch the ball, etc. The point is that just saying that they need to execute things better is easy to say, but not fixing anything.

 

Right now the defence is spending way to much time on the field. Some of it is their fault for not just "stopping the other teams offence" to get them off the field, but its not helping that the offence can't sustain drives. Its also not helping that the offence they are running is intended to be fast/quick, and not eating up clock

 

I'll ask again: is anyone willing to calculate, based on their 3rd down conversion rate so far this season, exactly how much time and extra "rest" the offense would have provided the defense if they had used the maximum time between plays?

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that it ain't much time at all.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Cash]

I'll ask again: is anyone willing to calculate, based on their 3rd down conversion rate so far this season, exactly how much time and extra "rest" the offense would have provided the defense if they had used the maximum time between plays?

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that it ain't much time at all.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Umm... that's not how facts work.

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that I'm the world's greatest lover.

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that 3D movies are overrated.

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that the moon landing was faked.

 

My real points are two:

 

1.) If you want something proved so badly, you do the work. What is this thing where your counterargument is "once you do my homework for me, I'll prove you wrong!"? If we wanted to be bossed around, we'd go back to our day jobs as butlers instead of putzing around on a message board.

 

2.) Even if someone had the time or inclination to do your homework for you, there's no point. The hypothetical time savings will be more than 30 seconds and less than 30 minutes. Whatever it is, you would probably look at it and think, "not a significant amount." Someone arguing to scrap the no-huddle would probably look at it and think, "very significant." I'm neutral on the whole no-huddle thing (my only stance is that the O & D are both bad and I would like them to improve; it's not my job to come up with how), but it's certainly plausible that the lack of rest is tiring out the D to a point where it affects their play. And so far, the run defense stats support that argument. It's also plausible that even a small amount of additional rest could pay off, because sometimes when your at the extremes, even very small marginal gains can have significant effects. And so far this year, our defense has certainly been at the extreme of lack of rest. Now, maybe with more rest, they'd still be just as bad; that's possible. But it's at least plausible that a little extra rest here and there would keep them fresher in the second half.

[26TrapDraw]

"My left quad got worn down with 2:00 to go in the 4th Qtr." Alex Carrington

This right here sums it all up folks. Nate can't Hackett's three and out machine is putting our defense in a tough position. The offense is suppose to gas the opposing D and have the advantage of finding personnel mismatches because the D can't sub in quick enough. The offense is effective when it actually moves the ball . Since rookie QB can't make more than one read and can't get into a rythym three and out hurts only our defense . Everyone knows the numbers game and if your D is out there 60% of the time,your not only gassing your own D but also increasing their chance for injury as they wear down. I hope this Rookie coaching staff can make adjustments. Our hospital wing of a roster won't be able to take much more. There's talent here no doubt. That is why we've been competitive. But at this rate there will be no one left. Here's hoping they are good enough coaches to realize they are in deep trouble.

[K-9]

Umm... that's not how facts work.

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that I'm the world's greatest lover.

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that 3D movies are overrated.

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that the moon landing was faked.

 

My real points are two:

 

1.) If you want something proved so badly, you do the work. What is this thing where your counterargument is "once you do my homework for me, I'll prove you wrong!"? If we wanted to be bossed around, we'd go back to our day jobs as butlers instead of putzing around on a message board.

 

2.) Even if someone had the time or inclination to do your homework for you, there's no point. The hypothetical time savings will be more than 30 seconds and less than 30 minutes. Whatever it is, you would probably look at it and think, "not a significant amount." Someone arguing to scrap the no-huddle would probably look at it and think, "very significant." I'm neutral on the whole no-huddle thing (my only stance is that the O & D are both bad and I would like them to improve; it's not my job to come up with how), but it's certainly plausible that the lack of rest is tiring out the D to a point where it affects their play. And so far, the run defense stats support that argument. It's also plausible that even a small amount of additional rest could pay off, because sometimes when your at the extremes, even very small marginal gains can have significant effects. And so far this year, our defense has certainly been at the extreme of lack of rest. Now, maybe with more rest, they'd still be just as bad; that's possible. But it's at least plausible that a little extra rest here and there would keep them fresher in the second half.

 

So, you're not willing to do the work, either, I see. Can't say as I blame you.

 

While I enjoyed the dissertation on what a fact is, I think you missed my larger point.

 

My apologies if I didn't make that clear enough.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[HeHateMe]

Umm... that's not how facts work.

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that I'm the world's greatest lover.

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that 3D movies are overrated.

 

Until somebody proves otherwise using real numbers, I'm officially saying it's a FACT that the moon landing was faked.

 

My real points are two:

 

1.) If you want something proved so badly, you do the work. What is this thing where your counterargument is "once you do my homework for me, I'll prove you wrong!"? If we wanted to be bossed around, we'd go back to our day jobs as butlers instead of putzing around on a message board.

 

2.) Even if someone had the time or inclination to do your homework for you, there's no point. The hypothetical time savings will be more than 30 seconds and less than 30 minutes. Whatever it is, you would probably look at it and think, "not a significant amount." Someone arguing to scrap the no-huddle would probably look at it and think, "very significant." I'm neutral on the whole no-huddle thing (my only stance is that the O & D are both bad and I would like them to improve; it's not my job to come up with how), but it's certainly plausible that the lack of rest is tiring out the D to a point where it affects their play. And so far, the run defense stats support that argument. It's also plausible that even a small amount of additional rest could pay off, because sometimes when your at the extremes, even very small marginal gains can have significant effects. And so far this year, our defense has certainly been at the extreme of lack of rest. Now, maybe with more rest, they'd still be just as bad; that's possible. But it's at least plausible that a little extra rest here and there would keep them fresher in the second half.

 

What he said.

[RyanC883]

the play calling is the main issue. Who cares if we huddle up or not if we run CJ up the middle over and over again behind our terrible O-line. Perhaps let EJ make the play calls (he seems better than it than Hackett), or Hackett needs more time so a huddle would benefit him. At either rate, the play calling NEEDS to change.

Edited September 27, 2013 by RyanC883

[offsides#76FredSmerlas]

How terr

the play calling is the main issue. Who cares if we huddle up or not if we run CJ up the middle over and over again behind our terrible O-line. Perhaps let EJ make the play calls (he seems better than it than Hackett), or Hackett needs more time so a huddle would benefit him. At either rate, the play calling NEEDS to change.

I'm not sure how terrible are line is. You have a rookie hanging on to the ball to long and you have a Jets defense that blitzed us with more defenders then we could block every play. We can't run because they are bringing extra defenders up in the box. Our QB and receivers need to take advantage of those situations and then the D will back off and play more honest. Our line is not as a big a problem as you might think.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Running the offense fast or slow isn't the problem. Being predictable is the problem. When a defense knows you almost always going to go run-run-pass you're putting yourself at a serious disadvantage.

[apuszczalowski]

So, you're not willing to do the work, either, I see. Can't say as I blame you.

 

While I enjoyed the dissertation on what a fact is, I think you missed my larger point.

 

My apologies if I didn't make that clear enough.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Says the guy who isn't willing to do the work either, but will continue to tell you that its a fact

[K-9]

Says the guy who isn't willing to do the work either, but will continue to tell you that its a fact

 

Just trying to counter-balance those who spew as "fact" that the pace of the offense is what's making the defense so "tired."

 

Seems you, too, missed the larger point here as well. Apologies for not making it clearer.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[RyanC883]

How terr

I'm not sure how terrible are line is. You have a rookie hanging on to the ball to long and you have a Jets defense that blitzed us with more defenders then we could block every play. We can't run because they are bringing extra defenders up in the box. Our QB and receivers need to take advantage of those situations and then the D will back off and play more honest. Our line is not as a big a problem as you might think.

 

the depth of the O-line is the real problem.

[Sisyphean Bills]

OK, I'm bored.

 

Buffalo is 28th in the NFL with a 3rd down conversion rate of 31.1%. The average number of possessions is 10-14. Let's just say an average NFL play takes 5 seconds. Let's guess the Bills take 10 seconds off the 40 second play clock.

 

If both teams go as slow as possible, then there is 80 plays per game. If both teams go at the bogo-jack-rabbit pace, there are 240.

 

Now, nearly all NFL teams are more likely to get 1st downs based on 3rd down conversion rates than the Bills. Say the average is about 38%. That would mean that 7% more of the time, the average team is going to get a first down on 3rd down, whereas the Bills wouldn't. If we further pretend both teams play at a pretend Hackett-rabbit pace and wave our hands, we get that the opponent runs say 128.4 plays for 32:06 of possession. But, if the other team runs in slo-mo, then they might have a ToP of 48:15.

 

Of course, we could've just looked at the gamebooks and had real, true facts to deal with. The Bills are more than 10 minutes behind on average in ToP.

Time of Possession 24:47 35:12

http://www.nfl.com/teams/buffalobills/statistics?team=BUF

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

What a crok of BS.

 

The Bills D has practiced with the fast pace offense all through the offseason so they should be used to the tempo!!

 

The Bills D is tired because they can't get themselves off the field.

 

OK, I'm bored.

 

Buffalo is 28th in the NFL with a 3rd down conversion rate of 31.1%. The average number of possessions is 10-14. Let's just say an average NFL play takes 5 seconds. Let's guess the Bills take 10 seconds off the 40 second play clock.

 

per ESPN Stats page 3rd down conversion - 27th the 3-0 KC Chiefs

 

 

September 25, 2013 USA Today

• The Patriots' 30.8% red zone success rate is worst in the NFL
  
• Brady is ranked just 24th in passer rating, 26th in completion percentage and 33rd in average gain per attempt.
  
• Brady is ranked just 39.6 % on 3rd downs
  

 

Brady is ranked 20th on Passing yards

Edge (EJ) is ranked 23rd on Passing yards

Edited September 27, 2013 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[MDH]

Just trying to counter-balance those who spew as "fact" that the pace of the offense is what's making the defense so "tired."

 

Seems you, too, missed the larger point here as well. Apologies for not making it clearer.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Well, I'd say it's fairly obvious that it's a contributing factor. It's not the only factor, but an extra 6 minutes on the field is going to tire big guys out. Obviously they can help themselves out by getting off the field on third downs but that doesn't negate the position the offense puts them in.

 

Why do people need a single "right" answer? It's a combination off all of it.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Jeeeze guys. While all this clamoring to scrap the offense is happening, has anyone noticed the bills were within one score of every opponent thus far.

 

That might demand some tweaks, but it is hardly screaming for an overhaul...

 

Like it or not this is the future of the NFL. Fast paced high octane offenses with athletic players at every position.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Jeeeze guys. While all this clamoring to scrap the offense is happening, has anyone noticed the bills were within one score of every opponent thus far.

 

 

shhh you will ruin it for them

[QCity]

The uptempo has nothing to do with this.

 

This is where you're wrong. Dead wrong.