The Big Cat Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Are you nine years old? Bottom line is the based on the number of takeaways the Bills should be winning more games, I dont see how this is an argument. My point was to show how far away we really are as a team and how past history can potential repeat itself. (Which never happens with the Bills) No. And if you're going to shift your premise, fine. But your original argument was that the turnovers were lucky and were sure to run out like they did in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Through the first 7 games the Bills are leading the NFL in interceptions (12) and are second in the AFC in total takeaways (15). Kudos to our defensive making plays and keeping us in games. But is this sustainable? A lot of these turnovers have been gifts. The luck eventually will run out, more than likely. We have made some great defensive plays resulting in turnovers, but a majority have just been boneheaded turnovers by the opposition. This start reminds me a lot of the 2011 Bills that started 5-2 and had 18 total takeaways through the first seven games. We all know the rest... the ball stopped bouncing our way and we went on a 7 game losing streak (only 8 takeaways over this span). What is even more concerning is our record (3-4) based on our number of takeaways. In the AFC through 7 games there are 5 teams who have 11+ takeaways. These 5 teams have a combined record of 26-9. Against BAL we had 5 interceptions and won by 3 points. I can't think of another team in the NFL that intercepts a QB 5 times in a game and wins by 3 points. FIVE! No. And if you're going to shift your premise, fine. But your original argument was that the turnovers were lucky and were sure to run out like they did in 2011. Watch how I can nitpick too. "But your original argument was that the turnovers were lucky and were sure to run out like they did in 2011." "start reminds me a lot of" "The luck eventually will run out, more than likely." The original argument the OP made had nothing to do with "sure to run out" or anything of that sort. He said it reminded him of 2011, a few lucky plays to stay in games. Sorry. He actually even stated "The luck eventually will run out, more than likely." Does that sound like sure to run out? Or more than likely? You're using a classical argumentative tactic that twists the opponents words into absolutes that cannot logically be defended. Good try. Let's move on to my next little point. "And if you're going to shift your premise[to based on the number of takeaways the Bills should be winning more game], fine. But your original argument was that the turnovers were lucky and were sure to run out like they did in 2011." Except, if you read the OP instead of racing to argue, you would know he did say that. He's not shifting the premise because it was part of the premise. Look! "Against BAL we had 5 interceptions and won by 3 points. I can't think of another team in the NFL that intercepts a QB 5 times in a game and wins by 3 points." Look at that, "we should be playing better with all these turnovers", in all of it's glory. Sorry again. You did really well to the casual observer, but you just couldn't trick me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Watch how I can nitpick too. "But your original argument was that the turnovers were lucky and were sure to run out like they did in 2011." "start reminds me a lot of" "The luck eventually will run out, more than likely." The original argument the OP made had nothing to do with "sure to run out" or anything of that sort. He said it reminded him of 2011, a few lucky plays to stay in games. Sorry. He actually even stated "The luck eventually will run out, more than likely." Does that sound like sure to run out? Or more than likely? You're using a classical argumentative tactic that twists the opponents words into absolutes that cannot logically be defended. Good try. Let's move on to my next little point. "And if you're going to shift your premise[to based on the number of takeaways the Bills should be winning more game], fine. But your original argument was that the turnovers were lucky and were sure to run out like they did in 2011." Except, if you read the OP instead of racing to argue, you would know he did say that. He's not shifting the premise because it was part of the premise. Look! "Against BAL we had 5 interceptions and won by 3 points. I can't think of another team in the NFL that intercepts a QB 5 times in a game and wins by 3 points." Look at that, "we should be playing better with all these turnovers", in all of it's glory. Sorry again. You did really well to the casual observer, but you just couldn't trick me. Oh, the lengths to which you'll go to tell everyone how much you think this team sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Takeaways are never sustainable. They tend to come in bunches and at some point dry up. Good run defense is much more reliable for a D than takeaways. It's a concern as the Bills run D has been pretty bad. Takeaways are keeping us in games now with an unreliable passing game and two banged up RB's. When they do dry up, Bills D will be exposed and wins will be harder to come by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp2Warlick Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Gil Brandt @Gil_Brandt 11m Since 2008, @NFL team w/ starting QB w/ higher pass rating wins 80% of time. Team that commits fewer TOs wins 79% of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 No it can't. Every team in the NFL deals with injuries, we just assume the Bills are hard done by because we love them. Rookies and brand new coaches never have success in the NFL... The argument is other teams are getting right around the same amount of takeaways, the most important stat in deciding games, and we are not turning this monumental positive into wins. I hope we can continue to turn the corner and play a full season without a stretch of CFL caliber football. I suggest the Bills start turning these takeaways into touchdowns and stop getting bailed out by our defense. Easier said than done. The takeaways are not always going to be there. Based on our first 7 games we have no chance without continued giveaways and takeaways. Defense is 50% of the game. It's not a "bail out" when the defense plays great as a unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juice_32 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 If losses are never good, then wins can never be bad. He walked right into that one. I see what you did there...and I like it. Well played sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Oh, the lengths to which you'll go to tell everyone how much you think this team sucks. Looks like you're waving the white flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Looks like you're waving the white flag. It's really not worth parsing rhetoric when we all know what the intent of OP was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 But is this sustainable? A lot of these turnovers have been gifts. The luck eventually will run out, more than likely. We have made some great defensive plays resulting in turnovers, but a majority have just been boneheaded turnovers by the opposition. I can't understand how you think our turnovers are lucky or gifts. I can only recall one such gift, which was Steven ridley's fumble. Everything else was earned, including a number of beautiful picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 He walked right into that one. I see what you did there...and I like it. Well played sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) I can't understand how you think our turnovers are lucky or gifts. I can only recall one such gift, which was Steven ridley's fumble. Everything else was earned, including a number of beautiful picks. Tannehill's second pick was a "gift" in the sense that it was a ball that should've never been thrown. AW was standing right there to make the play. Stuff like that isn't going to happen all the time. It's a great play by AW still, but it's not always gonna be there. Some of Flacco's picks were "gifts" in the sense that there's luck involved. Leonhard pirouetting in mid air to catch a deflected pass is skillful, but 9 out of 10 times he wouldn't be in the perfect position to catch it. And you could make the argument if we only picked off Flacco 4 time we could've lost. Which is troubling. It's really not worth parsing rhetoric when we all know what the intent of OP was. If losses are never good, then wins can never be bad. Interesting that you no longer want to "parse rhetoric." You seemed quite agreeable to use it to make your point hours ago. If you're not worried about a late season collapse or a cold streak for the next couple games, you haven't been watching the Bills enough. The writing is on the wall already, and while it might be useless graffiti, it's usually a premonition. I especially remember bashing posters who were saying this exact same thing in 2011. That's why my tune has changed. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm worried I'm not. Edited October 22, 2013 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Tannehill's second pick was a "gift" in the sense that it was a ball that should've never been thrown. AW was standing right there to make the play. Stuff like that isn't going to happen all the time. It's a great play by AW still, but it's not always gonna be there. Some of Flacco's picks were "gifts" in the sense that there's luck involved. Leonhard pirouetting in mid air to catch a deflected pass is skillful, but 9 out of 10 times he wouldn't be in the perfect position to catch it. And you could make the argument if we only picked off Flacco 4 time we could've lost. Which is troubling. I guess. But it's not like balls have been deflected 20 yards into the air and picked off. Our guys made good plays on almost every pick that was thrown. Kiko's been great in zone coverage. Robey made a Charles Woodson-esque move on the ball. I don't think any of the DB's have missed an opportunity when they've gotten both hands on the ball. The way these turnovers have been created makes me think it's more of a product of good skill plays, and less a product of happenstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) Tannehill's second pick was a "gift" in the sense that it was a ball that should've never been thrown. AW was standing right there to make the play. Stuff like that isn't going to happen all the time. It's a great play by AW still, but it's not always gonna be there. Some of Flacco's picks were "gifts" in the sense that there's luck involved. Leonhard pirouetting in mid air to catch a deflected pass is skillful, but 9 out of 10 times he wouldn't be in the perfect position to catch it. And you could make the argument if we only picked off Flacco 4 time we could've lost. Which is troubling. Interesting that you no longer want to "parse rhetoric." You seemed quite agreeable to use it to make your point hours ago. If you're not worried about a late season collapse or a cold streak for the next couple games, you haven't been watching the Bills enough. The writing is on the wall already, and while it might be useless graffiti, it's usually a premonition. I especially remember bashing posters who were saying this exact same thing in 2011. That's why my tune has changed. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm worried I'm not. That was the old regime under your "FireChan" namesake. WTH does that have to do with this version of the Bills under an entirely different coaching staff that's led my Marrone? Stop being so fatalistic. Edited October 23, 2013 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Our wins have been predicated on forcing turnovers. That's fine as they seem to be consistent doing it. Once the offense gets up to full strength I don't think it will be needed. As others have said, our defense is actually pretty good this year as opposed to in 2011 we had a few crazy games and at time were getting absolutely blown out before the team woke up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 If losses are never good, then wins can never be bad. I've got about a dozen threads that will disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 The unsustainable argument doesn't hold. Sorry. The unsustainable argument doesn't hold, that's true. But it doesn't hold because what they're doing, in terms of turnovers, isn't that impressive. The Bills D ranks 15th in the league in turnovers per drive at .146. That's middle of the pack and certainly sustainable. Compare that to the league leader Chicago whose turnover per drive is .250 (1/4 of all drives against their D end in turnovers.) I'd say Chicago's number is unsustainable. As others have said, our defense is actually pretty good this year as opposed to in 2011 The D this year is middle of the pack as opposed to the past few years of being abysmal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) The unsustainable argument doesn't hold, that's true. But it doesn't hold because what they're doing, in terms of turnovers, isn't that impressive. The Bills D ranks 15th in the league in turnovers per drive at .146. That's middle of the pack and certainly sustainable. Compare that to the league leader Chicago whose turnover per drive is .250 (1/4 of all drives against their D end in turnovers.) I'd say Chicago's number is unsustainable. The D this year is middle of the pack as opposed to the past few years of being abysmal. Do you know where to find our TO's per drive for 2011? That was the old regime under your "FireChan" name. WTH does that have to do with this version of the Bills under an entirely different coaching staff that's led my Marrone? Stop being so fatalistic. Because I've heard, "this team is different, they are playing with fire this year" for too long. Edited October 23, 2013 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 .... What is even more concerning is our record (3-4) based on our number of takeaways. In the AFC through 7 games there are 5 teams who have 11+ takeaways. These 5 teams have a combined record of 26-9. .... Whether intentional or not, the numbers you have chosen here are very cherry picked to suit your argument. Perhaps better numbers are.....NFL wide.....8 teams with 13+ takeaways. These 8 teams have a combined record of 32-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Whether intentional or not, the numbers you have chosen here are very cherry picked to suit your argument. Perhaps better numbers are.....NFL wide.....8 teams with 13+ takeaways. These 8 teams have a combined record of 32-22. So still better overall record than the Bills? An argument like this is difficult to numbers that aren't skewed for different reasons. The Giants could have forced 3 takeaways a game this season, and Eli could've thrown 4 picks and still have a losing record. Edited October 23, 2013 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts