Bryce Paup Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 How well our defense does, is directly related to how fast the offense ran off the field. I dont even care about points any more, we MUST HAVE sustained drives. Our defense was hung out to dry. Couldn't have said it any better.
dave mcbride Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 How well our defense does, is directly related to how fast the offense ran off the field. I dont even care about points any more, we MUST HAVE sustained drives. Our defense was hung out to dry. The Bills ran 68 plays yesterday, and the Saints ran a below-NFL-average 64 plays.The Bills gained 4.4 yards per play and the Saints 6 yards per play. Against Miami, the Bills ran 66 plays and Miami 64. The Bengals ran 72 plays in regulation to the Bills' 64. 72 is in the average range. The Bills ran 75 offensive plays in the Browns game. The Browns had 65. The evidence-free madness about the Bills allowing opposing teams to run too many offensive plays has to stop. Please!
thebandit27 Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 The Bills ran 68 plays yesterday, and the Saints ran a below-NFL-average 64 plays.The Bills gained 4.4 yards per play and the Saints 6 yards per play. Against Miami, the Bills ran 66 plays and Miami 64. The Bengals ran 72 plays in regulation to the Bills' 64. 72 is in the average range. The Bills ran 75 offensive plays in the Browns game. The Browns had 65. The evidence-free madness about the Bills allowing opposing teams to run too many offensive plays has to stop. Please! I don't think it's so much about number of plays, but rather how quickly the team gives the ball back to their opponent. Coming into this week's game, the team ranked in a tie for last place in the NFL in Time of Possession per Drive, according to Football Outsiders: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats To me, that says that they just aren't giving their defense enough of a spell when they have the ball...in fact, I'm not sure how one could read that any other way.
mattsox Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Our defense has been a little more fun to watch at times, but it isn't much better than it was last year. Discuss. You Want Wannstadt Back???
dave mcbride Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 I don't think it's so much about number of plays, but rather how quickly the team gives the ball back to their opponent. Coming into this week's game, the team ranked in a tie for last place in the NFL in Time of Possession per Drive, according to Football Outsiders: http://www.footballo...tats/drivestats To me, that says that they just aren't giving their defense enough of a spell when they have the ball...in fact, I'm not sure how one could read that any other way. I don't buy this. To paraphrase Parcells, the numbers are what they are. Opposing teams simply aren't benefiting from short Bills possessions. In 3 of the last 4 games, the Bills offense has ran more plays than their opponents, and the number of plays those offenses have run has been lower than average. This excuse just isn't valid.
reddogblitz Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 The Bengals ran 72 plays in regulation to the Bills' 64. 72 is in the average range. The Bills ran 75 offensive plays in the Browns game. The Browns had 65. The evidence-free madness about the Bills allowing opposing teams to run too many offensive plays has to stop. Please! Come on Dave, stop trying to confuse us with facts.
thebandit27 Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 I don't buy this. To paraphrase Parcells, the numbers are what they are. Opposing teams simply aren't benefiting from short Bills possessions. In 3 of the last 4 games, the Bills offense has ran more plays than their opponents, and the number of plays those offenses have run has been lower than average. This excuse just isn't valid. I'm not sure what it is that you aren't buying...the numbers, in this case, speak for themselves. The team is dead last in the league in time of possession per drive, which means that the defense has the least amount of time in the entire league to rest between possessions. Now, if you think that doesn't affect their play, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
dave mcbride Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure what it is that you aren't buying...the numbers, in this case, speak for themselves. The team is dead last in the league in time of possession per drive, which means that the defense has the least amount of time in the entire league to rest between possessions. Now, if you think that doesn't affect their play, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I should clarify - I don't think that it's time of possession per se that affects performance, but the number of plays in which you have to go all out. The fewer the plays, the less exertion you have to put forth. Moreover, there are so many goddamn TV timeouts and standing around between plays in football that the raw time that's run off the clock by an offense strikes me as meaningless. Edited October 28, 2013 by dave mcbride
reddogblitz Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 I'm not sure what it is that you aren't buying...the numbers, in this case, speak for themselves. The team is dead last in the league in time of possession per drive, which means that the defense has the least amount of time in the entire league to rest between possessions. Now, if you think that doesn't affect their play, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I keep reading this on here. But, the difference between the POS we got now and if it were even, the defense would be on the field for about 2:18 longer per game than they are now over the course of 3 hours. That's what, 5 or 6 plays? Could that make our defense to go from top 10 to the bottom 1/4th of the league in YPG and PPG? Doesn't even pass the sniff test. And our offense doesn't go 3 and out on every drive. They had several long drive yesterday that gave the D time to rest. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
The Big Cat Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Lost in all this flim flam time of possession this, it's the offense's fault that, I think we're all seriously overlooking the CRIPPLING third down penalties we've committed...REPEATEDLY...often allowing eventual touchdowns. Happened twice Sunday. Happened against Carolina. Happens all the time, it seems.
thewildrabbit Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Stats wise they do? You should take a look at those stats side by side. 2012 finished #22 in yards allowed #26 in points allowed. 2013 .............#26 in yards allowed #25 in points allowed. Buffalo ended the 2012 season #31st against the run. Currently the Bills are 30th against the run! See what I was referring to?
The Big Cat Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 2012 finished #22 in yards allowed #26 in points allowed. 2013 .............#26 in yards allowed #25 in points allowed. Buffalo ended the 2012 season #31st against the run. Currently the Bills are 30th against the run! See what I was referring to? Oh, you're citing total yards as a viable statistic? My heavens.
dave mcbride Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Lost in all this flim flam time of possession this, it's the offense's fault that, I think we're all seriously overlooking the CRIPPLING third down penalties we've committed...REPEATEDLY...often allowing eventual touchdowns. Happened twice Sunday. Happened against Carolina. Happens all the time, it seems. It does. We seem to hold a lot -- partly because it appears that we often get away with it (i.e., Gilmore yesterday).
SactoBillFan Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Because he's better than Wannstadt by a mile.
Johnny Hammersticks Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 I prefer stopping the run and getting off the field on 3rd downs!!! Oh you and your silly "facts"! We want none of that here. The question posted by the OP was why does anyone love Pettine so much. I proposed that it's because we pressure the QB more, get more QB sacks/hits, and subsequently create more turnovers. Overall, a much more aggressive and exotic style of defense. It's more fun to watch, so Bills fans are happy to have Pettine around. Much better than Wanny anyway. Do I realize that our run defense and 3rd down stop percentage could improve? Yes, and thank you for your brilliant insight. I was merely responding to the OP's question, not attempting to solve all of the problems with the defense.
The Big Cat Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 2012 finished #22 in yards allowed #26 in points allowed. 2013 .............#26 in yards allowed #25 in points allowed. Buffalo ended the 2012 season #31st against the run. Currently the Bills are 30th against the run! See what I was referring to? How come you left out yards per carry (3.9 in 2013 vs 5.0 in 2012)? Or the fact that we had (through seven weeks) the same number interceptions we had all of last year? What about sacks? 36 in 16 weeks vs. 27 in 8. How do those things look on paper?
Nix Buddy Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Our defense has been a little more fun to watch at times, but it isn't much better than it was last year. Discuss. I've been wondering where the Bills got this double dose kool-aid from that they have been feeding the fans. I see very little improvement compared to the last 13 years. The record is just about the same as the last 13 years, with the average margin of loss decreasing slightly. These are the stats for the past 13 years midway through the season: 2000: 4-4 Average Margin Loss (AML): 7 pts. 2001: 1-7 AML: 12.1 pts 2002: 5-3 AML: 9.6 pts 2003: 4-4 AML: 20 pts 2004: 3-5 AML: 7.2 pts 2005: 3-5 AML: 12.4 pts 2006: 3-5 AML: 13 pts 2007: 4-4 AML: 14 pts 2008: 5-3 AML: 14 pts 2009: 3-5 AML: 14.6 pts 2010: 0-8 AML: 10.3 pts 2011: 5-3 AML: 7.3 pts 2012: 3-5 AML: 19.9 pts 2013: 3-5 AML: 8.6 pts In the past 13 years the Bills have had 6 seasons with a better start record wise, 5 seasons with the same starting record, and 2 seasons that started worse. In the five seasons in which we started 3-5, the AML is 12.4 pts. This years team is allowing a little more than a field goal in less points per loss. I am having a hard time seeing the postivies that so many Bills fans are talking about.
Malazan Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Put last years o with this years d, and the d is a top 10 unit. For one, the d would be on the field much less. ^this. The Defense has been on the field for an inordinate amount of time.
Jauronimo Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 If you post one statistic or metric in order to argue that the Bills defense has not improved, please provide conclusive evidence that this one stat or metric drives (W-L) outcomes. If you are going to make a compelling argument, you're best served including several defensive statistics and comparing them to last year both in relative and quantitative terms.
reddogblitz Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 I've been wondering where the Bills got this double dose kool-aid from that they have been feeding the fans. I see very little improvement compared to the last 13 years. The record is just about the same as the last 13 years, with the average margin of loss decreasing slightly. These are the stats for the past 13 years midway through the season: 2000: 4-4 Average Margin Loss (AML): 7 pts. 2001: 1-7 AML: 12.1 pts 2002: 5-3 AML: 9.6 pts 2003: 4-4 AML: 20 pts 2004: 3-5 AML: 7.2 pts 2005: 3-5 AML: 12.4 pts 2006: 3-5 AML: 13 pts 2007: 4-4 AML: 14 pts 2008: 5-3 AML: 14 pts 2009: 3-5 AML: 14.6 pts 2010: 0-8 AML: 10.3 pts 2011: 5-3 AML: 7.3 pts 2012: 3-5 AML: 19.9 pts 2013: 3-5 AML: 8.6 pts In the past 13 years the Bills have had 6 seasons with a better start record wise, 5 seasons with the same starting record, and 2 seasons that started worse. In the five seasons in which we started 3-5, the AML is 12.4 pts. This years team is allowing a little more than a field goal in less points per loss. I am having a hard time seeing the postivies that so many Bills fans are talking about. And I would add to this that for the last 13 years, especially under Jauron and Gailey, we could beat the bad teams, but lose to the good teams. In our 8 games so far we've beaten teams with records of 2-5, 3-4, and 4-3. We've lost to teams with records of 7-1, 6-1, 4-4, 6-2, and 3-4. Still not seeing the difference. At some point we have to start beating the good teams too. When that happens I'll think have changed.
Recommended Posts