Kirby Jackson Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I and probably Bandit as well just don't belive that ST's improving or declining will be the reason that the Bills turn it around. No one thinks that ST will turn the Bills around. As this team continues to improve little things could be the difference between the playoffs and not. ST can certainly make a difference in a few games and that could potentially be the difference in the playoffs, a home playoff game or a bye. Good ST may win you a game and bad ST may lose you a game. A 2 game swing is a big deal. It hasn't mattered that much recently because the Bills haven't been too competitive but it feels like they are getting there.
NoSaint Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I don't deny that April has had some good teams. He's had great ST's on craptastic Bill's teams. Didn't change much. I and probably Bandit as well just don't belive that ST's improving or declining will be the reason that the Bills turn it around. no, it probably wont be the reason by itself - but would it somehow hurt to improve the group? its not like anyone is advocating taking away from the offense or defense to do so, except possibly marrone if he keeps 5 more guys like easley who are good on special teams but he doesnt trust on offense or defense.
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I agree and I hate that phrase. If you want to break it down mathematically if say it's 1/5 of the game. Offense is 2/5ths, Defense is 2/5th and special teams is 1/5. Agree, good post, so let's say ST is about 20% of game --- BUT, let's keep in mind, the Bills lost 4 games by a collective 15 points (2, 7, 3 and 3) and won 4 gams by a collective 13 points (1,3,2 and 7) ---- so, ST can swing some wins/loses with one score that goes against you or for you ---- this year, I posted that I thought the Bills ST cost them 2 games and didn't win them any ---
offyourocker Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Does it make any sense that the Raiders retained Bobby April? I mean his ST unit did finish below Crossman. EDIT: Not that I think the Bills should be following the Raiders decisions. so what is your point?
Wayne Cubed Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) No one thinks that ST will turn the Bills around. As this team continues to improve little things could be the difference between the playoffs and not. ST can certainly make a difference in a few games and that could potentially be the difference in the playoffs, a home playoff game or a bye. Good ST may win you a game and bad ST may lose you a game. A 2 game swing is a big deal. It hasn't mattered that much recently because the Bills haven't been too competitive but it feels like they are getting there. Not that I don't believe you, but I think you would find it really hard to prove that ST's are good for +/- 2 games a year. I mean you could argue that long return's from the Bills/Pats game contributed them to losing. Or you could argue the Bills defense not being able to stop the ball contributed to it. Or you could argue the offense played inconsistently throughout the game. EDIT: And even saying that having the best ST unit and a mediocre offense/defense isn't good enough to break .500 as seen here in Buffalo. Edited January 8, 2014 by Wayne Cubed
thebandit27 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I agree and I hate that phrase. If you want to break it down mathematically if say it's 1/5 of the game. Offense is 2/5ths, Defense is 2/5th and special teams is 1/5. From a pure plays/game perspective, here's how the numbers look for the Bills in 2013: Average # of Offensive Plays/Game - 69.8 Average # of Defensive Plays/Game - 68.1 Average # of FG Attempts/Game - 2.2 Average # of Punt Attempts/Game - 6 Average # of KOs/Game - 5.2 Average # of Opponent FG Attempts/Game - 2.2 Average # of Opponent Punt Attempts/Game - 5.9 Average # of Opponent KOs/Game - 5.3 http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/plays-per-game http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-plays-per-game http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-kickoffs-per-game The total # of ST plays per game was, on average, 26.8 for Buffalo in 2013. The percentages break down as follows: Offensive Plays - 42.38% Defensive Plays - 41.35% ST Plays - 16.27% I suppose one could arguably take touchbacks out of the equation on the premise that they've basically become academic at this point, which would remove an additional 2.1 KO APG for Buffalo and 3.8 KO APG for their opponents, on average. That would yield the following percentages: Offensive Plays - 43.95% Defensive Plays - 42.88% ST Plays - 13.16%
Kirby Jackson Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Not that I don't believe you, but I think you would find it really hard to prove that ST's are good for +/- 2 games a year. I mean you could argue that long return's from the Bills/Pats game contributed them to losing. Or you could argue the Bills defense not being able to stop the ball contributed to it. Or you could argue the offense played inconsistently throughout the game. That's the point; all of those things contributed. It is just like the long return in OT (think it was Cincy). There is no reason to not address part of the team that has been subpar. If ST became a strength instead of a weakness maybe it swings a game or 2 positively instead of negatively (or at least get to the point that it evens out)? Yes, it is impossible to quantify the amount of games that ST changed the results of (but it is impossible to do that for offense or defense either by your definition). It is not so hard to see that the ST unit's performance was substandard. Edited January 8, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
thebandit27 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 common Bandit. Right now nothing from a personnel standpoint is being done to improve ST. This is the time of the year when Marrone should be considering his staff first and foremost. If you don't understand that time is a resource then I'm afraid I can't help you. Marrone has the time. So am I then to understand that the crux of your apparent beef with Marrone is that he isn't doing anything, right now, to improve the ST? If that's not the case, then I'm misunderstanding your post here. If that is the case, then here are my responses: - What makes you think he's not considering his staff and has decided the staff isn't the issue? I think what you're really saying is that retaining Crossman isn't the best use of his time. - Outside of changing the coach, there really isn't anything else they can do at the moment...so if they've decided not to change the coach, what else should they be doing? Please don't take this the wrong way: I can't imagine there's a response to the above other than "they need to change the coach". Well, they're apparently not going to do that, and it's not the only thing they can do to help the ST. Their time can be spent finding players that can contribute to ST AND on offense & defense (some posters here act as though there's no crossover whatsoever). That's not exactly a time-sensitive process, as they have until March before FA starts and May before the draft. To me, this thread reeks of "something is better than nothing" mentality--people want to see Crossman fired because it will show that the coach cares about results. To those folks, I ask this question: is firing the coach really the only way for Marrone to prove that he cares about results? I say no...if you say yes, then it's simply a fundamental disagreement that we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on, and we're better off leaving it at that.
Mr. WEO Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Wait, really? Given the context of this statement: A team like the Bills should be trying to improve in all areas, yes. The vast majority of the resources should go toward offense and defense. you don't know what "resources" means? Ok then, in the context of the above, the resources used to improve a football team would be: draft picks, free agent dollars, film study, coaching additions/subtractions, and about a hundred other facets of the game that I know for a fact you already understand and don't need explained to you. If you disagree with me that's fine; I'm not sure what your agenda is with these last 2 posts, however, as you've displayed quite the cogent understanding of the game in the past. Marrone said, quite clearly, philosophical differences were the reason that Hilliard was let go...that's not nothing. For me, the priorities in fixing this team lie in improving the two phases of the ball that spend 90% of the time on the field, and please don't make a straw man by saying that I claimed Crossman shouldn't be fired--you will not find that anywhere in any of my posts. For some reason, my take on the pitchfork mentality toward the ST coach REALLY bothers you guys...not sure why. I've explained my position, and unless we're at the point where my opinion is offensive or against the TOS, I'm not sure why I need to defend it more so than anyone else. "Philosophical differences" doesn't describe the reason he was fired, just the category of dismissal he was given. You understand what I am asking but you prefer to give the same nonresponsive answer to my question. It's not a pitchfork mentality for me. It's a simple management issue. You keep saying that you wouldn't change the part that is performing the worst yet is the easiest to fix. At this point I'll just conclude that you aren't going to question any of Marrone's moves and leave it at that.
NoSaint Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Not that I don't believe you, but I think you would find it really hard to prove that ST's are good for +/- 2 games a year. I mean you could argue that long return's from the Bills/Pats game contributed them to losing. Or you could argue the Bills defense not being able to stop the ball contributed to it. Or you could argue the offense played inconsistently throughout the game. you could argue the wind speed that day contributed to it - but generally speaking, yards tend to correlate to points, and our special teams is producing less yards than others, while giving up more yards than others. when any given year, half your games are decided by a single score, and your special teams were widely overmatched - it may not be the single factor that lost you a game, but one nice return that we no longer expect to see could have won it, or giving up one long return that we now expect to see more often might have helped greatly in the opponent scoring more (or even pinning us deep so we couldnt score) and made it more difficult for both our offense and defense, and more difficult to win. for someone that wants to see the offense and defense do better, special teams is a way to set them up for more success potentially. by your arguments, Tom brady doesnt win the pats games because other players make plays too. its reaching reeeeeeally far in order to justify that we shouldnt be upset by someone that has woefully underperformed their entire career being put in a leadership position on our team. and im going to reiterate, that marrones "6 marcus easleys" comment about improving the special teams, might actually be the only one ive seen made that could potentially take away from the units you want to improve. replacing crossman doesnt cost the offense anything. keeping easley over someone else that theyd trust at WR does. keeping several more of them would cost the other units more. Edited January 8, 2014 by NoSaint
Wayne Cubed Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 you could argue the wind speed that day contributed to it - but generally speaking, yards tend to correlate to points, and our special teams is producing less yards than others, while giving up more yards than others. when any given year, half your games are decided by a single score, and your special teams were widely overmatched - it may not be the single factor that lost you a game, but one nice return that we no longer expect to see could have won it, or giving up one long return that we now expect to see more often might have helped greatly in the opponent scoring more (or even pinning us deep so we couldnt score) and made it more difficult for both our offense and defense, and more difficult to win. for someone that wants to see the offense and defense do better, special teams is a way to set them up for more success potentially. by your arguments, Tom brady doesnt win the pats games because other players make plays too. its reaching reeeeeeally far in order to justify that we shouldnt be upset by someone that has woefully underperformed their entire career being put in a leadership position on our team. No offence, but I didn't say anything remotely that absurd. I stated 2 facets of an actual football game, offense and defense. How ridiculous is that? Anways, I'll leave it a difference of opinion.
thebandit27 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 "Philosophical differences" doesn't describe the reason he was fired, just the category of dismissal he was given. You understand what I am asking but you prefer to give the same nonresponsive answer to my question. It's not a pitchfork mentality for me. It's a simple management issue. You keep saying that you wouldn't change the part that is performing the worst yet is the easiest to fix. At this point I'll just conclude that you aren't going to question any of Marrone's moves and leave it at that. So you want Marrone to say exactly what he wanted that Hilliard didn't or vice versa? No coach is likely to do that IMO. And as I said, just because I may have reliable information as to who made the coaching hire doesn't mean I know what Marrone is thinking on every move. I consider that a very clear response to your question (one that I've given well before this post). I also said (twice) what I'd do with Crossman, so I'd caution you to review what it is that I "keep saying". Lastly, you're completely wrong with regard to my stance on Marrone, as my posting history in and out of this thread shows quite clearly.
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) So you want Marrone to say exactly what he wanted that Hilliard didn't or vice versa? No coach is likely to do that IMO. And as I said, just because I may have reliable information as to who made the coaching hire doesn't mean I know what Marrone is thinking on every move. I consider that a very clear response to your question (one that I've given well before this post). I also said (twice) what I'd do with Crossman, so I'd caution you to review what it is that I "keep saying". Lastly, you're completely wrong with regard to my stance on Marrone, as my posting history in and out of this thread shows quite clearly. Bandit -- 22 pages and counting -- I re-read many of your posts and I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying "I don't necessarily agree with keeping Crossman on staff, but I understand why Marrone made that decision and I am willing to defend Marrone's decision to other posters. In addition, ST is unpredictable year to year and not the most important thing for this coach to focus on" --- do I got it right ? Edited January 8, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN
Turbosrrgood Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) To me, this thread reeks of "something is better than nothing" mentality--people want to see Crossman fired because it will show that the coach cares about results. To those folks, I ask this question: is firing the coach really the only way for Marrone to prove that he cares about results? The above statement suggests maybe you are misunderstanding some of the issues people have with retaining Crossman. The way I see it, it's not this years results alone that are the driving factor here. It's this years poor results, combined with Crossmans overall very poor track record, combined with the fact that he was seemingly hired mainly because he was a "friend" of Marrone's. The ST's were flat out dreadful, it's especially concerning when you have one of the best PR's in the league, who could do absolutely nothing this year under Crossman. Same goes for the poor kick coverage despite Easley being extremely good on ST's. The pressure is coming from a lot of different places, not simply the statistical end result this year. There are valid reasons to believe that Crossman isn't the best man for the job, and Marrone's personal relationships may be harming the team. Having said all that, I absolutely did not expect him to get fired this year, so it was no surprise to me. I will go on record that I had, and still have doubts about the Crossman hiring in the first place. Edited January 8, 2014 by Turbosrrgood
thebandit27 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 It's probably best for everyone if I bow out of this thread now...I've said everything I care to on this topic. If anyone wants to discuss further, feel free to PM. Take care all.
NoSaint Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 No offence, but I didn't say anything remotely that absurd. I stated 2 facets of an actual football game, offense and defense. How ridiculous is that? Anways, I'll leave it a difference of opinion. youre arguing that several big plays didnt actually win or lose games because other things also effected the outcomes potentially. its a very similar train of logic that you are arguing to the tom brady comment (though obviously on a larger scale), and as absurd as it sounded in your head, what you are arguing sounds similar to those of us saying it doesnt make any sense. yea, no one play, or three plays, or 10 plays, all by themselves seal a game 100% without question, just as no player, or coach will..... but thats no excuse to say we shouldnt fix something thats not working. if we can increase our odds of winning that cleveland game from 42% to 48%, why not? you still havent answered that with anything other than "but the offense and defense arent working either" which reads as a deflection thats irrelevant to the topic.
hondo in seattle Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I don't want to defend Crossman - who should be fired I think - but how much of the blame belongs to Marrone? I've heard that the reason the results a guy like Bobby April gets varies from team to team is because of these two variables: (1) ST talent and, (2) head coach philosophy. Different head coaches have different attitudes toward special teams. Some devote far more practice time to ST. Marv Levy gave it more attention that most head coaches, for example. Maybe Marrone doesn't want to take time away from the offense or defense. Maybe he's retaining Crossman because he knows he's partly to blame.
Turbosrrgood Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) I don't want to defend Crossman - who should be fired I think - but how much of the blame belongs to Marrone? I've heard that the reason the results a guy like Bobby April gets varies from team to team is because of these two variables: (1) ST talent and, (2) head coach philosophy. Different head coaches have different attitudes toward special teams. Some devote far more practice time to ST. Marv Levy gave it more attention that most head coaches, for example. Maybe Marrone doesn't want to take time away from the offense or defense. Maybe he's retaining Crossman because he knows he's partly to blame. Well I think Marrone put himself in this position by hiring a "buddy", that didn't have a great resume. Had he hired someone based purely on professional credentials and the results were the same, I don't this would be much of an issue this year. Edited January 8, 2014 by Turbosrrgood
CodeMonkey Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 It's like in basketball ... foul shooting is 1/3 of the game (along with offense and defense). That's not to say that foul shots make up 1/3 of the points scored in a basketball game. That is an excellent analogy. Free throws aren't 1/3 of the points scored, but often they are very important points that can decide games.
NoSaint Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Maybe he's retaining Crossman because he knows he's partly to blame. as are the lions? and the panthers? even in this argument that amounts to "i have nothing to point to other than i hope crossman was getting screwed to perform so poorly" you have to ask how many years can other people screw him before its a problem that he allows himself to be in a position to be screwed? if thats the best case scenario today, its still not a good one for the team.
Recommended Posts