Justice Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Agree. And if we take a WR in the first when our LB's "suck" and our OL sucks.. ----->After taking two WR's early last year then we are just as stupid as everyone thinks we are. Not necessarily. If the wideouts are that much better than the LBers at 9, and they are, it would be stupid to go by need. I'd take Watkins or Evans over Lewan or Mosley any day of the week.
thewildrabbit Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Certainly there are other issues. I put the blame on our offense. If we were playing with the lead and keeping the defense fresh our run D stats would look a lot better. While this has something to do with the problem. It seemed to me that teams were able to have their O linemen get past the D line to the second level where they out matched the LBers. 28th against the run was more then just gap control, as the defensive players did wear out as the game went on. I think it has more to do with the fact that the DC was more concerned with sacks, and getting pressure on the QB. That the D front line didn't always worry about the run as much as they should. It was more slip a block while trying to get to the QB then holding their gaps to contain the runners. The Bills led the NFL in tackles, were #2 in sacks, were #2 in interceptions, were #10 against the pass, were #5 in receiving yards allowed. My take is Schwartz should be able to correct the porous run defense without to much trouble. The bigger problem in my view is building up that O line properly to allow the offense to control the line of scrimmage and clock. #2 in the NFL in rushing and yet #16 in run blocking, #28 in pass blocking. More importantly 25th in three downs and out percentage. They were 31st in first down statistics. 22nd in scoring efficiency. They didn't have more then 10 drives that lasted more then 5 min, out of 214 drives. They had 22 ten play drives ....says it all. Not necessarily. If the wideouts are that much better than the LBers at 9, and they are, it would be stupid to go by need. I'd take Watkins or Evans over Lewan or Mosley any day of the week. Depending on what the team does in free agency, and unless they snag some real top talent at OG & OT. I'd rather see them trade back if all three top OT's are gone to get Zack Martin. Watkins, Evens, Ebron won't be that much help to the offense if the QB's don't have the time in the pocket to get them the ball.
Ronin Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I don't buy this whole "we sucked against the run" that gets thrown out there all the time. Truth is, the defense got much better after a rough start. They gave a up a couple of big runs that stood out later in the year (the early one in Tampa and the two against the falcons) but all in all they were a solid all-round group. Fix the offense! What I don't buy is that the defense got that much better. The only indicators are sacks and the pass D, but we hardly played any of the top passing Ds and the few that we did had pretty good games despite sacks against them. Vs. New Orleans we logged 4 sacks, but Brees still had 332 yards, 5 TDs, 0 INTs, and had 76% complettion %. The Saints scored 35 offensive. Was that good? Vs. Atlanta we have even more sacks, 6, yet Ryan still had over 300 passing yards, 60% completion %, no INTs, and the Falcons scored 34 offensive? Was that good? That's 10 sacks in two games that didn't seem to make any difference. Vs. Cincy we had 3 sacks, but Dalton also had 337 yards, 65%, 3 TDs, and only one INT as Cincy put up 27 offensive, in Buffalo. Was that good? Against New England, hell, they didn't even need Brady this year, who had the worst set of receivers he's ever had in NE. They were a bunch of inexperienced novices and other WRs, not one of which had even sniffed a 1,000 yard season coming into this season. Gronk didn't play either game. But they had 425 rushing yards against us as Belicheat once again schooled our coach, as they had 5.5 yards-per-carry from one second-rate and two third-rate RBs that shredded our D. Meanwhile, overlooked by everyone defending this D is that we allowed 3 more passing TDs this year than last. But hey, that's just another one of those inconvenient facts that we sweep under the rug. All in all we allowed not even 3 points fewer but against a schedule that featured hardly any of the top-half offensive teams, and of the ones we did, we lost. Of the top 16 scoring teams, we played 5 of those teams in 6 games, NE twice, Cincy, KC, NO, and Pitt who ranked 16th, ... we lost all 6 of those games. We played 8 games against teams ranked among the worst 25% of the league in offense. .5 of ourl 6 wins came against bottom 8 offensive teams. The lone exception, 18th ranked Carolina. So was our D really that good? Or was it more smoke-n-mirrors just like it's been in several other seasons where people don't actually take a detailed look at the particulars and rant about a one-dimensional pass D and a bunch of rating from PFF that our players obviously got by playing the worst offensive counterparts in the league? (semi-rhetorical) There are going to be an awful lot of disappointed people next year that now think that we took a step forward, especially if we're not handed a second-rate schedule again. Just some honest questions and some food for thought. Our next big waste of money signing that's going to materialize next year is Aaron Williams. He's massively overrated due to the ease of schedule of offensive opponents along with our put-everything-into-the-pass-rush-while-ignoring-the-run-D defense. Manny Lawson sucks?? Come on man... Lawson has always been either a very low-end starter or depth player. This season he "excelled," with a whopping 4 sacks, primarily due to a scheme that put all of its eggs into the pass-rushing basket and for no other reason. If he's the basis for hope going forward, then same as it ever was. 1. Kyle Williams is not good against the rum 2. Kiko is too small to play MLB and was awful against the run down the stretch But as others have pointed out it's the offense that is the problem. It has been for over a decade. The offense can't stay on the field and build leads. The defense wears down and the opponent runs to burn clock. Agree on Kiko. As to your statement, both Miami and New England had more defensive snaps than we did, both with similar schedules, neither with notably better talent overall on D, perhaps less in Miami, certainly not more in NE, and yet, both teams allowed over 3 fewer points per game. Miami's offense scored nearly 5 fewer points per game than we did. A team whom by the way we played twice in amassing our big bad sack/D stats. New England was hardly prolific this season on offense either despite 3.5 ppg more than us. Again, just some food for thought.
jumbalaya Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 If your defense is getting chewed up by the run, like it did all year long, the problem is not with the offense.
H2o Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) What I don't buy is that the defense got that much better. The only indicators are sacks and the pass D, but we hardly played any of the top passing Ds and the few that we did had pretty good games despite sacks against them. Vs. New Orleans we logged 4 sacks, but Brees still had 332 yards, 5 TDs, 0 INTs, and had 76% complettion %. The Saints scored 35 offensive. Was that good? Vs. Atlanta we have even more sacks, 6, yet Ryan still had over 300 passing yards, 60% completion %, no INTs, and the Falcons scored 34 offensive? Was that good? That's 10 sacks in two games that didn't seem to make any difference. Vs. Cincy we had 3 sacks, but Dalton also had 337 yards, 65%, 3 TDs, and only one INT as Cincy put up 27 offensive, in Buffalo. Was that good? Against New England, hell, they didn't even need Brady this year, who had the worst set of receivers he's ever had in NE. They were a bunch of inexperienced novices and other WRs, not one of which had even sniffed a 1,000 yard season coming into this season. Gronk didn't play either game. But they had 425 rushing yards against us as Belicheat once again schooled our coach, as they had 5.5 yards-per-carry from one second-rate and two third-rate RBs that shredded our D. Meanwhile, overlooked by everyone defending this D is that we allowed 3 more passing TDs this year than last. But hey, that's just another one of those inconvenient facts that we sweep under the rug. A parting gift from Justin Rogers. You also have to take into account the fact Gilmore missed so many games at the beginning of the regular season and even when he came back at first he was playing with a club hand. After a couple, maybe 3, weeks he started to get back to his rookie form where he was basically locking his man down the whole time. It got so bad injury wise that Aaron Williams was playing CB again for a couple of weeks. Edited March 9, 2014 by H2o
JM57 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Agree. And if we take a WR in the first when our LB's "suck" and our OL sucks.. ----->After taking two WR's early last year then we are just as stupid as everyone thinks we are. Reaching to draft for need is what puts teams in bad positions. You draft the best player available. If its an upgrade on what you have at the position. Edited March 9, 2014 by JM57
3rdand12 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Reaching to draft for need is what puts teams in bad positions. You draft the best player available. If its an upgrade on what you have at the position. Sounds easy !
Justice Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 What I don't buy is that the defense got that much better. The only indicators are sacks and the pass D, but we hardly played any of the top passing Ds and the few that we did had pretty good games despite sacks against them. Vs. New Orleans we logged 4 sacks, but Brees still had 332 yards, 5 TDs, 0 INTs, and had 76% complettion %. The Saints scored 35 offensive. Was that good? Vs. Atlanta we have even more sacks, 6, yet Ryan still had over 300 passing yards, 60% completion %, no INTs, and the Falcons scored 34 offensive? Was that good? That's 10 sacks in two games that didn't seem to make any difference. Vs. Cincy we had 3 sacks, but Dalton also had 337 yards, 65%, 3 TDs, and only one INT as Cincy put up 27 offensive, in Buffalo. Was that good? Against New England, hell, they didn't even need Brady this year, who had the worst set of receivers he's ever had in NE. They were a bunch of inexperienced novices and other WRs, not one of which had even sniffed a 1,000 yard season coming into this season. Gronk didn't play either game. But they had 425 rushing yards against us as Belicheat once again schooled our coach, as they had 5.5 yards-per-carry from one second-rate and two third-rate RBs that shredded our D. Meanwhile, overlooked by everyone defending this D is that we allowed 3 more passing TDs this year than last. But hey, that's just another one of those inconvenient facts that we sweep under the rug. All in all we allowed not even 3 points fewer but against a schedule that featured hardly any of the top-half offensive teams, and of the ones we did, we lost. Of the top 16 scoring teams, we played 5 of those teams in 6 games, NE twice, Cincy, KC, NO, and Pitt who ranked 16th, ... we lost all 6 of those games. We played 8 games against teams ranked among the worst 25% of the league in offense. .5 of ourl 6 wins came against bottom 8 offensive teams. The lone exception, 18th ranked Carolina. So was our D really that good? Or was it more smoke-n-mirrors just like it's been in several other seasons where people don't actually take a detailed look at the particulars and rant about a one-dimensional pass D and a bunch of rating from PFF that our players obviously got by playing the worst offensive counterparts in the league? (semi-rhetorical) There are going to be an awful lot of disappointed people next year that now think that we took a step forward, especially if we're not handed a second-rate schedule again. When your offense is going three and out all the time it isn't easy to stop people. Our defense is very talented. Like someone pointed out, we were without a lot of players on defense, such as, Byrd, McKelvin missed a little time, and Gilmore. Are you suggesting our defense is horrible? IMO we just need to fill in one or two holes and this unit will be elite. Poor QB play, the offensive line, and the lack of a true #1 receiver has more to do with our defense's struggles than anything else.
Bill from NYC Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 While this has something to do with the problem. It seemed to me that teams were able to have their O linemen get past the D line to the second level where they out matched the LBers. 28th against the run was more then just gap control, as the defensive players did wear out as the game went on. I think it has more to do with the fact that the DC was more concerned with sacks, and getting pressure on the QB. That the D front line didn't always worry about the run as much as they should. It was more slip a block while trying to get to the QB then holding their gaps to contain the runners. The OL needs help no doubt, but so does the coaching staff. The Bills were what, 2nd in the league in rushing yards? Well, they were #28 in time of possession. http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-time-of-possession-statistics/2013/ This is insane. Seriously, I am surprised it isn't talked about more. I am 100% all in for strengthening the OL. We don't have a LG and are paper thin at OT, but I have serious issues with the above numbers. If we are going to point fingers, the HC and OC might be a good place to start. They were focusing on "hurry-up" with inexperienced coaches and quarterbacks. If this makes sense to anyone, let me know.
Reed83HOF Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 The OL needs help no doubt, but so does the coaching staff. The Bills were what, 2nd in the league in rushing yards? Well, they were #28 in time of possession. http://www.sportingc...tatistics/2013/ This is insane. Seriously, I am surprised it isn't talked about more. I am 100% all in for strengthening the OL. We don't have a LG and are paper thin at OT, but I have serious issues with the above numbers. If we are going to point fingers, the HC and OC might be a good place to start. They were focusing on "hurry-up" with inexperienced coaches and quarterbacks. If this makes sense to anyone, let me know. It is a glaring need of ours. The D looked as bad as it did in part because of this, as soon as they got off the field, 3 quick plays later they were right back on. We couldn't pick up a 3rd down to save our lives.... We ran the read option way too much too btw
Recommended Posts