The Big Cat Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 With EJ or Cassel starting 16 games I think 5 wins would have been a stretch. How am I? We tried to bring in Harris if the stories are true, but we didn't succeed. Rex still had the #4 D from the year before and finished #19. Would Harris have helped? Yes, probably he would (although he had a poor season for the Jets in all truth). But we didn't get him. I can only judge Rex's D in 2015 on what it produced, not what it might have produced had it had different personnel. I have said - he now has more of his kind of players. Let's see if he can make it work. If you can only judge it based on its personnel, then stop comparing it to 2014. Do you not understand the inconsistency there?
K-9 Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 Maybe. Range of 4 to 6 wins, IMO. Hopefully, that will happen this year and you'll get your wish. Oh, happy day! GO BILLS!!!
GunnerBill Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 If you can only judge it based on its personnel, then stop comparing it to 2014. Do you not understand the inconsistency there? The key pieces on the 2014 D were all still in place in 2015. Was it exactly the same? No... but in the free agency era no team is. The challenge is keep the key guys. All the key guys were back. I will give you that they then lost AW early but by the time Kyle went down the D was already languishing in the bottom half of the league. If you lose a safety and a 2 down linebacker (who is now out of the league) and then drop from 4th to 19th that is on coaching more than personnel. Anyway... we are going round in circles. I don't see any benefit in continuing to do so. The chance is there in 2016 for Rex to redeem himself. I hope he does.
The Big Cat Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) The key pieces on the 2014 D were all still in place in 2015. Was it exactly the same? No... but in the free agency era no team is. The challenge is keep the key guys. All the key guys were back. I will give you that they then lost AW early but by the time Kyle went down the D was already languishing in the bottom half of the league. If you lose a safety and a 2 down linebacker (who is now out of the league) and then drop from 4th to 19th that is on coaching more than personnel. Anyway... we are going round in circles. I don't see any benefit in continuing to do so. The chance is there in 2016 for Rex to redeem himself. I hope he does. But they weren't mostly still in place. Not by a long shot: Look at that! In 2014, multiple core players missed starts TWICE. And once was the meaningless week 17 game in New England, the other the opener. In 2015, only TWICE did they NOT have multiple starters from that core miss starts. In 2014, there were SIX games with the entire "core" in tact. That happened ZERO times in 2015. THE PERSONNEL WAS NOT THE SAME Edited May 11, 2016 by The Big Cat
K-9 Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 Lol. You couldn't be more wrong. Wait. You mean you will be HAPPY if Rex is retained as HC? Nice to know you are "all in." GO BILLS!!!
GunnerBill Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 That graph makes my point for me. McKelvim was replaced by a better player. So leaving him to one side your metric of multiple core guys missing starts doesn't happen until week 7.... by that point the defense was already bottom half of the league. I have always accepted weeks 13 through 17 Rex was playing with multiple borderline NFL talents out there - Tarpley, Riddick etc. If that was where the season unravelled I would be the first one on here defending Rex. The dye was set on defense by then though.
boyst Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 Yep. haha, all good. they shut indy out for the first 44 minutes of the game. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Then Indy scored their second and final TD with less than six minutes to go, down 27-8. did you honestly believe, for a second, that that game was in jeopardy because of failed second half adjustments? Rex and the 2015 defense are not beyond critique. But come ON! with luck. I don't know, anything can happen but probably not. It just seemed Indy found a way to finally adjust and the bills did Nada. The same attack was used by ne the next week. Keep the bills moving. No subs
The Big Cat Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 That graph makes my point for me. McKelvim was replaced by a better player. So leaving him to one side your metric of multiple core guys missing starts doesn't happen until week 7.... by that point the defense was already bottom half of the league. I have always accepted weeks 13 through 17 Rex was playing with multiple borderline NFL talents out there - Tarpley, Riddick etc. If that was where the season unravelled I would be the first one on here defending Rex. The dye was set on defense by then though. No. You're plainly ignoring that it roundly refutes your point that the defense SHOULD have been good because the all the parts were the same.
BobbyC81 Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 A few things that would go a long way to making our offense run better. 1 - Fewer dumb trick plays. Implement a couple, but a lot of them were drive killers last year. Lose 5 here, 9 there. Thats the end of that drive. 2 - When passing on 1st down, more stuff over the middle. More quick passes. And more pocket movement from TT. This is more on Roman I think. We started to see more of it as the year went on. 3 - When its third down, and you can see the open path to the 1st down sticks. TAKE THE 1ST DOWN! Throwing a 40 yard ball to Chris Hogan when he's open doesnt matter when hes Chris Hogan. I don't care if it hit him in the hands, the smart move is to get the first down. Every point is important. I'm remembering a specific one - but he did that quite a few times. Sometimes it was a receiver coming across that he should throw to, etc. But keeping us moving is huge. The throwing of deep passes on 3rd and short instead of just going for the 1st down has been prevalent for this team for several years with different coaches, offensive coordinator s and quarterback s and I don't understand why.
GunnerBill Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 No. You're plainly ignoring that it roundly refutes your point that the defense SHOULD have been good because the all the parts were the same. I never said all the parts were the same. And it most definitely doesn't roundly refute the point I was making. Why was the defense bad through 6 weeks which are... you know... over a third of the season? It wasn't injuries or loss of personnel. I will repeat. If Rex had the defense he fielded the last 4 weeks all year I would 100% give him a pass.
26CornerBlitz Posted May 11, 2016 Author Posted May 11, 2016 What are you talking about? My point has been simple. Rex sucked in 2015. That's all. He might have deserved to be fired. I hope he does a better job in 2016 and we win more games. Extreme and utter nonsense! No sane owner fires a 1st year coach with a disappointing 8-8 record. This wasn't even close to the realm of any reality.
The Big Cat Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) I never said all the parts were the same. And it most definitely doesn't roundly refute the point I was making. Why was the defense bad through 6 weeks which are... you know... over a third of the season? It wasn't injuries or loss of personnel. I will repeat. If Rex had the defense he fielded the last 4 weeks all year I would 100% give him a pass. But they weren't bad through six weeks. You made that up just now because it would help your argument. Problem is: it's not true. Colts--GOOD Pats*--BAD Dolphins--GOOD Giants--GOOD Titans--GOOD Bengals--BAD There are your first six weeks. They turned in two bad performances, one that was utterly abysmal. But they were not--by any stretch of the imagination--bad THROUGH six games, as you said. Also, you "never said all the parts were the same." Huh? Really? Then what did you mean by: The key pieces on the 2014 D were all still in place in 2015. Was it exactly the same? No... but in the free agency era no team is. The challenge is keep the key guys. All the key guys were back. I will give you that they then lost AW early but by the time Kyle went down the D was already languishing in the bottom half of the league. If you lose a safety and a 2 down linebacker (who is now out of the league) and then drop from 4th to 19th that is on coaching more than personnel. Anyway... we are going round in circles. I don't see any benefit in continuing to do so. The chance is there in 2016 for Rex to redeem himself. I hope he does. I mean...you said it TWICE. "Reasonable." Edited May 11, 2016 by The Big Cat
YoloinOhio Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 But they weren't bad through six weeks. You made that up just now because it would help your argument. Problem is: it's not true. Colts--GOOD Pats*--BAD Dolphins--GOOD Giants--GOOD Titans--GOOD Bengals--BAD There are your first six weeks. They turned in two bad performances, one that was utterly abysmal. But they were not--by any stretch of the imagination--bad THROUGH six games, as you said. "Reasonable." i was thinking about that too. They gave up so many yards vs the Pats that it skewed everything for awhile. Bengals too. But those offenses were doing that to everyone. Bengals really lit up Seattle.
The Big Cat Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 i was thinking about that too. They gave up so many yards vs the Pats that it skewed everything for awhile. Bengals too. But those offenses were doing that to everyone. Bengals really lit up Seattle. Yeah, I'd say that if you give up the most passing yards in franchise history...in week two...chances are you'll be ranked in the "bottom half of the league." Also, not for nothing, in that game the Bengals scored 17 points on their five drives of the first half starting with field position of: -49 +49 -45 +45 +36 And during this stretch, the Bills offense (under EJ) cashed in four straight three and outs. But you know. "Excuses," i guess.
K-9 Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 The throwing of deep passes on 3rd and short instead of just going for the 1st down has been prevalent for this team for several years with different coaches, offensive coordinator s and quarterback s and I don't understand why. The why is easy; it's because our QBs have had the green light when they see man coverage on the wideouts and they chose to take their shots in those situations. GO BILLS!!! What are you talking about? My point has been simple. Rex sucked in 2015. That's all. He might have deserved to be fired. I hope he does a better job in 2016 and we win more games. I'm glad to know you now embrace Rex as head coach, that's what I'm talking about. GO BILLS!!!
FireChan Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 But they weren't mostly still in place. Not by a long shot: Look at that! In 2014, multiple core players missed starts TWICE. And once was the meaningless week 17 game in New England, the other the opener. In 2015, only TWICE did they NOT have multiple starters from that core miss starts. In 2014, there were SIX games with the entire "core" in tact. That happened ZERO times in 2015. THE PERSONNEL WAS NOT THE SAME Leo a starter in 2015? Are we talking about the same Bills?
GunnerBill Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 But they weren't bad through six weeks. You made that up just now because it would help your argument. Problem is: it's not true. Colts--GOOD Pats*--BAD Dolphins--GOOD Giants--GOOD Titans--GOOD Bengals--BAD There are your first six weeks. They turned in two bad performances, one that was utterly abysmal. But they were not--by any stretch of the imagination--bad THROUGH six games, as you said. Also, you "never said all the parts were the same." Huh? Really? Then what did you mean by: I mean...you said it TWICE. "Reasonable." The "key pieces" and "all the pieces" are different.
The Big Cat Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) Leo a starter in 2015? Are we talking about the same Bills? Leaving him in actually bolsters the "they were all back!" argument. And removing him would show that the 9 remaining players missed 0 starts in 2014 over the same span of time that they missed 27 in 2015. So, have it your way, I guess. The "key pieces" and "all the pieces" are different. Oh, sure. Edited May 11, 2016 by The Big Cat
The Big Cat Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 Well they are. Yes, I guess it's hard to overlook the substantive differences between: "all the parts are the same" and "the key pieces...were all still in place" and "all the key guys were back." I mean, seriously? This is where you want to take this?
Recommended Posts