Do you really think our #1 Defense could - -

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, NoSaint said:

The saints defense is giving up fewer points per game

 

the saints offense, on average, has outscored the bills points scored per game by about 5 mins into the second quarter 

 

Yea we wouldn't give the Saints a game because they are pretty complete as a team..... at the moment it really is hard to see someone knocking them off.

[fansince88]

If we could move the ball on the ground like we did against the Jets? Yes. That would be the only way. But hey, we will find out when we beat the Chiefs in the playoffs and take on the winner of the Rams/Saints game. 

[H2o]

If the gameplan on offense worked like it did against Minnesota and the defense is forcing turnovers then we could hang with anyone imo. It's all predicated on the offense being able to move the ball though. If the defense is having to go on the field every 2 minutes of game action then it would end up like the Pats game. 

[TAinLack.]

8 hours ago, mannc said:

For a half.

Agree, fatigue would be a factor in the 4th quarter.

[Gray Beard]

When the offense has multiple three-and-out drives, the defense gets tired.

The fourth quarter would be ugly. 

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, PUNT750 said:

slow down the Rams, Chiefs or Saints to make it a competitive game?

 

 

Slow down the Rams, Chiefs or Saints? Yeah, probably. They're genuinely a good defense.

 

Make it a competitive game? Nah, our offense isn't going to score much at all. They're genuinely bad. 

 

Only well-balanced teams are likely to cause problems for those three teams you mention.

 

 

8 hours ago, mannc said:

Look at the Redskins and what they’ve invested in their D-line.  It’s gotten them to 6-5.  And the 49ers.

 

 

The Redskins spent $91 mill on their offense this season and $66 mill on the defense. Just sayin'

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/washington-redskins/positional/

 

And the Niners spent $105 mill on the offense and $61 mill on the defense. 

 

As evidence that you should spend less on the defensive side to avoid being bad, these two teams don't really make your point.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Thurman#1

[mannc]

35 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Slow down the Rams, Chiefs or Saints? Yeah, probably. They're genuinely a good defense.

 

Make it a competitive game? Nah, our offense isn't going to score much at all. They're genuinely bad. 

 

Only well-balanced teams are likely to cause problems for those three teams you mention.

 

 

 

 

The Redskins spent $91 mill on their offense this season and $66 mill on the defense. Just sayin'

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/washington-redskins/positional/

 

And the Niners spent $105 mill on the offense and $61 mill on the defense. 

 

As evidence that you should spend less on the defensive side to avoid being bad, these two teams don't really make your point.

 

 

By “invested”, I was referring to draft capital.   Both teams have used three first-round picks on their D-lines in the past few years.  Other than Kerrigan, all those guys are still on rookie deals, so in salary terms it’s not a huge hit yet.

Edited November 23, 2018 by mannc

[Billsfan1972]

10 hours ago, NewEra said:

Not the saints. Rams a bit.  Chiefs a bit.  Pats had scored 38+ 4 games in a row before we played them on mnf and we held them in check all game

And they scored 10 vs. the Titans....

 

They are not the 1985 Bears.

[PromoTheRobot]

10 hours ago, mannc said:

For a half.

The three-and-outs by our offense would wear them down.

[NoSaint]

3 hours ago, fansince88 said:

If we could move the ball on the ground like we did against the Jets? Yes. That would be the only way. But hey, we will find out when we beat the Chiefs in the playoffs and take on the winner of the Rams/Saints game. 

 

In part because they are playing with big leads, but they’ve been among the top rushing defenses in the league ranking wise.

[PatsFanNH]

10 hours ago, mannc said:

Look at the Redskins and what they’ve invested in their D-line.  It’s gotten them to 6-5.  And the 49ers.

49ers lost their franchise QB.. most teams struggle when that happens (see the Colts when Manning and Luck went down)

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, mannc said:

By “invested”, I was referring to draft capital.   Both teams have used three first-round picks on their D-lines in the past few years.  Other than Kerrigan, all those guys are still on rookie deals, so in salary terms it’s not a huge hit yet.

 

 

Hunh? Three first-round picks? No they didn't. Are you counting 2015 #38 pick Preston Smith?

 

I'm going to assume that's what you meant. But I'd argue it's way too early to judge the success of those moves or that kind of tactic, especially with the two 1sts being a rookie and a 2nd year guy at this point.

 

If the Redskins spent two first-round picks and a 2nd as well on their D-line and didn't field a good team (arguable, since they were on a 10 - 11 win pace before Smith went down, but let's assume they weren't good) does that mean it's not a good idea to pick three D-line guys high? Or is it just too early to see how good Payne and Allen will turn out to be? Or did they just make some bad picks in terms of people rather than personnel. In a year or two will that line be destroying QBs? 

 

Since they brought in Alex Smith as an FA might that have been a good complementary set of moves? IMHO it's very far from clear, and while drafts generally make up the core of your team, you have to look at all personnel moves together, I think.

 

You make an interesting point, though. It could turn out to look like a real mistake a few years down the line, but I don't think that's a sure thing yet.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Thurman#1

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, Billsfan1972 said:

And they scored 10 vs. the Titans....

 

They are not the 1985 Bears.

And the titans know the pats blueprint better than anyone,  Let’s see what they score from here on out.

 

i never said we were the 85 bears.  Just a good defense.

[Matt_In_NH]

Keep seeing the Bills are #1 but that is not true, they are #2 in yards behind Baltimore.

[Gugny]

13 hours ago, PUNT750 said:

slow down the Rams, Chiefs or Saints to make it a competitive game?

 

Do you simply refuse to write a proper thread title?

 

You're a troll and I can't wait for @Chandler#81 to shut this garbage down.

[mannc]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Hunh? Three first-round picks? No they didn't. Are you counting 2015 #38 pick Preston Smith?

 

I'm going to assume that's what you meant. But I'd argue it's way too early to judge the success of those moves or that kind of tactic, especially with the two 1sts being a rookie and a 2nd year guy at this point.

 

If the Redskins spent two first-round picks and a 2nd as well on their D-line and didn't field a good team (arguable, since they were on a 10 - 11 win pace before Smith went down, but let's assume they weren't good) does that mean it's not a good idea to pick three D-line guys high? Or is it just too early to see how good Payne and Allen will turn out to be? Or did they just make some bad picks in terms of people rather than personnel. In a year or two will that line be destroying QBs? 

 

Since they brought in Alex Smith as an FA might that have been a good complementary set of moves? IMHO it's very far from clear, and while drafts generally make up the core of your team, you have to look at all personnel moves together, I think.

 

You make an interesting point, though. It could turn out to look like a real mistake a few years down the line, but I don't think that's a sure thing yet.

3 number ones (Kerrigan, Allen, Payne), a high 2 (Smith), and a 3 (Settle)—that a lot of premium picks on the D-line.  It’s not like they’re picking duds; all those guys are good, but I just don’t think it’s going to payoff.  They’ve got issues on offense, not to mention their defensive backfield, and they badly need to find a franchise QB.  What we saw yesterday is that their defense is still vulnerable, even after expending all those assets.

[apuszczalowski]

I'm sure they could slow both teams down, but will it matter? The league is moving towards high offence and less defence. Having a top defence isnt going to matter as much anymore because it's not going to be possible to build defences that can shift down the offences completely. It will become more important to have an offence that can score at will and hope your defence can slow the down enough to keep you in a lead.

[mannc]

44 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

I'm sure they could slow both teams down, but will it matter? The league is moving towards high offence and less defence. Having a top defence isnt going to matter as much anymore because it's not going to be possible to build defences that can shift down the offences completely. It will become more important to have an offence that can score at will and hope your defence can slow the down enough to keep you in a lead.

Agreed. Look at the Skins yesterday.  They kept Elliott and Prescott bottled up most of the day but then gave up two long TDs to Amari Cooper on the way to surrendering 31 points.

Edited November 23, 2018 by mannc

[NoSaint]

48 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

I'm sure they could slow both teams down, but will it matter? The league is moving towards high offence and less defence. Having a top defence isnt going to matter as much anymore because it's not going to be possible to build defences that can shift down the offences completely. It will become more important to have an offence that can score at will and hope your defence can slow the down enough to keep you in a lead.

 

I’m not even sure they slow them down... the saints might, arguably, have a better defense than us too

 

playing with monster leads they are giving up more yards but less points (bend but don’t break to eat clock with 3-4 score leads) as opposed to us giving up more points and less yards while behind (opponents milking clock at some point and runs/short completions are priority, not risky shots downfield 

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Hunh? Three first-round picks? No they didn't. Are you counting 2015 #38 pick Preston Smith?

 

I'm going to assume that's what you meant. But I'd argue it's way too early to judge the success of those moves or that kind of tactic, especially with the two 1sts being a rookie and a 2nd year guy at this point.

 

If the Redskins spent two first-round picks and a 2nd as well on their D-line and didn't field a good team (arguable, since they were on a 10 - 11 win pace before Smith went down, but let's assume they weren't good) does that mean it's not a good idea to pick three D-line guys high? Or is it just too early to see how good Payne and Allen will turn out to be? Or did they just make some bad picks in terms of people rather than personnel. In a year or two will that line be destroying QBs? 

 

Since they brought in Alex Smith as an FA might that have been a good complementary set of moves? IMHO it's very far from clear, and while drafts generally make up the core of your team, you have to look at all personnel moves together, I think.

 

You make an interesting point, though. It could turn out to look like a real mistake a few years down the line, but I don't think that's a sure thing yet.

 

You are correct. The problem is not the 2 first round picks they spent on Allen and Payne, it's the first they wasted on Doctson, the fact that their much needed 2nd round running back has missed the whole year and half their offensive line and their Quarterback have gone down.

 

The Redskins don't prove the point at all.

 

As for the 9ers..... I don't think they have drafted particularly well for a good few years now. Whether they have drafted offense or defense they have had a high % of misses.