Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TroutDog said:

I agree our secondary is good but teams did run all over us last year so no need for huge passing numbers. 

 

While I think this needs to be clarified (ran all over us) I do think if you defend the run better, you will see more pass attempts and thus the yardage will go up a bit.  So I'm not sure I have an issue here except with having the Browns over the Bills and Jags.  The Browns, based on last year shouldn't even be on this list.  I'll show why I think this below.  But let's look at this.

 

The Bills had to defend the run 440 times

 

The Bears 339 times

The Ravens 354 times

The Chargers 395 times

The Browns 454 times

 

The Bills had to defend the pass 492 times 30.8 attempts per game

 

The Bears 615 times  38.4 attempts per game

The Ravens 577 times 36.1 attempts per game

The Chargers 533 times  34.2 attempts per game

The Browns 626 times  39.1 attempts per game

 

Here is how I look at this.  The Bills because they had to defend the run more than the top 3 teams on that list were going to have less pass defense snaps per game.  The top 3 not only defended the run well forcing teams to pass, but they had more pass attempts to defend and when it comes to passing yards per game, which is what Micah cites to suggest that we've been slighted, they are still in the top 10 in yards per game too.  So to me, because those teams had more attempts to defend and they are around 30 yds or less per game in the ball park, I can't say that we clearly have the better secondary, if this is just based on numbers.  We had enough less attempts to defend to make those numbers be in our favor.

 

The Browns though.  To me, this is where the slap in the face comes in.  Let's look at them.  Not only did they have to defend the run more than we did, they had a significant number more pass attempts to defend and their total yards per game is not even in the same ball park.  We at least should have been on the damn list over the Browns.  Either us or Jacksonville before the Browns.  So to wrap this up I don't necessarily have an issue with them talking about Chicago, Baltimore, and San Diego per se.  But to have the Browns mentioned over us is just foolishness.

Edited by NewEraBills
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

CBS needs a public stoning...

 

Image result for boulder falls on car

that's a hell of a backstory when i opened it up . 
well done House !
 

Posted
3 hours ago, Dopey said:

Under the radar isn't a bad thing. Sneak attack.

Under the radar with media is not necessarily under the radar with other teams.  I'm guessing Belichick knows better.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, NewEraBills said:

 

While I think this needs to be clarified (ran all over us) I do think if you defend the run better, you will see more pass attempts and thus the yardage will go up a bit.  So I'm not sure I have an issue here except with having the Browns over the Bills and Jags.  The Browns, based on last year shouldn't even be on this list.  I'll show why I think this below.  But let's look at this.

 

The Bills had to defend the run 440 times

 

The Bears 339 times

The Ravens 354 times

The Chargers 395 times

The Browns 454 times

 

The Bills had to defend the pass 492 times 30.8 attempts per game

 

The Bears 615 times  38.4 attempts per game

The Ravens 577 times 36.1 attempts per game

The Chargers 533 times  34.2 attempts per game

The Browns 626 times  39.1 attempts per game

 

Here is how I look at this.  The Bills because they had to defend the run more than the top 3 teams on that list were going to have less pass defense snaps per game.  The top 3 not only defended the run well forcing teams to pass, but they had more pass attempts to defend and when it comes to passing yards per game, which is what Micah cites to suggest that we've been slighted, they are still in the top 10 in yards per game too.  So to me, because those teams had more attempts to defend and they are around 30 yds or less per game in the ball park, I can't say that we clearly have the better secondary, if this is just based on numbers.  We had enough less attempts to defend to make those numbers be in our favor.

 

The Browns though.  To me, this is where the slap in the face comes in.  Let's look at them.  Not only did they have to defend the run more than we did, they had a significant number more pass attempts to defend and their total yards per game is not even in the same ball park.  We at least should have been on the damn list over the Browns.  Either us or Jacksonville before the Browns.  So to wrap this up I don't necessarily have an issue with them talking about Chicago, Baltimore, and San Diego per se.  But to have the Browns mentioned over us is just foolishness.

This is an excellent post.  I not a numbers person but this is a great presentation with those statistics . And the opinion is a solid one.

 

Thanks for the context NEB !

6 minutes ago, Billzgobowlin said:

Under the radar with media is not necessarily under the radar with other teams.  I'm guessing Belichick knows better.

 L Waddle agrees with you about Pats. I agree with you that most all teams know they will get a  full game out of Bills.

Edited by 3rdand12
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TroutDog said:

Fair enough. 

 

If anything, the Bills' pass defense (with little in the way of pass rush behind it, mind you) probably forced teams to abandon passing and instead opt to run, which was certainly a weakness for the Bills last year.  But while that would affect (lower) total passing yards against, it would have nothing to do with passing yards/play. 

Edited by Doc
Posted
2 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Touché 

 

Rex outsmarted himself and turned a dominant 43 defense into a joke of a 34 that was full of out of  position players 

 

...loathe regurgitating that bloviator who cost this club two years of development...TRIVIA QUESTION: "who was the LAST NFL club to employ Wrecks Ryan in ANY coaching position?"....ad nauseam.........a major stain on this franchise....BUT....we are getting through it..............

Posted (edited)

They allowed fewer yards, but I think it could be argued that they didn't play as well as they did in 2017 because the offense wasn't scoring so opponents pssed less on 1st and 2nd down.

Edited by GreggTX
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

I'm fine with this. The media these days is horrible. It's a "hot take" media, which requires only an opinion that doesn't need to be based on fact. The Bills don't generate clicks right now, so they will never be an option.

 

This fact really hit home recently. Peter King (think what you want) used to be a guy who would cover the NFL and all the teams in it, no matter what. Recently, he never mentions or considers Buffalo. So I wrote him a note. It ended up being one of the letters he answered on his Monday Morning bull#### columns. He basically said, "the Bills haven't won a playoff game in forever, so screw them, I'm only covering the teams that make me feel good about eating Hot Pockets. The "Hot Take" media.

 

 

Posted (edited)

I'm mad as h*** and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

 

Who does this Justin Diloro character think he is?? Really. Who is he?

Edited by LSHMEAB
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
4 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Fox everything is starting to become unwatchable

 

You cannot go to website just to read articles anymore.  It has become a tablet style video board.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, NewEraBills said:

 

While I think this needs to be clarified (ran all over us) I do think if you defend the run better, you will see more pass attempts and thus the yardage will go up a bit.  So I'm not sure I have an issue here except with having the Browns over the Bills and Jags.  The Browns, based on last year shouldn't even be on this list.  I'll show why I think this below.  But let's look at this.

 

The Bills had to defend the run 440 times

 

The Bears 339 times

The Ravens 354 times

The Chargers 395 times

The Browns 454 times

 

The Bills had to defend the pass 492 times 30.8 attempts per game

 

The Bears 615 times  38.4 attempts per game

The Ravens 577 times 36.1 attempts per game

The Chargers 533 times  34.2 attempts per game

The Browns 626 times  39.1 attempts per game

 

Here is how I look at this.  The Bills because they had to defend the run more than the top 3 teams on that list were going to have less pass defense snaps per game.  The top 3 not only defended the run well forcing teams to pass, but they had more pass attempts to defend and when it comes to passing yards per game, which is what Micah cites to suggest that we've been slighted, they are still in the top 10 in yards per game too.  So to me, because those teams had more attempts to defend and they are around 30 yds or less per game in the ball park, I can't say that we clearly have the better secondary, if this is just based on numbers.  We had enough less attempts to defend to make those numbers be in our favor.

 

The Browns though.  To me, this is where the slap in the face comes in.  Let's look at them.  Not only did they have to defend the run more than we did, they had a significant number more pass attempts to defend and their total yards per game is not even in the same ball park.  We at least should have been on the damn list over the Browns.  Either us or Jacksonville before the Browns.  So to wrap this up I don't necessarily have an issue with them talking about Chicago, Baltimore, and San Diego per se.  But to have the Browns mentioned over us is just foolishness.

I really appreciate the breakdown as it points to some weak areas on our team, particularly the ineptitude of our offense as they afforded teams too much opportunity to play with leads and have the luxury of running the ball more. But that's another discussion.

 

But yeah, the run defense was weaker than it should have been. 

 

As to the pass defense stats, I think what I posted earlier bears repeating: passing yards given up is NOT the meaningful stat; ypa and QB passer rating against are the two that matter most. We finished tied for 1st in ypa against and finished 3rd in passer rating against (Bears, Ravens). Anybody analyzing the strength of passing defense needs to look at those numbers first and foremost. It says a lot about the authors of that FOX Sports poll that they didn't.

 

Shoddy research. At best. 

 

Edited by K-9
  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
5 hours ago, TroutDog said:

I agree our secondary is good but teams did run all over us last year so no need for huge passing numbers. 

 

don't spoil the narrative that a bunch of lines on a spreadsheet is more important than what honestly happened out there  :D

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
6 hours ago, K-9 said:

Op/Ed is journalism. Just like investigative, special features, politics, and everything else under that umbrella.

 

Even a cursory examination of the pass defense stats suggests they were lazy in not mentioning the third best overall pass defense in the league last year. 

 

I could give two schits if any writer criticizes the Bills, warranted or not. But I have a low tolerance for laziness.

 

So you'd be upset over a lazy write up on an episode of masked singer then.

 

It's an equally weird thing to get worked up over in this day when we're surrounded by it in unimportant areas like creating unnecessary content about a sports league constantly.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

So you'd be upset over a lazy write up on an episode of masked singer then.

 

It's an equally weird thing to get worked up over in this day when we're surrounded by it in unimportant areas like creating unnecessary content about a sports league constantly.

Nobody’s “worked up” about anything. Except, apparently, you.

 

If people voicing voicing their opinion on a shoddily assembled list of top five secondaries in the NFL while providing superior information to back those opinions up is too “weird” for you, perhaps you should decline to participate. 

 

This place must drive you nuts. 

Posted
Just now, K-9 said:

Nobody’s “worked up” about anything. Except, apparently, you.

 

If people voicing voicing their opinion on a shoddily assembled list of top five secondaries in the NFL while providing superior information to back those opinions up is too “weird” for you, perhaps you should decline to participate. 

 

This place must drive you nuts. 

 

No it doesn't, just don't really buy your explanation. The whole low tolerance thing suggests otherwise, but it's cool. 

 

I get annoyed being in line behind people at the store who take out the 87 cents to get back no change and take forever looking for it. Just take the 13 cents, society needs rules. If you take longer than 5 seconds your attempt is cancelled like a shot clock on change.

 

We've all got our things lol. Just giving an example, I know when I'm irrational with what annoys me.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

No it doesn't, just don't really buy your explanation. The whole low tolerance thing suggests otherwise, but it's cool. 

 

I get annoyed being in line behind people at the store who take out the 87 cents to get back no change and take forever looking for it. Just take the 13 cents, society needs rules. If you take longer than 5 seconds your attempt is cancelled like a shot clock on change.

 

We've all got our things lol. Just giving an example, I know when I'm irrational with what annoys me.

If the worst thing that happens to you on a given day is waiting a bit longer in line at the store, you’re having a damn good day.

 

Have you ever irked the person behind you for taking extra time? 

 

I don’t think calling into question a list of top defensive secondaries compiled via half-assed research is irrational in the least. If consumers don’t hold content providers accountable, who does? 

 

Anyway, we’ve tossed this around long enough. Feel free to avoid my takes in the future if it’s like the counting out 87 cents. 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...