Week 10: Bills at Browns

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, K-9 said:

That’s exactly what the old saying, “pass to score, run to win” means. Pass to put up points early, get a lead, and run the ball to protect it late. 

I thought that saying meant 'passing the ball will put up points, running the ball will win games'. 

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I thought that saying meant 'passing the ball will put up points, running the ball will win games'. 

I think that’s exactly what it means. Running the ball has always been a time honored way to protect leads and win games, after all. Passing is the quickest way to get a lead to protect. 
 

Still have to be in manageable down/distance situations, regardless. 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I think that’s exactly what it means. Running the ball has always been a time honored way to protect leads and win games, after all. Passing is the quickest way to get a lead to protect. 
 

Still have to be in manageable down/distance situations, regardless. 

Heh well I guess for clarity's sake...the way I take it is rush attempts are a function of winning and not vice versa.

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Heh well I guess for clarity's sake...the way I take it is rush attempts are a function of winning and not vice versa.

It’s not always cut and dried though. As we saw vs. Philly, their winning was definitely a function of running the ball. 
 

I’ll just leave it at preferring balance, regardless. One dimensional offenses make it too easy for DCs to counter. 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, Dablitzkrieg said:

Just listened to Fred Smerlus with Bob Matthews.

Says he expects Buffalo to beat up Cleveland badly and Kitchens has no brain?

 

That's worrisome.

[Blank Stare]

55 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Good. Glad they haven’t forgotten about that cheap ish. Now do something about it. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LSHMEAB]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I agree. You should prioritise pass defense. You don't want to be where the Bills were for 2 and a half games where teams can just run the same rush play over and over but if you are going to have a weakness better it is run D than pass D. That is just beyond doubt. 

 

Just look at some of the personnel moves teams made in the offseason. CJ Mosely is one of the best old school MLBs in the league. He can shut down a run game. The Ravens let him walk. Landon Collins the premier safety in the NFL coming into the box and hitting. The Giants let him walk. 

 

Yes being able to run and stop the run still matters. But you have to be able to pass and stop the pass first and foremost. 

Exactly. The Redskins game is a prime example. The Bills got gashed in the run game, which is what everyone is talking about. The Redskins also scored 9 POINTS.

 

Winning NFL defense doesn't require a GREAT run D. Obviously you can't get gashed the way the Bills did against Philly and New Orleans a few years back. Those are anomalies that you just can't have. It just require a decent run D and a PASS RUSH capable of disrupting the better QB's, rattling them a bit, and creating turnovers. 

 

The Bills have a good defense, but I think they've got to shake things up going forward against the better QB's. Gotta get in their mug. The LB's did not cover well against Philly, but I think they're "fine." Wallace has had some issues, but I think the secondary is fine overall. What they really need to do is turn up the heat.

[Dr. Who]

5 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Exactly. The Redskins game is a prime example. The Bills got gashed in the run game, which is what everyone is talking about. The Redskins also scored 9 POINTS.

 

Winning NFL defense doesn't require a GREAT run D. Obviously you can't get gashed the way the Bills did against Philly and New Orleans a few years back. Those are anomalies that you just can't have. It just require a decent run D and a PASS RUSH capable of disrupting the better QB's, rattling them a bit, and creating turnovers. 

 

The Bills have a good defense, but I think they've got to shake things up going forward against the better QB's. Gotta get in their mug. The LB's did not cover well against Philly, but I think they're "fine." Wallace has had some issues, but I think the secondary is fine overall. What they really need to do is turn up the heat.

How are they going to achieve turning up the heat with the current talent? We don't blitz much, but I don't really expect much from our front four. I do wish they'd think about sending Edmunds after the qb now and again.

[Jrb1979]

6 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Exactly. The Redskins game is a prime example. The Bills got gashed in the run game, which is what everyone is talking about. The Redskins also scored 9 POINTS.

 

Winning NFL defense doesn't require a GREAT run D. Obviously you can't get gashed the way the Bills did against Philly and New Orleans a few years back. Those are anomalies that you just can't have. It just require a decent run D and a PASS RUSH capable of disrupting the better QB's, rattling them a bit, and creating turnovers. 

 

The Bills have a good defense, but I think they've got to shake things up going forward against the better QB's. Gotta get in their mug. The LB's did not cover well against Philly, but I think they're "fine." Wallace has had some issues, but I think the secondary is fine overall. What they really need to do is turn up the heat.

Maybe blitzing once in awhile would help. Being more aggressive would be good. 

[LSHMEAB]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

How are they going to achieve turning up the heat with the current talent? 

That's my concern Doc. 

 

3 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

Maybe blitzing once in awhile would help. Being more aggressive would be good. 

I think this is the correct approach given the talent. I like Doc's idea of blitzing Edmunds on occasion. I don't think that's something McD likes to do defensively, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do given the circumstances. Also bring White and Johnson a little more often to shake things up that way as well.

[apuszczalowski]

35 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Exactly. The Redskins game is a prime example. The Bills got gashed in the run game, which is what everyone is talking about. The Redskins also scored 9 POINTS.

 

Winning NFL defense doesn't require a GREAT run D. Obviously you can't get gashed the way the Bills did against Philly and New Orleans a few years back. Those are anomalies that you just can't have. It just require a decent run D and a PASS RUSH capable of disrupting the better QB's, rattling them a bit, and creating turnovers. 

 

The Bills have a good defense, but I think they've got to shake things up going forward against the better QB's. Gotta get in their mug. The LB's did not cover well against Philly, but I think they're "fine." Wallace has had some issues, but I think the secondary is fine overall. What they really need to do is turn up the heat.

The Redskins only scored 9 points because they aren't a good team and the had an inexperienced QB starting his first game so their offence was one dimensional.

The Bills have a good defence, but not good enough to make up for a weak offence like they have. They have been lucky their schedule this year is weak so they are getting the wins.

I think in Todays NFL, you can't expect to be a consistently good team thats built on a dominating defence that carries an offence. You need an offence that can put up points in a shootout when needed with a defence that can get a few stops throughout the game to give you a lead.

[LSHMEAB]

10 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

The Redskins only scored 9 points because they aren't a good team and the had an inexperienced QB starting his first game so their offence was one dimensional.

The Bills have a good defence, but not good enough to make up for a weak offence like they have. They have been lucky their schedule this year is weak so they are getting the wins.

I think in Todays NFL, you can't expect to be a consistently good team thats built on a dominating defence that carries an offence. You need an offence that can put up points in a shootout when needed with a defence that can get a few stops throughout the game to give you a lead.

I don't disagree at all; I'm talking about this team and this season. I don't expect this team to be SB contenders and I didn't before the season started. Whether Allen improves enough/they add the right components/Daboll improves or is replaced; that's going to be the key to big success.

 

But THIS season, the defense IS going to have to carry them. I don't expect some magic transformation to occur on the offensive side of the ball.

 

I would like to see them make the playoffs THIS season and my opinion is that the key to that will be the defense playing even better than it has. That means understanding the limitations of the edge players and finding a way to create turnovers, etc. The reason I tend to focus on that is because I think that's more feasible than an offensive surge NOW.

 

Again, disagree with nothing in your post other than the c's in defenSe.

[Jrb1979]

8 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I don't disagree at all; I'm talking about this team and this season. I don't expect this team to be SB contenders and I didn't before the season started. Whether Allen improves enough/they add the right components/Daboll improves or is replaced; that's going to be the key to big success.

 

But THIS season, the defense IS going to have to carry them. I don't expect some magic transformation to occur on the offensive side of the ball.

 

I would like to see them make the playoffs THIS season and my opinion is that the key to that will be the defense playing even better than it has. That means understanding the limitations of the edge players and finding a way to create turnovers, etc. The reason I tend to focus on that is because I think that's more feasible than an offensive surge NOW.

 

Again, disagree with nothing in your post other than the c's in defenSe.

If they want to win some of the harder games left they need to be more aggressive on defense and on offense too. That's part of why I have doubts with this coaching staff. McDermott seems to have an old school way of thinking. He's always been a control the clock type coach. 

[JoPar_v2]

2 things I want:

 

1) I want Landry to pay for that hit on Taron;

2) I want Kitchens to pull another galaxy-brained move and try to throw on us all day and keep Chubb and Hunt blocking. We win either way.

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, JoPar_v2 said:

2 things I want:

 

1) I want Landry to pay for that hit on Taron;

2) I want Kitchens to pull another galaxy-brained move and try to throw on us all day and keep Chubb and Hunt blocking. We win either way.

I want Landry to pay for that hit on A Williams

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

I want Landry to pay for that hit on A Williams

 

If you concentrate too much on making someone "pay" you 're concentrating on the wrong thing.  Make him "pay" by losing the game.

[WideNine]

6 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Heh well I guess for clarity's sake...the way I take it is rush attempts are a function of winning and not vice versa.

 

I thought that quote was a good example of correlation does not imply causation. Teams run more to eat the clock and protect their lead, but you run to win too (and what that means varies from person to person), but I will go with finding the right balance of Run v. Pass and most folks breaking down film will say that having a RB on the field creates more opportunities in the passing game. Because even the threat of run slows down the pass rush, forces linebackers and safeties to stay closer to the LOS, and creates soft spots in the deeper zones they are supposed to be dropping into.

 

With a mobile QB you even put more stress on the defense as defenders are in conflict, do I come up to stop Allen, do I cover Singletary as he releases as an outlet, do I drop back into my zone responsibility. It does not have to be grind it out football with one yard and a cloud of dust, but as Singletary earns Daboll's trust we should see his snap counts steadily go up. Singletary has also been a pleasantly effective surprise in pass-pro picking up the odd rusher coming free.

 

The Bills are in this quandary now with their struggles against the run having to keep two very good coverage LBs in Edmunds and Milano closer to the LOS - throw in their safeties too if those guys are getting rolled. They survived the Skins as there was only so much damage Haskins was going to do thru the air. The Browns have the talent to be more of an issue. I hope they are so dysfunctional they lose, but McD knows that hope is not a strategy and they shopped for some interior run D help. 

 

I don't anticipate this game being a walk in the park... no NFL team is OK with being beaten by Buffalo. I think its a thing.

 

The worse teams out there bring it when they play us.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

If you concentrate too much on making someone "pay" you 're concentrating on the wrong thing.  Make him "pay" by losing the game.

 

Wouldn't hurt to sweep the leg along the way