Bills 43, WFT 21 Game Balls!

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

13 hours ago, TFBillsfan said:

Really only two things that didn’t go well today.

 

73 yard TD screen for Gibson

McKenzie failure to catch the KO

 

Otherwise just an all around SOLID performance from the coaching to the players.

 

At some point this season, really would like to notice Hughes making an impact at DE though. And that’s two special team blunders in two out of three games now. Gotta tighten that up.

 

Bass also kicked one out of bounds.  

[BillsFan130]

19 hours ago, K-9 said:

It’s less a matter of opinion than it is a matter of understanding the game we all watched. But good for you, four people as clueless agree with you. 

Here you go bud. Since I'm "clueless " and there is no room for debate because the pass rush was "very good", you may want to tune into this podcast.

 

About 20 minutes in.

[K-9]

9 minutes ago, BillsFan130 said:

Here you go bud. Since I'm "clueless " and there is no room for debate because the pass rush was "very good", you may want to tune into this podcast.

 

About 20 minutes in.

Validation at last! Validation at last! Great God almighty, validation at last! 
 

You think I’m gonna be swayed by what Joe Marino or some other draft geek has to say on a podcast relative to whether or not the Bills D line had a good game yesterday? I reviewed the game. I saw what happened yesterday. No need. 
 

 But good for you. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by K-9

[BillsFan130]

26 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Validation at last! Validation at last! Great God almighty, validation at last! 
 

You think I’m gonna be swayed by what Joe Marino or some other draft geek has to say on a podcast relative to whether or not the Bills D line had a good game yesterday? I reviewed the game. I saw what happened yesterday. No need. 
 

 But good for you. 

I really don't care if you get swayed or not lol.

 

My point is it's not as black and white as you say and you're the one who's "clueless" by making that statement.

 

If you want to disagree that's fine. 
 

Just don't be obnoxious about it and call people "clueless " when it's a legit debate

 

[K-9]

12 minutes ago, BillsFan130 said:

I really don't care if you get swayed or not lol.

 

My point is it's not as black and white as you say and you're the one who's "clueless" by making that statement.

 

If you want to disagree that's fine. 
 

Just don't be obnoxious about it and call people "clueless " when it's a legit debate

 

I disagree entirely that it’s a legitimate debate because the D line played very well yesterday and it’s only those who point to the lack of sacks to claim that they didn’t have a good game who seek to make it debate worthy in the first place. 
 

Their good play was obvious. Perhaps I should have used a different word than “clueless” to describe those who didn’t see that. Perhaps “unobservant” or “oblivious” would have been better.
 

But for crissakes, just acknowledge that there are several  indicators of good D line play during the course of a game. Always has been, always will be. And that’s not minimizing sacks as one of those indicators, either. It’s just not being willing to ignore all those other indicators. 

[BillsFan130]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

I disagree entirely that it’s a legitimate debate because the D line played very well yesterday and it’s only those who point to the lack of sacks to claim that they didn’t have a good game who seek to make it debate worthy in the first place. 
 

Their good play was obvious. Perhaps I should have used a different word than “clueless” to describe those who didn’t see that. Perhaps “unobservant” or “oblivious” would have been better.
 

But for crissakes, just acknowledge that there are several  indicators of good D line play during the course of a game. Always has been, always will be. And that’s not minimizing sacks as one of those indicators, either. It’s just not being willing to ignore all those other indicators. 

The lack of sacks to me is not the only factor, but it's for sure a factor.

 

Especially when they only got 2 Qb hits on top of it.

 

I will for sure acknowledge there are factors besides sacks.

 

But I would actually like to know the "pressure " percentage of the pass rush yesterday because to me, it didn't really feel like there was much with the exception of a few plays .

 

I think 0 Sacks and 2 QB hits reflect that^ In the big picture with everything factored in.

 

 

[BillsFan130]

2 hours ago, K-9 said:

I disagree entirely that it’s a legitimate debate because the D line played very well yesterday and it’s only those who point to the lack of sacks to claim that they didn’t have a good game who seek to make it debate worthy in the first place. 
 

Their good play was obvious. Perhaps I should have used a different word than “clueless” to describe those who didn’t see that. Perhaps “unobservant” or “oblivious” would have been better.
 

But for crissakes, just acknowledge that there are several  indicators of good D line play during the course of a game. Always has been, always will be. And that’s not minimizing sacks as one of those indicators, either. It’s just not being willing to ignore all those other indicators. 

Ok so some stats for the pass rush for you:

 

0 sacks.

 

2 Qb hits.

 

9 Pressures (compared to 44 last week to put it in perspective)

 

Sure there are other factors, but seriously what metrics for pass rush are more valuable than sacks, qb hits and pressures?

[Saxum]

22 hours ago, jlgarsh said:

It seemed like the DL was in the backfield quite a bit to me. Oliver blew up several plays, and it looked like WFT was holding on almost every snap.

 

They were holding a lot.  They were probably taught how to hold without getting caught.

 

Zimmer was applying a lot of pressure as well and in backfield.   He looked like a tank out there.

2 hours ago, K-9 said:

But for crissakes, just acknowledge that there are several  indicators of good D line play during the course of a game. Always has been, always will be. And that’s not minimizing sacks as one of those indicators, either. It’s just not being willing to ignore all those other indicators. 

 

There were dominant performances before sacks were official stats.

7 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

Bass also kicked one out of bounds.  

 

Wind was really bad.  I do not think he has done that before.   Maybe Bills should have practiced squib kicking when they got big lead.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, BillsFan130 said:

Ok so some stats for the pass rush for you:

 

0 sacks.

 

2 Qb hits.

 

9 Pressures (compared to 44 last week to put it in perspective)

 

Sure there are other factors, but seriously what metrics for pass rush are more valuable than sacks, qb hits and pressures?

You keep insisting on chewing on this bone, but ok. 

 

I don’t doubt your numbers here, but I’d appreciate an attribution or, better yet, an actual link to the source so that I can determine for myself how much stock to put into their analysis. If it’s PFF, don’t waste your time because I won’t. 

 

Hurries and/or forcing a QB off his spot and disrupting timing are two additional indicators of an effective pass rush and they aren’t always counted as pressures as it depends on who is compiling them. Given WFT’s dependence on timing patterns in their scheme, this was a big factor yesterday. 
 

Are you ever gonna give Heineke some credit for his ability to escape a collapsing pocket?

 

Look, I apologize for calling you clueless, but I think we’ve dance around this enough. You think our D line didn’t play well yesterday and I do. I’ll agree with you that opinions may differ and agree to disagree. Have a good evening. 

[Jerome007]

I think the DLine played very good, not great, but very good. But was I blind or Epenesa had very few reps, and most when the game was out of reach already? After his crazy good performance of last week I expected to see way more of him. But maybe I wasn't paying attention...

[BillsFan130]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

You keep insisting on chewing on this bone, but ok. 

 

I don’t doubt your numbers here, but I’d appreciate an attribution or, better yet, an actual link to the source so that I can determine for myself how much stock to put into their analysis. If it’s PFF, don’t waste your time because I won’t. 

 

Hurries and/or forcing a QB off his spot and disrupting timing are two additional indicators of an effective pass rush and they aren’t always counted as pressures as it depends on who is compiling them. Given WFT’s dependence on timing patterns in their scheme, this was a big factor yesterday. 
 

Are you ever gonna give Heineke some credit for his ability to escape a collapsing pocket?

 

Look, I apologize for calling you clueless, but I think we’ve dance around this enough. You think our D line didn’t play well yesterday and I do. I’ll agree with you that opinions may differ and agree to disagree. Have a good evening. 

Fair enough man.

 

I guess what I was just trying to prove was that it's not as black and white as you said.

 

You may very well be right about the pass rush was sufficient enough.

 

I Just thought it was at least up for discussion.

 

I appreciate the apology. You have a good night as well sir 

[BobbyC81]

I’d like to give broadcaster Chris Myers a Game Mike for his comments after a puzzling Washington play when he said “The WFT fans must be thinking WTF”

[Freddie's Dead]

Allen - duh 

Emmanuel "Colonel" Sanders - growing on me.  He and Josh have good chemistry.  Need him to stop false starting for unconditional love.

Cole Beasley - just play Cole, just play 

Matt "Cookie" Milano - earning every penny of that $11M/yr, and like Josh Allen, another steal for the Bills front office 

Taron Johnson/Jordan Poyer/"Dr. Jekyll and" Micah Hyde - terrorized receivers and ball carriers all day (save the screen pass), 2 picks, TFLs, plays all over the field 

 

12 hours ago, K-9 said:

Their good play was obvious. Perhaps I should have used a different word than “clueless” to describe those who didn’t see that. Perhaps “unobservant” or “oblivious” would have been better.

 

SO much better🤪

Edited September 28, 2021 by Freddie's Dead

[GunnerBill]

13 hours ago, BillsFan130 said:

Ok so some stats for the pass rush for you:

 

0 sacks.

 

2 Qb hits.

 

9 Pressures (compared to 44 last week to put it in perspective)

 

Sure there are other factors, but seriously what metrics for pass rush are more valuable than sacks, qb hits and pressures?

 

The 44 number is wrong. We got 25 pressures in week 2 on 50 dropbacks as per Cynthia Frelund and Next Gen stats. The average winning pressure rate in the NFL is 30% so I can't buy the 44 (88%). We were all over the Dolphins but not THAT all over them. 

 

Washington had 24 pass attempts and Heinicke had 8 rushes. Some of those were scrambles on dropbacks but there was at least one attempted sneak and one designed run. So if we say it was 9 pressures on 30 dropbacks that is right around the 30% average for winning teams. The Bills pass rush was good on Sunday and they got the normal amount of pressure for a team winning an NFL game. 

[BillsFan130]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The 44 number is wrong. We got 25 pressures in week 2 on 50 dropbacks as per Cynthia Frelund and Next Gen stats. The average winning pressure rate in the NFL is 30% so I can't buy the 44 (88%). We were all over the Dolphins but not THAT all over them. 

 

Washington had 24 pass attempts and Heinicke had 8 rushes. Some of those were scrambles on dropbacks but there was at least one attempted sneak and one designed run. So if we say it was 9 pressures on 30 dropbacks that is right around the 30% average for winning teams. The Bills pass rush was good on Sunday and they got the normal amount of pressure for a team winning an NFL game. 

I think I've beaten this long enough so while I appreciate your response, I'm kind of worn out talking about the pass rush lol. As no one will convince me that it was good on Sunday 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, BillsFan130 said:

I think I've beaten this long enough so while I appreciate your response, I'm kind of worn out talking about the pass rush lol. As no one will convince me that it was good on Sunday 

 

That's fair enough, but I still think you are dead wrong. 

[BillsFan130]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

That's fair enough, but I still think you are dead wrong. 

You're entitled to your opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree.