Who is to blame for our lack of Lombardis?

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, IronMaidenBills said:

I refuse to believe this. Mistakes are preventable with either better coaching or better talent acquisition. Fumbling isn’t luck. Interceptions isn’t luck. Ball security is a skill, making good throws consistently is a skill. Optimizing football strategy is a skill. In game adaptation is a skill. Clock management is a skill. 

What a load of crap.

 

Just because you refuse to believe this doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

 

Luck happens in everything in life, sports and non-sports related.

 

 

 

[Thurman#1]

9 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

I refuse to believe this. Mistakes are preventable with either better coaching or better talent acquisition. Fumbling isn’t luck. Interceptions isn’t luck. Ball security is a skill, making good throws consistently is a skill. Optimizing football strategy is a skill. In game adaptation is a skill. Clock management is a skill. 

 

 

You've put it perfectly.

 

You refuse to believe this. Precisely! That is indeed your problem, that you see something that makes sense and refuse to believe it.

 

After all, finding a scapegoat feels so very much better than listening to reason. No scapegoat means no pitchfork, and that's the fun part for many.

[MJS]

I don't know why "blame" needs to be a part of the conversation.

 

There is this team called the Buffalo Bills that I root for to win. Sometimes they do well, sometimes they don't. Recently they have been doing very well and seem to be on the doorstep of winning a championship if they can tweak a few things and add a bit more talent, and play better in certain situations in the playoffs.

 

I hope they can get there. I don't find the need to point blame at anyone.

[billsfan1959]

17 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Where did I say fire them? I simply want to know who is to blame more at this moment. Is it a lack of talent or coaching. It’s simple because that’s what determines success in sports is all about. 

 

The problem with threads like this and posters like you is that you don't actually want honest dialogue. You tell people you want to to take the subjectivity out of an evaluation that is primarily, or at least to a large degree, subjective; and demand pure objectivity when you are one of the least objective posters here.

 

In the end, you seem to want neither subjective nor objective dialogue, but, instead, seem to be primarily interested in emotional rants, across posts and threads, where you feel compelled to let everyone know how angry you are that this team didn't give you what you wanted, and who you think should be blamed - and, ultimately - who should pay for how you feel.

 

And when a poster dares to disagree with you, you become aggressive and question that posters' passion for this team, desire to win, or just the poster's level of "fandom" in general."

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by billsfan1959

[HOUSE]

Owner Collusion

 

 

[Milanos Milano]

3 minutes ago, SWATeam said:

LOL, ok.  So the 2007 Giants had better coaching or talent than the 2007 Pats*?  Which is it?

It depends how we decide on determining the gauge of roster quality. Obviously QB is the most important position in football, but it’s still a team sport. You could argue the Giants coaching is what made the difference that game because the pats had a good overall roster. 

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

They were better in that moment of time. Keeping talent focused and consistent is a skill. The best find ways to stay consistent in their performances. It’s not always because of a lack of talent, but failure to recognize what is the best way to strategize against varying opponents. The best chess players in the world can win with different approaches at any given time. 

If one of the best chess players doesn’t win the championship with all those winnable approaches…that means all those approaches are failures.  This is your argument.

[Ga boy]

25 minutes ago, Gugny said:

Many factors, but my knee-jerk response to this is that Beane has not done well addressing the lines on both sides of the ball.

 

I think Beane has done a fantastic job overall, and I wouldn't want anyone else at GM.  But the success this team has had has been because of one person:  Josh Allen.  Not many QBs would be as successful behind that crap line.  And the defense, while on paper and with deceiving statistics saying it's a "Top D," has been a failure.

 

Everyone wants to bang the 13-second drum, but the fact remains that giving up 36 points in regulation is not going to result in a W the vast majority of the time.

 

Last season was the easiest road to the Super Bowl the Bills will likely ever see.  Poor coaching is what kept the Bills from going to/winning the Super Bowl.

 

But still, I would be shocked if the Bills don't win at least one in the next 4-5 years.

Agree that OL and DL have not been SB caliber.  We’ll win SB when JA17 is not out best rusher.  Go Bills 🦬🦬🦬

[Royale with Cheese]

2 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

It depends how we decide on determining the gauge of roster quality. Obviously QB is the most important position in football, but it’s still a team sport. You could argue the Giants coaching is what made the difference that game because the pats had a good overall roster. 

Oh so now you’re being subjective which you are against.  Which one is it?

[Milanos Milano]

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

If one of the best chess players doesn’t win the championship with all those winnable approaches…that means all those approaches are failures.  This is your argument.

Yes. Because somewhere along the lines mistakes happened against a superior challenger at that time. 

[Freddie's Dead]

This year, it was McChoke.  We had the team and the personnel, he blew it.  SBXXV - We had the better team/personnel.  Jim Kelly needed to give the ball to Thurman, but insisted on continuing to pass into a defense designed to stop that.  I lay the game on Kelly, and also Marvcus, for not getting Jimbo to do what needed to be done.  SBXXVI and SBXXVII, we were overmatched.  SBXXVIII, another game we should have won, but Thurman quitting after the fumble six doomed us.  I lay that one on Thurman.

[Andrew Son]

3 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

It depends how we decide on determining the gauge of roster quality. Obviously QB is the most important position in football, but it’s still a team sport. You could argue the Giants coaching is what made the difference that game because the pats had a good overall roster. 

Yes, must have been the advantage in coaching that Coughlin had over Belichick that got them over the top... 

[billsfan1959]

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

Oh so now you’re being subjective which you are against.  Which one is it?

 

It is whatever he needs at the moment. Intellectual honesty and consistency are not his strong suits...

[Milanos Milano]

4 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Oh so now you’re being subjective which you are against.  Which one is it?

Statistical analysis isn’t subjective. Data is data. On paper the pats had more talent. I can’t say for certain because we haven’t discussed what is the best way in determining roster talent success. So if the pats had the better roster at that time, then that means the giants had better coaching to win the super bowl. 

3 minutes ago, SWATeam said:

Yes, must have been the advantage in coaching that Coughlin had over Belichick that got them over the top... 

That had to of been the case. The pats were obviously the more talented team on paper. I bet if we did a positional statistical quartile ranking of the teams talent, the giants would be below the pats that year in player performance metrics. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by IronMaidenBills

[Royale with Cheese]

Just now, IronMaidenBills said:

Yes. Because somewhere along the lines mistakes happened against a superior challenger at that time. 

Oh so it wasn’t the superior opponent who was the reason he won it….it was the inferior opponent making mistakes.

 

I see how your mind thinks now.  

3 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Statistical analysis isn’t subjective. Data is data. On paper the pats had more talent. I can’t say for certain because we haven’t discussed what is the best way in determining roster talent success. So if the pats had the better roster at that time, then that means the giants had better coaching to win the super bowl. 

Statistical analysis isn’t subjective?????

Okay, this is getting beyond dumb now.

Im out.

[Beerball]

1 hour ago, IronMaidenBills said:

So some say winning in the NFL is hard. Some say it takes luck. I say it all comes down to roster talent and coaching to get the most out of that roster talent (player execution). Where do you stand at the moment, who is to blame for not winning any Lombardis? 
 

A lot of posters here feel we have a top 5 roster. Which ultimately begs the question, how exactly should we qualify what is “top 5” , which metrics are we going to use. Should we use positional statistical quartiles for every team position and weight them based on positional importance? I’m serious, I would like to sit down and debate how exactly we should gauge this. 
 

Some posters here feel we aren’t winning Lombardis because of coaching strategy and maximizing player execution. Which coaching statistics should we use to gauge coaching performance? I want to try and be as less subjective as possible when trying to determine where fault is placed. 
 

I don’t believe in luck. I believe in talent and talent execution. Luck is a crutch people use to excuse away failure. 
 

How is it that some NFL teams can win Lombardis on less than top 5 roster talent, but somehow we supposedly can’t? 
 

Please discuss as honestly as you can. 

Player execution (I'm for it) & scheme/strategy are two, maybe three very different things. Lumping them together and then adding coaching to the mix a'int right.

[todd]

1 hour ago, IronMaidenBills said:

So some say winning in the NFL is hard. Some say it takes luck. I say it all comes down to roster talent and coaching to get the most out of that roster talent (player execution). Where do you stand at the moment, who is to blame for not winning any Lombardis? 
 

A lot of posters here feel we have a top 5 roster. Which ultimately begs the question, how exactly should we qualify what is “top 5” , which metrics are we going to use. Should we use positional statistical quartiles for every team position and weight them based on positional importance? I’m serious, I would like to sit down and debate how exactly we should gauge this. 
 

Some posters here feel we aren’t winning Lombardis because of coaching strategy and maximizing player execution. Which coaching statistics should we use to gauge coaching performance? I want to try and be as less subjective as possible when trying to determine where fault is placed. 
 

I don’t believe in luck. I believe in talent and talent execution. Luck is a crutch people use to excuse away failure. 
 

How is it that some NFL teams can win Lombardis on less than top 5 roster talent, but somehow we supposedly can’t? 
 

Please discuss as honestly as you can. 

in my opinion, it is because people on message boards who are on a crusade know way more than playoff coaches and GMs, and all would be solved it such posters were given control of the team. Step up! 

[Milanos Milano]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Oh so it wasn’t the superior opponent who was the reason he won it….it was the inferior opponent making mistakes.

 

I see how your mind thinks now.  

Not necessarily. Sometimes superior talent makes mistakes against a nearly equal talent. But then again, that should be factored into overall talent. Because how can you be superior if you can’t win more consistently if you are truly “more talented” . If you have 2 players that can each run 4.45s , you want the player who can run 4.45s the most consistently and that’s a skill. Same with QBs or any position. 

[nedboy7]

10 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

This year, it was McChoke.  We had the team and the personnel, he blew it.  SBXXV - We had the better team/personnel.  Jim Kelly needed to give the ball to Thurman, but insisted on continuing to pass into a defense designed to stop that.  I lay the game on Kelly, and also Marvcus, for not getting Jimbo to do what needed to be done.  SBXXVI and SBXXVII, we were overmatched.  SBXXVIII, another game we should have won, but Thurman quitting after the fumble six doomed us.  I lay that one on Thurman.

 

Your blame game is strong.  Well done. 

[Milanos Milano]

1 minute ago, Beerball said:

Player execution (I'm for it) & scheme/strategy are two, maybe three very different things. Lumping them together and then adding coaching to the mix a'int right.

But isn’t coaching responsible in some ways to player execution? Or is that strictly under talent performance? If a player can consistently perform, is that a coaching issue or a talent issue? 
 

True or false, can a coach win with inferior talent if they are a superior coach with better strategy? 
How much can a coach, coach up? Preparedness? Situational awareness? Statistical advantages under certain situations that are diagnosed in real time?