The Oversimplified Explanation of What's Wrong with the Bills and Why There's Still Hope

[PBF81]

12 minutes ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

Agree about KC's receivers.  MVS and Watson have stone hands.  And the rest, who cares.  Kelce will catch some passes.  But he seems to be running in mud.  Their defense is good.  But Bolton is injured.  And Frank Clark left.  I think our O line has improved considerably this season.  Both in the run game and pass protection.  (the one run play I would like to see put to bed is handing off to Cook from the shotgun when he run laterally 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage looking for a crease to cut through or to get around the outside. That play constantly gets blown up for a big loss every time.)

 

Both games will be tough matches.  We will see how good a team we have in the next few weeks.

 

Kelce's 34 let's not forget.  That's hardly an age where receiving types typically see a significant downturn in their play.  

 

As for TEs, one of the greatest receiving TEs of all time, Gonzalez, fell off at 33.  Kelce almost has what Gonzalez had at the age of 34 now.  This week's game should put him past that.  So he's doing incredibly well for his age, but his contributions are going to continue to significantly diminish, generally speaking, going forward.  

 

 

[PBF81]

6 minutes ago, Cash said:

This is poor methodology.  (Leaving aside for the moment that you can't actually "take away Shakir's big play", because that's not how statistical analysis works.)  For an apples to apples comparison, you would need to also take away the biggest offensive play from each other Jets opponent.  Since Shakir's TD was the longest passing TD in the league this year, that exercise would presumably still drop us relative to everyone else.  But intentionally handicapping 1 team's results while leaving all other team's untouched is disingenuous.  Yeah, if you remove the positives from the analysis, what's left will be neutral or negative.  No duh, but it doesn't tell us anything.

 

No, it isn't poor methodolgy for the purpose illustrated. 

 

How many games this season have been aided to a win by a huge passing plays of that distance?   Have you looked?  

 

How about over 50 yards?  

 

I applaud your optimism that we'll get STs & D help in setting us up for 10-14 points each game, coupled with the notion that we'll have a deep pass for a TD every game, but unfortunately there's almost no basis for that.  

 

Again, big-plays and turnovers are not something that can be game-planned in.  When you get them, great.  When you don't, then you'd better be able to out-execute the opponent otherwise.  It really is that simple.  

 

Again, in games where we've logged 2+ Takeaways, we're 4-1.  

 

In games that we haven't, we're 2-4.  

 

That doesn't bode well for the gauntlet that we're about to run.  Particularly since teams like the Chargers have only one game with 2 Giveaways.  

 

 

[Big Turk]

18 hours ago, transient said:

On the way to racking up those stats this D gave up game winning drives to Mac Jones and Russell Wilson, and tried really hard to do the same with Tyrod Taylor and Baker Mayfield. The stats are what they are, same as seasons past, but the eye test suggests this defense will break at big moments with the game on the line, same as seasons past. 

 

Giving Denver average starting field possession of their own 42 yard line and 4 TO's is why they lost that game, not the defense.

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

No, it isn't poor methodolgy for the purpose illustrated. 

 

How many games this season have been aided to a win by a huge passing plays of that distance?   Have you looked?  

 

How about over 50 yards?  

 

I applaud your optimism that we'll get STs & D help in setting us up for 10-14 points each game, coupled with the notion that we'll have a deep pass for a TD every game, but unfortunately there's almost no basis for that.  

 

Again, big-plays and turnovers are not something that can be game-planned in.  When you get them, great.  When you don't, then you'd better be able to out-execute the opponent otherwise.  It really is that simple.  

 

Again, in games where we've logged 2+ Takeaways, we're 4-1.  

 

In games that we haven't, we're 2-4.  

 

That doesn't bode well for the gauntlet that we're about to run.  Particularly since teams like the Chargers have only one game with 2 Giveaways.  

 

 

 

Usually because we have turned the ball over multiple times in those games.  I'm not worried about the past.  If this was the first game of them hitting their stride, nothing else will matter.  They are capable of beating anyone.

 

At the end of the day people spend a lot of time wrangling about stuff when what they really need to understand is that luck plays a much greater part in sports than we want to admit.

 

Did the Eagles do anything to cause MVS to drop an easy wide open TD that was thrown perfectly that would have given the Chiefs the lead late in the game? 

 

No. 

 

Did they do anything that caused Watson to drop a perfect pass that hit him right in the hands on 4th and 25 that would have converted the 4th down in Eagle territory instead of ending the game?

 

No.

 

Did the Texans do anything to cause Tyler Boyd to drop a wide open TD late in the game on 3rd and goal that would have given them a 4 point lead instead of just letting them kick a FG to tie it which then allowed the Texans to kick the winning FG a few plays later?  

 

No. 

 

Did the Broncos do anything to cause a wide open Gabe Davis to have a perfectly thrown ball go through his hands and bounce right to a Bronco defender for an INT at the Denver 10 yard line?  Giving the Broncos the ball instead of the Bills having a 1st and goal?

 

No.

 

Go back and look at virtually every close game and you will see luck played a factor in the winner and loser and also explains why there is almost no correlation between teams records in 1 score games from 1 year to the next.  The whole "This coach/team can't win 1 score games" is mostly nonsense.  Teams that typically do great in 1 score games one year, often times do terrible the following year.

 

Why?

 

Luck. That's why.

 

The best way to ensure you have a winning record is to not allow the game to be that close at the end so there is a chance luck plays a part.

Edited November 22, 2023 by Big Turk

[hondo in seattle]

44 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Giving Denver average starting field possession of their own 42 yard line and 4 TO's is why they lost that game, not the defense.

 

Usually because we have turned the ball over multiple times in those games.  I'm not worried about the past.  If this was the first game of them hitting their stride, nothing else will matter.  They are capable of beating anyone.

 

At the end of the day people spend a lot of time wrangling about stuff when what they really need to understand is that luck plays a much greater part in sports than we want to admit.

 

Did the Eagles do anything to cause MVS to drop an easy wide open TD that was thrown perfectly that would have given the Chiefs the lead late in the game? 

 

No. 

 

Did they do anything that caused Watson to drop a perfect pass that hit him right in the hands on 4th and 25 that would have converted the 4th down in Eagle territory instead of ending the game?

 

No.

 

Go back and look at virtually every close game and you will see luck played a factor in the winner and loser and also explains why there is almost no correlation between teams records in 1 score games from 1 year to the next.  The whole "This coach/team can't win 1 score games" is mostly nonsense.  Teams that typically do great in 1 score games one year, often times do terrible the following year.

 

Why?

 

Luck. That's why.

 

The best way to ensure you have a winning record is to not allow the game to be that close at the end so there is a chance luck plays a part.

 

Agreed.  When I see a team winning, or losing, a lot of one-score games, I wonder how much luck is involved and assume it's at least part of the explanation.

 

I read somewhere that the yards earned by an offense or allowed by a defense are fairly stable from year to year.  Obviously, there are some fluctuations as you'd expect due to coaching and roster changes, injuries, and so on.   Still, the teams that do well statistically one year tend to do well the next year.  The teams that performly poorly tend to do so again the following year.  

 

Fumbles - particularly fumbles lost - are an exception.  They seem to be a matter of fluctuating luck.   And sometimes they decide the outcomes of games.  

 

You can put injuries in that category, too.  Sure, conditioning is a part of the story.  But many/most injuries are just bad luck - and they impact the games, too.  

 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

Luck. That's why.

 

The best way to ensure you have a winning record is to not allow the game to be that close at the end so there is a chance luck plays a part.

 

 

Yeah, pretty much, but that means out-executing the opponents.  We haven't done that against the worst teams.  So doing it for a number of games that would be required to hit some of these unlikely projections doesn't seem like an odds-on bet.  

 

Luck isn't a strategy or methodology for winning games.  No coach goes into games telling his team, let's hope we get enough luck with TOs to be able to win this.  

 

Then not to mention any coaching gaffs as well as then doing it in the playoffs if we get that far.  

 

If we can do that for more than a single game, it'll be a first this season.  

 

 

[Wayne Arnold]

On 11/20/2023 at 6:37 PM, hondo in seattle said:

The D still still has injuries but manages to play okay.  Whatever we may think about McD overall, he's good at defense.  Over the years that he's been here, I think you could say about our defense that 'the sum is greater than the whole of its parts.'  McD fields defensive units that play smart and play together.

 

Unless of course the opposing offense has somewhere between 13 seconds to 2 minutes to move the ball down the field and score tying and/or winning points.

 

At that point McDermott's defense can't stop a nose bleed.

 

It's a thing. And it ain't good.

[transient]

4 hours ago, Big Turk said:

Giving Denver average starting field possession of their own 42 yard line and 4 TO's is why they lost that game, not the defense.

I’m not absolving anything that came before it of its role in the loss, but the fact remains that the Bills had a chance to win the game with Denver starting a drive with under 2 minutes at their own 25 and the defense didn’t close it out… which is a common refrain over the last several seasons. Tell me you have any confidence in this defense to make a stop on the final drive of a one score game against anyone… for all of their rankings and statistics they haven’t been that defense probably since the days of Jim Schwartz. 

[Paup 1995MVP]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:03 PM, PBF81 said:

 

Kelce's 34 let's not forget.  That's hardly an age where receiving types typically see a significant downturn in their play.  

 

As for TEs, one of the greatest receiving TEs of all time, Gonzalez, fell off at 33.  Kelce almost has what Gonzalez had at the age of 34 now.  This week's game should put him past that.  So he's doing incredibly well for his age, but his contributions are going to continue to significantly diminish, generally speaking, going forward.  

 

 

The Chiefs had two of the best TE's of all time.  Pretty impressive.  And Gonzalez played when you could really rough guys up, and he still dominated.  One of the all time best players of the modern era, period.

[BADOLBILZ]

On 11/20/2023 at 6:52 PM, Big Turk said:

 

The defense is actually better in terms of yards(314 to 317) and points per game(17.3 to 17.9) than they were last year. 4th in the NFL in scoring defense, 10th in yards(under 12 yards per game away from being top 5).  39 sacks, 2nd in the NFL.

 

They have been far better than most people realize compared to the rest of the NFL and even compared to last year at times. That's with the major injuries, with more players constantly going down in game, etc.

 

Bills D is tied for 4th in points per play at 0.286 with the Steelers(Ravens, SF, KC are the top 3), which is slightly better than they were last year at 0.287.

 

And to further drive this point home...the Bills give up fewer yards per game than the Jets do.

 

This defense is still very good...without the major injuries they would be elite.

 

 

Yeah it's been a fine line between winning and losing that doesn't show up well in the stat lines.

 

The Denver game was the ultimate example with that ridiculously overzealous second zero blitz setting up the then too many men on the field penalty and the winning FG. 

 

As I mentioned in another thread, if they don't make the playoffs,  there have been teams with better stats that have missed.  

 

Like the 2010 Chargers who missed the playoffs with both the #1 offense and defense(yardage stats) in the NFL.

 

I've often compared these Bills to those Charger teams but I was hoping the 2021 team that limped out of the gate 6-5 was that version of the Chargers......