Tortured Soul Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 I've been stewing about this too though for a different reason; regarding the guys you can get to help for reasonable salaries- for instance look at TE, a position where other teams brought in help like Anthony Becht on the cheap to give them a legitimate 2nd blocker for their 2TE packages. We've used the 2TE package all year long with the DREADFUL Ryan Nuefeld playing in it- when you KNOW your philosophy is going to call for a lot of 2TE sets, DO SOMETHING ON THE CHEAP to guarantee you have the bodies to plug into it. 487991[/snapback] Don't we use Peters now as the second tight end?
GG Posted October 27, 2005 Author Posted October 27, 2005 You could make that argument only if football were a complete vacuum and all third downs were exactly the same circumstances. The unfortunate reality is that they are not. Dynamics like what happens on the first and second downs dramatically impact what happens on third down. Here's some facts you should consider: Last year we were the 4th stingiest team in the league simply allowing teams to rush for first downs against us. In fact, throughout 2004 only 33% of first downs against us came running the ball. This year we give up over half of first downs against us on the ground. What the stats support is what we all saw during most of our games last year- we were leaving teams in 3rd and 5, 3rd and 6 situations with regularity, and in many cases on their first series. This allowed us to bring in the specialized pass packages to play out on 3rd downs, and consequently end up in the top half of the league in third down defense. This year we're at the bottom. One measure of the quality of your rush defense is rushing TDs allowed. This season we've already given up 11, which is almost double what we gave up ALL SEASON in 2004 when we were the 2nd best league-wide. This is probably the single greatest statistical indication of the quality of your interior D Lineman. 487971[/snapback] Let's go back to my orginial thought, where I concede that the run D is much worse, but the main point is that it isn't the difference maker. I'm not going to argue with the statistics that show a dramatic fall in 1st down & 3rd down conversions, because even when we had the 3rd down pass package in, it wasn't successful. Just anecdotally, when was the last time that you remember not sweating it out when Bills had a late game lead of under 7 points? Looking at the key stats this year, we are letting in 2 more points/game than we did last year. If you take out the Oakland debacle, then the putrid D was giving up the same pts/game as last year's. You bring up a good point of needing to look at the situational 3rd down stats. By all accounts, the numbers look worse. But have you seen the break out of the 1st vs 2nd half (when the rush D tended to totally collapse?) If anything, I have not seen this D give up 3-4 yd rush chunks. It's all been feast or famine, putting the opponents' offenses in 3rd & longs, when they have 3rds. Yet, the opponents have no difficulty converting 3rd & longs, which is what killed them vs Atlanta, NO & Oakland. Both Jets & dolphins comeback attempts were orchestrated by a no huddle attack through the air. Our stout run D of last year may have looked good on paper, and were generally very opportunistic with other teams' mistakes, but when teams needed to get yards they could.
AKC Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 Let's go back to my orginial thought, where I concede that the run D is much worse, but the main point is that it isn't the difference maker. 488058[/snapback] Then before addressing your other positions is it fair for me to assume that you acknowlege that as a result of the diminished run D in 2005 our opponents are seeing shorter yardage third downs to convert on the average verus they did against the far tougher on first and second down unit of 2004?
GG Posted October 27, 2005 Author Posted October 27, 2005 Then before addressing your other positions is it fair for me to assume that you acknowlege that as a result of the diminished run D in 2005 our opponents are seeing shorter yardage third downs to convert on the average verus they did against the far tougher on first and second down unit of 2004? 488061[/snapback] There is no way to answer that without seeing stats. One thing for sure, which I mentioned before is that the opponents' runs are feast or famine, meaning that the opponents are in a 3rd down situation for less times in a game (about 2 less 3rd down attempts/game). To simplify the discussion, the run D is as bad as the pass D now.
JDG Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 Just anecdotally, when was the last time that you remember not sweating it out when Bills had a late game lead of under 7 points? Yes, Alex, "What is when Wade Phillips was the Head Coach?" JDG
bluenews Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 There's no doubt that PW's exit has had a dramatic impact on the run D. But what the discussion is missing is what normally happens on 3rd downs. The biggest issue with this defense is the inability to pressure the QB with the front four. Yeah, it would be nice to hold runners to under 150 yds/game, but even when we held runners to 3 yds in first 2 downs, good teams usually had no problems attacking the soft underbelly of the D, since Gray needed to rush 5-6 men to generate any pressure. I'll go back to the NE example, where Weis called a game plan of a hurry up, and Brady had a field day dinking 5 yard passes that went for long gains. I don't even think his offense broke a sweat as they kept scoring. What really surprised me is that teams still tried to run on the Bills, when it was obvious that a short passing game could destroy this vaunted defense. Earlier in the year, Bills' run D actually held opponents to low rush yards in the first 2 downs in the first half. However, the opposing QBs had no trouble converting 3rd downs of almost any distance. So, I hear your cries about losing Pat. But at the end of the day, it wouldn't have mattered much. ... oh to have that 2002 draft back.... 487540[/snapback] .......it does matter at the end of the day when the Buffalo Bills are minus (Jonas Jennings, Takeo Spikes and Pat Williams) Those players are the heart of the team.
AKC Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 There is no way to answer that without seeing stats. One thing for sure, which I mentioned before is that the opponents' runs are feast or famine, meaning that the opponents are in a 3rd down situation for less times in a game (about 2 less 3rd down attempts/game). To simplify the discussion, the run D is as bad as the pass D now. 488112[/snapback] I don't know who compiles average opponents first/second/etc., so until we can get them entered I'll provide these stats that show just how dramatic that decline is: In 2004 we led the league in lowest average opponent drive when we allowed 22.53 yards per drive. In 2005 we've dropped to 19th in the league. In 2004 our DLine was 3rd in the league giving up an average of 3.73 yards per opponent carry, in 2005 we've fallen to 22nd. In 2004 our opponents gained 10 or more yards on only 15% of their running plays, in 2005 that number has more than doubled to 33%. That means that for every three runs against this '05 DLine our opponents can expect to hit one for over 10 yards! I will speak not from a statistical basis but from an observational one when I say that in 2004 we forced far more long third downs on the average than our current defense does. No stat offered in this string suggests anything to the contrary. The question in play is whether the decline in our defensive front due to the loss of a starting quality run stopper has caused the overall decline of the defense. For my money it's crystal clear- statistically we know that on average we gave our opponents the third worst third down field position in the league in 2004. This year there are only 12 teams doing a WORSE job than our first and second down units. That drop, basically all the short 2nd and 3rd down plays we're allowing, is the single biggest contributor to the Bill's decline on defense in 2005 IMO and further is arguably the single biggest factor in our overall decline. The difference between last year is one man- a run stuffer and a very good one at that- who by his good play on rushing downs forced opposing offenses to face many more third and longs than we're forcing now, and as a result we are giving up far more third down plays because our opponents options are expanded with a regularity of 2nd and short/3rd and short downs.
GG Posted October 28, 2005 Author Posted October 28, 2005 I don't know how many times I can say the same thing. I agree that the run defense has gotten worse, much worse. But it has nothing to do with the basic fact that this defense has always had a hard time shutting down an opponent when it absolutely needed to. What happened to lift last year's defense over the 2003 version? I can't think of anything other than the addition of Vincent. Then couldn't we attribute a part of the D's success in 2004 to the schedule? The 2005 D is allowing just over 2 more 1st downs/game and 2 pts/game more than last year. So does that tell us that even though the run D is much worse than last year, the total impact on defensive play isn't as drastic? I could care less about this D holding teams to lowest gains on first two downs and having the best 3rd & long percentages. I know that when they needed to shut down Jax & Jets in their last drives, they failed. In games against opponents that played to the D's weakness - ie quick passes and running at Schobel, they wet their pants. In 2003, the same pattern was clearly evident, but no one noticed becaues the offense was pathetic. This year, once Jets & Dolphins setlled down from their mistakes, they had no problems attacking Bills with the quick passes, and Bills lucked out that the time ran out.
JDG Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 The difference between last year is one man- a run stuffer and a very good one at that- who by his good play on rushing downs forced opposing offenses to face many more third and longs than we're forcing now, I think that Takeo Spikes has to be part of that difference equation as well. Takeo Spikes led the NFL in tackles behind the line of scrimmage last year, IIRC. JDG
JDG Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 What happened to lift last year's defense over the 2003 version? I can't think of anything other than the addition of Vincent. Then couldn't we attribute a part of the D's success in 2004 to the schedule? I think that you almost have to consider the schedule in terms of last year's defense. Last year's schedule was extraordinarily fortuitous. Not only did we draw the worst division in football in the NFC West, but we played at least two teams the week after they had fired their coach and thus were in utter disarray. I think we got the Rams at a really convenient time too. Anyhow, the Bills showed in Week 16 that the gaudy numbers against inferior competition was something of a mirage, and so we should definitely consider that in "comparing" the Bils' supposedly more-accomplished 2004 predecessors with this year's group. This team might even be better than last year's - but its just drawing a tougher slate. JDG
SDS Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 I think that you almost have to consider the schedule in terms of last year's defense. Last year's schedule was extraordinarily fortuitous. Not only did we draw the worst division in football in the NFC West, but we played at least two teams the week after they had fired their coach and thus were in utter disarray. I think we got the Rams at a really convenient time too. Anyhow, the Bills showed in Week 16 that the gaudy numbers against inferior competition was something of a mirage, and so we should definitely consider that in "comparing" the Bils' supposedly more-accomplished 2004 predecessors with this year's group. This team might even be better than last year's - but its just drawing a tougher slate. JDG 488303[/snapback] It wasn't a mirage - they did what they did against NFL also-rans. We were 9-7. We lost to good teams and beat bad teams. That isn't a mirage - it is reality.
IDBillzFan Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 It wasn't a mirage - they did what they did against NFL also-rans. We were 9-7. We lost to good teams and beat bad teams. That isn't a mirage - it is reality.488316[/snapback] And now we aren't even beating bad teams. You freakin' WIN that Raider game. You win it without question. The season will prove how bad the Raiders really are. We should have beaten them, but even a dude like me who doesn't know his Xs from his Os can sit back on an Oakland 3rd and 15 and say "Watch them get the first down. We'll overpursue, they'll play against it, and get the first down. Watch..." and then be right. When I can see how bad we are, you really suck. The problems are multiple. Coaching, line play, individual play. Did I miss anything?
JDG Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 It wasn't a mirage - they did what they did against NFL also-rans. We were 9-7. We lost to good teams and beat bad teams. That isn't a mirage - it is reality. 488316[/snapback] I guess that's true so long as you consider the Steelers' second-string a "good team." Our records for last year says 9-7, but I mentally consider last year's team to be a 6-10 team. So rather than thinking ourselves of last year as being "one game out" of the playoffs, I think of ourselves as being much worse than that. JDG
JDG Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 And now we aren't even beating bad teams. You freakin' WIN that Raider game. You win it without question. The season will prove how bad the Raiders really are. We should have beaten them, but even a dude like me who doesn't know his Xs from his Os can sit back on an Oakland 3rd and 15 and say "Watch them get the first down. We'll overpursue, they'll play against it, and get the first down. Watch..." and then be right. When I can see how bad we are, you really suck. The problems are multiple. Coaching, line play, individual play. Did I miss anything? 488320[/snapback] We'll see how bad the Raiders are. I can't help but think that the Bills would have been 1-5 against that schedule too. JDG
AKC Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 The 2005 D is allowing just over 2 more 1st downs/game and 2 pts/game more than last year. So does that tell us that even though the run D is much worse than last year, the total impact on defensive play isn't as drastic? I could care less about this D holding teams to lowest gains on first two downs and having the best 3rd & long percentages. I know that when they needed to shut down Jax & Jets in their last drives, they failed. In games against opponents that played to the D's weakness - ie quick passes and running at Schobel, they wet their pants. In 2003, the same pattern was clearly evident, but no one noticed becaues the offense was pathetic. This year, once Jets & Dolphins setlled down from their mistakes, they had no problems attacking Bills with the quick passes, and Bills lucked out that the time ran out. 488294[/snapback] I'd think a strength of schedule debate between the two seasons would be tough to support considering last year the AFC East was far stronger and we weren't being manhandled by teams like the Saints and Raiders. If you're trying to say the defense of last year was overrated I won't argue against it- but was it substantially better then this one? Boy Howdy! I don't want to discourage your conversation about third downs especially considering the fact is that last season we caved in on 33% of them while this year we're giving up on 45% of them. Yes we're bad on third downs- but I simply can't disconnect that from the fact of what's happening on the first two downs where we're leaving teams with easier- or shorter- third down attempts. And therein lies my principal complaint about the run defense on first and second. I might be confused by your position- I'm guessing you're not saying the cumulative effect over the course of a game of a 7 yard pass in football is anywhere near that of a 5 yard run?
Mark VI Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 It wasn't a mirage - they did what they did against NFL also-rans. We were 9-7. We lost to good teams and beat bad teams. That isn't a mirage - it is reality. 488316[/snapback] Boy, did I take a beating here for saying the exact same thing. We won 6 straight games against teams playing BAD football. In addition, the ST's and Defense scored a freakish 10 TD's last year. Our Offense was very average to below average during 2004. When we played a quality team, we folded tent. This season, the Defense has been exposed. The Offense still stuggles with a poor OL and playcalling. Now we fold tent more often. The results are hardly surprising...except to TD and the Coaches, who are completely shocked.
Simon Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 The biggest issue with this defense is the inability to pressure the QB with the front four. I've seen this metnioned around here a few times and it's something I just can't get on board with. It seems to me that it's holding the Bills to a different standard than the rest of the league. In the era of party and the salary cap it's all but impossible to get create a pass rush with just your Front4. Sure there have been a few anamolies like Baltimore in '99 with McCrary/Adams/Goose/Burnett, Tampa in '02 with Rice/Sapp/McFarland/Spires and even Carolina when they're occasionally healthy with Peppers/Jenkins/Buckner/Rucker. Or maybe the odd gem like Freeney or Strahan can be a factor on their own. But aside from those rarities, you just can't put together and keep together 4 guys who can get upfield with any kind of consistency. All teams have to bring extra rushers to generate pressure and the biggest difference between those who do it sucesfully and those who don't is that the effective teams have a knack for knowing when to do it safely and from where to bring it, as opposed to other teams who too often seem like their philosophy is to keep throwing as much stuff at the wall as you can until something hopefully sticks. One could argue that this year the Bills fall into the latter category, but to lament our inability to do something that nobody else can do either just seems somewhat removed from the reality of the modern day NFL. Cya
ganesh Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 This team might even be better than last year's - but its just drawing a tougher slate. JDG 488303[/snapback] Agreed...I think that is a big YES....The game against the Steelers exposed our weakness with or without PW.....Bottom line is we have played 3 teams from the strong NFC south, whereas we played 4 scrubs from the NFC West and 2 more wins against the Fish and the Jets during that last 8 game stretch....Finally when we got to play gainst a decent team (even though it was their scrubs) at our own backyard , with the MIGHTY PAT WILLIAMS in the lineup we still lost.....sorry got our asses kicked....... Again, going back our coaching staff jsut cannot adjust to its available personnel.
ganesh Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 And now we aren't even beating bad teams. You freakin' WIN that Raider game. You win it without question. The season will prove how bad the Raiders really are. We should have beaten them, but even a dude like me who doesn't know his Xs from his Os can sit back on an Oakland 3rd and 15 and say "Watch them get the first down. We'll overpursue, they'll play against it, and get the first down. Watch..." and then be right. When I can see how bad we are, you really suck. The problems are multiple. Coaching, line play, individual play. Did I miss anything? 488320[/snapback] I am not sure the Raiders are that bad a team....The guys have played tough teams in NE, Dallas and Kansas City.....NE was a season opneer played against the SB champs in their backyard...and they ran that game close before the stupid interception by Collins..... Oakland is in the toughest division in football and also gets to play the toughest division in the NFC....If they can continue to get their running game going, they are going to be in the mix.
Recommended Posts