Pyrite Gal Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 I had accepted the conventional wisdome that a big reason for the Bills huge winning streak in 2004 and accomplishment of a winning record was due to their schedule being soft. However, another thread which tried to lay out reasons for the D downturn last year cited us facing a cream put schedule in 04 compared to last year and the loss of PW as key reasons. While the move from PW to Edwards was clearly a downgrade (though a minor factor as best as I can tell of our plummet(, I was surprised when I looked at the record of teams which made the playoffs in 04 versus opponents who made the playoffs in 05 we faced, it turns out not only did our 2004 opponents finish competitively well compared with our 05 opponents, but actually there is a better case to be made for the 04 group having performed better than the 05 group. In many ways this is even worse news than I would have imagined as we had a much worse D performance against teams that may have been even weaker than those we faced the year before. The sad facts are that in 04 we faced 5 teams which put up a W/L sufficient to make the playoffs that year. NE (2 games) NYJ (2 games) St. L Seattle] Pitts In 05 we again faced 5 opponents who made the playoffs that year NE (2) Denver Cin Carol However, due to two division teams making the playoffs we actually played an ADDITIONAL game against a playoff winner when we faced our "soft" schedule. The reality of whether we faced good teams at bad taime or bad teams at good times can actually vary a lot from a judgement about how tough an opponent may be to play. Did we luck out and tough teams came to our house? Were players injured when we faced an opponent? Was the quality against the run exagerrated by facing better or worse runners in a seties of games? I'll leave more in depth analysis to others as my initial look has convinced me that our opposition was not considerably weaker in 04 than in 05 In fact if you look at the win streak we so enjoyed in 04, there were a number of factors which indicate this performance was simply outstanding rather than one we lucked into: 1. 4 of the 6 wins during the streak were on the road. While homecooking does not determine who will be a winner. It is a well noted factor usually worth about 3 points in the game line that there is a homefield advantage. Yet despite this disadvantage in these "soft" games we won going away. This factor is particularly notable since the Bills had historically been unsuccessful when the road game involved a cross-country trip. We not only survived this factor during the streak not once but twice. Even with a negative factor beating a bad team like SF is quite reasonable, but we also beat a Seaatle team on the road which not only qualified for the playoffs that year, but made the SB the next year. 2. We did not just win the games, we beat the crap out of oppoents- One of the most unfair and illogical things about the dismisal of the '04 work as being simply due to a soft schedule is the failure to consider how we beat these opponents. Not only were 2/3 of the games in the streak on the road, but the closest margin was 10 points. Games in opponents houses were often pretty much decided by the middle of the third quarter. One of the big effects of the work was that JP got tons of backpup time to work to reverse the taste of the bitter pill he swallowed when he was put in the NE game and got his attitude adjusted big time. Sure we beat some bad teams like SF and CLE during the streak, but we did not simply edge these bad teams but beat them by over 4 TDs in each case. This was not simply beating bad teams but putting on great all around performances bt D, O and ST beating these teams 3. Lest you still want to blow off these margins and claim these were failed teams, then note that CLE and SF were the actual horredous teams in these 6 games. While we had the pleasure of scoring over 40 in their house on the Fish, the other three games were against average at worse NFL teams. Sea and St. L made the playoffs (though the facts demand noting St. L slimed in through a weak NFC but even their .500 record defines an average rather than soft team) and the other squad was beating an average but on the rise CIN team in their house putting 33 on the board. These teams were weak for playoff teams but playoff teams then or so to be they were like it or not. This is old news about and old Bills teams which does not exist in the same form anymore. Yet I am interested in adding something to the record which cuts against the accepted read on our 2004 opponents and how the team and MM's work should be judged. He may well have done some foolish things with how he managed this team, but the obvious things of calling too many trick plays or TC being a bad OC were not those things. I think he made a more subtle leadership mistake in 04 that he led by driving his players by giving them a well-founded understanding that contract did not matter and being a nice guy did not matter in terms of staying on the team. Bobby Shaw found this out when we needed a roster spot for Peters and the Turk came to visit him. However, though fear is effective initially (as folks like Tom Coughlin found out) it wears thin. Once the Bills further demonstrated that TD had more loualty to the future by designing 05 priimarily as training for JP rather than give the team their best (though bad) chance at winning by playingthe adequate at best Bledsoe, the team quit on the Bills after seeing what JP could or could not do against the Texans. Still I hoep we do not see people declare 04 to be the result of a soft schedule as easily as they have seemed to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Still I hoep we do not see people declare 04 to be the result of a soft schedule as easily as they have seemed to do. 727129[/snapback] It will not stop, becausing doing so is a way for the haters to discredit Bledsoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 The teams we beat and their records in 2004: Miami 4-12 Jets 10-6 Arizona 6-10 St. Louis 8-8 Seattle 9-7 Miami 4-12 Clev 4-12 Cinn. 8-8 SF 2-14 Draft Order for 2005 Draft: SF Miami Clev. TB Ten. Minn. AZ Wash Det That means 4 of our 9 wins came against the three worst teams in the entire league, 5 came against the 10 worst. The bottom 13 of the draft order was: Dallas Jacksonville Balt. Oak GB Wash Seattle Atl SD Indy Pitt Philly NE Our record against that bunch? We lost twice, badly to NE, we also lost to J'ville at home, in the opener no less. We lost to Pitt, at home, against their backups with a play off spot on the line. We even managed to lose to Oakland who is in that group despite their 5-11 record due to trades. For those counting, were were 1-5 against this bunch. The Jets and Seattle were the only teams with winning records that we beat. 2005 is 2005. No doubt though that we had a pretty easy schedule in 2004. As for margin of victory, I am more concerned with wins and losses. If we must go there though, lets note that "up and coming" Cincy gave up 82 points in two games against the 4-12 Browns. The Rams gave up 31 to the 4-12 Dolphins, another 31 to the 6-12 Cardinals, 45 to Green Bay, 40 to the Patriots and 34 to the Falcons. Seattle also gave up 30 or more 5 times that year including 43 to the Cowboys. SF gave up over 30 points 6 times that year including 76 points in two games against he Seahawks. In the two week before we beat the Browns 37-7, they gave up 58 points to the Bengals and 42 to the Patriots. The 37 they gave up to us was the best they had done in weeks. No matter how you slice it, that was an easy schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 The teams we beat and their records in 2004: Miami 4-12 Jets 10-6 Arizona 6-10 St. Louis 8-8 Seattle 9-7 Miami 4-12 Clev 4-12 Cinn. 8-8 SF 2-14 Draft Order for 2005 Draft: SF Miami Clev. TB Ten. Minn. AZ Wash Det That means 4 of our 9 wins came against the three worst teams in the entire league, 5 came against the 10 worst. The bottom 13 of the draft order was: Dallas Jacksonville Balt. Oak GB Wash Seattle Atl SD Indy Pitt Philly NE Our record against that bunch? We lost twice, badly to NE, we also lost to J'ville at home, in the opener no less. We lost to Pitt, at home, against their backups with a play off spot on the line. We even managed to lose to Oakland who is in that group despite their 5-11 record due to trades. For those counting, were were 1-5 against this bunch. The Jets and Seattle were the only teams with winning records that we beat. 2005 is 2005. No doubt though that we had a pretty easy schedule in 2004. As for margin of victory, I am more concerned with wins and losses. If we must go there though, lets note that "up and coming" Cincy gave up 82 points in two games against the 4-12 Browns. The Rams gave up 31 to the 4-12 Dolphins, another 31 to the 6-12 Cardinals, 45 to Green Bay, 40 to the Patriots and 34 to the Falcons. Seattle also gave up 30 or more 5 times that year including 43 to the Cowboys. SF gave up over 30 points 6 times that year including 76 points in two games against he Seahawks. In the two week before we beat the Browns 37-7, they gave up 58 points to the Bengals and 42 to the Patriots. The 37 they gave up to us was the best they had done in weeks. No matter how you slice it, that was an easy schedule. 727363[/snapback] i guess thats a way to put our "victories" in perspective....and i didnt hate bledsoe till the 2nd half of that yera lol lol he will always be overated...go bills in"06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted July 23, 2006 Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 The teams we beat and their records in 2004: Miami 4-12 Jets 10-6 Arizona 6-10 St. Louis 8-8 Seattle 9-7 Miami 4-12 Clev 4-12 Cinn. 8-8 SF 2-14 Draft Order for 2005 Draft: SF Miami Clev. TB Ten. Minn. AZ Wash Det That means 4 of our 9 wins came against the three worst teams in the entire league, 5 came against the 10 worst. The bottom 13 of the draft order was: Dallas Jacksonville Balt. Oak GB Wash Seattle Atl SD Indy Pitt Philly NE Our record against that bunch? We lost twice, badly to NE, we also lost to J'ville at home, in the opener no less. We lost to Pitt, at home, against their backups with a play off spot on the line. We even managed to lose to Oakland who is in that group despite their 5-11 record due to trades. For those counting, were were 1-5 against this bunch. The Jets and Seattle were the only teams with winning records that we beat. 2005 is 2005. No doubt though that we had a pretty easy schedule in 2004. As for margin of victory, I am more concerned with wins and losses. If we must go there though, lets note that "up and coming" Cincy gave up 82 points in two games against the 4-12 Browns. The Rams gave up 31 to the 4-12 Dolphins, another 31 to the 6-12 Cardinals, 45 to Green Bay, 40 to the Patriots and 34 to the Falcons. Seattle also gave up 30 or more 5 times that year including 43 to the Cowboys. SF gave up over 30 points 6 times that year including 76 points in two games against he Seahawks. In the two week before we beat the Browns 37-7, they gave up 58 points to the Bengals and 42 to the Patriots. The 37 they gave up to us was the best they had done in weeks. No matter how you slice it, that was an easy schedule. 727363[/snapback] Good post with well thought out points. Thanks. The questions it engenders for me are: 1. Definitely from the data you provide it seems clear to me that the Bills 9 victories came against their lesser opponents and their losses came against their better opponents. However is this the same thing as having a soft schedule? I think not. It strikes me as being a case where the 04 Bills were a middlin team who generally lost to the better teams they faced (mostly not by a lot as the game in NE was the only one they loss by more than two scores) but generally tatooed their weaker opponents. Close generally only counts in horseshoes, dancing, and hand greanades so I agree with you that the scores of games make little difference in terms of results. However, another place it becomes a consideration is when trying to make intelligent analysis. I don't think you help your points much at all by simply being dismissive of this factor. I think the Bills were about an average team that year (most teams were and Pete Rozelle is smiling somewhere). However, it seems clear to me that once the team got its act together it was it the upper half of the average teams though ultimately not an above average or special team that can win the big one. 2. How "soft" was the schedule compared to the rest of the NFL? This point interest me a lot because I think the double edged sword of the Rozelle inspired parity is that it has made the NFL more entertaining as any team can win any Sunday. However, on the other side of things I think that mediocrity has really been an element of almost all teams in the league. Basing your analysis in draft order takes this consideration out of play for the most part as in the draft order ranking some teams are definitely worse. However, if one goes into the more anecdotal analysis which you do bringing up issues like home openers and playing back-ups, looking at the whole NFL, it really seems thar mediocrity is the order of the day. 3. I think your final point about anyway you slice it is simply not correct. If you slice it the legit way you do then I think it was easy (though I think actually even the case you make is more one describing a bifurcated schedule where we loss to the good team and beat the bad teams- and i think trying to better understand what this means gets you into the margin of victory discussion). However, if one slices it based on a comparison of the relative strength of the '04 opponent versus the relative strength of the 05 opponents and specifically base this on facing teams which made the playoffs or not, there is not a big difference in the ease of the schedule between the two years. Further, when one does factor in the issues you dismiss such as margin of victory and homefield advantage during the winning streak then this Bills teams faced a chunk of opponents who did well in the NFL that year and whom the Bills manhandled. The item which prompted this consideration was the claim that our better D performance in 04 versus D performance in 05 was to some extent based on us facing an easier schedule in 04. I think when one slices it this way the concept that this was an easier schedule than the norm does not seem correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts