Rubes Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I've been watching this team for a long time now. My earliest memory of watching the Bills was during the 1975 season when we lost to Miami (almost 31 years ago to the day...12/7/75), which eliminated us from the playoff chase. That was the game where, you guessed it, the refs screwed us badly with the Mercury Morris non-fumble call, followed by the 15-yarder against Toomay for brushing up against the ref. Sigh. My first Bills memory is of one of the most heinous screw jobs by the refs against us. Anyhoo, I haven't really paid much attention to stats until fairly recently, and I know we've had some seriously bad defenses over the years, like in the late '70s and mid-'80s, but come on now. The numbers being put up against this defense are just astounding. Overall, on the season, teams are averaging over 140 yards per game, and almost 5 yards per rush. Every rush. Those aren't historically bad numbers, but since the bye week it's been pretty freaking bad. Now, allowing 178 to a guy like Tomlinson doesn't exactly count as a serious embarrassment, since he does that to a lot of teams. But 207 yards to the Jags? 188 freaking yards to the Texans? Who's the running back for the Texans, anyway? 148 to the Colts? 147 to Green Bay, for crying out loud? Counting the 197 given up to San Diego as a team, that's over 177 yards per game allowed. 177 yards rushing. Per game. Those are freaky bad numbers. Real. Freaky. Bad. The fact that we went 3-2 in those five games just boggles the mind, really. And those two losses were by a total of 4 points? I have no idea what this all means, other than we have, right now, one of the worst defenses against the run I have seen in a long, long time. Perhaps it also means that if we can figure out how to stop the run just a wee little bit better, we might not actually be all that bad. That's what I'll be looking forward to for next season. If we can stop the run just a wee bitty better -- you know, average something a little more respectable like, I don't know, 120 yards per game or something -- I think it will pay some decent dividends. And if we can run the ball ourselves just a wee bitty better -- something, anything, just a little better than the anemic 93.5 yards per game we're currently getting -- I think we'll be considerably better off. But really. I can't remember the last time we allowed this much real estate over this period of time.
AnthonyF Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I've been watching this team for a long time now. My earliest memory of watching the Bills was during the 1975 season when we lost to Miami (almost 31 years ago to the day...12/7/75), which eliminated us from the playoff chase. That was the game where, you guessed it, the refs screwed us badly with the Mercury Morris non-fumble call, followed by the 15-yarder against Toomay for brushing up against the ref. Sigh. My first Bills memory is of one of the most heinous screw jobs by the refs against us. Anyhoo, I haven't really paid much attention to stats until fairly recently, and I know we've had some seriously bad defenses over the years, like in the late '70s and mid-'80s, but come on now. The numbers being put up against this defense are just astounding. Overall, on the season, teams are averaging over 140 yards per game, and almost 5 yards per rush. Every rush. Those aren't historically bad numbers, but since the bye week it's been pretty freaking bad. Now, allowing 178 to a guy like Tomlinson doesn't exactly count as a serious embarrassment, since he does that to a lot of teams. But 207 yards to the Jags? 188 freaking yards to the Texans? Who's the running back for the Texans, anyway? 148 to the Colts? 147 to Green Bay, for crying out loud? Counting the 197 given up to San Diego as a team, that's over 177 yards per game allowed. 177 yards rushing. Per game. Those are freaky bad numbers. Real. Freaky. Bad. The fact that we went 3-2 in those five games just boggles the mind, really. And those two losses were by a total of 4 points? I have no idea what this all means, other than we have, right now, one of the worst defenses against the run I have seen in a long, long time. Perhaps it also means that if we can figure out how to stop the run just a wee little bit better, we might not actually be all that bad. That's what I'll be looking forward to for next season. If we can stop the run just a wee bitty better -- you know, average something a little more respectable like, I don't know, 120 yards per game or something -- I think it will pay some decent dividends. And if we can run the ball ourselves just a wee bitty better -- something, anything, just a little better than the anemic 93.5 yards per game we're currently getting -- I think we'll be considerably better off. But really. I can't remember the last time we allowed this much real estate over this period of time. 857196[/snapback] Don't forget all these teams except SD did it with balanced attcks, where they all threw for over 220 yards too.... That is what made it so bad. They could do basically whatever they wanted....
stuckincincy Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I have no idea what this all means, other than we have, right now, one of the worst defenses against the run I have seen in a long, long time. 857196[/snapback] Don't play cover 2 until all the parts are in place.
bartshan-83 Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I actually think they were worse last year. Last year they finished 31st in yards allowed, but this year they are allowing 4.8 per rush. It is putrid. I remember the days when Pat Williams and Ted Washington would take offense if any RB got over 100 yds in any game. Now it seems the norm for about 2.5 quarters...or in last weeks case, 1 quarter. But that is what you get with DTs who can't stop the run and a LB corp with only 1 healthy LB. I think things will change a lot for the better if: 1. Takeo returns to at least 90% of what he was 2. Fletch is re-signed and doesn't have a fall off. 3. Crowell comes back okay. 4. McCargo works out ok (I know he is a pass rusher, but rotating talent always helps). 5. We pick up a DT in early draft or FA.
Tcali Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I actually think they were worse last year. Last year they finished 31st in yards allowed, but this year they are allowing 4.8 per rush. It is putrid. I remember the days when Pat Williams and Ted Washington would take offense if any RB got over 100 yds in any game. Now it seems the norm for about 2.5 quarters...or in last weeks case, 1 quarter. But that is what you get with DTs who can't stop the run and a LB corp with only 1 healthy LB. I think things will change a lot for the better if: 1. Takeo returns to at least 90% of what he was 2. Fletch is re-signed and doesn't have a fall off. 3. Crowell comes back okay. 4. McCargo works out ok (I know he is a pass rusher, but rotating talent always helps). 5. We pick up a DT in early draft or FA. 857210[/snapback] If all these things happen we are still gonna be mediocre at best.We need to reach higher than that.
bartshan-83 Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 If all these things happen we are still gonna be mediocre at best.We need to reach higher than that. 857212[/snapback] Oh no doubt. I was just listing a few very attainable goals for the defense that would move them into the average range. Couple that with a (hopefully) blossoming secondary that could give us a good pass defense, and we should be fine. If our run defense was 15-20 and our pass top 10, then we will have no problem.
Spun Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 The 1971 defense was pretty bad. They thought three and out was a show tune. The Bills are improving, they have adjusted but they are still an inconsistent, mediocre team that will not be in the playoffs. Again.
ezbills Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 I thought this defensive line was supposed to be wreaking havoc in the backfield to stop plays from developing and to prevent the O-linemen from mauling our LBs! Our DTs are virtually non-existant out there. I was glad they went DT early in the draft but I'm not sold that McCargo is the answer. DT has to be high on the priority list for free agency and the draft.
jarthur31 Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 I've been watching this team for a long time now. My earliest memory of watching the Bills was during the 1975 season when we lost to Miami (almost 31 years ago to the day...12/7/75), which eliminated us from the playoff chase. That was the game where, you guessed it, the refs screwed us badly with the Mercury Morris non-fumble call, followed by the 15-yarder against Toomay for brushing up against the ref. Sigh. My first Bills memory is of one of the most heinous screw jobs by the refs against us. Anyhoo, I haven't really paid much attention to stats until fairly recently, and I know we've had some seriously bad defenses over the years, like in the late '70s and mid-'80s, but come on now. The numbers being put up against this defense are just astounding. Overall, on the season, teams are averaging over 140 yards per game, and almost 5 yards per rush. Every rush. Those aren't historically bad numbers, but since the bye week it's been pretty freaking bad. Now, allowing 178 to a guy like Tomlinson doesn't exactly count as a serious embarrassment, since he does that to a lot of teams. But 207 yards to the Jags? 188 freaking yards to the Texans? Who's the running back for the Texans, anyway? 148 to the Colts? 147 to Green Bay, for crying out loud? Counting the 197 given up to San Diego as a team, that's over 177 yards per game allowed. 177 yards rushing. Per game. Those are freaky bad numbers. Real. Freaky. Bad. The fact that we went 3-2 in those five games just boggles the mind, really. And those two losses were by a total of 4 points? I have no idea what this all means, other than we have, right now, one of the worst defenses against the run I have seen in a long, long time. Perhaps it also means that if we can figure out how to stop the run just a wee little bit better, we might not actually be all that bad. That's what I'll be looking forward to for next season. If we can stop the run just a wee bitty better -- you know, average something a little more respectable like, I don't know, 120 yards per game or something -- I think it will pay some decent dividends. And if we can run the ball ourselves just a wee bitty better -- something, anything, just a little better than the anemic 93.5 yards per game we're currently getting -- I think we'll be considerably better off. But really. I can't remember the last time we allowed this much real estate over this period of time. 857196[/snapback] Well Coach doesn't think so and only his opinion matters.
Lori Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 2001?????? 857219[/snapback] Nope -- 2001 was bad, this is slightly worse. 140.3 yds allowed per game this season, 4.8/carry. (Only given up 13 rushing TDs so far, though, which is an improvement over last season.) When I'm looking for "worst ever" stats, I normally start with the '84-'85 seasons; they seldom fail to disappoint. (Yeah, I meant that precisely the way I typed it. ) This time, though, I had to go a little further back: 2005: 137.8, 4.5/carry, 22 TDs. 2002: 132.6, 4.5/carry, 20 TDs. 2001: 133.3, 4.4/carry, 20 TDs. 1985: 153.9, 4.3/carry, 20 TDs. 1983: 156.4, 4.4/carry, 14 TDs. 1979: 155.1, 4.0/carry, 18 TDs. Oh-ho, I think we have our winner. (Or loser, if you want to look at it that way...) 1978: 201.8, 4.8, 23 TDs. 1977: 171.8, 4.1, 21 TDs. 1976: 176.9, 4.7, 19 TDs. So if you want to go by the yards-per-carry stat, Rubes, this does match the worst season in team history. And with Crowell now sidelined, it could get worse...
tennesseeboy Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 What surprise? When I was pushing for Ngata or other huge defensive tackles I pointed out that the way to beat the cover 2 was to run up the middle. why are we surprised that that is exactly what teams are trying to do? It took a year to figure it out. We'll address it in the draft, hopefully. Offensive and Defensive line...you ain't going nowhere without it.
Fan in San Diego Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 We need a Warren Sapp type player to be in the middle. Large and can hold his ground and fast to knife thru if desired.
ganesh Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 I thought the first year with Greg Williams was horrible too...We finished 3-13.
ganesh Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 What surprise? When I was pushing for Ngata or other huge defensive tackles I pointed out that the way to beat the cover 2 was to run up the middle. why are we surprised that that is exactly what teams are trying to do? It took a year to figure it out. We'll address it in the draft, hopefully. Offensive and Defensive line...you ain't going nowhere without it. 857667[/snapback] I am sure that Fewell having been in the cover 2 for this long understands that. You cannot put all pieces of a puzzle in a single year. It takes time. Also, we need to give both Williams and McCargo a year to develop in the NFL. Both are not coming from the pro-caliber defenses like Miami, Tennessee or Ohio State. I think Fewell and Jauron understand that by keeping the secondary strong and avoiding big plays and TDs they are ok with the opponents rushing the ball until they develop their personnel.
eball Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 So if you want to go by the yards-per-carry stat, Rubes, this does match the worst season in team history. And with Crowell now sidelined, it could get worse... 857597[/snapback] Crowell can ride a RB to an extra 3-4 yards like no other. His strength lies in pass coverage, believe it or not -- at least that's what my eyes have seen. I dare say the run defense improves with him out.
Rubes Posted December 5, 2006 Author Posted December 5, 2006 Crowell can ride a RB to an extra 3-4 yards like no other. His strength lies in pass coverage, believe it or not -- at least that's what my eyes have seen. I dare say the run defense improves with him out. 857698[/snapback] By replacing him with a lighter, slimmer version of himself? And thanks for doing that, Lori. It's hard to judge which is worse...yards per game or yards per carry. To think that there was a team that allowed over 200 yards rushing per game over an entire season just blows my mind, though I would have guessed it was the 84-85 team. But these days, with more of an emphasis on the passing game, I'd think yards per carry is more important, and it's interesting to see that yes, this is as bad as it has been.
H2o Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 I know they said that the "Tampa 2" defense requires smaller, faster tackles. I don't really buy into that. Look at Warren Sapp when he was with the Buccaneers. He excelled in that defense and surely wasn't smaller than the DT's in the league. As far as what we could've or should've done in the past, it's an arguement to no avail. I like Whitner, don't get me wrong, but I still would've liked to have gotten Ngata who slipped down to the Ravens. He's got some quickness for a man that is his size and he definitely eats up space in the middle. I also believe that we should've kept Sam Adams. I think our run D would've been alot better off this year. There's also no DT's that are going to be on the FA market unless there are some surprise "cap cuts" this offseason. We'll probably have to take another DT in the draft, high rounds of course, if we actually are going after some "help" at the DT position. As far as our LB's go, Fletcher has been his solid self again this year, Spikes is in a recovery phase still and will probably not return till next year so to speak, and I don't really believe that Crowell is our ROLB of the future. I'm hoping that Ellison can emerge as a late round steal for our D. I think he's done pretty well for a rookie when he's been on the field. We do have issues though if Spikes is unable to make a full recovery by next season. We should probably make a run at Lance Briggs in the off-season. He's been a solid LB the past few years and I think he would look at home in a Bills uni. I think we should also pick up a LB in the early to mid rounds of the draft. Anywhere between the 2nd and 5th. I can't really see us using a 1st rounder on an LB with other gaping holes in our team.
Dark Fan Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 I thought this defensive line was supposed to be wreaking havoc in the backfield to stop plays from developing and to prevent the O-linemen from mauling our LBs! Our DTs are virtually non-existant out there. I was glad they went DT early in the draft but I'm not sold that McCargo is the answer. DT has to be high on the priority list for free agency and the draft. 857301[/snapback] I live in Philly, and for all those who wished for Brinson Buckner at the draft be glad they didnt. Hugh Douglas called him a "little B word" on a radio show the other day, and said he was having trouble picking up the defense in the easiest position to learn in football.
Dr. Fong Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 It's a good thing we got rid of all those "fat" DTs. This cover two scheme with the undersized DTs is working out great.
Recommended Posts