excellent piece by Mike Lombardi in SI

[Cornerville]

That story sucked. The guy seems to think hes groundbreaking, but he's not. We all know that teams do pass a lot, as well as the fact missed fgs are bad. And believe it or not, we all knew that cbs cant do anything without a rush. This isn't meant to be a shot at the original poster, I'm just saying.

 

So the story sucked because it is not 'groundbreaking?'

 

In today's over saturated market of writing NFL articles in May and other off months, what in the world do you expect these guys to come up with???

[Bill from NYC]

If that article sucked, then explain to me the fact that 5-6 corners are taken in the first every damn year, and personnel types are often quoted as saying "you can never have enough corners"? Does everyone buy it? No. But more than a few do, so it's not as everyone knows it. I never thought about missed FGs counting in the TO battle, but he's right -- they should. The better point is about the running game, and it should matter to Bills fans because they've been living through it. When Mularkey arrived in 2004, he was all about "establishing the run": he advocated it publicly, and coached his games that way, particularly early in the season before it blew up in his face. And you can't tell me that your run-of-the-mill Bills fan doesn't think that "establishing the run" is the purer way to play football ...

 

I think that most people know that a professional receiver can get open if his quarterback has enough time. This is why Wade Phillipps said that he wants linemen and lbs who can rush the passer, and then he will worry about the secondary.

 

The comment about safeties was quite telling, wouldn't you say?

[eball]

The comment about safeties was quite telling, wouldn't you say?

WHAT comment about safeties? I don't see one in that article.

[Sisyphean Bills]

So the story sucked because it is not 'groundbreaking?'

 

In today's over saturated market of writing NFL articles in May and other off months, what in the world do you expect these guys to come up with???

 

Something mind-blowing like a quantum physics theory of professional football.

[Ramius]

I think that most people know that a professional receiver can get open if his quarterback has enough time. This is why Wade Phillipps said that he wants linemen and lbs who can rush the passer, and then he will worry about the secondary.

 

The comment about safeties was quite telling, wouldn't you say?

 

What comment would that be? Funny how you leave out the fact that roughly 1/2 the teams in the league have selected a 1st round safety in the past 7-8 years.

 

You DO realize that the horse is long gone and you are beating bare ground, dont you?

[Bill from NYC]

What comment would that be? Funny how you leave out the fact that roughly 1/2 the teams in the league have selected a 1st round safety in the past 7-8 years.

 

You DO realize that the horse is long gone and you are beating bare ground, dont you?

 

My comment about safeties was misdirected. It was meant for the other dave mcbride thread. Sorry about that. You should check it out.

 

As for your other comment, you are right. The Levy/Jauron tandem came to town to lead a team that sucked. The got rid of their best corner, and drafted no less than 5 defensive backs in the first 4 rounds in 3 years. This of course includes a # 8 and # 11, and omits the free agent db signings.

If you think that this is the correct way to build a football team, there really is nothing to do but agree to disagree.

[Ramius]

My comment about safeties was misdirected. It was meant for the other dave mcbride thread. Sorry about that. You should check it out.

 

As for your other comment, you are right. The Levy/Jauron tandem came to town to lead a team that sucked. The got rid of their best corner, and drafted no less than 5 defensive backs in the first 4 rounds in 3 years. This of course includes a # 8 and # 11, and omits the free agent db signings.

If you think that this is the correct way to build a football team, there really is nothing to do but agree to disagree.

 

The correct way to build a football team is to get players where you have major holes. We had a major at safety in 2006 and filled it. In 2007 and 2008 we stocked both lines via free agency and trades. Also in 2008, we had a huge need at CB, and had the best CB on the board fall to us at 11.

 

As for the 4th round picks, who cares? its a 4th rounder. Flip a coin. Heads and the player isnt even on the team anymore within 3 years. That is true for all positions, not just DBs. But i'd guess you'd rather have a duke preston instead of a starting FS.

[Chilly]

The correct way to build a football team is to get players where you have major holes. We had a major at safety in 2006 and filled it. In 2007 and 2008 we stocked both lines via free agency and trades. Also in 2008, we had a huge need at CB, and had the best CB on the board fall to us at 11.

 

As for the 4th round picks, who cares? its a 4th rounder. Flip a coin. Heads and the player isnt even on the team anymore within 3 years. That is true for all positions, not just DBs. But i'd guess you'd rather have a duke preston instead of a starting FS.

 

dun bother, it won't change anything

[Ramius]

dun bother, it won't change anything

 

i know...death, taxes, and bill whining about DBs.

[Orton's Arm]

I'd say it was narrow minded & totally misrepresentative myself. What I mean by that is it seems he has latched onto one piece of information & formulated an opinion without considering the many other factors which may well counter that opinion. He also takes a commonly used saying & attacks the literal meaning of the saying rather than the common meaning.

I think your comments go too far. Was the article perfectly expressed? No. But there's a lot of truth to what he's written.

 

1. The running game.

He mainly bases his premise upon the "eye opening" stats of the 5 playoff teams'(SEA, GB, IND, DAL, NE) ranked for runs in the first half(31st, 29th, 28th, 27th, 26th). Does he factor into the situation that amongst those 5 teams there are the top 2 QBs in the league......and another 2 which would be considered in the top 6.

Simply looked at, if you have a STAR QB who has the ability to perform at a much greater level than the norm......it would just make logical sense that you would endeavour to use their skills at a higher rate than the norm, thus maximizing your asset.

 

Also, he does not mention where the other playoff teams ranked which IMO is necessary to establish a true comparison.

For instance......and I can't quickly get the first half stats alone, but......

Playoff teams JAX, PIT, NYG, TEN & SD were ranked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 7th in rushing yards per game.

Playoff teams TEN, JAX, PIT, WASH, SD, NYG & NE were ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th & 9th in rushing attempts per game.

 

The author is correct to assert that the Walsh philosophy of using the pass to build an early lead can be very effective. Because the rules have become more passing friendly, the right mix between passing and running has changed. On the other hand, if a team is good at running the ball, it should play to that strength.

 

It's no longer correct to conclude, as some do, that you should use the run to set up the pass. That may still be a sound idea for some teams, but is probably no longer the best plan for most teams.

2. Shut down corner.

Here he is turning the saying of 'shut down corner' into an extreme & then saying....."Ha, that extreme cannot be achieved." He is just being semantic about the term.

The term shutdown corner does not generally mean that the corner isn't fallible....or doesn't have off days. What it means is having a CB good enough to take solo coverage responsibilities for the opposition #1 receiver thus freeing up the rest of the secondary. Most CBs are not good enough to be able to attempt this on a regular basis. Those that are good enough to be used in this capacity have become known as 'shut down corners' even though they do not legitimately shut down their opposing WR for the entire game.

 

I think the point he's getting at is that, as the league has become more passing friendly, a CB can no longer shut down a WR the way that elite CBs could 20 or 30 years ago. I also agree with his implication that you're better off having a great pass rush, and mediocre DBs, than you are with a mediocre pass rush and great DBs.

 

3. Turnover battle is key.....FGs are just like turnovers.

This is complete bollocks(the FG thing).

Whether the TO battle is a key factor in causing the end result of a game.....or whether it is the natural product caused by other factors is a different argument to what he puts forward. In fact, he does not put up any argument to debunk the theory except for his FG thing and TOs at the end of a half. Quickly.....just a few he could have used.....struggling teams will likely turn the ball over more frequently due to the extra pressure of needing to get things done.....they may well have lesser players who are prone to cause more turnovers due to lack of skill.....obviously the reverse will count for good teams/players......long bombs on 3rd/4th downs which are intercepted and not returned are not that detrimental......neither are fumbles on 4th down when attempting a run when in OK field position.

 

His focus however was on missed FGs.....that they should be counted as TOs.

The term turnover has a literal meaning. If one wanted to add(or subtract) things to alter that meaning, there would be many more situations to focus upon which are far more detrimental than missing a FG(which is often a calculated risk weighing up the potential 3 points scored against the loss of yards).

 

To compare a missed 45 FG attempt on 4th down where the only real alternative is to punt(likely resulting in a touchback....totaling 15 yards field position difference) to throwing an interception on 1st/2nd/3rd down is ridiculous.

I agree that he oversimplified the FG situation. I think what he was getting at is that missed FGs and turnovers are similar, because they both (presumably) involve someone on your team messing up, and they both imply that your chance to score points on that particular drive just got snuffed out. I agree with your implication that it would be a mistake for teams to respond to this by decreasing their FG attempts, and punting more often instead. As you pointed out, you're probably better off trying for the long FG, than having your punting team get a few extra yards of field position.

 

But I don't think that's where he was going with this. His point, IMO, was that a good FG kicker is important, because he'll turn some of those missed FGs into successful FGs, and thus reduce your "turnovers."

[Orton's Arm]

My comment about safeties was misdirected. It was meant for the other dave mcbride thread. Sorry about that. You should check it out.

 

As for your other comment, you are right. The Levy/Jauron tandem came to town to lead a team that sucked. The got rid of their best corner, and drafted no less than 5 defensive backs in the first 4 rounds in 3 years. This of course includes a # 8 and # 11, and omits the free agent db signings.

If you think that this is the correct way to build a football team, there really is nothing to do but agree to disagree.

Back when Whitner was taken, you expressed the view that the Bills should have traded down and drafted Mangold instead. Thus far, you appear to have been right on the money with that one. Mangold is among the league's best centers; whereas I'm not aware of anyone describing Whitner as among the league's best SSs. Mangold would have been a better football player, taken later in the draft, and at a position of dire need. You made the right call there.

 

I'm a little more ambivalent about the McKelvin pick, because he appears to have been the best player available when we were picking. My main concern is whether he'll remain with us once his first contract expires. The best I'm hoping for here is for him to be signed to a 6 year deal, franchised in year 7, and lost in year 8.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

I agree that he oversimplified the FG situation. I think what he was getting at is that missed FGs and turnovers are similar, because they both (presumably) involve someone on your team messing up, and they both imply that your chance to score points on that particular drive just got snuffed out. I agree with your implication that it would be a mistake for teams to respond to this by decreasing their FG attempts, and punting more often instead. As you pointed out, you're probably better off trying for the long FG, than having your punting team get a few extra yards of field position.

 

But I don't think that's where he was going with this. His point, IMO, was that a good FG kicker is important, because he'll turn some of those missed FGs into successful FGs, and thus reduce your "turnovers."

That wasn't what I got out of it at all. I think he's attempting to disspell the football cliche, "the turnover battle is key."

 

He's trying to say the "turnover battle" as we know it is a bit flawed, as it doesn't take into account something like missed field goals, which is really in essence a turnover...you lose momentum as your team has just committed an error, you lose your chance to score on this drive, and you lose an oppurtunity to push the opposition's starting field position backwards (in fact, it moves the OTHER way 7 yards). In effect, a missed field goal isn't much different than a fumble, yet a fumble helps decide the turnover battle and a missed field goal does not.

 

In addition to omitting missed field goals, the "turnover battle" DOES include desperation tosses at the end of a half, which don't really have an impact on the game. These insignificant plays are given just as much credence in the turnover battle as any INT or fumble.

 

I think he's saying that raw turnover numbers shouldn't be taken at face value, and that when ESPN tells you Team A has 4 turnovers and Team B has 1 turnover, that isn't telling you the whole story. That 4-1 "turnover battle" may not be all that significant as it might not represent exactly what's happened.

[eball]

Back when Whitner was taken, you expressed the view that the Bills should have traded down and drafted Mangold instead. Thus far, you appear to have been right on the money with that one. Mangold is among the league's best centers; whereas I'm not aware of anyone describing Whitner as among the league's best SSs. Mangold would have been a better football player, taken later in the draft, and at a position of dire need. You made the right call there.

Whoa, junior. I don't believe that's the appropriate standard for analysis. In my opinion, you must look at the relative strength of the Bills' roster at C and SS then and now. Would the Bills be better overall with Mangold vs. Fowler and [insert player name] vs. Whitner? That's a much tougher question to answer.

 

Whitner -- while perhaps not on the tip of experts' tongues -- has received high marks playing for a very deficient defense and is now entering his prime. He has also established himself as a team leader. I'd like to see what he can do behind a legitimate front seven. Fowler, while berated by many on this board, is still probably an above-average NFL center.

 

Not quite the "easy" call you suggest -- at least not in my book.

[Ramius]

Whoa, junior. I don't believe that's the appropriate standard for analysis. In my opinion, you must look at the relative strength of the Bills' roster at C and SS then and now. Would the Bills be better overall with Mangold vs. Fowler and [insert player name] vs. Whitner? That's a much tougher question to answer.

 

Whitner -- while perhaps not on the tip of experts' tongues -- has received high marks playing for a very deficient defense and is now entering his prime. He has also established himself as a team leader. I'd like to see what he can do behind a legitimate front seven. Fowler, while berated by many on this board, is still probably an above-average NFL center.

 

Not quite the "easy" call you suggest -- at least not in my book.

 

It is that easy eball. You just pick up the phone, punch in your super secret trade down pin number, and voila, you have 2 more 1sts, 3 seconds, and a third for moving down 4 spots.

[Orton's Arm]

Whoa, junior. I don't believe that's the appropriate standard for analysis. In my opinion, you must look at the relative strength of the Bills' roster at C and SS then and now. Would the Bills be better overall with Mangold vs. Fowler and [insert player name] vs. Whitner? That's a much tougher question to answer.

 

Whitner -- while perhaps not on the tip of experts' tongues -- has received high marks playing for a very deficient defense and is now entering his prime. He has also established himself as a team leader. I'd like to see what he can do behind a legitimate front seven. Fowler, while berated by many on this board, is still probably an above-average NFL center.

 

Not quite the "easy" call you suggest -- at least not in my book.

Ummm . . . "junior"? "Fowler . . . is still probably an above-average NFL center"? Okay then! Moving on . . .

[Orton's Arm]

It is that easy eball. You just pick up the phone, punch in your super secret trade down pin number, and voila, you have 2 more 1sts, 3 seconds, and a third for moving down 4 spots.

Back when we had the 8th overall pick, with Leinart and Cutler still on the boards, yes, it would have been easy to trade down. Denver had offered us their 2nd round pick for doing so.

[Ramius]

Back when we had the 8th overall pick, with Leinart and Cutler still on the boards, yes, it would have been easy to trade down. Denver had offered us their 2nd round pick for doing so.

 

thats never been confirmed. its merely speculation and fantasy that you and bill share.

 

I find it funny how eveyrone bitches that we "reached" 3-4 spots to get whitner, but would have been ok "reaching" 1/2 a round to grab a center. And for the record, Mangold did NOT have a good season last year.

[eball]

Ummm . . . "junior"? "Fowler . . . is still probably an above-average NFL center"? Okay then! Moving on . . .

That's a neat trick. Deflect attention away from the points made and then you don't have to address them.

[obie_wan]

thats never been confirmed. its merely speculation and fantasy that you and bill share.

 

I find it funny how eveyrone bitches that we "reached" 3-4 spots to get whitner, but would have been ok "reaching" 1/2 a round to grab a center. And for the record, Mangold did NOT have a good season last year.

 

The Jets whole OL suffered from Kendall being run out of town.

 

But Mangold was their best OL last year./

 

Ferguson, for being a top 5 pick, struggled alot.

[My Friends Call Me Tebucky]

I wish he had addressed the "missed extra point always comes back to haunt you" myth. That cliche should have been done away with by announcers the second the 2pt conversion was introduced.