VOR Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 That's fine, too. You can talk about all those things. A healthy Crowell fits nicely into the "what if" conversations, too. Given that Crowell is no longer with the team, I don't really see the point, though. The point is that Crowell was not healthy, Ellison hadn't taken more than a handful of snaps with the starting defense up until that point (half a week before the season was scheduled to start), and still the team won 5 straight games and another 2, which matched or bettered their wins from the 3 previous seasons. Meanwhile the offense sputtered badly and cost the Bills wins. In short that Ellison, while not the guy you want starting (and I've never said I wanted him starting) was not one of the main reasons the Bills lost games last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Really? Every team that goes deep into the playoffs has a top 10 D? Even explosive offensive teams don't go far without a top 10 D? Ever? Care to back that nonsense up with some data, or are you just trying to take some of the fire for Billistic? A top 10 D translated into a playoff spot 70% of the time last season, which is huge. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...tant-stat_N.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 A top 10 D translated into a playoff spot 70% of the time last season, which is huge. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...tant-stat_N.htm Bad analysis. The questions you need to answer are: What % of playoff teams had a top 10 D? What % of teams with a top 5 offense, but less than a top 10 D, made the playoffs? Went deep into the playoffs? Do this for the past 10 years, and if you find no team succeeded without a top 10 D, you will have supported your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 The point is that Crowell was not healthy That's what I have repeatedly said. The point is that Crowell was not healthy, Ellison hadn't taken more than a handful of snaps with the starting defense up until that point (half a week before the season was scheduled to start), and still the team won 5 straight games and another 2, which matched or bettered their wins from the 3 previous seasons. Meanwhile the offense sputtered badly and cost the Bills wins. In short that Ellison, while not the guy you want starting (and I've never said I wanted him starting) was not one of the main reasons the Bills lost games last year. Ellison probably wasn't "one of the main reasons the Bills lost games last year". They had bigger issues. But you can't say the Bills might have won a game or two they lost with a different LB playing in place of Ellison. They could also have lost another game or two. There is simply no way to tell. Chances are, with a better LB replacing Ellison they improve their chances of winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 The Bills were 23rd in scoring offense and 14th in scoring defense last year so arguably the offense was more of a problem than the defense. So VOR has a good point that Ellison's performance was probably not one of the main reasons we didn't win more games. However as Dean points out, one play, even an innocuous one, for instance stopping the running back for two yards on a third and three, can be the difference between a win and a loss. You're both right IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Ellison probably wasn't "one of the main reasons the Bills lost games last year". They had bigger issues. But you can't say the Bills might have won a game or two they lost with a different LB playing in place of Ellison. They could also have lost another game or two. There is simply no way to tell. Chances are, with a better LB replacing Ellison they improve their chances of winning. I never said that the Bills wouldn't have won more games with a better player than Ellison. Or that I think Ellison is who should be starting for the Bills again. What I was saying is that he was the best option they had, given the circumstances, and that the defense wasn't responsible for the majority of the losses last year. The offense was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 The Bills were 23rd in scoring offense and 14th in scoring defense last year so arguably the offense was more of a problem than the defense. So VOR has a good point that Ellison's performance was probably not one of the main reasons we didn't win more games. However as Dean points out, one play, even an innocuous one, for instance stopping the running back for two yards on a third and three, can be the difference between a win and a loss. You're both right IMO. I'm saying BOTH of those things, too. I just can't figure out the VOR/ans4e64 argument. They seem to be talking around one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 The Bills were 23rd in scoring offense and 14th in scoring defense last year so arguably the offense was more of a problem than the defense. So VOR has a good point that Ellison's performance was probably not one of the main reasons we didn't win more games. However as Dean points out, one play, even an innocuous one, for instance stopping the running back for two yards on a third and three, can be the difference between a win and a loss. You're both right IMO. Probably, the overall record under the Marv, Used-Car-Boy, DICK regime is the only salient statistic: 7-9, 7-9, 7-9... n'est ce pas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I won't call you a liar, because the Bills D allowed a first down on 36.1% of their opponents' third down plays. In general conversation, 36.1 could seem like "nearly 40%". Of course, nobody who understands football would suggest that allowing a 36.1% third down conversion rate, is terrible. In fact, only someone who was ignorant, or completely disingenuous would fail to mention that the Bills 36.1% third down conversion rate was 9th best in the league. http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true I tell you what, Billistic, I think we should leave the statistical analysis to someone other than you. Facts really suck when you're trying to make crap up. Excellent post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Facts really suck when you're trying to make crap up. Excellent post. 7-9 doesn't speak to you geniuses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 If 7-9 doesn't talk, then let's hear you rationalize... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Doh...thinking it up...wait several minutes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 ...again...7-9, 7-9, 7-9... Are you going to argue with that clock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 ...again...7-9, 7-9, 7-9... Are you going to argue with that clock? You know Billistic, I have several friends on the board here who I speak with regularly on the phone. All of us are pretty even-tempered guys who give others the benefit of the doubt. That said, I was the last holdout of the group who didn't agree that you were a jerk, even though you subjected me to a few of your acerbic and irascible posts. Having witnessed more of your opinions, I have to say that while you seem quite bright, you also seem pretty immature, argumentative, disrespectful and generally a pain in the ass. It's either that or you have a hidden agenda. I wonder if you're really a Bills fan. Perhaps you're a troll? Sorry to give up on you buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 You know Billistic, I have several friends on the board here who I speak with regularly on the phone. All of us are pretty even-tempered guys who give others the benefit of the doubt. That said, I was the last holdout of the group who didn't agree that you were a jerk, even though you subjected me to a few of your acerbic and irascible posts. Having witnessed more of your opinions, I have to say that while you seem quite bright, you also seem pretty immature, argumentative, disrespectful and generally a pain in the ass. It's either that or you have a hidden agenda. I wonder if you're really a Bills fan. Perhaps you're a troll? Sorry to give up on you buddy. He's not a Bills fan. He's a troll. At least that's my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 So, let's make this about whether we like "Billistic"... Meanwhile, let's ignore 7-9, 7-9, 7-9... whaaaaa.... Who doesn't respect who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 You know Billistic, I have several friends on the board here who I speak with regularly on the phone. All of us are pretty even-tempered guys who give others the benefit of the doubt. That said, I was the last holdout of the group who didn't agree that you were a jerk, even though you subjected me to a few of your acerbic and irascible posts. Having witnessed more of your opinions, I have to say that while you seem quite bright, you also seem pretty immature, argumentative, disrespectful and generally a pain in the ass. It's either that or you have a hidden agenda. I wonder if you're really a Bills fan. Perhaps you're a troll? Sorry to give up on you buddy. Good god! You twits ring each other up about moi...so very, very sad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 He's not a Bills fan. He's a troll. At least that's my guess. OK, then a troll (according to you) is someone who disagrees with your sad arguments, and attempts to strongly refute them. Well, using your pathetic definition, I'm proud to be a "troll". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 You know Billistic, I have several friends on the board here who I speak with regularly on the phone. All of us are pretty even-tempered guys who give others the benefit of the doubt. That said, I was the last holdout of the group who didn't agree that you were a jerk, even though you subjected me to a few of your acerbic and irascible posts. Having witnessed more of your opinions, I have to say that while you seem quite bright, you also seem pretty immature, argumentative, disrespectful and generally a pain in the ass. It's either that or you have a hidden agenda. I wonder if you're really a Bills fan. Perhaps you're a troll? Sorry to give up on you buddy. Better take it easy there, SJBF. Billistic will accuse YOU of being the troll. That's his style. But rest assured, he IS a troll. And he gets less clever about it every day. For instance, in the 'Is McKelvin Going to be a Shutdown CB this Year' thread, in post #53 he actually created a bogus post by me and responded to it. I'm pretty sure that violates a community rule and I'm waiting for a response from the Mods but it goes to show you his complete lack of integrity. When you have to make it appear that someone created a post and then you respond to it, it's pitiful. He might be a bit schizo and short on meds but that's pure conjecture on my part. But you have his style pegged. He doesn't like it when people disagree with him and gets incensed when you call him on any of the BS he spews here. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 He's not a Bills fan. He's a troll. At least that's my guess. You are absolutely correct, Dean. He's a classic troll. He was intelligent about it at first which is why people cut him slack but the more you engage him the more it becomes apparent. He digresses when he can't refute your points and resorts to name calling, etc. He reminds me of this board's version of OwensMania from the PPP board. There are enough regulars who've spotted the same trends. He has obtained "douche nozzle" status. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts