My Meaningless Opinion

[Ramius]

You are awesome, dog. Did you even read what I wrote, or did you just stop one line in and respond?

 

I know you like to convolute things so that they support your argument, but believe it or not, football games are won and lost based on points, not yards.

 

You point to this #27 ranked defensive statistic as though it means something, when it really doesn't.

 

According to those rankings, the #5 defense in the league is giving up more points per game than 22 other defenses in the NFL. If that's the case, how can your beloved rankings mean anything substantive? Or does that not even register with you?

 

It's very simple: Buffalo held the best offense in the game (ranked so based on points AND your beloved yards) to 10 points (3 of which came off a turnover that gave NO the ball in the red zone) for 3+ quarters, and when their offense failed to get another first down for the rest of the game, the defense got tired and gave up rushing yards.

 

You can point to the numbers all you want, but try watching the game and comprehending the fact that the numbers don't come close to telling the whole story.

 

The bottom line with your argument is that you are blaming a loss in which the Bills' offense scored 0 points on a defense that did an admirable job against a juggernaut offense. And to boot, your justifying it by making reference to a defensive ranking that claims that the #5 overall defense in football can give up more points per game than 22 other defenses. Do you honestly believe that your argument holds water?

 

I'd say he's trolling, but dog's not smart enough. He's just a simple mind who doesn't understand much about the game of football.

[Guest dog14787]

You are awesome, dog. Did you even read what I wrote, or did you just stop one line in and respond?

 

I know you like to convolute things so that they support your argument, but believe it or not, football games are won and lost based on points, not yards.

 

You point to this #27 ranked defensive statistic as though it means something, when it really doesn't.

 

According to those rankings, the #5 defense in the league is giving up more points per game than 22 other defenses in the NFL. If that's the case, how can your beloved rankings mean anything substantive? Or does that not even register with you?

 

It's very simple: Buffalo held the best offense in the game (ranked so based on points AND your beloved yards) to 10 points (3 of which came off a turnover that gave NO the ball in the red zone) for 3+ quarters, and when their offense failed to get another first down for the rest of the game, the defense got tired and gave up rushing yards.

 

You can point to the numbers all you want, but try watching the game and comprehending the fact that the numbers don't come close to telling the whole story.

 

The bottom line with your argument is that you are blaming a loss in which the Bills' offense scored 0 points on a defense that did an admirable job against a juggernaut offense. And to boot, your justifying it by making reference to a defensive ranking that claims that the #5 overall defense in football can give up more points per game than 22 other defenses. Do you honestly believe that your argument holds water?

 

Saying our defense is playing well and making that determination by referring to 50 minutes of a 60 minute football game and then basing that assumption by comparing us to other teams that compared worse is something I don't buy.

[bizell]

Saying our defense is playing well and making that determination by referring to 50 minutes of a 60 minute football game and then basing that assumption by comparing us to other teams that compared worse is something I don't buy.

 

but lemme guess: you were one of the 'buyers' in the "TRENT EDWARDS IS BETTER THAN TOM BRADY: PROOF INSIDE" thread, right?

[Guest dog14787]

I'd say he's trolling, but dog's not smart enough. He's just a simple mind who doesn't understand much about the game of football.

 

Its funny how when someone doesn't have anything to say by way of debate, they resort to personal attacks.

[Ramius]

Its funny how when someone doesn't have anything to say by way of debate, they resort to personal attacks.

 

There's nothing to debate with a dimwit who didn;t actually watch the game and is trying to make assumptions based off of the final stat line.

[Guest dog14787]

but lemme guess: you were one of the 'buyers' in the "TRENT EDWARDS IS BETTER THAN TOM BRADY: PROOF INSIDE" thread, right?

 

On that particular game, yes I was because TE had that game in the bag. Brady should have been to little to late on that particular ball game.

[Dan]

On that particular game, yes I was because TE had that game in the bag. Brady should have been to little to late on that particular ball game.

How do you figure that? Trent was 15 for 25 with 212 yards. Brady was 39 of 53 with 378 yards. Trent was completely outplayed! You can't win with only 200 yards passing against a high scoring team like the Pats*.

[Guest dog14787]

There's nothing to debate with a dimwit who didn;t actually watch the game and is trying to make assumptions based off of the final stat line.

 

 

Like I said, nothing constructive to say so resort to name calling.

 

Saying our defense played well in a 27-7 loss pretty much speaks for itself.

[Ramius]

Like I said, nothing constructive to say so resort to name calling.

 

Saying our defense played well in a 27-7 loss pretty much speaks for itself.

 

Please break down how and when the defense sucked without resorting to any inane rankings and without using any of the final stat line. You're just like stuckincincy, didn't watch the game, yet feel like they can comment on the play of a unit or individual based off 1 stat line.

 

Also, since it was the defense's fault that we lost, please break down how the offense, which put up 0 points, played a good game.

[BillsWatch]

By harping on this fact, you're proving 1 of 2 things: Either you work as an ESPN analyst or you follow football because of your fantasy football teams. Either way, you obviously did not watch the game or did not understand what was going on.

 

+1

[Guest dog14787]

How do you figure that? Trent was 15 for 25 with 212 yards. Brady was 39 of 53 with 378 yards. Trent was completely outplayed! You can't win with only 200 yards passing against a high scoring team like the Pats*.

 

 

Dan, I think its you who wanted to start an argument or why even bring up other posts from a totally different thread.

[thebandit27]

Saying our defense is playing well and making that determination by referring to 50 minutes of a 60 minute football game and then basing that assumption by comparing us to other teams that compared worse is something I don't buy.

 

I'm stifling my frustration in an attempt to figure out if you're simply trying to get under people's skin or if you really don't ever consider what actually occurred on the field.

 

Why will you not acknowledge that the offense scored ZERO POINTS THE ENTIRE GAME, and that once they failed to get a first down in the entire 4th quarter, that was when the defense began to give up rushing yards (and subsequently touchdowns)? This is an extremely relevant point which you seem to want to ignore.

 

But hey, whatever man. I guess you think scoring zero points on offense and hanging your defense out to dry after 3-1/2 quarters of inspired play is acceptable. That being the case, I guess I see where you're coming from.

[Dan]

Dan, I think its you who wanted to start an argument or why even bring up other posts from a totally different thread.

No, you said the defense played poorly. I simply refuted that. Then you tried, rather unsuccessfully, to argue your point that the defense did indeed play poorly. I continued to refute your statements.

 

Then you brought up Edwards' great performance in the season opener. I simply refuted that as well.

 

 

I actually read this thread, initially, because I enjoy RR's insights on the games. I was just disheartened to see someone missing the forest for the trees, again. And felt it warranted a response.

[stuckincincy]

Ramius, why would I do that, I have all the cartoon characters like you I need right here on this board.

 

I have a right to my own opinion and I posted as much, I knew going into this game we had to stop the run to win and we didn't and the Bills lost. So get real or find an argument that even makes sense.

 

Well, you have a history of hunting around so as to quickly post in a topic, in seeming hope that one of your targeted members' posts gets pushed off, unread, and perhaps get buried.

 

That's my right to my own opinion speaking. Since we agree to get real.

[Guest dog14787]

I'm stifling my frustration in an attempt to figure out if you're simply trying to get under people's skin or if you really don't ever consider what actually occurred on the field.

 

Why will you not acknowledge that the offense scored ZERO POINTS THE ENTIRE GAME, and that once they failed to get a first down in the entire 4th quarter, that was when the defense began to give up rushing yards (and subsequently touchdowns)? This is an extremely relevant point which you seem to want to ignore.

 

But hey, whatever man. I guess you think scoring zero points on offense and hanging your defense out to dry after 3-1/2 quarters of inspired play is acceptable. That being the case, I guess I see where you're coming from.

 

 

Give me a break, I watched the game and I understand the significance of only being down by 3 in the fourth quarter and what the offenses inability to score meant so get over yourselves.

 

The saints D and offense faced the same dilemma and they prevailed. All this argument because I voiced my opinion that the defense did not play well is a little over doing it don't you think. Especially considering all the stats and facts glaring back at you.

[Guest dog14787]

Well, you have a history of hunting around so as to quickly post in a topic, in seeming hope that one of your targeted members' posts gets pushed off, unread, and perhaps get buried.

 

That's my right to my own opinion speaking. Since we agree to get real.

 

 

What????

[Ramius]

Give me a break, I watched the game and I understand the significance of only being down by 3 in the fourth quarter and what the offenses inability to score meant so get over yourselves.

 

The saints D and offense faced the same dilemma and they prevailed. All this argument because I voiced my opinion that the defense did not play well is a little over doing it don't you think. Especially considering all the stats and facts glaring back at you.

 

Ok. Since you actually watched the game and still arrived at your conclusion, then my name calling was justified.

[DC Tom]

The saints D and offense faced the same dilemma and they prevailed.

 

What? Are you high?

[Guest dog14787]

No, you said the defense played poorly. I simply refuted that. Then you tried, rather unsuccessfully, to argue your point that the defense did indeed play poorly. I continued to refute your statements.

 

Then you brought up Edwards' great performance in the season opener. I simply refuted that as well.

 

 

I actually read this thread, initially, because I enjoy RR's insights on the games. I was just disheartened to see someone missing the forest for the trees, again. And felt it warranted a response.

 

 

Are you losing it, and you say this happened in this thread and it wasn't you that brought this up.

[Guest dog14787]

What? Are you high?

 

I'm fixing to be.

 

The Saints defense stopped what In my opinion is allot of offensive fire power, whats so hard to understand.