SoFFacet
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoFFacet
-
-
I don't like the idea. The Bills are in need of a deep threat; however pull from what we have. The players have been stepping up since last year. If you bring in a Lloyd or Wanye in the middle of the season you are basically telling the team no one on the squad is good enough to step up. The way this team is designed, that would destroy the confidence of the team.
Not really, to me it says-
we have been hit hard at WR with inijuries,
we also think we have a team here that can make a run into the playoffs.
Oh and by the way we haven't been to the playoffs in over a decade. Wouldn't it be nice to give our fans something to cheer about in January?
To who? The rest of the team working its butt off to win?
Do you care if Ruvell Martin's skills are questioned?
We have 3 HURT RECEIVERS.
Shirley, you can't be serious? And yes, I will call you Shirley.
The confidence and chemistry of this team has been very carefully crafted. Bringing in any new guy, particularly a veteran in the middle of the season, always carries this kind of risk. That doesn't mean that we absolutely shouldn't do it, just that its a concern that we can only hope Buddy is taking more seriously than you guys are.
-
Thanks for the info! That group from UNC looks especially good.
Oh also, just wondering but the first 3 mock picks in your sig are currently all in the draftek big baord's top 25. Whats up with that?
-
Not really, esp. if we get rid of our later 4th round pick. Few players drafted that late have gone onto have the sucess Lloyd has.
Buddy does this professionally. He is far more qualified to appraise the value of a pick than some internet message board mob.
-
The problem is that Buddy Nix thinks of a 4th round draft pick like most fans, including myself, think of a high second round draft pick. I doubt he would even think of giving up a #4 for Lloyd.
Much more likely that its the fans' valuation of the 4th rounder that is miscalibrated, not Buddy's.
-
You are WAY off here. I won't argue that Davis has slowed down a little, but I would say that is his only weakness. It's no coincidence that the Bills run D has been MUCH better with Davis in the middle. He is big strong and a very solid tackler, and unlike POZ, makes tackles at or behind the line of scrimmage. At this point in his career he is not great in coverage. He also is rarely even asked to rush the QB, so of course he is not going to ring up sacks. The Bills rarely blitz up the middle, and if they do it's usually Barnett. Don't expect Sheppard to be a pass rusher either, that's not his role.
Having said that, Sheppard has a much higher upside. I'd love to see him show it, and I have no problem with him replacing Davis if he's ready. But to say Davis "sucks" just because we have a young player stepping up is unjustified, It sounds like maybe you should actually watch him play, especially against the run...
I am guessing the major reasons for Sheppard getting rushed in was Vick (speed,for that game), and the need for better coverage. To the OP's point it will be interesting to see if he takes the starting spot for good.
Eh, Davis doesn't exactly suck, but he's the weakest of the four LBs that started the season if you ask me. But I know Kelsay and Merriman haven't done much either, so its close.
-
Green would have ruined the no name theme our offense has going. Players drafted before the 7th round aren't allowed. ;p
-
Here's the thing, and I say this with the greatest sincerity, you're not a player or a coach. None of us are. The reality is, whether or not we get too up or too down has absolutely zero impact on whether or not the Buffalo Bills win on Sunday.
Now, I know you know this because I consider you to be a smart poster who actually knows the game. So I don't say that with any semblance of disrespect. Now, we could sit here and debate your points -- of which you raise several good ones. I could counter with my belief that measuring the effectiveness of a defense based on yards is caveman football. The NFL ranking should be by points, not yards. The game has gotten too easy to score and it's unfair to hold current defenses (across the league, not just here) to past statistical standards because the NFL has never, ever been as much of a passing and scoring league as it's become almost overnight. It's not that defenses haven't caught up to the spread as it is that the rules have changed to make it almost impossible to consistently stop the passing game. Of course you could rightfully counter that the Bills give up a lot of points as well as yards which would bring you back to your original point.
But that brings me to my question. And again, I am curious about the answer to this because I honestly do not understand the mentality and I have very much been a "realist" in the past few seasons. So here it is:
Why bother to bring this up now?
If you're right (you may well be; the honest truth is we're all just guessing here) and the Bills do crash back to earth at some point this season or next, then shouldn't you just enjoy the good parts of the ride while they're here? After all, you yourself are saying that we're going to be back in the cellar at some point in the very near future.
So what does this post accomplish? Is it just the need to say you were right later on if it happens? Or is it something else? The Bills fate in the 2011 season is not going to change if you post this. It wouldn't change if you didn't post it either. Again, I'm not saying you should just blindly believe in sunshine and rainbows -- if you think it's a mirage you have every right to express your opinion. And you could be right.
But you could also be wrong.
So what do you gain from making this post now? If you're right, you get some satisfaction from being the smartest guy in the room ... who roots for a team that never wins. Plus you miss out on actually enjoying the brief flickers of success your chosen team actually earns -- even if it is by hook or by crook.
Again, it's not that you're not allowed to discuss your opinions on these matters. And this is certainly the place to do so. It's just the timing of it I question. What's the rush to be out in front of a curve that you're smart enough to know you can't predict?
What's the point of being a fan if you forget to enjoy the successes?
Well that's a bizarre question. This is a fan message board, posts don't really "accomplish" anything - other than stimulating discussion with other fans about the team. Here we have a post simply pointing out that the Bills aren't winning by very much, and it will be nearly impossible for them to keep up this turnover pace. Being a fan doesn't preclude one from thinking critically about the team's strengths and weaknesses, but it seems that there are tons of posters here that can't understand that.
-
This is a very stupid thread - the Bills have no fixed 'method of winning', and any convoluted use of statistics to prove otherwise is moronic.
The average human has one breast and one testicle, yet somehow I've never met anyone with one breast and one testicle.
I don't think anyone is saying they are doing it on purpose, but surely the last four games looked at least somewhat similar to you?
-
Of course the replies to the original post, as usual, completely miss the point. Talk about the rabid, single minded fan. It was a catch, I agree, but that misses the point. And I am sure a Bengals fan would be just as adamant if the call had been overturned by the replay. The point was that your hero, Stevie, made the huge blunder of using one arm to brace his fall instead of securing the ball with both arms, thereby giving the refs that opportunity to make that call. Horrible mistake on his part, just like is drop against the Steelers. But none of the low iq responses even touch the main point, that is why Stevie needs to brace his fall more than secure the ball. Explain that
I did not say he should not be re signed, I just pointed out his disturbing habit of making bone head mistakes in big situations should give anyone pause in deciding to hand out huge dollars to him rather than a potential free agent. He has done some great things as a receiver, I agree. But I cannot imagine a Wes Welker bumbling away a ball in either of those situations.
A habit? Surely then you are brimming with examples. Thus far you've cited the drop vs Pitt and the "catch" vs Cincy. Even if we're generous and agree that he made a mistake in Cincy, thats a whopping two examples in twenty games.
Regardless, the Bills at this point have far too many players who hardly show up at all to be worrying about who is showing up in "big moments."
-
Im not saying get rid of the 4 and 5 wr sets ...but we can actually run the ball! And we do it well....and we don't need to spread the defense with 4 wrs to run the ball....and philly struggles again power run sets... but in Chan I trust
Well actually, since (as you say) we don't have a real running package, and nearly all of our running plays are draws out of 3/4 receiver sets... we don't know for sure if we are good at running out without the spread offense. Something tells me that Chan thought we could, we would already be doing it.
-
You can't sell me that Cincy actually has a great offense. They don't. Our defense, on the other hand, has been butchered in three consecutive weeks.
-
the play calling on 2nd and 3rd down was terrible.
This one has been bothering me. On 2nd & 1 the entire playbook should be open and we should be calling some ambitious shite. Instead Chan always plays it safe and goes for the 1st down right away. And Brad Smith has a 100% conversion rate on 3rd & 1, but instead Chan called a ton of long passes.
-
Great athletic skills.
Not smart + no football savvy = rarely in position to make a play. Therefore not a play maker.
Actually he's pretty much always in position to make a play. He just never makes it.
-
The thing that this game definitely showed was how bad our defense really is. The only time we've been able to stop anybody in the last 3 games is turnovers.
Also I was genuinely surprised that Chan and Fitz didn't manage to turn things around on offense. Hopefully they return to form next week, or we won't have much a chance then, either.
-
I would like a shut-down corner. There's no reason other teams should be consistently putting up over 30 point, mostly via a passing attack. There is going to be a week when our O is not in sync and the D is going to have to win us the game.
I think more than anything that we might need on defense is a true shutdown playmaking cornerback. McGee can't stay on the field, Leodis has proven to be more of a liability than anything , and Aaron Williams is a rook. Drayton played good (not great) last year and so far this year he's been okay.
I think our primary need is a better pass rush, with secondary needs being better OL, DB, and WR depth.
Shutdown corners are even more difficult to find than franchise qbs right now. There are like, 3 in the entire league atm. If Buddy has a reeeeeeally good feeling about one of the CBs in this year's draft, then ok, maybe. But there are going to be a lot of great LB options only available in the 1st round, and a lot good CBs that will still be available in the 2nd round.
-
Easy enough: you said "far too few snaps have been played thus far to make that kind of past-results-based argument about which plays are likely to work better in the future. It is all within the realm of noise and coincidence right now." I disagree with you. I believe most students of the football chess match would disagree with you. Hopefully the Bills coaches are doing the sort of self-scouting that will help them pick this apart. Chan referenced this in his presser, actually.
I have also heard the players say that. In an overall sense, of not substituting players or changing assignments, it's probably true. In the detailed sense of what plays are called and the details of how they are executed, I don't think it's true. Again, I'm not a professional football analyst with the time and film to pick our play selection apart and my eyes could be deceiving me. I haven't been formally scoring each play of the game - it kind of takes the pepper out of it for me.
It is impossible to indict early playcalling when there are so many early execution errors. There is no evidence that getting the ball first would improve the early offensive execution.
Dude, if you can't even ack the fact that: 1) we gave NE the ball first 2) they scored first 3) therefore they were ahead first as a direct result of having the first possession, that says something.My point is it's fallacious to make that kind of reasoning. Football is a game of emotion and energy as well as logic and execution. It can never be treated as a simple "rub one thing out and see, nothing else changes" picture. Same reason it's not so clear cut to argue that Ochocinco's dropped pass had no effect on the outcome of the game (would you argue that too?).
I don't know why you feel you need to be rude, I was just disagreeing with you. But now that you've annoyed me, my point is that it is actually your reasoning that is fallacious. NE's lead cannot be solely attributed to deferring, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and insist it can. Would you argue that getting the ball first in the second half was the reason for our comeback, or merely a slight advantage, overwhelmed in the grand scheme of things by the real reason - simply outplaying NE? Thought so.
NE executed in the first quarter - we didn't. They would have been ahead regardless of deferring. If you can't understand that, "that says something."
-
The starting play sequence is always a chess match - even at the beginning of the season, based on prev. seasons, preseason, and known preferences of the coach and personnel.
I'm only an egg, not a professional football analyst with the time and film to pick our play selection apart. It's appropriate to use the first few drives to try to establish certain types of plays. I just have the sense that we're taking that "testing the waters" thing a little too far and not "dressing ourselves for success" with the play calling on the first few drives. The good news is we're making adjustments, and finding things that work, then using them. I just want us to do it before we fall behind 21-0
Not sure what you're trying to get at here. I would also prefer not to spot our opponents large leads, but the fact is that errors in execution have much more to do with our early struggles than playcalling. The players even said so after both of the last two games - there were no halftime adjustments, they just went out and executed the same plan without all the errors.
You're correctly quoting the usual dogma for deferring. It's a matter of fact that since New England was allowed to score on their first drive, deferring did in fact cause us to play from behind in that game.Thats completely incorrect. NE's offense simply outplaying our defense was a far greater contributing factor to their lead, than was the mere fact that they had the ball first. Also, since we did not score for several possessions, and New England did, we would have played from behind regardless of our coin toss decision.
It's a matter of opinion whether it contributed to the "nerves" we seemed to show in the first few Oak drives. "Coaching like we're a strong team" sounds great. Success ultimately means our coaches recognize and coach the team we have, not the team we want to have or hope to have next year.The fact is, for whatever reason, we have dug ourselves quite the hole during the last two games. It's an observation that the offensed seems to be 'playing tight' in those games, as evidenced by penalties, 50% stuffed run plays even where we ultimately ran successfully, dropped balls, etcetera. Then the fair question becomes "why?" And "what can we do about it?"
Would putting the O on the field immediately help them focus and settle in? Don't know. We ultimately won, so one can argue for "don't change a thing". It seems fair to ask though.
Certainly, there is nothing wrong with asking. But there is simply no evidence that supports the idea that our offense would play better if it received the ball first. I would like to compete more in the first half as well, but based on the performance so far, the answer lies almost entirely in improving execution, not in changing strategy.
-
Let's break down the first 3 Bills offensive series against Oak, and NE, shall we?
Number of run plays: 14 (counting pitchback to Smith as a run)
Number of pass plays: 23
Number of significant penalties (cut block, block in the back, etc): 4
That's pretty pass-happy. 62% pass.
Successful run plays (>2 yds): 7
Unsuccessful run plays (<2 yds): 7
Successful pass plays (>2 yds): 15
Unsuccessful pass plays: 8
----Unsuccessful pass plays that went off the receivers hands or were dropped: 3
----Unsuccessful pass plays that were poor throws or Ints: 5
If the ball hits the receiver's hands and is dropped or goes through them, there's not too much Fitz can improve.
Of the 3 interceptions, the Int on the 3rd drive in Oakland was a poor throw and you could tell Fitzy wanted that one back.
Against NE, I'm racking it up to Fitz but the first Int went THROUGH Donald Jones hands. The second was essentially a short punt taking a shot at 4th and long.
Bottom line: when we are running the ball early, it's only successful 50% of the time.
When we're passing early, it's successful 65% of the time. An additional 13% hit the receiver's hands or went through them (not counting the Int that went through DJ's hands)
Here's what Hopeful sees:
1) We are consistently deferring and apparently will continue to defer. This really puts it on our D. If they don't get a stop (eg, NE), we start out 7 down, which may not be good for our young offense. Maybe they feel more pressure, and tighten up. The early success we had, against the Chiefs, came when we got the ball right away after a fumble. Should that "make you go hmmmmm"?
2) The play calling on the first 3 series has been pass-happy. 62%.
3) The real silent killer for the Bills has been penalties. Counting penalty on return, 4 big ones on 6 early drives. 3 have negated successful plays.
4) 50% success rate on early runs is NOT good. We need to improve this. Combined with our play percentage, teams are going to start keying.
I would say Fitz has been playing fairly well out the gate. 78% catchable throws is not shabby at all. He threw one BONEHEAD Int against Oak where you could tell he wanted it back right away. The other "real" Int went THROUGH DJ's hands and arguably could have been caught. Fitz is always going to make these kind of throws, it's who he is. The Int on 4th and long was deliberate risk-taking, essentially a "worst case = short punt" kind of throw.
Hopeful's keys to change:
1) Quit with the penalties. "Don't be dumb, don't be dirty." That change alone would foster more early success. 4 out of 6 early drives? "C'mon man."
2) Re-examine the play calling early. We need to succeed more often when we do call a run. Are we calling the right run plays? Too many pass plays?
3) Re-examine the "defer" strategy.
I agree that we need to take fewer penalties. They have killed several of our 1st half drives this season.
Regarding #2, far too few snaps have been played thus far to make that kind of past-results-based argument about which plays are likely to work better in the future. It is all within the realm of noise and coincidence right now.
And for #3, deferring is clearly not reason we fall behind. Against Oakland both teams punted twice before Oakland finally drove the length of the field and then intercepted Fitz. Against NE, we had what, 2 turnovers and 2 punts before finally starting to fight back? For strong teams that don't fold against an early deficit, deferring is superior for the opportunity to immediately seize momentum in the second half (see Oakland game), or create consecutive possessions on either end of halftime (both Oakland and NE games).
While there is still quite a bit of room for improvement (showing up for the 1st quarter would be nice), I like that Gailey is coaching his team like a strong team.
-
This game is pretty important to our defense imo. They played well vs the Chiefs, terrible vs the Raiders, and "bad" vs the Pats, although considering how many points they're putting on everyone, bad is a relative term there. Cinci has an offense they should be able to stop. If they fail we'll know we have a deeper problem. If they succeed then at least they can stop the people they're supposed to - which is more than a lot of previous Bills teams can say.
-
Based on the season so far, I'd say our biggest needs are a better pass rush, OL depth, DB depth, and WR depth. I'm favoring a draft order that looks something like this...
DE or OLB, Round 1:
Brandon Jenkins, Florida State
Bruce Irvin, West Virginia
Zach Brown, North Carolina
Courtney Upshaw, Alabama
OL, Round 2:
Levy Adcock, Oklahoma State
Mike Adams, Ohio State
Bobby Massie, Ole Miss
Ricky Wagner, Wisconsin
CB, Round 3:
Donnie Fletcher, Boston College
Leonard Johnson, Iowa State
WR, Roound 4:
BJ Cunningham, Michigan State
Juron Criner, Arizona
One deviation that I would seriously consider is ILBs Luke Kuechly (Boston College) or Manti Teo (Notre Dame) in Round 1, if they somehow dropped to us.
-
I dont understand why people think talking about the draft means we've given up on this season...
Im really excited about what we are doing this year, and really happy with the start.
But I also love college football, and talking about prospects, and the draft goes hand in hand with that.
We have a good team this year. We are building towards greatness. Nothing wrong with talking about how we're going to continue to build. Doesnt mean Im not appreciating what is happening right now.
I agree. Talking draft is interesting to some people regardless of the time of year. Doing so does not in any way mean that a person is less appreciative of the present.
-
Didn't mean to hurt your feelings, sweetheart.
How bout this: "Some people root for the Dolphins...and always will. What can you do?"
Much more appropriate, but it doesn't make any sense in the context of your previous post. I would give up on the analogies until you're a little bit more grown up.
-
Well, clearly there's a reason why the Bills haven't played him. If you remember correctly, Buffalo rushed the Spiller pick to the podium at the draft like he was the greatest thing in the world. Since being drafted, I really only recall a handful of plays that C.J. has made since being drafted. When you get picked in the top 10 of the NFL draft, you should be starting, and there's a reason he's not, me and the guys who posted this aren't the only ones who think something needs to change with Spiller, obviously Chan Gailey does as well. I dont believe Gailey "rushed" to draft Spiller 9th overall to be a situational scat-back who doesn't produce or rarely plays. Say what you will, but Spiller will be traded eventually if he doesn't turn it around.
We couldn't get anything worthwhile in return if we did trade him, so he will be kept. More than anything else the thing thats keeping him on the sidelines is Fred Jackson.
Regarding the usage of a #9 pick, consider the Nix's mindset at the 2010 draft, before he and Gailey had much time to evaluate the team. There was no way to anticipate the needs of the 2011 Bills without making assumptions based on (highly unreliable) fan and media impressions. While it is unfortunate that he has underperformed expectations thus far, and plays a position we've turned out not to need this year, BPA was the right call.
Keep in mind that while Spiller might not be what the 2011 Bills need, he might be what the 2012, 2013, 2014, etc Bills need. Having so few carries is extending his career - RBs tend to have about 2000 touches in them, instead of a fixed number of years. We won't know the true wisdom of the Spiller pick until we also see his impact on those teams.
-
Gailey has deferred the past two weeks, no reason to believe he'll break the trend now. I think its almost always better to defer unless there is bad weather expected in the second half only.
Brad Smith - Are we using him correctly?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by SoFFacet
He's a bigger threat to pass, and there's something to be said for letting Fred have a few plays off anyways. I do agree that the triple option and similar plays should be implemented for Smith. Air Force runs a neat plunge/keeper/pass play that aims to create a run/pass responsibility conflict for the CB.