Juror#8

This is essentially my issue with Butler. Almost a full decade and no QB to stabilize the organization. And though Flutie provided much needed energy, the accompanying drama adversely affected the coaching staff and fractured loyalties.

I know that Nix doesn't move around on draft day. This would be a good year to surprise everyone. We really need a QB. He can sit for a season. We invest in the line. Play QB in 2013. Watch good things happen.

Excellent analysis. My goal with this thread was to find a common denominator or, as Timmo1805 very accurately described, find: "[the]period in time when while maybe the wheels hadn't come off the bus, the mechanic in charge forgot to double check that the lug nuts were tightened and thereafter it was only a matter of time." Looking over that decade of drafts in the 1990s (which I hadn't done priorly) is illuminating. It seems as if those drafts were just as fruitless, if not more so, then the last decade of drafting (2000-present). With that said, one of the most impactful issues has been the two decades of bad drafts. We always talk about the drafts since 2000, 2003 or 2007, but that doesn't tell the tale. It really has been bad drafting since 1993. Hopefully that realization can get someone on the path of fixing this train. When I say that out loud, it is sooooo deflating, and unbelieveble: "20 years of pathetic drafting." So throw a bone to the "Ralph's ownership since 1959" crowd because he is the one making the GM decisions. Subsequent to Polian, Ralph hired Butler. Butler (as Edwards' Arm articulated so well) ran the franchise into the ground with draft decisions that didn't bear fruit. It seems as if the franchise, to this day, hasn't recovered from that. Presumptively, an organization should always be upgrading and supplementing positional needs during the draft. That hasn't been the case in Buffalo for sooo long. Draft day in Buffalo has been about back-filling talent and wholesale acquisition of player resources. That can only be the result of 20 years worth of a dearth of talent. That 20 years tracks back to Polian's exit. So there's one for the "Polian being fired" folks. So did Nix start with 2 1/2 strikes? Can anyone backfill that level of talent void in even 5 years? But I digress. I think that the more proximate issue has been the lack of a consistent QB presence. Interestingly enough, that tracks directly to Polian's departure (which I'm beginning to think is the "inciting incident"). I'm not sure is Ralph's stewardship can be seen as the proximate cause or even an inciting incident. Metaphorically, Ralph is running the train but I'm not sure that he is any more to blame than the guy who gives keys to a drunk friend of whom he isn't aware of their level of intoxication. Maybe there is a case there for negligent entrustment...but I'm not sure if he is the proximate cause if an accident happens. He is just the conduit through which a bunch of independent circumstances coalesced. Many here mentioned the departure of Kelly, Thomas, Reed, Smith. Those are important inasmuch as their critical role was never replaced by young, eager, motivated, impactful talent. Those team elders came and went just as in any natural team evolution context; but there was no strong and foundational GM presence ensuring continuity and smoothness post-Kelly/Smith/Thomas/Reed. Instead, their departure was a smack in the face. That is why their departure seems like such a watershed moment...because it overlapped with inadequate GM decision-making.

Ozzie Newsome has had a nice run, but not for 20 years.

You and St. Pete definitely have a point. The problem that I have with Polian's firing is that there were some 10-6, and 11-5 years post Polian...way post Polian. That doesn't mean that his departure didn't mark the beginning of the end...especially since Polian (based on his tenure) likely would have avoided the Johnson acquisition and concentrated on drafting a cornerstone guy. His leaving meant that didn't happen. Then Kelly was gone in 96. Either way, it's seeming like a lot of the responses are centering around the draft, and especially, the QB position.

Great point by both of you (making the same point in consecutive posts ) Forgot about this as well. Within the next 3 years, we also lost the remainder of that Superbowl nucleus. Maybe Kelly leaving was the catalyst. After Kelly left, the QB situation was in flux causing fleeting, if any, success. The organization decided to get younger (thinking that was the solution) and decided to not maintain aging (but still productive) former superstars. Too much flux in too short a period caused a slippery slope downwards...

Good point....the confluence of two very significant Bills moments. And things have been downhill since. Didn't even think about the departure of Smith, Thomas and Reed. Depressing, even now, to think about.

Not quite. Just trying to determine the genesis of the Bills' misfortunes. We talk about the current problems, and how long the franchise has been suffering. But little discussion is paid to the actual beginning instance - the "inciting incident" if you will. Outside of calling me sophomoric, do you have any thoughts on the question?

But that comprises two GM tenures. And weren't things going downhill for 4 years before that. Trying to find out the genesis of this whole debacle.

Some folks hold on to their stere.....uhhh...."opinions" despite any evidence to the contrary.

Recently, I was talking to a friend who is a similarly long suffering LA Clippers fan. We were discussing 'at what point the fortunes turned for our [respective] franchises.' The rationale being if you know where things went wrong, it's easier to take affirmative steps to fix it. As much as I thought about it, I couldn't pin-point an exact instance, or even an instance that set into motion a set of more significant instances, which caused a slippery slope downward. 11 years of mediocrity is actually difficult to do in the NFL with free agency, drafts, and the salary cap. A feat that anomalous suggests an institutionalized problem that was never corrected. But what was it? I wondered if it was the firing of Polian (but we made another Superbowl appearance and a handful of playoff appearances after 93). It would be easy to say "Ralph," but he was there in 1990-1993 as well as the double-digit win years and playoff appearances through the mid 90s and up until 1999. So there has to be something more. There has to be a single and defined point that, had it happened differently, would have resulted in some parallel reality where we enjoyed continued success and the Patriots/Steelers/Jets/Cowboys would have endured a decade plus of mediocrity. Maybe the mortgaging of draft picks for Bledsoe began the slippery slope. I don't know. Opinions? What happened that began the downward slide? Who was traded/retained? Who should have been drafted that wasn't, or wasn't drafted who should have been? Who was fired? Patriots ascendency? Bledsoe? Flutie/Johnson? Wade Phillips? John Butler? Price to Atlanta? McGahee? Henry?

Please excuse my transposing of the one record. Excellent points - especially the point about the Redskins' successes with top 10 defenses and middle-of-the-pack offenses. Though I still believe that I've thrown enough examples/metrics/scenarios out to support an approach to building a potent offense primarily, your post above is food for thought and has me thinking a bit more critically. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think that the approach that Cincinnati has adopted is a refreshing one, and likely will be successful for them long term. And despite the Colts' "one-and-done" playoff appearances, there is no denying that they have been one of the more successful franchises in modern history - and we're talking sustained success. They've done so with a keen eye towards offensive superiority and haven't been disuaded by very, very poor defenses at times. Similarly, the Patriots seemed to have quietly transitioned to an "offense first" paradigm post 2006. The year before Cincinatti's 12-4 year, in an interview with Chad Johnson, he said that they wanted to mimic the Colts' offense first philosophy, and both he and Carson Palmer had attended a Colts game or two...if I remember correctly. Maybe, at the end of the day, it's a zero sum game. As I look at the numbers in a more detailed way, the successful teams, more often than not, have a Great offense or defense and are serviceable on the other side of the ball. Maybe every other instance operates on the fringes comparatively (1999 Rams, 2000 Ravens, 2007 Colts). But with that said, it's difficult for me not to want to build from the offense out if only because it is easier to find talent that's plug-and-play on the offensive side of the ball.

I can definitely respect that there many different ways to build a team. One such way is in a balanced fashion adding pieces to the offense and to the defense so that both develop progressively into solid units. My way is definitely unconventional. In a way though, my way is borne out of years of frustration with this team, and defensive mumbo jumbo that is thrown around to explain why some supposed defense star SUCKED! Example: "Yea...he would be good in a 3-4, but not in a 4-3, unless he was an OLB in a 4-3, but we don't run that system and he is terrible in coverage, but we could still draft him, maintain the 3-4, and try to have him put on some weight OR we could overhaul our defensive system to fit his rush strengths but that leaves our NT on an island because he played really well at the zero technique adjacent to the nose guard so..." Offense - Coach: Are you accurate? Can you make a read? Do you have an arm? Are you fast? Are you physical? Can you run a route? Can you catch? Can you block? Do you know what a gap assignment is? Player: Yep. Coach: Welcome.

"Terminator" was the build code name for 2003-2004 Mustang Cobra(s). It was built to terminate any further Mustang-Camaro debate or discussion (supercharged from the factory with an VERY underrated 390/390 [many were putting 390 or more at the rear wheels bone stock]). I thought you were a fan of the Terminator.

O.k., I see your point. I give Stevie more credit than most. He is a solid receiver. What he lacks in speed he makes up for in precise route running. He's a keeper. My point is that even without the injuries, I think the offense would have been figured out because we have no one who can run a flag pattern and, notwithstanding that, the jury is still out on whether or not Fitz could get it there even if we did. Therefore, the offensive game plan was predicated on screens, slants and quick outs. Once receivers began jamming and not respecting any route over 10 yards, it was "game over." I understand that offense is not our "biggest problem." But we should make it far and away our biggest strength - even it that means a slightly more slowly developed defense. We're looking at it differently. I think that we can win more games more quickly, have more excitement, more energy, and more recognition by streghtening the offensive line and infusing a ton of talent on the offensive side of the ball. The defense will have to get brought along....ideally to become a formiddable force in time. I just want this team to be really good at something first. There is less guess work and more margin for error involved in making that "some thing" the offense. And with respect to your hypothetical above, what if, once we were down because of a porous defense, we scored and had confidence that we could score almost at will - running game, passing game, etc. What if this team could score - like 1996 Florida Gators score - such that teams use their offense as a defense (to govern time of possession), change their special teams tactics, and make risky decisions despite where they are on the field just to avoid returning the ball to the Bills' offense.

So....ummm...yea....well....maybe you missed my point. The point is that the acquisition of a stud QB, a strong offensive line, and accompanying playmakers should be the priority. And Warner was certainly not top 5 in NFL history and he led a nice campaign in 1999. How about Cunningham the year before in Minnesota? As an aside, based on something Chris Carter said during a pre-game show, apparently this conversation would take place regularly on the 1998 Vikings sideline: Randy Moss (paraphrasing): Just throw that m**herfu**er up and I'm gonna yoke on whoever is covering me. No m**herfu**er is gonna stop this show. That is what this team needs. No wing-T. No 3 yards and a cloud of dust. No wasting half a decade to build some 400 lbs a piece defense line impenetrable force. We need folks who are gonna say: "We're gonna score points and we'll win because you can't keep up." (Full disclosure: In fairness, the Falcons did end up stopping the show. But it took 30 points to accomplish that and the Vikings still scored 27).

You did notice the point that when their defense was top-5/top-10, their overall record was patently unsuccessful. Being top 10 defense for 5 out of 9 years is great. Period. They can have the 32nd ranking defense from now until 2050. That doesn't make their last 5-9 years any less great.

Before I dig into your post, thanks for throwing the challenge out there and supplying some facts and info to back it up. I really do appreciate the discussion and respect the variety of opinions on the subject. Now.... Please see my post above concerning the Redskins defense. My reference was to their defensive rank over the last decade - which has been good to excellent on average. And how about those 2009-2010 Superbowl runner-up Colts. They lost to the Saints that year who in 2009, by the way, gave up 357 yards per game (25th in that category) and 20th in points per game surrendered. They also put up 31 points in that Superbowl and had a prolific offense with playmakers and a stud QB. And for those discussing the 2005 Steelers, they were 9th in points scored that year. They also had Hines Ward, Antoine Randall-El, Willie Parker, and Heath Miller. That was not a team devoid of playmakers. And to your Cardinal point, they didn't get ran out of the building. They lost on a last second miracle throw by Big Ben. The Cardinals scored 25 points (if I remember correctly). Warner threw for almost 400 yards and 3 touchdowns. Big Ben threw for almost 275. Hardly a defensive struggle. These are facts. That you don't like them doesn't make them any less of a fact. Just like it's a fact that the Redskins have been top 10 in defense 5 of the last 10 years. Two-decade old thinking is just that. Old. Antequated. Archaic.

Washington Redskins Defensive Rank: 2010 - 31th 2009 - 10th 2008 - 4th 2007 - 8th 2006 - 27th 2005 - 7th 2004 - 5th 2003 - 23rd The Redskins have been top 10 in defense in 5 of the last 9 seasons. Check out their record over that time. 2009 - 8-8 2008 - 8-8 2007 - 5-11 2005 - 6-10 2004 - 5-11 My point clearer now?

I changed the title dammit! I'd rather the discussion be around the points I've made and the excellent points that others have brought to this discussion instead of the [admittedly] inflammatory title. I don't know about "masterful." I still end sentences with prepositions just like everyone other normal English speaker. I'm lost with the "discussing cars" comment. Incidentally, have you ever seen the movie "The Terminator"?

You make some excellent points. Hyperbole aside, I believe that we can build a better team FASTER in today's NFL by focusing on an electric offense, and building an average/good defense through solid second-fourth round selections. I don't care about giving up 25 points a game if we can score 40. I like the "try and keep up" approach. I just think it's easier to score points than it is to prevent the opposing team from scoring. In the era of free agency and NFL parity, it's difficult to excel in both capacities. So I'd rather the Bills hang their hat on the offense and build a serviceable defense through multiple mid-round draft selections. Admittedly, I'm discussing the extreme end of the spectrum with the "0-0" tie concept(i.e., a fantastic defense, and a woeful offense). I'm moreso trying to point out that a defense cannot be reliably expected to score points...even the best defense. The calculated objective of any defense is to prevent the opposing offense's movement; whereas the calculated objective of any offense is to move in a forwardly direction and score. Which one, in a vaccum, and by definition, can win a game independent of the other? I understand that there are infinite other considerations. I also understand (as I've said in previous posts) that having a good defense is not only ideal, but should be the goal of any team building initiative. My title, and some of my examples are hyperbolic...but purposefully. I really want an exciting, and successful team in Buffalo. I've been a Bils fan for 25 years. I've listened to people here pine for defensive players who didn't work out - Rolando McClain, Aaron Curry, Tyson Alulua, etc. Many of those same folks are the voices who trumpet loudly that: "you don't draft a wide receiver at ____," "don't take a QB in the first when you have so many holes on the defense," - and then the next day Dez Bryant, AJ Green, Calvin Johnson or whomever light us up for a buck twenty and two scores. The invariable response then is "well, if we had pass rushers, the QB wouldn't have been able to throw those 7, 8 , and 9 routes." Noooooo....instead, they would just punish us with slant 5s, crossing patterns, out routes, and screens - like New England has for 4 years. I've brought this exact point up to BillinNYC and some other folks and STILL haven't heard a satisfactory response. Methinks that they'd be forced to re-examine their loyalities when faced with the realities of the current NFL and why do that when they can just ignore the new guy. Take Cincinatti as an example. They've been bad longer than we have. They have focused their last 3 first round draft picks to offense (TE, OT, WR, QB). They've let go of Palmer, Houshmandsadeh, and Ocho Cinco - and revamped with Gresham, Dalton, and Green. If that would have been Buffalo's draft history, some fans here (the "contrarian/old school" fans) would be CRYING and waxing poetically about "conspiracy to fill seats and sell tickets," and "we can't keep back-filling positions where we had solid talent and expect to win," and "relegating defense to second and third round selections is not gonna get us anywhere..." blah, blah, blah. The only issue is, Cincinatti is headed in the right direction, we're not.

Man I'm not trying to spin anything. That is the point that I was trying to get to in post #28 and my post prior to that one. Why does it "need to be better"? Because BillinNYC or someone else said so? Or because the stat sheet showed a lot of yards given up? Do you think that we need a better defense in order to win? Speaking of winning: Q: How do you "win" a game? A: By scoring more points than the opponent. Game. Set. Match. So, in a vaccuum, an offense can win a game independently, but a defense cannot (unless you're relying on pick 6s as your offensive output). You can win a game 55-50 but you can't win schit 0-0. I understand that I'm bucking conventional wisdom here, but something has to give. I don't care what the usual talking heads of unbridled traditionalism say (some on this board fit that description btw). Those cats remind me of the indistinguishable faces following in line like sheep in that old (and very famous) Apple commercial where the lady throws the hammer at the monitor: "GLORIOUS CONFORMITY, CONFORMITY, CONFORMITY!!!!!" It's said over and over again...not because it's the ONLY way, but because it's A way; not because it necessarily works now, but because it worked before. So why can't we have a mediocre defense and an unstoppable offense? Let me guess, because "it's just not done that way" right (GLORIOUS CONFORMITY!)? Well, a decade plus of doltishness and losing is not done too often either but it happened. We've sucked trying it everyone else's way. How about something different?

That's essentially my point. We spend so much time on these forums discussing this team's defensive deficiencies. It's frustrating, all the conversations here over the years that went thusly: "We need to draft Tyson Jackson, Gerald McCoy, Robert Ayers, Tyson Alulua, Aaron Curry, Terrance Cody, Glenn Dorsey, Derrick Harvey, Keith Rivers, Rolando McClain..." Then the discussion after the fact is invariably: "They're too ______to play 3-4 OLB; they're more of a 4-3 DE - therefore we need to switch to a 4-3, or a hybrid 4-3/3-4 that takes advantages of ______, or we need to draft a bigger 3-4 DE or pass rushing OLB instead of the smaller coverage.......ad infinitum.....ad nauseum....." And while we're trying to decipher nifty words like "tweener," "gazelle," "first step," and "high-motor," we're back to square !@#$ing 1 with players who suck because they didn't fit some nebulous concept of "system." And what's the definition of "insanity" again? I'm just looking at this straight Occam's razor. It is easier, less guess-work, greater margin for error, more simplified, etc. to draft people who can run fast, run a route, and catch a ball. Obviously a defense is necessary, and a good one would be ideal. But why not build a competent defense over time around a high-powered offense that is built more quickly and in a way that compensates for defense deficiencies by a shear imposition of will and PURE, UNSTOPPABLE, RELENTLESS, INEXORABLE, offensive output.

I can respect that. Roosevelt is one of my favorite historical figures as well. It's interesting that Obama is referencing him so much. Must be a push for independents.

That '06 Colts game always sticks out. I've never seen a team throw everything to the wind so early on (field position, caution, game-planning, etc.) because an opposing offense was that good. I agree with you that we need a pash rusher....BAD! I guess that the crux of my point is, if it had to be one or the other, I'd rather have them hang their hat on a stellar offense. It seems that, in general, the offense can compensate for the defense better that the defense can compensate for the offense (at least in the contemporary NFL). Good point about the 07 Superbowl. Patriots' line was fugged up at that point so my point still stands about a strong line AND playmakers. But the offense in that instance gave way to a strong D. Keep in mind though, the Patriots hung 40 on that same D a couple of weeks before. I'm just in the minority as wanting the "above average" to be the offensive side of the ball.