Does drafting defense make sense?

[ieatcrayonz]

no, you miss my point. if you stock your entire team with offensive players, it should thus give you an altogether better chance to score points, as you'll always be on offense even if you don't have the ball.

 

offensive players are trained to produce points, so it would be instinctive for them to score whether they were playing on offense or defense. just look at what George Wilson did when they moved him over. he had more catches as a DB than he did as an WR.

why can't they do that with other players.

 

i'm actually somewhat agreeing with you, though suggesting that you didn't go far enough with your argument. teams should stock their rosters with offensive players, that way they don't have to be defensive when it comes to fans criticizing them for their picks.

 

jw

Once you said you were agreeing with me I re-read your post. Except for the first sentence and lack of capitalizationary skills your first paragraph is intriguing. I will have to do a little more research but still think we would get tired.

 

What do you think about a team alternating drafting players for O and D? In even numbered years they could draft O with their even numbered picks and in odd numbered years they could draft D with their odd numbered picks. I don't see any flaws there.

[McD]

This topic and argument has me at a loss for words. I mean seriously?

 

Thank you... I won't even read anymore of this, lol...

[Delete This Account]

Once you said you were agreeing with me I re-read your post. Except for the first sentence and lack of capitalizationary skills your first paragraph is intriguing. I will have to do a little more research but still think we would get tired.

 

What do you think about a team alternating drafting players for O and D? In even numbered years they could draft O with their even numbered picks and in odd numbered years they could draft D with their odd numbered picks. I don't see any flaws there.

the one flaw comes in the event a place-kicker or punter wind up being a need. i guess they could work that in during leap years.

 

jw

[ieatcrayonz]

the one flaw comes in the event a place-kicker or punter wind up being a need. i guess they could work that in during leap years.

 

jw

That fat guy in the 7th round plays kicker, offense and defense. Bye Bye Lindell. I wonder if he can punt. Maybe you can get an interview. I'd be interested in his off the record thoughts on too much defense making the defense worse.

[Jauronimo]

What both Crayonz and JW are overlooking is that there is a third variable to the equation: Special Teams.

 

Special teams has been the Bill's most productive unit for the last decade. Rian Lindell makes approximately 80% of all field goal attempts and is all but flawless on PATs. Furthermore, 100% of Brian Moorman's pass attempts have been completed for touchdowns, and he has never thrown an interception. Montana, Unitas, Manning, Marino, not even close to that staggering figure. With the worlds best defense the Bill's would not even need to attempt to play offense. Taking a knee would eliminate the first three downs and the Bills would then move on to higher percentage scoring opportunities.

 

For the sake of analysis, lets say Moorman only completes 50% of his passes for touchdowns in the future and Lindell's field goal percentage falls to 50%. Given a 50/50 likelihood between the two play calls and an average of 12 possessions, the Bill's will still score 30 points per game.

 

Even with ultra conservative estimates, by phasing out offense and concentrating solely on defense and special teams, the Bills will win the next 20 superbowls, and we aren't even including the Jasper Factor yet.

 

Mike Jasper ran a 5.5 sec 40 time at a weight of 425 lbs. He has since dropped to 375 and seen his 40 time improve to 5 seconds flat. Following this regression, when Jasper reaches his target weight of 325 lbs, his 40 time will be 4.33 seconds, making him one of the fastest RBs in the NFL, and the leagues first NT/RB. The Bills will be the first team to draft en entire team capable of playing both sides of the field with equal skill. You see Crayonz, when we are drafting defense, we are drafting offense too.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Jauronimo

[BuffaloBill]

why draft defense at all? if you would fill your entire roster with offensive players, then you would have a better chance of scoring whether you had the ball or not as they are more accustomed to finding the end zone and, thus, producing points.

 

jw

 

 

I know you can't comment because of your professional ethics but aren't most NFL players offensive these days? It seems like every day we are reading about yet another NFL player involved in some scandal. The NFL would be wise to set up classes on proper behavior in order to cut down on such offensive issues.

[K-9]

I know you can't comment because of your professional ethics but aren't most NFL players offensive these days? It seems like every day we are reading about yet another NFL player involved in some scandal. The NFL would be wise to set up classes on proper behavior in order to cut down on such offensive issues.

 

Good point. While many players are indeed offensive, they tend to be very defensive about it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Mike Jasper ran a 5.5 sec 40 time at a weight of 425 lbs. He has since dropped to 375 and seen his 40 time improve to 5 seconds flat. Following this regression, when Jasper reaches his target weight of 325 lbs, his 40 time will be 4.33 seconds, making him one of the fastest RBs in the NFL, and the leagues first NT/RB. The Bills will be the first team to draft en entire team capable of playing both sides of the field with equal skill. You see Crayonz, when we are drafting defense, we are drafting offense too.

In his only season with the Bills (1987), Ira Albright played running back and nose tackle. So you're wrong.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AlbrIr20.htm

 

And you're wrong to hijack this thread in which we were developing "our" analogy very nicely. Since you joined our board in January you've made a nice splash with your intelligence and wit but it looks to me (and I'm sure I'm not alone) like you're heading for a Stevie Johnson fall from grace.

 

To state more clearly, we were talking about octopi, not special teams. Do the right thing.

 

 

[Jauronimo]

In his only season with the Bills (1987), Ira Albright played running back and nose tackle. So you're wrong.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AlbrIr20.htm

 

And you're wrong to hijack this thread in which we were developing "our" analogy very nicely. Since you joined our board in January you've made a nice splash with your intelligence and wit but it looks to me (and I'm sure I'm not alone) like you're heading for a Stevie Johnson fall from grace.

 

To state more clearly, we were talking about octopi, not special teams. Do the right thing.

 

There are few things I enjoy more than a spirited discussion about mollusks, but this thread was hijacked long before I got involved. Regarding the Bills defense as an octopus, both yourself and Crayonz couldn't have chosen a worse analogy.

 

The octopus is a soft, fleshy, high motor and undersized creature, which when threatened, releases a cloud of ink to obscure its escape. Not unlike the much maligned bend but don't break defenses of Dick Jauron era. The octopus or "Sea Maybin" as it is commonly known in Teuthological-Football circles, is a veritable one year wonder on the evolutionary scale compared to nautilus. As you even pointed out, Detroit emulates the octopus and look how that worked out for the Lions. Is this really what you want from the Bill's defense? If the Bills are going to compete in a tough AFC East division they will need to be less like their soft cephalopod cousins and more like the hard shelled gritty nautilus.

 

The nautilus, while not flashy or sexy and notoriously frigid, has been a championship contender for millions of years.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Jauronimo

[RealityCheck]

There have been a lot of arguments on here about whether we should draft DL or DB and what each does for the team. I have my opinions on the matter but was wondering about a different topic.

 

Is drafting defense so prominently a good idea?

 

Think about it. If you have the best defense in the history of football then your highly drafted players will only be on the field 3 plays at a time. The other team will be 3 and out a lot. While this sounds good, it leaves you with a bunch of lesser offensive players because they were drafted so low. You get what you pay for and the offense will go nowhere. Sooner or later your superstar-laden defense will tire and give up some points. It will result in slow boring games where we lose 3-0 or 7-3.

 

If we drafted offense, the players would stay on the field longer and score. The defense, although not as talented would be well rested. They might give up some points in the beginning but by the end they would be getting turnovers.

 

I was happy after the draft but now that I have had time to think about it I am getting worried.

Interesting extrapolation of pointless assumptions. If that was not your intent it should have been. It seemed to come so natural to you.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

There are few things I enjoy more than a spirited discussion about mollusks, but this thread was hijacked long before I got involved. Regarding the Bills defense as an octopus, both yourself and Crayonz couldn't have chosen a worse analogy.

 

The octopus is a soft, fleshy, high motor and undersized creature, which when threatened, releases a cloud of ink to obscure its escape. Not unlike the much maligned bend but don't break defenses of Dick Jauron era. The octopus or "Sea Maybin" as it is commonly known in Teuthological-Football circles, is a veritable one year wonder on the evolutionary scale compared to nautilus. As you even pointed out, Detroit emulates the octopus and look how that worked out for the Lions. Is this really what you want from the Bill's defense? If the Bills are going to compete in a tough AFC East division they will need to be less like their soft cephalopod cousins and more like the hard shelled gritty nautilus.

 

The nautilus, while not flashy or sexy and notoriously frigid, has been a championship contender for millions of years.

Are you a marine biologist? Because I minored in biology in college and your criticism of the analogy is like the behavior of a remora as it attaches itself to the shark in order to get a free ride AND a free lunch. In other words, you've quickly become a parasite around here.

 

The analogy was perfectly useful and you willfully chose to ignore, and then criticize it when the best thing you could have done as a newcomer here was to honor the wisdom of posters more venerable and established than yourself.

 

In just a few short months you've shown your true self and you look to me like a Tiger-spotted Moray Eel…which cowardly hides in reef crevasses and then bites unsuspecting passersby.

 

Maybe the octopus wasn't the best analogy but it worked far enough to further the discussion…I concede in retrospect that the Sea Maybin is not the ideal vehicle to drive this discussion… and I'll admit that like its namesake, the Land Maybin (Erroneous Maybe) , it is a circumspect creature which takes a long time to get from point A to point B and takes a circuitous route in order to do so.

 

Still, I have to laugh at your suggestion that the nautilus is a superior species (you probably think Rob Johnson was a better player than Doug Flutie) as if a hard, bony exo-skull would serve the individual better than the amorphous octopus. Yes… the shell is similar to the helmet of a football player and yeah, the nautilus has more appendages… but just because Bruce Smith was a great pass rusher doesn't mean that Aaron Schobel wasn't.

 

So maybe your analogy is better but you lose on style points my friend. There are two kinds of posters on this board… those who will work with you and those who will work against you. I am not a grudge holder and try to find common turf where possible… I would suggest that you consider what kind of poster you want to be… the first kind of the second kind.

 

 

[ieatcrayonz]

There are few things I enjoy more than a spirited discussion about mollusks, but this thread was hijacked long before I got involved. Regarding the Bills defense as an octopus, both yourself and Crayonz couldn't have chosen a worse analogy.

 

The octopus is a soft, fleshy, high motor and undersized creature, which when threatened, releases a cloud of ink to obscure its escape. Not unlike the much maligned bend but don't break defenses of Dick Jauron era. The octopus or "Sea Maybin" as it is commonly known in Teuthological-Football circles, is a veritable one year wonder on the evolutionary scale compared to nautilus. As you even pointed out, Detroit emulates the octopus and look how that worked out for the Lions. Is this really what you want from the Bill's defense? If the Bills are going to compete in a tough AFC East division they will need to be less like their soft cephalopod cousins and more like the hard shelled gritty nautilus.

 

The nautilus, while not flashy or sexy and notoriously frigid, has been a championship contender for millions of years.

I did not make the analogy I just responded to it. If I had made an analogy it would be different. Like this for example:

 

Think of our defense as George Forsberg when he fought Mohammed Ali. He was just pounding the crap out of Ali all day long. Then think of our offense like the breaks between rounds. If the breaks were longer, then Forsberg could have kept up his assault but the guy kept ringing the bell. Think of that guy as being Brian Moorman. Moorman is not a jerk mind you and neither was the bell ringer guy. They were just doing their job. The next thing you know, it's one two and a Bing Crosby and Ali is the champ and Forsberg has his tail between his legs all the way back to Sweden.

[Yoho]

Actually I think the better analogy is Joe Frasier and his rope a dope. The bend but don't break defense is equivalent to lying against the ropes and letting yourself get pummeled hoping that the opponent will tire himself out and do something stupid and let you beat him. I do not believe that Brian Moorman is the appropriate analogy. Remember Rusty Jones the punter, not the anti-rust thing. Or maybe Greg Cater. One or the other. Otherwise, excellent point and as the most insightful posts say +1.

[Green Lightning]

the one flaw comes in the event a place-kicker or punter wind up being a need. i guess they could work that in during leap years.

 

jw

 

This is the sanest post of the thread...and the most in keeping with what is going on here. Once again Crayonz has had some fun at the board's expense. And we keep falling for it!

[billsfan89]

Yes drafting defense makes sense. The quicker you get the other teams offense off the field the more chances your offense can get on the field.

[Jauronimo]

Are you a marine biologist? Because I minored in biology in college and your criticism of the analogy is like the behavior of a remora as it attaches itself to the shark in order to get a free ride AND a free lunch. In other words, you've quickly become a parasite around here.

 

The analogy was perfectly useful and you willfully chose to ignore, and then criticize it when the best thing you could have done as a newcomer here was to honor the wisdom of posters more venerable and established than yourself.

 

In just a few short months you've shown your true self and you look to me like a Tiger-spotted Moray Eel…which cowardly hides in reef crevasses and then bites unsuspecting passersby.

 

Maybe the octopus wasn't the best analogy but it worked far enough to further the discussion…I concede in retrospect that the Sea Maybin is not the ideal vehicle to drive this discussion… and I'll admit that like its namesake, the Land Maybin (Erroneous Maybe) , it is a circumspect creature which takes a long time to get from point A to point B and takes a circuitous route in order to do so.

 

Still, I have to laugh at your suggestion that the nautilus is a superior species (you probably think Rob Johnson was a better player than Doug Flutie) as if a hard, bony exo-skull would serve the individual better than the amorphous octopus. Yes… the shell is similar to the helmet of a football player and yeah, the nautilus has more appendages… but just because Bruce Smith was a great pass rusher doesn't mean that Aaron Schobel wasn't.

 

So maybe your analogy is better but you lose on style points my friend. There are two kinds of posters on this board… those who will work with you and those who will work against you. I am not a grudge holder and try to find common turf where possible… I would suggest that you consider what kind of poster you want to be… the first kind of the second kind.

 

I was under the impression that the topic of discussion was sufficiently absurd enough that no one could possibly take offense with my attempt to keep the thread going strong by feeding Crayonz some new material to spin. While i may have registered an account in January, I've been a frequent visitor to TBD for a few years and am quite familiar with the typical Crayonz thread which is designed to get a rise out of newcomers. Since few were biting, I offered up a my own ridiculous take.

 

And I'm not a marine biologist. Just a cowardly parasite who was contemplating a biology degree for a time, and ended in Economics. Why do I get the feeling that you're actually disappointed in me SJF?

[hondo in seattle]

Um, points are what win games. So if we were one and done with a TD every drive we wouldn't that be a good thing and we would go undefeated forever with a scoring average of 80+points a game?

 

I guess sarcasm isn't recognized here.

 

I was just turning the original post backwards to show the absurdity

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I was under the impression that the topic of discussion was sufficiently absurd enough that no one could possibly take offense with my attempt to keep the thread going strong by feeding Crayonz some new material to spin. While i may have registered an account in January, I've been a frequent visitor to TBD for a few years and am quite familiar with the typical Crayonz thread which is designed to get a rise out of newcomers. Since few were biting, I offered up a my own ridiculous take.

 

And I'm not a marine biologist. Just a cowardly parasite who was contemplating a biology degree for a time, and ended in Economics. Why do I get the feeling that you're actually disappointed in me SJF?

 

Nah! Just exhibiting the behavior of the Marianas Shovel Fish… but concerned that you'll retaliate like a Triplewart Seadevil.

 

Grudgingly I have to say that the nautilus suggestion was a good one. Kudos.

 

 

[Nanker]

Well, I'm not quite convinced that the octopus analogy holds water in this case.

But I liken the NFL fans to mushrooms. We're kept in the dark and only occasionally fed ****.

 

As to drafting only D in odd years and O in even years - well Crayonz, take heart that this is indeed an odd year.

Chanix actually did draft D, so they're holding to your plan.

 

Kudos to you for discovering it, nay on third-and-a-half thought, perhaps we're basking in the shadow of greatness here.

Did you in fact suggest this already to Chanix? Could it possibly be that YOU are the actual architect of this insanely

strategy?

Are you indeed Chanix themselves? If so we tip our octopi to you, knowing that an O-laden draft awaits us in 2012, and the balance of which you spoke is within our eight-armed grasp.

[Chandler#81]

Fantastic thread! I'll just offer a cautionary 'tail' or two. Ravens SB team had such a terrible O, the defense outscored them and their opponents for a month during the season. Bills SB teams had great D players -anchored by 1st Time HOF DE and 'school' of Probowl LB's & DB's, but was routinely ranked near the bottom of the sea as the O had an ocean of talent, racing up & down the field like a speed boat on a canal. End result? Ravens won their SB... just spewin'