The Bills' method of winning is unsustainable.

[billsfreak]

I'm a realist, I don't like to sugarcoat things just to appeal to others. Although I do believe there's a time and place and a way to make a point. It really upsets me to know that after Buffalo wins a game, people would have to find a way to deflate the win....ON A BILLS FORUM ONLY HOURS AFTER THEY WON!?! C'mon man it simply amazes me. Last year we were 0-5 at this point. I don't want to hear about how we can't sustain wins because of this or that after the game. I want to come here and rejoice with all of my fellow Bills fans. I feel that all of us deserve to speak our minds but we also deserve to just enjoy a victory at the same time. We are winning, and like everyone used to say about us when it was the other way around good teams find ways to win, bad teams find ways to lose. We are now that good team that finds ways to win.

Like I tell my kids and anyone else who moans and complains about something on TV, in the newspapers, online, etc.-IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T WATCH IT, DON'T READ IT, DON'T LOOK AT IT. That is unless someone is standing next to you with a handgun up to the side of your head, and if that is the case I sincerely hope you make it out of there alive.

[Williams+Williams+Williams]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it."

 

But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category.

 

Against the I-95 teams the Bills have played thus far (Patriots and Eagles), the Bills had nine takeaways and no giveaways. And yet, despite that insane +9 turnover differential, the Bills won both games by the skin of their teeth. This means that the Bills were significantly outplayed in the non-turnover aspects of the game, and needed all of those nine turnovers to eke out wins.

 

What happens when the Bills fail to achieve this kind of ridiculously one-sided turnover ratio?

 

Statistically, a good turnover ratio is highly correlated with wins, for obvious reasons. But teams' turnover ratios tend to change significantly from one season to the next. Two seasons ago that worked in the Bills' favor, as there were games Byrd won almost singlehandedly. His turnovers made the Bills' record better than its talent level would otherwise have dictated. Last season Byrd's turnovers dried up, and were no longer available to mask the team's overall lack of talent. That's why the Bills went 4-12. This season the turnovers are back again and (in combination with KC's implosion) are the main pillar of Buffalo's fast start. I do not believe that attaining turnovers at this ridiculous pace is sustainable, any more than the insane pace Byrd set during his rookie year was sustainable.

 

This should not be taken to mean that all is gloom and doom, or an implication that the team will never amount to anything. What it does mean is that Nix's rebuilding process is not as far along as the Bills' current record would seem to indicate. This team needs to play better in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game if its current success is to be sustainable. Maybe some of that can come from younger players already on the roster learning to improve. Byrd himself is a good example of this: he's playing better this year than last year. I also suspect the Bills will need at least one or two good drafts before they can truly become one of the NFL's top teams.

 

Honestly, you are a loser. Scoring points wins games in todays NFL. Defense wins championships is an old mantra.

 

Why would you waste your time being such a negative nancy? Your entire post was negative speculation. The majority of the posters here are losers that want to correct gramatical errors, act like know it alls, and argue over semantics.

 

This is ridiculous. The Bills are 4-1. Breaks have gone our way, but the team has shown chemistry that makes them winners. Who cares about the rest? Do you think you are the man because you can point out what they've done wrong? Last year, and this year are character building years. This might not be a superbowl year but ur a pu$$y.

[dpberr]

It is sustainable.

 

We have new uniforms. Cosmic forces aligned? Check.

 

The only person that has stopped the Bills so far this year on offense is Chan Gailey. If he runs the ball against Cincy in the second half, the team is 5-0.

 

I'm enjoying this offense because the majority of teams won't be able to shut down both facets of the offense. Somehow shut down the ground game, we'll air it out. Close down the airspace, we'll pound it on the ground.

 

The only defenses really capable of that in the AFC are ones with both outstanding linebackers and a secondary. Not many teams have both.

[Santana]

Like I tell my kids and anyone else who moans and complains about something on TV, in the newspapers, online, etc.-IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T WATCH IT, DON'T READ IT, DON'T LOOK AT IT. That is unless someone is standing next to you with a handgun up to the side of your head, and if that is the case I sincerely hope you make it out of there alive.

 

 

lol you're right

[tennesseeboy]

I am a firm believer that a good assessment of the defense is to look at two things...whether the points allowed are less than the points scored (that's a good thing) and the win-loss record is improving on the win side. 4-1 is a good thing. As long as we keep doing those two things (they are obviously interrelated) we will be fine.

[Charles Romes]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it."

 

But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category.

 

Against the I-95 teams the Bills have played thus far (Patriots and Eagles), the Bills had nine takeaways and no giveaways. And yet, despite that insane +9 turnover differential, the Bills won both games by the skin of their teeth. This means that the Bills were significantly outplayed in the non-turnover aspects of the game, and needed all of those nine turnovers to eke out wins.

 

What happens when the Bills fail to achieve this kind of ridiculously one-sided turnover ratio?

 

Statistically, a good turnover ratio is highly correlated with wins, for obvious reasons. But teams' turnover ratios tend to change significantly from one season to the next. Two seasons ago that worked in the Bills' favor, as there were games Byrd won almost singlehandedly. His turnovers made the Bills' record better than its talent level would otherwise have dictated. Last season Byrd's turnovers dried up, and were no longer available to mask the team's overall lack of talent. That's why the Bills went 4-12. This season the turnovers are back again and (in combination with KC's implosion) are the main pillar of Buffalo's fast start. I do not believe that attaining turnovers at this ridiculous pace is sustainable, any more than the insane pace Byrd set during his rookie year was sustainable.

 

This should not be taken to mean that all is gloom and doom, or an implication that the team will never amount to anything. What it does mean is that Nix's rebuilding process is not as far along as the Bills' current record would seem to indicate. This team needs to play better in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game if its current success is to be sustainable. Maybe some of that can come from younger players already on the roster learning to improve. Byrd himself is a good example of this: he's playing better this year than last year. I also suspect the Bills will need at least one or two good drafts before they can truly become one of the NFL's top teams.

 

 

Who cares - If you are a non-turnover assisted 1-4 and legitimately close 6-5 you wind up 7-9 and miss the playoffs. If you are a turnover-assisted 4-1 and legitimately close 6-5 you are 10-6 and often get in the playoffs.

[The Senator]

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.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

The average human has one breast and one testicle, yet somehow I've never met anyone with one breast and one testicle.

Seriously? There are a ton of them on this board.

[vorpma]

I could not agree more, the Bills Defense is terrible! You cannot give up 400 yards a game and be a contender. Tghis is going to become very evident against the Giants. Bottom line is the Defense is not physical and Eli is going to have a field day.

[Orton's Arm]

I'll argue the logic...cause it's Monday and why not?

 

Your argument presupposes that there is no reproduceable individual effort at play during the course of any one game. You're effectively saying that any effort to interfere (and accomplish changing possession) with the opposing team's offensive progress is fortuitous and it can't be duplicated in similar (though not exact) instances.

 

Turnovers (changing possessions) relies on body placement, defensive positioning, hand-eye coordination, athleticism, spacial recognition, timing, coaching, training, focus, etc.

 

You feel that the above are not "reproduceable" (which I'm using as a synonym for "sustainable.")?

 

SO then....is a statistically good defense (e.g., surrending few yards) "sustainable"? Interestingly enough, they rely on the same exact principles....however arguably more consistently applied throughout the course of the game. That notwithstanding, the parallel is nearly exact.

 

But just for Hunter S. Thompson giggles, lets just say that facilitating turnovers is not "sustainable." How do you know that we wouldn't have won anyway?

 

You can't prove a negative and things don't operate in a vacuum.

 

How do you know what adjustments would/would not have been made? What offensive philosophy would have been employed? What would have been the play after the t.v. timeout if we would have gotten a stop on downs instead of the Nick Barnett pick 6? What if a skinny post to SJ would have been the bill of fare? How would that have affected the Eagles morale? Or ours? How would they have adjusted their defensive game-planning if a Fitz-SJ 59 yard td would have been successful? Would they play the pass and let Freddy run as wild in the second half as he did in the first? Wouldn't a fruitful running game facilitate sustained drives? And with the Bills enjoying sustained drives, how would their offense respond? Would they be cold? Would Vick to Maclin or Avant for 10-20 per be as rhythmic?

 

The point is, you don't know; but yet you're enthusiastically trying to prove the negative. To insinuate that we needed turnovers to win and that that approach is unsustainable suggests a remarkable ability to portend that I'm sure you don't posses.

 

Just a little dialectic on this beautiful Monday. The eighth Juror enjoys logic.

As I see it, the two points of your post are as follows:

 

1) Turnovers are the result of player ability + scheme, both of which will tend to carry over from one season to the next. Therefore a strategy of creating large numbers of turnovers is sustainable.

 

2) Had the Bills not created so many defensive turnovers, it's possible their offensive play calling would have been more aggressive, or that their execution would have been better. These changes might have allowed them to win some of their recent games--such as the game against the Eagles--even with a neutral turnover differential.

 

Regarding point 1), teams which achieve very good turnover differentials in a particular season tend to come back to earth in the following season. This means that very favorable turnover differentials are probably the result of a combination of sustainable factors (player ability and defensive scheme) and non-sustainable factors (luck, being in the right place at the right time).

 

Also, if all these turnovers are because the Bills' defenders are excessively athletic, coordinated, or otherwise gifted, then why aren't they using those excessive gifts to force other teams to punt?

 

WRT point 2), it is possible their offensive play calling or execution would have been better had they not been the recipients of so many turnovers. But it's also possible those things would have been worse! For example, maybe the turnovers lifted player morale, causing them to play better. Maybe the benefit of the turnovers discouraged the offensive coaching staff from calling excessively risky plays.

 

There were times when I felt the Bills' offensive play calling against the Eagles was overly vanilla. Late in the game, they called run, run, pass, punt, in a situation where this sequence of play calls was fairly expected. (And was well defended against.) There's certainly room for improvement in play calling like that--but not so much room for improvement that the Bills could have won the game even without the Eagles' five turnovers.

[SoFFacet]

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?

[The Senator]

I could not agree more, the Bills Defense is terrible! You cannot give up 400 yards a game and be a contender. Tghis is going to become very evident against the Giants. Bottom line is the Defense is not physical and Eli is going to have a field day.

 

Really? I think just the opposite - the Bills D will have a field day.

 

(You're aware that Eli was sacked 3 times and threw 3 picks Sunday against Seattle, no?)

 

 

Buffalo Bills 43

New Jersey Giants - 0

 

The Official Eli Manning Sucks Blog

 

GO BILLSSS!!!!

 

18 and 1 baby!!!!!

[Kipers Hair]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it."

 

But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category.

 

Against the I-95 teams the Bills have played thus far (Patriots and Eagles), the Bills had nine takeaways and no giveaways. And yet, despite that insane +9 turnover differential, the Bills won both games by the skin of their teeth. This means that the Bills were significantly outplayed in the non-turnover aspects of the game, and needed all of those nine turnovers to eke out wins.

 

What happens when the Bills fail to achieve this kind of ridiculously one-sided turnover ratio?

 

Statistically, a good turnover ratio is highly correlated with wins, for obvious reasons. But teams' turnover ratios tend to change significantly from one season to the next. Two seasons ago that worked in the Bills' favor, as there were games Byrd won almost singlehandedly. His turnovers made the Bills' record better than its talent level would otherwise have dictated. Last season Byrd's turnovers dried up, and were no longer available to mask the team's overall lack of talent. That's why the Bills went 4-12. This season the turnovers are back again and (in combination with KC's implosion) are the main pillar of Buffalo's fast start. I do not believe that attaining turnovers at this ridiculous pace is sustainable, any more than the insane pace Byrd set during his rookie year was sustainable.

 

This should not be taken to mean that all is gloom and doom, or an implication that the team will never amount to anything. What it does mean is that Nix's rebuilding process is not as far along as the Bills' current record would seem to indicate. This team needs to play better in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game if its current success is to be sustainable. Maybe some of that can come from younger players already on the roster learning to improve. Byrd himself is a good example of this: he's playing better this year than last year. I also suspect the Bills will need at least one or two good drafts before they can truly become one of the NFL's top teams.

My friend, attempting to employ logic here is a losing proposition. I tend to agree that you cannot keep living on the edge and coming away a winner. I am excited the Bills are better than advertised, but inside I know this will end sooner or later....but I am hoping later...as in after a win in the playoffs! I really believe - if they fold in some frsh new talent as it matures, (read Sheppard and Hairston at RT), we will continue to improve...and at the rate we are going, we are going to need it since we won't be drafting in the top 10 next year...

[billsfan89]

Agreed that the Bills can't keep hoping to get pick 6's and 4+ turnover games. That method of winning isn't something you can generally hope to count on.

 

However I do think that the offense is a good group and my only concern is that the offense can learn to close out games. The Bills offense has to learn to take an early lead and compile a bigger lead AND when a team starts to come back after a couple of scores they need to have a long put the game away TD drive.

 

I hope that the offense gets a closers mentality. While the defense is able to play better against lesser offenses.

[NastyMan]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it."

 

But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category.

 

Against the I-95 teams the Bills have played thus far (Patriots and Eagles), the Bills had nine takeaways and no giveaways. And yet, despite that insane +9 turnover differential, the Bills won both games by the skin of their teeth. This means that the Bills were significantly outplayed in the non-turnover aspects of the game, and needed all of those nine turnovers to eke out wins.

 

What happens when the Bills fail to achieve this kind of ridiculously one-sided turnover ratio?

 

Statistically, a good turnover ratio is highly correlated with wins, for obvious reasons. But teams' turnover ratios tend to change significantly from one season to the next. Two seasons ago that worked in the Bills' favor, as there were games Byrd won almost singlehandedly. His turnovers made the Bills' record better than its talent level would otherwise have dictated. Last season Byrd's turnovers dried up, and were no longer available to mask the team's overall lack of talent. That's why the Bills went 4-12. This season the turnovers are back again and (in combination with KC's implosion) are the main pillar of Buffalo's fast start. I do not believe that attaining turnovers at this ridiculous pace is sustainable, any more than the insane pace Byrd set during his rookie year was sustainable.

 

This should not be taken to mean that all is gloom and doom, or an implication that the team will never amount to anything. What it does mean is that Nix's rebuilding process is not as far along as the Bills' current record would seem to indicate. This team needs to play better in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game if its current success is to be sustainable. Maybe some of that can come from younger players already on the roster learning to improve. Byrd himself is a good example of this: he's playing better this year than last year. I also suspect the Bills will need at least one or two good drafts before they can truly become one of the NFL's top teams.

Winning is contagious no matter how you do it. As the late Al Davis use to say "JUST WIN BABY!!"

[Kelly the Dog]

To me the Bills have beat teams four different ways and lost a fifth different way.

 

They blew out the one team they should have, the Chiefs.

 

They shut down the run game of the Raiders and blew away their defense in dramatic fashion, which was a surprise. They got pummeled through the air by a series of spectacular passes and catches.

 

They scored at will against a terrible Pats defense in the second half, and frustrated Tom Brady despite giving up a ton of yards. He threw four INTs all of last year and we picked off four. But that has been the one way to beat him over the years, frustrate him into mistakes, and they made all the plays they needed to at the end to outplay and out-coach Belichick.

 

They faltered against the Bengals late after they built up a 14 point lead, and probably would have won the game except for some questionable calls. I am not blaming the game on the refs because they made more plays than us and deserved to win. But it was a completely different game than all the others.

 

Against the Eagles they built up a big lead by a sound game plan on offense and defense that over-powered the Eagles weakness on defense, and exploited the one thing they intentionally tried to do against Vick and the WRs, get turnovers.

 

There hasn't been any two games that were the same, on offense or defense, except the coincidence we had two straight big digit comebacks.

 

Good teams expect to win, play to win (even if it is sporadically conservative) and find a way to win. The Bills have found four ways to win, and one way to lose. Next week they go after a different animal with a different strategy, on both sides of the ball.

[Chimp]

The Bills beat offenses led by Tom Brady and Mike Vick their last two home games.

 

Honestly, what was the expectation for the Bills defense these two games? Did we really expect them to sack these guys 4 or 5 times? Did we expect them to hold them to 200 passing yards?

 

It's funny how the fan perception values sacks over interceptions. Sacks show you're a dominant defense. Interceptions show that you are a lucky defense. But ask any QB at any level of football if they rather take a sack or throw an interception and what do you think the overwhelming number of them would answer?

He's just trying to guard against getting his feelings hurt.

[Cotton Fitzsimmons]

A very intelligent post. I wholeheartedly agree. I compare this team with the 90-94 Bills team, and it is day and night. That team, whatever its flaws, had elite talent. I am not sure this team does, with the exception of maybe Fred Jackson, who deserves all the praise one can give. Maybe that makes this team more praiseworthy, and the season more enjoyable, but it is simply not sustainable. This may be a playoff team (I hope!!), but it sure is not a SB championship team.

 

The problem is that this temporary success will undermine the Bills' draft position, which will make it that much harder to draft elite talent. Detroit is benefitting from that now (we have largely squandered it in recent years). How happy would we be if Indianapolis goes 15-1, and drafts Andrew Luck, who leads them to another 15 years of playoff football? Here we are, eking out 4-12 season after 4-12 season, with a 10-5 season mixed in, and Indianapolis has one down year, and drafts a once in a decade QB that we will never see? Ugh.

 

This is really a major misconception. You say we are "eking out 4-12 season after 4-12 season" and squandering choice draft position, whereas Detroit is benefiting from this now. Counting this season (I'm assuming we'll end up with more than 4 wins this year), we've had only 2 seasons in the last 25 years where we finished with 4 or fewer wins. In fact, during this era of bad football since the playoff drought started, the Bills have averaged 6.4 wins per season. The difference between 3 and 4 wins and 6 or 7 wins is several draft slots. Conversely, when you take a team like the Lions, they've finished with 4 or fewer wins 7 times in the last 25 years. During the last 10 seasons while the Bills averaged 6.4 wins per season, the Lions have averaged 4.4 wins per season. The truth is the Bills have been mediocre for a very long time and have not really bottomed out. To some extent, that can lend credence to your point in that if the Bills did bottom out and have some 2 and 3 wins seasons they would be able to stack some top 5 draft picks together. However, on the flip side, when you're at 6-7 wins, you're not that far off and if you can flip 3 games that were losses you can get into the playoffs; especially if you're losing close games. Some teams don't have to bottom out, and I would prefer not to. I think this team is on the way up and will be a playoff team this year.

[phypon]

What I don't get is how some posters are all over the people that are concerned with the defense. By being concerned with the defense somehow a fan instantly becomes a "negative nancy", "never happy", "a nitpicker".

 

I'm pretty sure 99% of the fans are happy with the record of the team right now. I know I am. However, I am concerned with the defense. I think the OP makes some very valid points. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to what concerns me simply because of a "W". That would be ignorant of me I think. Can you see any coaches doing that? Coach: "We won, so our team is fine. We don't need to practice harder or work on anything to get better because, well, you know...we got a W."

 

I guess I just had to vent because I don't see the justification in posters jumping all over other posters for being concerned about a weakness (as those posters see it).

 

Put me on board, I'm concerned about the defense. Put me on board, I'm very excited about this season and I see room for improvement and also have faith that the coaches will improve this team, as well as the players. I think they are doing very well and are hard working and will only get better. I just want to see the defense make some more 3rd down stops. I guess to some that makes me a bad fan.

 

Thanks for the post OP.

[raleighbillsfan78]

So winning the turnover battle on a weekly basis isnt a good way to win?

Im pretty sure that teams that have a great +- in turnovers win consistantly

It means you have a smart disciplined offense, and an agressive ball hawking defense

lets keep finding things to be unhappy about!!!

[EasternOHBillsFan]

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it."

 

But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category.

 

I am TOTALLY with you. What does this team do on defense when the turnovers dry up, because eventually they will? A lot of it has to do with the work we have to finish on defense, to bring in more talent to supplement what we have. This year is great, but to win a championship building on years like this is crucial to moving forward. Let the Sunshine People tell you and I that this season is the greatest and we're totally awesome and we'll be 10-6 and that's just peachy, but when it comes down to it the coaches and players know that only the Super Bowl will do.

 

I will enjoy this season, but only knowing that there is more work to be done. 2011=1988, and to get to 1990 we're climbing the mountain, Edwards' Arm! GO BILLS!!!!!!!!

[Orton's Arm]

What I don't get is how some posters are all over the people that are concerned with the defense. By being concerned with the defense somehow a fan instantly becomes a "negative nancy", "never happy", "a nitpicker".

 

I'm pretty sure 99% of the fans are happy with the record of the team right now. I know I am. However, I am concerned with the defense. I think the OP makes some very valid points. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to what concerns me simply because of a "W". That would be ignorant of me I think. Can you see any coaches doing that? Coach: "We won, so our team is fine. We don't need to practice harder or work on anything to get better because, well, you know...we got a W."

 

I guess I just had to vent because I don't see the justification in posters jumping all over other posters for being concerned about a weakness (as those posters see it).

 

Put me on board, I'm concerned about the defense. Put me on board, I'm very excited about this season and I see room for improvement and also have faith that the coaches will improve this team, as well as the players. I think they are doing very well and are hard working and will only get better. I just want to see the defense make some more 3rd down stops. I guess to some that makes me a bad fan.

 

Thanks for the post OP.

Thanks for the intelligent response.

 

Good coaches warn against getting too high after a win, or too down after a loss. I interpret that to be a rejection of the mentality that, "we're winning, everything is fine," as well as "we're losing, so there are no positives anywhere." It's good to keep an even keel, and to be aware of a team's strengths and weaknesses regardless of its record.

 

I'll also point out that winning does not necessarily beget winning. In 2001, Dick Jauron's Chicago Bears went 13-3. They followed that up the next season by going 4-12. He then went 7-9 the year after, which was his last year as the Bears' head coach.

 

The reason that 13-3 record didn't lead to winning over the long term is because those wins weren't built on something sustainable. As an example of a sustainable winning method, I'd point to the 49ers of the '80s. Their bread and butter play was a quick slat to Jerry Rice. They typically ran that play several times each game, and practiced it constantly. They knew they could count on Joe Montana to throw a perfect pass, and to hit Rice in stride. They also knew they could count on Rice to make the catch, and to exploit any YAC opportunities which may have been available.

 

More generally, I'd divide methods of winning into two categories. 1) Winning which relies on your own team being very good. (The 49ers of the '80s method.) 2) Winning which relies on the other team messing up. (For example, using a highly favorable turnover margin to compensate for your team's weaknesses in other areas.) This second method is less sustainable. Sooner or later the teams you face won't mess up.

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't think anyone is happy with giving up all those yards, including and especially the Bills coaches. But today in Gailey's press conference he said the simple, honest truth, you need one or the other. You either need to shut teams down, or you need to get turnovers. If you do both that's fabulous but it's very hard to do. The Bills intentionally in the last few weeks have made a conscious effort to attack the ball. That's what Gailey said.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Honestly, you are a loser. Scoring points wins games in todays NFL. Defense wins championships is an old mantra.

 

* * * * *

 

This might not be a superbowl year but ur a pu$$y.

 

That was a very enlightening post, but I'm having trouble understanding something about "today's NFL." I may just be missing something obvious (wouldn't be the first time), so my brother Darryl says you're probably just the man to help me out. Please read post #22 here:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/136509-good-points-by-tmq/page__pid__2275033__st__20#entry2275033

 

Then explain to me why scoring points is more important in "today's NFL" than preventing the other team from scoring points.

[Chilly]

I guess he's expecting the Bills to regress to 3.5 turnovers a game.

[biglukes]

I'm still struggling to grasp why so many people think that it's a surefire bet that the Bills will stop getting turnovers? It amazes me how last year everyone complains that we aren't getting any turnovers and now this year we're essentially complaining that we're getting too many turnovers. It's mind boggling. You people who have to find a way to justify your belief that the Bills have to stop winning and start sucking again can keep at it. I'm more than happy to enjoy each win and watch them continue to pile up while you guys keep searching for another reason that it can't last.

[Captain Caveman]

I'll take the method of winning where we score more points than the team we're playing.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

I'm still struggling to grasp why so many people think that it's a surefire bet that the Bills will stop getting turnovers? It amazes me how last year everyone complains that we aren't getting any turnovers and now this year we're essentially complaining that we're getting too many turnovers. It's mind boggling. You people who have to find a way to justify your belief that the Bills have to stop winning and start sucking again can keep at it. I'm more than happy to enjoy each win and watch them continue to pile up while you guys keep searching for another reason that it can't last.

 

Searching while we give up 450 yards and have a -4 turnover ratio and only win by 7?

 

That's not searching, that is playing a most dangerous game... but I'm so glad you aren't coaching the Bills or playing the games... so glad, or we'd never improve.

[biglukes]

Searching while we give up 450 yards and have a -4 turnover ratio and only win by 7?

 

That's not searching, that is playing a most dangerous game... but I'm so glad you aren't coaching the Bills or playing the games... so glad, or we'd never improve.

Did I say anything about not trying to improve? Obviously you don't want to be giving up this many yards, but they're making it work. As it's been pointed out earlier in the thread multiple times, there are a bunch of other teams who have had success by scoring a lot of points and getting turnovers. I believe that as the season goes along the defense will stiffen up a bit more. But so many people talk like it's a foregone conclusion we won't be able to generate turnovers anymore soon and the offense won't be able to score. It's just as easy to flip that around and say the defense will tighten up yards wise and the offense will keep doing what their doing. But it's sooo much easier to say they'll regress than progress right?

Edited October 11, 2011 by biglukes

[bills-fan in arizona]

Sounds like us fans need to learn how to win too!!! Seriously, we are a competitive team and are somewhat relevant for the first time in a while. That being said, I remain cautiously optimistic because of the history of this franchise. I'm enjoying the ride and hope the winds have finally changed directions for our beloved Bills!!!

[manateefan]

What I have liked so far is that Buffalo has actually been scoring. They have good numbers in the red zone, where in previous years they stunk. And even when down can't count them out. I wish the defense wouldn't allow so much yardage but they have come up big at times. Already have one more interceptions thant they had all of last year. If Philly hadn't called their last time out, with Buffalo and inches, it might have been different. Good call by Gailey to go for it. Buffalo has for the most part been fun to watch this year.

Edited October 11, 2011 by manateefan

[BuffOrange]

I've seen about a half dozen posts saying this is a playoff team but not a Superbowl team, which to me sounds absolutely ridiculous. Any team that gets in the playoffs (with the possible exception of the dumb luck 7-9 Seahawks) has a legitimate shot of going to the Super Bowl.

 

But maybe I'm wrong, I mean, this year I think we could beat the Jets, but the patriots? NO WAY!!

 

Agreed! Once you are in the playoffs, anything can happen. Even the "dumb-luck Seahawks", who conventional sports wisdom says "had no business being there" knocked off the heavily favored Saints in a playoff game.

 

I don't think it's so ridiculous. Although recent history doesn't necessarily support this point, I still think it is very, very difficult to win 3 road games in the playoffs.

 

Bill Barnwell wrote an interesting article before the season that 10-6 teams only beat 7-9 teams on the road about 55% of the time - the double digit point spread in that NO-Seattle game was pretty ridiculous.

[Big Turk]

Can you name a year where tie breakers did not come into play in the NFL? The Bills are not in a bad position with tie breakers. YET. Not too many teams will go 0-4 v. the NFC so 1-3 and maybe even 2-2 won't kill them.

 

Bro, you don't eat crayonz, you eat lead paint chips..apparently a lot of them. Know what the NUMBER 1 tiebreaker is? WINS AND LOSSES. Would it have been better for us to have beaten the Bengals and lose to the Eagles? Sure, but but there is no known scenario except in your head where losing a game is advisable. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can have a good record against NFC opponents AND a good record against division and conference opponents. Its not like they are trading an NFC win for an AFC win.

 

At best your understanding of how tiebreakers work is incorrect.

 

Thanks for the intelligent response.

 

Good coaches warn against getting too high after a win, or too down after a loss. I interpret that to be a rejection of the mentality that, "we're winning, everything is fine," as well as "we're losing, so there are no positives anywhere." It's good to keep an even keel, and to be aware of a team's strengths and weaknesses regardless of its record.

 

I'll also point out that winning does not necessarily beget winning. In 2001, Dick Jauron's Chicago Bears went 13-3. They followed that up the next season by going 4-12. He then went 7-9 the year after, which was his last year as the Bears' head coach.

 

The reason that 13-3 record didn't lead to winning over the long term is because those wins weren't built on something sustainable. As an example of a sustainable winning method, I'd point to the 49ers of the '80s. Their bread and butter play was a quick slat to Jerry Rice. They typically ran that play several times each game, and practiced it constantly. They knew they could count on Joe Montana to throw a perfect pass, and to hit Rice in stride. They also knew they could count on Rice to make the catch, and to exploit any YAC opportunities which may have been available.

 

 

 

More generally, I'd divide methods of winning into two categories. 1) Winning which relies on your own team being very good. (The 49ers of the '80s method.) 2) Winning which relies on the other team messing up. (For example, using a highly favorable turnover margin to compensate for your team's weaknesses in other areas.) This second method is less sustainable. Sooner or later the teams you face won't mess up.

 

Bill Bellichick believes that most games aren't won, they are lost...

 

Most teams will make mistakes at some point and its up to th D to capitalize on them...

Edited October 11, 2011 by matter2003

[John in Jax]

I'll point out some differences between this Bills team and the teams you mentioned.

 

1) Those teams had better defenses than the Bills. There are those in this thread who've made it sound like the Bills' defense allows lots of yards, but few points. That simply isn't the case. The Patriots scored over 30 points on the Bills' defense, the Eagles scored 24, the Bengals scored 23, and the Raiders scored 35. These numbers are not the hallmark of a defense that bends but doesn't break, or that gives up tons of yards without giving up the score. This defense will often give up yards and the score . . . except when causing a turnover.

 

2) Just to add to point 1, the Bills' defense is (as some have pointed out), ranked in the mid-20s. That low ranking cannot be attributed to rules changes, because the rules are the same for everyone. I'll grant that rules changes have made it easier to score than ever before. But this defense has serious problems even after taking those rules changes into account.

 

3) Some have argued (correctly) that the way to win in today's NFL is to pass and to stop the pass. The Bills seem unable to do these things as well as the top-tier teams in the league--at least WRT the non-turnover-related aspects of the game.

 

4) The teams you mentioned were quarterbacked by Warner, Brees, Peyton Manning, and Aaron Rodgers. I'd argue that every quarterback on that list deserves to be a first ballot Hall of Fame player.

 

Last season, Fitzpatrick was a clear upgrade over Edwards, but played well below the level of anyone on that list. Fitz will never be able to do the things those quarterbacks can do, because he isn't nearly an accurate a passer as they are.

 

Back in the '70s, it was often felt a quarterback had to have elite arm strength to be elite. During the '80s, Bill Walsh designed an offense tailored to Joe Montana's abilities, thereby proving that a quarterback could be great even with a mediocre arm. Montana made up for his lack of arm strength with elite accuracy and the ability to hit receivers in perfect stride.

 

During the first three games of the Bills' season, it appeared as though Gailey may have taken the next big step forward in offensive evolution. His quarterback--Fitzpatrick--was neither strong-armed nor overly accurate. But what Fitz did have was elite-level decision-making ability. The offense Gailey designed would spread defenses out. It called on Fitz to use that elite decision-making ability to exploit whatever defensive weaknesses this created. Fitz would use his "good enough" arm strength and accuracy and his elite decision-making to play at an elite level.

 

However, the offense hasn't done as well these last two games as it had the first three. Maybe these last two games were an anomaly. Fitz may have been playing hurt against the Bengals, for example. Or maybe defenses are starting to catch up to Gailey's offensive scheme. Or maybe the offense looked better than it really was during those first three games due to its opponents' defensive weaknesses. I expect to have a better feel for the offense by the end of the season. But as of right now, Fitz has yet to demonstrate he can play at or near the level of Warner, Brees, Manning, or Rodgers. This being the case, it would be unwise to assume the Bills will be able to use the same model those teams used to achieve the same level of success they achieved.

 

Excellent post. The homers with rose-colored glasses AND blinders on, who refuse to accept the above facts, are living in a dream world. As they say, it is what it is.

[CardinalScotts]

This is year two of a three year build...just a bit ahead of schedule. They don't have to have a good defense right now your don't win the super bowl in September or October just build the best defense you can by late December. Stats are for losers - this league is about two things WINS and LOSSES it's a fairly easy concept PERIOD.

[Malazan]

The Bills should just forfeit every game as soon as they allow the other team to score. At that point, there's just no point to winning since it isn't a shut out.

 

Perfect is the enemy of good.

[thewildrabbit]

This is year two of a three year build...just a bit ahead of schedule. They don't have to have a good defense right now your don't win the super bowl in September or October just build the best defense you can by late December. Stats are for losers - this league is about two things WINS and LOSSES it's a fairly easy concept PERIOD.

To be honest I expected to see them play like somewhat like this at the end of last season, but then they were whomped in the last two games against the Jets and Patriots. . Well, not as good as this, the Bills have exceeded my expectations in many aspects so far this year. If you watched that MNF game with the Lions and Bears and both line were making so many mistakes and miscues, and as young as the Bills are on that line they are playing way better then expected.

 

Anyway, right now the Bills lead the NFL in turnovers. While that is something you can practice for, tip drills etc, you can't game plan that in. Also you can't expect that every game. Right now the Bills are incredibly lucky and that ball has been bouncing the right way for them all year so far. Perhaps this is just lady luck catching up to Buffalo for a decade of the ball bouncing the opposite way.

 

All I gotta say is, what happens when that ball starts bouncing the other way again? It will show the flaws in the offense and defense, and there are plenty!

[CardinalScotts]

To be honest I expected to see them play like somewhat like this at the end of last season, but then they were whomped in the last two games against the Jets and Patriots. . Well, not as good as this, the Bills have exceeded my expectations in many aspects so far this year. If you watched that MNF game with the Lions and Bears and both line were making so many mistakes and miscues, and as young as the Bills are on that line they are playing way better then expected.

 

Anyway, right now the Bills lead the NFL in turnovers. While that is something you can practice for, tip drills etc, you can't game plan that in. Also you can't expect that every game. Right now the Bills are incredibly lucky and that ball has been bouncing the right way for them all year so far. Perhaps this is just lady luck catching up to Buffalo for a decade of the ball bouncing the opposite way.

 

All I gotta say is, what happens when that ball starts bouncing the other way again? It will show the flaws in the offense and defense, and there are plenty!

 

 

 

 

Good teams get the bounces...bad teams don't - in other words you make your own breaks. For the interceptions they are right there for the deflections

[benderbender]

All I gotta say is, what happens when that ball starts bouncing the other way again? It will show the flaws in the offense and defense, and there are plenty!

 

Yep, when we're 4-12 we'll all say you were right and you'll feel so good inside! Like a puffy cloud filled with rainbows and sunshine

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Bro, you don't eat crayonz, you eat lead paint chips..apparently a lot of them. Know what the NUMBER 1 tiebreaker is? WINS AND LOSSES.

 

* * * * * *

 

At best your understanding of how tiebreakers work is incorrect.

 

Maybe he doesn't understand how they work, but at least he knows what they are.