The Bills' method of winning is unsustainable.

[CosmicBills]

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.

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?

[xsoldier54]

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!

Defensive pressure causes turnovers. It is not luck in any way shape or form. Just enjoy the success instead of waiting for it to end. If you can't enjoy success when it happens, then why watch at all? Just find another team. And by the way, every team has flaws. If you find one without any, please let us all know.

[SoFFacet]

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.

[ieatcrayonz]

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.

 

Dude every year there are ties in the NFL. This means it is inevitable. This is based on somewhat complicated math derived from the fact that there are only 16 games but 12 playoff teams out 32. I won't confuse you with all the formulas but trust me. The tie breakers basically dictate that wins against the NFC are bad. I'm not saying I agree with it but I do understand it. You're saying my understanding of tiebreakers is incorrect. How is beating an NFC EVER better than beating an AFC team?

[Ramius]

The most faulty premise of this thread and discussion is that the Bills turnovers are based on luck. They aren't. They seem to be employing a defense to go for the turnover, go for the ball, take the ball away. That isn't luck.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

. . . How is beating an NFC EVER better than beating an AFC team?

Actually, there is a scenario where beating an NFC team IS better than beating an AFC team, because a few years back the NFL changed the tiebreak rules. First off, here's what the NFL's own website says the current tiebreak procedures are:

 

http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures

 

Let's focus on tiebreaking procedures within the Bills' AFC East division - - here's the current tiebreak procedures:

 

TO BREAK A TIE WITHIN A DIVISION

If, at the end of the regular season, two or more clubs in the same division finish with identical won-lost-tied percentages, the following steps will be taken until a champion is determined.

 

Two Clubs

Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).

Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.

Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.

Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.

Strength of victory.

Strength of schedule.

Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.

Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.

Best net points in common games.

Best net points in all games.

Best net touchdowns in all games.

Coin toss

 

Note that the THIRD tiebreaker is "best won-lost-tied percentage in common games," while "best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference" is only the FOURTH tiebreaker. Every year, each AFC East team plays the same four NFC teams as every other AFC East team. So for purposes of breaking a tie to determine the AFC East division winner, ANY game against an NFC team will always be a game against a "common" opponent.

 

Conversely, every year, each AFC East team plays two games against AFC opponents that are not on the schedule of any other AFC East team. For the current season, the non-common AFC opponents for each AFC East team are as follows:

 

1. Buffalo - - Cincinnati and Tennessee

2. New England - - Pittsburgh and Indianapolis

3. NY Jets - - Baltimore and Jacksonville

4. Miami - - Cleveland and Houston

 

So if the Bills split their 2 games with any AFC East rival this year and wind up with the same overall won-loss record as that rival, and both teams sweep their games against all other AFC East teams, then the Bills would be better off, for tie break purposes, by beating any NFC team, rather than Cincinnati or Tennessee.

[bizell]

heh. you guys are actually taking crayonz seriously. he's been doing that 'tiebreaker' scenario for a few years now...

[billsfreak]

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.

 

WINS AND LOSSES are not tiebreakers, they are the reason a tiebreaker is needed?

[ieatcrayonz]

Actually, there is a scenario where beating an NFC team IS better than beating an AFC team, because a few years back the NFL changed the tiebreak rules. First off, here's what the NFL's own website says the current tiebreak procedures are:

 

http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures

 

Let's focus on tiebreaking procedures within the Bills' AFC East division - - here's the current tiebreak procedures:

 

 

 

Note that the THIRD tiebreaker is "best won-lost-tied percentage in common games," while "best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference" is only the FOURTH tiebreaker. Every year, each AFC East team plays the same four NFC teams as every other AFC East team. So for purposes of breaking a tie to determine the AFC East division winner, ANY game against an NFC team will always be a game against a "common" opponent.

 

Conversely, every year, each AFC East team plays two games against AFC opponents that are not on the schedule of any other AFC East team. For the current season, the non-common AFC opponents for each AFC East team are as follows:

 

1. Buffalo - - Cincinnati and Tennessee

2. New England - - Pittsburgh and Indianapolis

3. NY Jets - - Baltimore and Jacksonville

4. Miami - - Cleveland and Houston

 

So if the Bills split their 2 games with any AFC East rival this year and wind up with the same overall won-loss record as that rival, and both teams sweep their games against all other AFC East teams, then the Bills would be better off, for tie break purposes, by beating any NFC team, rather than Cincinnati or Tennessee.

 

There are three other teams in our division and then 12 more in the conference. Odds are ties will be out of the division and you conveniently ignored that there will be no common NFC games in that scenario rendering it a mute point in more than 75% of ties.

 

Look, it is no big deal really, it is what it is. There is no reason for people in denial or upset to ignore facts. As wins go, the Eagles win is a bad one.

Edited October 11, 2011 by ieatcrayonz

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

They are winning with a balanced attack and a lot of turnovers and pick six's

 

The better question can the Putrids win by passing only?

[BuffOrange]

heh. you guys are actually taking crayonz seriously. he's been doing that 'tiebreaker' scenario for a few years now...

 

Yes he has. I've never found it funny because who is he making fun of? I never hear anyone say "who cares we lost, it was an nfc game" or "season over, that was an afc game".

It's funny that people take him seriously though I guess.

[Jauronimo]

The OP just isn't paying attention if he can't see the sustainability.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Jauronimo

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Odds are ties will be out of the division and you conveniently ignored that there will be no common NFC games in that scenario rendering it a mute point in more than 75% of ties.

OK, now I'm upset. I sometimes post here on behalf of my middle brother Darryl because it's a way to communicate with fellow Bills fans about the team he loves, and because a freak accident in the NBA Hall of Lame parking lot crushed his larynx and left him a quadraplegic. Like it was his fault that fact checker got laid off because of the NBA lockout? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to post here by blowing through a tube to type? And now I gotta put up with you making fun of my brother's inability to speak?

 

Gotta admit, though, there are days when his inability to think is a bigger handicap than his mootness.

Edited October 11, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Kaz]

 

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.

I stopped reading/caring after seeing this paragraph. Your "INSANE" turnover differential isn't even accurate. Fitzpatrick threw two picks against the Pats and one against Philly. At least get your numbers straight if you're gonna use them in a pissing match.

 

I don't know what else you want this team to do. Have you observed Fred Jackson's performances this year? I guess having a successful running attack won't cut it week to week. Or how about our O-line play? Or our league-leading INT totals?

 

Pack up your soapbox and move along.

Edited October 11, 2011 by The Kaz

[EasternOHBillsFan]

The most faulty premise of this thread and discussion is that the Bills turnovers are based on luck. They aren't. They seem to be employing a defense to go for the turnover, go for the ball, take the ball away. That isn't luck.

 

What happens when the other teams fails to oblige in giving us a turnover, are we to expect McKelvin or Corner looking back to see Vincent Jackson, Wes Welker, Santonio Holmes or (if we do make the playoffs) Anquan Boldin catching touchdown passes?

 

The turnovers aren't luck obviously, but the other team avoiding turnovers through execution makes our defense extremely vulnerable.

[xsoldier54]

What happens when the other teams fails to oblige in giving us a turnover, are we to expect McKelvin or Corner looking back to see Vincent Jackson, Wes Welker, Santonio Holmes or (if we do make the playoffs) Anquan Boldin catching touchdown passes?

 

The turnovers aren't luck obviously, but the other team avoiding turnovers through execution makes our defense extremely vulnerable.

On the flipside, if our defense continues to pressure the QB and strip balls from receivers, it will be impossible for the opposition to "avoid turnovers". And by the way, nobody is "giving us a turnover". The defense is creating them.

[Armchair GM]

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.

Last I cecked, football is a team sport. Albeit opportunistic, our defense came up BIG when needed....screw opportunistic, I'll chalk it up to being in the right place, in the right time with pressure & coverage. Your arguements are about as strong as your screen name...dousche!

[ieatcrayonz]

OK, now I'm upset. I sometimes post here on behalf of my middle brother Darryl because it's a way to communicate with fellow Bills fans about the team he loves, and because a freak accident in the NBA Hall of Lame parking lot crushed his larynx and left him a quadraplegic. Like it was his fault that fact checker got laid off because of the NBA lockout? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to post here by blowing through a tube to type? And now I gotta put up with you making fun of my brother's inability to speak?

 

Gotta admit, though, there are days when his inability to think is a bigger handicap than his mootness.

wtf? I have no idea of what you're talking about but I am a nice guy and would never be mean about your brother. I am sorry about what happened to him but don't see how it impacted this thread. If he is upset tell him to chill because I didn't mean anything about him. I didn't even know he existed.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

On the flipside, if our defense continues to pressure the QB and strip balls from receivers, it will be impossible for the opposition to "avoid turnovers". And by the way, nobody is "giving us a turnover". The defense is creating them.

 

Michael Vick didn't need to throw those two balls into coverage, and Avant fumbled TWICE, which is rare for any receiver. The Patriots have been masterful at taking what we did first meeting and neutering us the second. Teams in the NFL adjust to what their opponent is doing, and therefore when teams don't make the really bad throw or hold onto the ball, then our defense will be up against it.

 

All I can say is games 6-16 and beyond (?) will tell the tale.

 

Last I cecked, football is a team sport. Albeit opportunistic, our defense came up BIG when needed....screw opportunistic, I'll chalk it up to being in the right place, in the right time with pressure & coverage. Your arguements are about as strong as your screen name...dousche!

 

What happened in the Cincinnati game when a rookie QB marched the ball down the field?

 

Sometimes they came up big when needed... and if you've been playing attention, our turnovers have stemmed not from pressure, but a distinct plan to jump up and bat balls down and to try and force fumbles. Pressure on the opposing QB has been few and far between...

[billsfan1959]

I really don't get this post. The Bills' defense was horrible last year. They took steps to make it better; however, it is hard to turn something so bad into something good overnight. It typically takes some time. Consequently, we had a pretty good idea that the defense was still going to have problems this year. That is one of the reasons why most people on this board and elsewhere predicted this team would be fortunate to win 5 or 6 games at best this year (and many predicted the team to finish first in the 2012 Luck sweepstakes). Now, here we sit, five games into the season, with the team 4 -1, and some people are predicting the team will not be able to sustain winning with their defense. The defense is what it is. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But, they have found a way to compensate for their defensive shortcomings by forcing turnovers and making big defensive plays at key moments - and by playing very good football on the offensive side of the ball.

 

They weren't supposed to beat the Raiders because of their vaunted running game...but they did. They weren't supposed to beat the Patriots because of their unstoppable passing game...but they did. They weren't supposed to beat a desperate, Eagles team that, offensively, can be as diverse and potent as any team in the game...but they did. In fact, this team has found a way to win 4 out of 5 games with this defense. What more can you ask for?