Juror#8 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) Try to hold back your instinctive need to respond in some vitriolic way JUST based on the title. 1. Why do some folks here want this team to be the Washington Redskins of the last decade - aka GREAT defense; Pathetic offense; Little success. 2. The 2000 Ravens team was the last time that a team with a great defense but without offensive playmakers won a Superbowl. The Ravens then bounced around through up-and-down seasons wishing that they had a competent offense - changing coordinators because he couldn't manufacture offensive performance, changing QBs because they couldn't manufacture offensive performance, changing coaches because he couldn't manufacture offensive performance. 3. There have been multiple times over the last decade that teams with a great offense, but with marginal or pathetic defenses won a Superbowl. 4. Build the OLine through the draft. Draft RG3 or Barkley. Draft a Calvin Johnson/Dez Bryant. But just DRAFT A PLAYMAKER and an OLine to allow the plays to develop. We're gonna get left behind otherwise. Losing games 9-3 is gonna get old quick. Edited December 9, 2011 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homey D. Clown Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 The 90's Bills proved that weak defense can't win superbowls, and the same can be said about the Colts. This team could be heading towards the playoff right now if the defense could have stopped a few of the opposing team's drives. The Bills have allowed 14 drives for touchdowns over the last string of losses, and have lost 3 actual games where they gave up the lead going into the last few minutes of those games. So I disagree with the point of your thread, but the team does need more depth on offense, but watch out what you ask for around these parts... you see, we drafted a play maker in the 2010 draft, and people around here hate that idea. Brace yourself, the sharks on this board smell blood in the water with this one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOBILLS78 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Try to hold back your instinctive need to respond in some vitriolic way JUST based on the title. 1. Why do some folks here want this team to be the Washington Redskins of the last decade - aka GREAT defense; Pathetic offense; Little success. 2. The 2000 Ravens team was the last time that a team with a great defense but without offensive playmakers won a Superbowl. The Ravens then bounced around through up-and-down seasons wishing that they had a competent offense - changing coordinators because he couldn't manufacture offensive performance, changing QBs because they couldn't manufacture offensive performance, changing coaches because he couldn't manufacture offensive performance. 3. There have been multiple times over the last decade that teams with a great offense, but with marginal or pathetic defenses won a Superbowl. 4. Build the OLine through the draft. Draft RG3 or Barkley. Draft a Calvin Johnson/Dez Bryant. But just DRAFT A PLAYMAKER and an OLine to allow the plays to develop. We're gonna get left behind otherwise. Losing games 9-3 is gonna get old quick. Well, I don't think anybody's asking for a "great" defense, but merely a respectable one. They're 22nd overall, 24th against the run and 19th against the pass. They're dead last in sacks. I think the general hope is to get in the top third of the league. I'd be happy with that, and it would go a long way toward winning on a consistent basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just in Atlanta Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Why does it have to be one or the other? I'd settle for an average run and pass D with an above-average pass rush and explosive offense. We already have an average pass D (especially when you consider that lack of pass rush dictates everything) and an explosive offense when healthy. Focus on pass rush, then, and only when a premiere OLB or DE isn't available, focus on O line, IMO. Unless someone really special is available at a "skill" position or secondary, I wouldn't spend any time in April on those positions. Pass rush affects everything, even more than O line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Try to hold back your instinctive need to respond in some vitriolic way JUST based on the title. 1. Why do some folks here want this team to be the Washington Redskins of the last decade - aka GREAT defense; Pathetic offense; Little success. 2. The 2000 Ravens team was the last time that a team with a great defense but without offensive playmakers won a Superbowl. The Ravens then bounced around through up-and-down seasons wishing that they had a competent offense - changing coordinators because he couldn't manufacture offensive performance, changing QBs because they couldn't manufacture offensive performance, changing coaches because he couldn't manufacture offensive performance. 3. There have been multiple times over the last decade that teams with a great offense, but with marginal or pathetic defenses won a Superbowl. 4. Build the OLine through the draft. Draft RG3 or Barkley. Draft a Calvin Johnson/Dez Bryant. But just DRAFT A PLAYMAKER and an OLine to allow the plays to develop. We're gonna get left behind otherwise. Losing games 9-3 is gonna get old quick. I agree completly, its an offence league right now. A great offence (NE, GB, etc) can make up for having mediocre defences because they have offences that can score points at will and make up for the defence giving up points. A strong defence can hold your team in a low scoring game, but without an offence able to score frequently, you need an Above average amazing defence thats able to pitch shutouts almost every game (and thats almost impossible) The Bills still need "playmakers" on offence at WR. Stevie is fine for a #2, but they need someone with elite WR potential, someone who can make the tough catches (along with the routine/easy ones). Watching the Saints Giants Monday nighter last week and the Giants packers game this week, I was amazed at what their WR's could do, making great catches as if they were routine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Why does it have to be one or the other? I'd settle for an average run and pass D with an above-average pass rush and explosive offense. So basically the 90s Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VirginiaMike Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Try to hold back your instinctive need to respond in some vitriolic way JUST based on the title. 1. Why do some folks here want this team to be the Washington Redskins of the last decade - aka GREAT defense; Pathetic offense; Little success. 2. The 2000 Ravens team was the last time that a team with a great defense but without offensive playmakers won a Superbowl. The Ravens then bounced around through up-and-down seasons wishing that they had a competent offense - changing coordinators because he couldn't manufacture offensive performance, changing QBs because they couldn't manufacture offensive performance, changing coaches because he couldn't manufacture offensive performance. 3. There have been multiple times over the last decade that teams with a great offense, but with marginal or pathetic defenses won a Superbowl. 4. Build the OLine through the draft. Draft RG3 or Barkley. Draft a Calvin Johnson/Dez Bryant. But just DRAFT A PLAYMAKER and an OLine to allow the plays to develop. We're gonna get left behind otherwise. Losing games 9-3 is gonna get old quick. Not buying it. If your defense can't get off the field, all you have is an offense that looks good sitting on the bench. As others have said, you don't need the #1 defense in the league (although that NEVER hurts), but you do need to make some stops and be able to give your offense a chance to score. When the Bills defense was getting turnovers and putting the team in positions to score, the Bills were winning. They made stops with turnovers, but did not necessarily force alot of punts. Now, we don't make stops via either turnovers or forcing punts so you see -- we don't win. Give me some more defense (and better yet a D coordinator what can help put the players in a position to make stops) and I'll be a happy guy. Well, I don't think anybody's asking for a "great" defense, but merely a respectable one. They're 22nd overall, 24th against the run and 19th against the pass. They're dead last in sacks. That's dead last in sacks while getting 10 in one game vs the Deadskins -- I think a total of 7 in the other 10 games. That's pathetic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 The 90's Bills proved that weak defense can't win superbowls, and the same can be said about the Colts. This team could be heading towards the playoff right now if the defense could have stopped a few of the opposing team's drives. The Bills have allowed 14 drives for touchdowns over the last string of losses, and have lost 3 actual games where they gave up the lead going into the last few minutes of those games. So I disagree with the point of your thread, but the team does need more depth on offense, but watch out what you ask for around these parts... you see, we drafted a play maker in the 2010 draft, and people around here hate that idea. Brace yourself, the sharks on this board smell blood in the water with this one.... The problem is that we were figured out on offense SO easily. We had no playmakers to add to our one-dimension. If we could have made a stop, there is nothing to say that we could have scored on the other side of the ball make a game of it. And with respect to the playmaker that we drafted in 2010 - the problem wasn't with the concept, it was the execution that was bad (at least to date). What if that playmaker was Marshall Faulk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Try to hold back your instinctive need to respond in some vitriolic way JUST based on the title. i stopped reading here. come up with a better title, then. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Try to hold back your instinctive need to respond in some vitriolic way JUST based on the title. Gee, why would anyone do that. The title is so intelligent, thoughful and mature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDD Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) I see your point. You need offense and defense to win. Personally, I think having a dominant D will always keep you in the game even when your offense isn't scoring. Keeping the opponents possessions low and increasing your own offensive amount of possessions in turn increases the probablity that one will result in a score. Plus turnovers on defense are huge. Look no further than earlier this season when our defense was taking the ball away and we won. Edited December 7, 2011 by Mr. Wonderful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) i stopped reading here. come up with a better title, then. jw Oh the title was just for attention. You're a reporter. You, better than anyone, should understand the need for a bit of hyperbole, prurience, and melo-drama; especially considering that this is tantamount to an editorial piece. And the fact that you wouldn't have even touched the substance of my post...demonstrates that either you feel that it's meritless, poorly articulated, OR you're in complete agreement on the merits. Because, there is nothing about me that believes that you would oblige my post with your presence, just to say that you'e not obliging my post with a cogent thought. Edited December 7, 2011 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Oh the title was just for attention. You're a reporter. You, better than anyone, should understand the need for a bit of hyperbole, prurience, and melo-drama; especially considering that this is tantamount to an editorial piece. And the fact that you wouldn't have even touched the substance of my post...demonstrates that either you feel that it's meritless, poorly articulated, OR you're in complete agreement on the merits. Because, there is nothing about me that believes that you would oblige my post with your presence, just to say that you'e not obliging my post with a cogent thought. Someone dusted off the thesaurus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Gee, why would anyone do that. The title is so intelligent, thoughful and mature. Awesome post. Thanks for your contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Not buying it. If your defense can't get off the field, all you have is an offense that looks good sitting on the bench. As others have said, you don't need the #1 defense in the league (although that NEVER hurts), but you do need to make some stops and be able to give your offense a chance to score. When the Bills defense was getting turnovers and putting the team in positions to score, the Bills were winning. They made stops with turnovers, but did not necessarily force alot of punts. Now, we don't make stops via either turnovers or forcing punts so you see -- we don't win. Give me some more defense (and better yet a D coordinator what can help put the players in a position to make stops) and I'll be a happy guy. That's dead last in sacks while getting 10 in one game vs the Deadskins -- I think a total of 7 in the other 10 games. That's pathetic! And if you don't have an offence, the defence can stop the opponent every single time and it won't matter if you can't score. A team like New England, Green bay, Indy (with Manning), or New Orleans are a threat to score every time their offence touches the ball. They don't have to worry about their defence having to hold them in games because if the give up points, their offence has a good chance of marching down the field to get those points back. Right now, even if the defence was playing better, would you have faith in the current offence of this team to come back onto the field after a stop and march down the field for a TD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Someone dusted off the thesaurus. You got it. I cross-referenced every word that I intended to use, and exchanged it for a word that was poly-syballic (there I go again, I was just gonna use 'big word') just for THIS forum. My time is not otherwise valuably used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Oh the title was just for attention. You're a reporter. You, better than anyone, should understand the need for a bit of hyperbole, prurience, and melo-drama; especially considering that this is tantamount to an editorial piece. And the fact that you wouldn't have even touched the substance of my post...demonstrates that either you feel that it's meritless, poorly articulated, OR you're in complete agreement on the merits. Because, there is nothing about me that believes that you would oblige my post with your presence, just to say that you'e not obliging my post with a cogent thought. nah, i was looking for a cheap laugh. guess joke's on me. ... prurience? really? "tantamount to an editorial piece?" ... in, what, High Times? jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) The 90's Bills proved that weak defense can't win superbowls, and the same can be said about the Colts. This team could be heading towards the playoff right now if the defense could have stopped a few of the opposing team's drives. The Bills have allowed 14 drives for touchdowns over the last string of losses, and have lost 3 actual games where they gave up the lead going into the last few minutes of those games. So I disagree with the point of your thread, but the team does need more depth on offense, but watch out what you ask for around these parts... you see, we drafted a play maker in the 2010 draft, and people around here hate that idea. Brace yourself, the sharks on this board smell blood in the water with this one.... With all due respect, that is two decade old thinking. The Colts went to two Superbowls in 3 years with a crappy defense. No one EVER says "out defense us." Because it becomes a zero sum game. Edited December 7, 2011 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobshaw81 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 It just seems so hard to play defense in this modern NFL. Can't hit the QB, can't lay a finger on a WR. Its just so tailor made for the offenses to score, keep possesions alive. I used to think a dominant defense was the first thing to build a winner but the last few years have changed me somewhat with ticky tack calls every game. What hasn't changed is my belief that you build through the trenches on O and D line immediately(strong running,strong pass rush), and stop wtih the flashy picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 nah, i was looking for a cheap laugh. guess joke's on me. ... prurience? really? "tantamount to an editorial piece?" ... in, what, High Times? jw Yep...cause of the sexy title. You're taking every opportunity to nip at me personally. Do you want to add anything on the merits while you're at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts