Building The Offense NOW should be the Focus and the Priority

[Jauronimo]

I'm lost with the "discussing cars" comment. Incidentally, have you ever seen the movie "The Terminator"?

I was referring to your sig line where you lay out a conversation we would have in which you describe how a cobra will ear rape someone or something like that. I don't know though, I lost interest halfway through and then Springer came on and I forgot all about it.

 

Why yes I have seen the Terminator and both sequels. Why do you ask?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Can't say that about the Colts--they won the SB with the 3rd worst defense in the Manning era.

 

You can say the Colts won the Superbowl.

 

You can also say that for a team that has been to the playoffs for 8 straight years before this year, their overall record is somewhat disappointing - 2 trips to the Superbowl, a Superbowl embarassment by the Saints, and 5 losses in the first game.

I think the point about quality defense being needed to build a consistent playoff WINNER is well-taken.

 

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)

 

Not to inject too many facts here, but NE is overall 12th in scoring D and 9th in run D right now (close rank for both YPA and overall yards). GB is overall 17th in scoring D and 12th in run D right now.

 

I appreciate the overall point that a flashy high-scoring offense can win, I think the point stands that teams which win have at least a competent defense - perhaps that's what you mean by mediocre?

 

If mid to top-third in the league is in fact what you mean by mediocre, then I argue that the Bills have a crying need to improve to mediocrity on defense.

 

sure, Bills defense needs to improve in order for this team to be competitive.

 

jw

 

This.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

With all due respect, that is two decade old thinking.

The Colts went to two Superbowls in 3 years with a crappy defense.

 

And they got embarassed in one of them and sat down early in the playoffs numerous other years despite often having the better W-L record

 

There are also numerous other recent examples of teams with elite offense and poor defense who either got sent home early in the playoffs, or got blown out by a team with an inferior offense and a much stronger D.

2008 and 2009 'Zona Cardinals come to mind. It would appear that two-decade-old thinking is alive and well today

 

If you wish to argue otherwise, please supply facts not assertions.

We've already taken care of the Redskins "great" defense and the relatively meagre playoff success obtained by the Colts "every year in the playoffs" great offensive decade. If they'd built a decent D, they'd have SB rings on their thumbs.

Next?

[Gugny]

If Buffalo had a solid middle-of-the-road defense, I'd lean toward actually agreeing with the OP.

 

But the fact is, this defense is terrible. Beyone terrible. If it wasn't for the first 4-5 weeks where everything was going their way, Buffalo's D would probably be nearly dead last in every defensive category.

 

Building an offense right now, with a defense as terrible as this one, wouldn't make sense to me. You put this defense on Green Bay, and they're definitely not undefeated; and probably not nearly as potent on offense.

 

I think the fact that our defensive coordinator is inept is being overlooked in this thread. New Orleans turned the corner when Gregg Williams came aboard. Look how good Houston was looking this year, mainly due to Wade Phillips' arrival. The defensive coordinator position is where the upgrade needs to start. I don't know if it's Wanny, or what. But Edwards needs to go, and someone with PROVEN success at the professional level needs to replace him.

 

I'd like to see one more defense-heavy draft to get some more talent and depth on that side of the ball; along with a real D.C. And build the offense via trades/free agency. Get one stud WR and this offense gets a lot better quickly, in my opinion. I just don't want to get him in this year's draft, unless he's clearly more valuable than the best LB or DE on the board.

 

Go Bills!

[Juror#8]

Can we stop this right here?

 

By what criteria do the Washington Redskins have GREAT defense? They are 18th, 21st, and 18th in points allowed the last 3 years. I would say their defense overall is totally mediocre, despite some very talented individual players.

 

I would like this team to be like the Houston Texans - who fired their DC and several defensive assistants, brought in a quality DC in Wade Phillips and a few players, and went from 30th to 2nd in the league in defense in one year.

Or the San Francisco 49ers, who with coaching change and a few players went from 16th to first.

Or the 2009 Green Bay Packers who fired their DC and a whole bunch of defensive assistants, brought in a few players, and went from 22nd to 7th

 

You get the theme I'm sure.

 

Ask Sam Bradford and Cam Newton how that "bring in a great QB, that's all we need to win" thing is working out for them.

 

Washington Redskins Defensive Rank:

 

2010 - 31th

2009 - 10th

2008 - 4th

2007 - 8th

2006 - 27th

2005 - 7th

2004 - 5th

2003 - 23rd

 

The Redskins have been top 10 in defense in 5 of the last 9 seasons. Check out their record over that time.

 

2009 - 8-8

2008 - 8-8

2007 - 5-11

2005 - 6-10

2004 - 5-11

 

My point clearer now?

[Cash]

Can we stop this right here?

 

By what criteria do the Washington Redskins have GREAT defense? They are 18th, 21st, and 18th in points allowed the last 3 years. I would say their defense overall is totally mediocre, despite some very talented individual players.

 

I would like this team to be like the Houston Texans - who fired their DC and several defensive assistants, brought in a quality DC in Wade Phillips and a few players, and went from 30th to 2nd in the league in defense in one year.

Or the San Francisco 49ers, who with coaching change and a few players went from 16th to first.

Or the 2009 Green Bay Packers who fired their DC and a whole bunch of defensive assistants, brought in a few players, and went from 22nd to 7th

 

You get the theme I'm sure.

 

Ask Sam Bradford and Cam Newton how that "bring in a great QB, that's all we need to win" thing is working out for them.

SF also lost their excellent NT Aubrayo Franklin to free agency this past year. He was probably their 2nd-best defensive player last year.

 

I think there is already some real talent on the Bills D when healthy: Williams, Dareus, Barnett, Wilson, and Byrd are all very good, and Edwards, Sheppard, maybe Moats, Kelsay when he plays DE, Davis, Morrison, maybe Carrington, and most of our corners are serviceable (remember how good our pass D was the year that Schobel, Kelsay, & Denney combined for 25.5 sacks?). You don't need beasts at every position. We are definitely at least 1 pass-rusher short, and that should be something we focus on, but otherwise, I think the coaching is the biggest problem. George Edwards is probably a nice man, but he seems in way over his head as an NFL D-coordinator.

 

The Cam Newton comment is spot-on; they'd probably be in the playoffs with even a mediocre defense. But the Bradford comment is way off-base. The OP's basic argument is that we should be trying to build an elite offense moreso than trying to build an elite defense. Nothing about "bring in a great QB, that's all we need to win". And even if you accept that Bradford is a great QB (not yet, but he very well might be in a few years), the fact remains that the Rams' biggest problem is lack of offense. They've scored 140 points in 12 games this year. That's under 12 a game! They scored 31 in an outlier win against the Saints, and otherwise their best output was 20 against Arizona's terrible defense. Their other win besides the Saints was 13-12 over the Browns. Their D is also bad, being 25th in points allowed, but only a field goal per game away from the Jets and Packers (which are the two middle teams in points allowed). For the Rams' scoring to match Oakland/Philly (the two middle teams in points scored), they'd have to score about 11 more points per game. The Rams' D is WAY ahead of its O, although it's still pretty bad.

[Gugny]

Washington Redskins Defensive Rank:

 

2010 - 31th

2009 - 10th

2008 - 4th

2007 - 8th

2006 - 27th

2005 - 7th

2004 - 5th

2003 - 23rd

 

The Redskins have been top 10 in defense in 5 of the last 9 seasons. Check out their record over that time.

 

2009 - 8-8

2008 - 8-8

2007 - 5-11

2005 - 6-10

2004 - 5-11

 

My point clearer now?

I see. Being 31th is never good.

[ALLEN1QB]

Not me I spend every pick on defense until we get it right!!! Sick and tired of watching every team carve us up.

[Juror#8]

And they got embarassed in one of them and sat down early in the playoffs numerous other years despite often having the better W-L record

 

There are also numerous other recent examples of teams with elite offense and poor defense who either got sent home early in the playoffs, or got blown out by a team with an inferior offense and a much stronger D.

2008 and 2009 'Zona Cardinals come to mind. It would appear that two-decade-old thinking is alive and well today

 

If you wish to argue otherwise, please supply facts not assertions.

We've already taken care of the Redskins "great" defense and the relatively meagre playoff success obtained by the Colts "every year in the playoffs" great offensive decade. If they'd built a decent D, they'd have SB rings on their thumbs.

Next?

 

Before I dig into your post, thanks for throwing the challenge out there and supplying some facts and info to back it up. I really do appreciate the discussion and respect the variety of opinions on the subject.

 

Now....

 

Please see my post above concerning the Redskins defense. My reference was to their defensive rank over the last decade - which has been good to excellent on average.

 

And how about those 2009-2010 Superbowl runner-up Colts. They lost to the Saints that year who in 2009, by the way, gave up 357 yards per game (25th in that category) and 20th in points per game surrendered.

 

They also put up 31 points in that Superbowl and had a prolific offense with playmakers and a stud QB.

 

And for those discussing the 2005 Steelers, they were 9th in points scored that year. They also had Hines Ward, Antoine Randall-El, Willie Parker, and Heath Miller. That was not a team devoid of playmakers.

 

And to your Cardinal point, they didn't get ran out of the building. They lost on a last second miracle throw by Big Ben. The Cardinals scored 25 points (if I remember correctly). Warner threw for almost 400 yards and 3 touchdowns. Big Ben threw for almost 275. Hardly a defensive struggle.

 

These are facts. That you don't like them doesn't make them any less of a fact. Just like it's a fact that the Redskins have been top 10 in defense 5 of the last 10 years.

 

Two-decade old thinking is just that. Old. Antequated. Archaic.

[TheBrownBear]

I like how some of these fools cite NE, GB and Indy as an example/template for why an "explosive" offense is the way to go. You do realize that those offenses are(were) so explosive for a certain reason, right? Maybe because they were led by three of the top five quarterbacks in NFL history.

[Juror#8]

I see. Being 31th is never good.

 

You did notice the point that when their defense was top-5/top-10, their overall record was patently unsuccessful.

 

Being top 10 defense for 5 out of 9 years is great. Period. They can have the 32nd ranking defense from now until 2050. That doesn't make their last 5-9 years any less great.

[PDaDdy]

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.

 

 

Did you watch the beginning of the season when we actually had healthy WRs? Currently the only guys we have left from when we started the season are #1 SJ, #6 David Nelson, #7 Brad Smith who is actually a QB and a bunch of bums off the street. Offense is NOT by any stretch of the imagination our biggest problem. Does it need to get better? Sure. We could use an actual #2 WR and some help on the o-line would be great.

 

That being said our defense is horrible. We get behind and the coaching staff thinks we need to throw the ball every down making us one dimensional which takes away from the running game which is a big strength for us.

[Juror#8]

I like how some of these fools cite NE, GB and Indy as an example/template for why an "explosive" offense is the way to go. You do realize that those offenses are(were) so explosive for a certain reason, right? Maybe because they were led by three of the top five quarterbacks in NFL history.

 

So....ummm...yea....well....maybe you missed my point. The point is that the acquisition of a stud QB, a strong offensive line, and accompanying playmakers should be the priority.

 

And Warner was certainly not top 5 in NFL history and he led a nice campaign in 1999. How about Cunningham the year before in Minnesota? As an aside, based on something Chris Carter said during a pre-game show, apparently this conversation would take place regularly on the 1998 Vikings sideline:

 

Randy Moss (paraphrasing): Just throw that m**herfu**er up and I'm gonna yoke on whoever is covering me. No m**herfu**er is gonna stop this show.

 

That is what this team needs. No wing-T. No 3 yards and a cloud of dust. No wasting half a decade to build some 400 lbs a piece defense line impenetrable force. We need folks who are gonna say: "We're gonna score points and we'll win because you can't keep up."

 

(Full disclosure: In fairness, the Falcons did end up stopping the show. But it took 30 points to accomplish that and the Vikings still scored 27).

Edited December 9, 2011 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

Did you watch the beginning of the season when we actually had healthy WRs? Currently the only guys we have left from when we started the season are #1 SJ, #6 David Nelson, #7 Brad Smith who is actually a QB and a bunch of bums off the street. Offense is NOT by any stretch of the imagination our biggest problem. Does it need to get better? Sure. We could use an actual #2 WR and some help on the o-line would be great.

 

That being said our defense is horrible. We get behind and the coaching staff thinks we need to throw the ball every down making us one dimensional which takes away from the running game which is a big strength for us.

 

O.k., I see your point. I give Stevie more credit than most. He is a solid receiver. What he lacks in speed he makes up for in precise route running. He's a keeper.

 

My point is that even without the injuries, I think the offense would have been figured out because we have no one who can run a flag pattern and, notwithstanding that, the jury is still out on whether or not Fitz could get it there even if we did.

 

Therefore, the offensive game plan was predicated on screens, slants and quick outs. Once receivers began jamming and not respecting any route over 10 yards, it was "game over."

 

I understand that offense is not our "biggest problem." But we should make it far and away our biggest strength - even it that means a slightly more slowly developed defense. We're looking at it differently. I think that we can win more games more quickly, have more excitement, more energy, and more recognition by streghtening the offensive line and infusing a ton of talent on the offensive side of the ball.

 

The defense will have to get brought along....ideally to become a formiddable force in time. I just want this team to be really good at something first. There is less guess work and more margin for error involved in making that "some thing" the offense.

 

And with respect to your hypothetical above, what if, once we were down because of a porous defense, we scored and had confidence that we could score almost at will - running game, passing game, etc. What if this team could score - like 1996 Florida Gators score - such that teams use their offense as a defense (to govern time of possession), change their special teams tactics, and make risky decisions despite where they are on the field just to avoid returning the ball to the Bills' offense.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Juror#8

[thewildrabbit]

I agree with the OP to a degree, except that this regime should have built the offense their first year!

Instead of building the O line into a big powerful great unit first thing, they tried to get by with 3 men on that line that should be back ups, if that. Nix brought in a complete waste at RT in Cornell Green. After Green was cut Nix had better luck pulling guys off the waiver wire then he did by giving Green 2 mill a year. Last year the offense alone could have helped win more then 4 games if they had built the line properly

 

Then this regime tried to build a 3-4 out of a 4-3 Tampa 2 scheme and has failed miseriably for 2 years now. Players that don't fit the scheme, a DC that doesn't have the required experience to set up a 3-4, call it and game plan it.

 

Chan Gailey is supposed to be a QB guru and an offensive wizard. From my perspective he really isn't very good except in the passing game. The problem with his offensive scheme is he relies on "smoke & mirrors" to deceive the opponent as his offense is a finesse quick short passing scheme.

 

The problem is this is the NFL, which equals Not For Long if you can't build a diverse offese. Once opponents shut down his short passing game by jamming the receivers at the line and disrupting the timing, the offense was figured out and exposed. Because Fitz has no time to throw 5-7 step drop passes because the line can't hold blocks longer then 3 seconds. This made Gaileys offense very one dimensional.

 

Two years wasted in my view.

 

Jauron had several 7-9 seasons, so far what has Gailey done in terms of wins...

[PDaDdy]

O.k., I see your point. I give Stevie more credit than most. Is a solid receiver. What he lacks in speed he makes up for in precise route running. He's a keeper.

 

My point is that even without the injuries, I think the offense would have been figured out because we have no one who can run a flag pattern and, notwithstanding that, the jury is still out on whether or not Fitz could get it there even if we did.

 

Therefore, the offensive game plan was predicated on screens, slants and quick outs. Once receivers began jamming and not respecting any route over 10 yards, it was "game over."

 

I understand that offense is not our "biggest problem." But we should make it far and away our biggest strength - even it that means a slightly more slowly developed defense. We're looking at it differently. I think that we can win more games more quickly, have more excitement, more energy, and more recognition by streghtening the offensive line and infusing a ton of talent on the offensive side of the ball.

 

The defense will have to get brought along....ideally to become a formiddable force in time. I just want this team to be really good at something first. There is less guess work and more margin for error involved in making that "some thing" the offense.

 

 

I hears ya. We have the need for speed. Instead we traded away Lee Evans(4.3), Roscoe Parrish(4.3) goes on IR every year and Marcus Easely(4.3) has yet to play a game for us if I am not mistaken due to injuries for the last 2 years. We need guys that can "go up top, 999". What we have right now are a bunch of guys we pulled off the street and SJ. NOT a recipe for success.

 

I have always been an offensive guy and I wouldn't hate it if we spent our #1 pick on a WR that could start and contribute day 1. I wouldn't be pissed if we got some real help on the oline. That all being said we need pass rushers in the WORST way. Some help stopping the run would be nice too. If our defense could prevent our offense from getting into a shootout we would force opposing offenses to throw the ball minimizing any weakness at run defense so I don't value it quite as highly.

[Juror#8]

I was referring to your sig line where you lay out a conversation we would have in which you describe how a cobra will ear rape someone or something like that. I don't know though, I lost interest halfway through and then Springer came on and I forgot all about it.

 

Why yes I have seen the Terminator and both sequels. Why do you ask?

 

 

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

 

I thought you were a fan of the Terminator.

[Mr. WEO]

You can say the Colts won the Superbowl.

 

You can also say that for a team that has been to the playoffs for 8 straight years before this year, their overall record is somewhat disappointing - 2 trips to the Superbowl, a Superbowl embarassment by the Saints, and 5 losses in the first game.

I think the point about quality defense being needed to build a consistent playoff WINNER is well-taken.

 

 

Perhaps, in regards to the Colts, for instance, that point bears scrutiny, not reapeating.

 

Since we are interjecting facts: The Colts D was 1 in points allowed in 2007, yet they went one and done in the playoffs. Same for 2005--they were #2 in points allowed and had a quick exit because the offense could only put up 18 points. In other elimination games, they have put up 17,16, 3, 0 and 17 points going back to 2000. The Colts have had plenty of decent to very good defenses. They haven't had good coaching in many years.

[Juror#8]

I hears ya. We have the need for speed. Instead we traded away Lee Evans(4.3), Roscoe Parrish(4.3) goes on IR every year and Marcus Easely(4.3) has yet to play a game for us if I am not mistaken due to injuries for the last 2 years. We need guys that can "go up top, 999". What we have right now are a bunch of guys we pulled off the street and SJ. NOT a recipe for success.

 

I have always been an offensive guy and I wouldn't hate it if we spent our #1 pick on a WR that could start and contribute day 1. I wouldn't be pissed if we got some real help on the oline. That all being said we need pass rushers in the WORST way. Some help stopping the run would be nice too. If our defense could prevent our offense from getting into a shootout we would force opposing offenses to throw the ball minimizing any weakness at run defense so I don't value it quite as highly.

 

I can definitely respect that there many different ways to build a team. One such way is in a balanced fashion adding pieces to the offense and to the defense so that both develop progressively into solid units.

 

My way is definitely unconventional. In a way though, my way is borne out of years of frustration with this team, and defensive mumbo jumbo that is thrown around to explain why some supposed defense star SUCKED!

 

Example: "Yea...he would be good in a 3-4, but not in a 4-3, unless he was an OLB in a 4-3, but we don't run that system and he is terrible in coverage, but we could still draft him, maintain the 3-4, and try to have him put on some weight OR we could overhaul our defensive system to fit his rush strengths but that leaves our NT on an island because he played really well at the zero technique adjacent to the nose guard so..."

 

Offense -

 

Coach: Are you accurate? Can you make a read? Do you have an arm? Are you fast? Are you physical? Can you run a route? Can you catch? Can you block? Do you know what a gap assignment is?

 

Player: Yep.

 

Coach: Welcome.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Juror#8

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Washington Redskins Defensive Rank:

 

2010 - 31th

2009 - 10th

2008 - 4th

2007 - 8th

2006 - 27th

2005 - 7th

2004 - 5th

2003 - 23rd

 

The Redskins have been top 10 in defense in 5 of the last 9 seasons. Check out their record over that time.

 

2009 - 8-8

2008 - 8-8

2007 - 5-11

2005 - 6-10

2004 - 5-11

 

My point clearer now?

 

Um, no actually. Should it be? I do appreciate you taking the time to provide some information, but it seems a little mixed up. (I prefer using scoring as a metric but the story is similar with yards)

 

In 2003, they sucked on both offense (22nd) and defense (24th) and finished 5-11. In 2004, better defense (5th) but no offense (31st) and had finished 6-10, not 5-11.

In 2005, the Redskins were 10-6 and went to the playoffs, not 6-10. They were 9th in both scoring and points - this would appear to correlate better defense, with making the playoffs, providing the other side of the ball exhibits minimal competence (is at least mediocre)

In 2006, they were 5-11 and sucked on both offense and defense. In 2007 (9-7) and 2008 (8-8), their defense improved and so did their record.

In 2009 and 2010, they were 18th and 21st in defensive scoring (I really don't like yards given up as the defensive metric), and they had losing seasons.

 

In summary, in the two seasons when the Redskins has both a top-10 defense and a mediocre (middle of the pack) offense, they had winning seasons and went to the playoffs.

The Bills currently appear to have a mediocre (middle-of-the-pack) offense.

This would appear to support the hypothesis that maintaining the quality of the offense, while building a decent defense would be the priority as a decent defense would also help the offense.

 

Returning to your original question "Why do some folks here want this team to be the Washington Redskins of the last decade - aka GREAT defense; Pathetic offense; Little success", your premise appears to be faulty:

I don't see how anyone can describe a team that has ranged between 5th and 27th in points given up (average of 16th) as having "GREAT defense" over the last decade (if you insist on yards, that would be range of 3rd to 31st with an average of 14th)

 

I would say this indicates that except in very special circumstances, a team needs both sides of the ball to be at least competent, and one or the other side to be good.

 

It is interesting as appearing to indicate the quality of a defense can vary wildly from year to year.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Perhaps, in regards to the Colts, for instance, that point bears scrutiny, not reapeating.

 

Since we are interjecting facts: The Colts D was 1 in points allowed in 2007, yet they went one and done in the playoffs. Same for 2005--they were #2 in points allowed and had a quick exit because the offense could only put up 18 points. In other elimination games, they have put up 17,16, 3, 0 and 17 points going back to 2000. The Colts have had plenty of decent to very good defenses. They haven't had good coaching in many years.

 

OK, I'll admit to oversimplifying. he other part of the picture, of course, is what killed the Bills in 4 superbowls - the quality of the opponent and the game plan. A truly dominant defense with a good game plan can stifle a finess offense on any given Sunday.

 

Curious about the coaching thing:

In 2006, the Colts won the Superbowl with Dungy. In 2007, the defense improved markedly - Dungy was still the coach - are you saying they lacked decent coaching with Dungy? (curious - I have liked Dungy as a coach from a distance, but really never scrutinized him)

Caldwell, I have no opinion of - I do have the opinion that the Colts overall team quality has been eroding over the years, leading to this years collapse.

 

Granted that the Colts have had several years of good defenses, albeit a top-10 defense in both points and yards given up only twice. I personally don't believe that teams win consistently without at least a mediocre or better defense.

A curious point is that the Colts often show a significant gap between rank by points and yards, which truly dominant, physical defenses don't - it usually indicates that a great offense is helping out the defense by keeping the ball out of the D's hands, and the D is not as good as their scoring rank would indicate.

[Mr. WEO]

OK, I'll admit to oversimplifying. he other part of the picture, of course, is what killed the Bills in 4 superbowls - the quality of the opponent and the game plan. A truly dominant defense with a good game plan can stifle a finess offense on any given Sunday.

 

Curious about the coaching thing:

In 2006, the Colts won the Superbowl with Dungy. In 2007, the defense improved markedly - Dungy was still the coach - are you saying they lacked decent coaching with Dungy? (curious - I have liked Dungy as a coach from a distance, but really never scrutinized him)

Caldwell, I have no opinion of - I do have the opinion that the Colts overall team quality has been eroding over the years, leading to this years collapse.

 

Granted that the Colts have had several years of good defenses, albeit a top-10 defense in both points and yards given up only twice. I personally don't believe that teams win consistently without at least a mediocre or better defense.

A curious point is that the Colts often show a significant gap between rank by points and yards, which truly dominant, physical defenses don't - it usually indicates that a great offense is helping out the defense by keeping the ball out of the D's hands, and the D is not as good as their scoring rank would indicate.

Absolutely--how else can you explain such a mediocre playoff history with such stacked teams.

 

Dungy was blessed with great players on both sides of the team for years. On offense, I can't name a team in the last 15 years that had, consistently, as much talent at all skill positions than the Colts. Yet only 1 SB win. He struggled against NE mightily. HE went one and done 4 times--in the Manning era! He lost in the playoffs to inferior teams. His prior team WON the SB as soon as he left!

 

That, to me, is sign of inadequate coaching.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[Juror#8]

Um, no actually. Should it be? I do appreciate you taking the time to provide some information, but it seems a little mixed up. (I prefer using scoring as a metric but the story is similar with yards)

 

In 2003, they sucked on both offense (22nd) and defense (24th) and finished 5-11. In 2004, better defense (5th) but no offense (31st) and had finished 6-10, not 5-11.

In 2005, the Redskins were 10-6 and went to the playoffs, not 6-10. They were 9th in both scoring and points - this would appear to correlate better defense, with making the playoffs, providing the other side of the ball exhibits minimal competence (is at least mediocre)

In 2006, they were 5-11 and sucked on both offense and defense. In 2007 (9-7) and 2008 (8-8), their defense improved and so did their record.

In 2009 and 2010, they were 18th and 21st in defensive scoring (I really don't like yards given up as the defensive metric), and they had losing seasons.

 

In summary, in the two seasons when the Redskins has both a top-10 defense and a mediocre (middle of the pack) offense, they had winning seasons and went to the playoffs.

The Bills currently appear to have a mediocre (middle-of-the-pack) offense.

This would appear to support the hypothesis that maintaining the quality of the offense, while building a decent defense would be the priority as a decent defense would also help the offense.

 

Returning to your original question "Why do some folks here want this team to be the Washington Redskins of the last decade - aka GREAT defense; Pathetic offense; Little success", your premise appears to be faulty:

I don't see how anyone can describe a team that has ranged between 5th and 27th in points given up (average of 16th) as having "GREAT defense" over the last decade (if you insist on yards, that would be range of 3rd to 31st with an average of 14th)

 

I would say this indicates that except in very special circumstances, a team needs both sides of the ball to be at least competent, and one or the other side to be good.

 

It is interesting as appearing to indicate the quality of a defense can vary wildly from year to year.

 

Please excuse my transposing of the one record.

 

Excellent points - especially the point about the Redskins' successes with top 10 defenses and middle-of-the-pack offenses. Though I still believe that I've thrown enough examples/metrics/scenarios out to support an approach to building a potent offense primarily, your post above is food for thought and has me thinking a bit more critically.

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, I think that the approach that Cincinnati has adopted is a refreshing one, and likely will be successful for them long term.

 

And despite the Colts' "one-and-done" playoff appearances, there is no denying that they have been one of the more successful franchises in modern history - and we're talking sustained success. They've done so with a keen eye towards offensive superiority and haven't been disuaded by very, very poor defenses at times.

 

Similarly, the Patriots seemed to have quietly transitioned to an "offense first" paradigm post 2006.

 

The year before Cincinatti's 12-4 year, in an interview with Chad Johnson, he said that they wanted to mimic the Colts' offense first philosophy, and both he and Carson Palmer had attended a Colts game or two...if I remember correctly.

 

Maybe, at the end of the day, it's a zero sum game. As I look at the numbers in a more detailed way, the successful teams, more often than not, have a Great offense or defense and are serviceable on the other side of the ball.

 

Maybe every other instance operates on the fringes comparatively (1999 Rams, 2000 Ravens, 2007 Colts). But with that said, it's difficult for me not to want to build from the offense out if only because it is easier to find talent that's plug-and-play on the offensive side of the ball.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Juror#8

[All_Pro_Bills]

Looking at the last 9 Super Bowl winners yields an interesting view.

 

2010 Green Bay - 10th in points scored and 2nd in points allowed.

2009 New Orleans - 1st in points scored and 20th in points allowed.

2008 Pittsburgh - 20th in points scored and 1st in points allowed.

2007 New York Giants - 14th in points scored and 17th in points allowed.

2006 Indianapolis - 2nd in points scored and 23rd in points allowed.

2005 Pittsburgh - 9th in points scored and 3rd in points allowed.

2004 New England - 4th in points scored and 2nd in points allowed.

2003 New England - 12th in points scored and 1st in points allowed.

2002 Tampa Bay - 18th in points scored and 1st in points allowed.

 

6 of the 9 SB champions had defenses ranked higher in points allowed (3 - 1st, 2 - 2nd, 1 - 3rd) vs. their offenses in points scored. To me this points to an element of truth in the saying 'defense wins championships'. Even looking at the losers all the teams, with the exception of Arizona in 2008 at 28th, had defenses in the top 10 in points allowed.

 

Only New Orleans with the #1 scoring offense in 2009 won the SB.

[NewEra]

1323279750[/url]' post='2330528']

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!

 

Ummm, the defense will get off the field. Then the offense comes on the field and drives down the field and scores a td. You can look at it the other way around too. If you're offense is constantly driving down the field scoring tds, the defense is on the field a lot less, allowing them to get fresh and not get tired. If you're offense is constantly going 3 and out, the defense is constantly on the field. Even if they're good, they're tired and susceptible to getting beat/breaking down/getting injured. The majority of the teams that win the super bowl nowadays have great offenses. Some have good defenses too. A couple have had great defenses with mediocre offenses. MOST have GREAT offenses. Its the truth. Over the last 25 years, the SB champs have averaged around 34 points in the super bowl. An AVERAGE of 34!!!! That's great offense.

[bowery4]

Run and gun offense means not having the ball in your offenses hands very long (in BB or FB)most teams play a very aggressive defense scheme to increase TOs and make it work. We need a stronger talent base on D to make that work for us, if we are to stay with Chan's scheme IMO