Building The Offense NOW should be the Focus and the Priority

[Delete This Account]

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?

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

 

jw

[Juror#8]

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

 

jw

 

I supplied some examples to the contrary. You don't agree. I can respect that. We can agree to disagree.

 

Back in 2005-2006, I was watching a Colts, Patriots game early in the season (if I remember correctly). The Colts had scored two touchdowns consecutively and weren't showing any signs of letting up offensively. The Colts' defense was characteristically opportunistic but poor overall - especially in the run game where their DLine was a sieve.

 

I saw something in that game that I had never seen before. Bill Belichick was scared. He was going for it on 4th down early in the game on his own side of the field and trying on-side kicks in the first half because he was afraid of giving the ball to the Colts. His defense - one of the most intelligently *schemed* defenses in a generation - didn't know how to stop the shear volume of playmakers that the Colts had.

 

The defenses on both sides were obsolete. The Colts didn't care, and the Patriots couldn't adjust. The Colts said "damn the torpedoes, try and keep up."

 

That was the best defensive performance that I've ever seen - making the other team so FEAR an unstoppable offense that they have to contrive a new game that throws field position, caution, and fundamentals to the wind.

 

The Patriots did the same thing within a couple of years. They wanted to keep pace with the Colts so that got Moss and Welker. They almost pulled off the greatest season in modern history. If they would have had a manageable OLine, they would have.

 

The Rams in 2000 would run up and down the field, scoring at will. I remember Issac Bruce and Azahir Hakim track sprinting and talking **** to one another as one would escort the other into the endzone cause there wasn't a single defender within 20 yards because they couldn't keep up.

 

People remember the Patriots' loss to the Giants in the '07 Superbowl. How about the 40 that the Patriots hung on them a couple of weeks before. Or the almost 30 they hung on the Ravens top ranked D. Or the almost double nickel that they hung on the Redskins 5th ranked D at the time.

 

Being able to score, in bunches and at will, is the best D in the NFL. If I'm wrong, tell me why.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Juror#8

[Delete This Account]

I supplied some examples to the contrary. You don't agree. I can respect that. We can agree to disagree.

 

Back in 2006, I was watching a Colts, Patriots game early in the season (if I remember correctly). The Colts had scored two touchdowns consecutively and weren't showing any signs of letting up offensively. The Colts' defense was characteristically opportunistic but poor overall - especially in the run game where their DLine was a sieve.

 

I saw something in that game that I had never seen before. Bill Belichick was scared. He was going for it on 4th down early in the game on his own side of the field and trying on-side kicks in the first half because he was afraid of giving the ball to the Colts. His defense - one of the most intelligently *schemed* defenses in a generation - didn't know how to stop the shear volume of playmakers that the Colts had.

 

The defenses on both sides were obsolete. The Colts didn't care, and the Patriots couldn't adjust. The Colts said "damn the torpedoes, try and keep up."

 

That was the best defensive performance that I've ever seen - that being FEAR of an unstoppable offense.

 

The Patriots did the same thing the next year. They wanted to keep pace with the Colts so that got Moss and Welker. They almost pulled of the greatest season in modern history. If they would have had a manageable OLine, they would have.

 

The Rams in 2000 would run up and down the field. I remember Issac Bruse and Azahir Hakim track sprinting and talking **** to one another as one would escort the other into the endzone cause there wasn't a single defender within 20 yards because they couldn't keep up.

 

People remember the Patriots' loss to the Giants in the '07 Superbowl. How about the 40 that the Patriots hung them a couple of weeks before. Or the almost 30 they hung on the Ravens top ranked D. Or the 52 they hung on the Redskins 5th ranked D at the time.

 

Being able to score, in bunches and at will, is the best D in the NFL. If I'm wrong, tell me why.

all of the defense you mention had more to them than the Bills currently have.

the Rams had a solid defensive backfield led by Aeneas Williams.

the Colts had both a pass-rush and solid linebacking depth from what i recall.

The Giants had a solid pass-rush.

 

i recall that Colts-Patriots game you referred to. The Pats were vulnerable that season because Belichick understood his defense could not keep up with the Colts.

and yet, let's remember, one of the most prolific offenses of this age or any -- the 2007 Patriots -- failed to go perfect.

 

all that said, the Bills defense as it stands right now, needs to be improved. and it needs to develop a pass-rush in order for this team to show it can become competitive.

 

jw

[It's in My Blood]

You do not need a dominant defense to win a championship, however, you need a defense to make the critical stops when the game is on the line, and the buffalo bills haven't done much of that at all this year. I do not believe that there is a set formula to win the superbowl , however, you need to be above average on 1 side of the ball and at least average on the other side.

[Juror#8]

all of the defense you mention had more to them than the Bills currently have.

the Rams had a solid defensive backfield led by Aeneas Williams.

the Colts had both a pass-rush and solid linebacking depth from what i recall.

The Giants had a solid pass-rush.

 

i recall that Colts-Patriots game you referred to. The Pats were vulnerable that season because Belichick understood his defense could not keep up with the Colts.

and yet, let's remember, one of the most prolific offenses of this age or any -- the 2007 Patriots -- failed to go perfect.

 

all that said, the Bills defense as it stands right now, needs to be improved. and it needs to develop a pass-rush in order for this team to show it can become competitive.

 

jw

 

That '06 Colts game always sticks out. I've never seen a team throw everything to the wind so early on (field position, caution, game-planning, etc.) because an opposing offense was that good.

 

I agree with you that we need a pash rusher....BAD! I guess that the crux of my point is, if it had to be one or the other, I'd rather have them hang their hat on a stellar offense. It seems that, in general, the offense can compensate for the defense better that the defense can compensate for the offense (at least in the contemporary NFL).

 

Good point about the 07 Superbowl. Patriots' line was fugged up at that point so my point still stands about a strong line AND playmakers. But the offense in that instance gave way to a strong D. Keep in mind though, the Patriots hung 40 on that same D a couple of weeks before.

 

You do not need a dominant defense to win a championship, however, you need a defense to make the critical stops when the game is on the line, and the buffalo bills haven't done much of that at all this year. I do not believe that there is a set formula to win the superbowl , however, you need to be above average on 1 side of the ball and at least average on the other side.

 

I'm just in the minority as wanting the "above average" to be the offensive side of the ball.

[RevWarRifleman]

Upper echalon playoff/super bowl teams have balanced teams. Strong defense & offense. A strong defense will get you into the playoffs faster, you start there. You build your offense as you go along. We don't have a "weak" offense. We DO have a weak defense. We also need to add depth on both sides of the ball. We need depth all around badly, and a few more play makers on both sides of the ball.

 

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

 

jw

 

Amen to that, jw.

[Cash]

I supplied some examples to the contrary. You don't agree. I can respect that. We can agree to disagree.

 

Back in 2005-2006, I was watching a Colts, Patriots game early in the season (if I remember correctly). The Colts had scored two touchdowns consecutively and weren't showing any signs of letting up offensively. The Colts' defense was characteristically opportunistic but poor overall - especially in the run game where their DLine was a sieve.

 

...

 

Being able to score, in bunches and at will, is the best D in the NFL. If I'm wrong, tell me why.

Your general point (bolded)is not wrong, but it seems to me like you're taking it to too much of an extreme. Your Colts example is a really good one -- they've never had what I'd call a classically good defense with Manning. But what they do have is Freeney and Mathis, which translates into a very nice pass rush. Their whole D is built to protect leads, and it does a pretty good job of that. Of course, when Manning goes down and you never get a lead, the D looks really really bad. Anyway, my point is that you need *something* on defense to complement your awesome offense if you want to go anywhere. The Packers D isn't great, but with Raji, Mathews, and Woodson, they've got playmakers who frequently make big game-changing plays (sacks/fumbles, big INTs, etc.).

 

I agree that an elite offense is a better goal to build towards than an elite defense, but my point is that an elite offense with NO defense will still be an also-ran. An elite offense with an average defense needs a little luck in the form of turnovers, but can definitely win it all, and should contend year after year.

[Juror#8]

Your general point (bolded)is not wrong, but it seems to me like you're taking it to too much of an extreme. Your Colts example is a really good one -- they've never had what I'd call a classically good defense with Manning. But what they do have is Freeney and Mathis, which translates into a very nice pass rush. Their whole D is built to protect leads, and it does a pretty good job of that. Of course, when Manning goes down and you never get a lead, the D looks really really bad. Anyway, my point is that you need *something* on defense to complement your awesome offense if you want to go anywhere. The Packers D isn't great, but with Raji, Mathews, and Woodson, they've got playmakers who frequently make big game-changing plays (sacks/fumbles, big INTs, etc.).

 

I agree that an elite offense is a better goal to build towards than an elite defense, but my point is that an elite offense with NO defense will still be an also-ran. An elite offense with an average defense needs a little luck in the form of turnovers, but can definitely win it all, and should contend year after year.

 

That's essentially my point. We spend so much time on these forums discussing this team's defensive deficiencies. It's frustrating, all the conversations here over the years that went thusly: "We need to draft Tyson Jackson, Gerald McCoy, Robert Ayers, Tyson Alulua, Aaron Curry, Terrance Cody, Glenn Dorsey, Derrick Harvey, Keith Rivers, Rolando McClain..."

 

Then the discussion after the fact is invariably: "They're too ______to play 3-4 OLB; they're more of a 4-3 DE - therefore we need to switch to a 4-3, or a hybrid 4-3/3-4 that takes advantages of ______, or we need to draft a bigger 3-4 DE or pass rushing OLB instead of the smaller coverage.......ad infinitum.....ad nauseum....."

 

And while we're trying to decipher nifty words like "tweener," "gazelle," "first step," and "high-motor," we're back to square !@#$ing 1 with players who suck because they didn't fit some nebulous concept of "system."

 

And what's the definition of "insanity" again?

 

I'm just looking at this straight Occam's razor. It is easier, less guess-work, greater margin for error, more simplified, etc. to draft people who can run fast, run a route, and catch a ball. Obviously a defense is necessary, and a good one would be ideal. But why not build a competent defense over time around a high-powered offense that is built more quickly and in a way that compensates for defense deficiencies by a shear imposition of will and PURE, UNSTOPPABLE, RELENTLESS, INEXORABLE, offensive output.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Juror#8

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

An offense will fill the seats and win seasonal games. Defenses win championships.

 

The Bills Defense is not good. The fact is that it needs to be better not matter how you want to spin it.

[Juror#8]

An offense will fill the seats and win seasonal games. Defenses win championships.

 

The Bills Defense is not good. The fact is that it needs to be better not matter how you want to spin it.

 

Man I'm not trying to spin anything. That is the point that I was trying to get to in post #28 and my post prior to that one.

 

Why does it "need to be better"? Because BillinNYC or someone else said so? Or because the stat sheet showed a lot of yards given up? Do you think that we need a better defense in order to win? Speaking of winning:

 

Q: How do you "win" a game?

A: By scoring more points than the opponent.

 

Game. Set. Match.

 

So, in a vaccuum, an offense can win a game independently, but a defense cannot (unless you're relying on pick 6s as your offensive output). You can win a game 55-50 but you can't win schit 0-0.

 

I understand that I'm bucking conventional wisdom here, but something has to give. I don't care what the usual talking heads of unbridled traditionalism say (some on this board fit that description btw). Those cats remind me of the indistinguishable faces following in line like sheep in that old (and very famous) Apple commercial where the lady throws the hammer at the monitor:

 

 

"GLORIOUS CONFORMITY, CONFORMITY, CONFORMITY!!!!!"

 

It's said over and over again...not because it's the ONLY way, but because it's A way; not because it necessarily works now, but because it worked before.

 

So why can't we have a mediocre defense and an unstoppable offense? Let me guess, because "it's just not done that way" right (GLORIOUS CONFORMITY!)? Well, a decade plus of doltishness and losing is not done too often either but it happened.

 

We've sucked trying it everyone else's way. How about something different?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Juror#8

[T master]

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 just read a post on PPF that the Bills O line was ranked at #4 in the league so the jump from last year to this is pretty good . Then you put in the mix Jasper having a year to develop on the practice squad & with the admirable job the guys have done since they put Levetrie back at his normal spot i think the O line is less of a worry than it was & Nix & Gailey can focus on other areas of need on the team .

 

Pass rush is a huge need ! With the attention that Merriman demanded just being on the field our D was much better at the beginning of the year when he went down they suffered but when Williams went done our D was half of what it was . If we can add a few more players in the draft this year to replace Mcgee cause he's seen his last game as a Bill & bring in a true deep threat & hopefully get Parrish back & keep him healthy i think the upturn next year will be very noticeable !

 

But try to tell that to our fan base & making them be patient is like telling a elephant to wait to start eating a pile of peanuts !!

[Cash]

Man I'm not trying to spin anything. That is the point that I was trying to get to in post #28 and my post prior to that one.

 

Why does it "need to be better"? Because BillinNYC or someone else said so? Or because the stat sheet showed a lot of yards given up? Do you think that we need a better defense in order to win? Speaking of winning:

 

Q: How do you "win" a game?

A: By scoring more points than the opponent.

 

Game. Set. Match.

 

So, in a vaccuum, an offense can win a game independently, but a defense cannot (unless you're relying on pick 6s as your offensive output). You can win a game 55-50 but you can't win schit 0-0.

Again, I think you're going too far here. This logic is kind of BS. If your defense is bad enough, it'll give up a TD on every possession. Which is better, your ridiculous hypothetical of a 0-0 tie every game or my ridiculous hypothetical of a 56-56 OT game where the coin flip truly decides the winner? Both.

 

Your Q&A is absolutely correct, and something that is sometimes underplayed. The ONLY way to win is to finish the game with more points than your opponent. That means you want to score points for yourself, and prevent your opponent from scoring points. A top 5 offense combined with a bottom 5 defense will probably net you about a 9-7 or 8-8 record. Suggesting that our legitimately bad defense should be ignored is just silly.

 

I think you make a good point if you stay away from the hyperbole. I'm also not super fond of the old-school/contrarian fans who insist that winning games 13-7 is 1.) the perfect recipe for sustained success, and 2.) the pinnacle of entertaining football. There's probably a lot of overlap between these fans and the "bigger is always better" crowd, who constantly demand increased size as a panacea for the O-line and defensive front 7, even though our biggest problem on run D is playing a DT/DE hybrid at OLB. (Seriously, re-watch the Jets game. Almost every good run of the Jets happened because Spencer Johnson is way too slow to play LB, both physically and instinctively. A healthy Kelsay isn't as bad, but still woefully out of position. Replace that guy with a real NFL OLB and you'll see leaps and bounds in the run D. But I digress.)

[BiggieScooby]

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 & 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers (Big Ben was terrible in SB) 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.

[Mr. WEO]

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....

 

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

 

Who was the playmaker we drafted in 2010?

[Juror#8]

Again, I think you're going too far here. This logic is kind of BS. If your defense is bad enough, it'll give up a TD on every possession. Which is better, your ridiculous hypothetical of a 0-0 tie every game or my ridiculous hypothetical of a 56-56 OT game where the coin flip truly decides the winner? Both.

 

Your Q&A is absolutely correct, and something that is sometimes underplayed. The ONLY way to win is to finish the game with more points than your opponent. That means you want to score points for yourself, and prevent your opponent from scoring points. A top 5 offense combined with a bottom 5 defense will probably net you about a 9-7 or 8-8 record. Suggesting that our legitimately bad defense should be ignored is just silly.

 

I think you make a good point if you stay away from the hyperbole. I'm also not super fond of the old-school/contrarian fans who insist that winning games 13-7 is 1.) the perfect recipe for sustained success, and 2.) the pinnacle of entertaining football. There's probably a lot of overlap between these fans and the "bigger is always better" crowd, who constantly demand increased size as a panacea for the O-line and defensive front 7, even though our biggest problem on run D is playing a DT/DE hybrid at OLB. (Seriously, re-watch the Jets game. Almost every good run of the Jets happened because Spencer Johnson is way too slow to play LB, both physically and instinctively. A healthy Kelsay isn't as bad, but still woefully out of position. Replace that guy with a real NFL OLB and you'll see leaps and bounds in the run D. But I digress.)

 

You make some excellent points.

 

Hyperbole aside, I believe that we can build a better team FASTER in today's NFL by focusing on an electric offense, and building an average/good defense through solid second-fourth round selections. I don't care about giving up 25 points a game if we can score 40. I like the "try and keep up" approach. I just think it's easier to score points than it is to prevent the opposing team from scoring. In the era of free agency and NFL parity, it's difficult to excel in both capacities. So I'd rather the Bills hang their hat on the offense and build a serviceable defense through multiple mid-round draft selections.

 

Admittedly, I'm discussing the extreme end of the spectrum with the "0-0" tie concept(i.e., a fantastic defense, and a woeful offense). I'm moreso trying to point out that a defense cannot be reliably expected to score points...even the best defense. The calculated objective of any defense is to prevent the opposing offense's movement; whereas the calculated objective of any offense is to move in a forwardly direction and score.

 

Which one, in a vaccum, and by definition, can win a game independent of the other?

 

I understand that there are infinite other considerations. I also understand (as I've said in previous posts) that having a good defense is not only ideal, but should be the goal of any team building initiative. My title, and some of my examples are hyperbolic...but purposefully. I really want an exciting, and successful team in Buffalo. I've been a Bils fan for 25 years. I've listened to people here pine for defensive players who didn't work out - Rolando McClain, Aaron Curry, Tyson Alulua, etc.

 

Many of those same folks are the voices who trumpet loudly that: "you don't draft a wide receiver at ____," "don't take a QB in the first when you have so many holes on the defense," - and then the next day Dez Bryant, AJ Green, Calvin Johnson or whomever light us up for a buck twenty and two scores. The invariable response then is "well, if we had pass rushers, the QB wouldn't have been able to throw those 7, 8 , and 9 routes."

 

Noooooo....instead, they would just punish us with slant 5s, crossing patterns, out routes, and screens - like New England has for 4 years. I've brought this exact point up to BillinNYC and some other folks and STILL haven't heard a satisfactory response. Methinks that they'd be forced to re-examine their loyalities when faced with the realities of the current NFL and why do that when they can just ignore the new guy.

 

Take Cincinatti as an example. They've been bad longer than we have. They have focused their last 3 first round draft picks to offense (TE, OT, WR, QB). They've let go of Palmer, Houshmandsadeh, and Ocho Cinco - and revamped with Gresham, Dalton, and Green.

 

If that would have been Buffalo's draft history, some fans here (the "contrarian/old school" fans) would be CRYING and waxing poetically about "conspiracy to fill seats and sell tickets," and "we can't keep back-filling positions where we had solid talent and expect to win," and "relegating defense to second and third round selections is not gonna get us anywhere..." blah, blah, blah.

 

The only issue is, Cincinatti is headed in the right direction, we're not.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Juror#8

[Jauronimo]

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.

Why would someone with such a masterful command of the English language settle on such an obnoxious title? You seem to imply that in order to attract the attention of all us low brow slobs and vulgarians here at TBD, that a title must have a certain Jerry Springer-like quality, else our fleeting attention spans will lead us to another thread.

 

Also, why are you fantasizing about discussing cars with me?

[Juror#8]

Why would someone with such a masterful command of the English language settle on such an obnoxious title? You seem to imply that in order to attract the attention of all us low brow slobs and vulgarians here at TBD, that a title must have a certain Jerry Springer-like quality, else our fleeting attention spans will lead us to another thread.

 

Also, why are you fantasizing about discussing cars with me?

 

I changed the title dammit!

 

I'd rather the discussion be around the points I've made and the excellent points that others have brought to this discussion instead of the [admittedly] inflammatory title.

 

I don't know about "masterful." I still end sentences with prepositions just like everyone other normal English speaker.

 

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

[Adam]

I think the offense vs defense argument is tired and old. Get as many playmakers as possible and you will win.

[RuntheDamnBall]

The problem, to me, is that there are several volumes on how to beat the Bills with your offense. One is with relentless slants and screens, another is to run on them once the injuries hit, because depth is a problem. Yet another is to attack the CBs who won't make a play on the ball (McKelvin) or the inexperienced guys.

 

In essence, the problem is that there are far too many variables right now to assess why this defense is underperforming. It's a combination of:

1) not enough talent in some positions

2) poor coaching and assignments

3) inexperience, which means that #1 could improve, or... it might not improve.

4) poor depth

 

The offense isn't looking great right now but I think getting #1 center back, addressing OL depth, and picking up a couple of receivers will have them back in business. Give Fitz time and a few more reliable targets and it should get back to what it was in the early weeks of the season. The defense looks like a bigger problem to me. It doesn't matter how good your offense is if you can't stop the other team. The Bills will not be winning track meets for a long time, IMO.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

 

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.