KurtGodel77 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Our defense put up pretty numbers against lousy offenses hampered by bad conditions. Any time you play the likes of Cleveland and San Francisco, your defensive stats will look good. But look at the way the defense performed in our losses: - Against Jacksonville and the Jets, the defense allowed a game-winning drive late in the fourth quarter - The defense allowed New England to score 24 points in our first meeting, and suffered a complete collapse the second time the two teams played. - The defense allowed a back-breaking nine minute drive to Pittsburgh. Prior to that drive, the time of possession for both teams was about equal. The defense gets 100% of the blame for that drive. That leaves just two losses--Baltimore and Oakland--in which the defense wasn't part of the problem. Neither of those teams are exactly known for having a great offense. This defense is good enough to get by with. But it's not good enough to carry the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 That leaves just two losses--Baltimore and Oakland--in which the defense wasn't part of the problem. Neither of those teams are exactly known for having a great offense. This defense is good enough to get by with. But it's not good enough to carry the team. True, but as with the argument WRT Bledsoe, the defense shouldn't be EXPECTED to carry the team by itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
envirojeff Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Our defense put up pretty numbers against lousy offenses hampered by bad conditions. Any time you play the likes of Cleveland and San Francisco, your defensive stats will look good. But look at the way the defense performed in our losses: - Against Jacksonville and the Jets, the defense allowed a game-winning drive late in the fourth quarter - The defense allowed New England to score 24 points in our first meeting, and suffered a complete collapse the second time the two teams played. - The defense allowed a back-breaking nine minute drive to Pittsburgh. Prior to that drive, the time of possession for both teams was about equal. The defense gets 100% of the blame for that drive. That leaves just two losses--Baltimore and Oakland--in which the defense wasn't part of the problem. Neither of those teams are exactly known for having a great offense. This defense is good enough to get by with. But it's not good enough to carry the team. 200605[/snapback] ICE is that you? Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffan00 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Our defense put up pretty numbers against lousy offenses hampered by bad conditions. Any time you play the likes of Cleveland and San Francisco, your defensive stats will look good. But look at the way the defense performed in our losses: - Against Jacksonville and the Jets, the defense allowed a game-winning drive late in the fourth quarter - The defense allowed New England to score 24 points in our first meeting, and suffered a complete collapse the second time the two teams played. - The defense allowed a back-breaking nine minute drive to Pittsburgh. Prior to that drive, the time of possession for both teams was about equal. The defense gets 100% of the blame for that drive. That leaves just two losses--Baltimore and Oakland--in which the defense wasn't part of the problem. Neither of those teams are exactly known for having a great offense. This defense is good enough to get by with. But it's not good enough to carry the team. 200605[/snapback] Yawn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Before you go bad-mouthing the defense much more, let's just say that the defense does a pretty fine job for the most part. I was pretty hot at the defense for screwing up the JAX game, but you have to consider that the defense held JAX to a grand total of 6 points the entire game right up until the final drive. That's pretty damn good. had the offense been able to pull their heads out of their asses any time before that, a final TD wouldn't have mattered. Same goes, to a degree, in the PIT game. Granted, the defense hadn't done an outstanding job to that point, but not bad. The defense didn't give PIT 7 points on a turnover, and the other times we gave them the ball deep in our territory, they held PIT to field goals. Again, had the offense pulled their heads out of their asses any time before that, we wouldn't have needed such a dramatic effort at the end to win it. Similar story against the Jets. I'm not going to counter the fact that we needed defensive stops late in those games and couldn't get them when it counted. The defense did really let us down at those times. All I'm saying is that if we had any semblance of offensive adeptness in any of those games, otherwise sound defensive showings wouldn't be overshadowed by the late-game deficiencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Actually, the Dee does carry the team. The only problem is that it carries it to 9-7, not 11-5. IMO, we have a top 5 defense & I don't think anyone can reasonable argue that it's less than top 10. That's good enough to make the playoffs. (12 teams make it. It's arguable that the top 12 don't.) Our offense is maybe bottom 5, or at best is still in the bottom 1/2 of the league. That's not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Being in the top 5 in virtually all measureable categories that a defense can have over the course of a 16 game season simply cannot be very misleading, no matter how you look at it. Your argument would have been met with a lot more approval last season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 Being in the top 5 in virtually all measureable categories that a defense can have over the course of a 16 game season simply cannot be very misleading, no matter how you look at it. Your argument would have been met with a lot more approval last season 200644[/snapback] That all depends on which teams our defense is putting those numbers up against. When our defense plays a bad offense, the defense makes them look really bad. But when the defense plays a good offense; said offense will still look like a good offense. Take the Cincinnati game, where they kept putting yards up against us. A few big plays by our guys/mistakes by Kitna and co. really helped bail us out of what would otherwise have been a dismal defensive effort. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single case where our defense shut down a top-ten offense. Even the Jacksonville game is a good example of this, because Jacksonville's offense wasn't all that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 Actually, the Dee does carry the team. The only problem is that it carries it to 9-7, not 11-5. IMO, we have a top 5 defense & I don't think anyone can reasonable argue that it's less than top 10. That's good enough to make the playoffs. (12 teams make it. It's arguable that the top 12 don't.)Our offense is maybe bottom 5, or at best is still in the bottom 1/2 of the league. That's not good enough. 200641[/snapback] An elite defense can carry the team to a Super Bowl win; as Baltimore proved in 2000. Our defense is good enough to dominate against flawed offenses, and to carry us to a 9-7 record. You have to have some aspect of your team be elite to win the Super Bowl. Unless we make serious upgrades to our defense, our eliteness will have to come from some other area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 Before you go bad-mouthing the defense much more, let's just say that the defense does a pretty fine job for the most part. I was pretty hot at the defense for screwing up the JAX game, but you have to consider that the defense held JAX to a grand total of 6 points the entire game right up until the final drive. That's pretty damn good. had the offense been able to pull their heads out of their asses any time before that, a final TD wouldn't have mattered. Same goes, to a degree, in the PIT game. Granted, the defense hadn't done an outstanding job to that point, but not bad. The defense didn't give PIT 7 points on a turnover, and the other times we gave them the ball deep in our territory, they held PIT to field goals. Again, had the offense pulled their heads out of their asses any time before that, we wouldn't have needed such a dramatic effort at the end to win it. Similar story against the Jets. I'm not going to counter the fact that we needed defensive stops late in those games and couldn't get them when it counted. The defense did really let us down at those times. All I'm saying is that if we had any semblance of offensive adeptness in any of those games, otherwise sound defensive showings wouldn't be overshadowed by the late-game deficiencies. 200637[/snapback] There is NO excuse for the defense to give up a nine minute drive. None. That drive hurt us more than the INT for the TD; and FAR more than the missed field goal. I've heard that the field goal caused the team to become disspirited; to lose hope. What a joke! If those guys don't have the mental toughness to keep playing after a missed FG, imagine how they'd respond to being down 35-3 after your QB threw an INT for a TD to start the second half! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 That all depends on which teams our defense is putting those numbers up against. When our defense plays a bad offense, the defense makes them look really bad. But when the defense plays a good offense; said offense will still look like a good offense. Take the Cincinnati game, where they kept putting yards up against us. A few big plays by our guys/mistakes by Kitna and co. really helped bail us out of what would otherwise have been a dismal defensive effort. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single case where our defense shut down a top-ten offense. Even the Jacksonville game is a good example of this, because Jacksonville's offense wasn't all that good. 200679[/snapback] Thats funny I was going to cite the Cincy game as an example of the opposite. Look a little closer and you'll see that their passing game was completely and utterly shut down. Kitna had plenty of experience in the offense not to be used as an excuse. The week before , that offense amassed over 430 yards vs. Baltimore, a dominant defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Our defense put up pretty numbers against lousy offenses hampered by bad conditions. Any time you play the likes of Cleveland and San Francisco, your defensive stats will look good. But look at the way the defense performed in our losses: - Against Jacksonville and the Jets, the defense allowed a game-winning drive late in the fourth quarter - The defense allowed New England to score 24 points in our first meeting, and suffered a complete collapse the second time the two teams played. - The defense allowed a back-breaking nine minute drive to Pittsburgh. Prior to that drive, the time of possession for both teams was about equal. The defense gets 100% of the blame for that drive. That leaves just two losses--Baltimore and Oakland--in which the defense wasn't part of the problem. Neither of those teams are exactly known for having a great offense. This defense is good enough to get by with. But it's not good enough to carry the team. 200605[/snapback] I think one of the reasons why the defense has a problem holding teams on final drives is its gambling nature. I think sometimes the team blitzes a little too much especially on crucial situations. A big-time pass-rusher opposite Schobel could make a big difference in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Does anyone have the 3rd Conversation Ratio against the Bills' D. I don't remember it being one of the best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Does anyone have the 3rd Conversation Ratio against the Bills' D. I don't remember it being one of the best... 200797[/snapback] you are right. I believe it was 13th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZC-Boston Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Our defense put up pretty numbers against lousy offenses hampered by bad conditions. Any time you play the likes of Cleveland and San Francisco, your defensive stats will look good. But look at the way the defense performed in our losses: - Against Jacksonville and the Jets, the defense allowed a game-winning drive late in the fourth quarter - The defense allowed New England to score 24 points in our first meeting, and suffered a complete collapse the second time the two teams played. - The defense allowed a back-breaking nine minute drive to Pittsburgh. Prior to that drive, the time of possession for both teams was about equal. The defense gets 100% of the blame for that drive. That leaves just two losses--Baltimore and Oakland--in which the defense wasn't part of the problem. Neither of those teams are exactly known for having a great offense. This defense is good enough to get by with. But it's not good enough to carry the team. 200605[/snapback] I agree, spank the weak teams, fold against the strong ones or when it counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 There is NO excuse for the defense to give up a nine minute drive. None. That drive hurt us more than the INT for the TD; and FAR more than the missed field goal. I've heard that the field goal caused the team to become disspirited; to lose hope. What a joke! If those guys don't have the mental toughness to keep playing after a missed FG, imagine how they'd respond to being down 35-3 after your QB threw an INT for a TD to start the second half! Would surrendering a TD in 3 plays be preferable to having them take 9 minutes to score a FG? Guys on the other side of the ball get paid, too. Again, I'm not claiming the Dee is infallible, but I think the primary problem is in the offense's ineptitude. Taking the Pitt game as an example, the Dee surrendered like 260 yards and a net of 9 points (They scored a TD & 2x took the field w/ Pitt already in FG position.) That sort of production should win you the majority of your games. Our offense produced a net of 10 points. (2 TDs scored, 1 surrendered. 2 drives into FG range (1 missed), and they surrendered the ball one time on a INT deep in our territory). Most times when you only produce 10 points, you lose. I think similar examples can be made in other games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Let me respond to each item one by one. - Against Jacksonville and the Jets, the defense allowed a game-winning drive late in the fourth quarter This is true... But for 3+ quarters the offense had done NOTHING. The defense was understandably out of gas for that final drive. Yes, the 1985 Bears defense would have found a way to preserve the win, but no one is arguing that the Bills D is THAT elite. - The defense allowed New England to score 24 points in our first meeting, and suffered a complete collapse the second time the two teams played. Recall that Terence McGee was pressed into action for the first time in that game when Troy Vincent went out. That left just one quality starter in the secondary (Nate Clements) as Milloy was out too. Suffice to say that a QB of Tom Brady's cailber was set to have a field day under such conditions -- and giving up 24 isn't THAT bad considering such circumstances. Regarding the second game, you are right. It was a team-wide collapse against the defending Super Bowl Champs on the road in primetime against a team that seems to have our number. - The defense allowed a back-breaking nine minute drive to Pittsburgh. Prior to that drive, the time of possession for both teams was about equal. The defense gets 100% of the blame for that drive. Can't argue here... Again, this was an example of another game when NOTHING went right. Those types of days occur a few times a year, which is why NO TEAM has gone undefeated in the modern era. -- That leaves just two losses--Baltimore and Oakland--in which the defense wasn't part of the problem. Neither of those teams are exactly known for having a great offense. This defense is good enough to get by with. But it's not good enough to carry the team. I disagree about the Raiders. They were a much different team with Rich Gannon in there. In fact, the week before he had led them to 21 points on the road against the Steelers. Holding them to just 13 in Oakland was quality. As for the Ravens game, the defense can be blamed for 10 points. The other 10 game DIRECTLY from turnovers. The old rule is that if the offense can score 17 -- and not turn over the ball, a good defense will ensure a victory. If the offense could have lived up to their end of the bargain each time out, the team would have gone 13-3. 'Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I agree, spank the weak teams, fold against the strong ones or when it counts. 200802[/snapback] Well I guess some fan expectations have come to exceed the possibilities that exist within reality. To agree with a measuring stick statement like " merely good enough to get by with" regarding this Bills 2004 defense is simply beyond me, whether looking statistically, visually, or any other way re: this defense. Unless the team that wins the Superbowl is Pittsburgh, that team will have an inferior defense to ours, any way you slice it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 Let me respond to each item one by one. - Against Jacksonville and the Jets, the defense allowed a game-winning drive late in the fourth quarter This is true... But for 3+ quarters the offense had done NOTHING. The defense was understandably out of gas for that final drive. Yes, the 1985 Bears defense would have found a way to preserve the win, but no one is arguing that the Bills D is THAT elite. Those two examples underscore a lack of depth at some defensive positions. If you have the depth to keep rotating players, the defense shouldn't get tired no matter how little the offense does. - The defense allowed New England to score 24 points in our first meeting, and suffered a complete collapse the second time the two teams played. Recall that Terence McGee was pressed into action for the first time in that game when Troy Vincent went out. That left just one quality starter in the secondary (Nate Clements) as Milloy was out too. Suffice to say that a QB of Tom Brady's cailber was set to have a field day under such conditions -- and giving up 24 isn't THAT bad considering such circumstances. Again, this shows a lack of depth in the secondary. Things are better now because of the emergence of McGee and Baker. But it's still a weakness. Practically the whole Patriots secondary went down to injury, and you didn't see them being walked on, did you? - The defense allowed a back-breaking nine minute drive to Pittsburgh. Prior to that drive, the time of possession for both teams was about equal. The defense gets 100% of the blame for that drive. Can't argue here... Again, this was an example of another game when NOTHING went right. Those types of days occur a few times a year, which is why NO TEAM has gone undefeated in the modern era. Yeah, but an elite defense generally doesn't let stuff like that happen in must-win games. -- That leaves just two losses--Baltimore and Oakland--in which the defense wasn't part of the problem. Neither of those teams are exactly known for having a great offense. This defense is good enough to get by with. But it's not good enough to carry the team. I disagree about the Raiders. They were a much different team with Rich Gannon in there. In fact, the week before he had led them to 21 points on the road against the Steelers. Holding them to just 13 in Oakland was quality. As for the Ravens game, the defense can be blamed for 10 points. The other 10 game DIRECTLY from turnovers. That was just one game. Over the course of the year, the Raiders seemed like they were more than just a QB away from being a good offense. Look at the way Jerry Rice failed to contribute. Other than Porter, what receiving threats do they really have? The old rule is that if the offense can score 17 -- and not turn over the ball, a good defense will ensure a victory. If the offense could have lived up to their end of the bargain each time out, the team would have gone 13-3. 'Nuff said. 200839[/snapback] There were games when the offense bailed out the defense, like the Miami game. The defense allowed 21 points in the first quarter to a team without an offense. I'd also argue that Pittsburgh's nine minute drive hurt us more than a quick TD would have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 Would surrendering a TD in 3 plays be preferable to having them take 9 minutes to score a FG? 200818[/snapback] Yes. I still remember that 15 minute drive the Giants had against us in our first Super Bowl. Even though that drive resulted in a field goal only, it won them the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts