KurtGodel77 Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 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. 200794[/snapback] Agreed. We are two DEs, an OLB, a shutdown corner, and a defensive coordinator away from having an elite defense. Jerry Gray is a good coordinator, but to be elite he'd have to hold his own against Charlie Weis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 If our defense needs as you suggest serious upgrades, then we'll never win the Super Bowl. First off, you can not afford to have both an elite offense and defense in the age of salary cap. You also can't afford superstars at every position. Assuming Pat Williams re-signs, there isn't much to do different other than giving T McGee another year of experience, and maybe pick up a backup def-end who's a pass rushing expert. Secondly, if we need to make a bunch of changes on the D, they will again likely take over a year to jell. By that time holes will be showing up elsewhere. Third, if our defense is so bad, what about Pitt? 7 out of the 16 games we played were against the same teams as Pitt played. So if our defense was over rated cause they played weak opponents, same could be said for Pitt too. And New England played 14 of the 16 games against the same teams. If the biggest problem this team had to worry about was the D, we'd be in great shape! 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. 200683[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 If our defense needs as you suggest serious upgrades, then we'll never win the Super Bowl. First off, you can not afford to have both an elite offense and defense in the age of salary cap. You also can't afford superstars at every position. Assuming Pat Williams re-signs, there isn't much to do different other than giving T McGee another year of experience, and maybe pick up a backup def-end who's a pass rushing expert. Secondly, if we need to make a bunch of changes on the D, they will again likely take over a year to jell. By that time holes will be showing up elsewhere. Third, if our defense is so bad, what about Pitt? 7 out of the 16 games we played were against the same teams as Pitt played. So if our defense was over rated cause they played weak opponents, same could be said for Pitt too. And New England played 14 of the 16 games against the same teams. If the biggest problem this team had to worry about was the D, we'd be in great shape! 200898[/snapback] I'm just saying that if you want to win the Super Bowl, you have to make sure that at least one element of your team is dominant. Our defense is good, but it would need the upgrades I suggested to be elite. I agree that the upgrades I suggested would be very difficult under the salary cap. So it might make more sense to look at making some aspect of the offense dominant. We already have the right RB for a dominant running game, but we'd have to replace our C and LG if we plan to do to others what Pittsburgh did to us. A run-blocking TE would also help, but we may already have him on the roster in the form of Jason Peters. Or we could have a dominant passing game. The offensive line does a pretty good job at pass protection, so our major tasks would be to re-sign Jennings, find a good third receiver, upgrade the QB spot, and upgrade the possession receiver. Moulds is not in the same class as Jerry Rice back when the '49ers had a dominant passing game, nor is he in the same class as Marvin Harrison today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Our offense is overrated if anything! I would suggest that our defense played out 14 wins this season. They lost to New Englands 2nd game and our final game at Pittsburgh. Our offense is responsible for the other 5 losses (and a part in the other 2 losses). To suggest that we have a sub par defense otherwise is unfounded. The loss at Jacksonville is a prime example. Granted Clements and the rest of the defense allowed an unlikely TD drive at the close of the game, but if the offense had been able to do ANYTHING in that game we might be talking about how the Bills faired against the Colts this weekend instead of what is wrong with our defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Our offense is overrated if anything! I would suggest that our defense played out 14 wins this season. They lost to New Englands 2nd game and our final game at Pittsburgh. Our offense is responsible for the other 5 losses (and a part in the other 2 losses). To suggest that we have a sub par defense otherwise is unfounded. The loss at Jacksonville is a prime example. Granted Clements and the rest of the defense allowed an unlikely TD drive at the close of the game, but if the offense had been able to do ANYTHING in that game we might be talking about how the Bills faired against the Colts this weekend instead of what is wrong with our defense. 201060[/snapback] How can our offense be overrated when it gets so little respect? There are good elements of the offense: we allowed just 15 sacks in the last 10 games, despite having an immoble QB who takes too long in the pocket and doesn't sense pressure. We have a top-10 (possibly top-5) RB in McGahee. We have one of the best deep burners in the league in the form of Lee Evans. Right now, the offense is less than the sum of its parts because of various weaknesses. But with some improvement, it could really be something. As for the defense: the defense played badly enough to lose in the Miami away game, and the offense bailed them out. The defense played badly enough to lose in BOTH New England games; and we lost both games. The defense allowed that nine minute drive to Pittsburgh, so the defense is as responsible for the loss as anyone. That was about 1/6 of the game just for one Pittsburgh drive. It would have been more had the Bills not burned their timeouts. And however well the defense played in the bulk of the Jets and Jaguars games, the fact remains they broke down at the end when they knew the game was on the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Agreed. We are two DEs, an OLB, a shutdown corner, and a defensive coordinator away from having an elite defense. Jerry Gray is a good coordinator, but to be elite he'd have to hold his own against Charlie Weis. 200888[/snapback] You're just wrong. Check out the weighted stats at www.footballoutsiders.com . Our D was actually ranked #1 overall, taking into account strength of schedule. I will continue to be a One-Note Willie around here until more people appreciate this fact. The numbers don't lie - our D dominated against bad offenses, and did well enough against good offenses to justify a #1 ranking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 How can our offense be overrated when it gets so little respect? There are good elements of the offense: we allowed just 15 sacks in the last 10 games, despite having an immoble QB who takes too long in the pocket and doesn't sense pressure. We have a top-10 (possibly top-5) RB in McGahee. We have one of the best deep burners in the league in the form of Lee Evans. Right now, the offense is less than the sum of its parts because of various weaknesses. But with some improvement, it could really be something. As for the defense: the defense played badly enough to lose in the Miami away game, and the offense bailed them out. The defense played badly enough to lose in BOTH New England games; and we lost both games. The defense allowed that nine minute drive to Pittsburgh, so the defense is as responsible for the loss as anyone. That was about 1/6 of the game just for one Pittsburgh drive. It would have been more had the Bills not burned their timeouts. And however well the defense played in the bulk of the Jets and Jaguars games, the fact remains they broke down at the end when they knew the game was on the line. 201067[/snapback] BF I have to disagree. Our offense didn't produce jack sh-- during the 2nd half of the season, except as a major contributor for the Miami game. THEY cost us the Jacksonville, Oakland, 1st NYJ, 1st NE and the Baltimore games. The biggest factors in our end of season run was our defense and special teams. We didn't go on that run because our offense suddenly took control and proved itself as a capable and effective offense. We won in spite of the offense. It was Special Teams and Defense that won most of those games. I'm not trying to take away anything from impact that McGahee, Evans and the OL had in that run, but there is NOWAY their effect was the same if we didn't have such an excellent defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 You're just wrong. Check out the weighted stats at www.footballoutsiders.com . Our D was actually ranked #1 overall, taking into account strength of schedule. I will continue to be a One-Note Willie around here until more people appreciate this fact. The numbers don't lie - our D dominated against bad offenses, and did well enough against good offenses to justify a #1 ranking. 201075[/snapback] My gut tells me that their computer model is flawed, but I'd have to know more about it to say much more than that. It seemed like a lot of the teams we played were better on defense than offense, so I'd like to know whether their model took into account not just how good a team was overall, but how good it was on offense and defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 BF I have to disagree. Our offense didn't produce jack sh-- during the 2nd half of the season, except as a major contributor for the Miami game. THEY cost us the Jacksonville, Oakland, 1st NYJ, 1st NE and the Baltimore games. The biggest factors in our end of season run was our defense and special teams. We didn't go on that run because our offense suddenly took control and proved itself as a capable and effective offense. We won in spite of the offense. It was Special Teams and Defense that won most of those games. I'm not trying to take away anything from impact that McGahee, Evans and the OL had in that run, but there is NOWAY their effect was the same if we didn't have such an excellent defense. 201084[/snapback] Most of our wins during that run were against weak teams, or teams with weak offenses. I've already said our defense can be truly dominant against a flawed offense, but will get exposed by a team with a strong offense. This is because we heavily rely on blitzing. If the offense doesn't pick up the blitz, the result will often be a sack or even a turnover. But good offenses pick up blitzes and use the man-to-man coverage as an opportunity to make plays. That's what they've been doing to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 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] Interesting theory... J-Ville and Pittsburgh at Home, Oakland, Baltimore, and the Jets on the Road...The Bills go 0-5... The Defense gave up an average of 15.4 points during those 5 losses, and an average of 261 yards...Not great, but certainly not bad... The Bills QB meanwhile throws for an AVERAGE of 188 yards in those 5 Games, and only throws for over 200 yards (barely) vs. Baltimore in between his 4 INT's in the same contest...DB's QB Rating in those 5 Games...65.13...4 TD's vs. 7 INT's, 3 Fumbles Lost, and 19 Sacks taken in the 5 Games combined... This may not be a Defense worthy of carrying a Team by itself, but with better production from the QB, it would never be an issue... BTW...I don't fault the Bills Offense or Defense for losing to the Patsies...They're the SB Champs, one of the 4 best Teams in the NFL, and lost only 2 Games in 2004...and one loss was a fluke...The Bills are simply not in NE's League, but those 5 Games above (Pittsburgh only due to the circumstances) were all VERY winnable with a better than barely average QB... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Most of our wins during that run were against weak teams, or teams with weak offenses. I've already said our defense can be truly dominant against a flawed offense, but will get exposed by a team with a strong offense. This is because we heavily rely on blitzing. If the offense doesn't pick up the blitz, the result will often be a sack or even a turnover. But good offenses pick up blitzes and use the man-to-man coverage as an opportunity to make plays. That's what they've been doing to us. 201087[/snapback] We played 16 games this year, give me a good example of where our defense didn't play well enough for us to win besides the NE and Pittsburgh games (which I've already conceded they lost for us). Then explain the reasons we lost those other 5 games. The fact is even if we put the stats aside, our defense did what it should for 14 games. the offense didn't do what it should for 10 of the games. I respect everyones opinions but to say we need to work on our defense to improve the Bills is simply assinine. The failure to make the playoffs this year falls squarely on the shoulders of the offense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Interesting theory... J-Ville and Pittsburgh at Home, Oakland, Baltimore, and the Jets on the Road...The Bills go 0-5... The Defense gave up an average of 15.4 points during those 5 losses, and an average of 261 yards...Not great, but certainly not bad... 201089[/snapback] Each of those teams is known for having a better defense than offense. Baltimore just got done firing its offensive coordinator after its offense finished in the lower third of the league. Oakland's poor offense was the biggest reason why it finished with a losing record. The Jaguars' offense was . . . about the same as ours. With Pittsburgh, yards and points don't tell the whole story, because of that nine minute drive. Had Kevin Gilbride been Pittsburgh's offensive coordinator, they might have gotten more yards and more points, but still lost the game. All you need to win a football game is a field goal and two thirty-minute drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 All you need to win a football game is a field goal and two thirty-minute drives. 201096[/snapback] So what you're saying is that if only we had an offense and a decent kicker we could have won more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 We played 16 games this year, give me a good example of where our defense didn't play well enough for us to win besides the NE and Pittsburgh games (which I've already conceded they lost for us). Then explain the reasons we lost those other 5 games. The fact is even if we put the stats aside, our defense did what it should for 14 games. the offense didn't do what it should for 10 of the games. I respect everyones opinions but to say we need to work on our defense to improve the Bills is simply assinine. The failure to make the playoffs this year falls squarely on the shoulders of the offense! 201092[/snapback] Okay, how about the first New England game, when the defense allowed the Patriots to score 24 points as the result of long drives? Asking your offense and special teams to combine for 24 points in regulation against the Patriots' defense is a tall order, don't you think? And the fact those Patriots' drives were looooong meant that our offense would have fewer possessions, and would face a well-rested Patriots' defense. Or consider the Miami away game, where the Dolphins scored 21 points in just the first quarter. So basically the Bills had to score at least 21 points against a top-rated defense to win the game. They did, but that's a credit to the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 So what you're saying is that if only we had an offense and a decent kicker we could have won more? 201101[/snapback] With a top-12 offense we probably could have won two or three more. That's not the issue. The issue is whether you can make it past the divisional round of the playoffs. Unless at least one aspect of your team is elite, you will be exposed come playoff time. Our defense isn't elite; and that's basically all I'm saying. Look what happened to San Diego, a well-rounded team that made improvements on both sides of the ball. They had no real weaknesses, but no overwhelming sources of strength. They are now watching from home. Compare that to Indianapolis, a team with a deeply flawed defense, but an elite offense. Or compare it to Baltimore of 2000, a team without a real passing game, but one of the best defenses the NFL had ever seen. If you keep the defense the same, and get the offense to the point where it's 12th best, you'll have a San Diego; and not an Indianapolis or a Baltimore 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 I just looked at the football outsiders description of the defensive rankings. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/methods.php Their system is better than I'd assumed. However, a defense could still get the number one rank by creating truly dominating performances against lesser offenses, while being very average against offenses that were well-run. I believe our defense fits that description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Each of those teams is known for having a better defense than offense. Baltimore just got done firing its offensive coordinator after its offense finished in the lower third of the league. Oakland's poor offense was the biggest reason why it finished with a losing record. The Jaguars' offense was . . . about the same as ours. With Pittsburgh, yards and points don't tell the whole story, because of that nine minute drive. Had Kevin Gilbride been Pittsburgh's offensive coordinator, they might have gotten more yards and more points, but still lost the game. All you need to win a football game is a field goal and two thirty-minute drives. 201096[/snapback] Well...Pittsburgh had the #4 Pass D in the NFL, but we all know the Bills were not playing that Defense in Week 17...Baltimore is obviously very good and Ranked #10 in the NFL in Pass D...J-Ville and the Jets, about average, 14th and 16th Ranked Pass D respectively, and Oakland just flat out sucked with the #30 Overall Pass D...All combined it averages out to 14.8 out of 32 teams, or ever so slightly better than the middle of the pack... I guess I really don't get your point overall..It's not O.K. for the Bills D to perform poorly vs. the Super Bowl Champs, but it's O.K. for the QB to struggle for a combined 5 Games, 3 of which were against non-Playoff Teams, because they had Defenses that were a little better than their Offenses??? I just don't get it... Look, I realized a while back Bledsoe would return for this Team in 2005, so I guess my point is the moot one...Clearly the Bills Defense will have to improve in 2005, because the performance of the Starting QB will not improve... once again. It seems to me to be a bit easier to get better at one Position than to improve an entire Defense that finished in the NFL's Top 5 for the 2nd straight year...but I guess that's just me... Obviously the Bills prefer to once again try to improve the Roster around DB, instead of taking care of the real problem...Oh well...Here's to another great year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Well...Pittsburgh had the #4 Pass D in the NFL, but we all know the Bills were not playing that Defense in Week 17...Baltimore is obviously very good and Ranked #10 in the NFL in Pass D...J-Ville and the Jets, about average, 14th and 16th Ranked Pass D respectively, and Oakland just flat out sucked with the #30 Overall Pass D...All combined it averages out to 14.8 out of 32 teams, or ever so slightly better than the middle of the pack... I guess I really don't get your point overall..It's not O.K. for the Bills D to perform poorly vs. the Super Bowl Champs, but it's O.K. for the QB to struggle for a combined 5 Games, 3 of which were against non-Playoff Teams, because they had Defenses that were a little better than their Offenses??? I just don't get it... Look, I realized a while back Bledsoe would return for this Team in 2005, so I guess my point is the moot one...Clearly the Bills Defense will have to improve in 2005, because the performance of the Starting QB will not improve... once again. It seems to me to be a bit easier to get better at one Position than to improve an entire Defense that finished in the NFL's Top 5 for the 2nd straight year...but I guess that's just me... Obviously the Bills prefer to once again try to improve the Roster around DB, instead of taking care of the real problem...Oh well...Here's to another great year... 201116[/snapback] I'll get to your point about Bledsoe in a minute. First, I'll start by saying this: your team's goal should be to win the Super Bowl. Not to go 9-7. Not to go 10-6 with an exit in the divisional round. It should be a Super Bowl win. Trying for anything less is unacceptable. To get there, you have to be elite at some segment of the game. Right now, the Bills aren't elite at anything. So they should either improve their defense or their offense, to the point where they are elite on one side of the ball. Until they do that, they won't be winning any Super Bowl rings. If they decided to improve their defense to elite status, they'd need to free up salary cap room. An obvious candidate would be Drew Bledsoe. They could also rid themselves of Eric Moulds and his $8.7 million cap figure, and use the bulk of that space to upgrade the defense. Another possession receiver could be signed for $3 million a year. If you wanted to have an elite passing offense, then obviously you'd start by benching or cutting Drew. To go that road, you'd have to start Losman, and pray he'd work out. You'd also have to hope for a good second year from Euhus. Moulds would need to be upgraded, because he's not good enough to be the go-to guy for an elite passing offense. The only way you could really justify staying with Moulds is if you decided that your running game would be the heart of your team. You'd have to upgrade yourself at center and LG of course, but maybe the draft would be the right way to do that. You could always free up some space by giving Moulds a paycut, and by releasing Drew. After giving yourself elite status at something--running, passing, or defense--you'd make improvements to the rest of the team on an as-possible basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts