a key difference between the bills and the pats

[34-78-83]

Am I the only one here who thought the defense played well enough to win against the Steelers?

They held the Steelers to 16 points on the entire day, forced 3 turnovers, and scored 7 for our offense.

If not for a Bledsoe fumble returned for a TD, a very stupid INT, and a Nate Clements fumble, the defense plays a very good game.

232392[/snapback]

 

 

I'm with you there. They gave up the one late drive that hurt, but were solid other than that.

[njsue]

The pats have a better offensive line than do the buffalo bills. Plus they have a better core of receivers.

 

I wonder if there is a TE out there that is like Big Ben Coates.

[BillsGuyInMalta]

The pats have a better offensive line than do the buffalo bills. Plus they have a better core of receivers.

 

I wonder if there is a TE out there that is like Big Ben Coates.

232411[/snapback]

They also have a better kicker than us...and a better QB...and a better pass rush...

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

i won't respond to everything, but i will say this -- i'm not referring to d playing or vice versa. i'm talking about maximizing your use of possibly 12 front seven players on defense and using different combinations to beat your opponent. as for claiming seattle is a good team, give me a break.  they would have been 6-10 at best if they had been in the afc central or afc east.  same with the rams, who moved the ball pretty easily against the bills in buffalo in any case. as for it not being the full truth, i'm fairly certain my eyes aren't lying. watch some pats games and look what they do against different teams. the bills don't do the same, and it shows. did i ever say the bills defense is bad? no. they're actually pretty good -- good enough to dominate mediocre teams.  however, they aren't good enough to play well against the really good teams, and a lot of that has to do with coaching decisions. don't get me wrong - the pats are an *exception*. unfortunately, we have to play them 2 times a year and they've won 3 championships while donohoe has been here. maybe their system is better than ours.

232304[/snapback]

 

I think I did say (or should have said if I didn't due to haste) that Seattle, the Rams and NYJ were playoff teams that our D beat up on and not that they were good teams which many don't judge them to be.

 

I actually think the bigger problem in the NFL (a big part of which is that playoff berths are decided by divisional status rather than by overall record) is that teams which are not that good make the playoffs.

 

Still it is difficult to complain about this as a Bills fan since our own not as good as we want it to be came within not winning one game at home against the reserves of a better team that had alredy locked up its seeding.

 

You play the schedule you are given and against the playoff records of other teams and that is all you can do. Overall, I think that your cut falls short if its intent were to indict the Bills defense as bad (its not the best but it is pretty good). Or to say the players were bad (the LB corps actuallly is very good, the DB show promise and the DL is pretty good (except against Pitts) at run stopping but it needs to use scheme rather than raw player talent to produce a rush.

 

If its intent was to contrast our approach with the Pats as far as managing the players demanding to play, i think it also falls short there as the Pats approach was not tell players to shut up and sit, but instead to divert the good aggression of the players wanting to play into unusual usage of D players playing on O and O players playing on D.

 

I think that MM is actually tracking the mainstay of the Partriots approach with his usage of Bannan, Adams and Denny on O. I think complaints he doesn't do this enough are misguided because I think he made this switch as much as can be expected for a rookie HC.

 

I think the stats bear this out and a true analysis that all is not pristine in Pats land in terms of the actual occurences rather than a simple assumption based on some great Pats results despite the Phil Simms hype also bears this out.

[dave mcbride]

Am I the only one here who thought the defense played well enough to win against the Steelers?

They held the Steelers to 16 points on the entire day, forced 3 turnovers, and scored 7 for our offense.

If not for a Bledsoe fumble returned for a TD, a very stupid INT, and a Nate Clements fumble, the defense plays a very good game.

232392[/snapback]

clements made a huge play, but when it came to crunch time, the bills front 7 got their hats handed to them. i mean come on - the season is on the line, a third string RB is toting the ball, and brian st. pierre, who seems to have an arm as strong as my 8 year old daughter's, is the qb. what's the outcome? a 60 yard run by said scrub to set up the field goal for the lead, and then a back breaking drive in which they converted 3 or 4 third downs with said scrubs fronted by a deep and good offensive line. the season was on the line, and they couldn't stop these guys!!! it was all too typical - it happened against dallas late last year, against indy, and against philly. basically, it happens enough that it's not a coincidence.

[GG]

i won't respond to everything, but i will say this -- i'm not referring to d playing or vice versa. i'm talking about maximizing your use of possibly 12 front seven players on defense and using different combinations to beat your opponent.

232304[/snapback]

 

That's how I interpreted your original post (and didn't need to write a volume on my misinterpretation).

 

The one upshot though is that Sam really elevated his game after the benching, and was truly dominant. However, your main point is still valid, as Bannan & Edwards showed that they can be solid contributors and should have seen more than spot duty.

 

BB basically created a college program with the Patriots. All the hoopla of Pats' players playing for each other is bull. Either they buy into BB's system of the team, or they're gone. David Givens got the hint, and responded.

 

Lawyer Milloy did not get the hint and followed the money. BB miscalculated the reaction, which turned into a speedbump on the way to another SuperBowl.

[dave mcbride]

Still it is difficult to complain about this as a Bills fan since our own not as good as we want it to be came within not winning one game at home against the reserves of a better team that had alredy locked up its seeding.

 

You play the schedule you are given and against the playoff records of other teams and that is all you can do.  Overall, I think that your cut falls short if its intent were to indict the Bills defense as bad (its not the best but it is pretty good). Or to say the players were bad (the LB corps actuallly is very good, the DB show promise and the DL is pretty good (except against Pitts) at run stopping but it needs to use scheme rather than raw player talent to produce a rush.

 

If its intent was to contrast our approach with the Pats as far as managing the players demanding to play, i think it also falls short there as the Pats approach was not tell players to shut up and sit, but instead to divert the good aggression of the players wanting to play into unusual usage of D players playing on O and O players playing on D.

 

 

232429[/snapback]

i'm not sure of your first point. as for the the second one, please read my post(s) again. i said they were good players and that the defense is pretty good. that said, coaching is huge in the nfl (duh), and i don't think ours measures up in comparison to the other team i looked at (the pats), who is much better at tactical situational management than jerry gray and his staff. that's freakin' obvious, no? moreover, the o and d switcheroos is irrelevant to the point i'm trying to make. i could really care less about that stuff, as these usually aren't relevant beyond 2 snaps a game. Finally, re the Simms "hype", he's hardly the only one who has said this. the recent comments by milloy about pats players buying into team play as opposed to individual accolades is the same thing.

[dave mcbride]

That's how I interpreted your original post (and didn't need to write a volume on my misinterpretation).

 

The one upshot though is that Sam really elevated his game after the benching, and was truly dominant.  However, your main point is still valid, as Bannan & Edwards showed that they can be solid contributors and should have seen more than spot duty.

 

BB basically created a college program with the Patriots.  All the hoopla of Pats' players playing for each other is bull.  Either they buy into BB's system of the team, or they're gone.  David Givens got the hint, and responded. 

 

Lawyer Milloy did not get the hint and followed the money.  BB miscalculated the reaction, which turned into a speedbump on the way to another SuperBowl.

232434[/snapback]

yep, gerry, adams did play better. however, that steelers game -- in which the front seven simply blew it -- sticks in my craw. the were really the first good team (organization, really) that they had played since the pats, and they couldn't stop them. i'm not saying it's adams fault, of course. but they should have destroyed them given who they were playing. really, just destroyed them. granted, the statue didn't help matters, but still ....

[GG]

yep, gerry, adams did play better.  however, that steelers game -- in which the front seven simply blew it -- sticks in my craw. the were really the first good team (organization, really) that they had played since the pats, and they couldn't stop them.  i'm not saying it's adams fault, of course. but they should have destroyed them given who they were playing. really, just destroyed them. granted, the statue didn't help matters, but still ....

232448[/snapback]

 

You know you're not helping the progress of my therapy in trying to wipe that game from my memory banks.

[obie_wan]

Excellent analysis. This ahs basically been my thought lately too. The Bills are built on "me-first" guys. The Pats are built of players of a totally different caliber.

232275[/snapback]

 

it starts with our Hall of Fame QB and other prima donna "stars".

[Bill from NYC]

it starts with our Hall of Fame QB and other prima donna "stars".

232557[/snapback]

 

Good point. Nothing has to do with the coaches, right? Mainly Drew, I get it.

Congrats for taking this well thought, reasonable thread down a few notches to a level of ignorance.

Good job!

[34-78-83]

Excellent analysis. This ahs basically been my thought lately too. The Bills are built on "me-first" guys. The Pats are built of players of a totally different caliber.

232275[/snapback]

 

This should be ammended to read: "The rest of the league is built on "me-first" guys. The Pats are built of players of a totally different caliber."

 

 

There's no need to fish for obscure answers here folks, as elequently presented as they may be. We simply need better production from our offense in order to become the team we all hope to be... (specifically the QB and O-line). Our defense is as good as it has ever been, and as close to dominant as any realistic fan could ever hope for. We excelled in points given up, yards, turnovers, sacks, yards per play, etc etc. Our Special teams is now near the top of the league as well. Let's keep it simple here. We need better production from offense in order to improve on 9-7.

[Bill from NYC]

This should be ammended to read: "The rest of the league is built on "me-first" guys. The Pats are built of players of a totally different caliber."

There's no need to fish for obscure answers here folks, as elequently presented as they may be. We simply need better production from our offense in order to become the team we all hope to be... (specifically the QB and O-line). Our defense is as good as it has ever been, and as close to dominant as any realistic fan could ever hope for. We excelled in points given up, yards, turnovers, sacks, yards per play, etc etc.  Our Special teams is now near the top of the league as well. Let's keep it simple here. We need better production from offense in order to improve on 9-7.

232584[/snapback]

 

I think that we all agree that the defense was not the problem, but there did seem to be WAY to many third and long conversions given up.

Part of it imo can be blamed on the pass rush. The combo of Adams/Williams is strong and great against the run, but they lack agility. I dont know, but I think that the Bills might be well suited to have a leaner, more athletic DT to bring in on passing downs.

I am hoping that in 05, Schobel will be in his prime, and Kelsay will increase his production. Another corner seems to also be a need, if nothing else, for depth.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Even if what you say is true, the blame belongs on the shoulders of the coaches. I like Big sam as much as anyone, but if he was insubordinate (and I dont know this to be true), he should have been suspended or at least fined.

Placating Henry cost the Bills a playoff spot. This is one thing I do NOT blame Henry for. It was the fault of the rookie coach.

232283[/snapback]

I know you don't like Henry, Bill, but what course of action would you have suggested? Pulling the starter who had rushed for 2600 yards the past two seasons for essentially a rookie with an unproven record and a bad injury, to boot?

 

Hindsight is 20/20, and while I certainly would like to have seen McGahee more involved (I do think the coaches didn't know how to use Mcgahee early on) I cannot see them having outright handed the job to McGahee without a near-mutiny. The job changed hands in the best way possible -- Henry went down, McGahee got his chance and filled in, and upon his return, Travis didn't perform to expectations. McGahee clearly won the job from then out. I am not saying this was the path to winning the most football games, but it was the path to the coaches' earning the respect of the players at a crucial point in Mularkey's rookie campaign.

[Bill from NYC]

I know you don't like Henry, Bill, but what course of action would you have suggested?  Pulling the starter who had rushed for 2600 yards the past two seasons for essentially a rookie with an unproven record and a bad injury, to boot?

 

Hindsight is 20/20, and while I certainly would like to have seen McGahee more involved (I do think the coaches didn't know how to use Mcgahee early on) I cannot see them having outright handed the job to McGahee without a near-mutiny.  The job changed hands in the best way possible -- Henry went down, McGahee got his chance and filled in, and upon his return, Travis didn't perform to expectations.  McGahee clearly won the job from then out.  I am not saying this was the path to winning the most football games, but it was the path to the coaches' earning the respect of the players at a crucial point in Mularkey's rookie campaign.

232654[/snapback]

 

Thank you for such a well thought, sensible reply. Posts such as this are part of what makes TSW such a great place.

It IS hard to dispute what you say. However, I must point out that BFII posted a stat that Drew was sacked 19 times in his first 4 games (Henry starts) and 19 times in the next 12 games. Imo, one would be a fool to not draw at least a partial conclusion. Additionally, he was sliding (untouched) in front of truck size holes, running wrong routes and dropping passes. He was a living nightmare.

 

This year, I believe that MM will be a stronger headcoach. If a similar situation were to occur in 05, I think he will have the strength to make needed changes because of the experience he acquired.

 

I guess what bugs me in all honesty is that posters on TBD, people who follow the Bills as much as anyone alive, are willing to write this stuff off and ONLY blame Drew, who is not great mind you.....but there ARE things that not his fault.

The running back situation was one of them.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I think that we all agree that the defense was not the problem, but there did seem to be WAY to many third and long conversions given up.

Part of it imo can be blamed on the pass rush.

232595[/snapback]

 

The other part could be blamed on the secondary injuries and the growing pains that McGee experienced in his first starting stint.

[Sound_n_Fury]

i won't respond to everything, but i will say this -- i'm not referring to d playing or vice versa. i'm talking about maximizing your use of possibly 12 front seven players on defense and using different combinations to beat your opponent.

232304[/snapback]

 

Interesting post. I don't know if you read Gregg Easterbrook's column at NFL.com but he had some parallel thoughts to your own today:

 

"It bears repeating that New England has won three of the past four Super Bowls in part by constantly varying its game plans. Week in, week out, the Patriots do things differently from the week before. Most NFL teams vary their game plans surprisingly little.

 

Pressed on this, coaches often say, "Tactics are overrated, we just have to execute better." This is the same as saying, "It's not the coaching staff's fault; the players are to blame." Bill Belichick now has spectacularly demonstrated that tactics are not overrated: constantly varying the game plan creates an edge. When will the rest of the NFL catch on?"

 

http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/8173992

 

How many big games have we seen from a Belichick-coached team where two down d-linemen and a combination of LBs/DBs are used to confuse a pass-oriented offense (hint: SB XXV comes to mind)? How many other teams ever seem to do something similiar?

 

Maybe a better question is, could you ever imagine the Bills trying an unconventional alignment like that in a must-win playoff situation?

[KurtGodel77]

In the middle of this past season, there was an incident that shows a key difference between the bills and the pats.  Sam Adams threw a fit when he was taken out of a game (one that they won). Afterwards, Jerry Gray spoke with Adams and effectively decided to placate him in the future. The consequence? adams played most of the snaps for the remainder of the year. Tied to this, Fletcher, Spikes, etc. persistently and proudly proclaim that they're every down, every game players who should never come off the field.  And they don't. Of course, they (and adams) are good players.  But let's compare them with the Pats.

 

Against the Steelers, Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, and Jarvis Green played virtually the whole game. Roman Phifer was nowhere to be seen (he only played a couple of snaps). Why? Because the Steelers are a running team, and these were the defensive players who could best stop them. Two weeks later, against Philly, Warren played two snaps all game; Wilfork played one (or two - I'm not completely sure).  Why? Because Philly is a passing team, and they decided that the best way to stop them was with 2 linemen and 5 linebackers most of the game.  The same pattern has been evident for a number of seasons for the Pats. They get great production out of their young players from year one onward, and they expect it from them.  It's gotten to the point where when a 5th round draft choice, Dexter Reid, can come in in the middle of the Super Bowl (replacing Eugene Wilson) at safety and play fairly poorly, the word you hear is "he may well not make it - just compare him to Randall Gay, Dan Klecko, Dan Koppen, Brandon Gorin, Jarvis Green. Guys who produced immediately."

 

Phil Simms earlier this year said that he visits camps and teams all year long and one constant for every team save one is players complaining about not getting enough playing time.  The exception? Of course, it's the Pats. He said that it's amazing: the players never complain about not playing enough snaps, and that they understand and like the system as Belichick has set it up. 

 

Let's swing back to the Bills, especially their front seven on defense.  What kind of production have we seen since 01, when a bunch of rookies were thrown into the fire because of a dearth of talent?  Anderson, Edwards, Bannon, Crowell -- they almost never play.  The second rounders at DE obviously get playing time, but even then Kelsay didn't really contribute much at all as a rookie.

 

The upshot of all of this: when the Bills defense has faced good teams over the past two years, they've almost invariably failed when it comes to crunch time: the Pats in particular, who have sliced and diced the Bills three games running; Indy last year (who had a crushing drive at the end of the game; Philly last year; KC last year; the Jets this year [recall that Pennington tore a shoulder muscle in the first quarter of the second game]; Pitt; etc.). There haven't been many fresh legs or alternative tactics vis a vis the front seven in any of these games.  As for the Bills defensive record this year, of course they're one of the better units, but recall that they padded their record this year playing the NFC West and a gift of 15 total yards from a horrible Browns team, but next year won't be so kind. If they're going to take one page out of the Pats book, I would suggest trying to figuring out how to maximize the unique skills of each player (starter and non, young and vet) and applying them in the appropriate situation. Tied to this, they should be telling  guys like Sam Adams to shut the hell up and get with the program.

232251[/snapback]

 

This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on these boards.

[KurtGodel77]

This should be ammended to read: "The rest of the league is built on "me-first" guys. The Pats are built of players of a totally different caliber."

There's no need to fish for obscure answers here folks, as elequently presented as they may be. We simply need better production from our offense in order to become the team we all hope to be... (specifically the QB and O-line). Our defense is as good as it has ever been, and as close to dominant as any realistic fan could ever hope for. We excelled in points given up, yards, turnovers, sacks, yards per play, etc etc.  Our Special teams is now near the top of the league as well. Let's keep it simple here. We need better production from offense in order to improve on 9-7.

232584[/snapback]

Given a choice, I'd take our late '90s defense over the defense we have now. IIRC, the late '90s defense finished 3rd in the league in points allowed; significantly better than our current defense. Moreover, that defense looked like an elite defense against the best teams in the league. It always seemed you could count on them in a pressure situation: you'd want more than anything to put the outcome in the hands of the defense if the game was on the line.

 

Our present defense is the opposite: it's break but don't bend. It will throw a ton of pressure at you with blitzes. Inferior offenses get overwhelmed; making our defense's stats look good. But the better offenses pick up the blitzes and make us pay. I saw a statistic one time that showed that playoff teams were much more likely to convert a third down when the defense blitzed than when it didn't. The fact that these teams were apparently good at picking up the blitz probably is a reason why they're in the playoffs in the first place. Considering how heavily our present defense relies on blitzing, I can see why it looks a lot better against mediocre offenses than it does against efficient offenses like New England's.

[dave mcbride]

Given a choice, I'd take our late '90s defense over the defense we have now. IIRC, the late '90s defense finished 3rd in the league in points allowed; significantly better than our current defense. Moreover, that defense looked like an elite defense against the best teams in the league. It always seemed you could count on them in a pressure situation: you'd want more than anything to put the outcome in the hands of the defense if the game was on the line.

 

Our present defense is the opposite: it's break but don't bend. It will throw a ton of pressure at you with blitzes. Inferior offenses get overwhelmed; making our defense's stats look good. But the better offenses pick up the blitzes and make us pay. I saw a statistic one time that showed that playoff teams were much more likely to convert a third down when the defense blitzed than when it didn't. The fact that these teams were apparently good at picking up the blitz probably is a reason why they're in the playoffs in the first place. Considering how heavily our present defense relies on blitzing, I can see why it looks a lot better against mediocre offenses than it does against efficient offenses like New England's.

233039[/snapback]

good point - against the pats the first game this year, we blitzed on almost every play (or so it seemed) and brady shredded the d for 300+ yards. granted, vincent had gone down early, but it's not like mcgee didn't play a pretty good game.