34-78-83 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 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] Point well taken, although our D was more than adequate against every team we played other than New England. So I guess NE is the only good team we played? The late nineties D worked as a base defense with no frills, but never came close to generating the amount of turnovers to be considered a great D. I'll take some risk/reward over that strategy personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Point well taken, although our D was more than adequate against every team we played other than New England. So I guess NE is the only good team we played? The late nineties D worked as a base defense with no frills, but never came close to generating the amount of turnovers to be considered a great D. I'll take some risk/reward over that strategy personally. 233312[/snapback] I seem to remember Jacksonville making clutch plays against our defense in the opener. So did the Jets in our first game against them after our offense handed the team the lead late in the game. The Steelers had that back-breaking nine-minute drive against us that ended the Bills' playoff hopes. The defense allowed 21 points to Miami in the first quarter when we played them the second time, and Miami didn't even have a good offense. Add in the two New England games, and that's six performances in which our defensive performance was seriously flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I seem to remember Jacksonville making clutch plays against our defense in the opener. So did the Jets in our first game against them after our offense handed the team the lead late in the game. The Steelers had that back-breaking nine-minute drive against us that ended the Bills' playoff hopes. The defense allowed 21 points to Miami in the first quarter when we played them the second time, and Miami didn't even have a good offense. Add in the two New England games, and that's six performances in which our defensive performance was seriously flawed. 233327[/snapback] Sorry I just don't see it that way (especially your Jax reference). All defenses give up plays or drives here and there. We gave up fewer plays / yards / however you want to measure it .... than 30 other NFL teams. YPP was among the league lowest, Turnovers #1, yards #3, Sacks #3. Even 3rd down % (which does need improvement) was like #13. There was no defense this past season that you could not say the same thing about. This is the NFL and there is another team on the field with talented players and coaches as well. If you think the D in the Steeler game was even equally responsible for the loss with the O, then I'm wasting my time even debating this with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 9, 2005 Author Share Posted February 9, 2005 Sorry I just don't see it that way (especially your Jax reference). All defenses give up plays or drives here and there. We gave up fewer plays / yards / however you want to measure it .... than 30 other NFL teams. YPP was among the league lowest, Turnovers #1, yards #3, Sacks #3. Even 3rd down % (which does need improvement) was like #13. There was no defense this past season that you could not say the same thing about. This is the NFL and there is another team on the field with talented players and coaches as well. If you think the D in the Steeler game was even equally responsible for the loss with the O, then I'm wasting my time even debating this with you. 233342[/snapback] i'm sorry, but the d in the steelers game was equally responsible. see my post above. there's no way a team should have been able to run the ball down the bills throat in the fourth with brian st. pierre at qb and a third stringer at rb. come one. this is not to justify the statue's performance or say that the bills d was not a good one, by the way. i just happen to think they're overrated given their performance against good teams the last couple of seasons. they rank above the pats d in most categories, but i'd take the pats D any day over the bills. it's not even close - those guys are money when it really counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 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. 233039[/snapback] I wouldn't want to overgeneralize, but this defense is missing one player from being a dominant unit. The late '90s had Bruce Smith who still commanded a lot of respect and Hansen was very capable and better than Schobel in the all-around game. Right now, this defense is missing the one guy who can effectively rattle the passer from the edge. There's no way I take the '90s secondary vs this one, and if you get rid of Posey, I like this LB crew, but not it's depth. Thus, I'd say, give me this defense + Bruce Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 9, 2005 Author Share Posted February 9, 2005 I wouldn't want to overgeneralize, but this defense is missing one player from being a dominant unit. The late '90s had Bruce Smith who still commanded a lot of respect and Hansen was very capable and better than Schobel in the all-around game. Right now, this defense is missing the one guy who can effectively rattle the passer from the edge. There's no way I take the '90s secondary vs this one, and if you get rid of Posey, I like this LB crew, but not it's depth. Thus, I'd say, give me this defense + Bruce Smith 233381[/snapback] excellent point, gerry. bill walsh always said that what made a defense great was a terrific 4th quarter pass rush, and i can remember numerous games where bruce brought it in the 4th - against philly in the mid-90s, against the raiders in the freezer bowl game in the january 94 playoffs, against drew bledsoe in the mid 90s one year - the list goes on. no one now can do that. bruce was so damn good - best ever, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 i'm sorry, but the d in the steelers game was equally responsible. see my post above. there's no way a team should have been able to run the ball down the bills throat in the fourth with brian st. pierre at qb and a third stringer at rb. come one. this is not to justify the statue's performance or say that the bills d was not a good one, by the way. i just happen to think they're overrated given their performance against good teams the last couple of seasons. they rank above the pats d in most categories, but i'd take the pats D any day over the bills. it's not even close - those guys are money when it really counts. 233352[/snapback] Respectfully , there is no way they were even close to equally responsible. The sack/fumble resulted in a direct 7 points and the INT right into the hands of the MLB led to 3 (and only 3 because of the strong defense), and the fumbled punt return led to more points. Were talking about three starts inside the 25 for Pitt here. And this somehow stacks up against one poor drive given up later in the game with one busted play? Realistically this is not an evenly weighted comparison. Despite our disagreeance here DM, I love your posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Respectfully , there is no way they were even close to equally responsible. The sack/fumble resulted in a direct 7 points and the INT right into the hands of the MLB led to 3 (and only 3 because of the strong defense), and the fumbled punt return led to more points. Were talking about three starts inside the 25 for Pitt here. And this somehow stacks up against one poor drive given up later in the game with one busted play? Realistically this is not an evenly weighted comparison. Despite our disagreeance here DM, I love your posts 233486[/snapback] The Steelers weren't just trying to maximize the number of points they scored. Given the fact they'd taken the lead, they were trying to kill the clock. A nine minute drive is pretty effective at doing that, don't you think? That drive would have been ten or eleven minutes had Buffalo not burned some of its timeouts. Before the drive began, there was still plenty of hope for the Bills to win. Because the Steelers burned 15% of the entire game clock on that one drive alone, they put the Bills in a position where, to win, the Bills had to score a TD, recover an onside kick, and then score again. It wasn't as hopeless as the situation the D put the Bills in at the end of the Jacksonville game, but it was close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 The Steelers weren't just trying to maximize the number of points they scored. Given the fact they'd taken the lead, they were trying to kill the clock. A nine minute drive is pretty effective at doing that, don't you think? That drive would have been ten or eleven minutes had Buffalo not burned some of its timeouts. Before the drive began, there was still plenty of hope for the Bills to win. Because the Steelers burned 15% of the entire game clock on that one drive alone, they put the Bills in a position where, to win, the Bills had to score a TD, recover an onside kick, and then score again. It wasn't as hopeless as the situation the D put the Bills in at the end of the Jacksonville game, but it was close. 233503[/snapback] Not sure how this relates to my point that you quoted me on. What I do see is you using a single drive from games to prove general broad-sweeping points about our defense and I am using whole games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Not sure how this relates to my point that you quoted me on. What I do see is you using a single drive from games to prove general broad-sweeping points about our defense and I am using whole games. 233513[/snapback] I'm saying that back in '99, I had confidence our defense would come through in clutch situations. I never had that confidence in our defense this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I'm saying that back in '99, I had confidence our defense would come through in clutch situations. I never had that confidence in our defense this year. 233678[/snapback] Ahh I see. If I think about it I had a lot of confidence in them too. I do remember always being a bit concerned though that we were not getting turnovers, as good as they were. Overall I believe we are comparing two different philosophies here, and thus comparison becomes somewhat futile. On one hand you have a 3-4 defense that rarely blitzes or takes too many chances, and never gives up a deep play. On the other you have a complicated scheme based 4-3 who will blitz at any opportunity to force the offense into a position of weakness or indecision. They are certain tradeoffs that come with both defenses. I guess it comes down to preference.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 9, 2005 Author Share Posted February 9, 2005 Not sure how this relates to my point that you quoted me on. What I do see is you using a single drive from games to prove general broad-sweeping points about our defense and I am using whole games. 233513[/snapback] maybe a better way to think about it is the bills d's persistent failure the last 2 years to make a big stop late in the fourth quarter in a close game. outside of miami this year, i can't think of any occasions, really, where they stopped an opponent in a really close game. even in the 2nd jets game this year, with the woeful quincy carter at qb, the jets managed to throw a long bomb to santana moss to make it close at 22-17. believe me, i appreciate everything you're saying, and i'll be the first one to admit that that the statue-directed offense is a serious, serious problem that precludes all others. but the d has to be better at stopping good teams late in games. the 90s bills defenses, for all their flaws, were very good at that. and certainly, the pats defense of today has to be one of the best ever at that (think bootleg, drew bledsoe, accompanied by missed block, travis henry, and missed block, marcus price, followed by sack, tedy bruschi, followed by fumble recovery and TD run, richard seymour). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 9, 2005 Author Share Posted February 9, 2005 Ahh I see. If I think about it I had a lot of confidence in them too. I do remember always being a bit concerned though that we were not getting turnovers, as good as they were. Overall I believe we are comparing two different philosophies here, and thus comparison becomes somewhat futile. On one hand you have a 3-4 defense that rarely blitzes or takes too many chances, and never gives up a deep play. On the other you have a complicated scheme based 4-3 who will blitz at any opportunity to force the offense into a position of weakness or indecision. They are certain tradeoffs that come with both defenses. I guess it comes down to preference.... 233696[/snapback] there's also the bruce smith-4th quarter pressure factor from those years ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 there's also the bruce smith-4th quarter pressure factor from those years ... 233705[/snapback] Right, point taken. Now if the example used was the early nineties Bills D and not the late nineties (washed up Bruce) D, I would totally agree that they had a "knack" (for lack of a better term) for shutting teams down late in games, even when statistically speaking they were not among the best defenses. I have always been one to point out (especially on this board where it is easily forgotten) the effect of pressure generated from your offense on an opponent and what it does for your defense. To have a lead , and a threat to score again or run the clock out will really put your opponent in that one dimensional mode where you can play coverage over the top and let your D linemen (and LB's at times) pin their ears back a get after the QB with no respect for the run. In fact , a perfect example would be looking at our 2003 D and comparing to our 2004 D. They were both number 2 at the end of the year but were so much better in '04 with turnovers/sacks because the offense actually had leads in games and Willis was a threat to run the clock. Obviously there were also some personell changes that helped with this , but I think you would see what I'm saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I'm saying that back in '99, I had confidence our defense would come through in clutch situations. I never had that confidence in our defense this year. 233678[/snapback] If this is true, it is probably due to coaching. I am a HUGE fan of Wade as a DC. He forgot more than Gray knows at this stage of his career. As for the talent I agree that Bruce was a difference maker, but so is Takeo (to a lesser degree of course) imo, and our secondary is now clearly superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 If this is true, it is probably due to coaching. I am a HUGE fan of Wade as a DC. He forgot more than Gray knows at this stage of his career. As for the talent I agree that Bruce was a difference maker, but so is Takeo (to a lesser degree of course) imo, and our secondary is now clearly superior. 233745[/snapback] I have to agree with your assessment of Wade as a DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts