One thought on the game, in a particular order

[OCinBuffalo]

5 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

 

Uh, that wasn't irony, Sally. You need to read that definition again. 

Right, because using similar wording to achieve the exact opposite outcome...isn't the textbook definition of literary irony, which, is why I provided you with the textbook definition.

 

You may think you know what it means. The textbook is sure of it.

[Foxx]

2 hours ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Well, here we are again, at this time and place of the season, with practice squad heroes, street FAs, and backups of backups....

 

...STARTING...as our defensive backs == CBs, safeties, whatever. This allowed the Jets back into a game where they were physically beaten in the trenches, both sides, just like last game. So please, tell me again about how things are won upfront...when we win upfront, and still lose the game. 

 

It's literally been 8+ years of the same exact thing. Again, we began the game with only one true starting NFL CB on the field, when we need 4. And, #1 guy decides to *%&* the bed. Which only reinforces the point: you can't expect a single CB to be the answer to all things passing in a season.

 

I have defined this problem, albeit obsessively,(but can you blame me after a decade+ of being right, and no action/change?) since 2005. We still have people, be they posters here, or decision-makers in the FO, or idiot media, that can't seem to process this simple concept: "it's a passing league", and teams do not have 2 starting CBs, they have 4. 4! Even if one grudgingly agrees that a slot CB is a starter(= 3rd LB only on field 30-40% of snaps => is he a starter?), it seems near impossible for that person to understand that you need a 4th corner to cover today's TEs/4 WR sets/RB out of the backfield today. Again: 4 Starters.

 

It makes no difference if you have 2 stud CBs. Today's QBs are simply going to find whoever is being covered by your #3-4 guys and throw it to them. And if anybody gets hurt?  How many times must we repeat the lesson? This is rapidly approaching Orwellian denial of reason. Why is there such a blind spot on this?

 

Answer: because at draft time, when we take a CB in the 4th round, or any round? Clowns abound screaming about how we could have taken a C/T/G. For literally 13 years the same nonsense: draft O line is the dullard's answer to everything, and yet: nothing.

 

You think I'm being overly hard on this point? Wait until the draft pick threads. When we take an any-round CB: same old crap from the same old posters.

obvious troll bait.

[Domdab99]

5 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Right, because using similar wording to achieve the exact opposite outcome...isn't the textbook definition of literary irony, which, is why I provided you with the textbook definition.

 

You may think you know what it means. The textbook is sure of it.

 

LOL you are clueless. 

[OCinBuffalo]

7 minutes ago, Dablitzkrieg said:

Blah, blah, blah.  Enjoy the tank

Written like a true scholar. Wow, you and Domdab99 should start a writing club.

 

There's nothing to enjoy about a tank...unless it works. But, whether we tank or not will be completely irrelevant, if we don't use to the resources provided properly, and ensure we don't have street FAs/practice squad covering NFL WRs.

 

Think. We can't get the job done with these guys in the RS against average WRs. What if we do everything to make the best O line possible, such that now we are a "sure" playoff team...and still fail to address DBs? What chance to we have against elite WRs in the playoffs?

 

The tank doesn't matter, nothing matters, until we get serious about a long-term DB program on this team. Not one year, not mass FA signings, not over-investing in one guy. No, an every year commitment to drafting and signing a whole room of guys who are going to be here long term.

[oldmanfan]

It would be lovely to have 4 quality CBs all the time.   But to do that you'd have to have maybe 8 on the roster so that when injuries invariably happen you have another "quality" guy to step in.  And there simply isn't enough room on a roster to do that.  You'd have to not have LB backups, or cut back on line depth to a dangerous level.

 

Injuries happen.  As attrition occurs through the year teams have to go find guys to plug in.  The only solution would be to have an expanded active roster.

[OCinBuffalo]

1 minute ago, Domdab99 said:

 

LOL you are clueless. 

Yeah. So clueless that this thread...worked exactly as intended.

[Domdab99]

If your intention was to show how clueless you are, it worked. 

[OCinBuffalo]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

It would be lovely to have 4 quality CBs all the time.   But to do that you'd have to have maybe 8 on the roster so that when injuries invariably happen you have another "quality" guy to step in.  And there simply isn't enough room on a roster to do that.  You'd have to not have LB backups, or cut back on line depth to a dangerous level.

 

Injuries happen.  As attrition occurs through the year teams have to go find guys to plug in.  The only solution would be to have an expanded active roster.

All true.

 

Which is why I am talking about a program, not one guy, not one signing, not any more of the same old, short-term thinking. Hey, we could do the same thing for O line too. Same thing for QB.

 

Like I said above: I don't really care what has been done. It hasn't worked. Results are not efforts. What I do know is we are in the same place we were last season wrt a complete lack of talent at 4-6 starting positions on this team. It's far past time to move on from treating this as a player by player issue, and start looking at it as a program.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, OCinBuffalo said:

All true.

 

Which is why I am talking about a program, not one guy, not one signing, not any more of the same old, short-term thinking. Hey, we could do the same thing for O line too. Same thing for QB.

 

Like I said above: I don't really care what has been done. It hasn't worked. Results are not efforts. What I do know is we are in the same place we were last season wrt a complete lack of talent at 4-6 starting positions on this team. It's far past time to move on from treating this as a player by player issue, and start looking at it as a program.

Which they are doing.

[OCinBuffalo]

4 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

If your intention was to show how clueless you are, it worked. 

Yeah. That's what happened. Buddy, read above(hell read in general). How about page one? Apparently everybody but you has figured out what this thread was about. Ok. Tell you what: I can give you a half hour tomorrow of additional instruction, and by the end of it you will know what's actually going on here. I can do 10 am, 1:30pm and 4:30. What's best for you?

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Which they are doing.

Yeah and if saying made it so....

 

I need to see real movement on this, now. I need to see it attacked on all levels. Yeah we want good DBs, no we don't want to overpay for 1 guy. Yeah, we need to spend more than 1 later round pick on CB, and we need to do that for at least 3 years in a row. Like I said above at least 1 in the top three, and 1 more later, 3 years in a row, and we MIGHT have a chance out of this. If nothing else: that approach lets you make trades, during the season, when you get the most, not during FA, when you get the least.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Buffalo stopped the run all day. They had a few lucky, un-called holding runs, but that is not why we lost. Special teams is irrelevant if you have a secondary that can cover all 4 guys: at best they get FGs, 8-90% of the time even when the ST gives up plays. We had no pass rush because we did not pass-blitz. Lots of run-blitz. Which means: we knew we were weak in coverage, so, even with trying to help that weakness, and take some away from the rush, we STILL couldn't cover when it counted most.

 

Again, it's always the same lame excuses/delusions. Again: you need 4 good CBs to play a game, and elite ones are a bonus. I'd rather have 4 good than 2 elite, and 2 mediocre.

 

Dude, Just Stop here.  If you want to lobby for better DB fine, but to claim “special teams is irrelevant” when they give your opponent short fields or allow returns deep into your territory several times, is preposterous.  If you want to back up your claim to understand the game, leave it.

[Domdab99]

Dude, you're embarrassing yourself. Just stop. 

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Yeah. That's what happened. Buddy, read above(hell read in general). How about page one? Apparently everybody but you has figured out what this thread was about. Ok. Tell you what: I can give you a half hour tomorrow of additional instruction, and by the end of it you will know what's actually going on here. I can do 10 am, 1:30pm and 4:30. What's best for you?

Yeah and if saying made it so....

 

I need to see real movement on this, now. I need to see it attacked on all levels. Yeah we want good DBs, no we don't want to overpay for 1 guy. Yeah, we need to spend more than 1 later round pick on CB, and we need to do that for at least 3 years in a row. Like I said above at least 1 in the top three, and 1 more later, 3 years in a row, and we MIGHT have a chance out of this. If nothing else: that approach lets you make trades, during the season, when you get the most, not during FA, when you get the least.

Oh you need to see it now?  Well excuse them for not meeting your needs.

 

Your presumption that they don't plan is kind of silly.

[OCinBuffalo]

19 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Dude, Just Stop here.  If you want to lobby for better DB fine, but to claim “special teams is irrelevant” when they give your opponent short fields or allow returns deep into your territory several times, is preposterous.  If you want to back up your claim to understand the game, leave it.

How often, over the course of an entire season, does a kickoff get run back? For real yards? How often does it get kicked into the endzone? What year is it?

 

The mutation of kickoffs into what they now removes at least 50% of the relevance of STs. Oh, because one guy does one return, or even 2? All year? These are overwhelmingly nullified by the sheer # of kicks to nowhere(endzone). So, why am I building a team on worrying if I have the dudes to cover a play that's only going to be real...perhaps 5-10% of the time, on perhaps 4-5 plays out 200? in a game, over the course of a season? Meanwhile, I know lining up against 3 WR and a TE is going to happen 80-85% out of 50-80? defensive plays in a game. Sorry, but look at the numbers correctly and get: irrelevant.

 

What's left? Punt and FG teams. Again: if you F it up it's a big deal, but, mostly? Not that important in today's game. Why? Because punters and kickers are so good now. You can do everything right on a punt return, all that effort from 11 guys....and one guy on the other team can force a fair catch, which makes everything you do meaningless. FGs are even worse. Ask yourself: why is a single blocked kick such a huge deal. Answer: because they are so rare. Rare==irrelevant, when I'm building a team for a 16 game season.

 

The NFL makes ST less and less relevant every year. You don't like it? Fine. But you still have to deal with it, because: reality.

17 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Oh you need to see it now?  Well excuse them for not meeting your needs.

 

Your presumption that they don't plan is kind of silly.

My presumption? 

 

I think you can get both Bill and I to agree on: if they plan at all, they've done it poorly, for the last 15 years.

17 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

Dude, you're embarrassing yourself. Just stop. 

I've already made my offer to help you out. Demanding the literal, in a situation that is entirely figurative? Yeah, you don't seem to get...much...do you?

Edited December 10, 2018 by OCinBuffalo

[K-9]

All rare plays are irrelevant until they step up and bite you in the ass. 

 

Like today. 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

All rare plays are irrelevant until they step up and bite you in the ass. 

 

Like today. 

 

Exception that proves the rule.

 

Ultimately, it's not about existence, it's about probability. I build a team that is prepared for what is, in order, most probable. I don't worry about covering every single base just so I can say I did. Ultimately, ideally, you want to do it all. Reality says you need to do first things first.

Edited December 10, 2018 by OCinBuffalo

[K-9]

Just now, OCinBuffalo said:

Exception that proves the rule.

Exceptions never prove the rule. 

 

But sometimes exceptions are relevant to how a team fares in a game. And they were relevant today and detrimental to our performance. 

 

Next week the exceptions wont mean a damned thing, hopefully. 

[oldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

How often, over the course of an entire season, does a kickoff get run back? For real yards? How often does it get kicked into the endzone? What year is it?

 

The mutation of kickoffs into what they now removes at least 50% of the relevance of STs. Oh, because one guy does one return, or even 2? All year? These are overwhelmingly nullified by the sheer # of kicks to nowhere(endzone). So, why am I building a team on worrying if I have the dudes to cover a play that's only going to be real...perhaps 5-10% of the time, on perhaps 4-5 plays out 200? in a game, over the course of a season? Meanwhile, I know lining up against 3 WR and a TE is going to happen 80-85% out of 50-80? defensive plays in a game. Sorry, but look at the numbers correctly and get: irrelevant.

 

What's left? Punt and FG teams. Again: if you F it up it's a big deal, but, mostly? Not that important in today's game. Why? Because punters and kickers are so good now. You can do everything right on a punt return, all that effort from 11 guys....and one guy on the other team can force a fair catch, which makes everything you do meaningless. FGs are even worse. Ask yourself: why is a single blocked kick such a huge deal. Answer: because they are so rare. Rare==irrelevant, when I'm building a team for a 16 game season.

 

The NFL makes ST less and less relevant every year. You don't like it? Fine. But you still have to deal with it, because: reality.

My presumption? 

 

I think you can get both Bill and I to agree on: if they plan at all, they've done it poorly, for the last 15 years.

I've already made my offer to help you out. Demanding the literal, in a situation that is entirely figurative? Yeah, you don't seem to get...much...do you?

Another guy that lumps 15 years onto a HC and GM that have been here two years.  Between this stuff and the completion percentage meaning everything crowd it makes me wonder how many folks here flunked math in grade school.

[Teddy KGB]

2 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Sure, but the two largest game-changing plays were on our #1 CB.  Having 3 other good CB's wouldn't have changed those plays, at all.

 

1 hour ago, Bill from NYC said:

Which DB got burned the most today? Was it the "shut down" first round pick? You remember.....the one we took after we traded away from 2 star quarterbacks.

 

I will be happy to talk with you more as soon as the drugs and alcohol you ingested wear off.

 

/thread.       OP is getting pummeled 

[OCinBuffalo]

Just now, K-9 said:

Exceptions never prove the rule. 

 

But sometimes exceptions are relevant to how a team fares in a game. And they were relevant today and detrimental to our performance. 

 

Next week the exceptions wont mean a damned thing, hopefully. 

But that's the point: teams get graded on seasons, not on single games. Or worse, single instances of a blocked kick in a single game. For every blocked kick, or INT, or punt flub or whatever, good teams are good, so the outcome of the mistake is almost always mitigated. How? Because 90% of the time after the mistake, the opposing team has to go right back to the probable(running an offense, playing defense) and be successful with it, for the mistake to matter. 

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Another guy that lumps 15 years onto a HC and GM that have been here two years.  Between this stuff and the completion percentage meaning everything crowd it makes me wonder how many folks here flunked math in grade school.

With this post I am specifically referring to the ST teams changes, combined with the elite punters and kickers of today, that have made ST significantly less relevant. Those rule changes weren't 15 years ago, so WTF? 

 

Also, there's a difference between an organization showing a pattern of being unprepared/poorly led, over a set period of time, and, delving into each instance of bad managers/decisions. You can do both. And, pointing to a series of management teams making the same mistake does not equal saying all management teams are the same, nor does it suggest that there hasn't been a series of teams.

 

Nope. What I am saying is: regardless of who is in charge/who holds the power, pretending that it's 1985 is a problem. You do see that you could line up 10 GMs, and if they all approach DBs the same, it wouldn't matter if you only had one for 10 years, or all ten of them, each for one year, over ten years, we'd get the same result. Right?