Jump to content

The Bills Aren't a Top-Tier Team Yet


Shaw66

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Pete Prisco just put out his rankings:

 

1. Steelers 

2. Chiefs

3. Saints 

4. Colts

5. Packers 

6. Rams (Definitely top 10 after yesterday)

7. Seahawks 

8. Bills 

9. Titans 

10. Bucs 

What do these lists mean, anyway? I mean, sure, the Chiefs are better than the Jets, but are the Steelers better than the Colts or the Packers better than the Bills? If you look closely, the rankings are just silly. Team A might be better than Team B but worse than Team C, and so on. If you just have to rank (and it is fun), the most accurate means I can think of would be to match one team at a time against all the other teams and imagine them playing ten games in a neutral stadium. For example, if the Bills played the Cardinals ten times, I think the Bills would win six. So they're better and should be ranked above them. Any ranking could only be understood in terms of that one team. In this exercise, I have the Bills behind considerably behind the Chiefs and Saints, slightly behind the Steelers and Titans, about even with the Rams, Packers and Seahawks, slightly ahead of the Bucs, Cardinals and Colts, and considerably ahead of every other team. But you can't conclude they're the fifth best team or even tied for the fifth best, because matchups of other teams would yield different results. All you could meaningfully say is that the Bills are mostly likely in the second rank of teams (i.e., 5-8), without being able to say exactly which other teams would also be in the top two ranks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, finn said:

What do these lists mean, anyway? I mean, sure, the Chiefs are better than the Jets, but are the Steelers better than the Colts or the Packers better than the Bills? If you look closely, the rankings are just silly. Team A might be better than Team B but worse than Team C, and so on. If you just have to rank (and it is fun), the most accurate means I can think of would be to match one team at a time against all the other teams and imagine them playing ten games in a neutral stadium. For example, if the Bills played the Cardinals ten times, I think the Bills would win six. So they're better and should be ranked above them. Any ranking could only be understood in terms of that one team. In this exercise, I have the Bills behind considerably behind the Chiefs and Saints, slightly behind the Steelers and Titans, about even with the Rams, Packers and Seahawks, slightly ahead of the Bucs, Cardinals and Colts, and considerably ahead of every other team. But you can't conclude they're the fifth best team or even tied for the fifth best, because matchups of other teams would yield different results. All you could meaningfully say is that the Bills are mostly likely in the second rank of teams (i.e., 5-8), without being able to say exactly which other teams would also be in the top two ranks. 

I agree about these things they call power rankings. 

 

Whether it was true then or not, when power rankings first began (I think in college basketball), they attempted to do some sort of comparative data analysis, strength of schedule and other stuff, to figure out which teams were better than others in an environment where the teams weren't playing each other or many common opponents.  There was some attempt to determine the relative strength (or power) of each team.   The whole idea quickly deteriorated into what it is now - someone's list that is there only because we like to see it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, I have to back track a bit.  After watching Brady last night, I would take Allen over him right now.  Sure, Brady sees and understands more about what's going on on the field, and that's really important.  But Allen handles pressure in the pocket much better, and he throws the ball well more consistently than Brady.   Brady's throwing to Evans, Godwin, Antonio Brown, and Gronkowski.  Those guys should be lighting it up, and last night it looked like Brady was the one holding them back.  Tampa Bay wins that game with Allen at QB.  

 

Brady should have retired.  Now all he is ding is shining a light on his declining physical abilities.

Not retiring might also hint at mental abilities as well.  Knowing when NOT to do something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Yes appreciate the math lesson....😜 

 

Want to see more though.

 

I don't want to be relying on a Cam Newton fumble on the 12, a pass interference on fourth down, an int vs. NYJ in the last 2 minutes or knocking down a hail mary to end games.....

I’m quite sure the cards will take that win against us no matter how it happened all you have to do is Win it doesn’t matter by how many points this isn’t college

Edited by John from Riverside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John from Riverside said:

I’m quite sure the cards will take that win against us no matter how it happened all you have to do is Win it doesn’t matter by how many points this isn’t college

When playing a team that you are considered on par with (and Cards were favoured), yes you expect a close game (though would like to win handily).

 

However when playing an inferior team, yes you want to win handily.  Chargers, 49'ers & Broncos, yes you want to show you are the better team.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

Brady should have retired.  Now all he is ding is shining a light on his declining physical abilities.

Not retiring might also hint at mental abilities as well.  Knowing when NOT to do something. 

Right.   I agree about declining abilities, and I also have always though that Brady had his success because he truly was the perfect match for Belichick's genius.   This season he's demonstrating that without Bill figuring out how to attack every week, he's not nearly so effective. 

 

I'll repeat something I heard Brady say about 10 years ago.   First half of one season, he was having a below par season.   Then he got hot, and he was just eating defenses alive.  Someone asked him what happened.   He said that he and Belichick have a two-hour film session every Wednesday afternoon, talking through the offensive game plan and how to attack the defense.  That season, the Pats defense was struggling and Bill was skipping the Wednesday meetings with Brady to work extra time with the defense.  When he got the defense back on track, he resumed the Wednesday meetings with Brady, and Brady's game went back to his HOF play.  

 

Last season, Brady was an old QB playing for Belichick.   This season he's just an old QB.  

2 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

I’m quite sure the cards will take that win against us no matter how it happened all you have to do is Win it doesn’t matter by how many points this isn’t college

Yes, it's all about the wins, but points for/points against and how you end games both are indicators of how dominant you are.  If every game is being decided in the last two minutes, more of your wins are dependent on luck, and luck can change.  If you're counting on creating a turnover every week to preserve a win, you're not a dominant team.  The Pats were steam-rollering the Bills - if there were 10 more minutes in that game, the Bills would have lost, because they absolutely could not stop the Pats offense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Right.   I agree about declining abilities, and I also have always though that Brady had his success because he truly was the perfect match for Belichick's genius.   This season he's demonstrating that without Bill figuring out how to attack every week, he's not nearly so effective. 

 

I'll repeat something I heard Brady say about 10 years ago.   First half of one season, he was having a below par season.   Then he got hot, and he was just eating defenses alive.  Someone asked him what happened.   He said that he and Belichick have a two-hour film session every Wednesday afternoon, talking through the offensive game plan and how to attack the defense.  That season, the Pats defense was struggling and Bill was skipping the Wednesday meetings with Brady to work extra time with the defense.  When he got the defense back on track, he resumed the Wednesday meetings with Brady, and Brady's game went back to his HOF play.  

 

Last season, Brady was an old QB playing for Belichick.   This season he's just an old QB.  

Yes, it's all about the wins, but points for/points against and how you end games both are indicators of how dominant you are.  If every game is being decided in the last two minutes, more of your wins are dependent on luck, and luck can change.  If you're counting on creating a turnover every week to preserve a win, you're not a dominant team.  The Pats were steam-rollering the Bills - if there were 10 more minutes in that game, the Bills would have lost, because they absolutely could not stop the Pats offense.  

Generally speaking, I'm not buying into your good luck or bad luck defines who we are argument OP. A football game is not 70 minutes or 50 minutes. its 60 minutes unless overtime occurs. Regardless of what a team is doing in the last 10 minutes of a football game If they didn't play well enough in the first 50 minutes its all for not. The opposition or Buffalo in this case desrves credit for doing enough to withstand the final onslaught. 

 

The Buffalo Bills are not 7 - 3 because they are lucky in my humble opinion OP. The Arizona game is a good example. The Bills are the only team in the league to beat 4 teams with 6 or more wins. All playoff contenders at this point in the season. This equates to competitive, hard fought football games IMO.

 

The Buffalo Bills are becoming a battle hardened football team IMO.  If I was to use one word to describe why they are where they are at the top of the AFC East.

 

HEART... 

Edited by Figster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Figster said:

Generally speaking, I'm not buying into your good luck or bad luck defines who we are argument OP. A football game is not 70 minutes or 50 minutes. its 60 minutes unless overtime occurs. Regardless of what a team is doing in the last 10 minutes of a football game If they didn't play well enough in the first 50 minutes its all for not. The opposition or Buffalo in this case desrves credit for doing enough to withstand the final onslaught. 

 

The Buffalo Bills are not 7 - 3 because they are lucky in my humble opinion OP.

 

The Arizona game is a great example...

Simply put there has been 4 games that were decided on the last possession LA Rams, NYJ (game 2), NE & Arizona.  The Bills are 3-1.  The Chargers on the otherhand have blown almost every game the last possession.  

 

While I'm sure the Bills would have won the NYJ game, it is scary to think if either the Rams or NE game went the other way, this team is in much worse shape then they are now.

 

NE too lost 4 games on the final possession & won 2....  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Simply put there has been 4 games that were decided on the last possession LA Rams, NYJ (game 2), NE & Arizona.  The Bills are 3-1.  The Chargers on the otherhand have blown almost every game the last possession.  

 

While I'm sure the Bills would have won the NYJ game, it is scary to think if either the Rams or NE game went the other way, this team is in much worse shape then they are now.

 

NE too lost 4 games on the final possession & won 2....  

 

 

You scheme well or you don't. You execute well or you don't. 

 

You finish well or you don't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...