Many discussions Here

[Casey D]

Anger?  Actually, it's a pretty clear sign of scathing and acerbic comments.

455766[/snapback]

 

Thanks for clearing that up. My bad.

[Alaska Darin]

No, no.  My fault.  You taught me a valuable lesson, oh wise one.  Please continue, the world is a better place when we act and think just like you.

 

Thanks again, see you on the board!

455760[/snapback]

Yeah, that's what I was implying. I want a world filled with robots who act and think just like me. Oh wait, I wouldn't have anyone to make fun of!

 

You're welcome.

[BEAST MODE BABY!]

This defense played against many sub-par teams last year, thus elevating their stats. Now we're playing better teams, and we're wilting. It's no surprise if you ask me.

 

Perhaps we can open a thread on how stupid everyone else is. It can be moderated by Alaska Darin. Just a thought.

[jarthur31]

This team was supposed to win based on great defense and special teams, and an adequate offense that did not turn the ball over much, and let a pea green QB get his feet wet.  The offense is not great, but has turned the ball over only twice in three games and scored on the first three drives yesterday, and got 16 points.  This team is supposed to win 10-6, 13-7, 16-9, etc.  This defense is supposed to be great--16 points needs to be enough to win 95% of the time.

 

What did the defense do?  It gave up touchdowns on the FIRST TWO possessions.  It allowed a ridiculous 60 yard run to permit a FG right before half-time when the other team had given up trying to score.  When the Bills closed to 17-16 early in the second-half, special teams covered the ensuing kickoff at the Atlanta 3.  A hold and the Bills are in scoring position for the lead likely off the PUNT Return.  What happens, a 60 yard drive.  The defense, except for the one pick, did absolutely nothing to help the O.  Nothing.

 

There may be a very small gap between what we could reasonably expect and what we are getting on offense.  But there is a chasm between what we expected on defense and what we are getting.  If the defense is just decent yesterday, WE WIN.  People who think we are going to win by becoming an offensive juggernaut with Holcomb or otherwise are fools.  This team rises and falls on defense and special teams.  The prospects look dim right now, given the defense's play and now the huge loss of Spikes.  But bailing on JP is crazy, and shows how little patience people have, and how little they understand the game in general and the Bills in particular.  Good God... CD

455478[/snapback]

 

 

I'm not stupid enough to blame our troubles on a rookie QB! After all, our team became ALOT better when the statue was released.

 

The fact of the matter is, that the real problem has yet to be addressed. It's the damned line! The right side with a healthy Mike Williams is fine the rest is just killing us.

 

Ron Edwards is a huge joke at stopping the run. He needs to be benched ASAP!. I could live with Anderson even if he can't play any better. The LB's look very lost out there this year. And everybody seems to have forgotten how to tackle.

 

Troy is becoming a liability as a FS. Huge 3rd completions for 15+ yards is assinine. This needs to be corrected before we dream of having a .500 season.

[Alaska Darin]

Certainly no one would conclude your posts are cheerful or tolerant based on your broad body of work on this board. You have a style that is judgmental and often mean spirited. I guess I just assumed it was caused by anger, but I don't really care about the reason one way or the other--it's none of my business. I just thought it funny and somewhat ironic that you of all people would tell someone else to lighten up. But let's move on, I don't want to start a tirade or anything.

455778[/snapback]

Sorry, I should have surmized somehow the comment "you would cost the taxpayers millions in chalkboard replacement" (because he'd have been using caulk instead of chalk) would probably lead to dualing pistols in Casey D's world.

 

I promise to never again type anything so obviously vengeful in your presence. Or not.

 

I'd apologize for being "mean spirited" but it would be hollow as hell.

[Casey D]

In some monolithic model where all pieces have the same impact on the overal effectiveness you would be accurate, but that's hardly realistic in the NFL. The middle of the defensive line is the most important element in the effectiveness against the run. Most teams recognize this, which is why teams like NE have far deeper talent pools at DT than the Bills (even though they use a 3-4 base running set). Our first down D was of good quality when we had two starting quality talents there, today it's awful since we've downgraded that by one whole player. And there's little about the outcome that is curious in any way, shape, or form.

455771[/snapback]

 

New England was starting practice squad players in the secondary last year; they even use a receiver--Troy Brown--on defense. If there depth is that deep, that is incredible. In any event, I understand your certaintly that the downfall of the D is the loss of PW. I simply don't agree.

[Alaska Darin]

New England was starting practice squad players in the secondary last year; they even use a receiver--Troy Brown--on defense.  If there depth is that deep, that is incredible.  In any event, I understand your certaintly that the downfall of the D is the loss of PW.  I simply don't agree.

455795[/snapback]

Way to prove his point and not even realize you did it.

[Casey D]

Sorry, I should have surmized somehow the comment "you would cost the taxpayers millions in chalkboard replacement" (because he'd have been using caulk instead of chalk) would probably lead to dualing pistols in Casey D's world. 

 

I promise to never again type anything so obviously vengeful in your presence.  Or not.

 

I'd apologize for being "mean spirited" but it would be hollow as hell.

455792[/snapback]

 

To be sure, it would be. And fyi, "surmized" is spelled "surmised." But let's caulk that up to an honest mistake.

[Max Fischer]

To be sure, it would be.  And fyi, "surmized" is spelled "surmised."  But let's caulk that up to an honest mistake.

455804[/snapback]

 

The King is dead, long live the King.

[AKC]

New England was starting practice squad players in the secondary last year; they even use a receiver--Troy Brown--on defense.  If there depth is that deep, that is incredible.  In any event, I understand your certaintly that the downfall of the D is the loss of PW.  I simply don't agree.

455795[/snapback]

 

Again, the flaming man asks the question "is it getting hot in here?"

 

As I pointed out, DBs are nowhere near as critical to the effectiveness of a rushing defense as the interior defensive linemen. Hence, whether you're plugging in Troy Edwards or Edward R. Murrow in a defensive backfield you simply won't affect your run defense to any degree when compared with the change from a quailty interior DT to one with no business being on the field on rushing downs. This truth, one you are so determined to dispute, is the reason for the pitiful run stopping of our defense the past two weeks. And it will continue.

 

But it would be entertaining to hear you expand on your opinion that DT quality has no more bearing on rushing defense than personell in the defensive backfield.

[BB2004]

The real problem with this defense is they can't get off the field on third downs and especially 3rd and long passing situations.

 

Did Schobel even play yeaterday ? This is our supposed pass rusher ?

 

Another bad move TD. You have a lot of cap money tied up in to average/mediocre players. Schobel and Mikey.

 

And to top it off the best player on the team will be walking next year because TD won't pay him. 

455726[/snapback]

 

Well if that's the case then its rebuilding all over again. What would the point of all of that? Not resigning Clements? Then we let him go and then draft a first or second round CB. We would be right back to square one of the TD era.

[Casey D]

Again, the flaming man asks the question "is it getting hot in here?"

 

As I pointed out, DBs are nowhere near as critical to the effectiveness of a rushing defense as the interior defensive linemen. Hence, whether you're plugging in Troy Edwards or Edward R. Murrow in a defensive backfield you simply won't affect your run defense to any degree when compared with the change from a quailty interior DT to one with no business being on the field on rushing downs. This truth, one you are so determined to dispute, is the reason for the pitiful run stopping of our defense the past two weeks. And it will continue.

 

But it would be entertaining to hear you expand on your opinion that DT quality has no more bearing on rushing defense than personnel in the defensive backfield.

455874[/snapback]

 

You have a myopic way of thinking. Of course, the defensive backfield has less to do with rushing defense than the defensive line. Conversely, the defensive backfield has much to do with pass defense. My analogy was that when the Patriots lost just about their entire secondary, and had to play that way down the stretch last year--and in the playoffs against one of the most dynamic passing teams in history, the Colts--the team's pass defense held up just fine. And that was with the loss of several players, not just one.

 

Which leads to my point, that football is a team sport, and so is football defense. When over 90% of your defense returns(as is the case with the Bills), you would not expect a 50% or greater drop off in play simply because of the loss of one player-- and only a good player, not a pro-bowler. Yet you claim the drop off in the defense's play as attributable solely to the loss of PW to be a certain truth, and my reference to the Patriots was simply to show that losing one player--or multiple players--should not that significantly affect a good defense.

 

And don't suggest the DBs that New England was using were great players--guys like Earthwind Moreland who started is not even in the league anymore(I don't think). Surely the drop-off from Ty Law to Moreland at least equaled any drop-off from Williams to Edwards(no matter how much you think he sucks), yet New England held up just fine in pass defense. I find it implausible that the Bill's dramaticdefensive drop-off is primarily due to PW leaving--that's my view. But you think what you like. You are just wrong, in my opinion.

[AKC]

You have a myopic way of thinking. 

 

Which leads to my point, that football is a team sport, and so is football defense.  When over 90% of your defense returns(as is the case with the Bills), you would not expect a 50% or greater drop off in play simply because of the loss of one player-- and only a good player, not a pro-bowler.  Yet you claim the drop off in the defense's play as attributable solely to the loss of PW to be a certain truth, and my reference to the Patriots was simply to show that losing one player--or multiple players--should not that significantly affect a good defense.

 

I find it implausible that the Bill's dramaticdefensive drop-off is primarily due to PW leaving--that's my view.  But you think what you like.  You are just wrong, in my opinion.

455919[/snapback]

 

 

It's hardly important for you to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room, simply smelling him can be enough evidence for the balance of us when there are so many other signs of his presence.

 

I provided play by play evidence of Edwards inability to keep his balance against the run all pre-season, and now, as predicted, teams are running at his spot with great success. The caoches and players around him are exactly the same as last year, a year when few teams ran over our left side. This year it's become fashionable.

 

When asked the difference from 04 to 05 you've made amorphous references to "team this" or "defensive back that" without offereing one single bit of evidence that the play of Ron Edwards is not the sole cause of all the rushing yards we're giving up. Fantasy is nice, but the film shows you're dead wrong since the vast majority of these gains are being made right over territory Edwards has vacated. I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you, I'll simply allow you to go on believing that it "may" be getting hot over there, the snorting has nothing to do with any gorilla, and Ron Edwards has nothing to do with the decline in our run defense".

[Simon]

When asked the difference from 04 to 05 you've made amorphous references to "team this" or "defensive back that" without offereing one single bit of evidence that the play of Ron Edwards is not the sole cause of all the rushing yards we're giving up.

I don't think Ron Edwards is the sole culprit. From the bits of the game I saw yesterday, Tim Anderson was also lamentable at the position.

[AKC]

I don't think Ron Edwards is the sole culprit. From the bits of the game I saw yesterday, Tim Anderson was also lamentable at the position. 

455987[/snapback]

 

I didn't get a tape in and got preoccupied feeding wings to 75 people- I probably wouldn't want to watch it anyway.

 

It's a consistent thing about an effective 1st down defense- when you can leave your opposition regulary at 2nd and 8 or 9 all year you take away a lot of their playbook. Resultantly you also get to take more chances and the increased likelihood of those chances paying off based on the down/yardage situations that present themselves. I expect the next clear victim of our diminished run D will be our takeaway ratio.

 

All the talk about the diminished value of a guy playing "1/3rd" of the time today looks pretty short-sighted. Yes there's other players who could have taken the PWilliams spot and possibly even contributed on more downs, but none of those "other players" happen to be on our roster.

[EC-Bills]

In the same way the flaming man asks "is it getting hot in here?"

 

PW commanded a blocker and a half on evey run down. That forced a team to start their blocking schemes with 3-4 players hitting Big Sam and Pat.

 

Today we have the human Weeble in run support, Ron Edwards. There's no need to scheme for him since a 190 pound running back can knock him off-balance. This frees up one blocker to focus directly on our linebacking corps instead of chipping a lineman on their way to our second line. Every offense this year has bascially an "extra blocker" since we only have one starting quality run stopper. This is the only difference between the 2004 and 2005 Bill's Defense. To recognize all the elements of what is happening, yet ignore the obvious cause, that- at least to me-  is curious indeed.

455743[/snapback]

 

I go back and forth about how much of a difference it would make if Pat were still here. I want to say yes, but then I think about the big games against quality opponents we played last year, our D line got pushed around. The Steelers game is the one still flashing in my mind. Go figure. As for the take on Edwards, yeah, he leaves a bit to be desired as run blocker. Hopefully Anderson can progress and take over that role as the season goes on.

[AKC]

I go back and forth about how much of a difference it would make if Pat were still here.  I want to say yes, but then I think about the big games against quality opponents we played last year, our D line got pushed around. The Steelers game is the one still flashing in my mind.  Go figure.  As for the take on Edwards, yeah, he leaves a bit to be desired as run blocker.  Hopefully Anderson can progress and take over that role as the season goes on.

456006[/snapback]

 

We were definitely no "#2 against the run" on anything more than on paper last year. Maybe #7 or 8. But that's still a lot better than the #18 we'll end up this year.

[ajzepp]

I don't know of any Bills fans who would rather have R. Edwards playing instead of P.Williams....Big Pat was simply not worth the money that Minny ponied up for him.

[ajzepp]

It's hardly important for you to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room, simply smelling him can be enough evidence for the balance of us when there are so many other signs of his presence.

 

 

455968[/snapback]

 

You sure you're not smelling the burning guy?

[Casey D]

It's hardly important for you to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room, simply smelling him can be enough evidence for the balance of us when there are so many other signs of his presence.

 

I provided play by play evidence of Edwards inability to keep his balance against the run all pre-season, and now, as predicted, teams are running at his spot with great success. The caoches and players around him are exactly the same as last year, a year when few teams ran over our left side. This year it's become fashionable.

 

When asked the difference from 04 to 05 you've made amorphous references to "team this" or "defensive back that" without offereing one single bit of evidence that the play of Ron Edwards is not the sole cause of all the rushing yards we're giving up. Fantasy is nice, but the film shows you're dead wrong since the vast majority of these gains are being made right over territory Edwards has vacated. I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you, I'll simply allow you to go on believing that it "may" be getting hot over there, the snorting has nothing to do with any gorilla, and Ron Edwards has nothing to do with the decline in our run defense".

455968[/snapback]

 

Getting patronizing does not make you right. Maybe you should type in all caps so I hear you better--that's persuasive too.

 

There are lots of reasons why the defense has not played well so far, and if in your expert opinion you want to lay it all on Ron Edwards, by all means do so. Tell me though, when did you get the game films from yesterday to study, to come up with your analysis that you say is obvious on film? Did you have time to break it all down today. Man you are good. I expect Edwards will be released tomorrow on your say so, given how obvious the problem is on film.