Many discussions Here

[Casey D]

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

[LabattBlue]

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]

Excellent post. The Bills defense which everyone expected to step up to the plate and hold teams down, has not been able to accomplish this the last two weeks. I find it funny that so many who said that the Bills will not miss PW because he only played 1/2 to 2/3's of the time are now using him as an excuse for the woes of the defense. Would I have given PW the money? No and I don't believe that losing one starter out of 11 ruins your defense. Especially when he is a DT on the wrong side of his career who only plays part time.

[Max Fischer]

Well said. I agree with everything.

 

If you we're told that against ATL the Bills offense would:

 

1. Score 16 points

2. Give up only one turnover

3. Not commit a single one penalty; and

4. Willis would run for 150 yards and 172 net rushing,

 

I would have caulked up a Win.

[Alaska Darin]

Well said. I agree with everything.

 

If you we're told that against ATL the Bills offense would:

 

1.  Score 16 points

2.  Give up only one turnover

3.  Not commit a single one penalty; and

4.  Willis would run for 150 yards and 172 net rushing,

 

I would have caulked up a Win.

455698[/snapback]

Caulked? I hope you're not a teacher. You'd be costing the taxpayers millions in chalkboard replacement.

[AKC]

I don't believe that losing one starter out of 11 ruins your defense.

455673[/snapback]

 

You acknowledge that the only difference betwen the 2004 "#2" Defense and the "ruined" unit we're fielding now is Pat Williams.

 

Then you make the above statement-

 

Curious.

[Max Fischer]

Caulked?  I hope you're not a teacher.  You'd be costing the taxpayers millions in chalkboard replacement.

455700[/snapback]

 

Thanks for your usual elitist, snide and irrelevant response.

 

I will apologize to the whole board for the brain cramp typo. Happy now?

[Alaska Darin]

Thanks for your usual elitist, snide and irrelevant response. 

 

I will apologize to the whole board for the brain cramp typo.  Happy now?

455704[/snapback]

Lighten up, Francis.

[Casey D]

You acknowledge that the only difference betwen the 2004 "#2" Defense and the "ruined" unit we're fielding now is Pat Williams.

 

Then you make the above statement-

 

Curious.

455701[/snapback]

 

Why do you find that curious? What he is plainly stating is that the fall off in the defense, in his mind, cannot be explained simply by the loss of Williams. Your fallacious thinking is that because the only thing different is Williams, the cause for the fall off must be Williams. But you are assuming your answer when you say the only difference is Williams. Other factors might be involved, like poorer performance from returning players due to age, simple regression, or injury. Or perhaps the defensive schemes used before effectively are no longer as effective because of adjustments opposing offenses have made. Those are just a couple of possibilities.

 

Bottom line, it seems unlikely the defense has played so poorly solely, or even primarily, because of the departure of PW. Other things--hopefully correctable things--probably are the main reasons, when you have 10 starters returning(now 9 with the loss of Spikes)... CD

[e-dog]

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.

[Casey D]

Lighten up, Francis.

455713[/snapback]

 

That's funny. As angry as you seem to be about almost everything, telling someone else to lighten up. That's a good one.

[Alaska Darin]

That's funny.  As angry as you seem to be about almost everything, telling someone else to lighten up.  That's a good one.

455728[/snapback]

Angry? You have me confused with someone else.

[AKC]

Why do you find that curious? 

455725[/snapback]

 

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.

[Casey D]

Angry?  You have me confused with someone else.

455732[/snapback]

 

No, your consistent pattern of scathing and acerbic comments on most every topic is a pretty clear sign of anger. Unless, of course, you are really Don Rickles or something and it is all an act.

[Max Fischer]

Lighten up, Francis.

455713[/snapback]

 

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!

[Casey D]

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]

 

Your response only indicates that you are certain that everything is attributable to the PW departure. You may be right, but given say, the myriad of injuries that teams have with little or no fall off in performance--e.g. the New England secondary last year--it seems more likely to me that the loss of one player should not have that dramatic of an effect. So the situation hardly seems obvious to me; indeed your view seems to be overly simplistic and wrong, and in my opinion, equally curious. But to each his own.

[Alaska Darin]

No, your consistent pattern of scathing and acerbic comments on most every topic is a pretty clear sign of anger.  Unless, of course, you are really Don Rickles or something and it is all an act.

455748[/snapback]

You a pshrink? Or do you just play one on a message board? I guess I'll have to start looking deeper at my posts, so as not to be judged as angry. I'd hate to give HLS a reason to look at me as a possible malcontent.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

No, your consistent pattern of scathing and acerbic comments on most every topic is a pretty clear sign of anger.  Unless, of course, you are really Don Rickles or something and it is all an act.

455748[/snapback]

 

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

[AKC]

given say, the myriad of injuries that teams have with little or no fall off in performance--e.g. the New England secondary last year--it seems more likely to me that the loss of one player should not have that dramatic of an effect. .

455761[/snapback]

 

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.

[Casey D]

You a pshrink?  Or do you just play one on a message board?  I guess I'll have to start looking deeper at my posts, so as not to be judged as angry.  I'd hate to give HLS a reason to look at me as a possible malcontent. 

455764[/snapback]

 

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.

[stuckincincy]

Today we have the human Weeble in run support, Ron Edwards..

455743[/snapback]

 

Nice imagery!