Turnovers

[C.Biscuit97]

Obviously, there is a lot of talk on this board about our coach and quarterback. Thoguh I think coaching is somewhat overrated on the NFL level, these are two huge areas of concern for this team. Whenever people get excited about this team, the "negative" folks love to point out how terrible Jauron & company is. However, I present the following:

 

- We were the #1 special teams unit in the NFL and led the NFL in average field position.

 

- In 2007, we scored 15.8 points/ game (30th). This year, we scored 21 points/ game (23rd).

 

- In 2007, we gave 22.1 points/ game (15th). This year, we gave up 21.4 points/ game (19th).

 

- In 2007, we finished 31st in defense. This year, we finished in 14th.

 

- In 2007, we finished 30th in offense. This year, we finished 25th (modest gain, by a gain nonetheless).

 

- In 2007, we finished 30th with our QBs posting a 73.8 rating. This year (and it was dragged down considerably by our backup QB), we finished 22nd with a 81.3 rating.

 

- In 2007, we finished 15th in rushing with a 4.0 ypc. This year, we finished 14th with a 4.2 ypc.

- Additionally, we also improved in Time of Possession from 27th to 17th this year.

So if we improved in every area, how could we win the same amount of games as a team led by a rookie/ out of the league QB which one of the worst injury situations I have ever seen? This is why:

 

- In 2007, we fumbled 20 times (7th best) and lost 7 (5th best). This year, we fumbled 36 times (2nd worst) and lost 15 of them (2nd worst).

 

- In 2007, we threw 14 ints (6th best). This year, we threw 15 (16th best).

- In 2007, we forced 29 fumbles (9th best) and recovered 12 (13th best). This year, we forced 21 fumbles (16th best) and recovered 12 (10th best).

 

- In 2007, we had 18 INTs (10th in the NFL). This year, we had 10 ints (27th in the NFL).

- Overall, in 2007, our turnover ratio was a +9 (6th in the NFL and the only one of the top 7 teams that didn't make the playoffs). This year, we finished -8 (27th and a negative change of 17).

Here's a few of the conclusions I drew:

 

1) Obviously, turnovers are the name of the game. Look at the difference teams like the Ravens, Fins, & Ravens made in one year.

 

2) In almost every area, we improved. Isn't that what you want from your team?

 

3) I think it is interesting that the INTs throw was pretty much the same and middle of the pack. If there was a significant increase, you could blame it on the coaching philosophy. However, you can't.

 

4) As crazy as it sounds, I think Rian Lindell was a huge factor in some of our losses. In 2007, Lindell was 24 of 27 fg attempts (89%, 10th in the NFL). This year, he was 30 of 38 in fg attempts (79%, 31st in the NFL). In some of the close games the Bills lost, a missed field goal that Lindell probably would have made in 2007 totally changes game stragety.

 

So here are my questions for discussions:

 

1) How much does the coaching staff deserve in blame for the change in turnover ratio? IMO, I think is clearly on the players. If you somehow blame Jauron, you also must give him credit for 2007.

 

2) Do we make the playoffs this year with our 2007 turnover ratio?

 

3) Is Lindell a good enough kicker to count of in close games?

 

Discuss.

[PushthePile]

Excellent post. I have to believe that the TO differential is largely to blame for last years slide. The team was significantly better last year, and your statistics certainly support that. Some fans will downplay the gains and simply attribute it to a weaker schedule. I tend to think that the schedule hype is overrated. What is not overrated is divisional games and the AFC East has no cream puffs. It was the divisional games that broke our back last year and untimely turnovers was a large factor. If we protect the ball better in those games, the sentiment around here would be alot different.

 

First off, I tend to agree with you that coaching in the NFL is grossly overrated. Peopel around here will try and convince you that Bellicheat could have made Losman a HOF. Don't get me wrong, coaching is extremely important but players win games. All the "great" coachs had "great" players. You don't win a superbowl with mediocre talent but you can certainly win one with mediocre coaching. I don't believe that the coaching staff can be blamed for the turnover difference. Especially considering that the real difference came from fumbles. At the NFL level it's not the coachs fault his players didn't wrap up the ball. I think the lack of turnovers created is mainly because of the lack of pressure. This team doesn't have enough bullets to mount a real attack. Mitchell is a decent blitzer but that's it. We can't create pressure from outside our D-line and we all know what that looks like.

 

Lindell has been on the decline. In perfect conditions and within his range he's money. Unfortunately he doesn't see those conditions too often in Buffalo. I don't think he stinks but he is playing for his job this year. Can we win with him? YES Will he cost us late in the season in an important game? Probably

 

If we can duplicate the 2007 turnover differential, this team will win more games. If they do that and continue overall improvement, we can start talking playoffs.

[The Big Cat]

I've been banging this drum since last year's New York and Miami games. Not to worry, folks here will find a way to blame Jauron for turnovers. Just wait.

[PushthePile]

I've been banging this drum since last year's New York and Miami games. Not to worry, folks here will find a way to blame Jauron for turnovers. Just wait.

Unfortunately you are right Cat. The Jauron sucks crowd will certainly point to the Jets disaster and treat it like it cost us the playoffs. Drag out the same old drum and start beating it.

[McBeane]

After watching the games as well I saw the turnovers killing us. Not only do we lose the ball, but it makes our defense have to be on the field more which wears them down and ends up with us giving up more points. And we know our offense has struggled with scoring. I totally agree with the OP, turnovers KILLED us big time.

[BillsVet]

In 2007, IIRC, Buffalo was tied fourth in the AFC in turnover differential and they finished 7-9.

 

AFC Turnovers 2007

 

For the record, NE, SD, IND, and JAC all made the playoffs in 07. PIT at +3 and TEN, which finished +1 also made the playoffs. Admittedly, this is one season's worth of stats, but Buffalo was an anomaly during the 07 season in that they were top five in the conference and went sub .500.

[vincec]

Turnovers are not all luck.

 

Defenses that can pressure the QB create sacks (with QB fumbles) and interceptions due to disrupted timing and poor throws. Defenses that get can stop the run create obvious passing downs which lead to better opportunities to create turnovers in the passing game. Defenses that get penetration into the backfield create broken plays and cause fumbles.

 

On offense, teams that run the ball effectively turn the ball over less because they stay out of long yardage situations and force opposing defenses to reduce the frequency of blitzes and nickel/dime coverages. This leads to fewer ints. Also, some backs are simply more turnover prone than others because of their running style (upright) or the way the hold the ball (Tikki Barber before changes).

 

It's a team game too. Teams with strong offenses get big leads and force other teams into riskier play calls to catch up. Strong defenses keep the games close so offenses can play more conservatively.

 

So the Bills poor turnover performance is a reflection on the teams performance and coaching, not simply luck as is being implied.

[offde-fence]

You can't blame coaches for not intercepting the ball. You can blame them for not calling plays that lead to pressure...yet, our defense was banged up a lot, and Fewell couldn't stop the run - not his fault. Our players couldn't stop the run, so, the safeties had to play the run a lot more, which, I think, gave them hesitation. And, there was no pressure from the DE's, which our scheme needs to be successful. I'd say players were the factor for that. With our scheme, if our front four can stop the run and pressure the QB, then, with the speed everywhere else, we'll be picking off passes left and right. To that end, we'll have to see how they perform this year. I still think stopping the run is going to be the biggest test.

As for Lindell, I believe he took a special off-season training with some pro sports facility before the 2007 season, which attributed to his great year. He must have felt like it was going to stay with him last year without having to go through that again. Hopefully he'll put some extra work in this year.

[The Big Cat]

Unfortunately you are right Cat. The Jauron sucks crowd will certainly point to the Jets disaster and treat it like it cost us the playoffs. Drag out the same old drum and start beating it.

 

 

If said drum wasn't a perished equine, I'd be more than willing to indulge you.

 

There are definitely some things to get pissy about, and Jauron is certainly not without his faults, but the way people twist and turn what happens in the moment ON THE FIELD, it signifies a basic refusal to believe anything other than "coach's fault coach's fault coach's fault coach's fault coach's fault."

 

Makes me wonder how many of the aforementioned knee-jerks played and/or still play sports.

[vincec]

The players can't be blamed for everything. Coaching does play a part in this game. Unless you think that it's just bad luck that DJ has had one winning season in his entire career and good luck that someone like Don Shula had only 1 losing season in 32 years of coaching. It's just the players that they happened to get. The coaches really didn't play a part in any of it.

[C.Biscuit97]

In 2007, IIRC, Buffalo was tied fourth in the AFC in turnover differential and they finished 7-9.

 

AFC Turnovers 2007

 

For the record, NE, SD, IND, and JAC all made the playoffs in 07. PIT at +3 and TEN, which finished +1 also made the playoffs. Admittedly, this is one season's worth of stats, but Buffalo was an anomaly during the 07 season in that they were top five in the conference and went sub .500.

 

 

That was the whole point. This 2008 team was better in every single way than the 2007 team. The only reason the 2007 team was able to compete was because of the turnover ratio. If we had the 2007 turnover ratio this year, we would have been a playoff team.

 

Honest question: who do you blame for the turnovers? Coaches or players?

[C.Biscuit97]

Turnovers are not all luck.

 

Defenses that can pressure the QB create sacks (with QB fumbles) and interceptions due to disrupted timing and poor throws. Defenses that get can stop the run create obvious passing downs which lead to better opportunities to create turnovers in the passing game. Defenses that get penetration into the backfield create broken plays and cause fumbles.

 

On offense, teams that run the ball effectively turn the ball over less because they stay out of long yardage situations and force opposing defenses to reduce the frequency of blitzes and nickel/dime coverages. This leads to fewer ints. Also, some backs are simply more turnover prone than others because of their running style (upright) or the way the hold the ball (Tikki Barber before changes).

 

It's a team game too. Teams with strong offenses get big leads and force other teams into riskier play calls to catch up. Strong defenses keep the games close so offenses can play more conservatively.

 

So the Bills poor turnover performance is a reflection on the teams performance and coaching, not simply luck as is being implied.

 

The sack total wasn't that much different from 2007 and we lost a pro bowl DE. I really don't see how Jauron could be blamed for that.

 

And as I pointed out in my initial post, we were better in almost every single category on the team except turnovers. INTs thrown remained basically the same, so that eliminates a coaching problem in the offensive system.

 

so again, is it Jauron's fault the Bills fumbled a lot more in 2008??? And is Jauron's fault that Lindell was a much worse kicker in 2008???

 

Again, I've never said Jauron is a great coach. But he is being scapegoated for the team's shortcomings.

[The Big Cat]

But he is being scapegoated for the team's shortcomings.

 

And ironically folks here will go so far as to blame Jauron for publicly being said scapegoat. Something about that being an indication of "holding guys accountable."

[C.Biscuit97]

And ironically folks here will go so far as to blame Jauron for publicly being said scapegoat. Something about that being an indication of "holding guys accountable."

 

 

It's jsut funny because I know Jauron haters will avoid this thread because there are too many facts to actually argue. If they blame him for the turnovers, then they need to give him credit for 2007. However, the idea of blaming a coach for his players fumbling more is pretty funny as well.

 

I don't know why it is so hard to admit that this team had more problems than Jauron. They have improved every year and he finally have a QB (I think) that actually looks like he belongs in the NFL. But Jauron sucks.

[BillsVet]

That was the whole point. This 2008 team was better in every single way than the 2007 team. The only reason the 2007 team was able to compete was because of the turnover ratio. If we had the 2007 turnover ratio this year, we would have been a playoff team.

 

Honest question: who do you blame for the turnovers? Coaches or players?

 

Let me get this straight, and I'm going to illustrate absurdity by being absurd here. The 07 and 08 Bills recorded the same record with very different schedules. Their 2007 tilt was harder than the 2008 schedule. Turnover differential is cited as perhaps the one factor which made for the difference. This is a black and white argument which takes nothing but numbers into account.

 

I would think Buffalo's 2007 +9 (and fourth in the AFC) would make for a better record. In 08, they had a much easier schedule and mustered only a -8. This makes absolutely no sense.

 

How does a team with a harder record in 07 have a better TO ratio, while the 08 team had a worse ranking with a much easier schedule? There's more to this story than TO's.

[The Big Cat]

Let me get this straight, and I'm going to illustrate absurdity by being absurd here. The 07 and 08 Bills recorded the same record with very different schedules. Their 2007 tilt was harder than the 2008 schedule. Turnover differential is cited as perhaps the one factor which made for the difference. This is a black and white argument which takes nothing but numbers into account.

 

I would think Buffalo's 2007 +9 (and fourth in the AFC) would make for a better record. In 08, they had a much easier schedule and mustered only a -8. This makes absolutely no sense.

 

How does a team with a harder record in 07 have a better TO ratio, while the 08 team had a worse ranking with a much easier schedule? There's more to this story than TO's.

 

Yes.

 

The first Miami game, the second Jets game, and the Browns game--REGARDLESS OF WHO WAS TO BLAME--were ALL determined by turnovers. And those are just the ones that are fresh in my head. I seem to recall the other two Jets/Dolphins games were lost because of turnovers as well.

 

But, even if you don't count the last two, that's enough turnovers to change our record from 7-9 to 10-6. Factor in Lindel's two missed field goals during the Ninners which COMBINED for less than 45 yards (something that also wouldn't have happened in 2007), and suddenly 11-5 is just a few mishaps away.

[thebandit27]

This post is the bomb.

 

Well researched, well presented, and well summed up.

 

Most importantly, it's spot on. So I guess I can only answer the questions asked...

 

1) I'd say some, but not most of the blame should go on the coaching staff. I do believe that they haven't put their players in position to do what they do the best. While, I don't necessarily think that they haven't been aggressive enough per se, I think they've mis-used their LBs when they blitz. Guys like Poz and Mitchell can get to the QB if they'd send them more often. That said, the pass rush is totally ineffective on it's own and their LBs aren't strong enough in coverage to be playing in that capacity as often as they're forced to. So that has to go on the players. Now, I think a lot of that had to do with Schobel being injured and the team really not having a decent 2nd option. We'll see how a healthy Schobel and Maybin impact the pass rush and thus impact the chances for turnovers.

 

2) As crazy as it sounds, when you put it like that...yeah, I'd have to say we do...there's a lot more talent on this team than that one, so why not? However, I'm not sure I'm ready to bank on that happening.

 

3) Yes.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Excellent post. I have to believe that the TO differential is largely to blame for last years slide. The team was significantly better last year, and your statistics certainly support that. Some fans will downplay the gains and simply attribute it to a weaker schedule. I tend to think that the schedule hype is overrated. What is not overrated is divisional games and the AFC East has no cream puffs. It was the divisional games that broke our back last year and untimely turnovers was a large factor. If we protect the ball better in those games, the sentiment around here would be alot different.

 

First off, I tend to agree with you that coaching in the NFL is grossly overrated. Peopel around here will try and convince you that Bellicheat could have made Losman a HOF. Don't get me wrong, coaching is extremely important but players win games. All the "great" coachs had "great" players. You don't win a superbowl with mediocre talent but you can certainly win one with mediocre coaching. I don't believe that the coaching staff can be blamed for the turnover difference. Especially considering that the real difference came from fumbles. At the NFL level it's not the coachs fault his players didn't wrap up the ball. I think the lack of turnovers created is mainly because of the lack of pressure. This team doesn't have enough bullets to mount a real attack. Mitchell is a decent blitzer but that's it. We can't create pressure from outside our D-line and we all know what that looks like.

 

Lindell has been on the decline. In perfect conditions and within his range he's money. Unfortunately he doesn't see those conditions too often in Buffalo. I don't think he stinks but he is playing for his job this year. Can we win with him? YES Will he cost us late in the season in an important game? Probably

 

If we can duplicate the 2007 turnover differential, this team will win more games. If they do that and continue overall improvement, we can start talking playoffs.

I agree turnovers are important. Turnovers by the QB in BOTH Jets games cost the Bills a Win. 7-9 could have been 9-7 very easily.

[BillsVet]

Yes.

 

The first Miami game, the second Jets game, and the Browns game--REGARDLESS OF WHO WAS TO BLAME--were ALL determined by turnovers. And those are just the ones that are fresh in my head. I seem to recall the other two Jets/Dolphins games were lost because of turnovers as well.

 

But, even if you don't count the last two, that's enough turnovers to change our record from 7-9 to 10-6. Factor in Lindel's two missed field goals during the Ninners which COMBINED for less than 45 yards (something that also wouldn't have happened in 2007), and suddenly 11-5 is just a few mishaps away.

 

Again: How does the 07 team with a harder schedule and more injuries have a TO difference of +9 while the 08 team facing a the 2nd easiest schedule in the NFL have a -8?

 

It's not missed FGs, every team has that. It's not just individual players. We're talking about a net loss of 17 from one year to the next with vastly different schedules.

 

How quickly we forget these games. Blotting out of your memories of last season is key for you here. Rookie HC's with less than average rosters beat Buffalo three times last season: MIA 2x and SF 1x. Not to mention, they were badly outclassed by NE 2x. And who can forget the now fired Mangini beating Buffalo twice. If you want to cite examples where we almost won, cite those.

 

Again, this is a thread initiated by casual uniformed fans who rationalize losing. It's made in order to rationalize that Buffalo is closer to success, yet the Bills who take the field in 09 will be predominantly players with less than or equal to 3 years of experience. The HC loses 57% of his games, and the GM didn't handle personnel before January 2008.

 

There is more to the inferior play than just turnover differential here. It's an organization-wide issue in management and coaching which these casual uninformed fans who rationalize failure love to discredit.

[Kelly the Dog]

I would wholeheartedly agree, except turnovers have to do with bad quarterbacking, bad line play, bad receiving and route running, bad defense, bad coaching, and bad personnel decisions which all lead to bad luck.

[The Big Cat]

Again: How does the 07 team with a harder schedule and more injuries have a TO difference of +9 while the 08 team facing a the 2nd easiest schedule in the NFL have a -8?

 

It's not missed FGs, every team has that. It's not just individual players. We're talking about a net loss of 17 from one year to the next with vastly different schedules.

 

How quickly we forget these games. Blotting out of your memories of last season is key for you here. Rookie HC's with less than average rosters beat Buffalo three times last season: MIA 2x and SF 1x. Not to mention, they were badly outclassed by NE 2x. And who can forget the now fired Mangini beating Buffalo twice. If you want to cite examples where we almost won, cite those.

 

Again, this is a thread initiated by casual uniformed fans who rationalize losing. It's made in order to rationalize that Buffalo is closer to success, yet the Bills who take the field in 09 will be predominantly players with less than or equal to 3 years of experience. The HC loses 57% of his games, and the GM didn't handle personnel before January 2008.

 

There is more to the inferior play than just turnover differential here. It's an organization-wide issue in management and coaching which these casual uninformed fans who rationalize failure love to discredit.

 

I mentioned specific plays of specific games and you responded with stats comparing entire seasons.

 

I love how you just went right back to "it was a coaching victory" when we're demonstrating the PLAYER errors which caused the team to fail.

 

Un-informed? See: the first sentence of my post.

 

I will agree that it's a systemic issue. I will. But we're not talking about the system. We're not talking about how FA's want to play in cities with beaches and/or a night life. We're not talking about the economics of Western New York. We're not talking about Ralph Wilson.

[thebandit27]

Again: How does the 07 team with a harder schedule and more injuries have a TO difference of +9 while the 08 team facing a the 2nd easiest schedule in the NFL have a -8?

 

It's not missed FGs, every team has that. It's not just individual players. We're talking about a net loss of 17 from one year to the next with vastly different schedules.

 

How quickly we forget these games. Blotting out of your memories of last season is key for you here. Rookie HC's with less than average rosters beat Buffalo three times last season: MIA 2x and SF 1x. Not to mention, they were badly outclassed by NE 2x. And who can forget the now fired Mangini beating Buffalo twice. If you want to cite examples where we almost won, cite those.

 

Again, this is a thread initiated by casual uniformed fans who rationalize losing. It's made in order to rationalize that Buffalo is closer to success, yet the Bills who take the field in 09 will be predominantly players with less than or equal to 3 years of experience. The HC loses 57% of his games, and the GM didn't handle personnel before January 2008.

 

There is more to the inferior play than just turnover differential here. It's an organization-wide issue in management and coaching which these casual uninformed fans who rationalize failure love to discredit.

 

Well hang on now, I agree that the staff has often failed to put guys in the right positions to control the football on offense and make big plays on defense, which in turn makes the TO differential suffer. However, you don't feel that a lot of the blame has to go to the players as well?

 

Honestly, Dick Jauron has never fumbled or thrown an interception to my knowledge. Now when your offensive coordinator calls a pass play on 3rd and 1 late in the game and you turn the ball over, that's his fault. When Dick Jauron fails to blitz anything other than a DB, and you can't get to the opposing QB, that's his fault. And yes, that does happen, but I'm sure you'd agree that there were plenty of turnovers that were simply a player's fault. You obviously watch the team a lot, so you know that the pass rush is brutal, and that's a personnel issue, not on Jauron (unless he's got final say in whom they draft/sign).

 

So like I said, and I guess like you kind of said at the end (I think), some of the blame should go on the coaching staff, yes. But the players should get at least as much blame for the poor differential.

[thebandit27]

I would wholeheartedly agree, except turnovers have to do with bad quarterbacking, bad line play, bad receiving and route running, bad defense, bad coaching, and bad personnel decisions which all lead to bad luck.

 

ouch

 

[C.Biscuit97]

This post is the bomb.

 

Well researched, well presented, and well summed up.

 

Most importantly, it's spot on. So I guess I can only answer the questions asked...

 

1) I'd say some, but not most of the blame should go on the coaching staff. I do believe that they haven't put their players in position to do what they do the best. While, I don't necessarily think that they haven't been aggressive enough per se, I think they've mis-used their LBs when they blitz. Guys like Poz and Mitchell can get to the QB if they'd send them more often. That said, the pass rush is totally ineffective on it's own and their LBs aren't strong enough in coverage to be playing in that capacity as often as they're forced to. So that has to go on the players. Now, I think a lot of that had to do with Schobel being injured and the team really not having a decent 2nd option. We'll see how a healthy Schobel and Maybin impact the pass rush and thus impact the chances for turnovers.

 

2) As crazy as it sounds, when you put it like that...yeah, I'd have to say we do...there's a lot more talent on this team than that one, so why not? However, I'm not sure I'm ready to bank on that happening.

 

3) Yes.

 

 

Thanks for answering the questions.

 

1) I agree with this a lot. My major criticism of the coaching staff is their lack of creativity at times. I would like to see more blitzes, no huddle, etc. In 2007, Fewell used the Creep and never really used it last year.

 

My only counter would be that the coaches were trying to hide their weaknesses as much has possible. Without Schobel, our pass rush was absolutely terrible. If the blitz didn't get there, we were dead. My guess is that in their opinion, it's is better to let opponents try and pick us apart with a long drive & hope for a breakdown, rather than just give up a huge play.

 

This is a major criticize of the Cover 2 but it keep us in games. We tied with the Redskins (8-8) for the 4th worst pass rush. The only teams below us were the Bengals, Browns, & Chiefs who were absolutely terrible.

 

2) That's been my whole point in defending Jauron. Looking back at 2007, it is almost amazing that we finished 7-9. Last year, we definitely underachieved but was this team really that good? We started Josh Reed (a great #3 receiver but not enough a threat as a #2), Royal (his stepping out of the endzone against the Titans sums up his entire career), and Kelsay/ Denney at DEs. Doesn't that really strike anyone as a playoff team talent-wise?

 

The major problem is that we started 5-1 and it raised expectations. If the season went in reverse, it would be a completely different mindset. Fans overestimate their talent sometimes. No one but Buffalo fans thought this was a playoff team the last 3 years. This roster, IMO, is.

 

3) I hope you're right but Lindell makes me really nervous. He has missed a lot of huge kicks so far (Steelers, Colts, Browns, cheap shot against the 49ers). He was really good in 2007 but I jsut lack serious confidence in him. I hope he proves me wrong because a field goal kicker could be the difference between golfing and playing football in January.

[C.Biscuit97]

I agree turnovers are important. Turnovers by the QB in BOTH Jets games cost the Bills a Win. 7-9 could have been 9-7 very easily.

 

 

I agree. I know we have differed on Losman and you've accuse me of being a Edwards' groupie. I was a big Losman fan but I just realized it wasn't good at the beginning of last year.

 

Hell, I'll even do you one better. Edwards could also be responsible for the game in Miami (stupidly reaching the ball out for a 1st) and the Cleveland game with his terrible 1st quarter meltdown (though he did have the team in position to win ). Any of those games any differently, we are possibly 10-6 or 11-5 and challenging for the playoffs. With better talent this year, I don't know how you can't be excited about this season.

 

 

P.S. I still think Trent is much better than JP.

[C.Biscuit97]

I would wholeheartedly agree, except turnovers have to do with bad quarterbacking, bad line play, bad receiving and route running, bad defense, bad coaching, and bad personnel decisions which all lead to bad luck.

 

 

Except as I pointed out originally, the QBs threw exactly one more INT than 2007. With the possible criticism of the Losman rollout against the Jets, how many fumbles can you blame on the coaches?

 

Folks are just trying to hard to scapegoat our coaches and not putting the blame where it should be.

[Flbillsfan#1]

I agree. I know we have differed on Losman and you've accuse me of being a Edwards' groupie. I was a big Losman fan but I just realized it wasn't good at the beginning of last year.

 

Hell, I'll even do you one better. Edwards could also be responsible for the game in Miami (stupidly reaching the ball out for a 1st) and the Cleveland game with his terrible 1st quarter meltdown (though he did have the team in position to win ). Any of those games any differently, we are possibly 10-6 or 11-5 and challenging for the playoffs. With better talent this year, I don't know how you can't be excited about this season.

 

 

P.S. I still think Trent is much better than JP.

I hope you are right about Trent. I can't wait to find out. Get your popcorn ready.

[PushthePile]

Qb fumbles 2007 - 9 on 445 attempts

Qb fumbles 2008 - 17 on 479 attempts

 

How many of those fumbles were on the left side of the o-line? How many can be attributed to the Qbs holding the ball too long? I was suprised to see the Bills only attempted 34 more passes in 08. It seemed like they were pass happy last year. With only 34 more passes in 08 and 8 more fumbles, it's hard to blame the coaching. This is a case of bad execution by the players. Fred Jackson is also not the most secure player with the ball. I think he is a very good back but given his total carries he can't give it away 3 times.

[Kelly the Dog]

Except as I pointed out originally, the QBs threw exactly one more INT than 2007. With the possible criticism of the Losman rollout against the Jets, how many fumbles can you blame on the coaches?

 

Folks are just trying to hard to scapegoat our coaches and not putting the blame where it should be.

 

It's really impossible to say, which is why I assigned equal blame to about 5-6 entities, one of which was coaching.

 

But you can't tell by watching the games a lot of times what was the reason for the miscue. I recall a couple fumbles when Trent or Losman had a mix-up right from the snap and the ball was dropped immediately by Marshawn or Freddy. It could have been the RBs fault for not grabbing the ball, it could have been the Qb's fault for not handing it off correctly, it could have been either of their fault's for not getting the play right and the other player thought the ball was going to be in a different place, it could have been the coaches fault for screwing up the play call and two guys were going in different directions.

 

I also remember two Robert Royal fumbles who has a penchant for fumbling considering the relatively few times he gets the ball. You could blame Royal or you could also blame Jauron for sticking with Royal being his TE when he stinks and has bad hands.

 

Edwards probably shouldnt be throwing the pass to the outside deep in Cowboy territory late in the game with a lead like that when a FG is needed. You could blame Edwards for the bad pass, and/or you could blame the coaches for calling the play or for putting a rookie in a bad position at a critical time. (I'm just using that as an example, I know it was two years ago not last year)

 

Blame for bad plays are often 2-3 different people making mistakes, not just one.

[OCinBuffalo]

I think it's funny that you specifically disclaimed people from simply saying JauronBad without providing any reasonable refutation of your points, and then they said JauronBad anyway. No need to quote, you know who you are.

 

I also think it's funny that apparently whether or not a marketing guy is the GM passes, for some posters, as a reasonable counter argument to a clear and correctly done statistical comparison of play on the field. Nothing like comparing apples to ...Stalin...

 

I also think that blaming one person for a clear downward trend in turnovers, one year to the next, in a team sport, is just as ridiculous as Kelly says it is.

[The Big Cat]

I think it's funny that you specifically disclaimed people from simply saying JauronBad without providing any reasonable refutation of your points, and then they said JauronBad anyway. No need to quote, you know who you are.

 

I'm confused. Who was suppose to provide the reasonable refutation?

 

I also think it's funny that apparently whether or not a marketing guy is the GM passes, for some posters, as a reasonable counter argument to a clear and correctly done statistical comparison of play on the field. Nothing like comparing apples to ...Stalin...

 

C'mon, it's a lot more fun/easy to blame just one person!

 

I also think that blaming one person for a clear downward trend in turnovers, one year to the next, in a team sport, is just as ridiculous as Kelly says it is.

 

Ibid.

 

EDIT: since when does the system flag un-closed quotes? Me likey!!

[Adam]

Again: How does the 07 team with a harder schedule and more injuries have a TO difference of +9 while the 08 team facing a the 2nd easiest schedule in the NFL have a -8?

 

It's not missed FGs, every team has that. It's not just individual players. We're talking about a net loss of 17 from one year to the next with vastly different schedules.

 

How quickly we forget these games. Blotting out of your memories of last season is key for you here. Rookie HC's with less than average rosters beat Buffalo three times last season: MIA 2x and SF 1x. Not to mention, they were badly outclassed by NE 2x. And who can forget the now fired Mangini beating Buffalo twice. If you want to cite examples where we almost won, cite those.

 

Again, this is a thread initiated by casual uniformed fans who rationalize losing. It's made in order to rationalize that Buffalo is closer to success, yet the Bills who take the field in 09 will be predominantly players with less than or equal to 3 years of experience. The HC loses 57% of his games, and the GM didn't handle personnel before January 2008.

 

There is more to the inferior play than just turnover differential here. It's an organization-wide issue in management and coaching which these casual uninformed fans who rationalize failure love to discredit.

I guess everyone but you and the people who agree with you are just casual uninformed fans. Maybe Aaron Schobel actually is better than Bruce Smith and Roscoe Parrish is the same as Wes Welker..... They just aren't used right. Infuse us with your knowledge oh wise one..............

[Mr. WEO]

Obviously, there is a lot of talk on this board about our coach and quarterback. Thoguh I think coaching is somewhat overrated on the NFL level, these are two huge areas of concern for this team. Whenever people get excited about this team, the "negative" folks love to point out how terrible Jauron & company is. However, I present the following:

 

- We were the #1 special teams unit in the NFL and led the NFL in average field position.

 

- In 2007, we scored 15.8 points/ game (30th). This year, we scored 21 points/ game (23rd).

 

- In 2007, we gave 22.1 points/ game (15th). This year, we gave up 21.4 points/ game (19th).

 

- In 2007, we finished 31st in defense. This year, we finished in 14th.

 

- In 2007, we finished 30th in offense. This year, we finished 25th (modest gain, by a gain nonetheless).

 

- In 2007, we finished 30th with our QBs posting a 73.8 rating. This year (and it was dragged down considerably by our backup QB), we finished 22nd with a 81.3 rating.

 

- In 2007, we finished 15th in rushing with a 4.0 ypc. This year, we finished 14th with a 4.2 ypc.

- Additionally, we also improved in Time of Possession from 27th to 17th this year.

So if we improved in every area, how could we win the same amount of games as a team led by a rookie/ out of the league QB which one of the worst injury situations I have ever seen? This is why:

 

- In 2007, we fumbled 20 times (7th best) and lost 7 (5th best). This year, we fumbled 36 times (2nd worst) and lost 15 of them (2nd worst).

 

- In 2007, we threw 14 ints (6th best). This year, we threw 15 (16th best).

- In 2007, we forced 29 fumbles (9th best) and recovered 12 (13th best). This year, we forced 21 fumbles (16th best) and recovered 12 (10th best).

 

- In 2007, we had 18 INTs (10th in the NFL). This year, we had 10 ints (27th in the NFL).

- Overall, in 2007, our turnover ratio was a +9 (6th in the NFL and the only one of the top 7 teams that didn't make the playoffs). This year, we finished -8 (27th and a negative change of 17).

Here's a few of the conclusions I drew:

 

1) Obviously, turnovers are the name of the game. Look at the difference teams like the Ravens, Fins, & Ravens made in one year.

 

2) In almost every area, we improved. Isn't that what you want from your team?

 

3) I think it is interesting that the INTs throw was pretty much the same and middle of the pack. If there was a significant increase, you could blame it on the coaching philosophy. However, you can't.

 

4) As crazy as it sounds, I think Rian Lindell was a huge factor in some of our losses. In 2007, Lindell was 24 of 27 fg attempts (89%, 10th in the NFL). This year, he was 30 of 38 in fg attempts (79%, 31st in the NFL). In some of the close games the Bills lost, a missed field goal that Lindell probably would have made in 2007 totally changes game stragety.

 

So here are my questions for discussions:

 

1) How much does the coaching staff deserve in blame for the change in turnover ratio? IMO, I think is clearly on the players. If you somehow blame Jauron, you also must give him credit for 2007.

 

2) Do we make the playoffs this year with our 2007 turnover ratio?

 

3) Is Lindell a good enough kicker to count of in close games?

 

Discuss.

 

Using "rankings" for these metrics is not meaningful--a few TOs or yards/passes/etc per game in any category will group many teams together. If you go by actual metrics, the main difference in all the categories you list is that we fumble a lot and don't intercept many passes (despite our "5th rated DBs"). And you are right, logic would tell us that these cannot be directly attributed to a coach.

 

But you cannot, logically, then say that, therefore, this is evidence that the coaches are not as bad as others may believe. The gameplans, realtime decision making and results were as we saw them.

 

The team was significantly better last year

 

 

No, not significantly. See above.

 

Certainly TO ratio is a huge factor separating winners from losers. I agree 100%.

[BillsVet]

Using "rankings" for these metrics is not meaningful--a few TOs or yards/passes/etc per game in any category will group many teams together. If you go by actual metrics, the main difference in all the categories you list is that we fumble a lot and don't intercept many passes (despite our "5th rated DBs"). And you are right, logic would tell us that these cannot be directly attributed to a coach.

 

But you cannot, logically, then say that, therefore, this is evidence that the coaches are not as bad as others may believe. The gameplans, realtime decision making and results were as we saw them.

 

No, not significantly. See above.

 

Certainly TO ratio is a huge factor separating winners from losers. I agree 100%.

 

You're not supposed to disagree with the OP. The post was made to declare that turnovers are the reason and that nothing else affected this team's success in 08. Of course, this argument was blown out of the water earlier and there's much more to team success than turnovers difference.

 

As big an issue as that is, it's not the only one. This is a black and white post which doesn't factor in the gray areas you suggested.

[PushthePile]

You're not supposed to disagree with the OP. The post was made to declare that turnovers are the reason and that nothing else affected this team's success in 08. Of course, this argument was blown out of the water earlier and there's much more to team success than turnovers difference.

 

As big an issue as that is, it's not the only one. This is a black and white post which doesn't factor in the gray areas you suggested.

 

False. The original poster did a great job of organizing stats and data. He then asked the most logical questions that related to that data. You have struggled through out this whole thread to mount a negative rebuttle and now you are trying to spin the point of the original post. When you get whipped in your usual embarassing fashion, you fallback on plan B and just put words in other peoples mouths. Show me one place that anyone said that "turnovers are the reason and that nothing else affected this teams success in 08". Just an all out smear campaign right BillsVet?

[Mr. WEO]

False. The original poster did a great job of organizing stats and data. He then asked the most logical questions that related to that data. You have struggled through out this whole thread to mount a negative rebuttle and now you are trying to spin the point of the original post. When you get whipped in your usual embarassing fashion, you fallback on plan B and just put words in other peoples mouths. Show me one place that anyone said that "turnovers are the reason and that nothing else affected this teams success in 08". Just an all out smear campaign right BillsVet?

I don't think anyone would argue that TO ratio is NOT a critical factor in a team's success. I certainly didn't.

 

The OP was inferring that since the TO cannot be influenced by the coach, then our "coaching" was actually improved, given some actual (or nonexistent in some of the categories listed) statistical measures. I was arguing that was a bit of a jump.

 

The record was 7-9 and 0-6 in the division. That is worse than '07.

[PushthePile]

I don't think anyone would argue that TO ratio is NOT a critical factor in a team's success. I certainly didn't.

 

The OP was inferring that since the TO cannot be influenced by the coach, then our "coaching" was actually improved, given some actual (or nonexistent in some of the categories listed) statistical measures. I was arguing that was a bit of a jump.

 

The record was 7-9 and 0-6 in the division. That is worse than '07.

I don't think he was trying to say that the coaching has improved. I think he was saying that the overall team had improved from 07 to 08, turnovers aside. Judging by the statistics I wouldn't say a whole lot in any area but a little in each adds up.

 

Whether or not you believe the team is getting better each season, TOs are record changing. The team can't afford to put the ball on the ground as much as they did last year.

[The Big Cat]

TOs are record changing

 

Yes, they are. So getcha popcorn ready, 81 in da house.

[Bufcomments]

Very good lead post Biscutt

 

I tend to agree with you that the Bills lack of turnovers is a concern. Maybe that is one of the reasons why they drafted Byrd to play free safety so he can make some plays and get some interceptions. I will focus on the defensive side of the Ball in my answer.

 

I think the problem is two-fold.

 

If you notice after the Cards game last year the pass rush was almost shut done completely. Other teams figured out what the Bills were doing with the Blitz package. It did not help when Aaron Schobel got hurt but come on.

It seems like the coaching staff could not come up with pressure package with the players they had. I find this troublesome.

These coaches are being paid way to much not to find a way to get the the QB. Getting to the QB with pressure you can create your own luck

 

But lack of playmakers at LB , DE, and FS is not helping either. So there is a lack of talent issues with both the 07 and 08 teams. Does Ellison make game changing plays? Mitchell? well when motivated maybe. Poz? Whitner?

 

My point being is the Bills dont have many game changers on the defense. In the 90's you had Bruce, Bennett, Talley, Odomes, Hansen, Kelso. These guys made plays when it counted , INT's, causing fumbles, sacks many in a timely manner.

 

Until they get more game changers on Defense this will be a average team oh wait thats 8-8.

[Mr. WEO]

OK, fine. The OP will have to acknowledge that our defensive talent (including Mitchell, Poz and Whitner) is below average.