View Full Version : How did the Bills D fare last season...really?
I had to get this out since I'm disturbed by the amount of heat that the D has taken since last season when they in actuality played much better than folks realize. I will caveat that w/ the silly notion that it's the D's primary job to keep points off the board, not amass sacks and takeaways although obviously those things can assist in keeping points down and are at least to an extent indicators of defensive success.
As well, keep in mind that the Bills front 7 last year on paper was among the league's worst, having only 3 of 7 bonafide starters and dubious talent at the other 4 spots.
Also, I consider the STs as a separate unit from the D. Perhaps that is some of the confusion between my positions and those of others.
So how did the D fare, and why did teams score against us?
Let's begin, shall we... :)
Game 1: Jets put up 31 in regulation and the infamous 6 in O/T to win on the opening KO.
1st Jet TD: Yielded by STs on KO
2nd Jet TD: Set up by a Drew INT putting the Jets at our own 19 YL
3rd Jet FG: Allowed by the D
4th Jet FG: Allowed by the D
5th Jet FG: Set up on Bills 24 YL by STs on a blocked punt; D held, no TD.
6th Jet TD: Missed 39 Yd. FG gave Jets great FP at their own 40.
O/T: STs allows TD on opening KO
Other notes:
D set up a Bills' TD w/ a Pat Williams FF and a Newman recovery giving the Bills the ball on the Jets' 29 YL resulting in a TD.
The D held the Jets to:
266 total net yards
2 of 8 or 25% 3rd-down-%age
73 net rushing yards,
and contributed in holding the Jets to only 21 min. ToP.
Summary: W/o help from the O and STs, the D was responsible for only 6 points in this game, arguably 13.
Isn't this a little bit contrary to what we've heard!
I'll post the other games as time permits...
Enjoy!
:)
Game 10: K.C.: The #1 offense in the league put up 17 against us.
KC's 1st TD: Defense allowed
KC's 2nd FG: Defense allowed
KC's 3rd TD: Defense allowed
Other notes: Bills D held the league's #1 offense to:
17 total points
320 net yards
the league's best RB to 104 yards on 3.4 YPC
less than 200 passing yards
4-of-11 3rd-down-%age, 36%
and 28 minutes ToP
Summary: Our understaffed and undertalented D held the league's best offense to only 17 points on their home turf.
TheGhostofJimKelly
07-23-2003, 10:34 AM
The defense played better and better last year. This is exactly what happened the year before. But they didn't take the ball away and they didn't give the offense great field position. If there wasn't a problem with the defense TD wouldn't have gone out and put so much into the defense this year. My hope is that with the additions and the positives of last years squad, the Bills will have a very solid defense this season.
Let's not let stats fool you. If other teams aren't afraid of your defense they will have the confidence to do whatever they want. Other teams that played the Bills last season weren't intimidated by that squad. The fear was the offense.
Novacane
07-23-2003, 10:38 AM
Wys........................no one disagrees that they got better as the season went on. Much better. They did cost us games early on though. You surely don't deny that? I don't care about Drews TO's in the oakland game............If your offense puts up 30+ points and you lose it's on the D! Just like the opposite is true in the GB game................If your D holds a team to only 10 points it's the O's fault if you lose.
lordofgun
07-23-2003, 10:41 AM
The main problem I had with last year's D is the inability to adjust to simple things like screen passes, Chris Watson covering #1 WRs, etc. The coaching should have been a lot better, but it didn't have to be a lot better simply to counter those situations, yet they failed to do so. That's my main beef with last year's D. It's obvious we didn't have the horses to get it done completely last year.
But I don't really care about last year's D. I'm looking forward to watching this year's. :D Coaching is the only thing that could bring it down, but I'm hoping Lebeau will make a difference on that side of things.
LtBillsFan66
07-23-2003, 10:49 AM
September 15
Jets at Bills
Loss 37-31
:down:
September 15
Bills at Vikings
Win 45-39
:down:
September 22
Bills at Broncos
Loss 28-23
:down:
September 29
Bears at Bills
Win 33-27
:down:
October 6
Raiders at Bills
Loss 49-31
:down:
October 13
Bills at Texans
Win 31-24
:down:
October 20
Bills at Dolphins
Win 23-10
:up:
October 27
Lions at Bills
Win 24-17
:up:
November 3
Patriots at Bills
Loss 38-7
:down:
November 17
Bills at Chiefs
Loss 17-16
:down:
November 24
Bills at Jets
Loss 31-13
:down:
December 1
Dolphins at Bills
Win 38-21
:up: & :down:
December 8
Bills at Patriots
Loss 27-17
:down:
December 15
Chargers at Bills
Win 20-13
:up:
December 22
Bills at Packers
Loss 10-0
:up:
December 29
Bengals at Bills
Win 27-9
:up:
:bf1:
Why does LeBeau have to do anything?
The D, by-and-large, played relatively well last year as you'll see.
I think most of the difference in the improvement in play will be due to having Adams instead of a platoon, Spikes instead of Robinson, and Posey instead of no one. Also, the change in strategy from a big-play passing D to a run-oriented one, if it actually happens, will also be a big factor. Last year's D didn't have that help.
I realize that LeBeau will get credit for the entire change, but IMO it will largely have been due to the D having some talent for Gray to work with.
Originally posted by TheGhostofJimKelly
The defense played better and better last year. This is exactly what happened the year before. But they didn't take the ball away and they didn't give the offense great field position. If there wasn't a problem with the defense TD wouldn't have gone out and put so much into the defense this year. My hope is that with the additions and the positives of last years squad, the Bills will have a very solid defense this season.
Let's not let stats fool you. If other teams aren't afraid of your defense they will have the confidence to do whatever they want. Other teams that played the Bills last season weren't intimidated by that squad. The fear was the offense.
Oh no, I wouldn't want to "let the stats fool me!" :D
As well, please tell me why takeaways and sacks are so pivotal on D but they're hardly worth mentioning as factors in games when measuring the O.
Also, you speak as if this game was in week 10. It was the very first game of the season!!!
Originally posted by billsfanone
September 15
Jets at Bills
Loss 37-31
:down:
:bf1:
Once again, you just ignored virtually everything in my post.
Nice of you to blame the D for what the O and the STs did...
:rolleyes:
I can tell you this, if the D plays like that in every game this season, we'll be #3 at the end of the year and be 13-3.
Few teams will win on the merits of only 266 total yards, 25% 3rd-down-conversions, and the D only allowing 13 points. I'm not sure any would if our O plays up to snuff!
BTW BFO, which of those words didn't you understand?
Novacane
07-23-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by billsfanone
September 15
Jets at Bills
Loss 37-31
:down:
Gotta side with Wys on this one.............the D was not even on the field for 13 of those points. That was not thier fault we lost that game..................
LtBillsFan66
07-23-2003, 11:05 AM
I will caveat that w/ the silly notion that it's the D's primary job to keep points off the board, not amass sacks and takeaways although obviously those things can assist in keeping points down and are at least to an extent indicators of defensive success.
That statement for one is flawed. Can assist? That's their job! We were at the bottom of the league give/take wise and dead last take wise.
LtBillsFan66
07-23-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Fairway To Green
Gotta side with Wys on this one.............the D was not even on the field for 13 of those points. That was not thier fault we lost that game..................
Hmmm. Maybe so. I was at the game and in a slightly drunken state in the blazing sun.
I kind of remember it looking like the Jets were able to score at will. Remember a KO return means that there is that much less time the Jets O are on the field.
ryven
07-23-2003, 11:13 AM
I think one of the reasons labue is there is to help on some of the zone blitzing packages we us time to time and to help our offense to pick them up as well as throw in some thing different here and there.
Fat Tony
07-23-2003, 11:15 AM
If the D was so great, why replace almost half the starters?
So why mince words BFO!
Just come out and make a statement similar to:
"Sacks and takaways determine wins!"
Just say it...
B/c as I see it, a team can have few sacks or TAs and still manage to hold opponents from scoring.
You know, I was gonna post more, but why bother. I'll go argue w/ my truck...
:rolleyes:
I will say that I'll take a D that allows only 266 total yards, 13 points, 73 rushing yards, and holds opponents to only 25% 3rd-down-% each and every week this year even if it means not a single takeaway or sack all season long!
BTW, that would rank our D, according to last season's final rankings:
1st in rushing D
7th in passing D
2nd in yardage D
1st in 3rd-down-conversion D
2nd in scoring D
I guess w/o takeaways and sacks that wouldn't be acceptible to you, b/c that's exactly what you're implying here!
Again, it's no wonder I'm beating my head against a wall here...
It's pure emotionalism driven by untrue Front Office statements and media coverage based on perceptions.
BTW,
Several of you have challenged me on "who's saying all this stuff!"
Well, there it is in B/W by BFO!
Where are all the challenges to that nonsense in the name of reason!
Not saying no is just like saying yes! Especially when you "pile on!"
Novacane
07-23-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by billsfanone
Remember a KO return means that there is that much less time the Jets O are on the field.
Good point..............I did not consider that.................I take it back.............the D sucked against the Jets too:pimp:
Fat Tony
07-23-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Fairway To Green
Gotta side with Wys on this one.............the D was not even on the field for 13 of those points. That was not thier fault we lost that game..................
The ST's cost us, no doubt...but a Jet Team without C Martin and with an awful Testeverde at the helm still scored late in the game to take the lead.
Originally posted by Fat Tony
If the D was so great, why replace almost half the starters?
Once again, a prime example of missing the point completely!
Clearly you are not talking about performance, you are talking personnel.
Performance was considerable in light of the talent we had. The talent, as expressed by everyone including myself, was lacking to say the least!
Yet, the D still managed to play well in many games w/ inferior talent.
I'd say that's more significant than an O playing to significantly less than 20 PPG w/ top NFL talent all around! Wouldn't you?
BTW, you didn't state whether you thought that defensive performance was acceptible? As if that'll happen.
The only way to look at the contribution of the D over games is to look at those very same games on an individual basis, something that you and the rest of the critics are loathe to do!!
But should you change your mind, simply let me know! ;)
In the meantime, you guys can keep ignoring some of the info I'm posting in favor of the argument that the O carried the team on less than 20 PPG over half the season.
Originally posted by Fat Tony
The ST's cost us, no doubt...but a Jet Team without C Martin and with an awful Testeverde at the helm still scored late in the game to take the lead.
OHHHHH...
NOW all of a sudden factors that didn't seem to matter in other games rise to the top.
How about the notion that many of the teams we beat SUCKED!
Is that one of the "allowable factors" of discussion now?
LMAO
I am getting a big kick out of the spin here...
No shortage of humor!
Novacane
07-23-2003, 11:28 AM
I hate chris watson
I knew there was a reason for the D's great performance.
How 'bout in the K.C. game?
Were they injured too?
KC's 1st TD: Defense allowed
KC's 2nd FG: Defense allowed
KC's 3rd TD: Defense allowed
Game notes: Bills D held the league's #1 offense to:
17 total points
320 net yards
the league's best RB to 104 yards on 3.4 YPC
less than 200 passing yards
4-of-11 3rd-down-%age, 36%
and 28 minutes ToP
But we only had 1 sack and no takeaways.
So is that acceptible? Would you be happy w/ that?
What factors can you come up with to take away from this defensive effort now!
Originally posted by Fairway To Green
I hate chris watson
I never even understood that trade. I was on him from almost the moment he got here.
Novacane
07-23-2003, 11:34 AM
The D took heat in the KC game because they could not stop them in the 4th Wys. But I agree with you on that one...........If the offense could have put up points against an awful chief D we would have won that game easily
Fat Tony
07-23-2003, 11:37 AM
Defense sucked.......bottom 5 n the league....against a bunch of teams that even Wys says sucked
They allowed 17 FtG.
The game should have been over at the end of the 3rd IMO.
Nevertheless, since K.C.'s D was even worse than ours, what does it then say about our own Offense that we couldn't put up more than 17 points?
BTW, why couldn't we?
It appears to me that Drew had his chances w/ 36 attempts, no?
What happened?
I think it was a pathetic example of the offense moving the ball but not producing points as is the mantra of this O IMO.
Originally posted by Fat Tony
Defense sucked.......bottom 5 n the league....against a bunch of teams that even Wys says sucked
Indeed. Chicago, Minnesota
That's it however. The worst they played after that against crap teams was average +/-.
But to analyze this we'd actually have to look at the details of games, and well, we both know that won't happen, eh! ;)
Now, what does this say about the "even more" games where the D played well?
As well, is there anything in your assessment of last season that takes into account "improvements" as the season went on...?
Guess not, eh...
;)
Novacane
07-23-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
They allowed 17 FtG.
The game should have been over at the end of the 3rd IMO.
Nevertheless, since K.C.'s D was even worse than ours, what does it then say about our own Offense that we couldn't put up more than 17 points?
BTW, why couldn't we?
It appears to me that Drew had his chances w/ 36 attempts, no?
What happened?
I think it was a pathetic example of the offense moving the ball but not producing points as is the mantra of this O IMO.
I know.....I know...........I was agreeing with you that we should have won that game. I said the D took heat because they could not stop the chiefs in the 4th...............not that I blamed the D for that loss. I think thats the game they started to turn it around.
LtBillsFan66
07-23-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Fat Tony
If the D was so great, why replace almost half the starters?
They obviously staunchly follow what the national media has them to believe. ;)
Originally posted by Fat Tony
Defense sucked.......bottom 5 n the league....against a bunch of teams that even Wys says sucked
BTW, we were 15th in yardage D. Isn't that all that matters in Buffalo these days, yardage?
We were 27th, bottom 6 in scoring D. But that includes Drew's 6 or 7 INTs that either set up teams for 7 or handed it to them. That's ~ 3 PPG. Does that factor in anywhere?
Nahhh, didn't think so. Silly me.
It also doesn't consider the numerous times that the STs failed the team.
Lastly, our PPG avg. against was 24.8 at year's end. It had been 34.0 early on.
Do you have any clue as to what it takes to bring such an average down by nearly 10 PPG?
Do you have any idea of how well we must have played from a scoring-D perspective to show that much improvement!
And you guys say I'm the pessimistic one...
:rolleyes:
And they did it all w/ only half a front 7!!!
Gray couldn't have been doing everything wrong!
Tatonka
07-23-2003, 11:51 AM
people ran on us at will
we couldnt get sacks
we couldnt get turnovers.
those things need to be fixed.
Originally posted by Fairway To Green
I know.....I know...........I was agreeing with you that we should have won that game. I said the D took heat because they could not stop the chiefs in the 4th...............not that I blamed the D for that loss. I think thats the game they started to turn it around.
Actually, we started playing well defensively several weeks prior w/ only 10 PA v. Miami and 17 v. Detroit.
The N.E. game was an exception for which I believe the reason was a complete lackadaisicalness by the coaching staff in having the team prepared. That's obvoiusly arguable however. But what isn't arguable is that from STs to Henry to Drew to D we played like crap. It was a team loss thru and thru.
Where I think that the coaching staff "dropped the ball", and nothing on Drew, was that they were assuming that his "awareness" of the Pats' D would do something for us outside of normal game prep stuff. It was obvious that the coaching staff was caught on its heels in that one.
Dozerdog
07-23-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
BTW, we were 15th in yardage D. Isn't that all that matters in Buffalo these days, yardage?
We were 27th, bottom 6 in scoring D. But that includes Drew's 6 or 7 INTs that either set up teams for 7 or handed it to them. That's ~ 3 PPG. Does that factor in anywhere?
Nahhh, didn't think so. Silly me.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. ....whatever a gander is.
Bledsoe threw 15 interceptions- 13th in the league- puts us on the edge of the top 1/3rd of the NFL (and less than 1 per game)
Bills Defense got 10, most of them against the fins.(28th in the NFL) Think of all the point opportunities lost for the Bills... it's OK for Bledsoe to be responsible for 6-7 scoring opportunities for the opposition, but fact our D was woeful in returning hte favor gets swept under the rug.
Another Wys contradiction
Originally posted by Tatonka
people ran on us at will
we couldnt get sacks
we couldnt get turnovers.
those things need to be fixed.
P-O-I-N-T-S brother! POINTS!
Which would you rather have:
A game in which the D allows only 16 points but has no sacks ot takeaways?
Or a game in which the D amasses 2 or 3 takeaways, records 3 or 4 sacks, yet allows 27 points?
Assume that all other aspects of the game were solid/normal.
B/c it seems to me, that just as everyone hoops up Drew based on yards/attempts, that we are now doing the same exact thing w/ sacks/takeaways.
As well, and still no one has explained to me that if sacks and takeaways are so monumental in winning games, and since the converse is then also true, namely that the team that allows those sacks and giveaways, must then be considered to have equally impacted the outcome of the game by the same exact measure yet in the opposite direction, eh!
I mean does that stand to reason or doesn't it?
BTW, I'm not talking about in Buffalo. But in the NFL in general.
If so, then why can't we simply admit that those same TOs and sacks, 18 TOs/25 sacks in 7 losses, or 2.6 TOs/3.6 sacks per game, were primary factors?
If they are primary factors in determining the play of the D, then they must be the same primary factors in determining the play of the O.
Yet, and instead, they're mitigated when referring to the O, and are highlighted, witness your and other posts, when referring to the D.
It's hypocritical.
Dozerdog
07-23-2003, 12:04 PM
It's not just points- It's time of possession as well...we can't score more if they have the ball for 35:- 40 minutes a game.
What's also funny is that I keep asking these same good questions over and over again but no one answers them directly.
The correct answer is "Yes Wys, Drew sh&% the bed in 7 games last year and was the primary reason we lost 6 of those 7 games!"
Some of you just say that and we can halt this insanity! :)
But then let's correspondingly not continue w/ the mantra that the only way we can win games is b/c of Drew and that no other QBs can cut it.
Any QB who doesn't make those sacks and TOs will be fine for me! We sure didn't have a lot of TD production in most of those games, so I cannot imagine that "any" QB couldn't put up 1, or so, TDs/game w/o making all those drastic errors.
Originally posted by Dozerdog
It's not just points- It's time of possession as well...we can't score more if they have the ball for 35:- 40 minutes a game.
It's not?
What would you rather have? A game where we allow only 16 points but allow the opponent to have 35 min. ToP, or a game where they're ToP is say 24 min. but in which they score 34 points?
You are incorrect, it is just about the points!
But naturally we'll help keep that ToP down by having Drew throw the ball more.
And correspondingly, 18 TOs are meaningless in terms of generating such an imbalance in ToP.
I see...
:rolleyes:
I have to go now! I'm gonna go clamp my head in a vice for a few hours...
I will say this, those handful of TOs resulting in TDs surely didn't add to the ToP.
So perhaps in order to "keep that ToP" up, we should throw the ball more w/ Drew in order to try to generate TDs right off of those INTs directly in order to keep ToP down for our opponents.
:rolleyes:
TheGhostofJimKelly
07-23-2003, 12:12 PM
Great we all have an opinion, we should join a message board!!!
Let's just get ready for this season and enjoy our new defense. Who cares who did what last year. The TEAM was 8-8 and let's hope the TEAM will improve. Throw all your stats and opinions on this message board means nothing anymore. I said it once and I will say it again, the quarterback doesn't win or lose games, the defense doesn't win or lose games, Travis Henry fumbles don't win/lose games, etc. THE TEAM WINS OR LOSES THE GAMES!!!!
lordofgun
07-23-2003, 12:14 PM
Drew doesn't get any credit for the 8 wins, but he's completely responsible for 6 losses??? Sorry, no dice.
There's definitely a middle ground in there somewhere...that's where the truth lies.
justasportsfan
07-23-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
You know, I was gonna post more, but why bother. I'll go argue w/ my truck...
If your truck is American made I feel sorry for it. Japanese,German, Korean...won't matter . They won't understand you anyways. :coocoo:
Buckets
07-23-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
The correct answer is "Yes Wys, Drew sh&% the bed in 7 games last year and was the primary reason we lost 6 of those 7 games!"
Some of you just say that and we can halt this insanity! :)
You are absolutly positivly right
:puke:
Morgoth
07-23-2003, 04:09 PM
This is Wys' modus operandi. Tell you, you are wrong and you should except my "opinion" as gospel or you don't have a clue. Sorry, not gonna happen. Go talk to your truck. If it doesn't respond wait longer.
TacklingDummy
07-23-2003, 05:45 PM
How many turnover (Minus Ray Lucas) did the Bills D create?
How many sacks did they have?
What was the average rushing yards a game they gave up?
Pleaaaaseeeee, This defense sucked last year. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in awhile.
THATHURMANATOR
07-23-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by lordofgun
Drew doesn't get any credit for the 8 wins, but he's completely responsible for 6 losses??? Sorry, no dice.
There's definitely a middle ground in there somewhere...that's where the truth lies.
Absolutly!
THATHURMANATOR
07-23-2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by TacklingDummy
How many turnover (Minus Ray Lucas) did the Bills D create?
How many sacks did they have?
What was the average rushing yards a game they gave up?
Pleaaaaseeeee, This defense sucked last year. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in awhile.
It is weird to me how WYS can defend the Defense when they were horrid last year, and he complelty trashes Bledsoe.
Mad Bomber
07-23-2003, 08:56 PM
[/lurk]
Just got a new computer, and got back to the forum....
People are hammering Wys big time....(hey, give him a break; his sauce is AWESOME)
Our D is going to be first rate....we have some major run stoppers in the middle, some fast LBs, two first rate CBs, and two safeties who are going to do nothing but improve. Couple that with an O that should rock, and we will do OK!
BillsMan80
07-23-2003, 11:29 PM
Wys, I just saw an interesting stat in the paper the last day or so...Our Red Zone percentage, which was by the way last in the league was just atrocious, and part of the reason why we pin blame on the defense. The defense allowed teams to convert their red zone opportunities into points 94% of the time. That is an appalling number. Not sure of the TD to FG ration, but whatever it was it was awful.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.