An over-emphasis on Offense and an under-emphasis on Defense?

[WG]

Quotes by Donahoe in today's D&C article by Leo Roth prompted this thread. It suggested to me that our FO/coaching staff consider that we only compete offensively and that implicitly they seem to believe that the best offense is the way to a championship. I only post this b/c I cannot disagree more if in fact it's the case.

Donahoe's quote:

He’s suggesting a rule change where each team would be guaranteed one possession, an opinion greatly influenced by Buffalo’s season-opening loss to the New York Jets. The Bills lost the coin flip and

Chad Morton returned the ensuing kickoff for a touchdown to win the game 37-31.

“We didn’t even get a chance to compete in overtime,” Donahoe said.

“It just doesn’t seem right that a coin flip should determine the outcome of the game. Guys are fighting, playing hard and if a team returns a kickoff, the other team should at least get the opportunity to match it. Once they have that opportunity and lose, I don’t have a problem with it being sudden death. You can’t play forever. But it seems to me that would be a more fair system.”

My reply:

Apparently TD thinks that we only "compete" offensively. Perhaps it's a philosophy issue.

But we did get a chance to compete. We had our STs on the field during that runback unless I missed something! So if he would like our chances of "winning games" to increase, then my first suggestion would be to not ignore STs and D any longer. Then again, what do I know... :D

Article link: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/sports/bills/1214story1_bills.shtml

[The_Philster]

Couldn't agree more, Wys. All parts of the team, offense, defense, and special teams are required to do a job to help the team win...not just the offense.

[Butch]

I disagree with Donahoe with regards to changing the overtime rule. You have 60 minutes to prove you are better than the other team and win in regulation, if you lose on the first play in overtime, you have nothing to complain about.

[The Natrix]

I don't like that quote by Donahoe. It sounds more like whinning than sound reasoning.

I think that the current OT is good and TDs idea is good. Any other way would be garbage.

BTW, I think that what Detroit did proves that the current system is fine. How can you complain about the offense not seeing the field when you choose to kick? Lol.

[SoCalBillsFan]

I hate sudden death OT. It's like saying in baseball that the first team to score wins. Would that be fair?

"well, pitching and fielding is part of the game. Who cares if one team doesn't get a chance to hit?"

I don't think that would be right, and I don't think its right in the NFL either. I like college overtime a lot better. It's more exciting that way, and I would argue it becomes more of a team effort, not just one unit of the team.

[The Natrix]

Originally posted by SoCalBillsFan
It's like saying in baseball that the first team to score wins.

No it's not like that. It is a lot easier to manufacture 1 run than it is to score a FG. Plus, if a batter hits a HR on the first a bat, it was between only the batter and pitcher



I think the excitment of Palmer winning the HT has clouded your thinking.

[SoCalBillsFan]

Originally posted by The Natrix


No it's not like that. It is a lot easier to manufacture 1 run than it is to score a FG. Plus, if a batter hits a HR on the first a bat, it was between only the batter and pitcher



I think the excitment of Palmer winning the HT has clouded your thinking.

Kinda like how when morton ran back the TD in the Jets game people said it was "just between the special teams, we didn't even get to compete..."

A field goal often requires 3 completed passes, and then you are in range (sometimes less). A manufactured run requires a hit, a sacrifice or another hit, and then another hit. I think the two are comparable. I don't think its that easy to manufacture a run. If it were you wouldnt see 14 inning plus games. You wouldnt see many extra inning games at all because the team losing in the ninth could just "easily manufacture a run" and win it right then.

The point is the principle is the same.

[The Natrix]

Originally posted by SoCalBillsFan


If it were you wouldnt see 14 inning plus games.

good point.

However I stand by my opinion that the current way is fine.

[4thAndLong]

Originally posted by SoCalBillsFan


Kinda like how when morton ran back the TD in the Jets game people said it was "just between the special teams, we didn't even get to compete..."

A field goal often requires 3 completed passes, and then you are in range (sometimes less). A manufactured run requires a hit, a sacrifice or another hit, and then another hit. I think the two are comparable. I don't think its that easy to manufacture a run. If it were you wouldnt see 14 inning plus games. You wouldnt see many extra inning games at all because the team losing in the ninth could just "easily manufacture a run" and win it right then.

The point is the principle is the same.

Baseball is a totally different matter.

If it's sudden death in baseball, and they score in the top of the 10th, the other team has no shot. While in football, you have a shot to get the ball and win, with a defensive stop/turnover.

This is comparing apples to oranges.

[The Natrix]

Originally posted by SoCalBillsFan


Kinda like how when morton ran back the TD in the Jets game people said it was just between the special teams, we didn't even get to compete

yeah but what about the many games when a team scores with a few seconds left in the 4th. You could say: "it was just between the offense against the defense, the other offense or defense and the ST units didn't even get to compete"


....how about this: The game can't end in a tie. When it is tie at the end of the fourth, the gameclock shuts off and they keep on playing. That way you eliminate the cointoss. Basically, OT just starts wherever the 4th left off.

[SoCalBillsFan]

Originally posted by 4thAndLong


While in football, you have a shot to get the ball and win, with a defensive stop/turnover.



In baseball you have a shot to hit again by retiring the side, a "defensive stop" if you will

[SoCalBillsFan]

Originally posted by The Natrix


yeah but what about the many games when a team scores with a few seconds left in the 4th. You could say: "it was just between the offense against the defense, the other offense or defense and the ST units didn't even get to compete"




No because this is still in regulation. The other offense, defense, specialteams, etc. and how they have played the whole game is affecting the current situation- field position, score etc.

Once you get to overtime its like a whole new game in a sense. Tie score, you flip a coin and kick it off.

[DIHARD2]

I never liked OT unless it's in the playoffs and there is a logical reason for it. What's wrong with half a point?

If overtime is to stay, I believe special teams should be eliminated from that part of the game, after all they didn't play the majority of the time during the game.

During the game special teams are important, because, it makes the opponents offense having to work to cancel out that play when they do get the ball.

All the runback proves is the other team has a better special team, but the other team has a chance to make up for it with its offense, whereas in OT they don't.

What I believe would be fair is a coin flip and the ball being spotted on the 25 yard line of the winner of the coin flip. Field goals would not count! If you're within field goals range you have to go for it in four downs. If you don't make the first down on the other teams say 35 they take over on their 35.

Or you have an option to kicked the ball and possibly place the ball on the opponents one yard line. It would be playing for field position. Which after all, is an important part of the regulation game. What this would do is the team that scores the first six points by a touchdown wins the game.

If after 15 minutes of play no one scores the touchdown the game ends in a tie. The sponsors get their extra 15 minutes which is the only reason OT was created. I'm old enough to remember watching tied games. And they didn't hurt anything back then.

This way the teams offense and defense who are the ones that played the majority of the games are the ones who decide the win, loose or draw.

That would be the fair way of playing overtime, it won't be decided by one teams special team that played very little time during the game but will be decided by the two teams that battled for 60 minutes to get it to that position.

Using this system, field position will be important, not for field goal purposes but rather for the battle between the offense and defense, the ones that played the whole day to keep it as close as a tie would be.

GO!!!...BUFFALO!!!...

[WG]

I guess my main purpose of this thread was that apparently Donahoe places less of an emphasis on D than he does on O. B/c as I see it, the D is competing as well and often more so than the O depending upon the circumstances.

I do agree that each team should have at least one shot. From the 35 would be good, going in. That puts the onus on TDs then and not FGs. Makes more sense.