Playing from ahead should aid Bills pass rush
by Brian Galliford on Mar 20, 2009 1:15 PM EDT
in Buffalo Bills Opinion
Email
Print
A skeptical fan of the Buffalo Bills probably got more skeptical when the team signed enigmatic wide receiver Terrell Owens. The overwhelming majority of fans that approved of the move, however, pointed out that teaming up with Lee Evans, Owens - the receiver with more scores (38) than any other receiver in the league over the past three seasons - diversifies Buffalo's offensive arsenal and makes them potentially explosive with the ball. We've already examined the potential improvement Owens' presence will have on Trent Edwards' game.
Not as frequently mentioned about the arrival of Owens is the potential impact on what the Bills do defensively. If Owens can even come close to matching his frantic touchdown pace of the past three seasons next year, the Bills should be playing with more leads than ever. Considering the Bills scored first in just four of their sixteen games last season, that's (potentially) good news. The better news? If those touchdowns can turn into some late leads, Buffalo's pass rush will be helped significantly - even if the team doesn't address the much-maligned defensive end position early in April's draft.
Bills rarely play with leads
Seriously - think about that statistic, folks. Buffalo was attempting to climb out of an early deficit in 75% of their games in 2008. While the struggling offense scrambled to make up for early losses, Buffalo's defense was forced to limit mistakes and play balanced offenses. The result? An anemic pass rush, which every Bills fan is painfully aware of.
There are scarier stats, though. For example, the Bills have only had comfortable fourth-quarter leagues (a matter of opinion, I realize) in six games throughout the past three seasons. Once every half-season, the Bills can play pin-your-ears-back defense in the fourth quarter and really get after the quarterback while protecting a lead. Not unsurprisingly, the results have been positive. The six games are listed below.
2006: Bills 16, Dolphins 6 - Bills pick up 6 sacks
2006: Bills 31, Jets 13 - Bills pick up 5 sacks
2006: Bills 21, Dolphins 0 - Bills pick up 1 sack
2007: Bills 38, Dolphins 17 - Bills pick up 4 sacks
2008: Bills 34, Seahawks 10 - Bills pick up 5 sacks
2008: Bills 54, Chiefs 31 - Bills pick up 3 sacks
There have obviously been other fourth-quarter leads, but they've been far closer - and that includes the 11-point lead the Bills held over Dallas on Monday Night Football in Week 5 of 2007. In just these six games, the Bills picked up 24 of the 90 sacks they've had in the last three seasons. That's 27% of their sack total in 12.5% of the games. In these six games, the Bills averaged four sacks per game. In the other 42 games (you know, just 87.5% of the past three years), that average plummeted to 1.57 sacks per game. I shudder to think what the total is in losses; I'm not sure I have the stomach to break it down further.
It's not all about sacks
I know what many of you are thinking right now - "It's not all about sacks; it's far more important to have pressure on the quarterback." I could not agree more - and that's why this piece is not a "don't draft a DE in the first round" piece. The Bills have three defensive ends who will turn 30 during the upcoming season. Clearly, more talent and youth is needed at the position, and I fully hope and anticipate that the team addresses the position in April. But many are operating under the idea that merely adding talent will fix the pass rush woes. That's not happening, folks - a lot more goes into a successful pass rush than mere talent.
We already know that during the 2008 season, the Bills blitzed on 32% of pass plays, a figure indicative not only of the team's unnoticed defensive aggression (at least in terms of play-calling), but also of Perry Fewell's need to cover up for his lack of an impact rusher in his front four - yes, including veteran Aaron Schobel, who missed most of the 2008 season with a foot injury. That figure isn't likely to change much, even if the Bills were to draft an end in the first round. Perry Fewell is aggressive with his front seven. A rookie end won't significantly alter that.
What Owens' presence will hopefully change is the circumstances under which those blitzes are called. When playing with leads, teams can be more aggressive in their disruption of opponents' game plans. If Owens can match his 2008 production of 10 touchdowns, and pave the way for another 10 from his offensive teammates and perhaps even the defenders he'll indirectly help, that's another nine points per game. Even if that figure seems overly optimistic (and admittedly, 20 extra scores does seem far-fetched), even if that extra total is 10-15, that's a significant point swing, particularly if they come in bunches. That point swing alone (cross your fingers!) will have more impact on the Bills' 2009 pass rush than any combination of rookie speed rushers.
78 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is the biggest problem I have with our defensive philosophy
Buffalo was attempting to climb out of an early deficit in 75% of their games in 2008. While the struggling offense scrambled to make up for early losses, Buffalo’s defense was forced to limit mistakes and play balanced offenses. The result? An anemic pass rush, which every Bills fan is painfully aware of.
If you are trying to win games when playing from behind, I would take more chances….be more aggressive, not less.
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
If you are down by 10, and start taking chances you could be down by 17 pretty quick. I get your point and agree a little, but I think it has to be a controlled aggressiveness, taking smart chances, not just all out crazy risks.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
To further Eric’s thought – how much more aggressive do you want us to be, considering the 32% of pass plays blitzed stat and the sheer amount of time we played from behind?
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 20, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I we can't get some pressure without blitzing, we are going to lose anyway, just takes longer.
Do whatever it takes to get to the QB. Mix it up. If that means blitzing 40% of the time, then fine….do it.
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
… and if we blitzed 100% of the time and still couldn’t get to the QB?
If you blitz too much, you get predictable.
I’m not sure how defensive philosophy even came out of this post. Pass rush is pass rush. Are you disagreeing that playing with leads will help?
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 20, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I will assume you really don
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
't want me to answer that
I would like playing with a lead for a change…..
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
LOL. You can answer anything you want. :)
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 20, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
And to further that, I encourage you to. The more Megan Fox we have on each page, the better.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 20, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
You really shouldn't encourge me :-)
I am trying to be good O:-)
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
Just as long as they are legal
(not Miley Cyrus).
Great plays don't make great players; great players make great plays.
It shouldn't be legal to be this sexy
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
Joe I love the way your mind works. Your my favorite pervert :-P
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 20, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions
WHAT..... that just means I am a guy and alive !!!!!!!
Do you get the feeling she could do some serious damage to a guy???
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
I don't get the felling...
I KNOW that she could do some serious damage.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 20, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions
OK...This one is for you Matty!!!!
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
bastard.
:-)
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 21, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
The 100% example is a little jump
of an analogic response I think. 40%, while perhaps overagressive, isn’t necessarily predictable. Not unless you consider predictable to mean: when the modern day NFL offense knows it’s got something to prove against the blitz, it can predict opposing defenses to attack it until something is devised.
For an offense to expect to have the burden of proof to stop a blitz, that should be very predictable.
Even the NFL teams that look like they blitz the most
Probably only top out around 35% blitzes, but in reality most are probably much lower, especially in the playoffs. What we see nowadays is the “Zone Blitz”, especially from 3-4 teams. They all look like their going to blitz, but only 4 of the front 7 come – which isn’t a blitz, the rest drop into coverage. That’s why Trent had so many issues in the second half last year, dealing with 7-8 men back in coverage.
If our defense plays with a lead, the “aggressiveness” won’t come from blitzing, it comes from forcing a team to be one dimensional. A team looks aggressive when it forces the other team to start throwing it like crazy to catch up. When the opposing team goes pass wacky, with just 4 rushers you get pressure on every play and cause mistakes.
If you believe it or not, yards allowed aside, our points allowed were quite good. Having more weapons on our offense will probably equate to greater time of possession as well. The less our defense sees the field, the better they can perform.
I think we could end up with a lot of wins this year, barring injuries. As many as 12, probably 10 or 11. I’m really excited. I think our defense, as long as the offense does their part can reduce our points allowed from 21.4 point per game to between 18-19. Wouldn’t that be awesome?
Our problem is getting pressure with 4 guys not with blitzing
If we could get pressure from the front 4, that would be much more valuable than just calling more blitzes. Blitzes pull a guy from coverage to gamble for a sack. If our DEs / DTs just got through their blocks, we’d be all set. It would help against the run too, except Kelsay and his “10 yard radius move” to the backfield.
The problem is that we've been very bad against the run
and teams when playing with a lead tend to pound the ball more so as much as I agree with you Joe, I also understand why we mostly used our DEs that are good against the run. I think Brian brings up a great point that if our opponents are in a position that they need to score, they might use the air a bit more, which will enable our pass rush to be more dynamic?
Anyway, I definitely agree with the overall note of the article that a powerful offense that can score, will definitely change the defensive strategy and we will probably see a big improvement in the pass rushing department. I would also add that when we successfully get out to a lead quickly, having a better line (which is why I really wanted a guy like Mack) would permit us to pound the ball against our opponents and essential turn the table on them just like this article talks about, a strong running game will not only open deep shots to Owens & Evans it will also slow down & render most stud DEs ineffective.
Your ability to control the LOS is directly linked to your ability to win football games!
FEED the BEAST!
Blitzing works when you’ve got a guy who can beat a lineman 1-on-1. Buffalo doesn’t really have that. Schobel doesn’t blow past tackles so much as work around them methodically. Kelsay and Denney aren’t even able to get around tackles methodically on a consistent basis. Stroud isn’t going to wow anyone with his quickness and neither is Williams. Mitchell can time his blitzes very well every now and then but otherwise is ineffective. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Poz beat an offensive lineman for a sack.
Buffalo badly needs a defensive end who can win his individual match up on a consistent basis. If OBD is genuinely convinced that Brown, Orakpo or Maybin can do that then the Bills should take one of those guys at #11—if any of them are still on the board. If, however, the Bills don’t see any of those guys as being able to apply consistent, quick pressure then OBD needs to trade out of #11 and get some guys who can really help the team. There’s no point in adding a younger version of Kelsay or even Schobel to the roster.
They won't
I know you’ll be sad when they pass on Jenkins!
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
Somehow I'll muddle through if they pass on Jenkins...
I’m rooting for the trade down with Philly or Detroit.
good write up
I like the idea Brian but I have to raise some questions about the logic a bit.
Of the 6 games you used as examples for sacks obtained as a result of playing with leads, 5 of those teams were absolutely wretched. Only the 2006 Jets made the playoffs and the 06 Dolphins were 6-10, the 2007 Dolphins were one lucky overtime play and 15, the 2008 Seahawks and Chiefs were plain terrible.
So isn’t it more likely that the sacks came as a result of the quality of the team we were playing? And thus the leads we held were actually a result of the sacks and not the other way around?
I think this just shows how important it is to winning to get a pass rush and why we cant get out of the 7-9 purgatory we’re in .
That said, playing with lead does help get more sacks because the teams have to pass more and Terrell Owens will help tremendously. I agree with everything in the post except that logic I mentioned above.
"Gooood…..let the apathy take root…" - Ron from NM
So isn’t it more likely that the sacks came as a result of the quality of the team we were playing? And thus the leads we held were actually a result of the sacks and not the other way around?
If you want to go through the play-by-play for each game to prove me wrong, I’d be happy to publicly refute my views. :)
Why can’t it work both ways? Why can’t sacks lead to leads and leads lead to sacks? My guess is you would see a little of both in each case.
Your point about the teams being terrible is one I expected to hear, but I don’t dock the argument much because of that. Again, I’m not saying “more points will fix our pass rush”. I’m just saying that it’s far more likely to help than a rookie pass rusher. Ultimately, I think we need both, and I’m fairly certain OBD will see it that way as well.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 20, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
If you want to go through the play-by-play for each game to prove me wrong
too much madness to have time for that! I’m working from home today just to watch the games. I’ve heard that this Friday annually is one of the least productive days of the year
"Gooood…..let the apathy take root…" - Ron from NM
I bet there are a lot of sick days being used today. My buddy and I are watching the games at my place right now, haha.
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
ha!
its amazing how its almost acceptable. every boss in the world should understand, and likely does
"Gooood…..let the apathy take root…" - Ron from NM
Wait a minute, am I supposed to care about the tournament?
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 20, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
LOL – i’m kind of a 1-sport person. I decided that I want to try and like basketball, but i’m not ready yet!
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 20, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I think people misunderstand blitzing.
Blitzing = gambling. Big blitzing > 5 rushers = Big mistake
Sacks and pressure from 4 man rush = NIRVANA! Fumbles, interceptions, all the good stuff.
What people have been calling “aggressiveness” is really just making a team one dimensional so your defense looks really good, and the way to get there is with getting a big lead early. Between our offense and special teams this year, we could have something special. Not to mention our defense is a lot better than even the stats show, considering we played from behind all the time.
I agree with Poz
playing against some of the worst teams in the league is more a reason why we had some sacks in those games, than because we built a lead. I’ll go through the play by play now:
vs KC: Copeland Bryan had a sack in the 1st Q, Ryan Denney had a sack in the 2nd Q, George Wilson had a 4th Q sack. Considering the scrubs who had sacks, I don’t think it means anything. They were in pin your ears back mode that whole game anyhow, and still didn’t do a whole lot to get after the QB’s.
vs Seattle: Schobel had a 1st Q sack after a Whitner blitz, Mitchell had a 1st Q sack on a blitz, Stroud had a 2nd Q sack, Stroud had another early 3rd Q sack, Denney/Bryan had a 3rd Q sack. I wouldn’t say any of those were due to having the lead, maybe the last one.
vs Miami in 2007: Does it matter? They were winless and had Cleo Lemon and John Beck at QB. Denney had a 1st Q sack, Tripplett/Williams had a 1st Q sack, Wilson had a 1st Q “sack” though it was Beck just handing him the ball, Hargrove had a zero yard sack in the 2nd Q, Schobel had a 4th Q sack. So maybe 1 sack because we were able to get after it because we were up so much. The other 4 were probably due to Miami’s ineptitude.
vs Miami in 2006 #2: 1 sack, so I won’t bother looking.
vs Jets in 2006: Denney 1st Q sack, Schobel 3rd Q sack, Denney 4th Q sack, Schobel had 2 more 4th Q sacks against Kellen Clemens with under 2 minutes left. Not sure I’d count those as they were in absolutely garbage time.
vs. Dolphin in 2006 #1: Team had 5 sacks 16 minutes into the game. Kelsay (!) and Crowell had 4th Q sacks. Maybe the last 2 would count as sacks as a result of playing with a lead.
In the end, I don’t think the team got too many sacks because they were able to go into pass rush mode in the 2nd half of games. Playing horrible teams seems to be the biggest factor, to me.
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
Next question, then, would be what was the score at the time of each sack? Playing with a lead in general changes your defensive approach as well.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 20, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
vs KC: Bryan sack game was tied 7-7, Denney sack Bills up 20-14, Wilson sack 54-24 ha.
vs Seattle: Schobel sack game was 0-0, Mitchell sack Bills up 7-0, Stroud 1st sack 7-0, Stroud 2nd sack 20-7, Denney/Bryan sack 34-10
vs. Dolphins 2007: Denney sack 7-0 Bills, Tripplett/Willaims sack 7-0, Wilson gift sack/TD 14-0, Hargrove “sack” 31-7, Schobel sack was under 2 mins on 4th down up 38-17
vs Dolphins 2006 #2: again just 1 sack, but it was 7-0 in the 2nd Q
vs Jets: Denney sack 0-0, Schobel sack 21-13, Denney sack 31-13, Schobel 2 sacks…who cares it was Kellen Clemens at the end of the game!
vs Dolphins 2006 #1: first 5 sacks were when the game was scoreless of 3-0 Bills. The 4th Q sacks were 16-0 Bills.
I maintain that it was against the crappy competition more than anything else. Many of the sacks were when the game was close or totally over. There were very few sacks at critical times when our lead was needing to be secured…
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
NFL Teams are still NFL Teams
I understand your point Kurupt, but if the case was as simple as us playing weak teams, then why didn’t we match or even come close to those sack totals when we played those weaker opponents the second time in the same year, considering they were divisional like the Doplhins in 2006. If your logic held true, we would had around the same number of sacks each time we played them that year, which wasn’t the case.
by NorCal BillsFan on Mar 20, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s kind of what I figured, though I didn’t expect it to be tied or us with the lead EVERY time.
But you’re right, it’s not all about sacks. It’s about getting pressure in crucial situations. That’s why I still think we need more talent. But there’s very little doubt that playing with a lead helps, even if you’re only beating the pansy teams of the league.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 20, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Pressure, sacks, whatever. We all know we need more of that!
I agree with playing with the lead helping. I just don’t think the games you listed prove that considering how bad some of those teams were. I just wish we had more leads to prove this one way or the other!!
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
Improving offense is even more effective
I couldn’t agree more with Brian’s original post. The best way to improve the defense in general is to improve the currently woeful offense. Not only does that allow the D to take more chances because they are playing with a lead, but it also helps keep the D off the field so they don’t get exhausted by the end of every game (Kyle Williams in a recent interview said they were generally exhausted by the second half of the season due to the way the offense was going 3-and-out). That can make a HUGE difference.
That’s why I think adding a TE who is a real weapon and shoring up the interior o-line is far more important at this point than adding a pass-rushing DE (nice as that would be). The Bills ranked 13th in the NFL last year in pass defense even with their sorry pass rush. Why is that the main priority? The pass defense was not a problem. At the same time they ranked 22nd in rushing defense. Adding a really good DT (who would also help in the pass rush) seems more crucial to me than DE, and almost as important as LG and TE.
I think an improved offense will help the pass rush
But Bills offense 2008 + Owens does not = better pass rush on its own.
The coaches have to coach better. Our line has to play as a unit better. Edwards needs to stop treading water and make some strides. Then we can talk about Owens making a difference for our defense.
I agree with everything up through Edwards. Obviously he needs to improve, but are you saying Owens isn’t good for 6-8 touchdowns even if Edwards channels his inner Rob Johnson? I think he’ll get touchdowns regardless of the consistency of the QB play.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 20, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
If you win the coin toss,
why not elect to receive the ball once in a while? Feels pretty good to play with a lead, huh? While you’re at it, try to score some points on your drives immediately before halftime instead of sitting on the ball. A touch of aggressiveness or competitiiveness here and there could go a ways towards putting the entire team, not just the defense, in better situations.
Great plays don't make great players; great players make great plays.
I think that deferring shows confidence in you D. If you can stop the opposing team on their opening drive, score on your and build on your lead, then get the ball at halftime, you have a pretty nice advantage. You just have to stop your opponent from scoring first.
I gte your point, but I have no problem with DJ deferring.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
True, but I said it shows confidence in the D, not that it was warranted.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
The only problem I have with deferring is game planning.
When you defer to the second half – the opposing D’s already have seen a good half of work on you and know what your attempting to do. So in deferring – your limiting at least one possession in which you have the advantage. everything being equal of course
I know you. You know you. And I know you know that I know you.
by J2 on Mar 20, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the idea of starting a game off with the ball in McKelvin’s hands, too.
Great plays don't make great players; great players make great plays.
I’m not saying that I dislike the idea of getting the ball first, driving down the field and putting up points right off the bat. I can see both sides of the argument is all. If a headcoach tell me that he wants to defer, I’m ok with it.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
By the way
I love that pic of Schobel. He has a weird little smirk on his face and looks like he is trying to sneak up on the opposing QB.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
Dude. The hilarious lives with you!
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 20, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure I follow the logic
So the Bills are blitzing 32% of the time on pass plays while playing without a lead most of the time……Now, if they score more points they can get “less balance” to…..what? Blitz even more when their opponents have to pass more? Am I missing something here? I’m not saying a lead won’t help, but doesn’t a lead allow the Bills to get even more aggressive?
Also, what’s missing from most of these discussions about pass rush is that the key in getting pass rush is not just about sacks, it is what you do when you do get pressure on the QB — creating turnovers! Turnovers in terms of INTs and force the QB to fumble (aka “a Losman”). Why aren’t we looking into those as well as a complete analysis?
Bills fan half way around the world
Again, my point wasn’t to say “more points = devastating pass rush”. I just wanted to point out that fixing the pass rush is a lot more involved than simply drafting the best available defensive end and calling it quits.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 20, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Good post.....I agree our
defense does not create enough turnovers. Not that pressure wouldn’t help, but it would be nice if our def got more INTs and forced more fumbles. Our defense has seemed pretty easy for QBs to read. We don’t seem to cause much pressure by pass rush or confusion by scheme. I don’t know if it is by design or because of our players, but Bottom line…..our defense doesn’t make big plays.
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
I have zero confidence in Aaron Schobel...
That guy is done. If he stays healthy I would be shocked if he got more than 5 sacks for the entire year. He’s a depth player now, and we are going to hear all year from announcers “The Bills have the potential to wreak havoc on opposing QBs with pro bowl Aaron Schobel leading the way.”
by TrentEdwardsHoF2018 on Mar 20, 2009 3:34 PM EDT reply actions
Giants - 7 stud defensive lineman help!
I don’t believe that just drafting a DE will solve the pass rush, can you say “Chris Ellis”. In fact, if they draft Everette Brown, most are saying it will take him a few years to develop.
I believe that you need 4 very solid lineman like the Giants have, those who can put pressure up the middle as well like Barry Cofield or Fred Robbins. Look at who the Giants signed as free agents this year. Chris Canty and Rocky Bernard! They also now have Mattias Kiwanuka, Justin Tuck, Osi Umenyiora.
That gives them “7” very solid and very good defensive lineman.
It all starts up front with the line. Unfortunately, the Bills don’t have players up front like the Giants or Titans have!
Agree and more
I totally agree with the thesis of this post. I would add that playing with the lead is an overwhelming predictor of success. Below is the URL (I can’t get the link feature to work) of an SI article from last Fall which details how teams leading at halftime win at a percentage of 77.4% over the previous 10 years.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/michael_lombardi/09/05/franklyfootball/
Yeah, teams that have the lead tend to win more games.
You should see the winning percentage of teams with the lead at the end of the 4th quarter!!!!!!!
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
seriously,
halftime is a reasonable cutoff from which to assess the difficulty of coming from behind. I would love to see similar stats from 1st qtr and 3rd qtr but I haven’t seen them.
Seriously, I think the point differential is probably the most important factor. Where is that info????
What is the percentage when teams are ahead by 3, 7, 10 points at half. I am not sure why this is anything but common sense. The team that is leading by halftime has proven to be the better team that day. Maybe they have more talented players and coaches…..maybe they have the better game plan……maybe they just want it more that day, but either way they are in the lead at half. Why would that change come the 2nd half? I just don’t see where this line of thinking is ground breaking. Although we questions the Bills coaching staff’s game planning, I really don’t think they go into a game with the idea of going down by 10 points in the first half just to make winning more challenging.
Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?
With the O-Line disabled disassembled and weakened
I question the assumption that we will be playing with a lead next season. Even with the addition of Owens, the Bills offense is weaker today than it was at the end of last season. Not to mention we will be playing against stronger opponets next year.
disassembled, yes.
Weakened? I don’t know yet. Wait until after the draft to say they are weaker. If we add Robinson, Mack, Unger, Wood are we really worse than with Dockery? Hangartner is an upgrade over Fowler/Preston.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 21, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Those six games were agains horrible teams.
2006- the Jets had 2 rookies on there line even though a 10-6 record. The dolphins 6-10 just sucked. 2007 the dolphins got worse 1-15, 2008 both k.c. 2-14 and seattle 4-10 sucked. All 5 teams had a combined record of 23-55, thats horrible. And the big reason we were winning those games is because of the pressure we were able to put on the qbs. Im not saying that having a better offense wont help the catagory, just dont expect a huge difference unless some changes are made with the DE position.
Stat....
First quarter opponent scoring: 108 points
First quarter Bills scoring: 46
Always playing from behind.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
Another point.
You have never seen or heard me openly pile on Dick Jauron. I am not a proponent of trashing guys just to trash them. One thing I have absolutely been against that Jauron seems to do every chance he gets is to defer the opening kickoff. We are kicking the ball to the other team and it leads to the other team scoring first more often. I looked and couldn’t find statistics of how often the Bills deferred the opening kickoff but it’s maddening for Jauron to let the other team take the ball and the lead on the first, second, or third possession, and score before the Bills do. Now look, we’re playing from behind. I don’t get the purpose. Teams say it helps them hit the ground running in the third quarter but if you’re already behind in the third quarter does it really matter???? And how come we were outscored 73-81 in the third quarter?
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
Two things come to mind right away
And how come we were outscored 73-81 in the third quarter?
The players did not play very well and our coaches got out coached on a regular basis, which includes the making of half time adjustments.
Why is 'bra' singular and 'panties' plural?
But if that were true the fourth and second aurters would all be lopsided too wouldn't they?
It’s not that they can’t coach. They just come out slow in each half.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 22, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Buffalo Rumblings
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
In Nix We Trust Pt 2 - #Billsmafia - (Massive Bills Analysis; must read Bills fans!) - (Updated 5/9)
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Report: Tebow sues maker of Jesus-y Jets t-shirts
- Joe McKnight says too much McDonald’s helped him gain 16 pounds in offseason
- Nick Mangold says goodbye to some chest hair on ‘Late Night with Jimmy Fallon’
- Saints will honor suspended Sean Payton with empty chairs
- Junior Seau’s home burglarized just days after his death
