Everyone's thoughts on ONLY the defense...

[Synovia]

Re: Everyone's thoughts on ONLY the defense.....

Actually, Andy, you should admit that you're a homer, instead of getting offended when something pretty obvious is pointed out. It's not a bad thing, nor a good thing. It just is. What's funny is that you complain that I'm somehow being "Darwinian", in commenting upon my 'tactic', in the same sentence you call me incapable of admitting I'm wrong.

Brady, Warren, Dale&Holley, The Big Show, the fanbases I checked on around the country.... they saw the game pretty much as I saw it, as opposed to the rosier version you watched. Feel free to go look at some of the gamethreads that non-involved (ie. not Buffalo or NE messageboards) parties were posting in.

Typical Dues post. Someone disagrees with you, insult them, and talk about how obvious it is that they're wrong, without actually presenting any evidence.

 

[Synovia]

My biggest concern continues to be the lack of pass rush just like last year.

What do you people expect? A sack every play? They had 4 sacks. There were 5 completions to WRs. Edwards was running around half the game.

 

[patsfan-1982]

i know that they got man handeld by rookies

but just maybe dose rookies can play just cause they are rookies dose not meen they are bad players i dont think the bills whould trade there all pro LT and cut there best RT if dose guys could not play

but even what that said they will not be any better then the jets O line who has 3 maybe 4 all pros on there O line

so what do the pats do every one says put brace and wilfork and warren side by side they cant move them

will its not that E..Z it was not just the bills blowning the pats off the ball its was more of the bills no huddle offense runing them down they are to big to be on the field that long the fact is the only all pro every down DL men we had was seymour but hes gone and we cant cry over old milk

we know the nfl is a copycat league and we will see the no huddle again so what do the pats do

we seen it last night go with the smaller faster front of green wirght TBC burgess and AD

will that work VS the jets we will see but we all know that no one is better at makeing a average D look like a top 10 D then BB

 

[Easywolf32]

Did you guys watch the same game i did?

The secondary was good.

The linebackers were beyond horrid after Mayo went down.

The d-line was mediocre at best.

Exactly my view.

 

[Deus Irae]

Belichick:

"We didn't defend the screen well on any level. We didn't defend well underneath."

 

[mgteich]

You must understand the logic of most on this board. It doesn't matter what Warren or Belichick says. The defense did a fine job.

Belichick:

"We didn't defend the screen well on any level. We didn't defend well underneath."

 

[Synovia]

Belichick:

"We didn't defend the screen well on any level. We didn't defend well underneath."

Of course he said that. They gave up yards on it. Have you ever seen a game where he said they played perfect defense?

 

[Ring 6]

You must understand the logic of most on this board. It doesn't matter what Warren or Belichick says. The defense did a fine job.

Who has stated anything that black and white.
You are saying that my comments, which amount its silly to say a defense that allowed less than 4 ypc on the ground and had 4 sacks in 25 attmepts was 'manhandled' and we stunk at defending the screen, are less consistent with what these players said (which is we were bad against the screen and it was a close game) than to say the defensive line was manhandled, beaten, stoned, stymied, destroyed.

 

[Deus Irae]

Who has stated anything that black and white.
You are saying that my comments, which amount its silly to say a defense that allowed less than 4 ypc on the ground and had 4 sacks in 25 attmepts was 'manhandled' and we stunk at defending the screen, are less consistent with what these players said (which is we were bad against the screen and it was a close game) than to say the defensive line was manhandled, beaten, stoned, stymied, destroyed.

Just for the record, is it possible that you might be said to have a better game pressuring the QB if you don't sack him all game but keep making him move to avoid pressure, than if you don't get pressure for much of the game, but do manage 4 sacks?

 

[mgteich]

Ok, let's make it clear for everyone.

Did this defense have a good evening?
Are they remotely close to what is needed later in the year?
As of now, do you consider them a top 10 defense?

My answers to all of these questions is no.

I also believe that the talent that we have is sufficient to win the Super Bowl, after much improvement during the year. My strong preference is to bring in a bit more depth for the front seven, but the effect of the decision will not be felt unless there are injuries (we already got a glimpse yesterday).

Who has stated anything that black and white.
You are saying that my comments, which amount its silly to say a defense that allowed less than 4 ypc on the ground and had 4 sacks in 25 attmepts was 'manhandled' and we stunk at defending the screen, are less consistent with what these players said (which is we were bad against the screen and it was a close game) than to say the defensive line was manhandled, beaten, stoned, stymied, destroyed.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Ok, let's make it clear for everyone.

Did this defense have a good evening?
Are they remotely close to what is needed later in the year?
As of now, do you consider them a top 10 defense?

My answers to all of these questions is no.

I also believe that the talent that we have is sufficient to win the Super Bowl, after much improvement during the year. My strong preference is to bring in a bit more depth for the front seven, but the effect of the decision will not be felt unless there are injuries (we already got a glimpse yesterday).

I keep repeating this everywhere because it seems as though (from what I'm hearing and reading) that nobody's aware of it. The Bills had 8 offensive possessions. This was the result of each:


1. 0 first downs, punt
2. 3 first downs, TD
3. 1 first down, punt
4. 1 first down, punt
5. 1 first down, punt
6. 1 first down, FG
7. 5 first downs, TD
8. 1 first down, game ends


Was the defense perfect? No. Is there stuff to work on? Yes. However, was the defense bad? No. Other than 2 drives (one of which was certainly bad) the Bills couldn't move the ball, so let's not say things like "the defense didn't have a good evening," because while it was far from perfect, it was actually pretty good.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Everyone's thoughts on ONLY the defense.....

Actually, Andy, you should admit that you're a homer, instead of getting offended when something pretty obvious is pointed out. It's not a bad thing, nor a good thing. It just is. What's funny is that you complain that I'm somehow being "Darwinian", in commenting upon my 'tactic', in the same sentence you call me incapable of admitting I'm wrong.

Brady, Warren, Dale&Holley, The Big Show, the fanbases I checked on around the country.... they saw the game pretty much as I saw it, as opposed to the rosier version you watched. Feel free to go look at some of the gamethreads that non-involved (ie. not Buffalo or NE messageboards) parties were posting in.

Which one of those sources analyzed the trenches and said that their OL dominated our DL? That is the point. Again, you move the goalposts.
I said that the run defense was effective. Do you disagree with 3.8 ypc being effective? I said the pass rush getting 4 sacks in 25 attmepts is good. I said we stunk defending the screen, and aside from that allowed less than 200 total yards. Oh how homerish of me to actually look at the facts and not make broad sweeping statements. Oh, how homerish to recognize that Jackson was gaining his yards on screen passes not runs, when it appears the unbiased fan decided to consider that 'stoning' the DL, instead of what it is.
Where have I overstated the play of the defense? Where have I done anything other than point out the inaccuracy of the assumoptions of your conclusion, and state that winning is what matters, so the day was a success.
Your method of responding to an argument that wasnt the one being made to make you seem right, is tiring

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Everyone's thoughts on ONLY the defense.....

Which one of those sources analyzed the trenches and said that their OL dominated our DL? That is the point. Again, you move the goalposts.
I said that the run defense was effective. Do you disagree with 3.8 ypc being effective? I said the pass rush getting 4 sacks in 25 attmepts is good. I said we stunk defending the screen, and aside from that allowed less than 200 total yards. Oh how homerish of me to actually look at the facts and not make broad sweeping statements. Oh, how homerish to recognize that Jackson was gaining his yards on screen passes not runs, when it appears the unbiased fan decided to consider that 'stoning' the DL, instead of what it is.
Where have I overstated the play of the defense? Where have I done anything other than point out the inaccuracy of the assumoptions of your conclusion, and state that winning is what matters, so the day was a success.
Your method of responding to an argument that wasnt the one being made to make you seem right, is tiring

You don't seem to know what "moving the goalposts" means. Perhaps that's the problem. My initial comment that you responded to:

That was a brand new offensive line out there, with 3 players that had never played a game in the NFL, and it stoned the Patriots a lot more often than it should have. I'm quite confident that nobody on the Patriots coaching staff or on the defense was happy with that performance.

It was just week one, and I expect things to get better. The team is integrating a fair amount of new parts, and that's going to take time. Mayo missed a lot of the game, as well. I was one of the people in the chat room telling people to relax. However, the game's done and it's time for honest evaluation. If blowing smoke about "happy with the defensive effort" works for you, you go for it. I didn't see it that way. The defense played a bad offense and struggled doing so. It's got about 6 days to get better, or else the Jets are going to bury this defense in the sandbox. The Jets offensive line has played more than just 50 combined games.

My follow up to your response:

As I posted elsewhere:


I think it's pretty clear that the same people who normally get drunk on the Koolaid are continuing to do so, and that those of us who take less of a homer approach saw the game differently.

We saw the game the same way that the Patriots players apparently did, given their comments since the end of the game. We saw the game the same way that Dale & Holley did, given their comments on WEEI this morning. We saw the game the same way that fans watching and posting on other boards did.

Here's one of the comments from Ty Warren, for example:

Ty Warren [stats] seemed to have the best handle on what to make of last night’s win.

“I think we pulled it out by the skin of our teeth, but at the same time, a win is a win,” he said. “Nobody is that blind to say it wasn’t mistake-free. There were a lot of mistakes in the game for us defensively with penalties and some communication problems.

You apparently saw a display of excellence. Most people didn't. You should probably go tell Ty Warren that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and doesn't understand football.

My next response:

Actually, Andy, you should admit that you're a homer, instead of getting offended when something pretty obvious is pointed out. It's not a bad thing, nor a good thing. It just is. What's funny is that you complain that I'm somehow being "Darwinian", in commenting upon my 'tactic', in the same sentence you call me incapable of admitting I'm wrong.

Brady, Warren, Dale&Holley, The Big Show, the fanbases I checked on around the country.... they saw the game pretty much as I saw it, as opposed to the rosier version you watched. Feel free to go look at some of the gamethreads that non-involved (ie. not Buffalo or NE messageboards) parties were posting in.

That's the post history involving you and I on the comment you decide to post responses to. At no point there do I move any goalposts.

 

[mgteich]

I just don't understand how allowing 17 points to a weak team in a close game is OK. This is especially true given how few minutes the defense was on the field. The offense did keep the ball for long drives, although they were ineffective at cashing in. Based on the stats you give, I would expect one more score if the time of possession weren't quite so lopsided.

8 possessions for 17 points in NOT good defense. It doesn't matter they had some bad series.

I keep repeating this everywhere because it seems as though (from what I'm hearing and reading) that nobody's aware of it. The Bills had 8 offensive possessions. This was the result of each:


1. 0 first downs, punt
2. 3 first downs, TD
3. 1 first down, punt
4. 1 first down, punt
5. 1 first down, punt
6. 1 first down, FG
7. 5 first downs, TD
8. 1 first down, game ends


Was the defense perfect? No. Is there stuff to work on? Yes. However, was the defense bad? No. Other than 2 drives (one of which was certainly bad) the Bills couldn't move the ball, so let's not say things like "the defense didn't have a good evening," because while it was far from perfect, it was actually pretty good.

 

[Peachhead]

Pass defense was much better than I expected.

Pass rush sucked out loud.

 

[Metaphors]

I keep repeating this everywhere because it seems as though (from what I'm hearing and reading) that nobody's aware of it. The Bills had 8 offensive possessions. This was the result of each:


1. 0 first downs, punt
2. 3 first downs, TD
3. 1 first down, punt
4. 1 first down, punt
5. 1 first down, punt
6. 1 first down, FG
7. 5 first downs, TD
8. 1 first down, game ends


Was the defense perfect? No. Is there stuff to work on? Yes. However, was the defense bad? No. Other than 2 drives (one of which was certainly bad) the Bills couldn't move the ball, so let's not say things like "the defense didn't have a good evening," because while it was far from perfect, it was actually pretty good.

If Brady doesn't throw the pick-6 and the Pats offense behaves as usual (converts those 4th downs and gets TDs instead of chip-shot FGs), are we even having this discussion? After a 28 (or more) to 17 victory? Don't think so.

This is mostly emotional and is the depressive cousin of the manic Jets situation. Your attempts at using facts, logic and reason aren't gonna work. Don't worry though. Next week the universe will be set right again.

 

[Garbanza]

Ok, let's make it clear for everyone.

Did this defense have a good evening?
Are they remotely close to what is needed later in the year?
As of now, do you consider them a top 10 defense?

My answers to all of these questions is no.

I also believe that the talent that we have is sufficient to win the Super Bowl, after much improvement during the year. My strong preference is to bring in a bit more depth for the front seven, but the effect of the decision will not be felt unless there are injuries (we already got a glimpse yesterday).

If Mayo is out for a substantial amount of time, the SB is laughable. The LB's are THAT bad.

 

[letekro]

I keep repeating this everywhere because it seems as though (from what I'm hearing and reading) that nobody's aware of it. The Bills had 8 offensive possessions. This was the result of each:


1. 0 first downs, punt
2. 3 first downs, TD
3. 1 first down, punt
4. 1 first down, punt
5. 1 first down, punt
6. 1 first down, FG
7. 5 first downs, TD
8. 1 first down, game ends


Was the defense perfect? No. Is there stuff to work on? Yes. However, was the defense bad? No. Other than 2 drives (one of which was certainly bad) the Bills couldn't move the ball, so let's not say things like "the defense didn't have a good evening," because while it was far from perfect, it was actually pretty good.

Friend, I'll tell you again, your facts are not wanted here. Only hysteria has any currency in these forums.

 

[mgteich]

If the offense had converted, the score would have been something like 31-24 or 31-20 with the defense having given ups 21-24 points to a very poor offense. And yes we would be asking whether it will be necessary for the offense to score 30 points in each and every game in order to win.

Another question we'd be asking is if we give up 17-24 points to the bills, how many points could the defense be expected to give up to a good team?

If Brady doesn't throw the pick-6 and the Pats offense behaves as usual (converts those 4th downs and gets TDs instead of chip-shot FGs), are we even having this discussion? After a 28 (or more) to 17 victory? Don't think so.

This is mostly emotional and is the depressive cousin of the manic Jets situation. Your attempts at using facts, logic and reason aren't gonna work. Don't worry though. Next week the universe will be set right again.

 

[Gumby]

I have seen a lot of folks defending the D as good using the figure of 3.8yd per carry for the Jills.

For the sake of honesty / clarity I would note that only using the avg of ONE of the THREE Buffy RBs is a little dishonest.

CAR YDS AVG TD LG
F. Jackson 15 57 3.8 0 16
T. Edwards 2 25 12.5 0 16
X. Omon 2 8 4.0 0 7
Team 19 90 4.7 0 16

The Jills had a 4.7 yd per carry avg. AND THAT WAS WITHOUT MARSHAWN LYNCH. Anybody else worried a LITTLE if the D plays like that versus Buffy in the rematch???

I think Buffy was flat out STUPID to not run the ball more in 3rd and 4th Qtr. As I recall they were having success. But without looking at a play by play; I dont know if some of their stupid OL penalties drove more passing situations taking them out of run possibilities.