Everyone's thoughts on ONLY the defense...

[Metaphors]

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?

Wrong, but thanks for playing. What makes you think the Bills would have stuck to a conservative offensive scheme just to keep the final score close?

It is more likely that the Bills, playing from behind, would have starting forcing the action downfield. Sacks, interceptions and general misery for Edwards would have resulted. Better field position for the Pats resulting in even more points. The different phases of the game complement each other. They don't play out in a vacuum.

Two years of game history with Edwards at QB support this. The final Bills drive (which was not a desperation, throwaway drive) pretty much played out this way when Edwards didn't have a viable, easy, first read to throw to.

 

[Deus Irae]

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

Really? Here's a take from NFL.com:

What a finish
New England dominated the stats, but had issues. The offensive line was erratic, Tom Brady, working back after missing virtually all of 2008, wasn’t stepping through all his throws and the underneath game with Wes Welker wasn’t clicking. The Patriots run defense was spotty and they didn’t finish offensive drives with near the precision we are used to … Up until the final two possessions, of course, when they were clinical and merciless.

You have to think this is a result that has the potential to linger. The Pats might get a springboard and the Bills, to lose such a heartbreaker, man, I have to wonder about a letdown.

Belichick noted that the failure against Buffalo's screen passes was a failure at all levels. The Bills had 17 first downs, had a better average gain per play than the Patriots (5.8 to 5.7), and killed themselves with 9 penalties over the course of the game, including:

Illegal formation, Bell on a 21 yard gain
False start, Nelson, on a 2nd and 1
Illegal formation, Bell on a 10 yard gain for a first down
Holding, Nelson, on an 11 yard run for a first down
False start, Bell, on a 2nd and 10

Also, Evans and Owens each dropped passes that would have resulted in first downs.

Noting this stuff and pointing out that the team did not play well is not hysteria.

 

[Julius]

This type of game was the best thing to happen to this young defense. The Patriots are fielding a revamped overhauled defense. Gone are the old vets and leaders who gave the defense its identity. Gone is their "Best" D linemen. They are trying to play a new Defense 4/3 from a 3/4. They lose their Defensive rookie of the year to injury early in the game.
Its like the Pats have cut down all the old trees in the forest and it has given the ones in the shadows a chance to grow into new leaders. This is going to be a interesting season and fun to watch. I thought the D was flying around and hitting hard out there. In the end it was two of those young players who made a big play that allowed Brady to seal the win. Just relax and enjoy the birth of the next gen defense.

 

[ALP]

Ummm, i have an idea for why screens worked so well....

before the snap our cb's were giving the wr's about 10 yds off the LOS, looking at that, they were virtually taken out of the screen pass plays

and our safeties focused on helping out the WR's, so they were deep as well....

this all had to do with buffalo having 2 very good wideouts....now if u face a team with a lesser wr core, u have corners playing closer to the LOS, and the WR's actually have to block them, and you also have the safeties closer....

our defense does need some work against screen plays, but its not all doom and gloom either

 

[Ring 6]

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?

Is it possible that a QB could complete every pass, and never get a first down? Of course anything is possible. What is that supposed to prove?
4 sacks in 25 passes is a tremendous ratio. As I said there were at least 10 plays that were screens or quick throws that pressure could not happen on. That means we sacked him 4 out of 19 possible times. I can remember numerous times that he was flushed, rushed or hurried.
The amount of time he had allowed him to complete only 5 passes to WRS, and more than half of those we short passes that did not take long to develop.
I really don't know what you expect.
Brady was sacked 1 time in 53, and completed 39 passes for over 370 yards, and people on this board are complaining about our pass blocking.
To compared to the Pats pass rush, that would mean Brady was sacked 8 or 9 times.
Can you seriously tell me that if Brady was sacked 8 times, you'd be saying the pass blocking was good because maybe all they did was sack him and didnt make him move around?

Your argument is wea at best. You are now saying that when you sack the QB a high percentage of the time, that could be a bad thing because you'd like to not sack him as often but do it prettier?

 

[Lazerlike42]

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.

It's actually a little inaccurate to include two scrambles by the QB which are very large numbers and heavily skew the results when trying to analyze the run defense. Unless these were designed runs (which they are not), they really apply much more to the pass defense. If we take Edwards' numbers out of that, we get, again, 3.82 yards per carry.

 

[Lazerlike42]

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.

The point is not that the defense succeeded altogether. Rather, it is that the defense prevented Buffalo from being able to do anything offensively for most of the game, which indicates an ability on their part to play strong defensive football. They had a few lapses in the first game - primarily on one type of play, making it far more easily correctable - which allowed the Bills to score 2 touchdowns, but the rest of the time they couldn't move the ball.

So again, the point is not to say that the defense had an overall, 60 minute, great performance. Rather, it is to demonstrate that the defense as a whole is actually looking rather good and needs to correct lapses, rather than being a defense which overall performed poorly and had the look of a defense which can't stop teams.

 

[Ring 6]

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

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



My follow up to your response:



My next response:



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.

You said their OL 'stoned' our DL and tried to prove it by quoting Ty Warren saying it was a close game (where he made absolutley no such comment about the DL being stoned) and then expanded it to Brady, the radio, internet etc. Where none of them discuss the Bills OL 'stoning' the Pats DL.
You moved the goalposts by claiming that their OL 'stoned' our DL and when I objected responding with quotes or references that do not say that, and acting as if thats what was supposed to be proven.
The original 'goalpost' was proving that the DL got 'stoned'.
In searching for proof, you changed the goalposts to 'find a source that says the Patriots had any flaws inthe way they played".

Perhaps you don't understand the term you coined on this board, because whenever Ive seen you accuse someone else of it you were the one changing the topic.

In any event, I don't care to debate whether you feel your whining is justified, I prefer to have positive slants on wins and negative slants on losses.

 

[spacecrime]

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

On this board with some people, holding an opponent to 270 total yards, only allowing the opponent offense on gthe field for 20 minutes, holding two top #1 WRs to 5 catches, and holding a divisional opponent to 17 points is a very very bad thing.

You must shut the team out, hold them to 100 yards receiving and 25 yards rushing. And hold them to 10 minutes of offense. Having our O have the ball for only 40 minutes is totally unacceptable and a sign of a terrible defense. If the Bills were held to 3 and out every possession, they could have easily been held to 10 minutes time of possession.

Three things you're missing, confused about, or are just choosing to overlook:

1. The Buffalo O coordinator called a good game and OLine was well prepared. Give credit where credit is due.
2. Other than dump offs to Fred Jackson, what success did they really have on offense? Assuming Mayo comes back, I'm not worried about this type of play in the future with Guyton, Mayo and Meriweather flying around.
3. you're buying too much into preseason hype - you have no idea how good Buffalo's offense is. Maybe they will go on to average 30 pts a game this year. Who knows? Bottom line - you give up 275 yds and 17 points in the NFL and you're happy. Not saying they don't have a lot to work on. But they looked far improved from the preseason.

 

[alvinnf]

Ummm, i have an idea for why screens worked so well....

before the snap our cb's were giving the wr's about 10 yds off the LOS, looking at that, they were virtually taken out of the screen pass plays

and our safeties focused on helping out the WR's, so they were deep as well....

this all had to do with buffalo having 2 very good wideouts....now if u face a team with a lesser wr core, u have corners playing closer to the LOS, and the WR's actually have to block them, and you also have the safeties closer....

our defense does need some work against screen plays, but its not all doom and gloom either

I think the credit for Buffalo's success lies with their coaching staff. NE tried to take away the two receivers which they did. Van Pelt was smart enough to know where the soft spots were and he exploited them. You cant take away everything let's give credit to the Bills for executing. When it's all said and done I am very excited about the D's play last night. Ironically, I think if Lynch wasn't suspended and played, their adjustments wouldn't have worked as well. Great game.

 

[Ring 6]

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?

But they scored 17 without the Int. If the offense converted they would have stayed on the field longer, and the Bills would have scored the same or LESS not more. You just handed them 3-7 points for a reason I don't understand.
How can you add points they didnt score then say it would have been bad?

As far as your last comment, that is the worse logic ever regardig football.
It is totally inaccurate to say that if you give up a certain number of points against a certain team you will give up more against other teams. Your assumption that the Bills suck is just that, only time will tell. Miami sucked at this time last year, and the Lions were going to be a handful with Roy Williams, Calvin Johnson and Kitna coming off a good year.
Look back, even at last season. We (or any team) do not allow more points to any good offense than to any bad offense.
Last year we held the Colts to less than the Rams. In 2003 we allowed 31 to the Bills in the opener and shut them out in the finale.
Every game is its own game.
The result of this one, where the Pats defense was concerned?
1) We won
2) Defended the run pretty well (3.8 ypc)
3) Totally shut down 2 very good WRs.
4) Stunk against the screen
5) Allowed one sustained drive in the first half.
6) Allowed a TD drive in a bad situation in the 4th
7) Totally destroyed the Bills offense on the final drive of the game
8) Defenses that allow 17 points or less rarely lose (something like 90% wins) and with our offense are even less likely to
9) Overall it was better than average, ie good not bad
10) We will see what happens next week

 

[mgteich]

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

I understand your position. You think it is great that the great Buffalo Bills offense ONLY scored 17 points in the less than 23 minutes that they had the ball, that the Buffalo Bills offense ONLY scored on 3 of 8 possessions. It is a really good thing that our offense kept the ball out the hands of this potent offense. Otherwise, this offense would have scored more than 17; but then that too woould apparently have been OK as long as our offense scored more.

On this board with some people, holding an opponent to 270 total yards, only allowing the opponent offense on gthe field for 20 minutes, holding two top #1 WRs to 5 catches, and holding a divisional opponent to 17 points is a very very bad thing.

You must shut the team out, hold them to 100 yards receiving and 25 yards rushing. And hold them to 10 minutes of offense. Having our O have the ball for only 40 minutes is totally unacceptable and a sign of a terrible defense. If the Bills were held to 3 and out every possession, they could have easily been held to 10 minutes time of possession.

 

[mgteich]

OK, if allowing 3 scores in 8 possessions for 17 points to a below average offense is better than average, then it is.

And we can certainly hope that the defense will play tougher against tougher opponents.

But they scored 17 without the Int. If the offense converted they would have stayed on the field longer, and the Bills would have scored the same or LESS not more. You just handed them 3-7 points for a reason I don't understand.
How can you add points they didnt score then say it would have been bad?

As far as your last comment, that is the worse logic ever regardig football.
It is totally inaccurate to say that if you give up a certain number of points against a certain team you will give up more against other teams. Your assumption that the Bills suck is just that, only time will tell. Miami sucked at this time last year, and the Lions were going to be a handful with Roy Williams, Calvin Johnson and Kitna coming off a good year.
Look back, even at last season. We (or any team) do not allow more points to any good offense than to any bad offense.
Last year we held the Colts to less than the Rams. In 2003 we allowed 31 to the Bills in the opener and shut them out in the finale.
Every game is its own game.
The result of this one, where the Pats defense was concerned?
1) We won
2) Defended the run pretty well (3.8 ypc)
3) Totally shut down 2 very good WRs.
4) Stunk against the screen
5) Allowed one sustained drive in the first half.
6) Allowed a TD drive in a bad situation in the 4th
7) Totally destroyed the Bills offense on the final drive of the game
8) Defenses that allow 17 points or less rarely lose (something like 90% wins) and with our offense are even less likely to
9) Overall it was better than average, ie good not bad
10) We will see what happens next week

 

[Ring 6]

OK, if allowing 3 scores in 8 possessions for 17 points to a below average offense is better than average, then it is.

How many rushing yards, passing yards, points are allowed in an average game?
What stat did we have that was below average?

Do you really think that it is awful to allow 2 TDs and a FG in 8 drives?
You sound like we allowed 40 points.

 

[Ring 6]

OK, if allowing 3 scores in 8 possessions for 17 points to a below average offense is better than average, then it is.

And we can certainly hope that the defense will play tougher against tougher opponents.

Now you are back to the "its the Bills so 17=50" argument.
I just addressed that, did you not read the entire post?

 

[JoeSixPat]

As far as the defense goes, they were very lucky to have the Time of Possession on their side.

Even though Brady had difficulty completing drives he kept the Bills off the field for 37 minutes plus.

The Bills scored 24 points - on the surface I'd take that most games expecting that Brady and the offense can put up more... but that was over just 23 minutes.

If a team has the ball for 30, 35, close to 40 minutes that's going to be an L in the column.

Aside from that I wasn't expecting much from the Defense giving all the new moving parts - and I got what I expected... though there were quite a few good signs that they can turn into a very good Defense later in the season.

We need them to peak in the playoffs - not now.

 

[RayClay]

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

You are all condemned to "know nothing" status for overly relying on your eyes.

Hey, I come here to find out the stats that prove i didn't really see what i thought i did.

If I didn't know better, I'd think Buffalo peed that game away by committing at least a handful of crucial penalties or mistakes.

 

[slash83]

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

Hey, I come here to find out the stats that prove i didn't really see what i thought i did.

If I didn't know better, I'd think Buffalo peed that game away by committing at least a handful of crucial penalties or mistakes.

Buffalo might of peed the game away, but they received huge breaks from those two BS roughing the passer calls. Wilfork hit the guy right above his knees, Thomas was trying to bring down a qb that was trying to escape from his grasp and both guys get called for ridiculous fouls.

 

[ausbacker]

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

If I didn't know better, I'd think Buffalo peed that game away by committing at least a handful of crucial penalties or mistakes.

That's Buffalo's problem, not ours. The penalties they committed were blatantly there and if so, you take them. Penalties or not, when it mattered, the Patriots came through.

 

[mgteich]

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

Body slamming quarterbacks is against the rules.

Buffalo might of peed the game away, but they received huge breaks from those two BS roughing the passer calls. Wilfork hit the guy right above his knees, Thomas was trying to bring down a qb that was trying to escape from his grasp and both guys get called for ridiculous fouls.