BigDoug
Practice Squad
Thanks, "Jesus"
Redemption, hah!
May we all get down & kiss your feet now?
Redemption, hah!
May we all get down & kiss your feet now?
Big Myth
- Thread starter Dajesus
- Start date
fthefish11
Practice Squad
Stats are for losers boys. The Pats didn't have any truly impressive stats last year...hmmmm
ckparrothead
Premium Member
There's so many factors involved that could account for the Buffalo pass D, as there are with any pass D, that its folly to try and attribute it mainly to one thing like buffalo's record, rather than on just good defense. I mean there's some naturally conflicting things here. People didn't pass on us because, well lets face it when they did they usually paid for it....it just didn't work. That would have to be a big factor in it. Why could this not be true of Buffalo as well? I mean one second dajesus is saying that the main reason teams didn't pass on Buffalo is because they were constantly down. The next minute he's allowing for the fact that nobody passed on us, with the reason being our run D was softer than our pass D. Why couldn't this be true of Buffalo as well?
An interesting thing to see would be how Buffalo did at halftimes during the season, to test Dajesus' theory. And since I've got a free five minutes, I'll go ahead and do it for ya'll, and heck I'll throw in a comparison with the Phins' halftime scores too...
Buffalo Halftime scores
Week01: 6-0 Buffalo (New Orleans)
Week02: 17-35 Indy
Week03: 3-10 Pitt
Week04: 15-28 Jets
Week05: 3-0 Buffalo (Jacksonville)
Week06: 10-13 San Diego
Week07: 7-17 Indy
Week08: 3-7 New England
Week09: 10-10 Seattle/Buffalo
Week10: 14-10 Buffalo (Miami)
Week11: 0-14 San Francisco
Week12: 13-24 Carolina
Week13: 0-6 New England
Week14: 14-13 Buffalo (Atlanta)
Week15: 7-6 Buffalo (Jets)
Week16: 0-13 Miami
Without even comparing it to Miami's halftime stats we can see that Buffalo was clearly a first half team. They went into halftime winning 5 times, and tied once...yet ended up going 3-13. Furthermore, of the 5 times they were leading at halftime, they were only able to convert 2 of those into wins. Aside from the 6 times that Buffalo went into the half either leading or tied, they were down by a TD or less at halftime a total of 4 times, leaving 6 times when the halftime differential was bigger than 7 points (18 points, 13 points, 10 points, 14 points, 9 points, 13 points) Now of course where you set the threshold for halftime lead where a team makes a committment to run the ball rather than pass it cuz they are protecting a lead, is completely subjective. My personal instinct would be to say that teams will start trying to protect a lead and start running the ball SIGNIFICANTLY more than they pass it, when they have a lead of more than 10. Subjective of course, but that leaves 4 teams that played buffalo in the 2nd half thinking to run the ball to protect the lead. Indy, Miami, San Francisco, and Carolina. If you look at the recaps, the Indianapolis proves out Dajesus' second half run-run-run theory, however doesn't help his case for the Buffalo pass defense as Peyton Manning finished the game with 400+ yards and 4 TDs. San Francisco on the other hand passed 27 times and ran 45 times (230 yards rushing, 179 yards passing), fitting perfectly into what Dajesus says. Neither Miami nor Carolina having consistent running games to turn to in the second half, Carolina ended the game passing the ball 30 times to the 27 times they rushed the ball, and Miami amazingly enough Miami found its running game again mounting 43 runs for 202 yards compared with a mere 16 total pass attempts for 87 yards.
Now remember, these 4 games here, these are the ones that BEST fit Dajesus' description, Buffalo losing by more than 10 at halftime, so the other team goes run-run-run. And therefore this run-run-run philosophy skewed how many times Buffalo got thrown at, making their pass D look way better than it is. But we've seen that in 2 of the 4 games that best fit this scenario, this is clearly not the case, with Manning tossing for over 400 yards against the Bills (so in other words HOW exactly does this game make Buffalo's pass D look BETTER than it really is?), and Carolina ending the game with more pass attempts than run attempts. So what we're left with is this: 6 games where Buffalo was not even LOSING at halftime, 4 games where Buffalo was losing by a TD or less at halftime, 6 games where they were losing by 10 or less, and of the 4 games that this 6+4 does not cover, a mere two games that fit Dajesus's theory.
So in reality, Dajesus' theory at best is flimsy, and at worst is just plain misguided. Hopefully we can take this as a lesson in trying to overgeneralize and simplify reasons for a teams' good statistical standing in an area, with constructed theories based more on thought and imagination (as well as some incomplete data), than actual fact.
An interesting thing to see would be how Buffalo did at halftimes during the season, to test Dajesus' theory. And since I've got a free five minutes, I'll go ahead and do it for ya'll, and heck I'll throw in a comparison with the Phins' halftime scores too...
Buffalo Halftime scores
Week01: 6-0 Buffalo (New Orleans)
Week02: 17-35 Indy
Week03: 3-10 Pitt
Week04: 15-28 Jets
Week05: 3-0 Buffalo (Jacksonville)
Week06: 10-13 San Diego
Week07: 7-17 Indy
Week08: 3-7 New England
Week09: 10-10 Seattle/Buffalo
Week10: 14-10 Buffalo (Miami)
Week11: 0-14 San Francisco
Week12: 13-24 Carolina
Week13: 0-6 New England
Week14: 14-13 Buffalo (Atlanta)
Week15: 7-6 Buffalo (Jets)
Week16: 0-13 Miami
Without even comparing it to Miami's halftime stats we can see that Buffalo was clearly a first half team. They went into halftime winning 5 times, and tied once...yet ended up going 3-13. Furthermore, of the 5 times they were leading at halftime, they were only able to convert 2 of those into wins. Aside from the 6 times that Buffalo went into the half either leading or tied, they were down by a TD or less at halftime a total of 4 times, leaving 6 times when the halftime differential was bigger than 7 points (18 points, 13 points, 10 points, 14 points, 9 points, 13 points) Now of course where you set the threshold for halftime lead where a team makes a committment to run the ball rather than pass it cuz they are protecting a lead, is completely subjective. My personal instinct would be to say that teams will start trying to protect a lead and start running the ball SIGNIFICANTLY more than they pass it, when they have a lead of more than 10. Subjective of course, but that leaves 4 teams that played buffalo in the 2nd half thinking to run the ball to protect the lead. Indy, Miami, San Francisco, and Carolina. If you look at the recaps, the Indianapolis proves out Dajesus' second half run-run-run theory, however doesn't help his case for the Buffalo pass defense as Peyton Manning finished the game with 400+ yards and 4 TDs. San Francisco on the other hand passed 27 times and ran 45 times (230 yards rushing, 179 yards passing), fitting perfectly into what Dajesus says. Neither Miami nor Carolina having consistent running games to turn to in the second half, Carolina ended the game passing the ball 30 times to the 27 times they rushed the ball, and Miami amazingly enough Miami found its running game again mounting 43 runs for 202 yards compared with a mere 16 total pass attempts for 87 yards.
Now remember, these 4 games here, these are the ones that BEST fit Dajesus' description, Buffalo losing by more than 10 at halftime, so the other team goes run-run-run. And therefore this run-run-run philosophy skewed how many times Buffalo got thrown at, making their pass D look way better than it is. But we've seen that in 2 of the 4 games that best fit this scenario, this is clearly not the case, with Manning tossing for over 400 yards against the Bills (so in other words HOW exactly does this game make Buffalo's pass D look BETTER than it really is?), and Carolina ending the game with more pass attempts than run attempts. So what we're left with is this: 6 games where Buffalo was not even LOSING at halftime, 4 games where Buffalo was losing by a TD or less at halftime, 6 games where they were losing by 10 or less, and of the 4 games that this 6+4 does not cover, a mere two games that fit Dajesus's theory.
So in reality, Dajesus' theory at best is flimsy, and at worst is just plain misguided. Hopefully we can take this as a lesson in trying to overgeneralize and simplify reasons for a teams' good statistical standing in an area, with constructed theories based more on thought and imagination (as well as some incomplete data), than actual fact.
Dajesus
Active Roster
Sorry parothead I may have over generalized by half time , but the fact still remains that Buffalo lost 6 games by 14 points or more. If they started to get blown out in the mid 3rd beginning of the 4th it doesn't change the fact that they had over 50 pass attempts less than the average NFL team.
Dajesus
Active Roster
I renig my apolagy. The Bills were losing 5 games by 10 or more points at half time. That is a lot of games. With the exception of Mike Martz that is going to change anyteam's game plan comming in to the 2nd half.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
I just went into an in-depth look at 4 of those 5 games and showed you that in 2 of them, it was simply not the case as Peyton Manning threw for over 400 yards in one of them, and Carolina passed the ball more than they ran it in the other one. So you're theory proved false in 2 out of 4 games that perfectly fit the scenario you were talking about. You feel like adding the second Colts game to that list thats fine. In that game the Colts rushed the ball more than they passed it, which means that it MAY fit your theory. It might not either, because they were only up by 10 points at halftime, and a lot of teams, especially ones who were prone to teams coming back on them in the 2nd half as the Colts were at that time of year, might not pack it in and run-run-run just because they are up 10 points at halftime.
What I've shown you statistically is that this scenario that you make up and say happened a lot for the Bills, being down at halftime and therefore making the other team adopt a run-the-ball strategy which skewed the Bills passing defense stats MORESO THAN MOST TEAMS IN THE NFL, only resulted in 2 games that had significantly more rushing than passing. Any other games that had significantly more rushing than passing simply don't fit into your theory because the team was not up by a lot of points at halftime, and therefore the fact that they rushed a lot more than they passed must be attributed to some other factor, such as the Bills secondary being pretty good, the Bills run defense being very bad, or the Bills offense not having the ability to score points therefore not forcing anyone to get into a track meet against them. All of those other theories are VALID THEORIES as to why the Bills pass D was 11th in the league last year despite the rest of the team sucking so much @ss. To that we add your theory, that the Bills were most likely faced with big halftime leads a lot of the time and that changed their opponents philosophy and therefore skewed their pass D stats moreso than most teams in the league.
But overall their are a myriad of explanations as to why the Bills got passed on 2nd least in the league. It would be folly to take one of them and say "This is the reason" because in all likelihood they worked in concert. There was probably one or two factors that contributed CHIEFLY to it, but statistically the factor that you have put forth, the half-time leads theory, just doesn't bear itself out in the data as the overwhelming chief reason why they got passed on so little. It is much more likely that other factors provided the chief reasons. If I had to rank them according to the data observed (yet still just my subjective opinion) I would say...
1. The Secondary was just pretty good.
2. The Run Defense was just THAT BAD (if you can average more yards rushing the ball than you can passing the ball, then why the heck would you pass it? Personally I'd go back to the wishbone, score some points, and never turn the thing over)
3. The offense couldn't score points which not only allowed conservative teams to play close to the vest, but failed to produce any "track-meet" games where an opposing team is forced to pass the ball a bunch....this usually happens to a team maybe twice in a season but I dont think it happened to the Bills at all.
4. The Bills were down some at halftime and it did produce two games where the running game was used almost twice as much as the passing game.
What I've shown you statistically is that this scenario that you make up and say happened a lot for the Bills, being down at halftime and therefore making the other team adopt a run-the-ball strategy which skewed the Bills passing defense stats MORESO THAN MOST TEAMS IN THE NFL, only resulted in 2 games that had significantly more rushing than passing. Any other games that had significantly more rushing than passing simply don't fit into your theory because the team was not up by a lot of points at halftime, and therefore the fact that they rushed a lot more than they passed must be attributed to some other factor, such as the Bills secondary being pretty good, the Bills run defense being very bad, or the Bills offense not having the ability to score points therefore not forcing anyone to get into a track meet against them. All of those other theories are VALID THEORIES as to why the Bills pass D was 11th in the league last year despite the rest of the team sucking so much @ss. To that we add your theory, that the Bills were most likely faced with big halftime leads a lot of the time and that changed their opponents philosophy and therefore skewed their pass D stats moreso than most teams in the league.
But overall their are a myriad of explanations as to why the Bills got passed on 2nd least in the league. It would be folly to take one of them and say "This is the reason" because in all likelihood they worked in concert. There was probably one or two factors that contributed CHIEFLY to it, but statistically the factor that you have put forth, the half-time leads theory, just doesn't bear itself out in the data as the overwhelming chief reason why they got passed on so little. It is much more likely that other factors provided the chief reasons. If I had to rank them according to the data observed (yet still just my subjective opinion) I would say...
1. The Secondary was just pretty good.
2. The Run Defense was just THAT BAD (if you can average more yards rushing the ball than you can passing the ball, then why the heck would you pass it? Personally I'd go back to the wishbone, score some points, and never turn the thing over)
3. The offense couldn't score points which not only allowed conservative teams to play close to the vest, but failed to produce any "track-meet" games where an opposing team is forced to pass the ball a bunch....this usually happens to a team maybe twice in a season but I dont think it happened to the Bills at all.
4. The Bills were down some at halftime and it did produce two games where the running game was used almost twice as much as the passing game.
Dolfan984
Active Roster
How about this people, find out the yards per pass attempt and QB ratings against them. That's the stats I want to see. I'll try and find them. Gimmie 5 mins.
Dolfan984
Active Roster
Miami was #12 in the league averaging 6.55 yards per pass attempt against us.
Buffalo was #25 in the league averaging 7.46 yards per pass play against them.
Miami was #14 in the league with QBs averaging a 76.7 QB rating against us.
Buffalo was #29 in the league with QBs averaging a 92.2 QB rating against them.
Miami was #14 in the league with teams averaging 3.9 yards per carry against us.
Buffalo was #24 in the league with teams averaging 4.4 yards per carry against them.
Buffalo was #25 in the league averaging 7.46 yards per pass play against them.
Miami was #14 in the league with QBs averaging a 76.7 QB rating against us.
Buffalo was #29 in the league with QBs averaging a 92.2 QB rating against them.
Miami was #14 in the league with teams averaging 3.9 yards per carry against us.
Buffalo was #24 in the league with teams averaging 4.4 yards per carry against them.
Dolfan984
Active Roster
Those numbers make Jay Fiedler look pretty damn good if you ask me.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
Like I said the run defense was bad in Buffalo. But the secondary was also not bad either. Its easier for an individual QB to have a higher rating when he can pick and choose when he needs to pass the ball, while enjoying heavy run success. For instance in the Colts playoff game 2000. You could say that we ran the ball so many more times than we passed it because simply put, we could. But the thing that spurred it also was the secondary making big plays. We ended up running the ball like 50 times in that game.
What might be interesting to see is interception ratios. Like how many interceptions the Bills got per number of pass plays against them (total pass plays divided by total interceptions), compared to the rest of the league. That would be telling of how much the secondary was scarier to challenge than that weak ass run defense....to me the QB ratings aren't sufficient because they could be skewed by TD passes which count EXTREMELY HEAVY in QB Ratings, and yet could just be the result of red zone inefficiency for the D-Fense.
What might be interesting to see is interception ratios. Like how many interceptions the Bills got per number of pass plays against them (total pass plays divided by total interceptions), compared to the rest of the league. That would be telling of how much the secondary was scarier to challenge than that weak ass run defense....to me the QB ratings aren't sufficient because they could be skewed by TD passes which count EXTREMELY HEAVY in QB Ratings, and yet could just be the result of red zone inefficiency for the D-Fense.
Dolfan984
Active Roster
Alright, lets do some math.
Dolphins were thrown at 467 times.
Bills were thrown at 453 times.
Dolphins had 17 ints.
Bills had 11 ints.
Dolphins 3.6 INT %
Bills 2.4 INT %
Dolphins were thrown at 467 times.
Bills were thrown at 453 times.
Dolphins had 17 ints.
Bills had 11 ints.
Dolphins 3.6 INT %
Bills 2.4 INT %
ckparrothead
Premium Member
Well the Dolphins most certainly had better pass D, but I don't think that was disputed in the first place, I mean the Phins had the undisputed best Pass D in the biz.
Dolfan984
Active Roster
Alright, the Bills QBs who they played.
NO - Brooks - 3.9% INT percentage
Indy - Manning - 4.2% INT percentage
Pitt - Stewart - 2.5% INT percentage
NYJ - Testes - 3.2% INT percentage
Jax - Brunell - 2.7% INT percentage
SD - Flutie - 3.5% INT percentage
Indy - Manning - 4.2% INT percentage
NE - Brady - 2.9% INT percentage
Seattle - Hasslebeck - 2.5% INT percentage
Miami - Fiedler - 4.2% INT percentage
San Fransisco - Garcia - 2.4% INT percentage
Carolina - Wienke - 3.5% INT percentage
New England - Brady - 2.9% INT percentage
Atlanta - Chandler - 3.8% INT percentage
NYJ - Testes - 3.2% INT percentage
Miami - Fiedler - 4.2% INT percentage
Average INT percentage - 3.4%
Compared to the 2.4% that the bills have, I think their secondary is overrated.
NO - Brooks - 3.9% INT percentage
Indy - Manning - 4.2% INT percentage
Pitt - Stewart - 2.5% INT percentage
NYJ - Testes - 3.2% INT percentage
Jax - Brunell - 2.7% INT percentage
SD - Flutie - 3.5% INT percentage
Indy - Manning - 4.2% INT percentage
NE - Brady - 2.9% INT percentage
Seattle - Hasslebeck - 2.5% INT percentage
Miami - Fiedler - 4.2% INT percentage
San Fransisco - Garcia - 2.4% INT percentage
Carolina - Wienke - 3.5% INT percentage
New England - Brady - 2.9% INT percentage
Atlanta - Chandler - 3.8% INT percentage
NYJ - Testes - 3.2% INT percentage
Miami - Fiedler - 4.2% INT percentage
Average INT percentage - 3.4%
Compared to the 2.4% that the bills have, I think their secondary is overrated.
Dolfan984
Active Roster
Geez, that took forever to look all that up 