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.