This is a passing league and if you make teams like the Packers (or Chiefs) commit to running you are taking away their best weapon.
Rodgers only had like 75 yards through the first 3 quarters.
And it doesn't matter how many running yards they had, bc they scored 0 running TD's. You don't get points for rushing yards.
Rodgers did throw for 2 TD's, and had they ran on those plays the final score would have probably been 27-9.
The only way a team runs the ball as often as the Packers did last night and beats the Bills is if they can hold the Bills O to under 17 points. They couldn't do that in the first half.
Yet you're saying the Bills had a better chance of winning of we stacked the box and covered their RB's or TE's with Dodson or Bernard?
A massive day running the ball is around 200 yards. A massive day throwing the ball is around 400 yards.
It's as simple as moving the length of the field twice vs four times.
The Bills philosophy is if you run a 4-3, you invite them to pass and now you have a 3rd LB covering a RB or TE.
They'd rather stay light and invite you to run. Bc the analytics say that the more a team runs the less likely they are of winning.
Yeah well, Vernon Butler, Star, Mario Addison, Jerry Hughes, Efe Obada and Horrible Harry can't stop the run or rush the passer.
So I don't know how our D is going to contain their RB's or get to Rodgers.
That's entirely rational. Part of me wants the Jets to squash the Pats and cement their doormat status in the division. And then that just sets the Jets hopes up to be burst even more when we meet next week.
I think the real question is with the recent additions by the Eagles and Chiefs, have they caught up to the Bills taken level? Bc let's be real, that why they both added players, to try to close the gap with us.