Picnic Table F'er Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I'm reading a super interesting article from Gregg Easterbrook. I find myself agreeing with him a lot this time. Usually don't agree with him much. This bit really stands out for me. The most efficient rushing team this season, Carolina, gained 5.4 yards per attempt, and finished with a losing record. The second-most efficient rushing team, Minnesota, with 5.2 yards per attempt, finished 3-13. Gaining the most yards per try with passing plays is the winning football formula of the moment. http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7415167/green-bay-new-england-make-history-strong-offenses-weak-defenses Edited January 3, 2012 by Picnic Table F'er
Buftex Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Cringe away then...the Bills should have run the ball more this year. You have to complete passes to move the ball...and the completions can't be for 2-5 yards all the time. I have no problem with passing the ball a lot, when it is working...when the passing game isn't getting it done, and you have a running back who is gaining nice yardage, you have to run the ball then...and then, maybe, the passing game has some breathing room. I think Gailey's attachment to his passing fancy, when his running game was firing on most cylandars, cost the Bills legit chances to win the Titans and the second Miami game.
1billsfan Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Cringe away then...the Bills should have run the ball more this year. You have to complete passes to move the ball...and the completions can't be for 2-5 yards all the time. I have no problem with passing the ball a lot, when it is working...when the passing game isn't getting it done, and you have a running back who is gaining nice yardage, you have to run the ball then...and then, maybe, the passing game has some breathing room. I think Gailey's attachment to his passing fancy, when his running game was firing on most cylandars, cost the Bills legit chances to win the Titans and the second Miami game. Fun facts... Ryan Fitzpatrick threw the football 569 TIMES for 6.7 yards per attempt. Fred Jeckson carried the ball 170 times for 5.5 average CJ Spiller carried the ball 107 times for 5.2 average If Fitzpatrick is our QB next year this team must have a completely balanced attack. Maybe Gailey is to blame for turning Fitzpatrick's early season golden arm into a chicken wing.
jjmac Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I'm reading a super interesting article from Gregg Easterbrook. I find myself agreeing with him a lot this time. Usually don't agree with him much. This bit really stands out for me. http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7415167/green-bay-new-england-make-history-strong-offenses-weak-defenses Did he mention their rookie QBs? Also, we cannot ignore the talent in our backfield.
CosmicBills Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 It's not "the new NFL" anymore. It's been a passing league for nearly 8 years. The Bills -- as an organization and as a fan base -- are well behind the curve on this (as they usually are). This is why you don't see RBs go high in the first round anymore (well, unless you're the Bills). The Spiller pick, as was said many times when it happened, was a sure sign that Nix and company are still playing in a different era. This team is not built to pass. From the O-Line to the QB to the WRs. It's not really built to do much of anything other than to continue to break our hearts.
Beerball Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I'm reading a super interesting article from Gregg Easterbrook. I find myself agreeing with him a lot this time. Usually don't agree with him much. This bit really stands out for me. http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7415167/green-bay-new-england-make-history-strong-offenses-weak-defenses If you have a defense like ours it really does make sense to run the ball.
PDaDdy Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I'm reading a super interesting article from Gregg Easterbrook. I find myself agreeing with him a lot this time. Usually don't agree with him much. This bit really stands out for me. http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7415167/green-bay-new-england-make-history-strong-offenses-weak-defenses Both Carolina and Minnesota also have crappy defenses. Our defense is pretty much smack dab in the middle of the 2. Points allowed Minn is #2, Buffalo #3 and Carolina #6. Seems like the negatives of the defense outweigh the positives of a good rushing attack by a VERY large margin. Problem is they aren't in any way linked. New Orleans, Houston, Pittsburgh and the Detroit have great rushing attacks by way of yardage. Houston, New England, NYG and New Orleans are also tops in Rushing TDs. All you can really say is that teams with MPV, probowl, elite, once every 5 year type QBs do very well when surrounded with talent like an o-line that can give them 3+ seconds of protection time and WRs that fight for and catch the ball in the air. Edited January 3, 2012 by PDaDdy
CosmicBills Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 If you have a defense like ours it really does make sense to run the ball. The defense was horrific, yes. But you can't win today's NFL with ball control alone. It's too easy for (every) offense to score with the rule changes and the athletes on the field in the skill positions today. Even the best defenses are going to give up yards in bunches in today's game. Even the best defenses are going to give up more than 1 TD a game. Just controlling the clock will not work -- it will get you only so far. Look at Denver since Tebow took over. Their defense is light years ahead of where the Bills' D is. They strung together some wins but backed into the playoffs and are going to one and done unless Tebow learns how to throw the ball over night. The Bills need improvement on D, no question. But regardless of how good the defense becomes, this team will not go back to the playoffs until it fixes the QB, WR, and OL. Offense doesn't just sell tickets anymore. Offenses win super bowls. Not defenses.
Picnic Table F'er Posted January 3, 2012 Author Posted January 3, 2012 If you have a defense like ours it really does make sense to run the ball. Click the article. It's partly argues that high scoring offense has become the new defense.
PDaDdy Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Fun facts... Ryan Fitzpatrick threw the football 569 TIMES for 6.7 yards per attempt. Fred Jeckson carried the ball 170 times for 5.5 average CJ Spiller carried the ball 107 times for 5.2 average If Fitzpatrick is our QB next year this team must have a completely balanced attack. Maybe Gailey is to blame for turning Fitzpatrick's early season golden arm into a chicken wing. Fitz should never have been the focus of our offense especially after our WR started dropping like flies and we were pulling people who were unemployed to play for us. His #2 for most of the year was a freakin' wild cat QB and he is expected to kick ass with that? Different set of guys every week or two? How do you develop continuity and chemistry with that. Throw in playing behind 4 different centers and 3 different LTs all year. Come on!
CosmicBills Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Fitz should never have been the focus of our offense especially after our WR started dropping like flies and we were pulling people who were unemployed to play for us. His #2 for most of the year was a freakin' wild cat QB and he is expected to kick ass with that? Different set of guys every week or two? How do you develop continuity and chemistry with that. Throw in playing behind 4 different centers and 3 different LTs all year. Come on! There is a lot of truth to that. I won't for a second argue that injuries didn't cost the Bills some games. Of course, everyone before the season who wasn't blinded by homerism knew that this roster was thinner than Kira Knightly after a 2 week fast. The blame for that lies squarely on the front office (Nix AND Whaley) as well as Ralph and LittleMan. Even so, had the Bills shifted to a run first attack there wouldn't be a difference in the W/L column which is the OP's point. Running the ball alone won't win games. This isn't 1978 anymore.
Beerball Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Click the article. It's partly argues that high scoring offense has become the new defense. If you have a offense like ours it really does make sense to run the ball. like that better?
CosmicBills Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 If you have a offense like ours it really does make sense to run the ball. like that better?
KRC Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 If you have a defense like ours it really does make sense to run the ball. It is more than just offense that creates winning teams. It helps to have an offense that can score, but if your defense sucks, it does not matter. [lamp] If you want to look at rushing efficiencies, look at this article. It shows how each team stacks up in offensive rushing efficiency, defensive rushing efficiency and efficiency differential between offense and defense. [/lamp]
PDaDdy Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 There is a lot of truth to that. I won't for a second argue that injuries didn't cost the Bills some games. Of course, everyone before the season who wasn't blinded by homerism knew that this roster was thinner than Kira Knightly after a 2 week fast. The blame for that lies squarely on the front office (Nix AND Whaley) as well as Ralph and LittleMan. Even so, had the Bills shifted to a run first attack there wouldn't be a difference in the W/L column which is the OP's point. Running the ball alone won't win games. This isn't 1978 anymore. When both of your RBs are averaging over 5 yards a carry AND are great WRs.....yes it would make a difference in the W/L column.
CosmicBills Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 When both of your RBs are averaging over 5 yards a carry AND are great WRs.....yes it would make a difference in the W/L column. ... But it didn't. So you can keep your theory, I'll stick with actuality.
AxelRipper Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 How does this explain how Tim Tebow can win while going 2/8 for 69 yards?
CosmicBills Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 How does this explain how Tim Tebow can win while going 2/8 for 69 yards? Get back to me when Denver wins the super bowl (or a playoff game) with him under center putting up those numbers. Thanks!
Best Player Available Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) It's not "the new NFL" anymore. It's been a passing league for nearly 8 years. The Bills -- as an organization and as a fan base -- are well behind the curve on this (as they usually are). This is why you don't see RBs go high in the first round anymore (well, unless you're the Bills). The Spiller pick, as was said many times when it happened, was a sure sign that Nix and company are still playing in a different era. This team is not built to pass. From the O-Line to the QB to the WRs. It's not really built to do much of anything other than to continue to break our hearts. If you're ever in Monterey Ca. Go to the aquarium, there you will see huge tanks of anchovies. The thing about those little fish is, you can have thousands of them following one another. Then one changes course and the whole school follows suit. The reason I used that analogy is because the stock market and the NFL use the same silly principle. So if the NFL is now considered a passing league for 8+ years. If a team in the NFL were to say screw the passing game, I want our attack to revolve around a power running game and build a bruising O-line to accomplish that goal. Maybe to mask a Quarterback who has a very limited range of accuracy? Now lets say the team that tries that novel running game approach in a pass happy league was to go to the super bowl and WIN with it. How many teams would follow suit the following year(s)? especially ones with marginal or in some cases no quarterback that can get the passing game going. I'm guessing more than one. There's only so many Brees, Rodgers, Mannigs, and Brady's to go around. Not saying we should do it. But someday someone will (again). Edited January 3, 2012 by Best Player Available
CosmicBills Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 If you're ever in Monterey Ca. Go to the aquarium, there you will see huge tanks of anchovies. The thing about those little fish is, you can have thousands of them following one another. Then one changes course and the whole school follows suit. The reason I used that analogy is because the stock market and the NFL use the same silly principle. So if the NFL is now considered a passing league for 8+ years. If a team in the NFL were to say screw the passing game, I want our attack to revolve around a power running game and build a bruising O-line to accomplish that goal. Maybe to mask a Quarterback who has a very limited range of accuracy? Now lets say the team that tries that novel running game approach in a pass happy league was to go to the super bowl and WIN with it. How many teams would follow suit the following year(s)? especially ones with marginal or in some cases no quarterback that can get the passing game going. I'm guessing more than one. There's only so many Brees, Rodgers, Mannigs, and Brady's to go around. Not saying we should do it. But someday someone will (again). Your analogy is flawed. The league didn't become a passing league just because teams started to win with it. The anchovies weren't JUST following the leader. The league became a passing league because that's what the NFL wanted to see happen. The NFL changed the rules of the game to cater to a pass happy and scoring frenzied approach because that's what fans wanted to see. People don't tune in to watch games that finish 13-6. Again, you can buck the trend if you want, and the Bills have been doing that for 12 years. Look where it's gotten them.
Recommended Posts