The new NFL is a passing league

[San Jose Bills Fan]

The past 12 years has given you the answer to that query.

I'm talking about the last 8-9 weeks of the 2011 season.

 

 

 

 

 

[dave mcbride]

I haven't read the article myself. I might find it interesting, too. From the bit quoted and the title of your post

I cringe when anyone says the Bills should run the ball more

it sounds as though two things are being conflated:

1) rushing or passing efficiency - how many yards, on average, per rushing or passing attempt

2) number of rushing or passing attempts

 

The author, in the bit you quoted, is saying it really doesn't lead to success in the NFL if you gain >5 ypa than if you gain ~ 4 ypa.

When people say "the Bills should run the ball more", they are saying the Bills should have more rushing attempts.

I would tend to agree with the former - as long as you move the chains consistently, 5.4 vice 4 ypa rushing no big diff.

I also strongly agree with the latter.

 

When we look at Carolina and at the Vikes, we see that in rushing ATTEMPTS they fall to #13 and #14.

Would they have better success if they ran the ball more? Doubtful, until/unless they acquire a defense that is not in the bottom 6 for points given up.

If you're passing a lot, and you gain a lot of yards with it, you're typically scoring fast. You better have a D that doesn't give up a lot of points.

 

Interestingly, there are 3 playoff teams in the bottom third of the league for points given up - Denver, Giants, and Lions.

 

It's a nice theory anyway. We'll see how it plays out. If the Steelers, Niners, Ravens, or Texans win the Superbowl will it be re-thought?

If the Niners win can we get a double retraction?

 

Edit: I just went and read the article and I think it's misleading - disingenuous. He blows on for half of it about how GB and NE are the worst defenses in the league. The problem with this is, they are only the worst Ds by YARDAGE. Yardage, last I looked, does not win you games. POINTS win games. Where are NE and GB on points? In the middle-third of the league - 15 and 19 respectively for points against. Not great, but not the cellar, either. And it's not that they play keep-away, both give opponents the ball close to half of the game.

 

The Steelers, Niners, Ravens, and Texans, BTW, are 1-4 on D by points against.

 

 

 

Actually I think two teams are trying that this year. One is the 2nd seed in the NFC.

The other is 3rd seed in the AFC. The former has won as many games as the Patriots and is #2 D on PA.

The latter is on its 4th quarterback and is #4 D on PA. So can we please just chillax a bit on declaring defense irrelevant and playoffs impossible without Diamond Arm leading the huddle on O?

 

Let the Games begin!

I never said that defense is unimportant. That's what Easterbrook said. I said that running offenses can't win games on their own. Passing offenses can in today's NFL.

Edited January 4, 2012 by dave mcbride

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I never said that defense is unimportant. That's what Easerbrook said. I said that running offenses can' win games on their own. Passijg offenses can in today's NFL.

They can if they're good.

 

Not if they're bad.

 

The Bills passing offense was bad.

 

Do you think a team should insist on doing something they do poorly… when the option is to do something they do well?

 

 

 

Look Dave, I'm not a smash-mouth, run-first kind of guy and I don't think there are many people that are like that anymore so I don't buy your argument about (paraphrasing) people being wistful and sentimental about a brand of football that was played in days of yore.

 

Throughout these weeks-long debates, I have had two very simple points:

 

1) The Bills sucked at passing the ball and were good at running the ball.

2) If you watched the games critically you would know that the claim that the Bills needed to pass because they were constantly behind is bunk.

 

Yeah it's great to pass the ball if your team actually has the ability to do so.

[CosmicBills]

I'm talking about the last 8-9 weeks of the 2011 season.

I know. And somewhere in this thread most of us started talking about two different things. You (and the others) are talking about in game decisions. I am talking about a general philosophy in terms of the team's construction. We diverged from the original point, which is more than likely my fault

 

That said, yes, there were plenty of moments where Chan should have ran the ball more. Chan isn't a very good coach, he's not the worst, but he's not as good as I originally hoped. Still, if he had called more run plays this team maybe wins 2 more games. Not enough to make the playoffs, not enough to be a contender. Which is what I think we all want.

 

Fred's injury hurt this team tremendously. There's no question about that -- but even before he went down, Fitz was exposed as the average to below average QB that he is. Our line was exposed to be a product of Fitz's quick release and lack of a downfield passing package. And our WRs were exposed for what they really are: a bunch of number 4 and 5 WRs (at BEST) masquerading as 2s and 3s.

 

The defense needs to be fixed. But this team won't be able to compete week in and week out until the front office finally realizes you can't win in this league with a garbage passing offense.

[dave mcbride]

They can if they're good.

 

Not if they're bad.

 

The Bills passing offense was bad.

 

Do you think a team should insist on doing something they do poorly… when the option is to do something they do well?

They could abandon it if it's bad (which it is), but unfortumately the alternative - running the ball more than normal - would only produce fewer points. They did actually end up 14th in both yards and points, which is the best they've done since 2002.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I know. And somewhere in this thread most of us started talking about two different things. You (and the others) are talking about in game decisions. I am talking about a general philosophy in terms of the team's construction. We diverged from the original point, which is more than likely my fault

 

That said, yes, there were plenty of moments where Chan should have ran the ball more. Chan isn't a very good coach, he's not the worst, but he's not as good as I originally hoped. Still, if he had called more run plays this team maybe wins 2 more games. Not enough to make the playoffs, not enough to be a contender. Which is what I think we all want.

 

Fred's injury hurt this team tremendously. There's no question about that -- but even before he went down, Fitz was exposed as the average to below average QB that he is. Our line was exposed to be a product of Fitz's quick release and lack of a downfield passing package. And our WRs were exposed for what they really are: a bunch of number 4 and 5 WRs (at BEST) masquerading as 2s and 3s.

 

The defense needs to be fixed. But this team won't be able to compete week in and week out until the front office finally realizes you can't win in this league with a garbage passing offense.

My thought on Chan is that his OC Modkins, is his student and protege. His QB Coach Cortez, is a guy who spent most of his career in the CFL where you only have 3 downs, need 12 yards for a first down, and has a 110 yard field between goal lines and 20 yard end zones.

 

Where are the checks and balances? Who is in that room for offensive meetings is telling Chan that certain things he's relying on are not working? Who takes him to task and/or plays Devil's Advocate.

 

I agree with you that he's not a great coach but I'm just as concerned if not more, about his staff.

 

 

 

 

 

[BillsVet]

The people who think the Bills throw the ball too much are saying that in spite of being unable to pass the ball effectively they still insisted on throwing the ball.

 

What is a team to do when it has a rash of injuries at wide receiver and offensive line and a quarterback who seems to be pressing and getting worse with each week?

 

Fitz's YPA was poor and the teams yards per carry was excellent.

 

Of course you have to pass well to be successful in this league.

 

But what if you can't pass well?

 

That's the point.

 

I disagree that a running game can overcome an inefficient passing game in this day and age. I say inefficient because they became predictable when the QB was not hitting deep down field. ESPN noted Fitz was hitting on (edit: 27)% of his passes beyond 21 yards, which must make a DC's job so much more easy when he doesn't have to drop safeties and floods the short zone with DB's. There were a few games, notably beginning with the home NE game when David Nelson simply disappeared (invisible in the 2nd half). To the point he wasn't even a weapon because defenses denied him that route over the middle. So much so that he never had more than 62 yards receiving after the NE victory.

 

I've never been one who said the Bills throw too much or don't run enough. The blueprint just happens to be that teams throw, with most going downfield more frequently. Fitz, as demonstrated by the numbers, is poor doing that. And I don't think it's because his receivers aren't good enough, he can't make the throws. When's the last time this team threw a deep out? Sure, it's not their offense, but when you can't challenge a defense, it's a lot easier to prepare for a guy like Fitz. And Gailey coaches around his QB's shortcomings.

Edited January 4, 2012 by BillsVet

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I disagree that a running game can overcome an inefficient passing game in this day and age. I say inefficient because they became predictable when the QB was not hitting deep down field. ESPN noted Fitz was hitting on 23% of his passes beyond 21 yards, which must make a DC's job so much more easy when he doesn't have to drop safeties and floods the short zone with DB's. There were a few games, notably beginning with the home NE game when David Nelson simply disappeared (invisible in the 2nd half). To the point he wasn't even a weapon because defenses denied him that route over the middle. So much so that he never had more than 62 yards receiving after the NE victory.

 

I've never been one who said the Bills throw too much or don't run enough. The blueprint just happens to be that teams throw, with most going downfield more frequently. Fitz, as demonstrated by the numbers, is poor doing that. And I don't think it's because his receivers aren't good enough, he can't make the throws. When's the last time this team threw a deep out? Sure, it's not their offense, but when you can't challenge a defense, it's a lot easier to prepare for a guy like Fitz. And Gailey coaches around his QB's shortcomings.

Even if one agrees that an increased reliance on the run game would result in fewer points scored, you have to weigh that against the positives:

 

1) Offensive linemen that are attacking instead of being attacked (O-linemen love this as you know).

2) Likelihood of increased time of possession/rest for the defense.

3) Likelihood of fewer turnovers.

4) The ability to use play action instead of empty backfields… basically running to setup the pass instead of visa versa.

5) Reducing the burden on a quarterback who clearly suffered from bearing too much weight.

 

In a close game when your passing game clearly sucks, I think this is a good trade off.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

It's about context.

 

When your passing game is Drew Brees throwing to Colston, Graham and Meacham, throw the ball like crazy. When it's Aaron Rodgers throwing to Jennings, Finley and Nelson, do the same. Tom Brady throwing to Welker, Gronkowski and Hernandez...well, you get the picture.

 

When you've got Ryan Fitzpatrick back there and a ragtag bunch of receivers and TEs, AND your two most explosive players are your two running backs, you run the ball. Whether it's a passing league or not.

 

This.

 

The Texans and '9ers embraced a similar philosophy of "use what you've got on the roster". The result is that the '9ers are in the playoffs with a QB who'd been written off as a bust who just cant get it done two years ago, and the Texans are in the playoffs with their 3rd string QB. When your QB is Yates and you've got Arian Foster on the roster, run baby run.

[mrags]

I disagree that a running game can overcome an inefficient passing game in this day and age. I say inefficient because they became predictable when the QB was not hitting deep down field. ESPN noted Fitz was hitting on (edit: 27)% of his passes beyond 21 yards, which must make a DC's job so much more easy when he doesn't have to drop safeties and floods the short zone with DB's. There were a few games, notably beginning with the home NE game when David Nelson simply disappeared (invisible in the 2nd half). To the point he wasn't even a weapon because defenses denied him that route over the middle. So much so that he never had more than 62 yards receiving after the NE victory.

 

I've never been one who said the Bills throw too much or don't run enough. The blueprint just happens to be that teams throw, with most going downfield more frequently. Fitz, as demonstrated by the numbers, is poor doing that. And I don't think it's because his receivers aren't good enough, he can't make the throws. When's the last time this team threw a deep out? Sure, it's not their offense, but when you can't challenge a defense, it's a lot easier to prepare for a guy like Fitz. And Gailey coaches around his QB's shortcomings.

Regardless of what we think about the league and how it's becoming more pass oriented and/or how Fitz is not accurate with the deep throw (which I agree with). He is an average to a little better than average QB and that is pretty much a fact considering where his stats ended up by the end of the year. If he had more he may do better, je may not. Maybe we've already seen the best out of Fitz, maybe not. I'll guarantee you all this though, with Chan most likely on his last year if he doesn't make some improvements, he won't be drafting a QB of the future. He'll be drafting and signing FAs to help Fitz. We can all give up on a future QB as kong as Chan is here unless he has a playoff appearance next year, is able to keep his job, and has a great prospect fall into his lap.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Of the top 10 passing teams in 2011, 7 of them made the playoffs (New Orleans, New England, Green Bay, Detroit, New York Giants, Atlanta, and Pittsburgh).

It would be great if the Bills were a good passing team. They are not.

 

But passing is not the only way to go.

 

Of the top 10 running teams in 2011, 5 of them made the playoffs (Denver, Houston, New Orleans, San Francisco, Baltimore)

 

So if you can't pass well but you can run well…

Edited January 4, 2012 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Orton's Arm]

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

I agree that passing is a lot more important than running. That's why it's so much more important to acquire good talent for your passing game than your running game.

 

But there are times when defensive coordinators will over-commit to stopping the pass. (As Belichick did against the Bills during the Super Bowl.) When this happens, it's important to run the ball a lot, and to keep running it until the defense has been punished enough. Once the defense has been punished enough, they will back off from their over-commitment to pass defense, and will become more balanced instead. Once the defense has been forced to become more balanced, you go back to your passing attack. That's what's going to win you the game. (Assuming, of course, that your passing attack has been built to win games. If it hasn't been, you won't get very many wins!)

[BillsVet]

Regardless of what we think about the league and how it's becoming more pass oriented and/or how Fitz is not accurate with the deep throw (which I agree with). He is an average to a little better than average QB and that is pretty much a fact considering where his stats ended up by the end of the year. If he had more he may do better, je may not. Maybe we've already seen the best out of Fitz, maybe not. I'll guarantee you all this though, with Chan most likely on his last year if he doesn't make some improvements, he won't be drafting a QB of the future. He'll be drafting and signing FAs to help Fitz. We can all give up on a future QB as kong as Chan is here unless he has a playoff appearance next year, is able to keep his job, and has a great prospect fall into his lap.

 

Fitz no longer has potential, he is what he is after 7 seasons as a NFL QB, 3+ as a starter. The HC has to game-plan around his physical weaknesses, resulting in a limited game-plan that defenses began to figure out around Week 4 this past season. Either that, or Gailey isn't as imaginative as some would have you believe.

 

As to the issue of signing UFA's, does anyone actually believe this team is in the market for anyone but grade C types? Chan and Buddy don't hold the purse strings, which won't open up no matter what.

[thewildrabbit]

tgreg is of course completely correct.

 

Denver averaged 193 rushing yards per game for the 9 games that Tebow started, but only scored 20 points or more 3 times. In their first five games, they scored 20 or more points four times. When they became a run dominant team, they simply couldn't score.

 

I chalk it up to nostalgia for past eras.

The Bronco's also didn't have a pocket passing QB worth a damn either, so they were so one dimensional it wasn't funny. A running team with a balanced attack and good defense wins a bunch of games, the Ravens! The Detroit Lions lost their starting RB this season and became one dimensional and started losing until they were able to rebuild a ground game.

 

When Drew Brees had no running game last year the Saints were a one dimensional passing offense, and lost to the scrub Seahawks in the playoffs, kinda why the Saints drafted a RB with their first pick and got Darren Sproles in free agency, now they have 4 very good RB,s. Just like they have 4-5 very good receivers

 

Balance means everything!

[mrags]

Fitz no longer has potential, he is what he is after 7 seasons as a NFL QB, 3+ as a starter. The HC has to game-plan around his physical weaknesses, resulting in a limited game-plan that defenses began to figure out around Week 4 this past season. Either that, or Gailey isn't as imaginative as some would have you believe.

 

As to the issue of signing UFA's, does anyone actually believe this team is in the market for anyone but grade C types? Chan and Buddy don't hold the purse strings, which won't open up no matter what.

Like I stated. Regardless if what you think Fitz is or isn't, were stuck with him as our starting QB as long as Gailey is here. If we make the playoffs next year, chances are Chan won't draft another QB unless ine falls into our lap later in the draft because he will stick with Fitz and believe he will get better.

If we don't make the playoffs, or a good push for a playoff spot, then Chan will be fired and we will be starting all over again, probably with a new QB to go with our new HC.

Either way, no matter what happens, Chan knows this is his year to make the playoffs or bust. He won't be getting a young QB for the future and he won't be getting one to start next year. Hell be looking for pieces to help Fitz succeed and hopefully save his job for at least another year.

If we don't go after any big name or even B rate free agents to help, then chalk it up to business as usual, but watever we do pick up will be to assist what we already have now. It's too late in Chans tenure to change things up now and keep his job.

[thewildrabbit]

I disagree that a running game can overcome an inefficient passing game in this day and age. I say inefficient because they became predictable when the QB was not hitting deep down field. ESPN noted Fitz was hitting on (edit: 27)% of his passes beyond 21 yards, which must make a DC's job so much more easy when he doesn't have to drop safeties and floods the short zone with DB's. There were a few games, notably beginning with the home NE game when David Nelson simply disappeared (invisible in the 2nd half). To the point he wasn't even a weapon because defenses denied him that route over the middle. So much so that he never had more than 62 yards receiving after the NE victory.

 

I've never been one who said the Bills throw too much or don't run enough. The blueprint just happens to be that teams throw, with most going downfield more frequently. Fitz, as demonstrated by the numbers, is poor doing that. And I don't think it's because his receivers aren't good enough, he can't make the throws. When's the last time this team threw a deep out? Sure, it's not their offense, but when you can't challenge a defense, it's a lot easier to prepare for a guy like Fitz. And Gailey coaches around his QB's shortcomings.

Its not the receivers? When Derek Hagan is your leading receiver, your WR corps has problems. This kid has been floating around from team to team since 2006 Miami- NY Giants- Oakland- Buffalo, and if not for so many injuries to the Bills WR's this year, who knows where he ends up. The bills list QB Brad Smith as the #2 WR opposite Stevie Johnson. The Bills WR corps stinks big time in my view. They have one decent receiver in Stevie Johnson and he might not be in Buffalo next season.

The TE's, Scott Chandler stepped up to be a big factor to a degree, but he couldn't stay healthy all year. Missing several games and at least half of that last NE game. Then with Chandler out hurt you had the big time names like Fendi Onobun...who? & Kevin Brock

The O line, I don't shiv a git what the stats say, that O line stinks as bad as the WR corps. Colin Brown at Center? Rookie Chris Hairston at LT?

 

I think you give Gailey to much credit to think he coaches around his QB's abilities, or as you say, shortcomings. I think he realizes he has a bad O line that doesn't give his QB the time needed to throw 5-7 step drop back passes on a consistent basis. So instead he setup a short set of three step drops to get the ball out quicker. hence the reason you don't see many deep outs. This is also the reason I feel that Lee Evans became expendable.

 

My take is, Fitz is not the biggest problem with this team. They basically have neglected the O line & WR corps early in the draft the last two years, and they should have focused on those two areas. As much as i love Marcel Darius, I think AJ Green would have made a much more significant impact

[PDaDdy]

... But it didn't. So you can keep your theory, I'll stick with actuality.

 

We weren't a run first offense so your point is moot. Unless we invent a time machine neither of us will know for sure. You can't stick with "actuaility" eh em....theory....because we weren't run first. I guess we are two guys with theories that can't be proven.

[Ramius]

The problem i have with the Bills not running more is not the general philosophy, but more of the in game scnario. In both the Miami and Tennessee games, we were running the ball extremely well, and yet, Chan abandoned the running game despite being down by only a score most of those games. In those games, lack of running the ball did directly cost us the win.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Ramius

[Orton's Arm]

The Bronco's also didn't have a pocket passing QB worth a damn either, so they were so one dimensional it wasn't funny. A running team with a balanced attack and good defense wins a bunch of games, the Ravens! The Detroit Lions lost their starting RB this season and became one dimensional and started losing until they were able to rebuild a ground game.

 

When Drew Brees had no running game last year the Saints were a one dimensional passing offense, and lost to the scrub Seahawks in the playoffs, kinda why the Saints drafted a RB with their first pick and got Darren Sproles in free agency, now they have 4 very good RB,s. Just like they have 4-5 very good receivers

 

Balance means everything!

On the other hand, this year's Packers and Patriots teams have done very well, despite having mediocre running games at best, and despite having the two worst pass defenses in NFL history. A good passing attack can hide a lot of sins. On the other hand, the Packers and Patriots almost have to have an elite-level passing attack each and every week to hide all those other sins. If the passing game happens to have a somewhat less than elite-level game, they will typically lose. If they were more balanced, they would be able to win games even when the passing game was a little off that day.

[papazoid]

more fun facts....

 

i'd say we're a pass happy team already:

 

week 17 - 46 pass / 20 run

 

week 16 - 33 pass / 35 run

 

week 15 - 47 pass / 19 run

 

week 14 - 37 pass / 20 run