Rubes Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Well in that case, the OP's point--that Chan is right to not run against a very good run defense--was proven wrong by Chan himself agaisnt the pats. He called 15 running plays vs only 15 against the Texans. Did you mean 25 rushing plays? Fred had 16 and CJ had 9. But perhaps it's not the raw number but the actual percentage. With 40 passes against the Pats* (I'll make it 43 since there were 3 'rushes' by Fitz which were undoubtedly pass calls), we had a run-pass split of 37% (run) to 63% (pass). Against the Texans, it was 13 rushes (official count is 15 due to two Fitz 'runs') to 40 passes, for a 25%-75% split. So Chan certainly seemed to run less against the Texans, a better team against the run, but not by that much. The Texans are #3 against the run, the Pats* are #9 against the run. I'm not sure I would say that running a bit more against the Pats* proves anything, given that we obviously passed a lot more than ran against both teams. Of note, the Texans are also #3 against the pass, while the Pats* are #29 against the pass.
TheFunPolice Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 this is Chan's defense too He is NOT just the OC, he is the head coach. The whole program is his responsibility.
bruceisloose78 Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 The weather was terrible in that game, there were drops everywhere, both teams had to try and establish the run. What ever happened to imposing your will on a defense? Do you think when teams put an extra guy in the box against the 49ers they completely give up on the run? No, they run anyway because that's the strength of their team and it is also the strength of ours. We should have tried to establish more of a run game against the Texans period. Also, jason cambell played the whole second half, that enabled the texans to key in on forte. The bears had to try and continue to run to take pressure off their backup qb
San-O Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 The media critics in particular (none of whom played football at anything higher than high school level and the vast majority of whom never watch game film) blasted Chan's play selection against Houston, and assured us that Texan defensive plan showed the league the blueprint on how to stop Chans offense. In particular, they ridiculed Chans statement that running the ball into the teeth of the Texans would be counterproductive, that the spread offense gave the offense it's best chance. "Chan just doesn't get it, you gotta keep running the ball" was the consensus. Chan sticks to his offense and the result is an offensive explosion against Pats. In fact Chans offense has produced plenty of points this year; look at the point production overall. Certainly enough offense has been produced this year to produce a winning record. It's the D that's the problem Better yet, critics, look at Texans v Bears game last night. Bears, unlike Bills v Texans, were playing at home, and produced a grand total of 6 points, 3 in each half. This despite the many more possessions the Bears offense received via the great Bears defense stopping Texans (as opposed to Bills D). And one of reasons the Bears O struggled so badly was they kept running Forte into the teeth of Texans defense, with very little success. About 2 yards per carry. A lot of wasted plays there. Kind of what Chan was trying to say. But our local media "experts" know better. "Chans an idiot for not running the ball more" was the cry, but I can bet you now none of them will mention Bears futility against Texans, how that contradicts their expertise in how to run an NFL offense. I doubt many of them even watched the Bears game. Great. Chan insists on getting into a good old fashioned "shoot out" with Bilicheat and Brady, which he can;t hope to win, with Fitzy. Brilliant! I will take Brady and Co. every time.
4BillsintheBurgh Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Great. Chan insists on getting into a good old fashioned "shoot out" with Bilicheat and Brady, which he can;t hope to win, with Fitzy. Brilliant! I will take Brady and Co. every time. So you're an advocate of the Jauron offense, let's try and keep it close and steal it at the end of the game? No thanks.
Mr. WEO Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Did you mean 25 rushing plays? Fred had 16 and CJ had 9. But perhaps it's not the raw number but the actual percentage. With 40 passes against the Pats* (I'll make it 43 since there were 3 'rushes' by Fitz which were undoubtedly pass calls), we had a run-pass split of 37% (run) to 63% (pass). Against the Texans, it was 13 rushes (official count is 15 due to two Fitz 'runs') to 40 passes, for a 25%-75% split. So Chan certainly seemed to run less against the Texans, a better team against the run, but not by that much. The Texans are #3 against the run, the Pats* are #9 against the run. I'm not sure I would say that running a bit more against the Pats* proves anything, given that we obviously passed a lot more than ran against both teams. Of note, the Texans are also #3 against the pass, while the Pats* are #29 against the pass. 37% doesn't seem like more than 25%--it is significantly more (48% more). Any way you spin it, Chan called a lot more runing plays (twice as many) against a run defense very similar in yards per game as the Texans. i.e., he did exactly what his critics said he needed to do.
Realist Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 The single biggest problem with the Bills offense, with Chan's play calling, with Fitz? ...They have to be near perfect. Look at yesterday's game: Pats* 1st half drive results were FG, TD, TD, TD, Halftime. Pats* 2nd half drive results were Punt, TD, FG, Punt, FG So, they had the ball for 9 drives (the one that ended the half, they only had 30 secs on the clock, so lets discount that one), and scored on 7 of them. In essence, the defense is allowing opposing offenses to score at will; thereby, the offense has to play mistake free ball and feels the pressure to score on every drive. There aren't many QBs that can direct 4-5 scoring drives per game. But, that is exactly what our defense is asking Fitz to do. Fitz, IMO, is a completely aaverage QB - he's not horrible, he's not great - and our defense continually puts the offense in a position where he needs to be elite. You just can't expect a team to win with any consistency when their defense is giving up scores on 7 out of 9 drives, even if that team is lead by the best QB in the game. My conclusion, Fitz bashing and any discussion of the offense is completely misguided. Our defense blows epically. Very good post Dan. Right on the money. I'm not a huge Fitz fan, but the defense is putting him and the offense in a position to score almost every time they get the ball. Therefore, Fitz is forced to throw the ball more often and that also makes him take greater risks with the ball.
San-O Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 So you're an advocate of the Jauron offense, let's try and keep it close and steal it at the end of the game? No thanks. No, I just don't think you can point to one game, where the O (Chan) scored a lot of points on a horrible D, lose the game, say the coach was right all along with a 3-6 record after three years and claim some sort of ultimate vindication. A broke clock is right two x a day: right?
Rubes Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) 37% doesn't seem like more than 25%--it is significantly more (48% more). Any way you spin it, Chan called a lot more runing plays (twice as many) against a run defense very similar in yards per game as the Texans. i.e., he did exactly what his critics said he needed to do. I don't recall what the original debate was about, but yes, he did run it more against the Pats* than against the Texans. But I think it's considerably more complicated to explain why he did than to just say he made more of a commitment to the running game. There are too many factors to count. Things like injuries (who's currently injured for us, who for them), matchups (how do our guys match up man-for-man against their guys, are there particular advantages or disadvantages against each team), defensive styles, and so on, that influence the guy's decision on how much to run. It may have been that he felt Cordy was struggling early against the pass rush, so throw a few more running plays in there to get his confidence and game feet back. Maybe same with Urbik. Maybe Wilfork was causing too much trouble with the pass rush, so he tried to run it a little more to keep him honest. I have no idea. Whatever it was, the circumstances made Chan believe he would be better off running more against the Pats* than against the Texans. That doesn't necessarily mean if we ran more against the Texans that we would have done better. But again, I have completely lost what the debate was about here, so I may just be making your point. Edited November 13, 2012 by Rubes
Dibs Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Did you mean 25 rushing plays? Fred had 16 and CJ had 9. But perhaps it's not the raw number but the actual percentage. With 40 passes against the Pats* (I'll make it 43 since there were 3 'rushes' by Fitz which were undoubtedly pass calls), we had a run-pass split of 37% (run) to 63% (pass). Against the Texans, it was 13 rushes (official count is 15 due to two Fitz 'runs') to 40 passes, for a 25%-75% split. So Chan certainly seemed to run less against the Texans, a better team against the run, but not by that much. The Texans are #3 against the run, the Pats* are #9 against the run. I'm not sure I would say that running a bit more against the Pats* proves anything, given that we obviously passed a lot more than ran against both teams. Of note, the Texans are also #3 against the pass, while the Pats* are #29 against the pass. Not that it effects the issue(doesn't change the percent difference) but you forgot the sack numbers(pass attempts). With the sack numbers added you get Pats: 46 pass - 25 run (65% - 35%) Titans: 44 pass - 13 run (77% - 23%) FWIW (Couldn't convert QB runs into pass attempts) League Average Pass Attempts/Game = 35.2(37.4 with sacks)(58%) League Average Rush Attempts/Game = 26.8(42%)
mrags Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Seriously, if we had a defense that was even middle of the road, completely average...we'd probably be sitting in first place and everybody would be singing Chan's praises, particularly for the offense. I don't think it really sinks in for some people how historically bad this defense has been. Chan is the head coach of the Buffalo Bills and is responsible for all of his position and assistant coaches. Is he not?
Recommended Posts