BuffaloBill Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 At the end of the day we would all agree that what matters is W-L's. Still, it is nice to see that the Bills team statistics are climbing as compared to previous years. A concern behind the numbers is that the defense ranks 30th against the run. It is puzzling to me with the talent on the Bills line why for so long they have been poor against the run. Pettine will solve this I'm sure. The D is also not helped by the fact that the offense has had too many short drives and lower than desired time of possession. We have a shot at the top 10 in all areas this year.
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 Pretty much justifies a 1-1 record. Hopefully, the progress continues throughout the season.
mrags Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 I'd say the biggest downside regarding the run is that the Pats ran all over us. Thought it cleaned up a bit against the Pats. Who are a better running team IMO.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 At the end of the day we would all agree that what matters is W-L's. Still, it is nice to see that the Bills team statistics are climbing as compared to previous years. A concern behind the numbers is that the defense ranks 30th against the run. It is puzzling to me with the talent on the Bills line why for so long they have been poor against the run. Pettine will solve this I'm sure. The D is also not helped by the fact that the offense has had too many short drives and lower than desired time of possession. We have a shot at the top 10 in all areas this year. Maybe I am accustomed to our record-breaking (in a bad way) defensive effort from last year, but I am very pleased with the run defense so far. I think what has skewed that statistic is: 1) Playing New England; we keyed into Brady and probably, as a result, were vulnerable against the run a little. 2) As you mentioned, TOP. The defense has beenreally gassed due to the failure of the offense to have many sustained drives. I would really like to see them slow down on offense.
Captain Caveman Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) Are these rankings based on yards, points, or something else? One thing worth considering is that the Defense has been put in a lot of bad situations (considering we're only two games in) due to turnovers / bad field position. I do still have concerns about the run D, but one bright spot is that when the game was on the line this past Sunday and we knew they were going to run on their last drive, we were able to stop them and force the punt. Edited September 18, 2013 by Captain Caveman
BuffaloBill Posted September 18, 2013 Author Posted September 18, 2013 Maybe I am accustomed to our record-breaking (in a bad way) defensive effort from last year, but I am very pleased with the run defense so far. I think what has skewed that statistic is: 1) Playing New England; we keyed into Brady and probably, as a result, were vulnerable against the run a little. 2) As you mentioned, TOP. The defense has beenreally gassed due to the failure of the offense to have many sustained drives. I would really like to see them slow down on offense. I think you probably have to allow some slack for the fact it is a new system also. In the Patsies game though NE was ripping off long runs seemingly at will. This was very concerning. At some point in the season elements will come into play and the D has to be more stout against the run. Finally, the D has also not had the advantage of a decent late game lead in points. In both games played the run was a very viable choice for the opposition to call in all 4 quarters.
Dorkington Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 Two games... 1-1, middle of the league in all rankings... I guess that's tentative improvement Hopefully we continue to trend upwards.
The Big Cat Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 I think you probably have to allow some slack for the fact it is a new system also. In the Patsies game though NE was ripping off long runs seemingly at will. This was very concerning. At some point in the season elements will come into play and the D has to be more stout against the run. Finally, the D has also not had the advantage of a decent late game lead in points. In both games played the run was a very viable choice for the opposition to call in all 4 quarters. Whoa whoa whoa, TIME OUT!! I already posted this in the week following the Pats* game. The run defense--for the most part-- was not that bad: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/161319-1-sack-for-the-d-line/page__view__findpost__p__2904939
SF Bills Fan Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 I'm very pleased with where this team is so far. It's a young team with a rookie coach and they are exceeding expectations. These statistics show it. Maybe they will make the playoffs and maybe not, but if they keep up the progress, this will be a terrific year.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 Whoa whoa whoa, TIME OUT!! I already posted this in the week following the Pats* game. The run defense--for the most part-- was not that bad: http://forums.twobil...ost__p__2904939 While I am encouraged by those stats, I wonder if that is a pretty normal stat for a "bad run defense." That is, are the bad defenses the ones that are good for 80% of the plays, but then give up like 5 really bad runs? The other thing--I'd love to know when the long runs occurred. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them occurred in the 4th quarter or coming off of several offensive 3 and outs-- i.e., due to the defense being tired. Defense was on the field for over 40 minutes in that Patriots game.
The Big Cat Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 While I am encouraged by those stats, I wonder if that is a pretty normal stat for a "bad run defense." That is, are the bad defenses the ones that are good for 80% of the plays, but then give up like 5 really bad runs? The other thing--I'd love to know when the long runs occurred. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them occurred in the 4th quarter or coming off of several offensive 3 and outs-- i.e., due to the defense being tired. Defense was on the field for over 40 minutes in that Patriots game. I actually tried to make that determination...if ypc happened to increase with no. of carries, but then life got in the way. Also, what is encouraging about these stats: combined with some of the all-22 analyses, we know that two of their long runs came when Dareus just got completely blown up and taken out of the play. Worrisome, since it means it can and will happen again. Reassuring, because it's not a systematic flaw with our "run defense" as in years-past.
MDH Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 I do still have concerns about the run D, but one bright spot is that when the game was on the line this past Sunday and we knew they were going to run on their last drive, we were able to stop them and force the punt. The end of the last game is one of the things that was most concerning. When the O needed the D to get the stop they allowed the Panthers to run off 6 minutes of the clock and gouge them for decent gain after decent gain. They ground the D down. It was only Rivera's decision to kick the FG instead of going for it on 4th and 1 that saved the day for the D. It was actually reminiscent of the week before when the D allowed big late runs by the Pats that allowed them to get close enough for a short FG to win the game. Hey, I'm happy with the progress the D has made overall but they have to fix the run D and fast. It's a big problem in general and is exacerbated when you have a hurry up offense who doesn't stay on the field long. It means the Bills D is out there getting ground down forever and eventually they break down at the end of games because they're so tired.
mrags Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 I'd also like to point out that the defense being in a bad position this past week held the Panthers and their running game to 2 FGs late in the game after some rough turnovers by the offense. Anyone that doesn't think our defense has done enough to keep this team in games is delusional.
BuffaloBill Posted September 18, 2013 Author Posted September 18, 2013 Whoa whoa whoa, TIME OUT!! I already posted this in the week following the Pats* game. The run defense--for the most part-- was not that bad: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/161319-1-sack-for-the-d-line/page__view__findpost__p__2904939 Your stats: 20+: 2 15-19: 1 10-15: 3 5-10: 3 2-5: 12 0-1: 11 -0: 3 To me this does suggest a problem and I disagree with your assessment that it was not reason for concern. You pointed to 19 runs of 3 yards or less which btw is hidden in your stats above. I point to 9 runs of 5 or more yards because these either likely ended up in 1st downs or set the next play up well. 6 of those runs were for first down or more which keeps drives alive and set up scoring opportunities. At the end of the day, the overall results say the Bills are not much better than they were last year against the run. This is a problem IMO especially since the Pats* are not known as a running team. (Is anyone any more? But clearly the success of the Patsies* is through Brady's arm) I still believe the Bills have cleaning up to do.
Mango Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 The issue with the run is that we are over pursuing. QB first RB second
The Big Cat Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 Your stats: 20+: 2 15-19: 1 10-15: 3 5-10: 3 2-5: 12 0-1: 11 -0: 3 To me this does suggest a problem and I disagree with your assessment that it was not reason for concern. You pointed to 19 runs of 3 yards or less which btw is hidden in your stats above. I point to 9 runs of 5 or more yards because these either likely ended up in 1st downs or set the next play up well. 6 of those runs were for first down or more which keeps drives alive and set up scoring opportunities. At the end of the day, the overall results say the Bills are not much better than they were last year against the run. This is a problem IMO especially since the Pats* are not known as a running team. (Is anyone any more? But clearly the success of the Patsies* is through Brady's arm) I still believe the Bills have cleaning up to do. 9 runs of 6 or more vs. 26 of 5 or less Also: see my other post that ONE player was responsible for these runs vs. the system, as has been the case.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 I actually tried to make that determination...if ypc happened to increase with no. of carries, but then life got in the way. Also, what is encouraging about these stats: combined with some of the all-22 analyses, we know that two of their long runs came when Dareus just got completely blown up and taken out of the play. Worrisome, since it means it can and will happen again. Reassuring, because it's not a systematic flaw with our "run defense" as in years-past. We gave up 300 yards rushing in a game last year because guys needed to "fit it up" better, that's all. Very correctible. Yours truly, D. Wannstedt
BuffaloBill Posted September 18, 2013 Author Posted September 18, 2013 We gave up 300 yards rushing in a game last year because guys needed to "fit it up" better, that's all. Very correctible. Yours truly, D. Wannstedt No doubt that was a horror show. At least this year we have reason to believe that whatever problems may exist are and will be corrected. That scheme (joke) that was played last year has to be the worst ever and I thought Tampa -2 under Jauron was painful. Wanny and crew took it down to even sicker levels. I don't want to continue to debate the point(s) with you as I do believe overall progress has been made. It is also wrong to think that two games with a new system with one of those games against a known offensive powerhouse is a sound basis to determine where the season will go. I am pleased that this staff has the ship moving in the right direction. We will only improve from here.
Cash Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 9 runs of 6 or more vs. 26 of 5 or less Also: see my other post that ONE player was responsible for these runs vs. the system, as has been the case. Giving up a 5-yard run is hardly something to brag about, unless it was 3rd and 10. Bottom line is that the Bills allowed 35 rushes for 158 yards (4.5 ypc, 7 rushing first downs). That's bad. Every team that's bad against the run whines about how they stopped the other team "except for one or two plays", but that's what being bad against the run is. No one gives up 4+ yards on 80% of the opposing rush attempts. For comparison, the Bills allowed 32 rushes by the Panthers for 125 yards (3.9 ypc, 9 rushing first downs). An improvement over week 1, but still bad. 3.9 ypc would be fine if the volume was much lower, but the volume was high because we couldn't consistently stop their run game. One thing I will readily concede is that the Bills' run D looks a LOT better this year than the past couple, especially via the eyeball test. Unfortunately, our historically-bad run defenses were so far down that it's possible to significantly improve, but only wind up like 25th in the league. Big Cat, we might not be far off here, since your whole original point was that the Bills' run D "was not that bad," which I guess means that you agree it was bad? We've seen a lot worse in recent years (and faced two pretty good rushing teams so far), and there's reason for hope, but I'm just not ready to anoint the run D as even mediocre until they prove it on the field.
yungmack Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 Start scoring more points earlier in the game and the opponent will have to go to the air more often. Fewer run attempts = fewer run yards.
Recommended Posts