KOKBILLS Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Demarcus Lawrence went 34th overall...Moses went 32 picks later I believe The fact that the Panthers passed on Moses at #60 was pretty telling...Maybe more telling than the fact that he slid to the 3rd...I thought for sure that was the spot for Moses...I still have no idea what the Panthers plans are at OT...It's mind-boggling...If it was the Bills ignoring OT like they are we would be going insane...
TPS Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 @ChrisTrapasso Cyrus Kouandjio's film certainly shows some off-balance whiffs, but #Bills fans will like this play ---> https://vine.co/v/MgwXnreudaD and I thought Lewan was supposed to be the guy with a mean streak?
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 and I thought Lewan was supposed to be the guy with a mean streak? Lewan is just a POS human which can translate to aggressive play on the field. I don't mind nasty football play, though, as long as it doesn't yield penalties.
C.Biscuit97 Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Lewan is just a POS human which can translate to aggressive play on the field. I don't mind nasty football play, though, as long as it doesn't yield penalties. Richie incognito jr
Canadian Bills Fan Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 All in favor of the nickname "Cyrus the Virus"? CBF
PromoTheRobot Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Remember the KC game with Tuel's pick 6? The Bills ran twice before that play and got stuffed trying to gain a yard and a half to the end zone. These O-line additions are meant to correct that weakness.
richNjoisy Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Remember the KC game with Tuel's pick 6? The Bills ran twice before that play and got stuffed trying to gain a yard and a half to the end zone. These O-line additions are meant to correct that weakness. I do miss the "old days" when the Bills could easily pick up 1-2 yards on a run play even when the other team KNEW we were going to run. How many games would we have won last year with a great power run game? I figure more than just the Chiefs game.
thebandit27 Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 I do miss the "old days" when the Bills could easily pick up 1-2 yards on a run play even when the other team KNEW we were going to run. How many games would we have won last year with a great power run game? I figure more than just the Chiefs game. Oh the irony of picking on the run blocking in a game where the team rushed for 241 yards. The myth that the team was somehow plagued by an inability to pick up short yardage runs wild on this board. Somehow most folks that recite it manage to ignore the team's above average ranking in Power Success (defined as "Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer--includes quarterbacks"). http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol 65% Success rate in "Power" situations; good for 14th in the league. Not phenomenal, but nowhere near the problem some claim. I do agree that the OL additions should make the running game even better, and yes, that will help the entire offense. I don't, however, think that these additions were aimed at improving short yardage situations as much as they were giving the passing game an extra 1/2 second for the receiving targets to get open and help the QB make better decisions.
eball Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 @thebandit27 -- those stats are great, but I recall also the failure of this team to punch it in from inside the five early against Cinci. Those are two games (along with KC) in which an inability to run for a short yardage TD really hurt the Bills.
Pondslider Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Remember the KC game with Tuel's pick 6? The Bills ran twice before that play and got stuffed trying to gain a yard and a half to the end zone. These O-line additions are meant to correct that weakness. Are these picks also going to correct Hackett's play calling? Edited May 13, 2014 by Pondslider
thebandit27 Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 @thebandit27 -- those stats are great, but I recall also the failure of this team to punch it in from inside the five early against Cinci. Those are two games (along with KC) in which an inability to run for a short yardage TD really hurt the Bills. The Bills scored 15 rushing TDs in 2013... 13 of them came in the red zone (Spiller's 54-yarder against Cleveland and his 36-yarder against ATL were the outliers) 12 of those 13 came from inside the 10 10 of those 12 came from inside the 5 5 of those 10 came from inside the 3 To me, that says they didn't exactly struggle when attempting to run the ball close to the end zone. I'm not aware of any platform that shows red zone YPC or anything like that, so that's the best I can do to show any stats to support either side. I'd be genuinely interested to see any data that supports the counterpoint. And of course, I'm not unfamiliar with the idea that correlation does not equal causation, so it's just one data set. There's also the factor of limited space and the opponent requiring zero respect for the passing game in the red zone (due to both QB play and a complete lack of red zone targets).
Kelly the Dog Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) The Bills scored 15 rushing TDs in 2013... 13 of them came in the red zone (Spiller's 54-yarder against Cleveland and his 36-yarder against ATL were the outliers) 12 of those 13 came from inside the 10 10 of those 12 came from inside the 5 5 of those 10 came from inside the 3 To me, that says they didn't exactly struggle when attempting to run the ball close to the end zone. I'm not aware of any platform that shows red zone YPC or anything like that, so that's the best I can do to show any stats to support either side. I'd be genuinely interested to see any data that supports the counterpoint. And of course, I'm not unfamiliar with the idea that correlation does not equal causation, so it's just one data set. There's also the factor of limited space and the opponent requiring zero respect for the passing game in the red zone (due to both QB play and a complete lack of red zone targets). This doesn't give the answer, but it's a cool site with some interesting stats. You are probably familiar with this one because you're so good at this kind of stuff. Again, this isn't the goalline, but it's a ranking of rushing carries "stuffed," meaning zero or minus yards on a carry. As a team, the Bills were 19th best, or 13th worst, so a little worse than middle of the pack. Fred Jackson was the 5th best in the league at not getting stuffed, with those players over 100 carries, and out of the 50 or so guys they rated. CJ was the second worst, although Lynch, McCoy, AD, Forte, Gore, etc, were all in the lower third. (It should be noted that CJ was hurt the entire year. Last year, CJ was the 10th best out of about 50, and almost twice as good as Fred Ex. Fred Ex was hurt both of the years). Fred realy gutted it out last season. http://www.sportingc...tatistics/2013/ Edited May 13, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
thebandit27 Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 This doesn't give the answer, but it's a cool site with some interesting stats. You are probably familiar with this one because you're so good at this kind of stuff. Again, this isn't the goalline, but it's a ranking of rushing carries "stuffed," meaning zero or minus yards on a carry. As a team, the Bills were 19th best, or 13th worst, so a little worse than middle of the pack. Fred Jackson was the 5th best in the league at not getting stuffed, with those players over 100 carries, and out of the 50 or so guys they rated. CJ was the second worst, although Lynch, McCoy, AD, Forte, Gore, etc, were all in the lower third. (It should be noted that CJ was hurt the entire year. Last year, CJ was the 10th best out of about 50, and almost twice as good as Fred Ex. Fred Ex was hurt both of the years). Fred realy gutted it out last season. http://www.sportingc...tatistics/2013/ Very good site with a lot of useful stuff... There's a bit of a divergence between this site and Football Outsiders as far as "stuffed" stats on a team-by-team basis: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol In general though, both show a middle-of-the-pack (or there abouts) type of performance.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Very good site with a lot of useful stuff... There's a bit of a divergence between this site and Football Outsiders as far as "stuffed" stats on a team-by-team basis: http://www.footballo...rs.com/stats/ol In general though, both show a middle-of-the-pack (or there abouts) type of performance. Which BEGS the question, how is it possible for two advanced stats sites to be off very much on a stat that is measured by "at or behind the line of scrimmage." That stat, no matter who looked at the film, should be VERY close.
thebandit27 Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Which BEGS the question, how is it possible for two advanced stats sites to be off very much on a stat that is measured by "at or behind the line of scrimmage." That stat, no matter who looked at the film, should be VERY close. Good question. I looked it up on NFL.com to see what I can find... http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2013&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=false&Submit=Go Looking at SD, for instance, NFL.com has them at 22 rushes for negative yards (no data on no-gain carries), while Sporting Charts seems to indicate 23 total stuffs on the same 486 rushing attempts...is it really possible that they had one singular carry for no gain all season? Seems unlikely, so maybe that tells us which one is off (then again maybe not). Looking at KC, NFL.com has them at 28 rushes for negative yards, while Sporting Charts shows 28 total stuffs on the same 442 carries...so it looks like Sporting Charts isn't taking no-gain into account in their Stuffed stats, which could explain the difference. Ditto for Buffalo, where NFL.com has them at 52 rushes for negative yards, while Sporting Charts shows 53 total stuffs on the same 546 carries. I think Sporting Charts just needs to remove "at or" from their definition and they'd be good to go.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Good question. I looked it up on NFL.com to see what I can find... http://www.nfl.com/s...false&Submit=Go Looking at SD, for instance, NFL.com has them at 22 rushes for negative yards (no data on no-gain carries), while Sporting Charts seems to indicate 23 total stuffs on the same 486 rushing attempts...is it really possible that they had one singular carry for no gain all season? Seems unlikely, so maybe that tells us which one is off (then again maybe not). Looking at KC, NFL.com has them at 28 rushes for negative yards, while Sporting Charts shows 28 total stuffs on the same 442 carries...so it looks like Sporting Charts isn't taking no-gain into account in their Stuffed stats, which could explain the difference. Ditto for Buffalo, where NFL.com has them at 52 rushes for negative yards, while Sporting Charts shows 53 total stuffs on the same 546 carries. I think Sporting Charts just needs to remove "at or" from their definition and they'd be good to go. I didn't look at the nfl.com definition, but is it possible that the nfl.com uses the same criterion as the other ones, actually including the 0 yards in their stats for the negatives without saying it? Because it wasn't positive yardage? That would make the stats close, right? It just seems hard to believe anyone watching NFL film looking for yardage, can't tell whether a play got back to the original LOS or not.
thebandit27 Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 I didn't look at the nfl.com definition, but is it possible that the nfl.com uses the same criterion as the other ones, actually including the 0 yards in their stats for the negatives without saying it? Because it wasn't positive yardage? That would make the stats close, right? It just seems hard to believe anyone watching NFL film looking for yardage, can't tell whether a play got back to the original LOS or not. Not sure...they defined it as: "Rush Neg = Rushes for negative yards."
Kelly the Dog Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Not sure...they defined it as: "Rush Neg = Rushes for negative yards." I'm not sure about this, but doesn't the official NFL stats have like 35" = 0 yards. 37" = 2 yards. You have to gain a yard to be a yard, and as soon as you pass it, it goes to the next yard? That may only be for first downs. But otherwise, how do you really rank whether or not something is a yard gained? At the 18" mark? That would make the most sense, but obviously very hard to gauge at times.
Punch Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 ffalo Bills @buffalobills 5 mins Kouandjio: "I don't know why #Bills haven't been a winning team. But I'm here to win, it's what I do. I believe in these men"
Recommended Posts