Fan in Chicago Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Not really. The Giants rushed for like 200 yards against the Texans the week before we played them. We passed 44 times agaisnt them. The Jets have a terrible secondary and good run defense. We ran a ton. I agree about the Texans game but yesterday, there were ample opportunities to throw more. The run-run-pass-punt was getting tiresome. But I think it was because of the game situation where Marrone just did not want any of Ortons '1 interception per game' to jeopardize the momentum. If Vick had shown some semblance of mounting a strong comeback in the second half, I bet we would have seen more passes. But I am speculating and need to see more games before a pattern emerges.
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I agree about the Texans game but yesterday, there were ample opportunities to throw more. The run-run-pass-punt was getting tiresome. But I think it was because of the game situation where Marrone just did not want any of Ortons '1 interception per game' to jeopardize the momentum. If Vick had shown some semblance of mounting a strong comeback in the second half, I bet we would have seen more passes. But I am speculating and need to see more games before a pattern emerges. That's fair. And it's not so much about yesterday. It's just been a giant trend. We have to have one of the most uncreative offenses in the NFL. It's funny how people blamed Spiller when it's clear the problems are much deeper than him.
bobobonators Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Allow me to go all Zen on you: The Running Game Doesn't Have to Be Effective to Be Effective. I don't have a Tebow obsession, but living in Colorado when Tebow took over for Orton and watching the difference in results taught me a valuable lesson, and it's this: the Broncos offense sucked under Tebow! Most of the time the run game gained less than 3 yards per carry. But it suckered defenses into doing dangerous things like putting 9 men in the box, and even though Tebow couldn't throw to save his life we got plays like the OT "catch and run" vs. the Steelers that won a playoff game -- there's was literally nobody back 10 yards beyond the line of scrimmage to catch D. Thomas after he broke a tackle of the guy covering him. I think we saw a little of that yesterday. It's boring, it's frustrating ... but against bad offenses it can work! To paraphrase Woody, 90% of football is just showing up and not doing anything stupid, like turning the ball over when your opponent is in the middle of an almost unprecedented offensive meltdown. I'm sorry man, but if that's the gameplan you want to run, you're not going to be in this league very long. You'll essentially be playing not to lose every week. And KO is not Tim Tebow.
Rob's House Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I'm sorry man, but if that's the gameplan you want to run, you're not going to be in this league very long. You'll essentially be playing not to lose every week. And KO is not Tim Tebow. I could be wrong, but I don't think that was what he was saying at all. I took it to mean: 1. Showing the willingness to run consistently opens up other opportunities; and 2. You let the game situation dictate your strategy, to some extent.
The Big Cat Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I agree and said as much earlier in the thread. Marrone has more than a little Jauron in him. Yep. And I'm fine with that. Jauron had our teams "in the hunt" well into November and December every year, and as far as king turds go, he consistently posted records that neither Gailey nor Marrone to this point were able to achieve. And he did it all with a roster that might actually be player for player worse than the one we have this year. With just an inkling more talent and Jauron would have had our team in the playoffs at least once. Marrone has that talent, and right now we're forcing teams to beat us with big plays while we take care of the ball and connect on big plays ourselves. That's the 30,000 foot impression I get. I'm wondering what some of the critics would rather see from the same vantage point. I'm sorry man, but if that's the gameplan you want to run, you're not going to be in this league very long. You'll essentially be playing not to lose every week. And KO is not Tim Tebow. And I'm sorry man, but you're completely wrong about that. In fact, you will win.
Kirby Jackson Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 you CAN win doing just about anything. just because we did win doesnt mean it was very smart. someone else mentioned the stat that the play following the 6 turnovers amounted to 15 yards. we are a better team than that. This ^^ It worked today because the team across the field was horrible. If you squander that type of field position in a close game it may kill you.
PolishDave Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I could be wrong, but I don't think that was what he was saying at all. I took it to mean: 1. Showing the willingness to run consistently opens up other opportunities; and 2. You let the game situation dictate your strategy, to some extent. It is still incredibly stupid to do it the way the Bills do it. Where the other team expects they are going to do it. And it is also stupid to continue doing it the same completely ineffective way game after game after game. Running the ball to setup play action is smart when you are actually moving the ball forward 3-4 yards per carry with an occasional 8,9 or 10 yarder. But running for 1 or 2 or -1 or -2 on first and second down repeatedly putting yourself in 3rd and long situations is just insane. It is stupid and inexcusable in my opinion. Everyone who watches football, including you, knows that it is a recipe for losing unless you have a lot of other things go your way like turnovers for example.
The Big Cat Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 This ^^ It worked today because the team across the field was horrible. If you squander that type of field position in a close game it may kill you. Okay. Except you play against the team that's on the schedule that week. Why would they have rolled out a gameplan fit for the Patriots* when they were playing the Jets? It is still incredibly stupid to do it the way the Bills do it. Where the other team expects they are going to do it. And it is also stupid to continue doing it the same completely ineffective way game after game after game. Running the ball to setup play action is smart when you are actually moving the ball forward 3-4 yards per carry with an occasional 8,9 or 10 yarder. But running for 1 or 2 or -1 or -2 on first and second down repeatedly putting yourself in 3rd and long situations is just insane. It is stupid and inexcusable in my opinion. Everyone who watches football, including you, knows that it is a recipe for losing unless you have a lot of other things go your way like turnovers for example. I don't think you'll ever admit that the run game was effective just as you won't convince others that it wasn't. Also, I think you're grossly mis-representing what those first and second down runs looked like to make your point.
PolishDave Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I don't think you'll ever admit that the run game was effective just as you won't convince others that it wasn't. Also, I think you're grossly mis-representing what those first and second down runs looked like to make your point. I think you are arguing just because you like to argue. I haven't seen you actually make one legit point in this thread. Defending the guy primarily responsible for putting your team in 3rd and long situations on series after series after series is insane. Seems like you just like to play devils advocate to an extreme.
The Big Cat Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I think you are arguing just because you like to argue. I haven't seen you actually make one legit point in this thread. Defending the guy primarily responsible for putting your team in 3rd and long situations on series after series after series is insane. Seems like you just like to play devils advocate to an extreme. That's because you've decreed every sensible point I've made as not "legit." I'm digging up the stats now. If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it. But I think you've misrepresented how often we saw third and long and how often first and second down runs went for negative to two yards.
PolishDave Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 That's because you've decreed every sensible point I've made as not "legit." I'm digging up the stats now. If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it. But I think you've misrepresented how often we saw third and long and how often first and second down runs went for negative to two yards. Not just this game dude..... There have been many drives in games this year where we ran for little to no gain on first and second down, setting up a passing situation on 3rd down that resulted in yet another failed drive. That is the point I am trying to make.
Wayne Cubed Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I'm sorry man, but if that's the gameplan you want to run, you're not going to be in this league very long. You'll essentially be playing not to lose every week. And KO is not Tim Tebow. It's the game plan you run against crappy teams like the Jest. Known facts: Geno is a TO machine. You aren't going to run the same game plan you run against the Jest as the one you run against the Pats*.
The Big Cat Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Not just this game dude..... There have been many drives in games this year where we ran for little to no gain on first and second down, setting up a passing situation on 3rd down that resulted in yet another failed drive. That is the point I am trying to make. I'm curious: how many of those drives do you think occurred when we were either a.) losing or b.) winning by less than two scores?
bobobonators Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 It's the game plan you run against crappy teams like the Jest. Known facts: Geno is a TO machine. You aren't going to run the same game plan you run against the Jest as the one you run against the Pats*. That's the thing though - we've seen the same run, run, pass all season. We were debating this weeks ago. This isn't new.
The Big Cat Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Also, here are those stats First downs: http://goo.gl/bycG9h Second downs: http://goo.gl/2YvXAS
NoSaint Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 That's because you've decreed every sensible point I've made as not "legit." I'm digging up the stats now. If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it. But I think you've misrepresented how often we saw third and long and how often first and second down runs went for negative to two yards. my untrained and not counting it eye says probably around 60% of the time being 2 or less, with some 3, 4, and 5 mixed in
bobobonators Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 And turnovers aren't predictable. We can't just sit back and say, "well the Jets should give us another 3 turnovers so lets just run run run run run all day". You play that way it's going to bite you in the butt. You have to play to win the game on your side of the ball and not wait for plays to be made elsewhere.
The Big Cat Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 That's the thing though - we've seen the same run, run, pass all season. We were debating this weeks ago. This isn't new. No, actually the debate about Hackett's playcalling dates all the back to week 2 LAST year. But to say that the complaints have stayed exactly the same, that's false. They change every time to satisfy the "Hackett sucks" narrative that so many posters here seem desperate to come to fruition.
Wayne Cubed Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 That's the thing though - we've seen the same run, run, pass all season. We were debating this weeks ago. This isn't new. We have? How is that possible when the previous 3 games the Bills passed 43, 38 and 43 times. They have run 19, 23 and 20 times in each of those games.
The Big Cat Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 my untrained and not counting it eye says probably around 60% of the time being 2 or less, with some 3, 4, and 5 mixed in Which are you referring to? I'm genuinely interested in crunching these stats.
Recommended Posts