Does having a good defense lead to not having to pass a lot

[PromoTheRobot]

5 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

So like most teams 

 

EXACTLY. But most fans want the NFL to be like college, throwing for 500 and scoring 8 TDs. What QB is getting the most talk this week? Lamar Jackson.

Edited September 14, 2019 by PromoTheRobot

[yungmack]

These days, the under-300 yd. game is much, much more common than the over-300. As fans, we like the high-flying offense but the success of NE shows that the gunslinger approach probably isn't the best path for long-term dominance.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

 

Make them prove whatever you want. 

 

 

[MAJBobby]

41 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

EXACTLY. But most fans want the NFL to be like college, throwing for 500 and scoring 8 TDs. What QB is getting the most talk this week? Lamar Jackson.

 

Because he ran into a HS defense. And the Knocks on him of not being able to throw and read defenses. Fully expect him to come crashing to earth when seeing an actual NFL defense 

[TigerJ]

If a team has a decent running game, a strong defense can reduce the need for passing.  The reason is obvious.  A strong defense can keep the opponent's score low.  A run based offense tends not to produce points as quickly.  If you get far behind, your team will feel the need to produce points more quickly.  Therefore, the running game tends to get shoved to the side.  However, if you've got a good passing offense, you may choose to pass the ball anyway.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Scoring points quickly can put your opponent in the position of being well behind and feeling the need to abandon their own running game.  That makes their offense one dimensional, and easier to defend.  KC, with Pat Mahomes' remarkable skill set, is always going to pass a lot regardless of how strong their defense might be, and they will pass even with a strong running game, and big leads in games.  It's just who they are. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Yards is a pointless stat whether it is QB 300 yard games or yards allowed by a defense.

The only stats that matter beyond the score are in order:

Turnover margin

QB TD/INT ratio

QB YPA

Total INT forced - fumbles are mostly random, it is the INT by the defense that matters

Sacks/Pressures

 

 

 

 

[formerlyofCtown]

4 hours ago, matter2003 said:

At the end of the day all that matters is that your team has one more point than the other team. Kind of like last week.

 

No style points for wins...at the end of the year the only thing people see is your record.

 

 

So we lose if we have more than one more point??

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

3 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

I believe a team can be successful without a 300 yard per game passer if they have an ELITE defense and a strong running game.

 

Russell Wilson is a good example:

 

In Russell Wilson's first four seasons, he had an elite defense and strong running game. The defense finished 1st in pts against 4 times and 3rd once. 

During that period, Wilson played in 80 regular season games and passed for over 300 yards 7 times (8% of the games). He played in 12 post season games, including 2 Super Bowls and passed for over 300 yards twice(17% of the games) (both lossess).

 

In his last two seasons, the defense fell out of the top ten in points against and he didn't have as strong of a running game. During that time, he played in 32 games and passed for over 300 yards 4 times (12% of the games). He played in only one playoff game for those two years.

 

So, overall, Wilson has played in 125 NFL games and has passed for over 300 yds in 13 of them (10% of his games). When he had a top defense in points against, he was going deep in the playoffs (12 playoff games in 5 seasons). When the defense and running game slipped, 1 playoff game in two seasons.

 

Thanks for diving deeper WRG Wilson and passing yards. Like I said earlier, I think this team is built very similar to how the Seahawks were built, and defensively, the scheme is very similar. The Bills seem to disguise blitzes more (while seemingly not blitzing at a high rate), and show a lot of double A gap, but IMO the comparisons are there. Lots of cover 1 and 3. Strong DB and LB play, good pressure and solid containment up front with 4. It's a mix of Seahawks '13 and Panthers '15 defenses. Where the Seahawks benefitted most IMO was having multiple starters on defense, and their QB, that were on rookie contracts, many of which being cheaper, late round picks. The window for success that the Seahawks created revolved around those factors, and the Bills have built their roster in a similar fashion.

 

Wilson was a second year QB in '13, Allen a second year QB now. He was certainly a better, more accurate and consistent passer than Allen currently is, but both are good running QBs that make things happen outside the pocket when plays break down, Allen being a much stronger runner. Allen's development may be behind where Wilson's development was at the time (he played at a high level at NCS/Wisconsin, beat out highly paid FA Matt Flynn in camp), but Allen has shown improvement in key areas, especially areas that were viewed as weaknesses in his game as a prospect and NFL rookie. As the game continues to slow down for Josh, and more balls are released on time, the passing attack should be more efficient, and giveaways should decrease a bit.

 

I don't expect a 3/1 TD:INT ratio from Josh, like Wilson had that year, but approximately 3,300 yards passing, along with 350+ yards rushing and something around 2/1 should be good enough. He doesn't have a tough, grinding RB like Lynch, but Singletary looks promising. With him, Gore, and Yeldon, the Bills at least have a formidable backfield, and an improved offensive line to give them opportunities. 

 

As far as 300+ yard passing games goes, there's really no correlation to winning. In fact, if I had to guess, I would think that it correlates more with losing efforts, since teams that play from behind need to pass more towards the end of games, and defenses are more concerned with taking away the big play. Guys like Matt Stafford and Jameis Winston have several 300+ yard passing games, but not too many wins to go along with them. And while that's not always all on them, much of those numbers likely came in garbage time or while playing catch up. Playing with leads generally should lead to lower passing yards, and higher rushing yards.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Drunken Pygmy Goat

[WideNine]

Great question Promo,

 

I think many of the better offenses in the league mask pretty poor defenses, or one dimensional defenses that only perform well with a lead where they can just focus on pinning their ears back and rushing the passer.

 

One of the main reasons Daboll has been working with Allen on his short game is not just that it forces him to make pre-snap reads of the defense, but also that working your way down the field eats clock and rests your defense. A good mix of run and short pass with a solid defense can win just as much as an explosive offense IMO because you limit the other teams offensive snaps and keep your defense fresh.

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

You are shifting my post from what I was saying. I wasn't claiming you don't need an offense. Just that if you have a good D, your good offense doesn't have to light things up. Of course if your defense is getting gashed the offense has to keep pace.

 

People say McDermott is conservative. I don't think he is necessarily. But I do think if he's got a 2 or 3 score lead and the defense is bottling things up, he's not going to air it out.

 

Having that defense to lean on certainly dictates how you call a game on offense, to some extent. Last week, the Bills started with 18 straight passes, which is unheard of (ESPECIALLY for the Bills), but it was the game plan going in, to attack what was a weak secondary. That plan, in theory, helps speed up the development of our young QB. Allen looked pretty good on those first few drives, until mistakes happened. With the bad comes the good, though, and those were "good" learning moments for him. And in the end, what we all learned about Josh is that he has a very short memory, and bounces back well. He's very confident in himself, and that resonates throughout the roster. 

 

Sorry for side-tracking...your thread is self explanatory. In most cases, teams with good defensive play are going to be a bit more conservative on offense, because they can afford to be. Oppenent strengths and weaknesses can play a role and dictate variances, but generally coaches will play to their own strengths first. Very rarely do we see teams with big leads get greedy like the **Pats did @Buffalo in 2015. It nearly came back to bite the hoodie in the butt, which is why you typically don't see that happen. It's much safer to control and kill the clock in that scenario and preserve the win (they nearly blew a very high "win probability" percentage with that lead). I think they were just pissed that the Bills were selling ball pumps in the Bills Store leading up to that game, and wanted to make an example out of them. 

 

I like the idea of keeping your foot on the opponent's throat in certain scenarios, but at some point, you have to stop being greedy and have to limit putting the ball in the air, and protect it by running and killing clock. See the Falcons/**Pats SB in the final minutes. That was more of a colossal collapse than it was a miracle comeback, and that falls squarely in the guys calling the plays.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Drunken Pygmy Goat

[LSHMEAB]

JA and the offense as a whole need to be much more efficient and productive in order for the Bills to beat quality opponents. You can't expect THAT kind of performance by the defense week in and week out. When you start talking about facing Brady, Mahomes, Watson, etc; the defense is highly likely to surrender a good number of points even if they play well. You've got to be able to counter that with firepower from your own offense. To a certain extent, if you build a lead early and the defense plays lights out; yes. It will limit the number of passing attempts.

 

I'm not so concerned with passing yards as others have alluded to, although it would be nice to see. Main area of growth needs to be efficiency.

[WideNine]

2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

JA and the offense as a whole need to be much more efficient and productive in order for the Bills to beat quality opponents. You can't expect THAT kind of performance by the defense week in and week out. When you start talking about facing Brady, Mahomes, Watson, etc; the defense is highly likely to surrender a good number of points even if they play well. You've got to be able to counter that with firepower from your own offense. To a certain extent, if you build a lead early and the defense plays lights out; yes. It will limit the number of passing attempts.

 

I'm not so concerned with passing yards as others have alluded to, although it would be nice to see. Main area of growth needs to be efficiency.

 

 

I think the turnovers were the biggest issue. Turning it over deep in our own zone, or turning it over deep in your opponents red zone. We had both and you are right, against a well-coached team that would have been it for the game.

 

The only consolation I take is that the majority of the turnovers were flukes, ball being popped up by receiver, ball being tipped at line right to a defender, and Morse who was arguably rusty hiking the ball into his thigh anticipating the rush of Williams. Outside of those I saw Allen march the team down the field and make some good reads on the defense and Singletary in his rookie debut made yards and did not put the ball on the carpet. As a work in progress I think it was a step forward, but we will see if they have ironed out the flukes against the G-men.

[LSHMEAB]

23 minutes ago, WideNine said:

24 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

 

I think the turnovers were the biggest issue. Turning it over deep in our own zone, or turning it over deep in your opponents red zone. We had both and you are right, against a well-coached team that would have been it for the game.

 

The only consolation I take is that the majority of the turnovers were flukes, ball being popped up by receiver, ball being tipped at line right to a defender, and Morse who was arguably rusty hiking the ball into his thigh anticipating the rush of Williams. Outside of those I saw Allen march the team down the field and make some good reads on the defense and Singletary in his rookie debut made yards and did not put the ball on the carpet. As a work in progress I think it was a step forward, but we will see if they have ironed out the flukes against the G-men.

To be fair, we also got away with a couple TO's, but I would agree that they were generally fluky. Would also agree that they moved the ball relatively well which is a positive indicator going forward. Nevertheless, everything still has to be a little bit better offensively if we're truly going to compete from the QB on down.

 

[vorpma]

4 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Can we pull off the win when the defense gets gashed?  Or do we get blown out like the past?  

 

If Our Offense can win games when defense is getting gashed then yes it is a good team. 

 

If the defense is getting gashed and the offense can not pass to keep up and a blowout occurs like has happened so often before than yes it is still a flawed football team. 

In simpler terms, find a way to win - offense, defense, special teams. 1990 - 1993 we put lots of points on the board and big time yardage passing but could not win the big one; no defense.

3 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

You are shifting my post from what I was saying. I wasn't claiming you don't need an offense. Just that if you have a good D, your good offense doesn't have to light things up. Of course if your defense is getting gashed the offense has to keep pace.

 

People say McDermott is conservative. I don't think he is necessarily. But I do think if he's got a 2 or 3 score lead and the defense is bottling things up, he's not going to air it out.

Great post, I get what you are saying and agree. I still love watching a great, bruising defensive battle but in the twenty - first century that is boring to many. Hell, I still love pitchers duels! I love watching offense when its the Bills lighting up scoreboards but still want a dominant shut down defense!

[CircleTheWagons99]

Cam threw for 300+ yards on Thursday night.  Just saying...

[eanyills]

2 hours ago, yungmack said:

These days, the under-300 yd. game is much, much more common than the over-300. As fans, we like the high-flying offense but the success of NE shows that the gunslinger approach probably isn't the best path for long-term dominance.

 

 

Technically, yes, as it always has been, but the 300 yard game is actually more common than its ever been for NFL QB’s.

 

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/300-yard-passing.html?yr=2010

Edited September 14, 2019 by eanyills

[John from Riverside]

The thing is our d is not going to win every game 

 

[skibum]

I think that regardless of how good your defense is, you try to score a touchdown on every offensive posession. Run, pass, what difference does it make unless you're actually behind on the scoreboard and are forced to take more chances and pass more. It's not like if you're up 10-7 you're going to take your foot off the gas because you have a great defense.  In the NFL, you can't let up on offense until you have a sizable cushion of points late in the game.

[iinii]

It can. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Stats swing wildly at that 2 minute warning at the half.     

Prevent defenses allow a lot of yards in the air.  

 

Then if a team is down big they abandon the run and pass to catch up.  

 

Balance is the key imo.