RUN DEFENSE FIX. YOU ARE WELCOME COACH

[kirkwoodus13]

The 3-4 games of the season, the bills defense was vey good . In the jets game Bell was very effective as a runner and passer, even though he didn't have big statistical number. In a that game  one player in defense was hurt and subsequently missed the next three games.  The player that took his spot was a rookie last year and has been dominant on special teams. To me, its not a coincidence that our run defense started to look horrible since this starter returned to the line up. Number 24 JOHNSON needs to be benched or given a chance to compete outside for Levi spot. The starting nickel should be number 33 NEAL. He has been great this year on defense and special teams . When he was moved from safety to DB, I was skeptical. The move worked really well. Why the coaches went back to 24 is a beyond me. Neal has out played Johnson. He is bigger , better tackler, better in run support and cover skills is just as good. I am tired of seeing Wallace and Johnson getting beat. If Oliver could loose his starting job to Phillips based on performance, why is 24 still playing in front of 33. Put this kid back in and see how his physical style change this defense. He reminds me so much of Cam Phillips. Keep this kid on the field and our run defense is automatically better. You are welcome .

[MAJBobby]

Just now, kirkwoodus13 said:

The 3-4 games of the season, the bills defense was vey good . In the jets game Bell was very effective as a runner and passer, even though he didn't have big statistical number. In a that game  one player in defense was hurt and subsequently missed the next three games.  The player that took his spot was a rookie last year and has been dominant on special teams. To me, its not a coincidence that our run defense started to look horrible since this starter returned to the line up. Number 24 JOHNSON needs to be benched or given a chance to compete outside for Levi spot. The starting nickel should be number 33 NEAL. He has been great this year on defense and special teams . When he was moved from safety to DB, I was skeptical. The move worked really well. Why the coaches went back to 24 is a beyond me. Neal has out played Johnson. He is bigger , better tackler, better in run support and cover skills is just as good. I am tired of seeing Wallace and Johnson getting beat. If Oliver could loose his starting job to Phillips based on performance, why is 24 still playing in front of 33. Put this kid back in and see how his physical style change this defense. He reminds me so much of Cam Phillips. Keep this kid on the field and our run defense is automatically better. You are welcome .

 

Easier way (well not for Bills).  SCORE MORE POINTS.  Offense can stop the run much faster and effective by SCORING MORE POINTS

[kirkwoodus13]

still have to run and stop the run to win championships.

[ProcessYaDigg]

4 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Easier way (well not for Bills).  SCORE MORE POINTS.  Offense can stop the run much faster and effective by SCORING MORE POINTS

Very true.  Put up points and force the other team to play catch up through the air

[MAJBobby]

6 minutes ago, kirkwoodus13 said:

still have to run and stop the run to win championships.

 

You hang 30 how much actual running is the other team going to do.

 

Yep Hang 30 and be able to run to close out the game STOPs the Run and your Defense didn't have to do a thing.

 

You run when you win, not win when you run.

The first article ever written for Football Outsiders was devoted to debunking the myth of "establishing the run." There is no correlation whatsoever between giving your running backs a lot of carries early in the game and winning the game. Just running the ball is not going to help a team score; it has to run successfully.

 

There are two reasons why nearly every beat writer and television analyst still repeats the tired old-school mantra that "establishing the run" is the secret to winning football games. The first problem is confusing cause and effect. There are exceptions, usually when the opponent is strong in every area except run defense, like last year's Green Bay Packers. However, in general, winning teams have a lot of carries because their running backs are running out the clock at the end of wins, not because they are running wild early in games.

 

The second problem is history. Most of the current crop of NFL analysts came of age or actually played the game during the 1970s. They believe that the run-heavy game of that decade is how football is meant to be, and today's pass-first game is an aberration. As we addressed in an essay in Pro Football Prospectus 2007 about the history of NFL stats, it was actually the game of the 1970s that was the aberration. The seventies were far more slanted towards the run than any era since the arrival of Paul Brown, Otto Graham, and the Cleveland Browns in 1946. Optimal strategies from 1974 are not optimal strategies for today's game.

 

A sister statement to "you have to establish the run" is "team X is 5-1 when running back John Doe runs for at least 100 yards." Unless John Doe is ripping off six-yard gains Jamaal Charles-style, the team isn't winning because of his 100-yard games. He's putting up 100-yard games because his team is winning.

A great defense against the run is nothing without a good pass defense.

This is a corollary to the absurdity of "establish the run." If you don't believe us, meet our good friends the 2006-2007 Minnesota Vikings (or, for a more recent example, the 2014 St. Louis Rams). With rare exceptions, teams win or lose with the passing game more than the running game -- and by stopping the passing game more than the running game. The reason why teams need a strong run defense in the playoffs is not to shut the run down early, it's to keep the other team from icing the clock if they get a lead. You can't mount a comeback if you can't stop the run.

 

Note that "good pass defense" may mean "good pass rush" rather than "good defensive backs."

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by MAJBobby

[kirkwoodus13]

If I can run the ball control the clock, keep a high powered offense of the field, control down and distance making it easier for my defense to dictate the game. There is no dominant one dimensional offense. Great defense usually stop the run and make teams pass. Except for KC this rule will work against everyone else.

[Virgil]

Spacing is your friend.  I can’t even read that block of words 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

27 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Easier way (well not for Bills).  SCORE MORE POINTS.  Offense can stop the run much faster and effective by SCORING MORE POINTS

I think all of it in balance, stout on the run and bullish on O, go hand in glove. Also, will be so happy once you are permitted to change your avatar back to something more befitting a Bills fan

[Luka]

@MAJBobby that's all well and good when you have an established QB but most teams do not. You run first because you are attempting to create opportunities in the passing game with play action. You want the backers and corners on their toes rather than their heels so to speak, cheating up to stop the run. You can see the difference in our offense when we attempt play action and no one bites and you just end up with a condensed route tree and everyone covered. A multi dimensional offense is always harder to stop than an offense that relies on only the run or only the pass. In fact there are stats that prove passing a lot, passing for over 300 yards, not really that important either, with QBs having about a .500 record when doing so.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Luka

[MAJBobby]

16 minutes ago, kirkwoodus13 said:

If I can run the ball control the clock, keep a high powered offense of the field, control down and distance making it easier for my defense to dictate the game. There is no dominant one dimensional offense. Great defense usually stop the run and make teams pass. Except for KC this rule will work against everyone else.

 

Just showed you how Analytics do not prove that out.

 

Also Another one people wont like teams are 

 

4 Parts Offense

3 Parts Defense 

1 Part Special Teams

4 minutes ago, Luka said:

@MAJBobby that's all well and good when you have an established QB but most teams do not. You run first because you are attempting to create opportunities in the passing game with play action. You want the backers and corners on their toes rather than their heels so to speak, cheating up to stop the run. You can see the difference in our offense when we attempt play action and no one bites and you just end up with a condensed route tree and everyone covered. A muli dimensional offense is always harder to stop than an offense that relies on only the run or only the pass. In fact there are stats that prove passing a lot, passing for over 300 yards, not really that important either, with QBs having about a .500 record when doing so.

 

Play-action works regardless of the effectiveness of the Run game.  That has also been proven.

Conclusion

We have an ever-growing body of evidence that teams don't need to run often -- or run well -- to set up play-action. Play-action works for teams that run frequently, infrequently, well, or poorly. For the vast majority of teams, it just works. From 2011 to 2017, 196 of 224 team-seasons had higher yards per play on play-action dropbacks than on non-play-action dropbacks. This includes teams like the 2017 Lions (9.4 yards per play-action play, No. 30 in rushing DVOA) and 2015 Jaguars (1.7 more yards per play on play-action dropbacks despite being No. 28 in rushing DVOA and only running 31 percent of the time).

 

For every team observed to have a strong play-action game and strong rushing attack, I can find an example of an effective play-action team that has a weak rushing attack. For every play where a successful play-action pass followed a series of runs, I can find a play where play-action succeeded despite not recently running. There just doesn't seem to be anything there

.

Finally, there's no evidence of teams using play-action a lot seeing any less benefit to play-action. Coaches treat play-action as a fragile toy that can only be brought out under certain conditions -- only after running, and only if it hasn't already been used it too much -- but it's more like the tennis racket I've had since high school: always ready, and always effective.

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/situational-play-action-passing-nfl

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/further-research-play-action-passing

Edited November 14, 2019 by MAJBobby

[Luka]

@MAJBobby But it still doesn't explain the .500 record. And those stats are most likely heavily skewed by guys like Brees, Rodgers etc that are effective 9 times out of 10 no matter what the play call is.

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Luka

[MAJBobby]

Just now, Luka said:

@MAJBobby But it still doesn't explain the .500 record. And those stats are most likely heavily skewed by guys like Brees, Rodgers etc that are effective 9 times out of 10 no matter what the play call is.

 

 

Their Other Article I posted above addresses that.  You run well when you win nor Win because of Running well.

 

And they are not skewed I suggest reading the Article.  You will start to see the effectiveness of play action has little Correlation to effectiveness or running th ball

Edited November 14, 2019 by MAJBobby

[GoBills808]

Run defense is sort of an overrated concept in today's NFL. Doesn't correlate highly with winning games...more important is for the offense to start improving on third downs and extending drives for TOP. Scoring more would also help...run defense not a big issue for me tbh

[Nextmanup]

49 minutes ago, kirkwoodus13 said:

still have to run and stop the run to win championships.

Right, as recently demonstrated in Super Bowl LII when Philly and New England combined for 874 passing yards.

 

 

Win in the trenches! 

 

 

[MarlinTheMagician]

Though I admit the post is somewhat difficult to hack through, I had the same thought as the OP.  Neal really seemed to be more stout when tackling, and equal in coverage.  Same with Johnson vs. Wallace, but Wallace is one of my faves and I would hate to see him take a step back.  Unless needed for the good of our Bills!

[MAJBobby]

2 minutes ago, MarlinTheMagician said:

Though I admit the post is somewhat difficult to hack through, I had the same thought as the OP.  Neal really seemed to be more stout when tackling, and equal in coverage.  Same with Johnson vs. Wallace, but Wallace is one of my faves and I would hate to see him take a step back.  Unless needed for the good of our Bills!

Only thing is where the Bills are being gashed in the Run Game between the OGs has very little to do with who the NB is. 

[kirkwoodus13]

The run is getting gashed every where. Tackling especially from Johnson has been bad. NEAL  is a better player than Johnson right now and he should be playing more.

[Buffalo716]

Siran Neal is a good sub package player but that's what he is rn .. a sub package player with some exploitable parts of his game

 

A good coach would be able to exploit his weaknesses and lack of speed downfield but as a ST player and a role guy he certainly has been developing and he's a great tackler

Edited November 14, 2019 by Buffalo716

[MAJBobby]

10 minutes ago, kirkwoodus13 said:

The run is getting gashed every where. Tackling especially from Johnson has been bad. NEAL  is a better player than Johnson right now and he should be playing more.

We get it you like Neal. Most of us do. But how does a NB help when he doesn’t see the RB for 15 yards because they are being gashed inside the OGs?

[BuffaninSarasota]

2 hours ago, Virgil said:

Spacing is your friend.  I can’t even read that block of words 

 

wondering myself if English is his first language. That was painful to (try to) read .....