Bills Offense - Why it Frustrates- Why Total Productivity is Not Likely to Improve (there will Math)

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

1 minute ago, Airseven said:

Another issue is Allen imploding under pressure, whether by costly turnover, inaccurate throw, or bungled sneak. These sorts of analyses by Bills fans are problematic because they’re often built on the faulty premise that Allen is elite. Elite arm strength and athleticism, sure. But elite QB? No. His inconsistency is part of this problem.

 

Right. Because he imploded under pressure in the 2021 postseason when he had the highest passer rating of all time for a playoff.  And he's shown an inability to win games last year in the clutch when he only led the Bills to a 4-3 record in such games in the regular season. Mahomes was 2-2 in the regular season in similar chances. 

[GoBills808]

16 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

Yep. If the goal is to make the offense more efficient, is there a more efficient play than dumping a ball off to the RB in the flat or a short curl for a gain of 7 yards? A pass that has like a 90% completion rate. 

So in your view comp% = efficiency

 

Yet you're saying Davis is sufficient 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

So in your view comp% = efficiency

 

Yet you're saying Davis is sufficient 

I also said Davis needs a decreased target share. You must have missed hat in my post?
 

The targets taken away from Davis should be redistributed to the slot and RB’s and thereby increasing overall efficiency. 
 

And as I also mentioned I would suspect Davis’ production per target would increase with fewer targets. 

 

Basically we would increase the efficiency of the offense on both ends. The deeper and longer routes become more efficient and the shorter  more efficient routes become more frequent. 
 

 

Also, Davis fills a role in this offense. You can’t hav an efficient offense without a deep threat longer route running receiver. Even if those are lower completion percentage plays you need to have them as part of the offense and a balanced attack. 
 

 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

I also said Davis needs a decreased target share. You must have missed hat in my post?
 

The targets taken away from Davis should be redistributed to the slot and RB’s and thereby increasing overall efficiency. 
 

And as I also mentioned I would suspect Davis’ production per target would increase with fewer targets. 

 

Basically we would increase the efficiency of the offense on both ends. The deeper and longer routes become more efficient and the shorter  more efficient routes become more frequent. 
 

 

I did miss that, I agree w most of this

 

Except I don't believe Davis's production gets better w fewer targets but the offense would benefit from having a more capable second option obviously

[PBF81]

OFFENSIVE LINE!!!  

 

 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

14 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

IExcept I don't believe Davis's production gets better w fewer targets but the offense would benefit from having a more capable second option obviously

 

I'll disagree here. No idea how much his production per target would increase with a decrease in targets. But when you are not forcing the issue to a receiver and rather hitting them on more open targets or greater separation targets their efficiency should increase. 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

I'll disagree here. No idea how much his production per target would increase with a decrease in targets. But when you are not forcing the issue to a receiver and rather hitting them on more open targets or greater separation targets their efficiency should increase. 

So as much as I think Davis is limited, taking targets away from him as the offense is constructed now means they are going to untested guys who are likely just as if not even more inefficient...imo we badly need a second option at wideout

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

So as much as I think Davis is limited, taking targets away from him as the offense is constructed now means they are going to untested guys who are likely just as if not even more inefficient...imo we badly need a second option at wideout

Not trying to be sarcastic but isn’t that what they’re at least partly hoping the “untested” guys will be? 

[GoBills808]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Not trying to be sarcastic but isn’t that what they’re at least partly hoping the “untested” guys will be? 

Yes but I'm not super confident in the idea that guys just blossom out of nowhere

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Yes but I'm not super confident in the idea that guys just blossom out of nowhere

 

 

I’m not sure a #1 draft pick is considered out of nowhere.

 

BTW….are you in Hawaii?

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not sure a #1 draft pick is considered out of nowhere.

 

BTW….are you in Hawaii?

The rookie TE I do expect to contribute

 

 yes I am

[BillsShredder83]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

Or problem has been that tree playoffs however, and Dogs has been more invisible than Davis therein, especially considering his status.  

 

Regular season is not our issue.  

 

 

I generally agree. Playoffs is a different animal. Teams are going to sell out to stop your #1 weapon. That's why you need 2 weapons in today's NFL.

 

If a D sells out to stop Diggs, there's no reason Gabe (or any real #2) shouldn't consistently torch the defense.

 

Imo the problem is Gabe only able to create separation on deep routes. 

 

Commit the resources to shutting down Diggs, cheat towards guarding against deep stuff on Gabes side, force him to beat you on short stuff (which he can't). 

 

Diggs also needs to step it up but IMO Dorsey didn't do him any favors this year.

 

Bottom line we were too 1dimemsional. If you don't have to sweat a run game, aren't worried about a #2 hurting you, aren't getting any pressure from the slot, you're gunna have some success

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

33 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

So as much as I think Davis is limited, taking targets away from him as the offense is constructed now means they are going to untested guys who are likely just as if not even more inefficient...imo we badly need a second option at wideout

 

Getting production at the RB position in the passing game should be a matter of just throwing the ball to whoever is out there. It's much more plug and play at that position. Hines, Cook and Singletary all could have contributed a lot more in that regard if we just targeted them more. 

 

I agree with the slot, the guys actually have to be capable and learn the position.  But really shouldn't be any excuses to not get more out of the RB group in the passing game. 

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

Getting production at the RB position in the passing game should be a matter of just throwing the ball to whoever is out there. It's much more plug and play at that position. Hines, Cook and Singletary all could have contributed a lot more in that regard if we just targeted them more. 

 

I agree with the slot, the guys actually have to be capable and learn the position.  But really shouldn't be any excuses to not get more out of the RB group in the passing game. 

Do good offenses target their RBs a lot tho? I mean is that an efficient use of a down 

 

 

[Beck Water]

On 7/15/2023 at 6:17 AM, GunnerBill said:

Linked to the psychological closing issue is the number if games the Bills lose by 1 score where our offense has the ball last. All 3 defeats last year in the regular season fall into that category and over the last 2 years it has been a recurring issue. That shouldn't be happening with an elite QB and it may well be partly mental.

 

However, I think both - redzone and end of game - are the situations where the pressure rachets up on our pass protection and it invariably has failed.

 

Meaning no offense, Gunner, but if you're speaking of the Bills 3 losses last season, I don't think you can call all 3 of them examples of some "psychological closing issue". 

 

The win against the Packers could justifiably be described that way, as could the OT loss to the Vikings.

 

The loss to the Dolphins was a story of mistakes and missed opportunities all game long

-a fumble on the Buf 7 yd line leading to a TD

-a punt after 3 straight incomplete passes from the MIA 45 yd line

-end of half after 1st and 10 from MIA 41 with 14 seconds left

-FG after 1st and 11 from the MIA 11 yd line

-blocked FG after 1st and 10 from the MIA 26

-TOD after 1st and goal from the MIA 2

 

I believe the Jets loss would have a similar assessment of miscues and missed opportunities.

 

There are problems there, but that isn't a "psychological closing issue".

 

23 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Do good offenses target their RBs a lot tho? I mean is that an efficient use of a down

 

It depends on the RB in question, right?  I mean, the SB era Bills used to target Thurman Thomas a lot and I recall it being a damned efficient use of a down.

 

If there is good coverage of the receivers and the QB throws to the RB in the flat or a short route who then gains 4-6 yards, is that an efficient use of a down relative to a long incompletion?  Now it's 2nd and 4 or 2nd and 6. vs 2nd and 10.

[Shaw66]

38 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

I generally agree. Playoffs is a different animal. Teams are going to sell out to stop your #1 weapon. That's why you need 2 weapons in today's NFL.

 

If a D sells out to stop Diggs, there's no reason Gabe (or any real #2) shouldn't consistently torch the defense.

 

Imo the problem is Gabe only able to create separation on deep routes. 

 

Commit the resources to shutting down Diggs, cheat towards guarding against deep stuff on Gabes side, force him to beat you on short stuff (which he can't). 

 

Diggs also needs to step it up but IMO Dorsey didn't do him any favors this year.

 

Bottom line we were too 1dimemsional. If you don't have to sweat a run game, aren't worried about a #2 hurting you, aren't getting any pressure from the slot, you're gunna have some success

Yes, if the D sells out to stop Diggs, there's no reason the rest of the receiving corps shouldn't pick up the slack. 

 

But, no, it's not about a receiver being able to get separation, and it's not about Davis "beating" anyone short.   The point is that when a defense "sells out" to stop a weapon (which usually means some kind of double team), the rest of the defensive seven have too much field to be able to cover the whole space.   There are opportunities to get open simply by running well-designed routes efficiently.   That's on Dorsey's route design and playcalling, it's on the backs and receivers making the reads and executing their routes, and it's on Allen reading the defenses and making the throws accurately and on time.  

 

There are very few receivers in the league who consistently get separation on their own, one on one.   A few do with speed and good cuts, like Tyreek, and a few do it with lightning-quick stops, starts, and changes of direction, like Diggs.  Except for the true #1s who happen to be playing the #2 until their rookie contracts run out, very few #2s get separation on their own.  

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Meaning no offense, Gunner, but if you're speaking of the Bills 3 losses last season, I don't think you can call all 3 of them examples of some "psychological closing issue". 

 

The win against the Packers could justifiably be described that way, as could the OT loss to the Vikings.

 

The loss to the Dolphins was a story of mistakes and missed opportunities all game long

-a fumble on the Buf 7 yd line leading to a TD

-a punt after 3 straight incomplete passes from the MIA 45 yd line

-end of half after 1st and 10 from MIA 41 with 14 seconds left

-FG after 1st and 11 from the MIA 11 yd line

-blocked FG after 1st and 10 from the MIA 26

-TOD after 1st and goal from the MIA 2

 

I believe the Jets loss would have a similar assessment of miscues and missed opportunities.

 

There are problems there, but that isn't a "psychological closing issue".

 

 

It depends on the RB in question, right?  I mean, the SB era Bills used to target Thurman Thomas a lot and I recall it being a damned efficient use of a down.

 

If there is good coverage of the receivers and the QB throws to the RB in the flat or a short route who then gains 4-6 yards, is that an efficient use of a down relative to a long incompletion?  Now it's 2nd and 4 or 2nd and 6. vs 2nd and 10.

The Bills didn't suffer from moving the chains tho, they were 5th in the league in first downs generated w one fewer game... First downs per game top 3

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

I did miss that, I agree w most of this

 

Except I don't believe Davis's production gets better w fewer targets but the offense would benefit from having a more capable second option obviously

 

I'm trying to think who it was, but someone (maybe Cover1?) did a deep-dive into Gabe Davis targets.

 

The conclusion, as I recall, is that a lot of his targets were essentially deep throw-aways, not catchable balls.  Then there were the picks thrown in Davis direction - 6 last season, 2 in 2021.

 

So yeah, if some of those are re-distributed to the slot or the RB, even if Davis has as much trouble with drops as he did last season, Davis production (I guess depending upon how you define production?) should improve.

 

To give some perspective, we're talking about like 2 targets per game.  Davis was targeted on average 6 times per game last season.  In 2021 and 2020, he was targeted 4 times per game. 

 

In 2020 and 2021, Beasley was targeted 7 times per game.  In 2022, McKenzie was targeted 4.33 times per game and Crowder in the 4 games he played, 3.25, so they combined to track with Beasley's targets.  But after Crowder was injured, no one picked up the slack.  Shakir 1.4 targets/ game. 

 

Knox target share also decreased by about half a target per game between 2022 and 2021.

[Shaw66]

13 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

It depends on the RB in question, right?  I mean, the SB era Bills used to target Thurman Thomas a lot and I recall it being a damned efficient use of a down.

 

If there is good coverage of the receivers and the QB throws to the RB in the flat or a short route who then gains 4-6 yards, is that an efficient use of a down relative to a long incompletion?  Now it's 2nd and 4 or 2nd and 6. vs 2nd and 10.

I think this problem is part of a bigger issue with Allen.   Now, before everyone gets upset, I'm not saying Allen is a problem.   I think the issue with Allen is how does he get from being a great player, truly great, to being an elite NFL quarterback.  I don't think he's there yet.  

 

One principal difference between Allen and the truly elite QBs is that Allen still has not learned to take the sure good play over the possible great play.   Allen's operating rules, in order, seem to be (1) get a great play, (2) get a good play, (3) get positive yardage, (4) avoid negative plays, (5) avoid turnovers.   Maybe not exactly that, but something like that.   Tom Brady got to be the GOAT by having operating rules in the exact opposite order.   That is (1) no turnovers, (2) no negative plays, (3) get something, (4) get a chunk, (5 get a home run.  

 

People hated it when Jauron (and others) say, " a punt is a good play."  Brady understood that.  He would throw an incompletion on third down to avoid a possible INT.  Allen still throws the INT.   

 

So, yes, you're right about easy completions to the back.  Take the 4-6 yards, maybe the back breaks it for more, maybe not, go back to the huddle and call another play.   Allen's great at taking the chunk plays and the home runs when they're there, and he definitely should continue.  But if he's going to be an elite QB, he needs to stop taking a shot for a chunk or TD when it's a jump ball; he needs to take the sure positive yardage and still have another play to get the first down.   

[Beck Water]

14 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

The Bills didn't suffer from moving the chains tho, they were 5th in the league in first downs generated w one fewer game... First downs per game top 3

 

They didn't suffer from moving the chains until they did.  The post you're responding to starts with a response to @GunnerBill detailing situations where the Bills failed to move the chains at all in situations where even a single 1st down would mean points.  Getting 6 yards from the RB on 1st down instead of 3 straight deep incompletions could make a difference there, not?