VABills Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Baltimore's & Jets RB are also in the 40% range. See anything consistEnt here? 468954[/snapback] Jets are 1-3 with their main guy getting 39% but the RB's only getting 46%. Ravens are 1-2 with Lewis at 29% and backs at 42%. Yeah what I see is other than the lucky Skins, the more you run the more you win.
silvermike Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Stats in this case can be misleading for any number of reasons (mostly situational). Different teams have little in common with how often they should run. The truth is that our running game can be successful, even when the opponents stick eight in the box, and we're not running in those situations. Watch the games! How often do you say "Run the ball!" How often do they?
BuffOrange Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 It's not just how often he touches the ball, but also when. They fail to give him the ball in many key situations that call for it. 468919[/snapback] You mean like when they have 3rd & inches and 4th & inches near midfield when they're trailing in the 2nd half? Oh wait, they did give him the ball then.
GG Posted October 7, 2005 Author Posted October 7, 2005 How abut Washington who has won all three on the final play of the game. No chance to run the clock out, yet they are 3-0. They have Portis touching it 33%, and the running backs at 47%. We have Willis at 37% and running backs at 46%. 468964[/snapback] Are you trying to make my point for me again?
VABills Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Are you trying to make my point for me again? 469015[/snapback] No my point is except for a lucky throw, a bad kick and a bunch of penalties against Chicago, Washington would be 0-3. My point was they should run there star more as well, and not rely on last second chance to win games.
GG Posted October 7, 2005 Author Posted October 7, 2005 Not to mention that the percentage of Willis's touches is skewed, because the Offense has so many 3-and-out series that there aren't a whole lot of offensive plays to begin with... 468980[/snapback] Ding. Ding. Give that man a Krispy Kreme.
GG Posted October 7, 2005 Author Posted October 7, 2005 Again, you can jerk off to statistics as much as you guys want, but anyone who watches the games can see that Willis is not getting the ball in many situations that expressly call for it. The bringing him in and out on 3rd downs is also leading to a predictability of the offense. 468980[/snapback] I have watched the games, many times to my misfortune. I could probably count on both hands where Bills should have run instead of passed. In this instance you can't discount field position and what the opponent was showing. The debate again boils to JP's inability to consistently convert a 3rd down. If you take a look at the 3rd down plays where Shaud is in instead of Willis, I doubt that #21 would have made a difference in any but 2 or 3 plays. And if there's a concern about predictability, how much more rote can you be than giving it to Willis 55% of the time on a team that has the 10th most 3rd down attemps and is the 4th worst in converting them?
bbills17 Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 He should be touching the ball at least 43-45% of the plays. With the backs as a whole touching it closer to 55%.EDITED: Take Indy for example, a "passing team". Has run on 52% of their plays. Edge has touched the ball 46% of the plays. The running backs in total have 54% of their touches. Guess what I believe they are 4-0. 468912[/snapback] I disagree. Willis has not been running well, the real myth is that people say he has. All of his decent runs have been the result of very nice holes opened up for him. He hasn't 'made something out of nothing' as other great backs do, nor as he really broke one and ran away from defenders (because he doesn't have that kind of speed anymore). Look back at all the runs for losses, or 1-2 yards, you can't get a drive going like that! He gets the odd decent run of 10-20 yards to keep the avg. up, but you can't maintain a drive with running like that. You guys really overrate Willis McGahee, he's simply not that good.
VABills Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 I have watched the games, many times to my misfortune. I could probably count on both hands where Bills should have run instead of passed. In this instance you can't discount field position and what the opponent was showing. The debate again boils to JP's inability to consistently convert a 3rd down. If you take a look at the 3rd down plays where Shaud is in instead of Willis, I doubt that #21 would have made a difference in any but 2 or 3 plays. And if there's a concern about predictability, how much more rote can you be than giving it to Willis 55% of the time on a team that has the 10th most 3rd down attemps and is the 4th worst in converting them? 469036[/snapback] Hard to make 3-10 all day long. Maybe if Willis was running more on 1st and second, then those 3-10's would be 3-4 and we would make more. I would be curious to see what the average length of our 3rd down plays are, compared to others.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 I disagree. Willis has not been running well, the real myth is that people say he has. All of his decent runs have been the result of very nice holes opened up for him. He hasn't 'made something out of nothing' as other great backs do, nor as he really broke one and ran away from defenders (because he doesn't have that kind of speed anymore). Look back at all the runs for losses, or 1-2 yards, you can't get a drive going like that! He gets the odd decent run of 10-20 yards to keep the avg. up, but you can't maintain a drive with running like that. You guys really overrate Willis McGahee, he's simply not that good. 469042[/snapback] "Willis isn't good because he has to rely on blocking for hs 4.8 yards per carry average." Well, hell...if he can't get 4.8 yards per carry without blocking, then there's clearly no reason to run the ball.
GG Posted October 7, 2005 Author Posted October 7, 2005 Hard to make 3-10 all day long. Maybe if Willis was running more on 1st and second, then those 3-10's would be 3-4 and we would make more. I would be curious to see what the average length of our 3rd down plays are, compared to others. 469044[/snapback] Find somebody with a Scouts Inc account and they'll tell you. Wouldn't you venture to guess that if Bills were to give Willis the ball predictably more on 1st & 2nd downs, and knowing the play of the QB, his rushing stats would fall dramatically below 4.8 YpR? Do have a great degree of confidence that JP would be able to convert a 3rd & 4 on a much higher basis than a 3rd & 10?
VABills Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Find somebody with a Scouts Inc account and they'll tell you. Wouldn't you venture to guess that if Bills were to give Willis the ball predictably more on 1st & 2nd downs, and knowing the play of the QB, his rushing stats would fall dramatically below 4.8 YpR? Do have a great degree of confidence that JP would be able to convert a 3rd & 4 on a much higher basis than a 3rd & 10? 469060[/snapback] Yes because then he can rollout, and not have to worry about worrying about downfield patterns. Dumpoffs and screens are much more effective on 3and short vs. 3rd and long.
KRC Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Again, you can jerk off to statistics as much as you guys want, but anyone who watches the games can see that Willis is not getting the ball in many situations that expressly call for it. 468980[/snapback] Exactly my point. Stats do not tell the story.
VABills Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Exactly my point. Stats do not tell the story. 469070[/snapback] I agree, we need to run Willis more. I could have told you that without the stats.
Recommended Posts