smuvtalker Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 I think a 71% completion percentage with no INT's is *good* by any definition - particularly considering the style that the Bills want to play. JDG 486464[/snapback] Honestly, for once I wouldn't even mind 49% completion, with 275 yards passing. 70% and 153 yards is just plain crappy. I think if one of our QBs passed for 275, I'd probably burst into tears of joy...
Ramius Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 Honestly, for once I wouldn't even mind 49% completion, with 275 yards passing. 70% and 153 yards is just plain crappy. I think if one of our QBs passed for 275, I'd probably burst into tears of joy... 486491[/snapback] i agree completely. I hate this dink and dunk 20-25 for 125 yrds, 1 TD and 0 INT's What i wouldnt give just to see a 15-30 for 300, 3 TD's and 2 INT's...at least then we're attempting to throw the ball...
smuvtalker Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 i agree completely. I hate this dink and dunk 20-25 for 125 yrds, 1 TD and 0 INT'sWhat i wouldnt give just to see a 15-30 for 300, 3 TD's and 2 INT's...at least then we're attempting to throw the ball... 486498[/snapback] AMEN! Dang, those numbers just made my mouth water... That is so sad that we dream of a 15-30, 300 yard, 3TD and 2INT game....where the hell has our team fallen to???
BillsWatch Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 i agree completely. I hate this dink and dunk 20-25 for 125 yrds, 1 TD and 0 INT'sWhat i wouldnt give just to see a 15-30 for 300, 3 TD's and 2 INT's...at least then we're attempting to throw the ball... 486498[/snapback] Are we supposed to be a running or a throwing team? When not enough runs are called fans complain, when not enough long passes are called fans complain. When too many creative plays are called fans complain, when we run same type of plays we are too predictable, fans complain. Maybe fans just complain?
MDH Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 Are we supposed to be a running or a throwing team?When not enough runs are called fans complain, when not enough long passes are called fans complain. When too many creative plays are called fans complain, when we run same type of plays we are too predictable, fans complain. Maybe fans just complain? 486525[/snapback] Fans complain when the team loses.
Dan Gross Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 I think a 71% completion percentage with no INT's is *good* by any definition - particularly considering the style that the Bills want to play. JDG 486464[/snapback] Yes, the completion %age is good but if you look we have more rushing yards than passing yards over the course of the season, and we don't run enough. The yardage indicates that Holcomb is too gun-shy. Losman didn't think to dump off, but that's about all that Holcomb does. Trust me, it is easy to complete a screen pass to your running back on 3rd and 27. 5 out of 61 of his pass attempts have gone over 10 yards in the air. I'm not afraid to admit that I was one who would always get the outfield called in on him playing softball in gym class. Holcomb is playing like that type of QB...I believe the Raiders were even quoted saying so. We don't need to make it easier for the Defense by allowing them to effectively ignore the field at LOS+11 yards... I'm not advocating passing more frequently, I'm advocating making each passing play count.
Dan Gross Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 To add to it, Dr. Z adds an interesting point. Had not bothered to check to notice that the two QB's had the same attempts and completions with a 100+ yard differential in yardage. I do take umbrage to the assertion that the Bills are claiming that they are running a West Coast Offense though: Here's the difference between Norv Turner's true West Coast Offense and the horizontal passing game that calls itself by that name. Buffalo's Kelly Holcomb and the Raiders' Kerry Collins had identical pass-completion stats, 19-for-27. Collins' passes gained 261 yards, Holcomb's 159. The true West Coast Offense, which Turner learned in the L.A. Rams-Ernie Zampese system, is a down-the-field attack. Buffalo's version, misnamed the You Know What, is dink and dunk. This marks the 9,438th time I have imparted this information. And the end is nowhere in sight.
JDG Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 AMEN! Dang, those numbers just made my mouth water... That is so sad that we dream of a 15-30, 300 yard, 3TD and 2INT game....where the hell has our team fallen to??? 486507[/snapback] Maybe its what *you've* fallen tooo.... Personally, I think that those numbers would put us even further away from winning than we are... Holcomb isn't the problem. JDG
Ramius Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Are we supposed to be a running or a throwing team?When not enough runs are called fans complain, when not enough long passes are called fans complain. When too many creative plays are called fans complain, when we run same type of plays we are too predictable, fans complain. Maybe fans just complain? 486525[/snapback] do i think we should be an air it out run and shoot team...hell no, not with willis. As Dan gross said, "we have more rushing yards than passing yards over the course of the season, and we don't run enough." We need to pound willis game after game, to the tune of 25 carries. but there are going to be times when you need to pass the ball. And when we pass, we simply dont get anywhere. 5 yard passes are ok, unless thats all you throw, which is the bills offense. teams are playing no one deeper than 10 yards off the LOS, so when those shorties are completed, our WR's are tackled immediately. Eventually you have to air it out. When you are up 10, then run and toss in some short passes. But when on the road and down 14 in the 4th quarter, 5 yard passes arent gonna cut it, good completion percentage or not. Its been soooo long since we had a good passing day from ANY QB on our roster. I never thought 200 yards passing would look so good.
smuvtalker Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Maybe its what *you've* fallen tooo.... Personally, I think that those numbers would put us even further away from winning than we are... Holcomb isn't the problem. JDG 487345[/snapback] I highly doubt I'm the only one on this board who would be encouraged at the sight of a 300 yard passing game. What makes you think that one of our QBs passing for a 300 yard game would put us even further away from winning than we are, when defenses KNOW that we can't throw the ball downfield???
JDG Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 To add to it, Dr. Z adds an interesting point. Had not bothered to check to notice that the two QB's had the same attempts and completions with a 100+ yard differential in yardage. I do take umbrage to the assertion that the Bills are claiming that they are running a West Coast Offense though: 487309[/snapback] I don't see why you, Dr. Z, or anyone else takes umbrage at the use of a stupid name. Fine, call one the Coryell-West Coast Offense and the other the Walsh-West Coast Offense and been done with it.... but for pete's sake, I hope that Dr. Z stops whining about it.... JDG
JDG Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 I highly doubt I'm the only one on this board who would be encouraged at the sight of a 300 yard passing game. What makes you think that one of our QBs passing for a 300 yard game would put us even further away from winning than we are, when defenses KNOW that we can't throw the ball downfield??? 487353[/snapback] I think that completing 50% of our passes, boosting our sack totals, and increasing our number of turnovers would put us further away from winning - and I think that most smart NFL observers would agree. This is the NFL, not a fantasy football league. JDG
Orton's Arm Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 The yardage indicates that Holcomb is too gun-shy. Losman didn't think to dump off, but that's about all that Holcomb does. 486715[/snapback] With our offensive line (or lack thereof), that's about all any QB can do. Would you rather they bring back a Rob Johnson or Drew Bledsoe to try to get the deep passing game going?
smuvtalker Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 I think that completing 50% of our passes, boosting our sack totals, and increasing our number of turnovers would put us further away from winning - and I think that most smart NFL observers would agree. This is the NFL, not a fantasy football league. JDG 487362[/snapback] I'm not even in a fantasy league this year. But who's to necessarily say that passing for a 300 yard game would boost our sack total? Like I stated, I think it would be rather encouraging to see one of our QBs pass for 300 yards, and yes, I do consider myself to be smart NFL observer, regardless of what you think. At least defenses would see that we do have something that remotely resembles a passing game. I am a relatively new poster on here, but I won't let somebody on here try and belittle my knowledge of the game of football. You can agree to disagree, but don't be dick about it.
Dan Gross Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 With our offensive line (or lack thereof), that's about all any QB can do. Would you rather they bring back a Rob Johnson or Drew Bledsoe to try to get the deep passing game going? 487373[/snapback] No, but there's room for an intermediate passing game in there...you know, passes in the 10-20 yard range....Losman apparently had time to make those throws, why not Holcomb? I say it's because he's afraid to...you do need to take some risks....
Dan Gross Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 I don't see why you, Dr. Z, or anyone else takes umbrage at the use of a stupid name. Fine, call one the Coryell-West Coast Offense and the other the Walsh-West Coast Offense and been done with it.... but for pete's sake, I hope that Dr. Z stops whining about it.... JDG 487361[/snapback] I was just wondering who it was that told him we were supposedly running a "West Coast" offense...it was news to me.
JDG Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 I'm not even in a fantasy league this year. But who's to necessarily say that passing for a 300 yard game would boost our sack total? Like I stated, I think it would be rather encouraging to see one of our QBs pass for 300 yards, and yes, I do consider myself to be smart NFL observer, regardless of what you think. At least defenses would see that we do have something that remotely resembles a passing game. I am a relatively new poster on here, but I won't let somebody on here try and belittle my knowledge of the game of football. You can agree to disagree, but don't be dick about it. 487381[/snapback] The reason I smacked you down was that the original comparison was a choice between: 1) 20-25 for 125 yrds, 1 TD and 0 INT's and 2) 15-30 for 300, 3 TD's and 2 INT's When I stated my preference for #1, you responded by completely misrepresenting my position as not wanting 300 yards passing *ceteris paribis.* And so I figured if you were going to play dirty, I'll play dirty back - but that's water under the bridge at this point. I'll give you a serious response this time. I think that the reason we rely upon short passes is for a number of reasons is: 1) our offensive line cannot be relied upon to sustain protection long enough for deep routes to develop. 2) long passes generally produce either quick strike scores, INT's, or put you into 3rd-and-longs - which is highly correlated with punting. The result of all of these is to put our defense back on the field for longer stretches of time, which right now is the Achilles Heel of this team. 3) we are trying to establish a ball control, smash mouth, offensive identity The second option above proposes doing two things different philosophilcally: calling 20% more passes per game, and calling proportionally deeper routes on those passes. In any situation, but particularly given the Bills' current personnel, this will surely result in more sacks. Additionally, the above numbers suggest dropping our completion percentage from a League-best 70% to a paltry 50%. This would surely result in a lot more punts, and long stretches of our sieve-like defense on the field. And finally, the second choice above produces two additional turnovers - and the correlation of turnovers to losing hardly needs mentioning. We are all in agreement that the Bills are a mediocre to below-average team. I believe that Mularkey, Clements, & Co., however, have basically installed an the best offensive game plan for maximizing the results from the talent they have been dealt. Ideally, they want to run the ball a lot (hopefully for more than 3 yards per carry from the best back in the League) and use short passes to manage third downs, sustain drives, and run out the clock. Its not that we don't call *any* deep passes - we clearly do call 2-3 deep passes per game, which is enough to keep defenses honest. Unfortunately, the number of times deep passes have been called looks worse than it is because our offense has generally not executed the deep passes that have been called - either due to drops, sacks, or misthrown balls. Anyhow, I think that explains why I view option #1 above as being far superior to option #2 in trying to win ball games. JDG
JDG Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 I was just wondering who it was that told him we were supposedly running a "West Coast" offense...it was news to me. 487390[/snapback] No one at OBD has said it, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
smuvtalker Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 The reason I smacked you down was that the original comparison was a choice between:1) 20-25 for 125 yrds, 1 TD and 0 INT's and 2) 15-30 for 300, 3 TD's and 2 INT's When I stated my preference for #1, you responded by completely misrepresenting my position as not wanting 300 yards passing *ceteris paribis.* And so I figured if you were going to play dirty, I'll play dirty back - but that's water under the bridge at this point. I'll give you a serious response this time. I think that the reason we rely upon short passes is for a number of reasons is: 1) our offensive line cannot be relied upon to sustain protection long enough for deep routes to develop. 2) long passes generally produce either quick strike scores, INT's, or put you into 3rd-and-longs - which is highly correlated with punting. The result of all of these is to put our defense back on the field for longer stretches of time, which right now is the Achilles Heel of this team. 3) we are trying to establish a ball control, smash mouth, offensive identity The second option above proposes doing two things different philosophilcally: calling 20% more passes per game, and calling proportionally deeper routes on those passes. In any situation, but particularly given the Bills' current personnel, this will surely result in more sacks. Additionally, the above numbers suggest dropping our completion percentage from a League-best 70% to a paltry 50%. This would surely result in a lot more punts, and long stretches of our sieve-like defense on the field. And finally, the second choice above produces two additional turnovers - and the correlation of turnovers to losing hardly needs mentioning. We are all in agreement that the Bills are a mediocre to below-average team. I believe that Mularkey, Clements, & Co., however, have basically installed an the best offensive game plan for maximizing the results from the talent they have been dealt. Ideally, they want to run the ball a lot (hopefully for more than 3 yards per carry from the best back in the League) and use short passes to manage third downs, sustain drives, and run out the clock. Its not that we don't call *any* deep passes - we clearly do call 2-3 deep passes per game, which is enough to keep defenses honest. Unfortunately, the number of times deep passes have been called looks worse than it is because our offense has generally not executed the deep passes that have been called - either due to drops, sacks, or misthrown balls. Anyhow, I think that explains why I view option #1 above as being far superior to option #2 in trying to win ball games. JDG 487396[/snapback] I actually agree with every point that you just made. I wasn't playing dirty by any means, the only point I was trying to make is that I think we, as Bills fans, would love to see a day where our QB airs it out and we pass for 300 yards. In all honesty, I'd take 15-20, 150 yards passing, 1TD and 0INTs and a WIN over 300 yards, 3 tds and a loss anyday, that's a no-brainer. I was simply stating that I long for the days of the 200+ yard passing games, let alone the 300. Thanks for re-stating your point. You are a gentleman and a scholar...
MDH Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 I think that the reason we rely upon short passes is for a number of reasons is: 1) our offensive line cannot be relied upon to sustain protection long enough for deep routes to develop. 2) long passes generally produce either quick strike scores, INT's, or put you into 3rd-and-longs - which is highly correlated with punting. The result of all of these is to put our defense back on the field for longer stretches of time, which right now is the Achilles Heel of this team. 3) we are trying to establish a ball control, smash mouth, offensive identity 487396[/snapback] Okay, but why aren't we throwing intermediate routes? 10-20 yard crossing patters, outs, or curls? Decent chunks of yardage that keep the chains moving and make it much easier for the offense to score. It takes 13+ play drives to score when the O is consistently throwing 5-yard patters. It also makes the O much easier to defend, as the D doesn’t have to concern itself with the entire field. It also means that there are more opportunities for drive killing mistakes to happen. One holding call kills a drive for an offense that can’t complete a pass over 10 yards. I also don’t buy it that the OL is the reason that Holcomb isn’t throwing the ball over 10 yards in the air. It doesn’t take that much time for a WR to run 15 yards downfield, a few seconds of protection, combined with a quick read can give ample time to throw a 15 yard pattern.
Recommended Posts