smokinandjokin Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Bills 24th in NFL in 3rd down conversions I heard Mularkey's press conference yesterday, and he cited the red zone and 3rd down as the Bills major offensive obstacles. He said their 3rd down problems in general are magnified in the red zone. He then seemed like he was searching for a magical solution to the problem, and said something to the effect of "I don't know. We just have to figure it out and execute better in those situations." While the link proves that 3rd down conversions are not the be all and end all (as evidenced by Green Bay near the top of the league, and Denver below the Bills), they certainly go a long way toward winning the time of possession battle, resting your defense, and not constantly settling for field goals. As MM was searching for answers and dreaming of better execution, why didn't one of the reporters ask him "Isn't this a good time to play Willis on 3rd downs?" I mean, really, seeing as this has been an issue all season, and they continue to look for answers, why not have your best player on the field on 3rd down? I could buy the "blocking" excuse and the "pass catching" excuse, (I never really bought the "Willis needs a rest" excuse) at the beginning of the season. But now that the job isn't getting done, can we please give this a shot? BTW, the horse is down, but I think I just saw him move a leg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 If you examine each of those 3rd down plays (w/o 21 on the field), you'd be hard pressed to see where Willis would be the difference maker in more than a handful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 If you examine each of those 3rd down plays (w/o 21 on the field), you'd be hard pressed to see where Willis would be the difference maker in more than a handful. 517185[/snapback] I disagree with that statement, only because of the fact that Willis would AT LEAST give the defense another option to think about. With Shaud, you know it is a pass, or on a small fraction of the plays, a "sneaky" draw or inside handoff out of the shotgun which haven't worked in weeks. You really don't think, at this point, it would be worth it to have 21 in there, if only because the defense may have to play a bit more honest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Playfair Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Agreed, vs CAR i kept thinking that, with the game on the line, Willis should be in there for the whole drive. The BS draw handoff's to Shaud arent fooling anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I disagree with that statement, only because of the fact that Willis would AT LEAST give the defense another option to think about. With Shaud, you know it is a pass, or on a small fraction of the plays, a sneaky handoff on a draw or out of the shotgun which haven't worked in weeks. You really don't think, at this point, it would be worth it to have 21 in there, if only because the defense may have to play a bit more honest? 517196[/snapback] You can disagree all you want, but the facts don't bear it out. Willis is in on 3rd & shorts, Shaud is in on 3rd & longer than 2. Since the latter are predominantly passing downs, you aren't going to give the defense anything more to think about with Willis in there. The only question is - will Willis be a more effective receiver or draw runner thah Shaud? You are not going to do a straight up run on a 3rd & 6, no matter who's in the backfield. And looking at all those 3rd downs, and analyzing the failures, I find no evidence to suggest that Willis would greatly improve 3rd down conversions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 You can disagree all you want, but the facts don't bear it out. And looking at all those 3rd downs, and analyzing the failures, I find no evidence to suggest that Willis would greatly improve 3rd down conversions. 517231[/snapback] Doesn't the fact that Mularkey has cited this as the team's major issue, and the fact that they are in the bottom 25% of the league in 3rd down conversions, warrant at least attempting to leave your best player on the field? What you are saying may be true, Willis would not make a difference. But instead of inferring that, isn't it time to find out for sure? What the facts do bear out is that with Shaud in there, we have a mammoth problem converting on 3rd down. Not saying it's Shaud's fault, just saying that if we're searching for answers, that is an easy attempt at a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Doesn't the fact that Mularkey has cited this as the team's major issue, and the fact that they are in the bottom 25% of the league in 3rd down conversions, warrant at least attempting to leave your best player on the field? What you are saying may be true, Willis would not make a difference. But instead of inferring that, isn't it time to find out for sure? What the facts do bear out is that with Shaud in there, we have a mammoth problem converting on 3rd down. Not saying it's Shaud's fault, just saying that if we're searching for answers, that is an easy attempt at a solution. 517237[/snapback] And how has McGahee managed to run with the ball on 20% of the Bills' 3rd down attempts if he isn't even on the field...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 And how has McGahee managed to run with the ball on 20% of the Bills' 3rd down attempts if he isn't even on the field...? 517242[/snapback] I would be willing to wager that 20% of the 3rd downs are 3 yards to go or shorter. That 20% is also a big part of the reason the Bills are even as high as 35% as a team. Come on man, I know he plays in short yardage. You know what I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I'd be interested to see the breakdown of how many yards we needed on all those 3rd downs. Without knowing, I'd wager that our 3rd down distance to-go average is higher than most teams in the league. Just seems that we're more often looking at 3rd and long, rather than 3rd and 4 or less (like our opponents seem to). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 As I have posted before, I think that MM and TC (maybe?) have this notion that they are coaching the Patriots or their beloved Steelers still... both of those teams have had a lot of success, plugging role players into certain situations. The Patriots, during their remarkable recent run, made a point of using every player on the roster. What those teams have, and the Bills do not, is the confidence that comes from winning lots of games...so, when they run cute gadget plays on 3rd and 4th down, they look really stupid. They have to establish a base of success, and then tweak that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I would be willing to wager that 20% of the 3rd downs are 3 yards to go or shorter. That 20% is also a big part of the reason the Bills are even as high as 35% as a team. Come on man, I know he plays in short yardage. You know what I'm saying. 517244[/snapback] 11 of the 28 "carries" (runs + catches, factored into the 20%) are on 3rd and 3 or longer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 11 of the 28 "carries" (runs + catches, factored into the 20%) are on 3rd and 3 or longer... 517264[/snapback] What percentage of the 28 did they pick up the first down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 If you examine each of those 3rd down plays (w/o 21 on the field), you'd be hard pressed to see where Willis would be the difference maker in more than a handful. 517185[/snapback] I actually agree with you. It seems as though Bills fans easy answer for everything is to "give it to Willis more". I have seen enough Willis.. zero, 1 and 2 yard gains to know that he is not the answer for everything. Yes, he should carry the ball on his share of 3rd & 1 and 2's but the Bills must be creative on 3rd and Longs. They cannot pound it with any consistency in the REd zone. Actually, what kills Buffalo is their inability for a quick strike TD or two during a game. That's why the KC game was so surprising. We normally have such a methodical boring offense that it's bound to stall on long drives due to downs, sacks, turnovers, penalties, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 What percentage of the 28 did they pick up the first down? 517318[/snapback] That you'll have to go through the play-by-plays for...I'm only working from the splits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 I actually agree with you. It seems as though Bills fans easy answer for everything is to "give it to Willis more". I have seen enough Willis.. zero, 1 and 2 yard gains to know that he is not the answer for everything. Yes, he should carry the ball on his share of 3rd & 1 and 2's but the Bills must be creative on 3rd and Longs. They cannot pound it with any consistency in the REd zone. Actually, what kills Buffalo is their inability for a quick strike TD or two during a game. That's why the KC game was so surprising. We normally have such a methodical boring offense that it's bound to stall on long drives due to downs, sacks, turnovers, penalties, etc... 517319[/snapback] I actually agree with you guys too. I'm not suggesting Willis is the answer; I'm suggesting that Shaud Williams isn't the answer. We continue to struggle on 3rd down, but no noticeable changes are made. Obviously, we can't switch the entire line...I think our best receivers are in the game...I prefer JP in there, whether or not he's better than KH right now...So what's left to change??? Why not try??? And I completely agree that Willis skip-stepping his way to a gain of 1 on first down does not help the 3rd down situation. But is there any doubt that this guy is the key to the success of the team? Are any defensive coordinators worried about Shaud Williams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 If you examine each of those 3rd down plays (w/o 21 on the field), you'd be hard pressed to see where Willis would be the difference maker in more than a handful. 517185[/snapback] Although, if they'd run straight-up football plays and not Mickey Mouse fake end-around bull sh-- reverse !@#$tard option pass plays on third and short, Willis might make a difference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Although, if they'd run straight-up football plays and not Mickey Mouse fake end-around bull sh-- reverse !@#$tard option pass plays on third and short, Willis might make a difference... 517325[/snapback] Quit hijacking the thread. The topic at hand is what happens when Willis is not on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Although, if they'd run straight-up football plays and not Mickey Mouse fake end-around bull sh-- reverse !@#$tard option pass plays on third and short, Willis might make a difference... 517325[/snapback] Oh, so you're suggesting we try Willis on the old option play.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 Oh, so you're suggesting we try Willis on the old option play.... 517329[/snapback] One of my buddies, a Jets fan, asked me if it was true that Losman had not thrown for 200 yards yet this year, and asked if the Bills were running the option... Would not surprise me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I actually agree with you guys too. I'm not suggesting Willis is the answer; I'm suggesting that Shaud Williams isn't the answer. We continue to struggle on 3rd down, but no noticeable changes are made. Obviously, we can't switch the entire line...I think our best receivers are in the game...I prefer JP in there, whether or not he's better than KH right now...So what's left to change??? Why not try??? 517324[/snapback] I think this whole Shaud/Willis thing dates to last year, when everyone was confounded on why a rookie UDFA would be in critical 3rd downs, when your franchise RB is on the bench. But if you watch Shaud's performance on 3rd down this year, I think he's doing a very good job. While he won't break as many tackles as Willis, he's definitely been quicker than McGahee in getting back to the line on the draws. I also don't recall him dropping too many passes. The problem with Bills' low conversion of 3rd downs is a combination of a) long distance to pick up 1st, b) poor line play, c) bad QB decisions, d) bad playcalling. Couldn't help but notice your avatar, so your criticism of Mularkey is a bit out of place, considering that Levy took Thurman out on 3rd downs for Kenny Davis & Don Smith before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts