Mickey Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 The numbers on run vs. pass, down by down are pretty revealing for this team. The conclusion forced by these numbers are not what the "run the ball no matter what" crowd are going to want to hear but just the same, here they are: We run the ball like crazy on first down, 60 times versus only 43 passes. The number for passes is a little inflated as we have had to throw on every down at the end of a few games. To me, gaining 4 yards or more is a successful run as it gives you the freedom to run or pass on second down. Anything less makes it hard to run much on second. That makes it easy on defenses because they don't have to guess much. Of those 60 runs, we have gained 4 or more yards only 27 times, failing to do so 33 times. That is a failure rate on first down runs of over 50%. Of the 5 touchdowns scored by the offense, 4 have come on first down passes. We have not scored a rushing touchdown yet on any down. Not getting the TD when we started off with a first and goal inside the 5 against J'ville, not punching it in on 4th and one against Oakland and not getting that first on third and two (Travis fell) against the PATs on the critical drive are some of the more notable failures on the ground. The only other TD we have was also a pass but on second down instead of first. The TD's were from 41, 16, 46, 5 and 17 yards out. We are averaging only 3.3 yards per first down run but we are averaging 8.2 yards per first down pass. We have only been sacked 4 times all year on first down passes losing 21 yards which sounds bad until you look at the numbers on second and third down. The lack of success on first down runs leads to a reversal of the run/pass numbers on later downs. We have run 31 times on second versus 42 passes. We are still averaging only 3.3 yards per run. We are only 19 of 42 on passes on second. We have 15 incompletions with 6 sacks and two turnovers. Second down passes are a disaster for this team basically. Third down is little better. We have not had many third and short yardage situations due to our lack of success on first and second. We have only run the ball 16 times on third down compared to 35 passes. Many of those were draws to set up a punt so as not to risk a turnover on third and forever. Otherwise we would have even fewer runs. We average only 3.9 on those runs. We are 17-35 on the passes: 7 sacks and 11 incompletions. Bonus stat: We have had third and long (10 yards or more) 23 times this year and converted only 5 of them. At some point, you have to start taking your shots downfield. We are not running the ball well, there is no doubt about that. When we had to have a yard or two and ran the ball, it didn't work. Face facts, we are not a power running team. That should be no surprise given our lack of committment to improving the o-line. What we have that works is a QB that can still throw the long ball on the money and two receives who scare the bejeezus out of most defenses. That means that providing we take some shots, we will hit on a few long ones every game. Rather than trying to make Drew be what he is not and leaving his best cards unplayed, we need to turn him loose. Rather than pretending we have a bunch of road graders up front rather than what we really have: unmotivated, unskilled, flab-meisters, we need to face the facts, our best chance of scoring is to get lucky deep. Given the lack of protection, we have to play max protect and hope that Evans and Moulds can get free even with only a few WR's in the pattern. Can we officially declare an end to the debate about whether hiring McNally was all that was needed to get this line to produce? Clearly, it was not. Even a good coach like him needs more talent than we have right now.
TigerJ Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 I agree with you somewhat. Buffalo does not have the offensive line to run every down. Some teams are set personnel wise that even if the defense is stacked against the run, they can run successfully anyway. I don't think the Bills are. The Jets were stacked against the run and were keying on Henry. I think given that scenario, the Bills should have played a more open offence from the start of the game. If a team does not stack against the run, I don't have any problem with having a 60/40 running ratio as long as you're moving the ball.
Rico Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Not only that, this D isn't good enough to win tight games. I agree, as long as DB is QB, time to go for broke & open it up.
Mickey Posted October 11, 2004 Author Posted October 11, 2004 Not only that, this D isn't good enough to win tight games. I agree, as long as DB is QB, time to go for broke & open it up. 65251[/snapback] Really, we are 0-4, what exactly do we have to lose? Let Drew go down swinging instead of dumping it off for 2 yards.
Johnny Coli Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Agreed. Question: I have to "watch" the games on the internet by reading the play-by-play, so I don't get to see who lines up in the offensive sets. How often are they putting Moulds, Evans and Reed out there together? Basically, how often is Evans out there compared to Shaw?
seq004 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Yes, Yes, Yes! They were talking about it during the game. You have a pro-bowl reciever on 1 side and a fast emerging rookie who plays like a Vet on the other side. They need to admitt this team is not set-up for the ground attack. If Bledsoe has 1 thing left in him it's a strong right arm. Let it rip! The season is almost over anyway.
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 You are "on" on some of your points here, however, consider this devil's advocate's point: Running the ball early in the game is only part of establishing a rhythm. Really, any positive yardage helps to wear down the opposition and eventually leads to the breakdown yielding the big run. We have been down and forced to pass so often late in the game that we aren't getting those real "power running game" yards that come against a weary defense in the fourth quarter. I still think this team wins with a healthy combination of both the run and the pass. But there is no doubt that we are seeing some success with our weapons in the receiving game and need to use everything we've got in the offense more effectively.
Ray Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 The Bills best players and most athletic/talented are Evans and Moulds. Bledsoe's one asset is a strong arm. I agree that the run game does not play to their strengths.
Guest Guest Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Agreed. Question: I have to "watch" the games on the internet by reading the play-by-play, so I don't get to see who lines up in the offensive sets. How often are they putting Moulds, Evans and Reed out there together? Basically, how often is Evans out there compared to Shaw? 65264[/snapback] The problem is right now Evans is "just a deep threat". Truth be told we need him (or someone else) to standup and be a consistant threat and then we'll start to see more points on the scoreboard. As the reason our offense was so deadly when Bledsoe first arrived was Moulds AND Price were consistantly dangerous. Notice in yesterdays game we scored when Bledsoe found someone besides Moulds in the endzone. Remember when our offense was at it best it was because of the combination of Reed, Lofton and Thomas. Dallas was able to beat us with Irvin, Harper and Smith. The Rams offenses of recent years featured Bruce, Holt and Faulk. The Patriots are 4-0 in part because they have Givens, Patten, Branch, Graham and Dillon. Offense, like football in general, is a team game. The more players that can be counted on the deadlier you become. As one of the primary reason the Pats have been so great is their depth is amazing especially at WR and TE.
John in VA Beach Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 If the Bills go away from the run early it opens the flood gates on our below average O line. Their pass plays could be more down the field, but more passing plays could pose doom.
Mickey Posted October 11, 2004 Author Posted October 11, 2004 You are "on" on some of your points here, however, consider this devil's advocate's point: Running the ball early in the game is only part of establishing a rhythm. Really, any positive yardage helps to wear down the opposition and eventually leads to the breakdown yielding the big run. We have been down and forced to pass so often late in the game that we aren't getting those real "power running game" yards that come against a weary defense in the fourth quarter. I still think this team wins with a healthy combination of both the run and the pass. But there is no doubt that we are seeing some success with our weapons in the receiving game and need to use everything we've got in the offense more effectively. 65277[/snapback] We are not getting the big runs and it is not just because we have been behind. All the games have been close and we haven't had to abandon the run until our last drive or two. We have been running the ball late in the fourth quarter and it has simply not yielded results. Even if it did, I am not sure it is worth being virtually shut out for the first three quarters. The idea that a defense gets "worn out", I think, is kind of overblown. They don't expend anymore energy defending a running play in the first quarter than they do a pass. Arguably, they spend more energy on passes because they are doing a lot of chasing. When a defense tires out at the end of the game, it is because it is the end of the game. How tired they are depends on their conditioning and the number of plays they have endured out on the field. That is when the run can start hurting them but the path to exhaustion, what gets them there, can be done with runs or passes or both. You just have to do it successfully so that you keep them on the field. Three and out on the ground will never tire a defense out.
Mickey Posted October 11, 2004 Author Posted October 11, 2004 If the Bills go away from the run early it opens the flood gates on our below average O line. Their pass plays could be more down the field, but more passing plays could pose doom. 65294[/snapback] That is why they have to go max protect and probably throw on first down a little more when it is not expected so we aren't facing an all out blitz. The Jets sent 6 on the pass to Evans and we kept in both backs and the TE, thats 8 blockers for 6 guys. It was just enough. Had that been third down, there would have been more than 6. Oakland and NE were sending 8. Obviously, taking a long shot more often exposes us to more risk but you know, its not like they aren't sacking Drew all over the place anyway. The only difference this years offense has made is to reduce turnovers by the QB. That's great but it isn't translating to wins, just closer games. I am not advocating going nuts here, just reading the defense and go after them if they are loading up on the run or blitzing like mad.
jad1 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 The real question is, though, is are teams starting to view Evans as a threat? Can they send extra guys when he's on the field? He's caught three bombs in his last three games, two for TDs. How many more does he have to catch before opposing DCs realize that they have to throttle back the blitz and drop the safeties when he's on the field? And when will Mularkey realize this and keep him on the field as much as possible? In a pretty dismal season, this is something that seems to be working. Donohoe drafted Evans as a deep threat, and he is one, and it could pay dividends if the coaches play it the right way.
Fan in Chicago Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Rather than trying to make Drew be what he is not and leaving his best cards unplayed, we need to turn him loose. Rather than pretending we have a bunch of road graders up front rather than what we really have: unmotivated, unskilled, flab-meisters, we need to face the facts, our best chance of scoring is to get lucky deep. Given the lack of protection, we have to play max protect and hope that Evans and Moulds can get free even with only a few WR's in the pattern. Can we officially declare an end to the debate about whether hiring McNally was all that was needed to get this line to produce? Clearly, it was not. Even a good coach like him needs more talent than we have right now. 65233[/snapback] Last year, we were screaming for giving the running game a chance and that we were passing too much. This time we have a balance on the number of plays both ways. So which will it be ? I think we continue with emphasis on the running game but when passing, go for the big plays and not the Tom Brady-ish dinking and dunking. That will be the best balance right now. Plus we really have to see if w can make better use of the TEs and test out Euhus to see if he is the Metzelaars type of TE that we have been missing.
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 - - MICKEY - "Turn Blesoe, Moulds and Evans loose, Not a power running team, accept it." - - COACING INNOVATOR 2 - "You mean, if you abandon a futile running attack and throw more passes, you create the possibility of more big plays?!? BRILLIANT!" - - MICKEY - "Brilliant!" - - COACING INNOVATOR 2 - "BRILLIANT!" - -
John from Riverside Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 The problem is right now Evans is "just a deep threat". Truth be told we need him (or someone else) to standup and be a consistant threat and then we'll start to see more points on the scoreboard. As the reason our offense was so deadly when Bledsoe first arrived was Moulds AND Price were consistantly dangerous. Notice in yesterdays game we scored when Bledsoe found someone besides Moulds in the endzone. Remember when our offense was at it best it was because of the combination of Reed, Lofton and Thomas. Dallas was able to beat us with Irvin, Harper and Smith. The Rams offenses of recent years featured Bruce, Holt and Faulk. The Patriots are 4-0 in part because they have Givens, Patten, Branch, Graham and Dillon. Offense, like football in general, is a team game. The more players that can be counted on the deadlier you become. As one of the primary reason the Pats have been so great is their depth is amazing especially at WR and TE. 65290[/snapback] We need to give Evans a chance to be that "consistant" threat..... Like we did last week
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 We need to give Evans a chance to be that "consistant" threat..... Like we did last week 65513[/snapback] Amen. Every time we give the kid a chance, we have had positive results. Even the incompletions at fifty yards put the "Oh, Jesus" thought into the DB's minds ... I love this guy, and I feel a little guilty now about thinking it was a questionable choice at the very first. I loved it when they lined him & Eric up as far apart across the field as they could. We're at least going to have SOME fun this season ...
meazza Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 basically teams do not respect any components of our offense right now and that is what has to change, if we are able to make them fear evans and moulds and our tight end, then they will be less prepared to stop the run knowing its not very dangerous and that is when we could let travis and willis lose, in bledsoe's first year i remember when we did actually revert to the run henry was able to make big gains simply because teams were focusing on price and moulds, now if we can make them concentrate some of their defence on our receivers we could actually run the ball and make it tricky for them to guess what we will do
Recommended Posts