ax4782 Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 Keep in mind, when looking at the running game, we are, right now, averaging significantly fewer carries this year than we did last year. Lynch averaged over 22 carries a game last year. Today he had 19, and last week he had 18. He and Freddy combined for over 80 rush yards today against a top run defense. I'd say that was pretty good. Also, Lynch and Fred Jackson looked good in the passing game and those screen plays often times may as well be runs. Frankly, fewer carries is a good thing. If the Bills continue at this pace, ML will have had 59 fewer carries by the end of the season than he had last year. Even at last years rate of 22 per game that's two and a half fewer games worth of carries and hits he takes over the course of this season. That rest will help in the playoffs. To date, the Bills have run decently against two top run D's and I expect the numbers to pick up over the next two weeks against the Raiders and Rams. It's still early, but there is reason to be excited, even about the run game.
marauderswr80 Posted September 14, 2008 Author Posted September 14, 2008 Maybe its just me then..........
kota Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 Omg.... Another clueless fan. Please pay attention to last years stats when considering seahawks and Jaguars rush defense. 2007 11th Overall Jaguars - 100.2 Yards a game 12th Overall Seahawks- 102.8 Yards a game Bills Rush Yards 2008 Against Seahawks 106 Yards Against Jaguars 76 Yards So we are low against the Jaguars but you also need to consider that the Bills Offense barely had the Ball in the 3rd Quarter and when they did Trent Edwards fumbled the ball. If things continue Marshawn will probably only get 1100-1200 yards this year. The Bills have a two headed attack with Marshawn and Jackson. I personally would love to see Marshawn have a Michael Turner type day but those are rare and the Bills current offense is more pass friendly.
JujuFish Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 Jacksonville had the #11 run defense in the league last year.
marauderswr80 Posted September 14, 2008 Author Posted September 14, 2008 Sorry but im far from clueless as a Bills fan........ I guess id rather be clueless then classless like well......you
Huuuge Bills Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 Fowler needs to go. Get Preston in there. Fowler needs to go in the offseason (FA after this year anyway). But Duke has the same problem as Fowler, strength. Having Duke in there would only make us worse.
YOOOOOO Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 WE ran real well in the 1st half(in both games)..... in the 2nd half of both games...not so much....
VOR Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 Fowler needs to go in the offseason (FA after this year anyway). But Duke has the same problem as Fowler, strength. Having Duke in there would only make us worse. I'd be willing to get a look this year. Won't know until he plays, like with Hardy until today.
ax4782 Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 WE ran real well in the 1st half(in both games)..... in the 2nd half of both games...not so much.... Excellent point. Though I think our not having the ball in the third quarter probably didn't help his numbers.
Huuuge Bills Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 I'd be willing to get a look this year. Won't know until he plays, like with Hardy until today. Duke has been in the league for more than enough time to figure out that he sucks. We have seen him in games before, and he is a less talented version of Fowler IMO. Hardy is a rookie at a position that takes a while to learn, not the same case.
macaroni Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 I'm kind of in the same boat ..... I want to see the electrifying runner .... somebody who everytime they touch the ball there is a possibility of that loooooooong run and I just don't see it from this team. BUT I don't think that is what Turk is looking for from his offense, it seems to me he is designing a gameplan to chew up the clock with short passes and "smash mouth" runs with just enough of a smattering of downfield passes and cutsie running plays to keep the D guessing while driving in for the score. As all the previous posters have said ...... we're 2 and OH verses some pretty stout defensive teams, so I can't argue with that. As far as I'm concerned I'll gladly give up the LT, Adrian Peterson, Frank Gore kind of numbers for our RBs for team wins.
VOR Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 Duke has been in the league for more than enough time to figure out that he sucks. We have seen him in games before, and he is a less talented version of Fowler IMO. Hardy is a rookie at a position that takes a while to learn, not the same case. Okay, perhaps a bad example. Replace Hardy with Greer.
YOOOOOO Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 Excellent point. Though I think our not having the ball in the third quarter probably didn't help his numbers. Def not having the ball in the 3rd hurt us there...
Dark Fan Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 I'm kind of in the same boat ..... I want to see the electrifying runner .... somebody who everytime they touch the ball there is a possibility of that loooooooong run and I just don't see it from this team. BUT I don't think that is what Turk is looking for from his offense, it seems to me he is designing a gameplan to chew up the clock with short passes and "smash mouth" runs with just enough of a smattering of downfield passes and cutsie running plays to keep the D guessing while driving in for the score. As all the previous posters have said ...... we're 2 and OH verses some pretty stout defensive teams, so I can't argue with that. As far as I'm concerned I'll gladly give up the LT, Adrian Peterson, Frank Gore kind of numbers for our RBs for team wins. Exactly. Adrian Peterson: 0-2.
Bmwolf21 Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 The running game will come along when teams start respecting our passing game more. The Jags are pretty good defensively. Those Jags defenders are monsters. I'm just happy we got out in 1 piece. All excellent points. Omg.... Another clueless fan. Clueless is a bit harsh, especially coming after he admitted that it was just his opinion.
kota Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 All excellent points. Clueless is a bit harsh, especially coming after he admitted that it was just his opinion. Forming an opinion without looking at the facts (Stats easily found) is clueless.
BuffOrange Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 Well it was clear to any non-JP apologist that the OL was a lot better in protection than in run-blcoking in almost every game last year. Since continuity as a unit is usually a bigger asset in protection than in the running game, there's no reason this should come as a surprise with getting everyone back this year. In this particular game I actually thought it was better than usual considering we didn't have the ball in the 3rd Qtr, and the transition to a lot of spread/shotgun in the 4th Qtr. The 10 yard TD run up the gut on 1st down is also a lot more impressive to me than a 3rd down draw play for a TD that we saw last week (and against Denver last year) - at least in terms of evaluating the run-blocking.
Bmwolf21 Posted September 14, 2008 Posted September 14, 2008 Forming an opinion without looking at the facts (Stats easily found) is clueless. You're right, it's much better to insult someone who expresses an opinion based off what they've seen on the field.
StupidNation Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 I agree we have a problem with the running game. You're not the only one who sees this as a problem. With the exception of a few runs our O-line isn't giving holes to the RBs to run through, nor is there a push on short-yardage situations. Same as last year, with the exception that we have a good chance of making the playoffs and it's our Achilles Heel. Who cares what the stats were on those teams last year, what matter is that we imposed our will because there are better defenses out there and the excuse machine won't be there when we lose. As long as we win we give ourselves amnesia, but when we lose we start to admit the frailties. Good call on the thread. If Edwards wasn't so sharp there would be ZERO offense. We have talent with the RBs, but not on the O-line for our running game. Also, Marshawn doesn't have a great burst and tries to swivel his hips more than hitting holes, but there weren't any to speak of because Jackson usually runs hard to find one and couldn't.
Recommended Posts