Buffalo_Stampede Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 Moorman averages 79 punts a year in his career up until last season where he had only 58 punts. I don't get why the number is so low, it should reflect an improvement in the offense. Maybe it does. If you look at the teams with the fewest punts, they had pretty good offenses. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?sea...mp;d-447263-n=1
Buffalo_Stampede Posted May 30, 2009 Author Posted May 30, 2009 Another thing, the Bills had the 12th most redzone trips in the NFL. We had 18 more Redzone possessions in 2008 then we did in 2007. We were 31st in 2007. In 2006 we were also 31st. So in one year we went from 31st to 12th under Schonert, not bad. I think Turk Schonert might have been better than we give him credit.
Glass To The Arson Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 it either means offensive progress or we are throwing more interceptions in 2008... we made progress!
AndyPliskin Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 in 2008... we made progress! I'll take progress wherever I can get it. Hopefully that progress translates into points this year.
ans4e64 Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 Another thing, the Bills had the 12th most redzone trips in the NFL. We had 18 more Redzone possessions in 2008 then we did in 2007. We were 31st in 2007. In 2006 we were also 31st. So in one year we went from 31st to 12th under Schonert, not bad. I think Turk Schonert might have been better than we give him credit. The 18 more redzone possessions could mean more field goals instead of punts, which would make the 58 to 79 almost exactly equal, no? Is it 18 more red zone trips, or 18 more downs?
rackemrack Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 The 18 more redzone possessions could mean more field goals instead of punts, which would make the 58 to 79 almost exactly equal, no? Is it 18 more red zone trips, or 18 more downs? or 18 more fumbles/interceptions
Fingon Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 We scored 21 ppg last year, which is by far our best since 2004. It is also 5 more per game than 2007.
FloridaSnow Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 or 18 more fumbles/interceptions Good point, there were many games in the middle of the season where we outplayed the opponent but couldn't score 7 when we got in the red zone or turned the ball over too often (the first games against Miami and New York and the Monday night game come to mind). This would indicate that our offense's ability to move the ball was better but that we suffered breakdowns in other areas that more than compensated for the improvement.
Fingon Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 Our offense vastly improved last year, there is no doubting that.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted May 30, 2009 Author Posted May 30, 2009 The 18 more redzone possessions could mean more field goals instead of punts, which would make the 58 to 79 almost exactly equal, no? Is it 18 more red zone trips, or 18 more downs? Its 18 more redzone possessions. Our redzone execution didn't improve, it was basically the same. You would think with T.O. and a more experienced Trent Edwards, our Redzone TD % will improve this year. Our Redzone TD % was pretty good the 1st half of the year, we were 17th with 24 possessions. The next 8 weeks we had 28 possessions and fell to 23rd in TD %. It was our most redzone possessions since 2004, which was our best season as a team since 1999. And in 2004 we had a much better turnover ratio and defense that gave us many redzone possessions.
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 It means we were ranked in the bottom 3rd in points and average plays. 23rd and 26th, resp. Oh, and the Tampa-2 defense was playing as designed.
Fingon Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 It means we were ranked in the bottom 3rd in points and average plays. 23rd and 26th, resp. Oh, and the Tampa-2 defense was playing as designed. better than 30th like the year before. Yes, it was. We were 14th in ppg, and 9th in 3rd down %.
Rubes Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 This is a nice catch, and something I'd like to see somebody like Tim follow-up on. My sense, as with others, is that our offense did improve overall, but mostly between the 20's. Our red-zone offense did kind of suck in general. How many times last year did you say to yourself, "ah crap, we made it to the red zone again"? By the end of the season I figured we should just kick the FG as soon as that happened, since there was no way we would get a TD after we got inside the 20.
BillsVet Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 And yet with all those statistical areas improving, the team magically went 7-9 with the 2nd easiest schedule in the NFL. Improving offensively with an easy schedule is a moot point IMO. This should be anticipated and not highlighted.
Big Turk Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 Moorman averages 79 punts a year in his career up until last season where he had only 58 punts. I don't get why the number is so low, it should reflect an improvement in the offense. Maybe it does. If you look at the teams with the fewest punts, they had pretty good offenses. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?sea...mp;d-447263-n=1 this probably ties into the Bills having excellent drive starts and getting a few first downs, just not enough to actually score...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 And yet with all those statistical areas improving, the team magically went 7-9 with the 2nd easiest schedule in the NFL. Improving offensively with an easy schedule is a moot point IMO. This should be anticipated and not highlighted. I think the idea is that the improvement between the 20s is a launching point, for an offense this year that will be filled with weapons to finish off those drives.
Tcali Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 this probably ties into the Bills having excellent drive starts and getting a few first downs, just not enough to actually score... took the words right out of my mouth. Our PRs and KRs were sensational
Hossage Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 I think that means that our defense was on the field a lot.
rackemrack Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 i think of how much money i could have saved on all them beer bottles i broke throwing them at the TV
BillsVet Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 I think the idea is that the improvement between the 20s is a launching point, for an offense this year that will be filled with weapons to finish off those drives. The launching point was 2006-early 2007. They should be on the moon looking at Earth (i.e. playoffs) by this point, not hanging out in the ranks of the lower third of the NFL. I'd rather have an offense with an identity minus big weapons than a team that goes away from the run inexplicably when it's working. The away MIA and SF games illustrate that ad infinitum. This team, from the middle of 08 forward had no offensive identity. They weren't a running team and they couldn't pass the ball much either. I expect the HC, in concert with the OC to have that down at the beginning of the season. I guess that's too much for a coach who wins less than 43% of his games and an OC who couldn't get promoted until he'd been a QBC for 10+ seasons in the NFL. For the record, DJ couldn't do it in Chicago either. The disparity between his OC's (Gary Crowton and John Shoop) was as wide as the Grand Canyon. Neither succeeded either. Why anyone expects success here is beyond belief.
Recommended Posts