Marshawn Lynch turned what was one of the worst running games in the league into a solid one. He ...

Marshawn Lynch turned what was one of the worst running games in the league into a solid one. He didn't show a lot of big-time speed or playmaking ability, but he did provide what this offense needed most and that was a big back who could pound it between the tackles. After Lynch, the Bills' depth is scarce.

ESPN Insider - Bills have #13 rushing attack

about 1 month ago Brian Galliford Comment 25 comments 0 recs |

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Anybody else think Jeremy Green is, well, not very intelligent?

Lynch didn’t show playmaking ability because he was Buffalo’s only playmaker last season. He sells Lynch’s break-away speed short, too (though it’s not the best).

I don’t agree with this assessment at all. He obviously has never seen Freddie Jackson play, either.

by Brian Galliford on Jul 10, 2008 3:28 PM EDT 0 recs

It is so obvious

It so blatantly obvious that this is one of those jerks that just watches sports center highlights and then looks at a stat sheet to come to his conclusions. I find absolutely nothing of value to this statement. In fact, I think we are more set in terms of running back depth than half the league. Just foolishness.

McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year

by poz on Jul 10, 2008 3:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

Foolishness

That is all it is. Lynch can take it to the house, it just didn’ t turn out that way and not every rook is Adrian Peterson. I am looking for more big plays once teams respect the pss a little more, but regardless, we have a B+ top ten run attack, so besides the comments, #13 not too far off.

This town needs an enema!

by killascript on Jul 10, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

Breakaway speed

Mr. Green must have missed the Bengals highlights on ESPN.

by the Skycap on Jul 10, 2008 4:05 PM EDT 0 recs

He might have caught the season finale in Philly, though…

by Brian Galliford on Jul 10, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

i think i've come to realize

that people don’t actually watch the buffalo bills.

except for fans.

even the fans of the other teams that play us?

they take the week off.

by sri on Jul 10, 2008 4:46 PM EDT 0 recs

Bills need to be better than #13

The Bills have one of the biggest lines in the NFL and one of the better young RBs. The team will need to be better than #13 in order to still be playing in January. Buffalo lost a couple of close games last season (Dallas and Denver spring to mind) because they couldn’t keep the opposing offense off of the field. Yes, everyone at the Ralph knew the Bills were going to run on most downs. That’s not the point. Playoff teams, particularly those in the AFC, can grind the clock out even when the opposition is thinking run all the way. The Bills need to crack the top 10, which won’t be easy to do with only 4 good linemen.

Having a top 10 ranked running game will allow Edwards to use play action and generally have a split second more to make his decisions/throws. He’ll be a much better QB which should allow the Bills’ passing offense to rank somewhere in the middle.

Having a top 10 ranked running game will allow the defense more time to rest between possessions. In theory, that should result in more pressure on opposing QBs. The defense might claw towards respectability, a definite necessity for a playoff team.

Whether Jeremy Green watches Bills games or not he does seem to recognize that the Bills’ run game has improved. Lynch is a part of the reason why.

by Ron From NM on Jul 10, 2008 4:56 PM EDT 0 recs

agree but one point i have to make

“Playoff teams, particularly those in the AFC, can grind the clock out even when the opposition is thinking run all the way. “

I agree with everything you said but this. The fact that the Bills couldn’t run the clock out at the end of games last year may have a lot more to do with our inability to pass than anything the line or the back was doing wrong. If you force your running back and line to grind it out on the ground all game long, it is inevitable that when you need the hard fought yards in the 4th quarter they will be worn down and less effective. If we can keep drives alive during the middle stages of the game by passing our ground game will be better in the late stages.

McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year

by poz on Jul 10, 2008 5:04 PM EDT up 0 recs

I disagree

If you can run the ball effectively throughout the game the offense will have worn down the defense—not the other way around. Running will then be easier, not harder. At the very least it is at least possible even though the defense is loading the box in an effort to stop the runs they are certain are coming.

Playoff teams impose their will. Non-playoff teams have will imposed upon them. Which was Buffalo last season?

by Ron From NM on Jul 10, 2008 7:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

Playoff teams impose their will. Non-playoff teams have will imposed upon them. Which was Buffalo last season?

That’s cagey Dick Jauron for ya

by Kurupt on Jul 10, 2008 8:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

good point but...

That is a valid point but is it not true that when you have a one running back system, as we did last year, the back will be less effective if you run him like a work horse? More so than how worn down a defense will be if the whole game it knew the run was coming? It’s asking your back to run into a defense that knows whats coming all game and then expect that in the fourth quarter the defense will be more worn down , knowing what to plan for, than the back who had to run into a defense ready for him.

Defenses stacked the box against us last year. The running game would be more worn down than a defense when they knew what to expect every play and our back was charging right into it. It just seems that if we could pass effectively it would give our running game the extra strength to power through a D, even if we ran a lot, in the 4th, then continually throwing our back at the D all game long. Thats just asking to give the D the advantage in the 4th.

McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year

by poz on Jul 10, 2008 8:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

Interconnected

Yes, the passing game and running game are interconnected. As one improves the other generally does as well simply because the defense shifts attention to whatever the offense is doing well. Occasionally a successful team will do one really well and not the other (2000 Ravens ran very well and didn’t pass very well at all) but those teams are the exceptions.

Also, Lynch wasn’t the only RB on the roster. Jackson averaged a little over 5 yards per carry. Wright wasn’t stellar by any means but he did pick up a shade over 3 yards per carry in spot duty. It’s up to the coaches to ensure that his best RB isn’t on wobbly legs heading into the final few minutes….particularly if you’re a close-to-the-vest type coach.

My main point is that good offenses can dictate to the defense instead of having to take what they are given. Everyone knows the Jags and Steelers are going to run and yet those teams run the ball well regardless. It’s not a coincidence that they are pretty much always in the playoff picture.

By the way, opposing defenses stacked the box (I define it as 8 or more defenders in the box at the snap.) on 192 of 384 run plays I tracked. That’s exactly 50%. The 1st Pats game saw them stack the box on just 5 of 28 (17.8%) run plays. Buffalo still only put up 110 yards on the ground-about 20ish of it was running out the clock. In the 2nd Pats game they stacked the box 10 of 18 (55.6%) of run plays. The Bills predictably did worse (and Lynch was out), netting only 78 yards on the ground. Because Buffalo couldn’t run the ball-even when the box wasn’t stacked—the offense was on the field for only 51 plays in each of the two games against the Pats.

by Ron From NM on Jul 10, 2008 9:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

interesting

good observation. so what was the problem in the running game? Can’t be all Melvin’s fault right? Something has to be off.

McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year

by poz on Jul 10, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

Playcalling too

I don’t have enough fingers to count the number of times we ran right up the gut last year. With that being the obvious weak spot of our OL, I still have no idea what SFM was doing game in, game out. We have a huge, and rather athletic OL, we better start utilizing that more this year with outside runs and misdirections.

Also, I think Peters and Dockery did not live up to the lofty expectations we all have for them. I thought they were very inconsistent in the run game. Hopefully Ron can back me up on that…

by Kurupt on Jul 10, 2008 10:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

Also Ron there is another problem I have

After you’re good argument I looked up some stats from last year and while you say everyone knew the Jags and Steelers were going to run it wasn’t the same as the Bills by a long shot.

Last year the Jags ranked 17th in the league in passing and the Steelers ranked 22nd. The Bills ranked 30th. So in actuality, the Jags were almost twice as good as the Bills in passing. That has to have an effect, no?

McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year

by poz on Jul 10, 2008 11:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

3-4 is vulnerable up the middle

Buffalo played a lot of 3-4 teams last year, a defense which tends to excel against plays that run wide. Buffalo simply couldn’t run effectively up the middle.

by Ron From NM on Jul 10, 2008 11:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

what?

I thought you were making great points and I was nodding my head in agreement as I read through your post until….

You point out that the Bills ran for 110 yards on 28 carries when the Pats didn’t put 8 in the box. That is 3.93 yards per carry.

Then you say that the Bills “only” ran for 78 yards on 18 runs when the Pats stacked the box. Well thats actually 4.33 yards per carry. Isn’t that kinda contradictory?

by kaisertown on Jul 10, 2008 10:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

Contradiction?

78 yards is less than 110, or 32 yards worse. You can make the case that the Bills did slightly better per rushing play on their way to 78 but it still clearly represents a failure to control the ball and keep the Pats’ offense off of the field.

I did notice something about the games recently. In the first matchup, the Bills had the ball with a little under 4 minutes to go. Jauron opted to run out the clock. Specifically, Wright ran the ball 6 straight plays for 4, 5, 4, 12, 3 and 8 yards….or a very healthy 6 yards per carry. New England wasn’t stacking the box much in that game and they certainly weren’t at the end of it. Belicheat was more than happy to let the Bills run for 6 yards per carry. Factor out those yards and runs and the Bills had 22 runs for 74 yards, or 3.4 yards per carry….even worse than the 3.93 overall.

I couldn’t figure it out until I cross reference it with my offensive line stats. The Bills had a total of 13 bad plays from the line in that first game. Peters had 1 bad play, Dock had 3, and Fowler had an absolutely miserable game with 9 bad run plays, 1 of which was a killed play. (That was added to 2 bad pass plays-including the Losman injury, which some might say was a good play but moving on-and no killed pass plays.)

Fowler hit bottom so hard he bounced for the second Pats game. He only (!) had 3 bad run plays, 1 of which was killed. (He also had 1 bad pass play and .5 killed pass plays.) Dock had 2 bad run plays and 1 killed run play while Peters had 1 bad run play and no killed pass plays.

Linemen screwed the pooch 13 times in the run game during the 1st Pats game and 6 times in the 2nd Pats game. That, I think, is the primary difference between the yards per average in the two games. Although the Pats put 8 in the box more often (percentage-wise) in the 2nd game the line did a better job….mainly because Fowler replaced his awful performance in the 1st game with a one that was merely below average in the 2nd. If you don’t shoot yourself in the foot you’ve got a much better chance…

by Ron From NM on Jul 10, 2008 11:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

that explains a lot.

The other thing I just realized was that Losman had 4 runs for 31 yards that game. If you take that out, the Bills ran for 47 yards on 15 carries and a pathetic 3.1 ypc.

by kaisertown on Jul 11, 2008 11:10 AM EDT up 0 recs

Poz - I'm sorry; I disagree with you on this one too..

I lived in Pittsburgh for five years. Those folks have a dedication to the run game, and especially to imposing their will on other teams.

I really hope they maintain a healthy balance between the run and the pass, slightly favored to the run by 5% plus. If you can run the ball when everyone knows you’re going to run the ball, chances are you’re a pretty good team.

I’ve heard some “experts” say there may be a shift back to running the ball this year. Did that “push out” rule on WRs pass? If so, is that going to change the way a lot of teams run their routes (ie – staying away from the sideline throw, more plays toward middle of the field, etc)? Or I have I been listening to/reading gibberish?

by krytime on Jul 10, 2008 11:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

true enough but....

I do think it is a misconception to compare pittsburgh’s commitment to the run and Buffalo’s, kry for this reason. Pittsburgh managed to run and still average 190+ yards per game through the air while Buffalo only managed 160+. Perhaps even more telling however, is that Pitt manged 34 TDs through the air while Buffalo could only get 12! So Pitt could impose their will on the ground because their passing attack remained a deadly option. Buffalo could not because there was no other option. The 34 Tds for Pitt also suggest they were a capable offense through the air, leaving their ground game fresh throughout a match

McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year

by poz on Jul 10, 2008 11:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

I agree with you on the need for a complimentary passing game...

But I also watched Stiller football when Kordell was the QB. I still say if you can run the football when you want to, you’re a good football team. To me it doesn’t matter if you use the passing game to set it up, or if you just say, “we’re going to run the ball no matter what.” If you can run, you can win.

by krytime on Jul 10, 2008 11:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

oh man slash

wasn’t he run out of town over there in Pitt?

McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year

by poz on Jul 11, 2008 11:08 AM EDT up 0 recs

But...

We don’t dewerve a better ranking based upon last year, so YES, we need to be better this upcoming year. I hope, or at least think, most of us are drinking a glass of Bills kool-aid that is half full, so I hope it doesn’t make us sick

This town needs an enema!

by killascript on Jul 10, 2008 9:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

Marv Levy was right!!

His philosophy was “Run and Stop the Run”. Two sides of the coin to a successful running game. If you allow the opposing team to run on you at will and eat up huge chunks of time, and then ultimately score, then you are always playing catch-up. Playing from behind is a desperation passing attack with no use for the running game. The Bills were always set-up to play like this due to the poor run defense. With an improved run defense this year, hopefully the offense will be able to take their time and not try to force things to happen. Game plans can be followed and run blocking can be used more effectively.

by JTM1023 on Jul 11, 2008 9:02 AM EDT 0 recs