Pass Wacky Bills To Continue Pass Wacky Ways

by J2 on Jan 23, 2012 2:43 PM EST

I was reading BuffaloBills.com and a new article that Chris Brown wrote called "Bills 1st half figures reveal identity". I figured it'd had some good information in it (which it certainly does) about what the Bills tried to do as opposed to what they were forced to do because of a sieve like defense or game circumstances.

Popular theory around here is that we threw the ball more because we were down in games and needed to in order to catch up. Also that our defense was the reason that we had to pass more because we were consistently behind and trying to catch up.

Well after reading that article I, as well I assume everyone else, now know the Bills true identity (sucking?) which is (and clearly has always been in the Chan era) a passing attack.

From the article here is a quote from our fearless leader:

"If you want to get the true measure of a football team go back and evaluate every first half of every game," said head coach Chan Gailey. "You’ll get a true idea of who they are which is what we will do as we continue with our breakdowns to see who we truly are. What kind of team we really are being able to break down the first halves of what we did."

Awesome, good thought! I was going to go do that for some "fun" but Chris Brown helped a lot. Consider the following:

1st half of games:

Pass: 61% pass, 39% run, 11 TD and 11 INT.

Run: 937 yards at 4.9 YPC

2nd half of games: 60% pass, 40% run, 13 TD and 14 INT

Run: 984 yards at 4.9 YPC

The Bills ran the ball 391 times this year and passed 578. The 187 difference in run to pass ratio (12 plays a game) wasn't because we were down in games, it's because that's what our offense is.

Here's another Chan quote:

"Today in this league I think you may have to lean a little bit more on the pass game," Gailey said. "The defensive players are so much bigger and stronger and faster than they were 15 years ago and the field has remained the same size. So for the offense the field has actually shrunk because those defensive players are so much bigger, faster and stronger. So the only way to gain an advantage is to spread people out a little bit and create more creases for running lanes, throwing lanes, things like that."

I'm sure Chan knows (does he?) that the top 3 rushing teams in attempts made the playoffs this year with 6 out of the top 12 going to the playoffs. But guess what? The top 4 passing teams in attempts made the playoffs with 6 out of the top 12 making the playoffs. Geez those numbers seem awfully similar don't they?

Know what that tells me? That tells me that teams that do something well and stick with it win. Chan goes against that grain and would rather pass the ball when we are a better running team. Now one can make the argument that our YPC is higher on rushes because of our pass to setup the run mentality. That maybe true but our 2 best offensive players are Fred Jackson and CJ Spiller. You could make a case for Stevie Johnson but he's not a Buffalo Bill at this point in time and i'm not sure he's better than either of those two.

I think Chan is stuck in his philosophy because he is stubborn and that's what got him fired in Kansas City. The Bills seem better suited to rush because of our massive linemen and excellent running backs yet Chan will continue to pass to setup the run.

I see this as yet another failure of Chan Gailey. He was suppose to be a coach that worked with the players he's got and focus on our players strengths. Well we are a better run suited team yet he is too stubborn in his ways to make us a run first team.

Combine that with his odd personnel issues:

1. Moving Moats inside because he's not a prototypical OLB then flip flopping him

2. Moving S. Johnson to OLB when he cannot keep contain then refusing to take him out of that role

3. Moving A. Carrington to OLB when he cannot cover in space

4. Moving Levitre to C then only moving him after a disaster when he should have known that Urbik was a Center before and that Levitre had issues in practice that week with shotgun snaps

5. etc... etc... etc... (situations like Edwards/Fitz)

I see a coach that is destined to fail as a head coach. He's too stubborn in his ways and sees to many things in hindsight. As a coach he needs to have some foresight and use the information he has and not get caught up in his own arrogance. I'm not saying Chan's an arrogant man but his personnel decisions and unwillingness to change only after disaster strikes is not a commendable trait in a head coach. A commendable trait in a head coach is to know that disaster will strike and make a move before hand. This is something that we do not have as a coach and he clearly seems stuck in his ways.

To me this means 2 things currently:

1. Chan Gailey will fail as the Head Coach of the Bills

2. Us, the fans, are going to be hurt for longer than their tenure because they cannot identify that Fitzpatrick isn't a winning QB and they are too stubborn to go upgrade that position.

Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.

Tweet Comment 48 comments | 6 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't get it.

So is it OK if they are pass happy/wacky if Fitz is not the QB? Your point is lost on me if that is your conclusion.

by Falls4Life on Jan 23, 2012 2:48 PM EST reply actions

valid

all your points are fair, and though there is some assuming that he can’t find success with his methods… I do agree that he is stubborn in his decision making (“we aren’t going to change who we are, we are going to stick with what we do”= LOSE) and fails to recognize the true strength of this roster. I don’t agree that our run game was productive due to the pass, either. We should be running more. There really is no counter argument to that. The more Fitz throws, the more it becomes clear that we will lose. MOST (all but 2) games that FItzpatrick threw for over 30 attempts, we lost. Fact.

ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE

by ThaRealTruth on Jan 23, 2012 2:49 PM EST reply actions

MOST (all but 2) games that FItzpatrick threw for over 30 attempts, we lost. Fact.

You realize the causation here is completely muddled right? We only blew out two teams. Denver and KC, in both those games he only made 27 attempts. You think we blew them out because we weren’t passing or we weren’t passing because we blew them out? Cause if are dogmatic about the former, I got some investment opportunities for YOU!

I have low expectations. But high hopes.

by greysquirrel on Jan 23, 2012 8:25 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

you are welcome to play chicken/egg

If you like… But that doesn’t change the fact that the more consistently Fred got over 20 touches, we won, and the more Fitzpatrick threw for over 30 attempts, we lost. I suppose you can use the same played out arguments of “we were throwing because we were behind” but we were throwing on first, on second, and then on a long third (which we didn’t complete) even in goalline situations. The stat most important to me is wins. Tell me how many wins did we have when Fred ran 20+ attempts? 100%. How many losses when fitz threw for 30-39 attempts? 100%. That is just something I find difficult to ignore, whether it is soleley circumstance as others (not unlike yourself) would have me believe, or whether it is somehow untrue that Fred and Cj are more talented/productive than our band of 7th round QB fitz, and wr Steve, along with their band of undrafteds, regardless of how much we love them. We run a system that is supposed to resolve these shortcomings, and ultimately we lost games. Put that all on the defense if you like, but in no way do I believe that failure to convert third downs and choosing to approach a number of obvious run situations by throwing, are plain and simply the defenses fault, and all on them that we lose.

ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE

by ThaRealTruth on Jan 25, 2012 2:19 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

and again

we won 50% of games he threw for more than 40 attempts, and those were the two games we came back from huge deficits because of solid defensive play. So, I suppose you can feel as though when we have a defense helping out, that we can throw 50 times a game, but that is just as muddled of a causation, in my opinion. I think if you look at it statistically, the more we run, the better we do, the more we pass, the worse we do. Perhaps this is too basic for your liking, but that doesn’t make it any less accurate.

ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE

by ThaRealTruth on Jan 25, 2012 2:38 PM EST up reply actions

FITZ is no BRADY

We have to be able to throw the football but till Fitzpatrick develops Tom Brady ability then your argument has no merit. Use the available talent to win not try to win despite the talent.

by ONEREALMAN on Jan 26, 2012 1:36 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

misdirection?

Has anyone else considered that Chan might be saying this now to disguise his plans for next year? There is nothing to be gained by declaring we will be a run first team next year. not saying that this is the case but it could.

I’d love to see us become a run first team and make best use of Fred and CJ.

Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life.

- Brooke Shields

by Let's Go Buffalo (UK) on Jan 23, 2012 3:38 PM EST via mobile reply actions

I'm All For Misdirection

I don’t care about what Chan says. I care what the Bills do on the field. I just have no confidence that Chan will design a run-first offense.

That being said, I still support Chan Gailey, I say give him 5-6 years. Let him finish building whatever it is he is trying to build.

"The Amish Rifle is your god now." - Muzza34

by BuffaloOwdaTwnr on Jan 23, 2012 3:50 PM EST up reply actions

Of course, those rushing playoff teams you mention either have a RB as a QB (Denver) or they have a top 5 defense. If I’m the Bills coach, I’m not sure I want to hang my hat on those running offenses to generate success with this team and particularly this defense.

The average NFL team now passes more than 55% of the time. Thats been a trend we’ve been seeing going up for many years now. Only 4 teams ran more than they passed. So in fact Chan is absolutely correct in his quote. The super-majority of teams rely on pass more than run, thats the direction of the league, and its an accurate statement. You might still think he passes too much, but his statement isnt nearly as absurd as you make it out to be because you compare relative run-pass ratios. He is making a global statement about where the league has gone (and may be going).

As to whether losing impacted the playcalling, you can’t tell based on those numbers. We don’t know what the counterfactual play-call is for the Bills holding a lead in the fourth quarter (my money is it looks different). Some teams will get skewed to run in this scenario because they are leading (because their defense isn’t getting shredded). And that will change the mix of run-pass.

I have low expectations. But high hopes.

by greysquirrel on Jan 23, 2012 7:18 PM EST reply actions 7 recs

bq.Now one can make the argument that our YPC is higher on rushes because of our pass to setup the run mentality. That maybe true but our 2 best offensive players are Fred Jackson and CJ Spiller.

I also would note that Fred Jackson (and Spiller) just put up their best years as far as YPC and in a less well publicized yards per recption (as well as total rush yards per game and total receiving yards per game). Fred also finally found a nose for the endzone, which was a huge hole in his game coming into this year. So in THIS offense, he is performing better than he has historically and actually touching the ball quite a bit more than you suppose by focusing on the run vs. pass (as very often Fred/Spiller was the target of the pass).

I have low expectations. But high hopes.

by greysquirrel on Jan 23, 2012 7:57 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

that first paragraph is dead on

and the rest of that comment aint so bad either ;). Well said grey, very good argument. Rec’d.

This even grates my passive cheese - LeClaire Bill

by poz on Jan 24, 2012 1:09 AM EST up reply actions

The average NFL team now passes more than 55% of the time. Thats been a trend we’ve been seeing going up for many years now. Only 4 teams ran more than they passed. So in fact Chan is absolutely correct in his quote.

I’m not discounting that at all – you’re not understanding what i’m trying to convey here.

I’m saying that Chan isn’t doing what his team is best suited to do – which is run the all. We have one of the largest offensive line s in football and 2 of the best RBs in football and yet we pass far more than we run.

Wasn’t Chan thought of to be a coach that played to his teams strengths? Yet he’s still throwing like a mad man when our WR’s get hurt even prior to Fred getting injured.

My issue isn’t that Chan likes the pass – my issue is that Chan likes the pass on a team that is better suited to run the football. I will never argue against passing if you have the players to accommodate it – that’s moronic. But Fitzpatrick is inaccurate, has a penchant for turnovers and cannot stretch the field. The Bills would be best served to put him in a game manager type of mode and run more than they pass.

but his statement isnt nearly as absurd as you make it out to be because you compare relative run-pass ratios.

again – you’re missing the entire point of the article and why i wrote it. it’s not me against the pass – it’s me against chan’s philosophy for the pass with the players we have on our team

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT! - Venkman

by J2 on Jan 24, 2012 8:30 AM EST up reply actions

Thats hardly your only point, but no I’m not missing it. I didn’t bother to get into what I thought were cheap characterization of Chan’s character because that seems central to your “point” but pretty useless to argue since its entirely subjective. I would simply note, given some desperate personnel choices, you didn’t like his and I’m guessing he didn’t like them either. Not sure what the obvious alternatives are. I also see a guy who reacts to things over time and also gets stuff right ahead of time. But I don’t want to catalog a list.

I’m pointing out that looking at the same facts doesn’t necessarily lead me to the same conclusions. If none of that stuff matters, why bother making all those other argument?

1) That we don’t have a number of things top rushing teams have 2) that Chan’s quote is being evaluated in the wrong context in an effort to make him sound absurd, 3) our run-pass ratio may still be skewed pass because we don’t know if we run more with a lead (the few times we were winning by two scores in the fourth, we ran A LOT more FYI), 4) That we only think our RBs are awesome after this year. That considering catches our RBs were are most utilized weapon consistently and that they were SIGNFICANTLY more productive than we’ve seen before. So not sure why I want to go back to 4.2 YPC Fred Jackson with 2 TDs.

I have low expectations. But high hopes.

by greysquirrel on Jan 24, 2012 9:16 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thats hardly your only point

it’s mainly my only point. I simply added other circumstances in which I feel Chan has inadequately prepared our football team.

I didn’t bother to get into what I thought were cheap characterization of Chan’s character because that seems central to your "point" but pretty useless to argue since its entirely subjective.

what part was a cheap characterization? calling him arrogant? Because he’s shown time and time again that he’s going to run his offense regardless of almost anything. That’s what got him fired in KC – his inability to change his offense to tailor it to his teams strengths.

I would simply note, given some desperate personnel choices, you didn’t like his and I’m guessing he didn’t like them either.

then why not make changes? Why have Spencer Johnson continue to sit at OLB for weeks when he can’t keep contain? Why only take Levitre out after it was a complete disaster when Urbik had played C for the Bills already and Levitre had issues in practice that week with shotgun snaps? Those moves concern me because to me it seems that he’s stubborn and is going to do what he wants to do unless utter disaster happens and even then he might not make a change.

What about Moats and moving him inside when the best thing he does is rush the passer? He’s probably the best rushing LB we have and that’s pretty much all he’s good at and yet Chan moves him because he’s not prototypical? Isn’t there cause for concern there?

I’m pointing out that looking at the same facts doesn’t necessarily lead me to the same conclusions.

FWIW – i’ve watched every single Bills games and most of them twice. Just because this article doesn’t contain 2 seasons worth of observations doesn’t mean i’m talking out my ass.

1) That we don’t have a number of things top rushing teams have

like what? 2 excellent backs? massive offensive linemen?

I don’t buy the defense point ether because a) passing puts more stress on your defense if you cannot sustain drives (the Bills offense) and b) even when we weren’t down we passed more. Chan even said look at the 1st half of a football team and you see their identity. Chan said that he was a pass first team regardless of circumstance and situation then tried to justify it.

You help your defense by running more because you keep them fresh and you keep the opposing offenses off of the field and from getting into a rhythm. Plus you’re not throwing 23 picks and giving their offense excellent field position.

Ball control offenses help defenses, not hurt them

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT! - Venkman

by J2 on Jan 24, 2012 9:36 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs

I follow kc close.you are way exaggerating what happened there. It bugs. Haley had 4 o coordinators in four years. Gailey was successful the prior year in adjusting the offense throughout the year until they got somethig that worked. So i really feel like you are simply cherry pickig anecdotes about his personality. Its like watching political ads. It just doesn’t come across as objective.

I’m not challenging whether you watch games. But like I said I watch them too and the same facts really don’t lead to the same conclusions.

But as you say, the point is we don’t use our rbs enough and ironically they get the most touches and are more productive this past year than any other. Could it be this is a nice attack for these types of rbs? To me that’s the main issue. If fred is such an undeniable talent why was this the year his yards per carry and receptions and Tds all went through the roof! I also dispute we don’t play a possession game. This defense doesn’t care. It’s not getting worn down most times it’s getting smoked from the opening snap.

I have low expectations. But high hopes.

by greysquirrel on Jan 24, 2012 10:55 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs

So i really feel like you are simply cherry pickig anecdotes about his personality.

why do you feel that way? because what happened wasn’t reality? Haley wanted to run a more ball control offense because that suited his team better and Chan wouldn’t oblige so how is that not arrogant?

the point is we don’t use our rbs enough and ironically they get the most touches and are more productive this past year than any other.

what? in 2011 the Bills attempted 391 runs, in 2010 401 runs, in 2009 424 runs, in 2008 439 runs, in 2007 448 runs.

Chan has taken runs away from this team.

Look at passes caught by RBs too: 2011 RBs caught 85, 2010 RBs caught 55, 2009 RBs caught 74, 2008 RBs caught 84, 2007 RBs caught 58 passes.

There is no correlation between Chan’s offense and RBs catching the ball than any other offense we’ve had.

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT! - Venkman

by J2 on Jan 24, 2012 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

in reality Chan has taken touches away from our RBs – not given them more opportunities. Where did you get that info?

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT! - Venkman

by J2 on Jan 24, 2012 11:17 AM EST up reply actions

Yards and Tds sure we can for it to them more times but we weren’t getting the production.

I have low expectations. But high hopes.

by greysquirrel on Jan 24, 2012 11:24 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

Yards and Tds sure we can for it to them more times but we weren’t getting the production.

now you’re just saying stuff that isn’t true.

2011: 1921 yards, 12 TD
2010: 1720 yards, 6 TD
2009: 1867 yards, 6 TD
2008: 1842 yards, 16 TD
2007: 1800 yards, 8 TD

One of Dick Jaurons teams had more TD’s than Chans offense did this year by 4 TD even. Other than that chan’s first year was on par with Jauron/Fewell blow up of a year and less than DJ’s 2nd year.

You can’t even hang the 1921 yard as a plus becuase Chan’s 2010 season was the lowest team total rushing since 2005

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT! - Venkman

by J2 on Jan 24, 2012 11:30 AM EST up reply actions

Not true? My original comment was on YARDS per carry and on yards per reception. Both were huge for fred this year. Similarly, his TDs per touch were way up. I said YARDS per carry and you responded with just carries. I emphasized yards (As in yards per carry) and you only talk about yards. Look at Fred’s YPC and yards per reception and TDs per touch. All those where significantly higher this past year.

That being said, we just set a 5 year high in yards and just increased our TDs by 50% on our four year average and yet you seem to think these stats agree with you? Bizarre.

I have low expectations. But high hopes.

by greysquirrel on Jan 24, 2012 4:38 PM EST up reply actions

My original comment was on YARDS per carry

2007: 5.2
2008: 4.4
2009: 4.5
2010: 4.2
2011: 5.5

Jackson had his worst and best YPC per game under Gailey.

on yards per reception

2007: 8.6
2008: 8.6
2009: 8.1
2010: 6.9
2011: 11.3

Again Jackson had his best and worst season under Gailey. What will it be next year? His best or worst?

That being said, we just set a 5 year high in yards and just increased our TDs by 50% on our four year average and yet you seem to think these stats agree with you? Bizarre.

whoa – why did that get brought up in RB production? We’re talking about RB usage. I won’t deny that we set a career high in yards and TDs but our RBs didn’t get nearly as much usage as they should have. I bet our defense would have loved to have a productive running game keeping the opposing offenses off the field.

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT! - Venkman

by J2 on Jan 24, 2012 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

How is it arrogant? What the heck if the guy has an opinion or a perspective he’s now arrogant. It just seems like hyperbole. I also just thinks its purposeless aren’t all coaches arrogant? Who cares? Maybe their confident? But I don’t see the point in character aspersions if you just want to argue for running more. It just seems superfluous and it doesn’t help make your point.

I have low expectations. But high hopes.

by greysquirrel on Jan 24, 2012 11:28 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs

it’s arrogant when you came from a place because you were fired from because you wouldn’t adapt then you get to another place and you’re not willing to adapt to the players that your team has and only makes changes when something of a disaster happens.

that screams arrogant or stuck in your own ways type of individual.

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT! - Venkman

by J2 on Jan 24, 2012 11:31 AM EST up reply actions

Look if you want to argue rushing versus passing, I don’t have a problem with it. Use stats etc. But if you are gonna beat the drum about his character by taking quotes out of context and referencing he didn’t get along with Todd Haley (who didn’t hire him BTW), don’t get defensive when your main point gets sidetracked by the fact I think its unfair to characterize him as arrogant or out of it based on this evidence.

The fact he couldnt get along with Todd Haley (whoop de do), is a selling point in my book.

I have low expectations. But high hopes.

by greysquirrel on Jan 24, 2012 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

The fact he couldnt get along with Todd Haley (whoop de do), is a selling point in my book.

so it would be o .k. in my book? He has shown a history of not adjusting and sticking with what he wants to do both here and in KC. It’s not just KC.

I went into this supporting Gailey 100% – after 2 years worth of watching and examining almost every facet of this ball club i’ve come to realize that Gailey is stuck in his ways and is goign to do what he is going to do regardless unless complete disaster happens.

But if you are gonna beat the drum about his character by taking quotes

what quotes did I take out of context?

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT! - Venkman

by J2 on Jan 24, 2012 5:33 PM EST up reply actions

Rec'd GS

I support your comment 100% ^ ^ ^

His defense was terrible. Take out the only 2 games they played decent in (KC and Wash) and they gave up over 30 pts per game. His hands were tied.

by suteck on Jan 24, 2012 7:18 PM EST up reply actions

Having a top defense

Greatly changes how you approach the game. Ours was terrible. Rec’d GS.

by suteck on Jan 24, 2012 2:13 PM EST up reply actions

So true.

"Go check on the ribs!"

by TheAfghanTwilight on Jan 25, 2012 10:13 AM EST up reply actions

No arguement here.

I see a coach that is destined to fail as a head coach. He’s too stubborn in his ways and sees to many things in hindsight. As a coach he needs to have some foresight and use the information he has and not get caught up in his own arrogance

I see the same things….well said.

Girls use hair spray, Men don't.

DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND GROW UP BY NOT USING HAIRSPRAY MALES!

Don't be a Paully!

by The Buffalo Kid on Jan 23, 2012 8:10 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Rec'd the article and this comment

I REALLY want Chan to succeed as our HC. I truly like the guy, and feel he has done some really good things for the team. But MAN, he has made some extremely baffling decisions so far in tenure…I literally have a bald spot from some of his head scratching choices.

Sure, Fitz aced the Wonderlic test...but he does not pass the Eyeball test...

by MonStarr_716 on Jan 23, 2012 9:11 PM EST up reply actions

But MAN, he has made some extremely baffling decisions so far in tenure…I literally have a bald spot from some of his head scratching choices

I know, my biggest head scratcher, is why do you stick with the spread against the Jets? Their dime package outguns our 4 wide. There is no mismatch to be had using the spread, which is half the purpose of the spread, why did we keep using it for 3 games and get blown out each time? Which brings us to…………

He’s too stubborn in his ways and sees to many things in hindsight. As a coach he needs to have some foresight

I could’ve told you first game against the Jets, we would have a better shot getting a TE matched up on a DB or a LB, but it took Chan 3 blowouts against the Jets to figure this out. In the fourth game, he started using two TE sets, with Smith and Chandler and almost won, if Stevie could have held onto the pass, but even since he didn’t, it was a far cry from the 3 previous blowouts.

which brings us back to foresight and too stubborn to change, Chan has the ability to be a very good HC, he just needs to adjust much quicker……he needs to adjust on the fly, not after 2 or 3 game films, if he wants to succeed in today’s NFL.

Girls use hair spray, Men don't.

DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND GROW UP BY NOT USING HAIRSPRAY MALES!

Don't be a Paully!

by The Buffalo Kid on Jan 23, 2012 9:58 PM EST up reply actions

Stuff like J2 laid out in his article

I see this as yet another failure of Chan Gailey. He was suppose to be a coach that worked with the players he’s got and focus on our players strengths. Well we are a better run suited team yet he is too stubborn in his ways to make us a run first team.

Combine that with his odd personnel issues:

1. Moving Moats inside because he’s not a prototypical OLB then flip flopping him

2. Moving S. Johnson to OLB when he cannot keep contain then refusing to take him out of that role

3. Moving A. Carrington to OLB when he cannot cover in space

4. Moving Levitre to C then only moving him after a disaster when he should have known that Urbik was a Center before and that Levitre had issues in practice that week with shotgun snaps

5. etc… etc… etc… (situations like Edwards/Fitz)

absolutely killed me.

Sure, Fitz aced the Wonderlic test...but he does not pass the Eyeball test...

by MonStarr_716 on Jan 23, 2012 9:13 PM EST reply actions

That should read: (4) killed me

Sure, Fitz aced the Wonderlic test...but he does not pass the Eyeball test...

by MonStarr_716 on Jan 23, 2012 9:14 PM EST up reply actions

I'm a solutions oriented guy

and I hope Buddy Nix is too if what you say is true.

Solutions oriented means if this is the coach you picked you might as well give him the tools to work with. For example, sign a Mario Manningham or another WR right after you resign Stevie Johnson. A real no.2 would be huge instead of waiting around for Marcus Easley to become something – since when does a team rely on a 4th rounder to get over the injury bug like he’s a 1st round stud? Even the fans have bought into this. Who in the world has hypnotized us into believing that if Marcus Easley could just get on the field we’d have a star? Im not saying he won’t be but Im saying its a coin toss.

Then how about we go out and invest at LT. For the love of Jason Peters when is this team going to address the blindside? We are no closer to an answer at LT then we were last year except for some glimpses from Chris Hairston, which were very encouraging. But still, an investment would be nice in the position for one off-season – even if the team does resign Bell. And resign Scott Chandler while we’re at it.

If Chan is determined to pass at least let him try with a fully loaded gun.

This even grates my passive cheese - LeClaire Bill

by poz on Jan 24, 2012 1:17 AM EST reply actions 2 recs

Even the fans have bought into this. Who in the world has hypnotized us into believing that if Marcus Easley could just get on the field we’d have a star? Im not saying he won’t be but Im saying its a coin toss.

The same people that were in love with SJ, before he hit the field?

flayed ones stealth mode

"Fleshling! Do not shoot! For I am one of you fleshy things. It is I. Your Uncle Stan. Can't you tell by the long strips of fleshy substances covered in bodily fluids? Trust me! I have fleeeeeeeeesh."

by mob16151 on Jan 24, 2012 9:56 AM EST up reply actions

or the same people

who loved Kyle Calloway and Levi Brown? Im among them too. Its great to hope a guy can be a contributor, its foolish for management to bank on it.

This even grates my passive cheese - LeClaire Bill

by poz on Jan 24, 2012 6:34 PM EST up reply actions

I still prefer developing Levi Brown, to hanging on to Tyler Thigpen

I don’t understand. Granted, we don’t know how much info Brown was capable of assimilating, but this is a spread system, not entirely dissimilar from what he did in college, and to me, Thigpen has shown to be really, really, really, inconsistent at best, or even more likely, consistently bad.

ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE

by ThaRealTruth on Jan 25, 2012 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

i’ll rec that.

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT! - Venkman

by J2 on Jan 25, 2012 7:08 PM EST up reply actions

@Poz. Rec’d!

"My new cat just farted on my lap. Smells like Bills football." BG.

by SERGEANT MAJOR THOR on Jan 24, 2012 8:15 PM EST up reply actions

I’m hoping Mario Williams gets signed for two reasons:

1. He is awesome.
2. I want CBF to eat a shoe.

Thank you thank you thank you thank you sireric for bringing the furious punching cat back into my life. - poz

by bluecollarbuffalo on Jan 25, 2012 8:22 AM EST up reply actions

By the way, I totally agree on Manningham. He’s a true #2 guy, but he’s solid, runs good routes, can make tough catches. He can be inconsistent, but he’s a good player. He won’t be a star, but I don’t think they will regret signing him.

Thank you thank you thank you thank you sireric for bringing the furious punching cat back into my life. - poz

by bluecollarbuffalo on Jan 25, 2012 8:24 AM EST up reply actions

The Difference Between Buffalo And Those Good Run-First Teams:

Defense.

They have it and we don’t. That is what separates Buffalo from the 49ers and Ravens of the world. The prototype for a run-first team is playing strong defense and controlling the football. Those are some interesting numbers that you threw out there. Let’s dig a little deeper, yes?

Of all those teams you mentioned that had top 10 running games and went to the playoffs, there were only two that did not have a top 10 defense to go with it. One, New Orleans, backed their running game up with the best passing offense in the NFL. The other, Denver, has deceptive stats because while they ranked 20th on the year there is little down that a major part of their epic run to the playoffs was the lights-out play of their defense in the second half of the season.

Ignoring those 2 exceptions, if you look at all of the other teams in the top 10 for rushing yards who do not have a top 10 defense, none of them made the playoffs and most of them – Jacksonville, Carolina, Minnesota, Chicago – were awful.

Furthermore, if you look at the teams playing in the Super Bowl, it speaks to the changing face of the NFL – they are both pass-first teams with Top 5 passing attacks. Oh and they both beat run-first teams with elite defenses and top tier running backs.

So, with this in mind – Buffalo has two options. Try to build an elite defense and focus on the running game with CJ Spiller and Fred Jackson. Or build on your opportunistic, takeaway-happy defense by bolster your passing attack. Building an elite defense from where we’re at right now is at least a 3-4 year project. You need a pass rush, you need better linebackers, you need better corners – and you have to do this before the wheels fall off an aging Fred Jackson.

Option 2 – hope you’re right about Ryan Fitzpatrick (and I am one of the, apparently few, fans who still thinks they are) and build up your passing game . To do that, you need to resign Stevie Johnson and bring in a more reliable #2 target. A Left Tackle that doesn’t spend 90% of the season nursing injuries would be nice too, although Chris Hairston proved himself capable in a pinch this past season. Looking at the TE trend in the NFL, a top-tier pass catcher at that position would be nice too although not totally necessary. Defenses are going to start adjusting to cover TEs very soon anyway. Expect to see great coverage linebackers get a huge bump in their average paychecks in coming seasons.

For a coach entering the make-or-break season 3 of his regime, option 1 literally makes absolutely no sense at all. You’ll be long gone by the time that defense is realized. It makes MUCH more sense to pursue option 2 under the circumstances and considering the current direction of the NFL. Frankly, it makes more sense from a fan perspective, too, in my opinion. As a fan of a team that hasn’t gone to the playoffs in over a decade I would prefer whatever strategy will get us there quicker.

by SabreNation on Jan 24, 2012 9:14 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

They have it and we don’t. That is what separates Buffalo from the 49ers and Ravens of the world. The prototype for a run-first team is playing strong defense and controlling the football. Those are some interesting numbers that you threw out there. Let’s dig a little deeper, yes?

again – that’s not my point. I mentioned the run first teams and hte pass first teams because of both of those sets of examples the best ones went to the playoffs. So what that tells me that if you are good at running and run you have great shot at the playoffs. If you are good at passing and pass then you have a great shot at playoffs.

I’m not saying the Bills should build a run only team, or a defensive strong team. I’m not saying anything as far as what I want the Bills to be what i’m saying is that Chan doesn’t use the team in a manner that best suits them. He’s not playing to our teams strengths.

Fitzptrack is inaccurate and turns the ball over while we have only 2 WR (Johnson who’s not a Bill and D.Nelson) yet run 4 and 5 WR set with nobodies yet don’t run nearly as much with what most think is a top 3 RB in Jackson or Spiller who is clearly one of our best offensive players.

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT! - Venkman

by J2 on Jan 24, 2012 9:41 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs

Fitzptrack is inaccurate and turns the ball over while we have only 2 WR (Johnson who’s not a Bill and D.Nelson) yet run 4 and 5 WR set with nobodies yet don’t run nearly as much with what most think is a top 3 RB in Jackson or Spiller who is clearly one of our best offensive players.

ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE

by ThaRealTruth on Jan 25, 2012 2:59 PM EST up reply actions

Being overlooked here in this argument,

is the fact that the Bills finally have an offensive identity. Something we never had under Jauron. Were a spread football team, that can score in bunches. Maybe that’s not how you or I would choose to build the Bills, but thhat doesn’t mean, that Chan is ultimately going to be unsuccesful either. This team suffered a crap load of injuries, and yet was slightly above average, in most major statistical offensive categories. I mean, average isn’t world beating, but it’s not failing either.

flayed ones stealth mode

by mob16151 on Jan 24, 2012 10:02 AM EST reply actions

Wouldn’t the Bills rushing numbers be higher if they were salting away time at the end of games?

I agree with the thesis of your article. Chan likes to pass and will continue.

Tweet
Buffalo Rumblings

by MattRichWarren on Jan 25, 2012 6:45 AM EST reply actions

Interesting stuff

The Bills will always suffer Gailey-itis under said coach because he’s always been about tossing the football through the sky and using one back as his workhorse in a complementary role.

For much of the season, I heard discussion about Joe Flacco being terrible. Sure, he had a down year, but he didn’t need to be a player on the level of Drew Brees. He simply needed to makes plays when they were there for the taking and sustain drives that turned into points.

The same goes for Alex Smith. And for much of the season, Tim Tebow. Late in the season it was Houston, playing with a 3rd-string rookie QB, still winning games and advancing in the playoffs.

Teams like the Patriots and Packers (and to a lesser extent, the Saints) had the worst defenses in the league. Their QBs had to play like their hair was on fire, or else they might have suffered loss upon loss (see the Colts). As it was, the Packers were one and done. Their QB had an off day and that was a recipe for disaster with their defense called into action.

The one truly goofy thing is how average Brady played – and how the TEs were held in check – against the Ravens. Yet they find themselves in the Super Bowl again. Part of that is due to mistakes by the opposition, and part is by a Patriot renaissance in terms of defensive play.

So I think passing as a dominant method works getting teams to the playoffs, but they better make sure their defense is up to the challenge when that post season arrives.

"Go check on the ribs!"

by TheAfghanTwilight on Jan 25, 2012 10:16 AM EST reply actions