Chandemonium Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 They were behind fairly early and had to abandon the run.... Sorry dude, McFadden will have no problems running against that front 7. 5.6 ypc... REAL problems even if you take away the 22 yard run he still averaged over 4 ypc. he had 10 carries...the only problem he had was the Chiefs couldn't afford to run the ball anymore. Again, did you watch the game? the Chiefs were unable to convert 3rd downs on the ground or move the chains at all in the running game with the exception of the big plays, and at that point in the game the Bills were already up by 20. The Chiefs didn't abandon the run because they couldn't afford to run it, they abandoned it because it wasn't working for them early even when the game was relatively close. You also might want to check your math. 56-22=34 10-1=9 34/9=3.77 3.77<4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Jacoby Ford was the guy that scared me the most, other than McFadden, for the Raiders' offense. If he's out I'm breathing a sigh of relief because that kid is electric. He's a bigger version of Roscoe and his speed would've caused match up problems. With him out I think that we will be able to have more guys closer to the line which helps our overall chances of getting a "W". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bump Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Again, did you watch the game? the Chiefs were unable to convert 3rd downs on the ground 11:08 1st KC 3rd & 6 at KC32 > Matt Cassel sacked at KC30 for a loss of 2 yards by Bryan Scott. 7:40 1st KC 3rd & 7 at KC23 > Matt Cassel pass to the left to Jamaal Charles for a loss of 6 yards to the KC17. Tackled by Jairus Byrd. 4:49 1st KC 3rd & 4 at KC20 > Matt Cassel incomplete pass to the left intended for Dwayne Bowe. 14:21 2nd KC 3rd & 4 at KC48 Matt Cassel pass to the left to Jake O'Connell for 15 yards to the Buf37. Tackled by Nick Barnett. 12:16 2nd KC 3rd & 8 at Buf19 Matt Cassel sacked at Buf31 for a loss of 12 yards by Spencer Johnson. 4:58 2nd KC 3rd & 8 at KC21 Matt Cassel pass to the left to Jamaal Charles for 9 yards to the KC30. Tackled by Aaron Williams. 1:51 2nd KC 3rd & 6 at Buf6 Matt Cassel pass to the left to Jamaal Charles for 6 yards for a TOUCHDOWN. 10:24 3rd KC 3rd & 16 at KC25 Matt Cassel incomplete pass to the right intended for Dwayne Bowe. 3:24 3rd KC 3rd & 8 at KC24 Matt Cassel incomplete pass to the right intended for Dwayne Bowe. 15:00 4th KC 3rd & 10 at KC30 Matt Cassel pass to the right to Steve Breaston for 6 yards to the KC36. Tackled by Nick Barnett. 9:45 4th KC 3rd & 5 at KC36 Matt Cassel incomplete pass to the right intended for Jerheme Urban defensed by Nick Barnett. 5:39 4th KC 3rd & 6 at KC24 Matt Cassel incomplete pass to the right intended for Dwayne Bowe. 3:26 4th KC 3rd & 6 at KC28 Matt Cassel incomplete pass to the right intended for Leonard Pope. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/gameflash/2011/09/11/4406_playbyplay.html Not a single rsh attempt on 3rd down in the whole game by KC..... I'm sorry, you were saying something about... "watching the game"..? or move the chains at all in the running game with the exception of the big plays, and at that point in the game the Bills were already up by 20. The Chiefs didn't abandon the run because they couldn't afford to run it, they abandoned it because it wasn't working for them early even when the game was relatively close. You also might want to check your math. 56-22=34 10-1=9 34/9=3.77 3.77<4 Jamaal Charles had 10 rush attempts.... 11:37 1st KC 1st & 10 at KC28 > Jamaal Charles rush to the left for 4 yards to the KC32. Tackled by Jairus Byrd. 8:08 1st KC 2nd & 10 at KC20 > Jamaal Charles rush up the middle for 3 yards to the KC23. Tackled by Nick Barnett. 6:09 1st KC 1st & 10 at KC14 > Jamaal Charles rush to the left for 4 yards to the KC18. Tackled by Shawne Merriman. 0:55 1st KC 1st & 10 at KC20 > Jamaal Charles rush to the left for 22 yards to the KC42. Tackled by Bryan Scott. 0:26 1st KC 1st & 10 at KC42 > Jamaal Charles rush up the middle for no gain to the KC42. Tackled by Chris Kelsay. 12:53 2nd KC 1st & 10 at Buf21 Jamaal Charles rush to the right for 2 yards to the Buf19. Tackled by George Wilson. 6:37 2nd KC 1st & 10 at KC18 Jamaal Charles rush to the right for 3 yards to the KC21. Tackled by George Wilson. FUMBLE, recovered by Buf (Leodis McKelvin). Tackled by Jamaal Charles. 2:55 2nd KC 2nd & 8 at Buf44 Jamaal Charles rush up the middle for 14 yards to the Buf30. Tackled by Jairus Byrd. 11:43 4th KC 1st & 10 at KC16 Jamaal Charles rush to the right for 5 yards to the KC21. Tackled by Danny Batten. 10:37 4th KC 1st & 10 at KC31 Jamaal Charles rush up the middle for a loss of 1 yard to the KC30. Tackled by Danny Batten. Ok, let's look at this... 10 carries for 56 yards... 50 of them were in the first half.. before halftime even started the Chiefs abandoned the running game..He had only one run for negative yards. Broke two long runs. Was stopped for no gain on the other. Again, he carried the ball TWICE in the second half... By the 4th it was garbage time. You are seriously going to sit here and tell me that constitutes "struggling to run the ball"??? Edited September 16, 2011 by Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 What makes you think the Raiders won't abandon the run as well? The Broncos put up 20 points on your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bump Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 What makes you think the Raiders won't abandon the run as well? The Broncos put up 20 points on your team. there is a difference between scoring 20 points in the whole game as opposed to scoring 20 in the first 17 minutes....My God... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 No when your a speed guy that relies on your legs you don't fool around with hamstring injuries. You make sure thats 100% before you even think about letting him play. Or you risk it being a problem that effects him the whole year. I like your thinking- sometimes you do the smart thing, instead of going all out to win every game. Doesn't mean you aren't trying to win, you just are more calculating, especially early on. And you don't mess with a guy's health either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bump Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Jacoby Ford will not play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandemonium Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Bump, thanks for proving my point. If you don't even attempt to run the ball on third in an entire game because every third down is longer than 4 yards, your run game was not effective at converting 3rd downs. Part of converting 3rd downs is using 1st and 2nd to set up 3rd and short, which gives you a lot more options and makes things harder on the defense by not forcing you into a passing situation. The run game didn't do that for the Chiefs. I guess you're right though. The Chiefs were so good at running the ball that they only scored 7 points and had the ball less than 23 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bump Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Bump, thanks for proving my point. If you don't even attempt to run the ball on third in an entire game because every third down is longer than 4 yards, your run game was not effective at converting 3rd downs. Part of converting 3rd downs is using 1st and 2nd to set up 3rd and short, which gives you a lot more options and makes things harder on the defense by not forcing you into a passing situation. The run game didn't do that for the Chiefs. I guess you're right though. The Chiefs were so good at running the ball that they only scored 7 points and had the ball less than 23 minutes. Skew it any way you like... I see you are very efficient at deluding yourself rather progressively. They gave up runs of 23 yards, 22 yards, 15 yards and 12 yards. In a game where they were down 20 points in the first 23 minutes and they still allowed over 100 yards rushing...That is not "good" run defense In addition, check this out...In that game, on KC's first three drives the FIRST play in those drives were a pass... they didn't run Charles on 1st down until the 4th drive and THAT was the 22yd run... Unfortunately, they were already down by 14. So your "using 1st and 2nd down to prevent you from going into passing situations" logic fails you. In the sense that you want to believe that a stout run put Cassel into that situation but the proof is in black and white that it was clearly a play calling downfall. Not matter how you paint it.. 10 carries for 56 yards is not struggling to run the ball. Edited September 16, 2011 by Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snamsnoops Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Skew it any way you like... I see you are very efficient at deluding yourself rather progressively. They gave up runs of 23 yards, 22 yards, 15 yards and 12 yards. In a game where they were down 20 points in the first 23 minutes and they still allowed over 100 yards rushing...That is not "good" run defense In addition, check this out...In that game, on KC's first three drives the FIRST play in those drives were a pass... they didn't run Charles on 1st down until the 4th drive and THAT was the 22yd run... Unfortunately, they were already down by 14. So your "using 1st and 2nd down to prevent you from going into passing situations" logic fails you. In the sense that you want to believe that a stout run put Cassel into that situation but the proof is in black and white that it was clearly a play calling downfall. Not matter how you paint it.. 10 carries for 56 yards is not struggling to run the ball. Look the chiefs running and passing were pretty bad. Just take a look at the score. Stats don't mean chit if you lose a game 42 - 7. Easy as that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bump Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Look the chiefs running and passing were pretty bad. Just take a look at the score. Stats don't mean chit if you lose a game 42 - 7. Easy as that A "scoreboard mentality" is a great way to fool yourself though.... Sure, the game is about who scores the most points. But a 20-0 hole goes a long way to change the complexion of a game. ESPECIALLY if the game plan was to pound the rock. There is no denying that. Edited September 16, 2011 by Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandemonium Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Skew it any way you like... I see you are very efficient at deluding yourself rather progressively. They gave up runs of 23 yards, 22 yards, 15 yards and 12 yards. In a game where they were down 20 points in the first 23 minutes and they still allowed over 100 yards rushing...That is not "good" run defense In addition, check this out...In that game, on KC's first three drives the FIRST play in those drives were a pass... they didn't run Charles on 1st down until the 4th drive and THAT was the 22yd run... Unfortunately, they were already down by 14. So your "using 1st and 2nd down to prevent you from going into passing situations" logic fails you. In the sense that you want to believe that a stout run put Cassel into that situation but the proof is in black and white that it was clearly a play calling downfall. Not matter how you paint it.. 10 carries for 56 yards is not struggling to run the ball. It might not be struggling, but it's not running effectively either. And them passing on 1st down doesn't invalidate my statement about using 1st and 2nd to set yourself up for 3rd. Bottom line is the KC running game was mostly a non factor, and didn't put them in a position to convert. The fact that their passing game was even less of a factor and didn't put them in a position to convert either doesn't change that. All I'm saying is the yards per carry stat in this game was highly misleading. If you guys come in and average 6 YPC by consistently getting 5-7 yard runs, It will be a long day for us. If you do it the way the Chiefs did, it will be a long day for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Marcel Dareus- AKA the BEST player on the team was a huge reason they had no running game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bump Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 It might not be struggling, but it's not running effectively either. And them passing on 1st down doesn't invalidate my statement about using 1st and 2nd to set yourself up for 3rd. Bottom line is the KC running game was mostly a non factor, and didn't put them in a position to convert. The fact that their passing game was even less of a factor and didn't put them in a position to convert either doesn't change that. All I'm saying is the yards per carry stat in this game was highly misleading. If you guys come in and average 6 YPC by consistently getting 5-7 yard runs, It will be a long day for us. If you do it the way the Chiefs did, it will be a long day for you. We won't do it like the Chiefs did... We are going to run it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 there is a difference between scoring 20 points in the whole game as opposed to scoring 20 in the first 17 minutes....My God... Teams don't average their final average on every carry. Hence the reason the Raiders couldn't score on every possession by running for almost 5 yards on every play (they failed to score on 6 of their 11 possessions, not counting the Ford fumble or the last clock-killing drive). And this was against a weak Denver defense who had as bad a rushing defense as the Bills did last year and did NOTHING to upgrade it in that area, and were the worst defense in terms of scoring, again with little to upgrade it. Your team has no real receiving threats, which means a lot of attention will be paid to McFadden (Bush averaged just 3 YPC so he's no major concern), which means he'll be shut down. Again at least the Chefs have a great WR in Bowe, along with a good one in Breaston, and they were at home. And my point was that the anemic Denver offense scored 20 points against your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00tabaga Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) @Bump:That predictability will be why Buffalo wins. Load the box and man your gaps. @Chandemonium: Don't argue with Raiders fans. Unless you wanna end up in the hospital or jail. Let them think KC ran all over us. Who cares. I hope we smash the Raiders in the face...but they are underrated like us. I'll be screaming my face off @ the Ralph!!! Edited September 16, 2011 by r00tabaga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bump Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Teams don't average their final average on every carry. Hence the reason the Raiders couldn't score on every possession by running for almost 5 yards on every play (they failed to score on 6 of their 11 possessions, not counting the Ford fumble or the last clock-killing drive). And this was against a weak Denver defense who had as bad a rushing defense as the Bills did last year and did NOTHING to upgrade it in that area, and were the worst defense in terms of scoring, again with little to upgrade it. Your team has no real receiving threats, which means a lot of attention will be paid to McFadden (Bush averaged just 3 YPC so he's no major concern), which means he'll be shut down. Again at least the Chefs have a great WR in Bowe, along with a good one in Breaston, and they were at home. And my point was that the anemic Denver offense scored 20 points against your team. We really had no receiving threats last year.... did that stop McFadden? Do you think the Broncos game planned around Darrius Heyward-Bey? Or Chaz Schilens? No, they didn't because they game planned around Darren McFadden and he still burned them for 150. So what makes you think the Bills would do any different? Bush is of no real concern? I guess you didn't see him rip 3 straight runs of at least 8 yards in the 4th quarter to seal that Bronco game shut. Make no mistake, in a close game where McFadden has worn a defense down... NOBODY wants any business tackling Bush in the 4th quarter. I guess his 8 TD's in a backup role would be of no concern as well? Hopefully, the Bills will be able to hold the Raiders out of any goal line situation. Bush will be a problem. Actually, if I was a Bills fan, I would welcome it. See if the Darreus hype is warranted. We can play "this team vs that team" and compare matchups and prognosticate all we want. One thing that is for sure... Darren McFadden is the best player on that field, for both teams, come Sunday. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 We really had no receiving threats last year.... did that stop McFadden? Do you think the Broncos game planned around Darrius Heyward-Bey? Or Chaz Schilens? No, they didn't because they game planned around Darren McFadden and he still burned them for 150. So what makes you think the Bills would do any different? Why do I care what the Broncos did on defense? Again they had the worst defense in points allowed last year and did little to upgrade it (they should have taken Dareus over Miller, but thankfully for us they didn't!). Bush is of no real concern? I guess you didn't see him rip 3 straight runs of at least 8 yards in the 4th quarter to seal that Bronco game shut. Make no mistake, in a close game where McFadden has worn a defense down... NOBODY wants any business tackling Bush in the 4th quarter. I guess his 8 TD's in a backup role would be of no concern as well? Hopefully, the Bills will be able to hold the Raiders out of any goal line situation. Bush will be a problem. Bush got 26 (on 4 carries) of his 30 yards (on 9 carries) on that final drive (he actually had runs of 10, 2, 2, and 12 yards). Meaning he had 5 carries for 4 yards during the previous 52 (ignoring Denver's final drive) minutes. Wow. Actually, if I was a Bills fan, I would welcome it. See if the Darreus hype is warranted. We can play "this team vs that team" and compare matchups and prognosticate all we want. One thing that is for sure... Darren McFadden is the best player on that field, for both teams, come Sunday. Period. I can see him having similar stats to Charles. Meaning he won't be the best player on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 One thing that is for sure... Darren McFadden is the best player on that field, for both teams, come Sunday. Period. Nope. Kyle Williams is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#34fan Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Guys, that fullback Reece is a BALLER. He can Catch, run, and block pretty good. Gotta find a way to neutralize him as an offensive weapon. Edited September 16, 2011 by #34fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts