Football Freakonomics, the QB driven league, and the Bills

[Hapless Bills Fan]

The offense is not even close to being the problem. 59% PASS/41% RUN. So what? If they had a defense that could simply stop a runny nose, injuries on offense not withstanding, the Bills would be good for 4 or 5 more wins and would be playing next weekend.

 

I agree that the defense is a bigger gap for the Bills right now. "So what?" is that if the Bills offense were more effective, the offense would stay on the field more and longer, keep our crummy defense off the field more and longer, and thus win more games.

 

That the defense is a bigger gap does not absolve the offense for lack of production.

 

Hey Hopeful. Interesting stats. My only comment is with respect to the Green Bay comparison. While I do not follow Green Bay closely, my impression is that they have had some blow out wins this year, in which they were pretty far ahead in the 4Q. If they follow the typical pattern (don't really know because I don't watch them often), it seems likely that they would be running the ball more in the 4Q when they were trying to use clock.

 

OTOH, the Bills have trailed by a significant margin even in some of the games they came back to win. As a result, the Bills haven't been in a position as often as Green Bay to try to use clock to protect a lead. Do you think that might explain part of what the game-long stats show? I wonder if there's a way to break out the clock usage effect - - maybe stats for just the first quarter when clock usage isn't a factor and most games would not involve a team going pass-heavy to catch up or run-heavy to use up the clock?

 

Like you, I would also like to see Chan stick with the run a little longer even if slightly behind, but I think the comparison with Green Bay might be slightly skewed for the reasons stated above.

 

What do you think?

 

ICSWID, I guess it depends a bit upon how one defines blowout. GB won 10 of its games by less than 9 points and another by 21 points (no scoring in the 2nd half by either team). Three of the other wins were >3 TD, which I guess you could call a blow-out.

Still, even in those games, the playcalling was almost 50/50 run/pass overall, with only about 100 yds rushing, >300 yds passing in two cases (418 yds and 308 yds to be exact).

 

The Bills have had 3 similar "blowouts" of >3 TD lead (KC, Wash, and Den) where we would expect to rush more to burn time in the 2nd half. So I don't think the "blowouts" skew the GB picture too much.

 

I think it is inarguable that Chan jumps away from the run like a scalded cat when we're behind at the half or go 3 and out on the 1st drive of the 2nd half.

In 2 of our losses we were behind by more than 2 scores at the half thus some argument to be made for going to a pass-heavy attack. In two we were tied at the half, in 2 behind by <1 TD, in 2 behind by 2 TD, deficits that could arguably be made up more readily by trying harder to keep the ball away from the other guys with a run-centered attack. That's just my opinion though. Any difference in opinion is probably tied up in nits about what "a little longer" and "slightly behind" mean to different folks.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Hopeful

[BADOLBILZ]

Fitz not being able to throw deep sorely limits the ability to keep defenses honest. This AFCE Blog post on ESPN is probably a big part of the reason Gailey doesn't call more intermediate or deep passes with his QB. Not surprisingly, when Gailey needed Fitzpatrick to make a play against the Giants in Week 7, Fitz tossed 2 picks. He knows it puts his QB in a position to fail, because his QB lacks touch on the intermediate to deep throws.

 

It's harder to keep defenses on edge with nothing more than a short passing game and running the ball. I think Charlie Casserly said something about how stopping the Bills can be done by pressing their receivers, thereby disrupting their route running and timing of the QB. This makes Fitzpatrick take more time, which isn't available because the pass protection, at least from the OT's, isn't all that great. The OL gets a lot of misguided credit because he doesn't get sacked. Well, opponents don't have to sack the QB to stop the Bills either, as evidenced by the last 8 games.

 

For all the talk about Gailey being an offensive guru, he doesn't adapt when people figure him out. It happened at GT and it's happening in Buffalo. Sure, everything looked good in the first 6 weeks of the season, but when teams figured them out as Casserly mentioned, he couldn't respond. Some will point to the injuries, or lack of talent, but if the coach is unwilling to make changes and simply say they need better execution, isn't that a HC who isn't very creative and too wedded to his system? I know so.

 

I am giving Chan the offensive coordinator the benefit of the doubt because his defense was so atrocious during that losing streak that it took the Bills out of their running game very early every week.

 

As you stated, with the limitations the Bills have match-up wise on offense(Fitz arm, OT athleticism, lack of speed in receiving corps), they can't expect to compete in games when the opposing offense scores TD's on every posession in the first half.

 

The past couple weeks they have actually recorded a few stops defensively and Chan's play calling hasn't looked so bad.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Great thread top to bottom.

 

The biggest objection to the notion that the Bills pass too much has been by those claiming that the team has been playing from behind an inordinate amount of time.

 

To me and many others though, if you watch the game and take into account down and distance and time remaining in whichever quarter, that is if you actively watch the game you find yourself thinking "what's a good play call here?" or "I really liked that call" or "I really didn't like that call."

 

If you watch the game that way, I don't think you can defend Gailey's run:pass ratio.

 

Personally there seems to be about 4-5 plays each game where I think to myself "what the f_ck was he thinking there?" Usually it's on plays where they not only threw the ball but also that there was no question that they were gonna throw the ball because there was no one in the backfield except Fitz.

 

Isn't a pass much easier to defend if you know a pass is coming?

[WVUFootball29]

To those asking about White he has been a bit banged up with two head injuries along with an ankle and illness. he's been active 11 games and I believe he has been seeing most of his time on st's but don't quote me on that

[vincec]

 

Let's compare a team with exactly the same number of run attempts, the Green Bay Packers. They have one of the premier QB in the league in Aaron Rodgers.

The Packers have 508 pass attempts (58%, #18 in the league) for 9.2 ypa (#1 in the league). The Packers have 371 run attempts (42%, #26 in the league) for 4 ypa (#21 in the league)

So here we have a team with one of the premier QB in the league, they have the most effective passing game in the league, and we have the same percentage of pass plays that they do.

They have a much less effective running game than we do, and have run exactly the same number of running plays as we have despite the fact that we have the 3rd most efficient running game in the league.

 

 

 

Imagine how much the Packers would be passing if they were behind all the time like the Bills are.

[Gray Beard]

To those asking about White he has been a bit banged up with two head injuries along with an ankle and illness. he's been active 11 games and I believe he has been seeing most of his time on st's but don't quote me on that

Good to know. Thanks for the info.

[dave mcbride]

Where's the stat that facrors in whether teams have leads or are down by 2 TDs? Without that, the stat is meaningless. The bills from 1989-93 ran the ball a ton, but anyone who watched that team knew that it passed to set up the run. They ran it a lot because they had the lead. The pats now always pass early and save their running for when they have a lead in the fourth. There's an extremely strong correlation between falling behind by a couple of scores in the second ha lf and shifting to a pass mode. I'd be curious to know the difference in the bills run pass ratio in games 1-7 and games 8-14.

Edited December 31, 2011 by dave mcbride

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

I disagree with the OP's sentiment.

 

1) Chan is the best playcaller we've had in years. It is as if many of you have forgotten the last 15 years. Other than 1 good year with Killdrive, Chan has overseen one of the most prolific offenses we've all seen in a while.

 

2) It's also no coincidence that the grumbling over the playcalling started and some of our offensive woes started after we were totally decimated by injuries. That's been a key factor in the snide. You're not going to run your full arsenal of plays without your speed receivers, starting RB, and starting TE.

 

3) I also think the run/pass ratio has been fine. I would argue that it's been the case that our rushing has been so effective in light of the fact that we pass more. Our passing game has opened up our running game. For example, we've been super effective running out of obvious passing formations (e.g., lot of 4-WR runs, shotgun hand-offs).

[San Jose Bills Fan]

People continue to invoke the "the Bills are always behind argument" in defense of their high percentage of passes.

 

Again I don't think you need the statistics to show that the Bills pass too much.

 

I think you need to simply watch the games and ask yourself before each play "would I run or would I pass" and see what the play call ends up being.

Edited December 31, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[dave mcbride]

Is Gailey perfect? No. But from 2003 - 2010, the Bills finished no better than 24th in offense. Now, with a very moderate talent base, they are 14th in yards and 14th in points. Critics of Gailey's offensive approach (a suprisingly large number, i think) should remember that. Rome wasn't built in a day, you know. They actually made real progress this year when you look at the output in its totality.

Edited December 31, 2011 by dave mcbride

[NewEra]

Nice post Hopeful. Interesting stats.

As far as drafting a RB in this years draft, if we do, I'll be sick. We have 2 very good rbs and 2 rbs (choice and white) that are serviceable. It's our strongest position. Draft everything BUT a RB.

[BADOLBILZ]

People continue to invoke the "the Bills are always behind argument" in defense of their high percentage of passes.

 

Again I don't think you need the statistics to show that the Bills pass too much.

 

I think you need to simply watch the games and ask yourself before each play "would I run or would I pass" and see what the play call ends up being.

 

They invoke it because it is true.

 

It is a finesse offense with finesse personnel. Their OL does not match up well physically to most defensive fronts, their receivers don't make plays downfield or after the catch and their QB has very little range.

 

I know everyone is thrilled by the numbers in the running game, but the reason the running game works is because defenses are spread out.

 

Defenses respect the spread because the plays are there. I mean, ask yourself how often you hear the color guy on the broadcast saying "everyone was covered'. Not often, because they are open A LOT. But because they are a short passing offense it is nothing for Fitz to hit a rough patch and kill a couple drives with bad passes.

 

I will accept the argument that he has too much confidence in Fitzpatrick, but as someone who sits at the 50 yard line every week, let me tell you, the plays are there to be made. This is something that I can't say about the offensive playcalling at any time in recent memory.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Where's the stat that facrors in whether teams have leads or are down by 2 TDs? Without that, the stat is meaningless. The bills from 1989-93 ran the ball a ton, but anyone who watched that team knew that it passed to set up the run. They ran it a lot because they had the lead. The pats now always pass early and save their running for when they have a lead in the fourth. There's an extremely strong correlation between falling behind by a couple of scores in the second ha lf and shifting to a pass mode. I'd be curious to know the difference in the bills run pass ratio in games 1-7 and games 8-14.

 

Good points, Dave. If you decide to pursue the run/pass ratio question between games 1-7 and 8-14, I'd be very interested in the results. Keep in mind that we came from significantly behind during in games 2 and 3.

 

Let me put another question to all the good readers here:

For the Bills, where is the point at which it's really a necessity for the Bills to pass instead of running?

 

For Green Bay, their average pass play is 9.2 yds; their average run play is 4.0 yds. So they gain 5.2 yds per play by passing instead of running. They also work the edges effectively in the passing game, giving their receivers a chance to stop the clock. One doesn't have to be a math genius to determine they can score in significantly less time if they pass, than if they run. More than twice many plays, actually - 20 run plays, 9 pass plays on average to go 80 yds.

 

For Buffalo, our average pass play is 6.7 yds. Our average run play is 4.9 yds. So we gain 1.8 yds per play by passing instead of running. In addition, we're most effective passing across the middle and our receivers seldom get OOB, meaning the time difference between a pass and a run play is not so great. 12 pass plays to go 80 yds, 16 run plays to go 80 yds.

 

Assuming a pass play does not end OOB, and that a relatively short pass play does not take significantly longer than a run play to execute, that means a scoring drive involving an even split of pass and run plays would be on average about 2 plays, or about 70 seconds, longer for the Bills, than a drive that involves only pass plays.

 

That being the case.....even if we're down by 2 TD with at least 1Q left, how does it benefit the Bills to switch to a pass-only mode that frees the opponent's D to bring choking pressure?

 

Now, when we have a couple of reliable burner receivers and a QB/receiver combination that can teach the opponents to fear the long bomb, the arithmetic changes. Since "it is what it is", why don't we make better use of what we do well, instead of clinging to what Chan wants or expects or believes we should be able to do (in the face of facts, if he does believe that)

[Gray Beard]

The other factor that I feel is important is what happens when a play doesn't work. If you can reliably gain 4 yards per run, then run forever. Heck, if you can reliably gain 2.5 yards per run, then run forever.

 

What happens when a run is stuffed? The tendency is to go straight to the pass in order to get a bigger chunk of yardage. What happens when a pass is incomplete? Ditto.

 

The idea that a running play could still be called when a run was stuffed or a pass was incomplete is a tough sell in the best case, and downright impossible with the play calling tendencies this season.

[BADOLBILZ]

Good points, Dave. If you decide to pursue the run/pass ratio question between games 1-7 and 8-14, I'd be very interested in the results. Keep in mind that we came from significantly behind during in games 2 and 3.

 

Let me put another question to all the good readers here:

For the Bills, where is the point at which it's really a necessity for the Bills to pass instead of running?

 

For Green Bay, their average pass play is 9.2 yds; their average run play is 4.0 yds. So they gain 5.2 yds per play by passing instead of running. They also work the edges effectively in the passing game, giving their receivers a chance to stop the clock. One doesn't have to be a math genius to determine they can score in significantly less time if they pass, than if they run. More than twice many plays, actually - 20 run plays, 9 pass plays on average to go 80 yds.

 

For Buffalo, our average pass play is 6.7 yds. Our average run play is 4.9 yds. So we gain 1.8 yds per play by passing instead of running. In addition, we're most effective passing across the middle and our receivers seldom get OOB, meaning the time difference between a pass and a run play is not so great. 12 pass plays to go 80 yds, 16 run plays to go 80 yds.

 

Assuming a pass play does not end OOB, and that a relatively short pass play does not take significantly longer than a run play to execute, that means a scoring drive involving an even split of pass and run plays would be on average about 2 plays, or about 70 seconds, longer for the Bills, than a drive that involves only pass plays.

 

That being the case.....even if we're down by 2 TD with at least 1Q left, how does it benefit the Bills to switch to a pass-only mode that frees the opponent's D to bring choking pressure?

 

Now, when we have a couple of reliable burner receivers and a QB/receiver combination that can teach the opponents to fear the long bomb, the arithmetic changes. Since "it is what it is", why don't we make better use of what we do well, instead of clinging to what Chan wants or expects or believes we should be able to do (in the face of facts, if he does believe that)

 

 

The Bills run game is set up by their pass game. This is not a power running football team.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Imagine how much the Packers would be passing if they were behind all the time like the Bills are.

 

The Bills are not behind 3 TD all the time. In their losses, they were tied at the half twice, behind by 1 TD or less twice, and behind by 3 TD or more only twice.

 

The Packers average point differential in their wins is less than 9 points. They aren't living in the land of the Eternal Commanding Lead

 

That said, I really appreciate all the thoughtful viewpoints in this thread including those of the folks who disagree. Great discussion gents!

 

The Bills run game is set up by their pass game. This is not a power running football team.

 

I agree that is how Chan calls it.

 

I guess what puzzles me, or what I'm not clear on, is:

1) if it's impossible for us to run-first without being a power running team - other teams do seem to manage this

2) if it's possible to win consistently with a pass-first offense unless one has a dominating offensive line and an elite passer as a QB

 

Good coaching, IMO, looks at what one has on the table - all of what one has on the table, fullback, blocking TEs, all of it - and how best to use it.

[spartacus]

The Bills pass too much because it is the only way to cover up for the craptacular OL.

 

and the only way they can even pass the ball is for Fitz to release it under 2 seconds.

 

If the Bills tried to run a conventional power run game, they would be stuffed because the OL can not sustain blocks at the point of attack. The success they have had running the ball has been out of the spread offense, where the defense is spread out.

 

Until the Bills develop an NFL quality line, the offense will continue to resort to gimmicks

 

 

 

 

 

[San Jose Bills Fan]

They invoke it because it is true.

 

It is a finesse offense with finesse personnel. Their OL does not match up well physically to most defensive fronts, their receivers don't make plays downfield or after the catch and their QB has very little range.

 

I know everyone is thrilled by the numbers in the running game, but the reason the running game works is because defenses are spread out.

 

Defenses respect the spread because the plays are there. I mean, ask yourself how often you hear the color guy on the broadcast saying "everyone was covered'. Not often, because they are open A LOT. But because they are a short passing offense it is nothing for Fitz to hit a rough patch and kill a couple drives with bad passes.

 

I will accept the argument that he has too much confidence in Fitzpatrick, but as someone who sits at the 50 yard line every week, let me tell you, the plays are there to be made. This is something that I can't say about the offensive playcalling at any time in recent memory.

So you think it's true that the Bills pass so much because they're always playing from behind?

 

We'll disagree on that one.

 

IMO, there are a multitude of instances where the down and distance and time remaining simply did not favor a pass over a run, and yet that's what happened.

 

As for your other rationale, I don't buy that the Bills are a finesse offense and if they are, it's simply because they are pass happy.

 

I don't buy that guys like Wood, Levitre, and Urbik are finesse football players.

 

Unlike teams like Houston, Denver, San Francisco, Seattle and others, the Bills are are not insistent in trying to run the ball. Those teams realize that their QBs are incapable of carrying the offense so they resort to common sense… leaning on the running game.

 

Passing the ball too much and asking your linemen to be attacked by pass rushers is how an offense becomes a finesse offense. It's also how a quarterback gets weighed down by too much responsibility.

 

The Bills offense would be much more effective if they simply ran the ball to set up the pass, instead of putting too much on the shoulders of a quarterback who for numerous reasons, is not up to carrying a team.

 

And yet another point: virtually everyone on this board agrees that the Bills are a good run-blocking team but that their good pass-blocking stats are only a result of Fitz getting the ball out early.

 

If the Bills run block well but pass block poorly, then why would they insist on passing the ball so much?

 

I'll believe that the Bills cannot be an effective running team when they actually try to run and fail at it.

 

That hasn't happened yet.

 

They're like the fighter who lands the jab at will but doesn't use it enough.

 

The Bills pass too much because it is the only way to cover up for the craptacular OL.

 

and the only way they can even pass the ball is for Fitz to release it under 2 seconds.

 

If the Bills tried to run a conventional power run game, they would be stuffed because the OL can not sustain blocks at the point of attack. The success they have had running the ball has been out of the spread offense, where the defense is spread out.

 

Until the Bills develop an NFL quality line, the offense will continue to resort to gimmicks

Okay.

 

You say that the Bills pass too much because their O-line sucks.

 

So apparently you think that pass blocking is easier than run blocking.

 

You say "if the Bills tried to run a conventional power run game that they would be stuffed."

 

But there hasn't been a single game all year where the Bills leaned heavily on the run game.

 

All we know is that generally when the Bills run the ball, that they do so effectively.

 

I think most people would say that if the offensive line sucks, you're better off running it too much than throwing it too much.

 

Your logic is interesting.

 

 

[dave mcbride]

The Pats have 604 passing plays this year and 409 runs. The Saints have 648 passing plays and 396 running plays. Both pass rates are higher than that of the Bills. This whole debate seems beside the point to me. Run-heavy offenses dom't really work in the NFL any more, and I really wonder whether nostalgia for old-fashioned Lombardi/Halas-era smashmouth football is fueling the sentiments here.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

The Pats have 604 passing plays this year and 409 runs. The Saints have 648 passing plays and 396 running plays. Both pass rates are higher than that of the Bills. This whole debate seems beside the point to me. Run-heavy offenses dom't really work in the NFL any more, and I really wonder whether nostalgia for old-fashioned Lombardi/Halas-era smashmouth football is fueling the sentiments here.

No.

 

I'm talking about common sense.