Is "Ground and Pound" Obsolete?

[....lybob]

The question is whether you have the horses to pull it off - can you run with 8 or 9 in the box against talented defensive players? - that takes a special OL, TEs, RBs even the WRs have to be able to block- forget ground and pound I'd be satisfied with stop getting blown up in the middle of the OL and stop being pathetic at picking up 3rd and 1

[The Big Cat]

Ground and pound can win provided it's not at the expense of being able to pass. It is a QB league; the rules have seen to it. Just look at the QB's in this years playoffs ......a grouping that includes the best in the game (the final 4 includes the 4 best QB's in the game in fact). Some of these teams also have VG to excellent defenses which, simply makes them that much more of a difficult out.

 

False, Russel Wilson is most certainly not a top 4 QB.

[joey greco]

A top ranked defence, adequate QB play, ... an adequate QB such as a Russell Wilson, Flacco or Colin Kaepernick present the better scenario for success.

 

LOL, "adequate qb play"

*names 2 of the top 6 qb's in the league. Quality post.

I think some of the early posters nailed this.

 

First of all, Rex is planning to be a ground-and-pound team because we don't currently have an answer at QB.

 

Second, ground-and-pound can still win in the NFL. Seattle has been in the top five for rushing attempts for the past three years. In fact, they ran it more than anyone this year. Pete Carroll clearly believes in ground-and-pound and I believe in Pete Carroll.

Seattle does run a lot. Specifically their qb. That's not ground and pound, most of those runs are dropbacks. Also, winning teams run a lot in the second half. Pete Carroll clearly believes that his qb must be a playmaker, not a caretaker, to have success.

 

 

I'll say it again, Seattle's QB rushed the ball 112 times. Having a QB run it that many times is not a true "ground and pound" offense.

 

If you want a true winning "ground and pound" attack then you need Dallas' offensive line. The Bills clearly don't have Dallas' offensive line (not even close) or the RB so I highly doubt that Rex is planning the "ground and pound" attack that you are imagining.

 

The Bills are going to run the ball with their RBs, Manuel and Watkins on end arounds so it's not going to be a true "ground and pound" attack. They are going to use misdirection and surprise than pounding the defensive 8 man front into the ground. They simply do not have the players to do that so it would be a mistake to do it anyways. Also, expect a LOT of passes to Watkins this year. Rex loves him.

Dallas still had one of the best qb's in the league to go with the running game. There is no success in the NFL unless your qb has the ability to regularly make big plays.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

There is just so much incentive to throw the ball these days by the league rules. If I had my way they'd introduce a new rule pushing the D-line a yard off the ball a la CFL. This would led to more emphasis on the running game because they would play with 4 downs not 3. The game would be more interesting to me if there was more balance.

Edited January 18, 2015 by moreproblemsthanOrton

[hondo in seattle]

 

I'll say it again, Seattle's QB rushed the ball 112 times. Having a QB run it that many times is not a true "ground and pound" offense.

 

....

 

 

 

Of course Seattle is going to take advantage of Wilson's unique skill set. But, then again, Lynch has been averaging about 300 carries per season over the past three years. Carroll clearly likes to pound it with Lynch.

 

In 2014,

 

The 'Hawks (supposedly not a ground-and-pound team) ran 51.4% of the time.

 

Ground-and-pound Rex Ryan ran 48.2% of the time. (Smith/Vick ran 85 times).

 

Ground-and -pound Greg Roman ran 46.6% of the time. (Kaep ran it 104 times).

 

Even when you take the QB carries out of the numbers, Seattle still runs more than our new ground-and-pound HC and OC

 

Hawks... 40.8%

 

Rex/NYJ... 40.1%

 

Roman/9ers... 36.2%

 

 

Interestingly, Rex has mentioned he wants EJ to use his legs more. I'm guessing he's thinking of Wilson and Kaep.

[Buffaloed in Pa]

 

I'll say it again, Seattle's QB rushed the ball 112 times. Having a QB run it that many times is not a true "ground and pound" offense.

 

If you want a true winning "ground and pound" attack then you need Dallas' offensive line. The Bills clearly don't have Dallas' offensive line (not even close) or the RB so I highly doubt that Rex is planning the "ground and pound" attack that you are imagining.

 

The Bills are going to run the ball with their RBs, Manuel and Watkins on end arounds so it's not going to be a true "ground and pound" attack. They are going to use misdirection and surprise than pounding the defensive 8 man front into the ground. They simply do not have the players to do that so it would be a mistake to do it anyways. Also, expect a LOT of passes to Watkins this year. Rex loves him.

That`s right.

[1billsfan]

Dallas still had one of the best qb's in the league to go with the running game. There is no success in the NFL unless your qb has the ability to regularly make big plays.

 

I wasn't talking about Dallas' offense, just talking about their line being the only one in the NFL being "ground and pound" ready.

 

I think that many fans here think that Rex will try to run the ball as if they had Dallas' "bully" line, but I highly doubt he is that stupid to try that strategy. I think that Rex is someone who talks a lot but that you should not believe everything he's saying. Rex will tell Roman to tailor the offense to who the Bills have on the roster. Yes they'll run the ball a lot, but they will not be a "ground and pound" offense because they don't haver the offensive line for that.

[Big Turk]

My apologies if this has been said in another post, but the article linked below was just published in the NY Times today (Sunday, Jan. 18).

 

Like most everyone else, I think the hiring of Ryan and Roman was an excellent move by the Bills. One thing I worry about is the "ground and pound" philosophy that Ryan and Roman want to bring. Does that approach win anymore? I hope that it does and could, but suspect that it is outdated by rule changes in the NFL. This NY Times article shows the statistics, all brought about by new rules meant to protect the QB and WR: 9 QB's had 30 or more touchdowns this year. NINE!!!!. Compare that to ZERO in 2002, and ONE in 2003, 2005, and 2006.

 

As the article suggests, isn't a passing offense with an elite QB now a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for winning a championship? If so, why bother building a team for a running game, if you simply can't win a Superbowl with this mentality? Sure, we can be competitive, and make the playoffs, but we will ultimately be outscored by a team with a good defense and an high-octane passing offense. Witness the remaining teams in the playoffs.

 

If all this is true, then the Bills and every other team should pull out all the stops to developing a high-octane passing offense. "Ground and pound" (at least the "ground" part) won't win anymore, and I am a bit worried that the Bills are setting themselves up for failure.

No, teams can still play that way and win with good defense and a QB that makes enough throws and is athletic enough to create some issues with him using his legs...pretty much how San Francisco and Seattle have been built the past few seasons, although SF turned into a rough situation this year with lots of injuries, suspensions and coaching distractions constantly every week with Harbaugh...

I think what we are seeing is the throw the ball all over the field approach works to win games but can be throttled by a team that plays superior defense and runs the ball(Seattle vs. Denver last year) well and has a QB that can do enough to keep the D unbalanced, especially in the playoffs...

Edited January 18, 2015 by matter2003

[Fadingpain]

In simple terms, a run-based offense needs a lot of good, coordinated execution on every play, for a long series of successive plays in order to score, b/c runs simply don't yield a ton of yards statistically and a good run is usually the result of a bunch of guys doing their jobs well.

 

A strong passing attack is statistically massively preferential; 1, 2, 3 nice pieces of execution is often all you need to put a TD on the board, and if you have Brady and Gronk and an "OK" line, you probably need strong execution from just 2 people, most of the time.

 

If I have to have 2 players execute well, 3 or 4 times to score (b/c I have Tom Brady and Gronk) and you have to have 7 players execute well, 17 times to score (b/c you ground and pound), I am going to score more than you during a 60 minute football game, most of the time.

[KOKBILLS]

I think "Ground and Pound" is just a silly branding term. It's largely meaningless. More importantly is the ability to both pass and run and use those at the right times versus the right opponents. Seattle is the perfect example. Green Bay has made a big effort to run more.

 

I know we are going to hear about Ground and Pound until we are so sick of the term, but I think it's just yak yak.

 

Exactly correct...

 

New England is yet another example...They have games where they go a full half without running...And other games when they run for over 200 yards...Adapting to what the Defense is giving you, mixing it up, and exploiting weaknesses, is the Offense that wins Championships in this day and age...

[Max997]

Considering SF went to 3 conference championship games and one super bowl under Roman I'd say yeah no doubt it still works

 

Romans offense is a perfect compliment to the Bills defense and is exactly the kind of offense most of us have wanted the Bills to run the last couple years but Marrone and Hackett insisted on whatever the crap was they ran

[TheFunPolice]

There is nothing obsolete about any approach that you are great at.

 

Also, dominating defense and a strong running game are portable. It is easier to be consistent as a great D. If you are a high flying offense, all it takes is a few dropped passes, a fumble, a miscommunication, a bad snap, and you are in big trouble.

 

Weather also slows down high flying offenses but aids running games and great D's.

 

A dominating D can always hit hard, flow to the ball, lock down WR... In fact, it gets easier as the weather gets worse.

[hondo in seattle]

 

Exactly correct...

 

New England is yet another example...They have games where they go a full half without running...And other games when they run for over 200 yards...Adapting to what the Defense is giving you, mixing it up, and exploiting weaknesses, is the Offense that wins Championships in this day and age...

It would be wonderful to have the talent to do that.

 

Regarding the Bills, assuming EJ is the QB, things would look a little different. I imagine running a lot - Roman is said to be a mad scientist at creating space for backs - with EJ throwing deep once in a while and running it himself maybe 4 or 5 times a game to keep defenses on their heels a bit. It won't be great, but it could be better than the impotent offense we had this past year. Assuming a strong defense, we'd win some games.

 

In a more perfect world, we'd add two Pro Bowl guards and a Pro Bowl QB.

Edited January 18, 2015 by hondo in seattle

[Pneumonic]

 

False, Russel Wilson is most certainly not a top 4 QB.

He's 3rd on my list after Rodgers and Brady. And, in short order, his team will show they agree when they make him the highest paid QB in the league.

[Manther]

I think "Ground and Pound" is just a silly branding term. It's largely meaningless. More importantly is the ability to both pass and run and use those at the right times versus the right opponents. Seattle is the perfect example. Green Bay has made a big effort to run more.

 

I know we are going to hear about Ground and Pound until we are so sick of the term, but I think it's just yak yak.

Agreed it is just a term. Marrone wanted to run...and even when they did it successfully they didn't take advantage of throwing and play action! Craziness!! If we run well the passing game will be open and it will be even more of a surprise to the opposing D and we can take advantage of the easy going passing rules that help the passing game. It will be fine.

[John from Riverside]

When the seahawks become irrellevent.....then I will consider this

[Hapless Bills Fan]

My apologies if this has been said in another post, but the article linked below was just published in the NY Times today (Sunday, Jan. 18).

 

Like most everyone else, I think the hiring of Ryan and Roman was an excellent move by the Bills. One thing I worry about is the "ground and pound" philosophy that Ryan and Roman want to bring. Does that approach win anymore? I hope that it does and could, but suspect that it is outdated by rule changes in the NFL. This NY Times article shows the statistics, all brought about by new rules meant to protect the QB and WR: 9 QB's had 30 or more touchdowns this year. NINE!!!!. Compare that to ZERO in 2002, and ONE in 2003, 2005, and 2006.

 

As the article suggests, isn't a passing offense with an elite QB now a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for winning a championship? If so, why bother building a team for a running game, if you simply can't win a Superbowl with this mentality? Sure, we can be competitive, and make the playoffs, but we will ultimately be outscored by a team with a good defense and an high-octane passing offense. Witness the remaining teams in the playoffs.

 

If all this is true, then the Bills and every other team should pull out all the stops to developing a high-octane passing offense. "Ground and pound" (at least the "ground" part) won't win anymore, and I am a bit worried that the Bills are setting themselves up for failure.

 

Yeah, that's why Peyton Manning and his 55 TD in 2013 annihilated Russell Wilson and his 26 TD in last year's Superbowl, and why top passers like Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers faced off the year before. Oh, wait......

 

The Bills should pull out all the stops to developing an offense that best utilizes the players they have. Until they have a QB capable of running a high-octane passing offense, there's no point in developing it. Chan Gailey's tragic flaw was developing a pass-first offense that would have been brilliant if executed by Brees or Rodgers...with Ryan Fitzpatrick at the helm.

[Deranged Rhino]

He's 3rd on my list after Rodgers and Brady. And, in short order, his team will show they agree when they make him the highest paid QB in the league.

 

Wilson isn't as good as Luck. And I love Wilson. If the NFL had a redraft today for all 32 teams, the first player taken (by any team) would be Luck.

 

Just my two cents.

[Rockinon]

 

LOL, "adequate qb play"

*names 2 of the top 6 qb's in the league. Quality post.

Seattle does run a lot. Specifically their qb. That's not ground and pound, most of those runs are dropbacks. Also, winning teams run a lot in the second half. Pete Carroll clearly believes that his qb must be a playmaker, not a caretaker, to have success.

 

Dallas still had one of the best qb's in the league to go with the running game. There is no success in the NFL unless your qb has the ability to regularly make big plays.

A lot of those are read options where the QB has an option to run. By design, that is ground and pound. When the QB runs it is still a run. Next we'll be saying that passing isn't really passing.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Rockinon

[Buffaloed in Pa]

 

Exactly correct...

 

New England is yet another example...They have games where they go a full half without running...And other games when they run for over 200 yards...Adapting to what the Defense is giving you, mixing it up, and exploiting weaknesses, is the Offense that wins Championships in this day and age...

They have Tom Brady. They can switch it up much easier. We have............?

[The Big Cat]

He's 3rd on my list after Rodgers and Brady. And, in short order, his team will show they agree when they make him the highest paid QB in the league.

Luck is twice as good it's not even close.

 

Halfway through second: 0 comps and 2 picks.

 

Tell me more.

[The Big Cat]

Make that 3 picks and one completion.

[Bangarang]

Luck is twice as good it's not even close.

Halfway through second: 0 comps and 2 picks.

Tell me more.

I'm not disagreeing but singling out a single half of football and not looking at an entire body of work isn't the greatest way of comparing players.

[The Big Cat]

I'm not disagreeing but singling out a single half of football and not looking at an entire body of work isn't the greatest way of comparing players.

 

And I won't argue with that.

 

But 1 for 8 with three picks through nearly an entire half of football doesn't appear on the resumes of any QB in the top 4 in the NFL, and it certainly doesn't appear anywhere on Luck's.

[Bangarang]

And I won't argue with that.

 

But 1 for 8 with three picks through nearly an entire half of football doesn't appear on the resumes of any QB in the top 4 in the NFL, and it certainly doesn't appear anywhere on Luck's.

Wilson is having a brutal game. I'd like to think all those games of having things fall their way has caught up to them. In terms of the Luck vs. Wilson thing I'd take Luck everyday. He's an elite QB capable of carrying a team whereas Wilson benefits from having talent around him.

[DC Tom]

Wilson is having a brutal game. I'd like to think all those games of having things fall their way has caught up to them. In terms of the Luck vs. Wilson thing I'd take Luck everyday. He's an elite QB capable of carrying a team whereas Wilson benefits from having talent around him.

 

Don't pin it all on Wilson. The Packers' secondary is suffocating Seattle's receivers.

 

You can argue "ground and pound" vs. "vertical passing game" all you'd like...neither one works against a defense as well-prepared as the Packers are today.

[Wayne Cubed]

Wilson is having a brutal game. I'd like to think all those games of having things fall their way has caught up to them. In terms of the Luck vs. Wilson thing I'd take Luck everyday. He's an elite QB capable of carrying a team whereas Wilson benefits from having talent around him.

I wouldn't say Wilson has talent around him besides Lynch. Look at their receiving core. He benefits from a very good defense and an offense designed not to highlight Wilsons weakness and play to his strengths.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

And I won't argue with that.

 

But 1 for 8 with three picks through nearly an entire half of football doesn't appear on the resumes of any QB in the top 4 in the NFL, and it certainly doesn't appear anywhere on Luck's.

 

Meh, I seem to recall Rodgers having some sucky halves against Seattle

[Bangarang]

Don't pin it all on Wilson. The Packers' secondary is suffocating Seattle's receivers.

 

You can argue "ground and pound" vs. "vertical passing game" all you'd like...neither one works against a defense as well-prepared as the Packers are today.

By no means am I trying to put it all on Wilson.

 

I wouldn't say Wilson has talent around him besides Lynch. Look at their receiving core. He benefits from a very good defense and an offense designed not to highlight Wilsons weakness and play to his strengths.

Fair enough. Edited January 18, 2015 by Bangarang

[Big Turk]

 

Don't pin it all on Wilson. The Packers' secondary is suffocating Seattle's receivers.

 

You can argue "ground and pound" vs. "vertical passing game" all you'd like...neither one works against a defense as well-prepared as the Packers are today.

 

^This, plus Seattle really has no dominant receiver that is going to scare you like a Sammy Watkins would when their run game is being stifled...they rely on teams loading up against the run to hit receivers against man coverage, but the Pack has two really good corners that can basically cover their guys one on one all day long, so its not as effective...

Edited January 18, 2015 by matter2003

[T master]

Strong defense + ground game + smart qb that protects the ball but can make timely plays = Seattle seahawks = super bowl

 

 

Strong defense + ground game + smart QB that protects the ball but makes timely plays = Buffalo Bills = Super Bowl ...

 

OK i can dream can't I ? Well we got the D & we have good RB's + good ST's play , so we just need a smart QB that protects the ball ...

[Maury Ballstein]

Legarrette Blount and Marshawn lynch.

 

Grounding and pounding when it matters. Playoffs.

 

Not obsolete.

[Jkgobills]

Seahawks show ground and pound at its highest level....and are back to the Super Bowl.

[Mikie2times]

Yes and I think now is the perfect time to implement it. Football schemes go in and out of style based on how many teams are using it. Once so many teams adopt the same style that style becomes easier to defend as you prepare for it all the time. The historical response for NFL teams is either to reinvent or rewind. Right now teams are building defensive rosters more suitable for stopping the pass. It's inevitable some teams will eventually break away from this pass happy approach. With that, you generally hear coaches reference strong defense. It's just an all around physical style that isn't the norm right now for NFL teams. We seem like we could be one of the potential drastic teams to play this way. I think it's silly we haven't seen it sooner as these teams can go deep and you don't need an elite QB and as we know very few elite QB's exist.

[pimp 2]

My apologies if this has been said in another post, but the article linked below was just published in the NY Times today (Sunday, Jan. 18).

 

Like most everyone else, I think the hiring of Ryan and Roman was an excellent move by the Bills. One thing I worry about is the "ground and pound" philosophy that Ryan and Roman want to bring. Does that approach win anymore? I hope that it does and could, but suspect that it is outdated by rule changes in the NFL. This NY Times article shows the statistics, all brought about by new rules meant to protect the QB and WR: 9 QB's had 30 or more touchdowns this year. NINE!!!!. Compare that to ZERO in 2002, and ONE in 2003, 2005, and 2006.

 

As the article suggests, isn't a passing offense with an elite QB now a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for winning a championship? If so, why bother building a team for a running game, if you simply can't win a Superbowl with this mentality? Sure, we can be competitive, and make the playoffs, but we will ultimately be outscored by a team with a good defense and an high-octane passing offense. Witness the remaining teams in the playoffs.

 

If all this is true, then the Bills and every other team should pull out all the stops to developing a high-octane passing offense. "Ground and pound" (at least the "ground" part) won't win anymore, and I am a bit worried that the Bills are setting themselves up for failure.

 

 

 

 

Not sure which remaining teams in the playoff are identified as "High Octane"? Please clarify?

 

Just because these teams have great QB'ing neither have a high octane passing attack offensively (maybe GB). Each has a balanced attacking offense, IMO...NE & GB will go uptempo but that's usually when they have a favorable match up.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

My apologies if this has been said in another post, but the article linked below was just published in the NY Times today (Sunday, Jan. 18).

 

Like most everyone else, I think the hiring of Ryan and Roman was an excellent move by the Bills. One thing I worry about is the "ground and pound" philosophy that Ryan and Roman want to bring. Does that approach win anymore? I hope that it does and could, but suspect that it is outdated by rule changes in the NFL. This NY Times article shows the statistics, all brought about by new rules meant to protect the QB and WR: 9 QB's had 30 or more touchdowns this year. NINE!!!!. Compare that to ZERO in 2002, and ONE in 2003, 2005, and 2006.

 

As the article suggests, isn't a passing offense with an elite QB now a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for winning a championship? If so, why bother building a team for a running game, if you simply can't win a Superbowl with this mentality? Sure, we can be competitive, and make the playoffs, but we will ultimately be outscored by a team with a good defense and an high-octane passing offense. Witness the remaining teams in the playoffs.

 

If all this is true, then the Bills and every other team should pull out all the stops to developing a high-octane passing offense. "Ground and pound" (at least the "ground" part) won't win anymore, and I am a bit worried that the Bills are setting themselves up for failure.

 

 

 

 

 

Seattle

[Pneumonic]

Luck is twice as good it's not even close.

 

Halfway through second: 0 comps and 2 picks.

 

Tell me more.

Oopppppps .................

[Webster Guy]

And yet the last three Super Bowls winners have been...

 

A Giants team that backed into the playoffs, and won with a strong run game led by Ahmad Bradshaw along with a dominating defense

A Ravens team that backed into the playoffs, and won with a strong run game led by Ray Rice along with a dominating defense (playing against the 49ers who were led by a dominating run game and defense)

The Seahawks with a running game led by Marshawn Lynch along with a dominating defense.

 

The trick seems to be getting to the playoffs...THEN, those two features make you a force to be reckoned with

sort of. Lynch only had 39 yards on 15 carries in the superbowl last year. he was awful. they won in spite of the thug.

[KOKBILLS]

They have Tom Brady. They can switch it up much easier. We have............?

 

OK...Obviously...So?

 

I was not commenting on the Bills QB situation...I was commenting on the type of Offenses that win Championships in the NFL...

 

We don't have Wilson, Luck, Manning, or Rogers either...Heck we don't even have Romo, Big Ben, or Flacco...So let's obsess about that further...It's hardly ever done around here...

 

I mean...I get it...We all get it...I think we can all safely assume that until the Bills get a QB that can challenge Defenses they are not going to win the SB...It's a given...

[The Big Cat]

Oopppppps .................

 

Yeah, He played a horrible game.

 

Helluva finish. But a horrible, horrible game.