One big, dirty, stat.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

Yet none of the top 3 teams in pass attempts per game made the playoffs last year while two out of the bottom three teams in pass attempts per game did make the playoffs.

 

I'm not sure there is a valid point here OP. You need to be able to throw it efficiently and at certain times when the run game is not going but you don't have to throw it all the time.

[Thurman#1]

Looks like a bash Tyrod thread more then anything else.

 

Where did the Bills rank in offensive TDs when Tyrod started last year?

 

 

 

 

Yup. Thank goodness for the run game that scored almost 2/3 of those TDs. And again, not a single other team scored less than 50% of their TDs in the pass game.

 

It may indeed reflect on Tyrod. Though the coaches may well have something to do with that. But perhaps that was in understanding of who their QB was. Beside the point, really. It really is very rare for teams ranking so low in the league in run percentage to win titles. It happens, but pretty much absolutely everything else has to fall perfectly.

Yet none of the top 3 teams in pass attempts per game made the playoffs last year while two out of the bottom three teams in pass attempts per game did make the playoffs.

 

I'm not sure there is a valid point here OP. You need to be able to throw it efficiently and at certain times when the run game is not going but you don't have to throw it all the time.

 

 

If he'd argued that we had to be in the top three teams in the league in attempts ... but he didn't. When teams rank that high it's generally because they're way behind a lot and trying to catch up.

 

I very much agree with you that you don't have to throw it all the time.

In the end the only stat that matters is W's and L's.

 

 

So, we're never going to talk again about any statistics of any sort except for Ws and Ls? Is that correct?

 

People tend to make this argument when they'd rather not talk about the stat being discussed.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

 

 

 

If he'd argued that we had to be in the top three teams in the league in attempts ... but he didn't. When teams rank that high it's generally because they're way behind a lot and trying to catch up.

 

I very much agree with you that you don't have to throw it all the time.

 

Forget top 3 then. Look at top 10 and bottom 10. Four out of the top ten teams made the playoffs. Not bad. But five out of the bottom 10 teams made the playoffs. That's even better. There is really zero correlation from what I can see.

[Thurman#1]

Atlanta was 27th overall. How did they end up last year?

 

 

 

Yeah, but come on. The reasons that these two teams ended up with high run percentages was widely different. Here are how the two teams looked at run / pass percentages, divided by quarter.

 

 

 

Falcs, by quarter

 

1st Quarter - Runs 94, Passes 131 … 42% runs

2nd Quarter - Runs 102, Passes 161 … 39% runs

3rd Quarter - Runs 109, Passes 139 … 44% runs

4th Quarter - Runs 113, Passes 102 … 53% runs

OT - Runs 3, Passes 4

 

Bills, by quarter

 

1st Quarter - Runs 101, Passes 97 … 51% runs

2nd Quarter - Runs 129, Passes 146 … 47% runs

3rd Quarter - Runs 107, Passes 106 … 50% runs

4th Quarter - Runs 144, Passes 119 … 54% runs

OT - Runs 11, Passes 6

 

 

The Bills were roughly the same quarter to quarter. They simply wanted to run more. Whereas the Falcons passed at much higher percentages through the first three quarters and then burnt clock in the fourth quarter because they were way ahead. The Bills didn't have the problem of being way ahead in a lot of games last year.

 

Forget top 3 then. Look at top 10 and bottom 10. Four out of the top ten teams made the playoffs. Not bad. But five out of the bottom 10 teams made the playoffs. That's even better. There is really zero correlation from what I can see.

 

 

 

And this is why.

 

Good teams tend to be ahead and run more to run out the clock in the fourth quarter, which lowers their passing percentage from it's natural early-game numbers.

 

That's not how it was for the Bills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the four teams that made the NFC and AFC championship games were ranked 4th, 13th, 14th and the Falcons were 27th and I showed why.

 

On the other hand, the four teams that made the playoffs with high run percentages (excepting Atlanta) were Miami, Dallas, Kansas City, and Seattle. One playoff win, Seattle over Detroit. It might not fall that evenly most years but without research I'd guess that it would tend to fall that way consistently, though with exceptions.

 

And building a team on a template that tends to on the ceiling have one-and-done as opposed to a template that had all four of the top teams is not a wise move, I would argue.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

 

And this is why.

 

Good teams tend to be ahead and run more to run out the clock in the fourth quarter, which lowers their passing percentage from it's natural early-game numbers.

 

That's not how it was for the Bills.

 

You've given us stats for one team in the bottom 10 where this is the case, Atlanta. Does this still hold up for Seattle, Dallas, Miami and Kansas City? Can you please provide the link where you found the quarter rushing and passing splits. I'm having trouble locating those stats.

[The Wiz]

 

 

 

Yeah, but come on. The reasons that these two teams ended up with high run percentages was widely different. Here are how the two teams looked at run / pass percentages, divided by quarter.

 

 

 

Falcs, by quarter

 

1st Quarter - Runs 94, Passes 131 … 42% runs

2nd Quarter - Runs 102, Passes 161 … 39% runs

3rd Quarter - Runs 109, Passes 139 … 44% runs

4th Quarter - Runs 113, Passes 102 … 53% runs

OT - Runs 3, Passes 4

 

Bills, by quarter

 

1st Quarter - Runs 101, Passes 97 … 51% runs

2nd Quarter - Runs 129, Passes 146 … 47% runs

3rd Quarter - Runs 107, Passes 106 … 50% runs

4th Quarter - Runs 144, Passes 119 … 54% runs

OT - Runs 11, Passes 6

 

 

The Bills were roughly the same quarter to quarter. They simply wanted to run more. Whereas the Falcons passed at much higher percentages through the first three quarters and then burnt clock in the fourth quarter because they were way ahead. The Bills didn't have the problem of being way ahead in a lot of games last year.

So if the reason why the Falcons were running so much was to burn the clock in the 4th then the question would need to be asked why the hell were the bills running so much in the 4th quarter if they were playing from behind?

[justnzane]

Okay, so in this the thread, the OP proves to be a dope as he wants the Bills to pass more. This is just idiotic as the offense controlled the clock and had one of the best ground attacks that put points on the board, which kept the inept defense off the field. Let's use our heads here before we start a thread about Taylor being not good because they don't pass a lot, and understand that a balanced attack is often a great thing.

Edited June 17, 2017 by justnzane

[Figster]

 

 

 

You mean that the Bills D was bad? You get no argument from me there.

 

But some people want to put all the blame on the defense and none on our below average pass game.

 

 

 

Woh, nice pickup. I looked at that page and totally missed that.

 

Holy cow, that's a huge difference.

Better D stops the opponent more and gets more turnovers, which in turn gives our O the ball more with better field position.

 

Do you see how that translates to more yardage points and wins?

Edited June 17, 2017 by Figster

[Reks Ryan]

Looks like the same stat kept New Orleans and Baltimore out too

Exactly and Arizona at #3. The Patriots were 13th, how did they manage to go 14 - 2. Efficiency is more important than attempts. NE and ATL were super efficient in the pass game and played from ahead so they didn't need as many attempts.

 

The key is balance, game planning and game situation. If the Bills are top 10 in passing attempts this year, we're looking at very high draft pick. With the current roster on O, especially at QB and WR, the Bills best chance to be competitive is to run more than the league average. It doesn't help just to pass more if your not an effective passing team.

 

Truly I thought the offensive plan last year came close to maxing out what could be expected of the Bills O. There were several horrendous defensive efforts like the 2 Miami games and giving up close to 400 yards to Fitzpatrick which were not lost due to offensive play calling.

[mjt328]

Ugh. This again.

 

According to the link you posted, the following teams were Top 5 in pass attempts:

Baltimore, New Orleans, Arizona, Green Bay, Jacksonville

One playoff team in the bunch, with a combined record of 35-44-1.

 

The Super Bowl champion Patriots ranked 13th. The NFC champion Falcons ranked 27th.

 

 

Again. It doesn't matter how much you pass or how much you run. It matters how much you score, and stop the other team from scoring.

Your own link disproved whatever you were trying to say.

[#34fan]

Okay, so in this the thread, the OP proves to be a dope as he wants the Bills to pass more. This is just idiotic as the offense controlled the clock and had one of the best ground attacks that put points on the board, which kept the inept defense off the field. Let's use our heads here before we start a thread about Taylor being not good because they don't pass a lot, and understand that a balanced attack is often a great thing.

 

Except that's not what happened... All the offense did was "gift" terrible field position to a defense that struggled with GOOD field position... And if by "controlling the clock" you mean limiting their own scoring opportunities, then yah, that's exactly what they did.

Edited June 17, 2017 by #34fan

[#34fan]

Ugh. This again.

 

According to the link you posted, the following teams were Top 5 in pass attempts:

Baltimore, New Orleans, Arizona, Green Bay, Jacksonville

One playoff team in the bunch, with a combined record of 35-44-1.

 

The Super Bowl champion Patriots ranked 13th. The NFC champion Falcons ranked 27th.

 

 

Again. It doesn't matter how much you pass or how much you run. It matters how much you score, and stop the other team from scoring.

Your own link disproved whatever you were trying to say.

 

We were also dead last on completions per game... NE was #6... And on the bottom when It came to passing yards whereas NE was #4... But go ahead and make your argument in defense of dead last... I'm actually enjoying it.

[Figster]

 

We were also dead last on completions per game... NE was #6... And on the bottom when It came to passing yards whereas NE was #4... But go ahead and make your argument in defense of dead last... I'm actually enjoying it.

If your dead last in attempts being dead last in completions is to be expected along with any other passing totals IMO.

[aristocrat]

Seahawks won a super bowl and went to another with similar offensive stats to ours. But they had the big defense

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[#34fan]

We were 30th in points per field goal attempt too... That's another stat that hurt more than some may realize... Look, the FLOOR isn't the goal when it comes to passing in the modern NFL... Anyone arguing against change in that regard has simply given up on our QB situation...

[John from Riverside]

Seahawks won a super bowl and went to another with similar offensive stats to ours. But they had the big defense Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To me the difference in the Seahawks teams is that Wilson made throws when the heat was up in certain games........this is what I would like to see Tyrod do (once again....im a big fan)

 

We blow teams out and he is throwing for 2 scores and running for one....which is great but just would like to see production in the "key" moments increase.

 

But like I said..that is not all on tyrod....playmakers make plays......we need them to do that

[#34fan]

Seahawks won a super bowl and went to another with similar offensive stats to ours. But they had the big defense Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That Seattle team was top 5 in yards per completion, and top 10 in completion percentage... Yes, they had a killer D, and was ahead of Buffalo in rushing first down percentage....

[#34fan]

To me the difference in the Seahawks teams is that Wilson made throws when the heat was up in certain games........this is what I would like to see Tyrod do (once again....im a big fan)

 

We blow teams out and he is throwing for 2 scores and running for one....which is great but just would like to see production in the "key" moments increase.

 

But like I said..that is not all on tyrod....playmakers make plays......we need them to do that

 

Right now McCoy has a huge bullseye painted on his jersey... Opposing defenses will eventually develop ways to limit his impact... Other playmakers need the ball sent their way in order to make plays... it'll take major adjustment if TT wants to be that guy... FWIW, I hope Dennison provides an offense where TT has more help, and opportunities to pass downfield...

[#34fan]

Top 7 in offensive touchdowns.

 

It doesn't mean a damn how they get the points. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

 

More attempts from a more confident passer might have meant even more TD's... Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?... If we were 14th or 15th in attempts we could have very well won more games... TT pulled the ball down and hauled-azz on many occasions where he could have thrown downfield.... Are we still denying this after last season?

 

Every time someone speaks the truth they get attacked by TT cabana-boys defending their master... What could anyone possibly have against this stat being improved?... smh...

Edited June 17, 2017 by #34fan

[H2o]

Yup. Thank goodness for the run game that scored almost 2/3 of those TDs. And again, not a single other team scored less than 50% of their TDs in the pass game.

 

It may indeed reflect on Tyrod. Though the coaches may well have something to do with that. But perhaps that was in understanding of who their QB was. Beside the point, really. It really is very rare for teams ranking so low in the league in run percentage to win titles. It happens, but pretty much absolutely everything else has to fall perfectly.

 

 

 

If he'd argued that we had to be in the top three teams in the league in attempts ... but he didn't. When teams rank that high it's generally because they're way behind a lot and trying to catch up.

 

I very much agree with you that you don't have to throw it all the time.

 

 

 

So, we're never going to talk again about any statistics of any sort except for Ws and Ls? Is that correct?

 

People tend to make this argument when they'd rather not talk about the stat being discussed.

Dear God, get over yourself. You are not Johnnie Cochran and this isn't an LA courtroom. Yes, we do talk about statistics. We talk about them all of the time around here. Common sense tells you though that the more you run the ball the less pass attempts you will have. In the end though the only thing that matters is wins and losses, how you get there is by your respective team's own design.

[fridge]

We went ground 'n pound in a passing league. Everyone knows this. We were incredibly successful running the football, but never got into a passing rhythm all season. Simply throwing more will do nothing...Baltimore was #1 on that list.

 

Most likely the solution is a better QB.

[Dragonborn10]

Only one stat kept the Bills out of the playoffs last year. The number 2.

 

As in two Ryans's screwed the defense up so bad they cost the Bills the post-season.

 

The TT complainers will at least acknowledge he protects the ball and enhances the running game. The WR injuries hurt the attempts/game but again I don't even care. They were 10th in points. They had more than enough offense to make the playoffs.

 

Ryan's defense lost no less than five games and probably more ( am not even counting the finale) - Jets, Seattle, Oakland, Miami x 2. The offense can solely be blamed for the Baltimore loss. Other than that the offense competed every game. I will give you TT and the offense crapped the bed in the second half at Oakland but it was the defense that was truly putrid.

 

Right now the Bills are + 2 in all defensive categories simply by getting rid of the Ryans

 

Right now McCoy has a huge bullseye painted on his jersey... Opposing defenses will eventually develop ways to limit his impact... Other playmakers need the ball sent their way in order to make plays... it'll take major adjustment if TT wants to be that guy... FWIW, I hope Dennison provides an offense where TT has more help, and opportunities to pass downfield...

Agree but pretty sure that bullseye was there last year when Watkins and Woods were injured. Simply having Sammy and any viable #2 WR will make the offense more difficult to defend.

[Figster]

Only one stat kept the Bills out of the playoffs last year. The number 2.

 

As in two Ryans's screwed the defense up so bad they cost the Bills the post-season.

 

The TT complainers will at least acknowledge he protects the ball and enhances the running game. The WR injuries hurt the attempts/game but again I don't even care. They were 10th in points. They had more than enough offense to make the playoffs.

 

Ryan's defense lost no less than five games and probably more ( am not even counting the finale) - Jets, Seattle, Oakland, Miami x 2. The offense can solely be blamed for the Baltimore loss. Other than that the offense competed every game. I will give you TT and the offense crapped the bed in the second half at Oakland but it was the defense that was truly putrid.

 

Right now the Bills are + 2 in all defensive categories simply by getting rid of the Ryans

two big, dirty...

[#34fan]

Dear God, get over yourself. You are not Johnnie Cochran and this isn't an LA courtroom. Yes, we do talk about statistics. We talk about them all of the time around here. Common sense tells you though that the more you run the ball the less pass attempts you will have. In the end though the only thing that matters is wins and losses, how you get there is by your respective team's own design.

 

Running the ball constantly because it's what you do well, won't equal wins either... The disparity between a #1 rushing attempt stat and a #32 passing attempt stat should be obvious... Couple that with the fact that this passer had the longest snap-to release time of any other starting QB, and you realize TT wasn't just passing less, he was wasting more of his time (and ours) doing it!

 

How could a "design" so grossly out of balance help out a struggling defense in any way?

Edited June 17, 2017 by #34fan

[Maury Ballstein]

Top 7 in offensive touchdowns.

It doesn't mean a damn how they get the points. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Guess we should have paid Gilleslie. That was an impressive performance

[Bill_with_it]

Guess we should have paid Gilleslie. That was an impressive performance

Tyrod taylor accounted for 23 tds, Mccoy and the rest of the rbs accounted for 23 running the ball.

[Thurman#1]

 

You've given us stats for one team in the bottom 10 where this is the case, Atlanta. Does this still hold up for Seattle, Dallas, Miami and Kansas City? Can you please provide the link where you found the quarter rushing and passing splits. I'm having trouble locating those stats.

 

 

espn.com

 

Look for the splits.

So if the reason why the Falcons were running so much was to burn the clock in the 4th then the question would need to be asked why the hell were the bills running so much in the 4th quarter if they were playing from behind?

 

 

I don't know. They just were. Ask the coaches, maybe. They thought it was their best chance with the personnel they had, maybe?

 

The reasons don't matter to me, personally. What matters is that their percentages for whatever reason were very close to the same across the four quarters.

[Thurman#1]

Top 7 in offensive touchdowns.

 

It doesn't mean a damn how they get the points. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

 

 

Well, first, they're not top seven, they're in a three-way tie for seventh. But that's a quibble. Here's the main point.

 

 

 

For the third time now, I understand that they're top 7 in offensive touchdowns. And that's huge if you're looking at the performance of ... wait for it ... the offense, the whole offense. See how that works? Offensive touchdowns are produced by the whole offense.

 

Whereas .. and here's what you missed the first two times ... when you are trying to look at how good the pass game is ... you look at what the pass game produced. Not what the run game produced. See how it's kind of an equivalence?

 

The offense scored a lot of TDs. Because the run game was terrific and scored a bunch of TDs. Whereas the pass game was substandard and did not score a lot of TDs.

 

And now the architect of that terrific run game, Roman, has left and is in Baltimore. This is cause for worry that the run game might not be as good next year.

 

All is said to pee in your Cheerios was thank goodness for the run game that scored all those points. They covered up the poor performance of the pass game. I didn't say anything implying that the whole offense didn't score a lot of TDs. I understand that it did. I merely pointed out that it was the run game's doing, that the run game scored almost 2/3rds of the Bills TDs and that no other team had less than 50% of their TDs scored by the passing game. Don't know why stone cold facts like this would make you angry.

 

Unless of course you're trying to use a measure of the performance of the whole offense to come to unwarranted conclusions about a mere part of the offense.

 

So again, the offense scored a lot. Can't argue with that. But it was overwhelmingly the extremely good run game (scoring 29 of our 46 offensive TDs, 63% when no other team was above 50%. Can't argue with that either.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Thurman#1

[HappyDays]

 

Forget top 3 then. Look at top 10 and bottom 10. Four out of the top ten teams made the playoffs. Not bad. But five out of the bottom 10 teams made the playoffs. That's even better. There is really zero correlation from what I can see.

That's because there is zero correlation.

 

Two offensive stats correlate well with making the playoffs - PPG (obviously) and interceptions. Interceptions may be less obvious but I found that they are way more important than passing yards:

 

2016 - 5 of the top 10 passing yard leaders made the playoffs.

7 of the top 10 interception leaders made the playoffs.

 

2015 - 3 of the top 10 passing yard leaders made the playoffs.

8 of the top 10 interception leaders made the playoffs.

 

2014 - 5 of the top 10 passing yard leaders made the playoffs.

9 of the top 12 interception leaders made the playoffs (there were 5 teams tied at 12 interceptions, so I had to expand)

 

So in total 13/30 top 10 passing yards leaders made the playoffs (43.3%). While 24/32 top 10 interceptions leaders made the playoffs (75.0%).

 

If you're scoring points and not throwing a lot of interceptions, you're probably in the playoffs. But you need a defense stopping the other team too. Technically being a top 10 passing yard leader means you're more likely than not to MISS the playoffs. Presumably because many of those teams were simply forced to pass as a result of a poor defense letting them down.

Edited June 17, 2017 by HappyDays

[Figster]

 

More attempts from a more confident passer might have meant even more TD's... Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?... If we were 14th or 15th in attempts we could have very well won more games... TT pulled the ball down and hauled-azz on many occasions where he could have thrown downfield.... Are we still denying this after last season?

 

Every time someone speaks the truth they get attacked by TT cabana-boys defending their master... What could anyone possibly have against this stat being improved?... smh...

Cam Newton has scored 48 TD's running the football.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Scanning available stats, I found many areas where the Bills did well... Rushing stats were phenomenal... Believe it or not, Many of our stats ranged from good to middle of the pack

 

Except one.

 

Perhaps the one that kept us out of the playoff's for the seventeenth time in a row.

 

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/pass-attempts-per-game

 

 

Yes, the D was miserable... But in order to be competitive this one stat MUST change... Note to our QB's -SPRAY IT, DON'T SAY IT!

He can't which is why we base our offense on the run game. If we let him rip it it would be interceptions galore like he did in the probowl.

[HappyDays]

The offense scored a lot of TDs. Because the run game was terrific and scored a bunch of TDs. Whereas the pass game was substandard and did not score a lot of TDs.

Well this is too simplistic Thurman. Tyrod was responsible for 63.6% of the Bills total offensive yards. Our rushers weren't going right from our 25 to the opponent's end zone, there was plenty of ground to cover in between. Just because we chose to run more in the red zone doesn't mean the pass game wasn't also responsible for the TDs. And the Bills had the 8th best passer rating in the red zone so Tyrod was absolutely a contributor.

 

And why wouldn't we run in the red zone? The zone read option inside the 20 was as efficient as any play we ran last year (I don't have stats on this, just going off of memory).

Edited June 17, 2017 by HappyDays

[H2o]

Running the ball constantly because it's what you do well, won't equal wins either... The disparity between a #1 rushing attempt stat and a #32 passing attempt stat should be obvious... Couple that with the fact that this passer had the longest snap-to release time of any other starting QB, and you realize TT wasn't just passing less, he was wasting more of his time (and ours) doing it!

 

How could a "design" so grossly out of balance help out a struggling defense in any way?

I have not been a Tyrod supporter. I like the guy as a person, he seems like good people, but he isn't the answer at QB. Can we win with him? Yes. If our defense gets back to top 5 then we could make some real noise. The Ravens won with Dilfer and the Bucs with Brad Johnson. It can be done. The offense is just tailored to the strength of our team, which isn't the passing ability of Tyrod Taylor.

[HappyDays]

He can't which is why we base our offense on the run game. If we let him rip it it would be interceptions galore like he did in the probowl.

Man you could have just glanced at the stats to know this is badly wrong.

 

Tyrod has had 30+ pass attempts in 11 games with the Bills. In those games he has thrown 8 TOTAL interceptions, and 3 of those came in one game Week 2 in 2015.

 

Just looking at 2016 he had 6 games with 30+ pass attempts and only threw 3 interceptions in those games. In the other 9 games he threw another 3 interceptions. Does that sound like a QB that throws interceptions galore when the pass attempts go up? Nope.

[Maury Ballstein]

Here's the point.

The offense as a whole, was good enough.

The defense was not. They blew, they were, more times then not the reason the team lost more games then it won.

The OPs post is a joke.

If you omit the Ravens, Patriots, Bengals, Dolphins 1, Oakland, and Pittsburgh games this would be true.

[HappyDays]

If you omit the Ravens, Patriots, Bengals, Dolphins 1, Oakland, and Pittsburgh games this would be true.

You definitely can't count the Dolphins or Steelers. Both games featured a 200 yard rusher, and I looked at every game from 2013-2016 that had a 200+ yard rusher. Only found one game where a team was able to defeat an opponent with 200+ rushing yards and it was New England beating Denver 34-31 in 2013. So basically the best result against a 200 rush yard opponent was the best QB of all time beating his opponent by 3 points in a shootout. I'm gonna go ahead and say blaming the offense for any game with a 200 yard rusher is disingenuous.

 

Here's where I got my info:

 

http://www.footballdb.com/stats/100-yard-rushing.html?yr=2016

 

I mean there's only like 10 of those games total but still (and HOW did our defense let that happen THREE TIMES last year alone??). Doing a quick skim it's pretty rare for 150+ yard rushers to lose, it does happen though. But 200+ yard rushers losing is almost impossible.

Edited June 17, 2017 by HappyDays

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

I mean there's only like 10 of those games total but still (and HOW did our defense let that happen THREE TIMES last year alone??). Doing a quick skim it's pretty rare for 150+ yard rushers to lose, it does happen though. But 200+ yard rushers losing is almost impossible.

 

One of the other rare times it happened was all the way back in 2002 when our own Bills beat the Dolphins and Ricky Williams who had 228 yards rushing. But two Miami QBs combined for only 55 yards passing that day in the snow. Bledsoe went for 306 yards and Henry added 151 on the ground with a whopping 35 attempts.

[Thurman#1]

Well this is too simplistic Thurman. Tyrod was responsible for 63.6% of the Bills total offensive yards. Our rushers weren't going right from our 25 to the opponent's end zone, there was plenty of ground to cover in between. Just because we chose to run more in the red zone doesn't mean the pass game wasn't also responsible for the TDs. And the Bills had the 8th best passer rating in the red zone so Tyrod was absolutely a contributor.

 

And why wouldn't we run in the red zone? The zone read option inside the 20 was as efficient as any play we ran last year (I don't have stats on this, just going off of memory).

 

 

I'm not arguing that Tyrod wasn't a contributor. He certainly was. But the bottom line was that the run game was the best in the league and the pass game was sub-mediocre. That's not all on Tyrod, but a lot is.

 

If you're going to give the QB credit for running yards, you can't give him credit for all the passing yards. It's certainly not 100% Tyrod's yards when he throws, say a screen pass to Gillislee who fakes a guy out of his jock and scores a 45 yard touchdown. So I'd say that stat you're trying to use is also a bit simplistic. He's not responsible for 63.6% of their yards, not unless you're willing to say that Sammy Watkins is responsible for zero percent of their yards.

 

Why wouldn't we run in the red zone? I agree. And that's the point. The run game was really good and the pass game wasn't. Why not run in the red zone and out of it? And you're assuming that all the running TDs came in the red zone, and that's not true.

 

Oh, and a QB generally ought to have a higher QB rating in the red zone because it's gonna tend to be easier to get TDs there than elsewhere on the field. It's also true that in the red zone he completed 60% (40.9% from inside the 10) and had a 4.8 YPA.(2.2 inside the 10). And the nature of red zone passing attempts surely affects those numbers too. Not sure that particular stat (and I like passer rating) should be used in that kind of a split.

 

People keep wanting to say that we had a lot of offensive TDs and therefore the passing game was good. And this doesn't logically folow, especially when you have such a terrific run game.

[Maury Ballstein]

You definitely can't count the Dolphins or Steelers. Both games featured a 200 yard rusher, and I looked at every game from 2013-2016 that had a 200+ yard rusher. Only found one game where a team was able to defeat an opponent with 200+ rushing yards and it was New England beating Denver 34-31 in 2013. So basically the best result against a 200 rush yard opponent was the best QB of all time beating his opponent by 3 points in a shootout. I'm gonna go ahead and say blaming the offense for any game with a 200 yard rusher is disingenuous.

Here's where I got my info:http://www.footballdb.com/stats/100-yard-rushing.html?yr=2016

I mean there's only like 10 of those games total but still (and HOW did our defense let that happen THREE TIMES last year alone??). Doing a quick skim it's pretty rare for 150+ yard rushers to lose, it does happen though. But 200+ yard rushers losing is almost impossible.

Easily can count both games.

 

When the offense has 70 yards passing through 3 qtrs vs Pitt or offense gets shut down by dismal Dolphins defense over and over they get no pass.

 

Hopefully next year is better on both sides of the ball.

[Thurman#1]

Here's the point.

 

The offense as a whole, was good enough.

 

The defense was not. They blew, they were, more times then not the reason the team lost more games then it won.

 

The OPs post is a joke.

 

 

 

OK, if that's your point, I withdraw that particular objection.

 

But I'm afraid I have a different objection. Which is this: there's a reason they rank teams offensively by how many yards they get rather than how many points they score.

 

And the Bills were 16th in offensive yards. They did not provide the defense with good field position. Last year's offense made the defense look worse and the defense made the offense look better. The offense had the 11th best average drive start field position in the league while the defense had the 23rd best.

 

Yards far better separate offensive performance from the defensive and STs performance. Whereas points have a much larger proportion of responsibility for the whole team.

 

Both yards and points are important but yards better isolate each unit from the others.

 

 

 

Oh, and I'd also say, "good enough"? Good enough for what? Good enough to make the playoffs? Yeah, probably, as a fodder team. But to be competitive for a Super Bowl victory? I don't think the offense was good enough. To win a Super Bowl with that offense, I'd argue you would have to have an absolutely sensational defense and a lot of luck and good timing besides.

 

 

 

I have no objection to calling the defense bad. They were. But the offense wasn't as good as some Bills fans believe. Ask around the league where they rank and you'll find tend to find people ranking them 16th, not 7th, and thinking that's a pretty reasonable representation. We fans who watched the games might argue we know better and crank them up a few spots but I don't think too many reasonable non-Bills-fan observers would say they were the 7th best offense in the league.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Thurman#1