Does being number 1 in rushing matter if every team that plays us averages even MORE rushing yds?

[BigDingus]

The Bills lead the league in rushing averaging 147.6 yards per game. Great! That seems like a lot! 

 

Unfortunately, every single team that plays us suddenly becomes just as good at running the ball as we are & averages 153 rush yards per game...

 

I'm sure we all know our defense has been rough, but has any team won a Super Bowl while allowing teams to shred them on the ground? It's almost surprising that we've only allowed 4 x 100 yard rushers, but most teams have RB by committees or we got ahead on them to where they gave up on the run (like the Jets & Panthers).

 

Even though we have a great RB, our D is such a liability that they all but negate any advantage from our own running game & allow opposing teams to dictate time of possession as much as we do. At this point, we're going to need to find another advantage, and it'll have to be Josh Allen passing the ball to win offensive shoot-outs like last Sunday.

 

I know they're 2 separate sides of the ball & don't directly correlate with each other, but the advantages you expect from being a dominant run team usually benefit your D by allowing them more time to rest & recover. But this D allows every opposing offense to do the same thing, so it all comes back to Allen making plays to win.

[Big Turk]

The flip side is the Bills have been very good against the pass meaning they have a significant advantage in terms of total yards in a given game usually.

[BruceVilanch]

Imagine how bad Cook could torch this run D

[BuffaloBillyG]

Yes.

 

Difference is our run game controls the clock and game tempo. Used to wear down defenses. 

 

Their run game pops off constant long runs. Give the ball back to our offense. 

[Big Turk]

12 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

Yes.

 

Difference is our run game controls the clock and game tempo. Used to wear down defenses. 

 

Their run game pops off constant long runs. Give the ball back to our offense. 

 

And on average 7 more points a game for us.

[dayman]

I’d say it matters on account of us being worse off without it, probably a .500 team. It carried us earlier in the season. Also, we gashed KC which was just personally enjoyable.

[Dr.Sack]

“Think of our run defense as our pass defense.”

[Kelly to Allen]

Overall rushing volume is extremely misleading. Rushing dvoa or how your run defense plays in high leverage moments is more relevant. A good example is vs KC right before the half this year. That was a key run stop in a high leverage moment.

 

At the end of the day if you're Scoring very fast with a QB passing the football like Allen, you're creating more possessions for yourself.  

 

If the other team is running the football, it may take a very long time in theory for them to score. Creating less possessions for our opponents.

 

We lost the rushing battle 

We lost the turnover battle 

We lost the time of possession battle 

 

Yet we won by 12....

 

If we get just one more 3rd down stop & Hardman doesn't fumble, we probably win by 20+....

 

Volume rushing stats, turnovers and time of possession are boomer talking points that are largely for teams without a real qb & counterintuitive 

 

Obviously our run defense needs to improve, obviously you don't want to turn the ball over tho...

 

But this is why everyone was so mad after the dolphins game with 12-15 plays, the constant check downs and tunnel screens. It's counterintuitive but you're playing into your opponent's hands. And you make every single mistake or turnover 10x worse playing that way. I remember Kelly vs the Bengals in 91 had 3 1st half ints. He still threw 5 tds and they won like 35-10 or something 

 

You play football with a level of aggression and urgency to win, and win quickly/ decisively.

 

You don't play football with the mindset of worrying about your defense or worrying about turnovers. Marv levy had to force himself to get comfortable with this mindset. So does McDermott. 

 

 

Not saying they should never run the football or never have games where they use ball control offense. Both are important...I'm saying the game vs Tampa Bay should be their foundational identity

Edited 5 hours ago by Kelly to Allen

[Thurman#1]

It's pretty rare to be really bad at defensive total run yards, because if your defense isn't great, your offense must be very good if you're winning a Super Bowl. And if you're ahead, opponents will tend to pass more to catch up, leaving low total rush yards as a result.

 

Having said that, the 2019 Chiefs won the Super Bowl while allowing 2051 rush yards (7th worst) and - a better indicator of how good your run defense actually is -  allowed 4.9 YPC, 4th worst in the league.

 

The 2018 Pats lofted the Lombardi while allowing 1803 yards (11th worst), but again, people were trying catch up and they faced few run attempts. But in terms of YPC, they allowed 4.9 YPC, fourth worst in the league.

 

Didn't bother going further back than that. You can absolutely win a Super Bowl while having a bad rush defense. It's not ideal, clearly. But doable.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Thurman#1

[Mikie2times]

51 minutes ago, Kelly to Allen said:

Overall rushing volume is extremely misleading. Rushing dvoa or how your run defense plays in high leverage moments is more relevant. A good example is vs KC right before the half this year. That was a key run stop in a high leverage moment.

 

At the end of the day if you're Scoring very fast with a QB passing the football like Allen, you're creating more possessions for yourself.  

 

If the other team is running the football, it may take a very long time in theory for them to score. Creating less possessions for our opponents.

 

We lost the rushing battle 

We lost the turnover battle 

We lost the time of possession battle 

 

Yet we won by 12....

 

If we get just one more 3rd down stop & Hardman doesn't fumble, we probably win by 20+....

 

Volume rushing stats, turnovers and time of possession are boomer talking points that are largely for teams without a real qb & counterintuitive 

 

Obviously our run defense needs to improve, obviously you don't want to turn the ball over tho...

 

But this is why everyone was so mad after the dolphins game with 12-15 plays, the constant check downs and tunnel screens. It's counterintuitive but you're playing into your opponent's hands. And you make every single mistake or turnover 10x worse playing that way. I remember Kelly vs the Bengals in 91 had 3 1st half ints. He still threw 5 tds and they won like 35-10 or something 

 

You play football with a level of aggression and urgency to win, and win quickly/ decisively.

 

You don't play football with the mindset of worrying about your defense or worrying about turnovers. Marv levy had to force himself to get comfortable with this mindset. So does McDermott. 

 

 

Not saying they should never run the football or never have games where they use ball control offense. Both are important...I'm saying the game vs Tampa Bay should be their foundational identity

We rank 30th in EPA per rush. We rank last in average yards per carry.
 

Teams league wide are attacking two high looks with renewed energy in the run game and we didn’t prepare for it. Sometimes we score more than the other team. That doesn’t make it better that we are vulnerable here.
 

This reminds of the old arguments about Allen’s interceptions not mattering. It can rarely be that we just mismanage or stink at something and that’s bad. Usually we see a contingent of people almost try and warp it into a strategic decision to just suck and how it makes sense to just concede. That somehow bad is good or bad is fine. 
 

Meanwhile our entire offensive identity is built around what you’re saying should not matter. A boomer inefficient ground oriented offense. It’s ok for us offensively, that’s what we want, but we don’t care on defense and it doesn’t matter. Makes sense. 
 

 

[MJS]

I guess it does matter since the Bills are 7-3. They are winning way more than they are losing.

[PepeSilvia]

3 hours ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

Yes.

 

Difference is our run game controls the clock and game tempo. Used to wear down defenses. 

 

Their run game pops off constant long runs. Give the ball back to our offense. 

Until you run into a team that can control the clock or be explosive in the run game like: Indy, New England, Jacksonville, Baltimore (who if we’re being transparent should have won both the playoff game last and the opener this year. Lucky for the Bills that Harbaugh has brain farts and decides to take the ball out of Henry’s hands and puts it in Lamar’s, who then proceeds to turn the ball over at the worst times). 
 

The defense is bad, really bad. They have this year and in years past, needed turnovers to be successful. I can’t remember how many games in a row they won the turnover battle, but they were on a heater. When they don’t get the turnovers like they did last Sunday, they have a really hard time stopping anybody. 
 

You can win a Super Bowl with a weakness, you just can’t be terrible at one thing. The run defense is terrible. They’ve always gotten gashed by premier runners (D. Henry, Achane, Jonathan Taylor come to mind for 200+ yard games) but now they’re getting gashed by third stringers.

Edited 3 hours ago by PepeSilvia

[Buffalo716]

3 hours ago, Big Turk said:

The flip side is the Bills have been very good against the pass meaning they have a significant advantage in terms of total yards in a given game usually.

And it's a lot harder to run down the field for 75 yards than it is to pass it 

 

The bills are truly playing a four quarter game.. the run defense in the fourth quarter doesn't look the same as the first quarter typically

[Kelly to Allen]

3 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

We rank 30th in EPA per rush. We rank last in average yards per carry.
 

Teams league wide are attacking two high looks with renewed energy in the run game and we didn’t prepare for it. Sometimes we score more than the other team. That doesn’t make it better that we are vulnerable here.
 

This reminds of the old arguments about Allen’s interceptions not mattering. It can rarely be that we just mismanage or stink at something and that’s bad. Usually we see a contingent of people almost try and warp it into a strategic decision to just suck and how it makes sense to just concede. That somehow bad is good or bad is fine. 
 

Meanwhile our entire offensive identity is built around what you’re saying should not matter. A boomer inefficient ground oriented offense. It’s ok for us offensively, that’s what we want, but we don’t care on defense and it doesn’t matter. Makes sense. 
 

 

 

 

I agree with everything you're saying here. I was just making a larger point on old school football Orthodoxy and how some of it is misleading 

 

 

No doubt, we must improve with our run defense 

 

 

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

It's pretty rare to be really bad at defensive total run yards, because if your defense isn't great, your offense must be very good if you're winning a Super Bowl. And if you're ahead, opponents will tend to pass more to catch up, leaving low total rush yards as a result.

 

Having said that, the 2019 Chiefs won the Super Bowl while allowing 2051 rush yards (7th worst) and - a better indicator of how good your run defense actually is -  allowed 4.9 YPC, 4th worst in the league.

 

The 2018 Pats lofted the Lombardi while allowing 1803 yards (11th worst), but again, people were trying catch up and they faced few run attempts. But in terms of YPC, they allowed 4.9 YPC, fourth worst in the league.

 

Didn't bother going further back than that. You can absolutely win a Super Bowl while having a bad rush defense. It's not ideal, clearly. But doable.

 

 

 

I think the 06 colts had the worst run defense in the NFL, but they're an outlier 

[vincec]

6 hours ago, Big Turk said:

The flip side is the Bills have been very good against the pass meaning they have a significant advantage in terms of total yards in a given game usually.

You can’t look at total passing yards per game as a metric because opponents run it so well that they pass less often. If you look at things like yards per attempt, then the Bills have a pretty average pass defense.

[Coach Tuesday]

It is very odd to me - but in a way makes complete and total sense - that McD seem to favor the exact style of offense that his D has the most trouble stopping.  It is almost Freudian.

[Scott7975]

You watched First Things First too huh

[H2o]

6 hours ago, Big Turk said:

The flip side is the Bills have been very good against the pass meaning they have a significant advantage in terms of total yards in a given game usually.

The numbers are skewed because teams run the ball so much, due to the success of the run against this defense.  

 

Drake Maye carved us up, we made Diggs look like an All Pro, and this was with us winning the TOP by about 10 minutes. We made Penix look like good starter in this league and London ate us alive. Tua was 15/21 and we made Waddle look top tier. 

 

I do think as Hairston gains experience we will be harder to throw against. They also need to keep Taron off the field. He's washed. Cam Lewis is better at this point. I also like what I see from Hancock playing Safety in the short sample we've been given.

Edited 33 minutes ago by H2o