Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Its rare that a team doesnt run more than 50% of their plays, even on great passing teams...running 52% is still a modestly low running percentage...oh, and they had hall of famer Thurman Thomas to hand the ball to, so why on earth would they not balance out the game, so this is a lame point... Very lame. It just shows, at the very least, they relied on the pass as much as the run. Oh, so there CAN be a passing game in Buffalo huh? Wow, and so many act like they never knew this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anzaloha Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Whoa......52% to 48%. So, it was a balanced attack, and that's assuming that you are telling the truth. I remember Andre and Lofton running into the endzone many times, along with Thurman out of the backfield. So, in all, yeah, the Bills threw the ball a ton. Especially considering that the Bills were killing the clock many times because they were totally dogging the opponent. That attack was evenly balanced, which means the PASS was just as important to them as the RUN. Look that up Thurman. NO kidding THE pass is just as important. Tt was evenly balanced and thats the point. You were the one stating that you only run the ball because the receivers suck. Thats not true. Good teams are evenly balanced which both you and alpo dawg don't seem to understand. If you doubt that Im telling the truth, look it up yourself clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 NO kidding THE pass is just as important. Tt was evenly balanced and thats the point. You were the one stating that you only run the ball because the receivers suck. Thats not true. Good teams are evenly balanced which both you and alpo dawg don't seem to understand. If you doubt that Im telling the truth, look it up yourself clown. All I said was that your post about Bills running 52% of time when they had K-Gun offense and Thurman was lame because it had little to do with this topic... I dont care if you run 70% or 30%...its not indication of effectiveness...percentages have nothing to do with success is my only point, and running 52% of the time is low to begin with... You also have a much higher yards per attempt in the passing game than the run game, so even if you run more doesnt mean it is your bread and butter either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 By the way, to be succesfu in the NFLl you need the threat of the other...you cant pass consistently (generally) with no threat of the run, and you usually cant run consistently without much threat from Passing game...how often you run or pass has little to do with that... Case in point is the Eagles. They pass more than they run (rare but true), yet teams still fear Westbrook in the running game and have to respect it because of how explosive he is. So even though they run less than 50% of the time, teams still have to respect the run game as if they ran more because on any given play he can burn you. In fact, most teams key on him to beat the Eagles even though they pass more than they throw. Again, pass/run ratios dont tell the whole story of what goes on in a game... By the way...when was the last time you saw a team go to the running game during the two minute drill or late in a game while they are down? Never... It's hard to win in this league if you can not pass the ball because that means you struggle to win games you fall behind in or that are high scoring. To be able to rely on the running game as your primary offense only and still consistently win, you need a DOMINANT defense as the score needs to stay low as these teams cant play from behind. Case in point...NY Giants...after they lost Plax they lost four of five games and were "one and done" in playoffs. They no longer had the passing threat as Eli and passing game struggled and teams keyed on stopping the run game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 So, does that mean you think Evans, Reed/Johnson, and Lynch is a better lineup than Boldin, Evans, and Jackson? We don't play in Arizona. This team has played well while deep at running back, ala Thurman/Davis. The K-Gun notwithstanding, it is more important for a cold weather team to have a solid running game and stop the run than it is for teams that play in the tropics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Love Q but, hell no. RB is way more important than WR. All you have to do is hand the RB the ball. WRs are useless unless you can get them the football. I believe in run-first offences. You run to set up the pass, you run to wear down defenses, you run to control the clock. Interesting question though. If you stayed with the same position and asked Evans for Boldin, then I'd say Q for sure. Love Lee and nothing against him, but I love Q more and I honestly think he's the best WR in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Love Q but, hell no. RB is way more important than WR. All you have to do is hand the RB the ball. WRs are useless unless you can get them the football. I believe in run-first offences. You run to set up the pass, you run to wear down defenses, you run to control the clock. Interesting question though. If you stayed with the same position and asked Evans for Boldin, then I'd say Q for sure. Love Lee and nothing against him, but I love Q more and I honestly think he's the best WR in the league. The problem I have with your post on this is that you act like trading Lynch would leave us with no running game. I agree full heartedly with how important a running game is...however, trading Lynch does not take away our running game. Name one thing that Lynch is superior to Jackson at...just one...you can't because there is no area of Lynch's game that is superior to Jackson. Sure, Lynch probably runs harder, but its not by much as Jackson is almsot as tough. In fact, Jackson is actually more explosive than Lynch, and quite honestly, hits the hole a LOT better than Lynch. Jackson also is a better reciever to this point as Lynch tends to drop too many balls. So, I say again, trading Lynch for Boldin will not result in a loss of a running game in Buffalo, but will result in a superior passing game to what we have now and likely IMPROVES the running game because you MUST respect Boldin at all times and teams MUST also still cover Lee and that translates to more running lanes for Jackson. If Oman was our only other back who is unproven, I would agree to not trade him. But with a stud like Jackson who is a starting caliber RB, we can take a chance on moving Lynch to get back ELITE talent at a position we need it and that is so HARD to fill...RB's are the easiest skill position to replace anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I like Lynch and lol @ anybody that wouldn't do this. Elite WR >>> Good RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I'd trade Oman Xavier for Boldin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I KNOW this is just speculating and is unlikely to happen, but what else do we have to do right now but speculate and wonder about possibilities right, even unlikely ones...lol What if we offer AZ Lynch for Boldin in trade this offseason? Given Boldins conract situation, the money they have in Fitz, and the emergance of Breston, the Cards may look to trade Boldin. Plus, Boldin has stated he would not sign again in AZ as he has felt lied to. Don't know if he still feels the same way now, but that was earlier this year and not that long ago. AZ has a glaring hole at RB going into next year with Hightower having the worst YPC in the league and not looking like an everydown back and Edge on his last legs and likely gone next year. We need a Boldin type WR badly and have 2 stud RB's...so, would it make sense to offer AZ Lynch for Boldin? I think Lynch is great, but we also have Jackson who I think is capable of being a really good everydown back too. What line up would look better...Evans, Boldin, Jackson...or Evans, Reed/Johnson, Lynch? Its a win win...AZ gets a proven young stud RB, we get a proven stud WR in his prime...fills huge needs with both teams and neither team loses too much given they have capable replacements for the departed players...We can handle Boldins contract demands too given how far under the cap we likely are. Good thought BUT.......... Boldin is 29 and has had injury issues during his career. Plus you would have to draft Lynch replacement and Jackson himself is over 26 I like the thought but I would get TJ Housmandsadah from Cinny if you want an all Pro with little locker room problems and keep Lynch I would trade Roscoe Parish and a draft pick for TJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anzaloha Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 All I said was that your post about Bills running 52% of time when they had K-Gun offense and Thurman was lame because it had little to do with this topic... I dont care if you run 70% or 30%...its not indication of effectiveness...percentages have nothing to do with success is my only point, and running 52% of the time is low to begin with... You also have a much higher yards per attempt in the passing game than the run game, so even if you run more doesnt mean it is your bread and butter either... wait...its lame because it had little to do with the topic? who brought it up? Yeah, cuz Jim Kelly's teams never threw the ball, ever. We need to run the ball, because we haven't had a decent WRing corps since the 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 No way in Hell! A diva who has health problems for a young stud RB? If they ever made that move, drug tests should be given to all concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Love Q but, hell no. RB is way more important than WR. All you have to do is hand the RB the ball. WRs are useless unless you can get them the football. I believe in run-first offences. You run to set up the pass, you run to wear down defenses, you run to control the clock. The Bills did win the time of possession battle this year. Are you celebrating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan74 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 That is a tough question my answer is maybe. First I feel if the Bills are going to win a Super Bowl they need to be a run first team to set up play action and they need a top 5 defense. I say that based on weather conditions late in the year in Buffalo. I know NE is pass first and it works for them but they have Brady we have Edwards big difference. So based on that formula you might think no, but RB's usually have a 5 year window before injuries and hits slow them down and a good O-line can make an avg back look very good. WR's like Bolden are hard to find and he should be productive for another 6 - 8 years. So I think I would make that trade to balance the offense and find another back to play with Fred Jackson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
300yrds Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 that would be great. lets get rid of the best player on the team for a wr. that way we can not throw the ball down field some more to somebody else making more money than they deserve. if we are lucky we win a few games, then we call our games even closer to the chest. we can rely on the running back we just traded to take most of our passes out of the backfield, and our wr can run even shorter routes. making boldin only more necassary. oh wait the best part of this hole plan will be when trent goes down for 4-6 games and we dont have a good back up behind him, so we can not get boldin the ball even more. oh yeah and there wont be any problems with him here either because he already said he does not want to play in a cold weather city. boldin would be a supreme addition to this offense, but not under this coaching staff/organization, and most definitely not at the cost of marshawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 heck yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRW Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 that would be great. lets get rid of the best player on the team for a wr. that way we can not throw the ball down field some more to somebody else making more money than they deserve. if we are lucky we win a few games, then we call our games even closer to the chest. we can rely on the running back we just traded to take most of our passes out of the backfield, and our wr can run even shorter routes. making boldin only more necassary. oh wait the best part of this hole plan will be when trent goes down for 4-6 games and we dont have a good back up behind him, so we can not get boldin the ball even more. oh yeah and there wont be any problems with him here either because he already said he does not want to play in a cold weather city. boldin would be a supreme addition to this offense, but not under this coaching staff/organization, and most definitely not at the cost of marshawn. Again, I don't get this. You're saying the coaching staff sucks, so don't improve the talent level on offense. And Trent won't throw the ball, so don't improve the receivers. That makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 wait...its lame because it had little to do with the topic?who brought it up? Yeah, cuz Jim Kelly's teams never threw the ball, ever. We need to run the ball, because we haven't had a decent WRing corps since the 90's. You are quoting the wrong guy...I never said that...the other guy you were arguing with said that, not me. I did not bring this up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 that would be great. lets get rid of the best player on the team for a wr. that way we can not throw the ball down field some more to somebody else making more money than they deserve. if we are lucky we win a few games, then we call our games even closer to the chest. we can rely on the running back we just traded to take most of our passes out of the backfield, and our wr can run even shorter routes. making boldin only more necassary. oh wait the best part of this hole plan will be when trent goes down for 4-6 games and we dont have a good back up behind him, so we can not get boldin the ball even more. oh yeah and there wont be any problems with him here either because he already said he does not want to play in a cold weather city. boldin would be a supreme addition to this offense, but not under this coaching staff/organization, and most definitely not at the cost of marshawn. FYI...if Boldin was on this team with Lynch, Boldin would still be the best player on this team. Boldin is ELITE at his position, a position we need help at that is very hard to find ELITE talent at. Lynch is a stud, dont get me wrong, but if both were on the same team Boldin would be the best player on that team. Not to mention, Jackson is pretty good himself and would replace Lynch nicely...you act like trading Lynch means we have no one to run the ball when in fact we probably run the ball even BETTER with Jackson and Boldin because the passing game will open up the running game. Not to mention, Jackson is a bigger threat as a reciever too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts