Bash_Gash Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Panthers will not franchise their leading pass rusher Charles Johnson...as per rotoworld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Panthers will not franchise their leading pass rusher Charles Johnson...as per rotoworld He'd be a great player to have if your running a 4-3, Carrington, Williams (Fairley or Dareus) Charles Johnson would be a pretty good line but as far as I know we are sticking to a 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Good stats, but probably not a fit for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 He'd be a great player to have if your running a 4-3,... How many times do we need to hear this before we consider that maybe switching to a 3-4 when it's trendy and every other NFL team is looking for the same players may have been a dumb idea? Be the first on the next trend - not the late bandwagon jumper. That's how you get an edge with schemes. We jumped on the Tampa-2 when it was trendy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 How many times do we need to hear this before we consider that maybe switching to a 3-4 when it's trendy and every other NFL team is looking for the same players may have been a dumb idea? Be the first on the next trend - not the late bandwagon jumper. That's how you get an edge with schemes. We jumped on the Tampa-2 when it was trendy too. So you think we should scrap our defense so we dont have to compete against all the other teams playin it for players? Even though it's the most effective defense in football? Pretty soft imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 How many times do we need to hear this before we consider that maybe switching to a 3-4 when it's trendy and every other NFL team is looking for the same players may have been a dumb idea? Be the first on the next trend - not the late bandwagon jumper. That's how you get an edge with schemes. We jumped on the Tampa-2 when it was trendy too. I agree with Bob. I will say that there was a lot of people clamoring (I always get in trouble when I use that word) for a switch to the 3-4…the "everyone in our division" argument…"that our QBs can't play against it because they didn't practice against it" etc. Many were calling for the 3-4 and there weren't many who disagreed. In fact I don't recall any dissent on the issue but memory is subjective. One of the things that happened is that as Bob says, the Bills hopped on that wave just when a lot of teams did, after a few teams led the way. As a result the talent pool for 3-4 players is more competitive. It's even tougher because two-gap NTs like BJ Raji don't grow on trees…which is why some teams will take a Terrence Cody when he "comes to them." Now this happens to be a very good year for 3-4 DEs…5-technique guys, so if a team is committed to the 3-4, this is an historic opportunity to make sure you get one of those guys. However to me, you take what the market gives you and build that way. If a player like Johnson is available (or Ray Edwards for instance), then you have to consider getting them because they are top talents. Then you have a chance to draft a one-gap DT (like Dareus or Paea) to complement Kyle Williams or a 4-3 pass rusher like Quinn and suddenly you have a very talented 4-3 attacking defense. My point before it gets lost (because it will) is that you take what the market gives you. Take the path of least resistance when finding players. Build the scheme around the best talent that you can acquire. My other point is that Wannstache has always been a 4-3 coach. Now Gailey for the record said that the Bills are committed to being a "multiple-front defense" although Nix subsequently said some things which suggest a drifting back towards the 4-3. Anyways, the best way to go is to be scheme-flexible as a coaching staff so that you are ready for whatever great players come available to you. Why insist on scheme-specific players and as a result, pass up on top talent? Why insist on square pegs when there are lots of very nice round pegs available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) So you think we should scrap our defense so we dont have to compete against all the other teams playin it for players? Even though it's the most effective defense in football? Pretty soft imo It's not "soft" - it's smart. Competing for players with the other teams is not at all like competing on the football field. Being "tough" or trying/working harder only gets you so far. This sort of competition for players is more of a economics process - not the $$ of it, but the awareness of supply/demand for a set of resources. There are several perfectly good pro football defenses. 3-4 for sure, but teams have done very well (recently) in defense playing various Tampa-2 4-3's as well as more traditional 4-3's. Top 5 defenses (scoring): 2010: 3-4, 3-4, 3-4, 4-3(t2), 4-3 2009: 3-4, 3-4, 3-4, 4-3(b), 3-4 2008: 3-4, 4-3, 3-4, 4-3, 4-3 2007: 4-3(t2), 3-4, 4-3(t2), 3-4, 3-4 2006: 3-4, 3-4, 4-3(t2), 4-3, 4-3 While it's true there's been a lot of 3-4 at the top, it's also worth noting that the Ravens were in the top 5 in all of those years, and the Steelers and Patriots each 4 of the 5. In other words - it's hard to tell if it's scheme or just front-office skills. Having the best talent with the right body types to play the positions you need is more important than the effective differences between playing a 3-4, a Tampa-2, a basic 4-3, a "46" 4-3, etc. They all have worked and can still work - they just demand different players. We've had 3 schemes with the Bills in the last decade+. The Bills were one of the first 3-4's - way back to the 80's all the way until Gregg Williams came in and switched us to essentially the "46" 4-3 scheme he had success with in Houston/Tennessee. Before he showed up, we had a top defense with a surplus of giant NT's such that Wade was actually lining up Pat Williams and Sam Adams together in the "Elephant 3-4" which was famously impossible to run up the middle against. The big immediate difference, you may recall, was that his aggressive 4-3 demanded superb CB's that could handle single man coverage most of the time, and we drafted Clements accordingly. It was all about pass-rush and penetration, attacking every gap. Jauron switched us to a Tampa-2 - a defense that among other things, demands much less man-coverage of the corners, and promptly demonstrated his incompetence by drafting a series of round 1 DB's anyway. The smaller DL's went along with that scheme - prompting us to draft Whitner over Ngata because "Ngata was too slow". Sigh. The scheme works a lot better when you have a freakish athlete like Brian Urlacher who can both pass-cover a lot of space in the middle of the field AND be big and fast enough to blow up the run. Poz isn't Urlacher. The bottom line to the "economic" model of this - there are only a fixed number of players coming up from college at a given talent level who are built for the specialized roles of a given scheme. If you're one of a few teams that uses a particular scheme, you will be in a much better position to pick and choose the most talented college players to handle the duties of that scheme. Edited February 24, 2011 by BobChalmers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 It's not "soft" - it's smart. Competing for players with the other teams is not at all like competing on the football field. Being "tough" or trying/working harder only gets you so far. This sort of competition for players is more of a economics process - not the $$ of it, but the awareness of supply/demand for a set of resources. There are several perfectly good pro football defenses. 3-4 for sure, but teams have done very well (recently) in defense playing various Tampa-2 4-3's as well as more traditional 4-3's. Top 5 defenses (scoring): 2010: 3-4, 3-4, 3-4, 4-3(t2), 4-3 2009: 3-4, 3-4, 3-4, 4-3(b), 3-4 2008: 3-4, 4-3, 3-4, 4-3, 4-3 2007: 4-3(t2), 3-4, 4-3(t2), 3-4, 3-4 2006: 3-4, 3-4, 4-3(t2), 4-3, 4-3 While it's true there's been a lot of 3-4 at the top, it's also worth noting that the Ravens were in the top 5 in all of those years, and the Steelers and Patriots each 4 of the 5. In other words - it's hard to tell if it's scheme or just front-office skills. Having the best talent with the right body types to play the positions you need is more important than the effective differences between playing a 3-4, a Tampa-2, a basic 4-3, a "46" 4-3, etc. They all have worked and can still work - they just demand different players. We've had 3 schemes with the Bills in the last decade+. The Bills were one of the first 3-4's - way back to the 80's all the way until Gregg Williams came in and switched us to essentially the "46" 4-3 scheme he had success with in Houston/Tennessee. Before he showed up, we had a top defense with a surplus of giant NT's such that Wade was actually lining up Pat Williams and Sam Adams together in the "Elephant 3-4" which was famously impossible to run up the middle against. The big immediate difference, you may recall, was that his aggressive 4-3 demanded superb CB's that could handle single man coverage most of the time, and we drafted Clements accordingly. It was all about pass-rush and penetration, attacking every gap. Jauron switched us to a Tampa-2 - a defense that among other things, demands much less man-coverage of the corners, and promptly demonstrated his incompetence by drafting a series of round 1 DB's anyway. The smaller DL's went along with that scheme - prompting us to draft Whitner over Ngata because "Ngata was too slow". Sigh. The scheme works a lot better when you have a freakish athlete like Brian Urlacher who can both pass-cover a lot of space in the middle of the field AND be big and fast enough to blow up the run. Poz isn't Urlacher. The bottom line to the "economic" model of this - there are only a fixed number of players coming up from college at a given talent level who are built for the specialized roles of a given scheme. If you're one of a few teams that uses a particular scheme, you will be in a much better position to pick and choose the most talented college players to handle the duties of that scheme. I respect your opinion and much of it makes some sense, but if I'm a HC, I'm gonna run the defense I feel will be the most successful based on the scheme, not based on who I will be competing with for players. Letting the league dictate what defense you will be employing is soft, sorry to disagree, jmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I respect your opinion and much of it makes some sense, but if I'm a HC, I'm gonna run the defense I feel will be the most successful based on the scheme, not based on who I will be competing with for players. Letting the league dictate what defense you will be employing is soft, sorry to disagree, jmo. From Coach Gailey's press conference today: "On how a hybrid defense plays into looking at talent in the draft:You find the best players you can find and then you work your defense around whoever the best football players are. We’ve tried to do that in all areas of our football team." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts