Buffalo Barbarian Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I'm glad Chan decided to switch to a 34 and then run a 43 with the 34 players we have drafted :wallbash: . Seriously why would you do that? You cut the Ends(exccept Kelsay) we had or they retire (Schobel) and 43 LBs and then draft 34 ends and OLBs? We never drafted a true NT to make it work and then in their brilliance decided to run a "hydrid" that is really a 43. 350 Lb NTs aren't good at being DTs nor DTs at NTs, 260 Lb OLBs can't get on the line in 3 point stance and take on OTs like a 43 end nor can they play OLB in a 43 Defense. I really hope they decide what D they are going to run and run it because we cant keep drafting 34 players and make them play out of position. If they do switch back to 43 the coaches should be shot because it will take another 2 years to get the right kind of DEs and LBs to make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Until we get a real OLB, were stuck in mediocrity. It's like debating what type of offense to run with no qb. It's the key cog to make the whole thing run. Until then we are just using 11 guys to hide that hole. Switching from a cover 2 it was obvious it would be a couple years to be able to turn over the D roster. Hopefully this offseason we are aggressive going after LBs. If so, it'll all work out. This was clearly a process from the start that would take 2-3 classes of draftees/FAs to fix, depending on how lucky we got with availability, interest etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I like how every week they sowon TV the Bills starting "D". They show it as a 3-4. Then all they do is run the 4-3. I couldn't care less what they run as long as they can stop the other team which with what they are doing now, they fail miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#34fan Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I think we have a real 3-4 OLB in Moats that we just can't develop. Again, why draft all this 3-4 talent just so you can run an ugly 4-3 with guys who don't fit the scheme? At one time I supported the change to this 4-3 "hybrid" that Chan was selling. I know now that I was wrong. I think we gave up on the 3-4 a bit too quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 My God this is like arguing over the song the band played when the titanic went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) Until we get a real OLB, were stuck in mediocrity. It's like debating what type of offense to run with no qb. It's the key cog to make the whole thing run. Until then we are just using 11 guys to hide that hole. Switching from a cover 2 it was obvious it would be a couple years to be able to turn over the D roster. Hopefully this offseason we are aggressive going after LBs. If so, it'll all work out. This was clearly a process from the start that would take 2-3 classes of draftees/FAs to fix, depending on how lucky we got with availability, interest etc.... I totally agree we need a franchise QB but I didn't want to put two threads in one, As you can see I want Tannehill but in the second now. Switching to a 34 wasn't the problem drafting 34 guys and then running a 43 with them is the problem. We could have easily drafted Terrence Cody in 2010 (going to 09 we could have drafted many great defenders besides Maybin, Like Orakpo and Cushing who have transitioned well to a 34, or Matthews)and Brooks Reed last year in the second and our D would look like this: DE Dareus NT Cody DE Heard/Carrington OLB Orakpo ILB Sheppard ILB Barnett OLB Reed This D would look way better than the dysfunction we have now. My God this is like arguing over the song the band played when the titanic went down. We wouldn't be going down if we drafted correctly and used them properly. Edited December 12, 2011 by Buffalo Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 au contraire, we will continue to sink until the present owner is no longer the present owner, until the present administration is no longer the present administration, until the present philosophy is no longer the present philosophy.... In other words, what we need eclipses a mere year or two of draft choices; we need a systemic change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 au contraire, we will continue to sink until the present owner is no longer the present owner, until the present administration is no longer the present administration, until the present philosophy is no longer the present philosophy.... In other words, what we need eclipses a mere year or two of draft choices; we need a systemic change. True, but Nix redeemed himself with this years draft and overall is a good talent evaluator and Chan has a good offensive mind he just needs to not abandon the run so quickly and decide what defense we are going to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBD Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I think we have a real 3-4 OLB in Moats that we just can't develop. Again, why draft all this 3-4 talent just so you can run an ugly 4-3 with guys who don't fit the scheme? At one time I supported the change to this 4-3 "hybrid" that Chan was selling. I know now that I was wrong. I think we gave up on the 3-4 a bit too quickly. Moats has been out there on most pass rush situations and has provided jack squat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sllib olaffub Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 My God this is like arguing over the song the band played when the titanic went down. Hahaha - good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 Moats has been out there on most pass rush situations and has provided jack squat. its hard to rush the passer when your down in a 3 point stance lined up against the LT when you weigh 249. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 as previously mentioned a stud OLB is precisely what the dr ordered. 3-4 or 4-3, that is the glaring hole. i dont want just a pass rush specialist - they have merriman and moats and kelsay - they need a good all arould olb that can cover but just having that stud doesnt solve everything. the schemes are terrible. you have to work with what you have and design schemes and call plays to maximize your talent, not minimize your weaknesses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Trooth Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 quote]We never drafted a true NT to make it work and then in their brilliance decided to run a "hydrid" that is really a 43. GEt used to the 43 again... Bills won't bring in a true NT this offseason either. 1) Edwards will be canned 2) wannstead takes over and he doesn't know jack about a 34. Kelsay will be back at LDE, Dareus and Williams will be the DTs and they'll bring in some "C" free aagent to play RDE, or worse, Spencer Johnson. Meanwhile, WHat doe you do with Moats, Batten, Sheppard and White... all 34 backers? Not to mention Carrington, Edwards, and Heard, none of which can play de in a 34. And, where do you come up with 5 34 LBs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I think we have a real 3-4 OLB in Moats that we just can't develop. Again, why draft all this 3-4 talent just so you can run an ugly 4-3 with guys who don't fit the scheme? At one time I supported the change to this 4-3 "hybrid" that Chan was selling. I know now that I was wrong. I think we gave up on the 3-4 a bit too quickly. What have you seen in Moats' game that leads you to believe this? He can't play the run and is worse against the pass. OTs swallow him whole when he's squared up so his pass rush has to be from a wide 9 as they say. He can be developed into a situational pass rusher perhaps but he'll need to get a lot stronger, faster, and quicker to be an every down player. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray Beard Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 it's hard to rush the passer when you're down in a 3 point stance lined up against the LT when you weigh 249. Tell that to Maybin. Just using this to point out that an innovative coach would be able to use some of these guys better. Moats has speed but not size. He should be able to be put into situations that allow him to make plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) I'm glad Chan decided to switch to a 34 and then run a 43 with the 34 players we have drafted :wallbash: . Seriously why would you do that? You cut the Ends(exccept Kelsay) we had or they retire (Schobel) and 43 LBs and then draft 34 ends and OLBs? We never drafted a true NT to make it work and then in their brilliance decided to run a "hydrid" that is really a 43. 350 Lb NTs aren't good at being DTs nor DTs at NTs, 260 Lb OLBs can't get on the line in 3 point stance and take on OTs like a 43 end nor can they play OLB in a 43 Defense. I really hope they decide what D they are going to run and run it because we cant keep drafting 34 players and make them play out of position. If they do switch back to 43 the coaches should be shot because it will take another 2 years to get the right kind of DEs and LBs to make it work. Problem 1 - They started with an marginal 4-3 defense and simply did not the right players to switch to 3-4 Problem 2 - The drafted some 3-4 players that are not very good Problem 3 - They don't really play in free agency, that cuts into nap time, so given the recent draft history this could take a long time Problem 4 - they hired a DC with limited NFL credentials Problem 5 - they hired a legit NFL DC and let him coach DE's that try, but cannot, play LB Edited December 13, 2011 by Bob in STL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 troupe and heard are true NT. we just do not have any linebackers besides Barnett and Sheppard(?)and nothing outside. Sorry Moats and Batten, love ya but not so much guys to be feared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 My God this is like arguing over the song the band played when the titanic went down. Duh, Celine Dion "My Heart Will Go On". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted December 13, 2011 Author Share Posted December 13, 2011 Tell that to Maybin. Just using this to point out that an innovative coach would be able to use some of these guys better. Moats has speed but not size. He should be able to be put into situations that allow him to make plays. that my point Maybin is not taking the OTs head on like they are asking our Ends er, I mean linebackers. troupe and heard are true NT. we just do not have any linebackers besides Barnett and Sheppard(?)and nothing outside. Sorry Moats and Batten, love ya but not so much guys to be feared. troupe is a bust and Heard plays great when they let him, which is the problem, he is rarely on the nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts