Hey, who would have thought...

[Captain Hindsight]

That is the main challenge with this system, IMO. It all looks good on the blackboard, but figuring it out on the field is another matter.

You would need a smart QB. Anyone available from say an IVY League?

[boyst]

The thing I never understood is how quarterbacks and receivers are supposed to make pre-snap reads when the defensive players are moving around, pretending to show blitz, etc.

Many times you do not get to see pre-snap. At the snap you get 1 second to watch the hips of each player.

 

Before the snap hints and tips:

-What down is it? Do they really want to blitz on a 4-15? Do they want to blitz on a 2-4?

Why? Depends on the team but usually a blitzing defender means there is going to be a tell.

 

-ILB's faking a blitz - watch the Safeties. If the ILB is going to blitz they will usually be a little bit closer to the line.

Why? The blitz will make the pass a shorter play often or if it is run the SS needs to be closer (sometimes they'll go a little wider) to allow for a better angle.

 

-Where are the DL's? If they are in 0,1,2 with a 4-3 alignment, or have each player shading the outer edge of the lineman, for example, there is a lot of space. A blitz is easy to see.

Why? A timed blitz with players spread wide, or the SS coming up with a lot of room to get in there happens. (see the first example).

 

I guess the best way I have understood it is to realize we do not see the field the same way the QB does, literally and figuratively. Literally, we have camera angles and everything seems so close together. The QB has seen more tape then we have, he knows exactly what to look for when that DE drops to the flat and that CB is coming in for the blitz. We see it as a matter of 7 seconds and just like when we played that 7 seconds is a cerebral, mechanical, fundementals. (Of course, we are not on the pro level, just High Schoolers and some college players here or there).

 

That is the main challenge with this system, IMO. It all looks good on the blackboard, but figuring it out on the field is another matter.

A good coach adapts and has a plan. Looking at the end of the season last year I think Chan has the talents to do well with our team.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

First of all, I'm one of those staunch to say Chan is too pass happy and I wish we'd run more. That said, even the two most run-heavy teams in the league last year (Texans and 49ers) only ran 50-52% of the time and passed 45% of the time (the remaining 2-3% are ST plays).

 

I don't think you're going to see us hit the run/pass breakdown you'd like to see. I'm not sure that's a good thing, I'm not sure it's a bad thing, I think it's a thing thing. If we would even bring our run percentage up a little bit, to 45%, I would be happy.

This goes back to your excellent point that if Fitz completed just one more pass each game last year that his completion percentage would have gone from what many here view as a mediocre 62% to an outstanding 64.9%.

 

In supporting my belief that Gailey overemphasized the pass last year, I always said that it was just a few plays each game.

 

Personally it had nothing to do with citing the run/pass percentage. It was more a case that when you watched the game you would say "the Bills need to run here" and they would pass… and that would happen 2-3 times each game.

 

With me it was never a case where I thought they needed to run 10 more times each game. Like the BPA vs Need debate, it's not really a black/white argument so much as it's a discussion of varying degrees.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Many times you do not get to see pre-snap. At the snap you get 1 second to watch the hips of each player.

 

Before the snap hints and tips:

<good stuff cut>

The QB has seen more tape then we have, he knows exactly what to look for when that DE drops to the flat and that CB is coming in for the blitz.

 

There's this chap, Gavin de Becker. Security guy. Wrote a book called "The Gift of Fear". His premise is intuition, often dismissed with "just", is actually the mind unconsciously processing multiple observations into a pattern it recognizes, and that can make our lives safer if we learn to trust it and act on it. The difference between a police rookie, and a mature officer, or between a new recruit and a veteran soldier, being in part the speed and the scope of the pattern recognition - the strength of their intuition. "Just a feeling I had" "Go with your gut".

 

I read an article last year quoting Bruce Smith (actually, about Mario Wiliams!) where Bruce talked about how he had studied so much film he could diagnose what play was coming by cues as subtle as how much pressure the OL had on his hand on the ground. For every cue that Bruce could consciously recognize, there were probably two he recognized and processed without being aware of it.

 

My understanding is it's a similar pattern recognition the QB and WR engage in - so many observations of their opponents from film, and from game experience, that on game day they can just look at the players across from them and process all the subtleties - field position, body position, posture - and recognize a pattern instantaneously, without conscious thought. The challenge is to make sure everyone is using the same set of Rorschach patterns

 

That's one of the reasons I love football - it's a giant combination of chess and poker, played live with human pieces.

 

That's also why football intelligence is not the same as academic intelligence.

 

In supporting my belief that Gailey overemphasized the pass last year, I always said that it was just a few plays each game.

 

Personally it had nothing to do with citing the run/pass percentage. It was more a case that when you watched the game you would say "the Bills need to run here" and they would pass… and that would happen 2-3 times each game.

 

With me it was never a case where I thought they needed to run 10 more times each game. Like the BPA vs Need debate, it's not really a black/white argument so much as it's a discussion of varying degrees.

 

That's pretty much where I am too. There are a few games last year where I thought it was 10 or more plays a game - where I thought Chan abandoned the run almost completely because we were behind, but far too early in the game for the points we had to cover.

 

Most of the time, though I agree - there were often, lets say, 3-5 plays a game where I thought "run, we'll convert" and it would be a pass, ERRRRRRRRR.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Hopeful

[angryfan62]

Hey Guys, thanks for all the positive comments, especially Hopeful and jboys62 the links and explanations are really helping to demystify things for me. I am wanting to reply specifically to the posts I'm referring to but I can't figure out how to make this "Multiquote" thing work lol. Guess I'll try again later, in the mean time, here's part 2 Horizontal Timing. Haven't had time to read it yet but some were asking for the next part so here it is. Enjoy.

[vincec]

You would need a smart QB. Anyone available from say an IVY League?

 

 

A good coach adapts and has a plan. Looking at the end of the season last year I think Chan has the talents to do well with our team.

 

I hope that the Bills can pull it off. I have always been of the belief that complex systems tend to collapse under pressure and/or when things aren't going right. Can the Bills execute something this complex in the 4th Q of the Superbowl, down by 4 with 2 minutes left, and the Giants DL bearing down on Fitz? We shall see (I hope).

[angryfan62]

The thing I never understood is how quarterbacks and receivers are supposed to make pre-snap reads when the defensive players are moving around, pretending to show blitz, etc.

jboys62 properly answered your question but I just wanted to say that I clicked your deadspin link and LMAO.....and then I felt guilty.

[angryfan62]

Great find, Angry, as is the Brian Galliford article linked within it (also recommended). In general, the technical articles on Buffalo Rumblings are very reliable. They got some knowledgeable dudes there.

 

Opinion pieces are like any other.

 

Here's some more stuff on Erhardt-Perkins offense. The NE Patriots run a variant of this system. So do the Giants, and the Denver Broncos

 

Keep in mind that what Chan is running is not a traditional Erhardt-Perkins "run to set up the pass" "pass to score, run to win" system, or at least has not been in past. If he manages to successfully utilize both Spiller and Jackson perhaps it will be more so in future. I would love to see more of the smash-mouth running that characterized the original E-P offenses employed, if we can.

 

A couple of additional points (quotes from the article I linked, about the similar Patriots and Giants offense): this offense demands a high degree of knowledge from our WR. . They have to know all the WR roles (for disguise). Moreover, they have to be able to re-interpret their routes based on pre-snap reads - they will run their routes differently depending on what they see: "At times, there are four decisions that a receiver needs to make after the snap the way our offense is,' receivers coach Chad O'Shea told Bedard. "That's one of the advantages of our offense, that we give players a lot of flexibility within the system to take what the defense gives us. And that's definitely something that's unique about our offense."

Two points that follow:

1. This is a very difficult offense for a walk-on WR to come in and contribute, especially a WR whose principle talent is "streak down the field and catch" such as Ochocinco or TO. The routes don't just depend on the play that's called in the huddle. They have to make sight adjustments when they get to their spot in the formation based on where the cornerbacks and safeties are aligned. The routes depend on what the coverage is. You come out and you know what you've got to do, but it may change the whole thing after you get done looking at the coverage."

2. This offense depends heavily on everyone on offense (esp QB and WR) seeing the same thing and being on the same page. the receivers have several options to change their routes on each play, depending on what the defense does. It's complicated and hard to learn, and it can be very tricky for the quarterback and receiver to make sure they're seeing exactly the same thing out of each defender. (...) You don't just, in our offense, go out and run a 12-yard curl or a 10-yard in-cut. We ask them to read a lot of things. We put a lot of pressure on receivers to see things as a quarterback would. It's very difficult as a coach to get those things coordinated."

 

Given all that, one can see that offensive production would degrade sharply with injuries, if one or more backups weren't on the "same page", because to be effective, it's not enough for one receiver to see the "right things" and be in the "right place" they all have to see the same thing, interpret it the same way, and make the same decisions. Gailey made a couple references to this in late-season press conferences last year: "We have to get the receivers to be in the places he (Fitz) thinks they need to be"

 

And this is a reason I would be surprised if we pick up WR or FA QB from late round roster cuts and why I'm not surprised at the total lack of interest in TO or Ocho. They just won't be able to contribute as much in our system as they could in some others. It's also why I think there's more of an "if" about Vince Young winning the backup role than some do based upon his sheer physical talent. Gailey loves this offense. He depends on it. And he's not dumbing it down or giving it up willingly. IF Vince Young masters the offense, he will win the backup role. If he doesn't, it depends upon whether or not Gailey thinks he can see future mastery from where VY is on the day he needs to get out the scissors.

Thanks Hopeful, the Denver link provides some real good background on where this all comes from, and the New England one provides some insight as to how they are able to seemingly just plug random guys into their offense and still have great success(mostly). I do want add one thing though, having a receiver that simply "streaks down the field and catches" is still an asset to most offenses, even ours. For example T.O., I know know many here will disagree but when he decided to run hard upfield on a play the CB had to go with him, and if that corner was 5'10" T.O. was as good as uncovered, forcing the safety to roll his way to help over the top. A guy like that on the team drags 2 defenders out of the box with him each down whether the ball is thrown at them or not. Without that guy defenses are able to "cheat" up and clog obvious passing lanes and help out against the run. As I said earlier I am not a X and O guru and this is just my uneducated opinion but I have watched a lot of football and It seems that that is exactly what was happening to us during the last half of the season. If you have time let me know what you think of part 2.

P.S. Back to the Denver link, isn't Hank Bullough the Bills coach on that famous (or infamous) NFL Films clip where he's mic'd up on the sideline going ballistic after(another)bad play "God, their KILLIN me Whitey their KILLIN me"? Just curious.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I hope that the Bills can pull it off. I have always been of the belief that complex systems tend to collapse under pressure and/or when things aren't going right. Can the Bills execute something this complex in the 4th Q of the Superbowl, down by 4 with 2 minutes left, and the Giants DL bearing down on Fitz? We shall see (I hope).

 

Why shouldn't they be? Gailey's offense is no more complex, maybe simpler in some regards, than the offense the Giants and the Pats run (which both also have E-P elements - I linked in a prev post)

[boyst]

Horizontal Timing.

Interesting read. I think in Gailey's experience and tenure he has learned a variety of methods of offense. The "west coast" offense has always been a silly thought to me. Timing is so easily thrown off on a play by 21 different variables at the least that it cannot be relied upon accurately. Even when the WR can run his pattern with his eyes closed and the QB can thread a needle the timing of this play doesn't work anymore.

 

Now take in to account his break down of plays to the zone passing technique and you realize that is what gives SJ13 the advantage over Revis and so many other WR's. Revis is a protypical WR dedicated to keeping with the WR and matching his movements and routes. If there is no dedicated route and you have a WR with the reach of SJ13 things change.

 

Having a WR the abilities and lackings of David Nelson make it easier. He is a smart fluid WR who is not a top tier WR and might at best reach a #2 and that is just fine with me. I would rather have 3 or 4 #3 WR's then I would a Peerless Price #2.

 

Look at how the zone pass worked last year with our TE last year.

 

I am not sure I agree with all of his article. I will have to digest it and perhaps reread it.

[UpperDeck]

Thanks Hopeful, the Denver link provides some real good background on where this all comes from, and the New England one provides some insight as to how they are able to seemingly just plug random guys into their offense and still have great success(mostly). I do want add one thing though, having a receiver that simply "streaks down the field and catches" is still an asset to most offenses, even ours. For example T.O., I know know many here will disagree but when he decided to run hard upfield on a play the CB had to go with him, and if that corner was 5'10" T.O. was as good as uncovered, forcing the safety to roll his way to help over the top. A guy like that on the team drags 2 defenders out of the box with him each down whether the ball is thrown at them or not. Without that guy defenses are able to "cheat" up and clog obvious passing lanes and help out against the run. As I said earlier I am not a X and O guru and this is just my uneducated opinion but I have watched a lot of football and It seems that that is exactly what was happening to us during the last half of the season. If you have time let me know what you think of part 2.

P.S. Back to the Denver link, isn't Hank Bullough the Bills coach on that famous (or infamous) NFL Films clip where he's mic'd up on the sideline going ballistic after(another)bad play "God, their KILLIN me Whitey their KILLIN me"? Just curious.

 

That was Lou Saban. Hank Bullough had the sail taken out of his wind and should in no way be confused with Saban.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Hey Guys, thanks for all the positive comments, especially Hopeful and jboys62 the links and explanations are really helping to demystify things for me. I am wanting to reply specifically to the posts I'm referring to but I can't figure out how to make this "Multiquote" thing work lol. Guess I'll try again later, in the mean time, here's part 2 Horizontal Timing. Haven't had time to read it yet but some were asking for the next part so here it is. Enjoy.

Thanks for the great topic.

 

For every post you want to reply to (in one reply) click the "multi-quote" button.

 

Once you've clicked on "multi-quote" for each post you wish to reply to, hit the "add reply" button on the bottom.

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

[Tcali]

This goes back to your excellent point that if Fitz completed just one more pass each game last year that his completion percentage would have gone from what many here view as a mediocre 62% to an outstanding 64.9%.

 

In supporting my belief that Gailey overemphasized the pass last year, I always said that it was just a few plays each game.

 

Personally it had nothing to do with citing the run/pass percentage. It was more a case that when you watched the game you would say "the Bills need to run here" and they would pass… and that would happen 2-3 times each game.

 

With me it was never a case where I thought they needed to run 10 more times each game. Like the BPA vs Need debate, it's not really a black/white argument so much as it's a discussion of varying degrees.

 

And the overpassing problem was magnified when

1.the thin Bills got even thinner the last half of the year

2.the opposing Ds starting pinching in/cheating on coverage

when they realized that 80% of fitz's deep balls are ducks.

 

I think Chan may be a weakness on this team. Not saying that the Bills shoulda won a lot of games the 2nd half of last season-But they shouldn't have been blown out week after week by mediocre teams.This I blame on Chan's inability to adapt.Cripe run the ball--eat some clock--esp when your D is injury depleted and your O line is depleted.

[eball]

And the overpassing problem was magnified when

1.the thin Bills got even thinner the last half of the year

2.the opposing Ds starting pinching in/cheating on coverage

when they realized that 80% of fitz's deep balls are ducks.

 

I think Chan may be a weakness on this team. Not saying that the Bills shoulda won a lot of games the 2nd half of last season-But they shouldn't have been blown out week after week by mediocre teams.This I blame on Chan's inability to adapt.Cripe run the ball--eat some clock--esp when your D is injury depleted and your O line is depleted.

I will continue to respond to posts like this, because I think they are ill-conceived. Gailey's history is NOT one of being pass-happy and ignoring the strengths and weaknesses of his team (in six years of being an OC or HC in the NFL prior to Buffalo he ran more than he passed). He clearly believed the Bills' best chance last year, once Jackson went down, was to play the short passing game and then run CJ when the defense was spread out. The Bills were "blown out" by only one mediocre team I can think of -- the first Miami game. The Chargers and Cowboys "should" have been playoff teams. Buffalo's injuries along the OL (and to Jackson) prevented them from being a power running team, and going 3-and-out by running the ball doesn't do your crappy defense any favors either. That you think a team should be running the ball with a depleted OL is curious.