DanInUticaTampa Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 He is basically saying that he can plug 11 blind teenage girls into his scheme and succeed, as long as they run to the right gaps. Haha
Captain Hindsight Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 I interpret that as: "The players made their assignments and were in the proper position, but didnt play hard or mean enough to get off the block and make a play. They just didnt care like they did in the first half and the week before. I dont know why." Thats what I read
4BillsintheBurgh Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Agreed. Occupying multiple blockers is the whole idea behind freeing up your backers to fill the hole and make the tackle. As old as football itself practically. In that sense our DTs did a pretty good job as one was always doubled from what I saw and the one that wasn't was easily trapped. Need more beef in the middle in the nickel. The Scott experiment has failed. GO BILLS!!! More beef at lb would be helpful, but I'm not sure we have any other lb who can cover. And people will get tired of Moats chasing after te's down the field. My point is the dt's have to keep scott clean by taking up two blockers instead of trying to shed blocks. It would take a shift in technique which wanny does not seem to be advocating here. So for me more beef would mean either moving MW inside and/or taking someone of the field (maybe kelsay/anderson) and bringing in carrington or johnson. So the beef is added up front. You lose some pass rush with the hope of collapsing the running lanes in the middle. Hopefully Wanny's seen enough of what he's got to have a plan b. You can't just watch your players not get it done.
Stormin Norman Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 We simply got manhandled in the second half. Mike and Mike were live at Gillette today and who was signing autographs For the live audience? The running back - Ridley. I am a medium sized guy AT BEST and I am bigger than him. He looked as unscathed today as he did running through the gaping holes his O-line carved open for him.
Geno Smith's Arm Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 What I get from it is that he is blaming the players. Basically saying "I did everything a coach could do, they just didn't perform". I too blame the players, but when a team rolls up the kind of numbers the Pats did, there is obviously plenty of blame to go around. I didn't read anything like "If I had to do it over again, I would have changed a few things" or something like that. It seems to me that he basically worked for only half the game.
K-9 Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 More beef at lb would be helpful, but I'm not sure we have any other lb who can cover. And people will get tired of Moats chasing after te's down the field. My point is the dt's have to keep scott clean by taking up two blockers instead of trying to shed blocks. It would take a shift in technique which wanny does not seem to be advocating here. So for me more beef would mean either moving MW inside and/or taking someone of the field (maybe kelsay/anderson) and bringing in carrington or johnson. So the beef is added up front. You lose some pass rush with the hope of collapsing the running lanes in the middle. Hopefully Wanny's seen enough of what he's got to have a plan b. You can't just watch your players not get it done. I disagree with moving Mario inside. We've got plenty of size there already in Dareus and KW. You're right in that Wanny can have them play different techniques but all in all, they did their jobs on Sunday by occupying multiple blockers. At least one was doubled on every running play. The one that was singled was to the off side of the running play and too easily sealed off before getting into the play. There was ample time for Scott, Barnett, Wilson, and Byrd, depending on what gap the run was designed to go through, to get to the hole and make a play. They just got steamrolled like we all saw. The real issue is the LB position as you suggest. Instead of Moats perhaps you have Scott in that position while keeping Sheppard inside and Barnett on the other side. Now Shepp is gonna get crucified in coverage so send him up the gut instead. If Brady is gonna beat you with Gronk and Welker anyway, bring Shep up the gut and let Brady know you're there on passing plays. I don't know. There aren't easy answers to begin with against Brady. But we've got only one serviceable 3 down LB on the team and you know that going in. I wouldn't make it easy for him by conceding the run especially when my planned use of so much nickel and dime didn't stop Gronk or Welker like it was supposed to. Seems we had more success playing him more honest last year. I think Wanny outsmarted himself big time. It'll be interesting to see what adjustments he makes for the rematch. GO BILLS!!!
NewEra Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Wannstedt sucks. Get rid of him unless he turns up the aggressiveness. We have talented pass rushers. When the 4 pass rushers are being blocked and chipped by 7 guys, they are ineffective. His job is to make them effective. He failed miserably in week 1 and 4. Lets see how he does this week in a BIG game. I think the gameplan will differ based on the offense we are facing. If the gameplan doesn't work, how does he adjust? Questions that will determine his length of tenure.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 If the D don't fit, your ass will get hit. And this, my friends, is an epigram
spartacus Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 All I want -- seriously -- is for the Bills' defense to show some aggression, fire, and urgency. Who is the leader to step up and hold these players accountable? I don't want a "workmanlike" defense -- I want them to play like their jobs depend upon it. anybody see the Rams / Cards game Thurs for 2 teams that have historically been doormats- their defenses played with an intensity not seen in Buffalo since Bruce left town. both teams swarmed the backfield and absolutely mauled the QBs in contrast, the Bills "best DL in the league" looks like they are doing the waltz with the OL and not getting a sniff of the QAB Wannstadt should be fired - and Chan should be as well for hiring him in the first place
Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Bills: 5 questions with defensive coordinator Dave Wannstedt An excerpt: I interpret that as: "The players made their assignments and were in the proper position, but didnt play hard or mean enough to get off the block and make a play. They just didnt care like they did in the first half and the week before. I dont know why." I think that's a pretty reasonable translation This simply begs the question of why he doesn't know - it's his job to understand his team and get them prepared It also leaves unanswered the question of why he had some players out there who didn't get off the block and make a play because they were physically overpowered.
filthymcnasty08 Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 "Is that still a matter of players getting comfortable in the 4-3 scheme" The interviewer tried to go there.....not there......anywhere but THERE! I .... our 4/3 players aren't really 4/3 players.....let's bag it for another coach's scheme and draft accordingly....2-3 more draft's and FA's and we're going to be sick on our new 46 D!!!! HURRRRRRRLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dragonborn10 Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 These are the 5 best questions that can be asked? How about these... Any thought of switching back to the base 4-3 when they were gashing you for over 200 yards rushing? Why no safety or DB blitzes? What is you honest assessment of Sheppard at MLB?
sllib olaffub Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 There is something to be said for strategy, for game plans, for calling the right plays - for baffling opponents. This is an issue I'm having early on this year with the defense. I am a thinking man. I remember the early years of the Bellicheck NE Dynasty, when the defense was so unusual at times - I remember a game against Buffalo where New England's D-line spent a large part of the game standing up - it was like they were all linebackers. It was so unorthodox it took us by surprise. A good coach can set up a mediocre defense with original game plans and play calling. What bothers me is the belief that football is simple - only 3 gaps, for instance! - and that it comes down to players playing. Yes, players must play, make tackles, hustle, etc. But, if those things were the big part of it, then all the teams would be running similar systems. There just has to be more of an emphasis on game plans and play calls, at least to the point where it balances out the players play. It's worrisome that what it reminds me of most is Edward's defense of last year - it seemed so simple, so behind, so unprepared. Maybe Wannstedt had more input than we thought? I don't know - the season will tell us all we need to know, I guess.
dhg Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 In a word: outcoached. Belichick decided to take advantage of them playing nickel with undersized players trying to stop the run and wrecked havoc play after play. He never adjusted to counter what Belichick was doing, choosing to make it easier for them by sticking with what was failing. You got one coach that countered while the other caught a nap. 100% spot on
FitzShowUsYourTitz Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 There is something to be said for strategy, for game plans, for calling the right plays - for baffling opponents. This is an issue I'm having early on this year with the defense. I am a thinking man. I remember the early years of the Bellicheck NE Dynasty, when the defense was so unusual at times - I remember a game against Buffalo where New England's D-line spent a large part of the game standing up - it was like they were all linebackers. It was so unorthodox it took us by surprise. A good coach can set up a mediocre defense with original game plans and play calling. What bothers me is the belief that football is simple - only 3 gaps, for instance! - and that it comes down to players playing. Yes, players must play, make tackles, hustle, etc. But, if those things were the big part of it, then all the teams would be running similar systems. There just has to be more of an emphasis on game plans and play calls, at least to the point where it balances out the players play. It's worrisome that what it reminds me of most is Edward's defense of last year - it seemed so simple, so behind, so unprepared. Maybe Wannstedt had more input than we thought? I don't know - the season will tell us all we need to know, I guess. OH GOD No. You may be right. Makes me think Wanny is Jauron 2.0. I just threw up in my mouth.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 In a word: outcoached. Belichick decided to take advantage of them playing nickel with undersized players trying to stop the run and wrecked havoc play after play. He never adjusted to counter what Belichick was doing, choosing to make it easier for them by sticking with what was failing. You got one coach that countered while the other caught a nap. Yep. Dispirited players miss tackles. Players tend to become dispirited when they get physically dominated play after play. Makes them not as hellbent on getting to the hole. Nothing takes the spirit out of a player faster than getting his ass kicked in the running game. Passing games are pretty and all the rage but running games beat you up. GO BILLS!!! Yep. He is basically saying that he can plug 11 blind teenage girls into his scheme and succeed, as long as they run to the right gaps. Yep. There is something to be said for strategy, for game plans, for calling the right plays - for baffling opponents. This is an issue I'm having early on this year with the defense. I am a thinking man. I remember the early years of the Bellicheck NE Dynasty, when the defense was so unusual at times - I remember a game against Buffalo where New England's D-line spent a large part of the game standing up - it was like they were all linebackers. It was so unorthodox it took us by surprise. A good coach can set up a mediocre defense with original game plans and play calling. What bothers me is the belief that football is simple - only 3 gaps, for instance! - and that it comes down to players playing. Yes, players must play, make tackles, hustle, etc. But, if those things were the big part of it, then all the teams would be running similar systems. There just has to be more of an emphasis on game plans and play calls, at least to the point where it balances out the players play. It's worrisome that what it reminds me of most is Edward's defense of last year - it seemed so simple, so behind, so unprepared. Maybe Wannstedt had more input than we thought? I don't know - the season will tell us all we need to know, I guess. Yep.
wnyBacker Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Maybe it would be good luck if he cut off his 'stach for this weeks game
Buffalo Barbarian Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Bills: 5 questions with defensive coordinator Dave Wannstedt An excerpt: I really have no idea what any of that means. So Mario had a great camp? Well Dave when I was at camp Mario did Less than nothing as well as preseason. You blame all those TDs on missed Tackles? how about you let one linebacker play while the other "LB" is a safety, which leads to how do expect smurfs to "fit it up" there when DBs are not LINEBACKERS? It also sounds like you have had enough of coaching, so do us a favor this offseason and retire.
Nuncha Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) Fit it up? ] Maybe he said they were "Fitzd up" and the reporter got it wrong. Edited October 7, 2012 by Azucho98
Recommended Posts