Are we set at LB? Possible solution

[jumbalaya]

I just don't think by adding Manny Lawson you take one of the worst defenses in the league and turn it into anything but what it is, one of the worst defenses in the league. Granted we are minus the worst defensive coach in the league in Wannstench and adding Pinocchio in his place.

[mrags]

I like Bradham and Lawson. Mario played OLB in Houston's 3-4 his last season there. Anderson could probably play OLB in the 3-4 as well. Sheppard is the wild card. If they like him, then LB isn't a huge need. But another one would be nice.

pretty much this---^

 

Good job OP. well done.

[boyst]

SJBF put up the CowSignal, eh?

 

I think the SLB/WLB label gets a bit fuzzy here with Pettine. Some say Lawson can cover in a 3-4, but in a 4-3 he could not, as was proven. However, in both cases it was proven that he could tackle. Being that anything going to Mario's side is not going to get outside the DE's containment I think wewould be better served putting Lawson at SLB. He does not have to wait on his heels deadfooting to assure that containment is not broke, instead he can keep the TE inside and send him to the SS - Bryan Scott/Searcy/whoever.

 

The WLB is where I am concerned with regard to the 34. In a 34 we are going to have to have someone who can slide around and make sure they can cover a 3rdWR or essentially be a nickel back - see Bryan Scott.

 

Putting a DE inside like that is like sending a sheep to the wolves. In the NFL today few DE's are good enough to face exposure on all three sides. Some are quick enough to shoot the gaps, but that could pose a problem for our D. If we put fast motors, Carrington and KWilliams (playing them in in the gaps as shown) they will cause pressure to role outside. This - well - if it is a run with a decent back would cause LB's to be exposed. If it is a pass I expect it to create pressure like we saw in 2011.

 

There is no benefit to putting Mario or Anderson inside in those positions when they can contribute more outside. Belicheck used Anderson at OLB sparingly in NE. KWilliams is like the article mentions, an undertackle, while Carrington is possibly one, too, but more agile against the run with his larger frame.

 

The strong side in this picture is the left, TE. If we want to play this scheme I would put Lawson over the TE to see if he could handle it against the run. I do not know enough about him but I am curious if he is able to shed blockers enough to stop a run, if not, I would bring Mario to play stand up DE there beside him, with Lawson next to him. Let Mario handle everything, let Lawson clean up what Mario leaves on the plate. That would mean removing the DB pictured - who would probably be Bryan Scott? At the two ILB's we would have to choose Bradham and Sheppard. At the opposite WLB we would possibly have Anderson or another guy snuck in that would strictly rush the passer. It is easily over looked how valuable it can be to rush the passer from the weakside. If Lawson could hold his own you want to have Mario at WLB, much like Philips and son did with the 44 and variations.

 

Dick LeBeau likes zone blitzing. We do not have the LB's to do that at this time, from my brief observations.

 

The article says you need 4 very good linebackers to run the scheme but I believe it is wrong. Know it is wrong. You need good coaching to run any scheme and the 43 and 34 are just names to schemes we relate to defenses. You need better DL in a 3-4 then you need LB's. In a 43 you need better LB's then you need DL. If the 3 DL's cannot do their job they will not hold the OL off of the LB's, regardless of how good they are - unless they are exceptional and there are only a handful of exceptional LB's in this league.

 

So, coming back to your issue with replacing an NT with two DE's - we would be replacing one position with two. Meh, not too happy to do that.

 

So, lets look at the 1-5-5. In this case it is basically going to be a 3-4 for our defense being that Anderson and Mario could pick their hand up to the OLB position, Lawson is pretty close to playing a SS, and Bryan Scott is a Monster back.

 

To illustrate this, look at the lineup below and tell me these guys are fit for any one position.

 

MWilliams - MDareus - MAnderson

Lawson - Sheppard - Bradham? - Scott

Gilmore - Searcy - Byrd - McKelvin

 

McKelvin and Gilmore are CB's.

Searcy and Byrd are S's

Sheppard is an ILB.

Bradham or someone like Carrington can just as easily blitz the QB from the inside.

Lawson can come outside to buffer Gilmore's man, at least in a short zone. Gilmore keeps him inside - Lawson keeps him out of the middle.

Scott goes toe to toe with 3rd WR or 2TE.

Mario unleashes against the QB.

MAnderson drops to the flat as he showed possible in 2012, and 2011 with Belicheck.

Dareus just has to steer anything up the middle because in most cases the offenses kill to the run and we watch the RB get 10 yards. (Wish we had Whitner, at least he'd stop them at 8 yards).

 

Gotta run wish I could write more. Defensive talk is like porn to me

Edited March 29, 2013 by jboyst62

[Dibs]

......

Thoughts? Questions? Berate me?

 

I am the first to admit my lack of expertise in this area......but 2 possibly stupid questions immediately spring to mind.....

 

Wouldn't having 5 DBs starting leave us even thinner in the secondary?

 

Wouldn't it also leave us even weaker against the run?

[Tsaikotic]

I think the Bills will draft a LB in the 4th or 5th ..choices of Nico Johnson, Kevin Reddick and/or Jon Bostic

 

where's Moats playing this year?..is he DE or back to LB??

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

Your pic is missing a NT :-)

 

I may not have clearly mentioned it, but in this scheme the setup is 2-4-5. As such, there is no true tackle and you really stick with the NT and a DE, or two DE's. I can believe you can also run a 3-3-5, but then you have questions over who will be the NT, and what do we do with Mario Williams.

 

I am the first to admit my lack of expertise in this area......but 2 possibly stupid questions immediately spring to mind.....

 

Wouldn't having 5 DBs starting leave us even thinner in the secondary?

 

Wouldn't it also leave us even weaker against the run?

 

Admittedly...yes. Yes to both. I am rather happy to have Byrd back, and happy with Gilmore. I think Seacry is pretty close a swap for George Wilson, so we're ready to go there, and I think that between Williams and Brooks we can get a decent NB, but without some reinforcements we are quite thin. The problem is that there don't seem to be any stud stutdown players in the draft past Milliner and I don't see any in free agency so I think we're stuck with it either way.

 

And yes, the nickel's primary weakness is against the run. However, another subpackage out of the 3-4 is the 46, and we could play it with a lot of the same personnel. This would primarily act as our previous 4 man D-line front, with Lawson coming in for run support. It's not perfect, but I think you can argue that in the increasingly pass-centric league it makes more sense to gameplan against that first.

 

I will get back to JBoy when I have time later today, as I'm enjoying all the Defense Talk too

[Kemp]

Frankly, I am astounded at the belief that LB is not a glaring weakness on this team. So far, Sheppard has been a horror show and I am unclear why people think he will automatically improve. Bradham is at best unknown as far as what he will become. I have not watched Lawson closely so I don't have an informed opinion about him, but I will be surprised if he is excellent. Last year the D line was so so, as was the secondary. The LBs were the worst of the groups. When holes opened on the line the LBs did not plug them and they brought zero pass pressure.

[Don't stop billievein]

Frankly, I am astounded at the belief that LB is not a glaring weakness on this team. So far, Sheppard has been a horror show and I am unclear why people think he will automatically improve. Bradham is at best unknown as far as what he will become. I have not watched Lawson closely so I don't have an informed opinion about him, but I will be surprised if he is excellent. Last year the D line was so so, as was the secondary. The LBs were the worst of the groups. When holes opened on the line the LBs did not plug them and they brought zero pass pressure.

It's hard to tell what we really have as far as players go because we had such inept coaching last year. This year with a good Def coordinator we will see more of the potential of guys like sheppard and I think bradham is a Beast!! IMHO.

[boyst]

Ha. No one ever reads long replies. Maybe I should have thrown in a few Ralph is cheap or Fitz sucks items.

[Justice]

Frankly, I am astounded at the belief that LB is not a glaring weakness on this team. So far, Sheppard has been a horror show and I am unclear why people think he will automatically improve. Bradham is at best unknown as far as what he will become. I have not watched Lawson closely so I don't have an informed opinion about him, but I will be surprised if he is excellent. Last year the D line was so so, as was the secondary. The LBs were the worst of the groups. When holes opened on the line the LBs did not plug them and they brought zero pass pressure.

 

Don't be. This team has way too many holes and too few draft picks and cap space to replace them. At least we have some able-bodied players at the linebacker position. Unlike wide receiver, TE, QB, OG, and safety.

 

While I agree we need an upgrade at LBer, we can easily fill those needs with FAs and mid-round draft picks.

 

 

[Speedy G]

It's hard to tell what we really have as far as players go because we had such inept coaching last year. This year with a good Def coordinator we will see more of the potential of guys like sheppard and I think bradham is a Beast!! IMHO.

 

+1

 

I think they will be better...Pettine said they're gonna get after the QB, that means blitzing, something that Wandstadt did like what...? Maybe 3 times all year... its time to unleash the stampede..!

 

[jumbalaya]

It's hard to tell what we really have as far as players go because we had such inept coaching last year. This year with a good Def coordinator we will see more of the potential of guys like sheppard and I think bradham is a Beast!! IMHO.

Bradham a 'Beast"??? How about: "As a fourth round pick Nigel did not completely suck and the Bills will keep him another year because his salary is very low and hope he improves enough to make the team under the new defensive coordinator." A Beast...hardly.

[Shoutbox]

At LB, the Bills have 1 mediocre starter (Lawson), 1 marginal starter (Bradham), 3 career backups (Sheppard, White, Moats), 1 specialty cover LB (Scott), and 2 specialty pass-rushing OLB's (Mario, Anderson). That's clearly not enough for a team hoping to operate out of both a 3-4 and a 4-3. They still need 1 starting OLB, 1 starting ILB, and depth.

 

Also, keep in mind that this year's draft is loaded with quality and depth at the front 7. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Bills use up to 4 of their 6 picks on LB's and hybrid 4-3 DE's/3-4 OLB's. I have no clue what the Bills think about Geno Smith, Barkley, Manuel, Nassib, Wilson, etc... but if they honestly don't like any of these QB's at 8th overall, look for one of the top 3 OLB's with the pick (Ansah, Jordan, or Jarvis Jones).

[Don't stop billievein]

Bradham a 'Beast"??? How about: "As a fourth round pick Nigel did not completely suck and the Bills will keep him another year because his salary is very low and hope he improves enough to make the team under the new defensive coordinator." A Beast...hardly.

Maybe not a beast, I got a little ahead of myself with that one but he plays fast and hits like a truck. thats what this team has been missing for a while imo.

[billsfan89]

I still think that they are going to need a true MLB even if they feel that with Lawson and what we have fits the defense scheme. Much more needs on the offensive side of the ball

[Jkgobills]

This has been the most enjoyable original post and subsequent thread in weeks. Thanks to OP. I can actually see this working out to make a serviceable front seven and allow us to focus on the even greater needs at WR, QB, OL.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

SJBF put up the CowSignal, eh?

 

I think the SLB/WLB label gets a bit fuzzy here with Pettine. Some say Lawson can cover in a 3-4, but in a 4-3 he could not, as was proven. However, in both cases it was proven that he could tackle. Being that anything going to Mario's side is not going to get outside the DE's containment I think wewould be better served putting Lawson at SLB. He does not have to wait on his heels deadfooting to assure that containment is not broke, instead he can keep the TE inside and send him to the SS - Bryan Scott/Searcy/whoever.

 

The WLB is where I am concerned with regard to the 34. In a 34 we are going to have to have someone who can slide around and make sure they can cover a 3rdWR or essentially be a nickel back - see Bryan Scott.

 

Putting a DE inside like that is like sending a sheep to the wolves. In the NFL today few DE's are good enough to face exposure on all three sides. Some are quick enough to shoot the gaps, but that could pose a problem for our D. If we put fast motors, Carrington and KWilliams (playing them in in the gaps as shown) they will cause pressure to role outside. This - well - if it is a run with a decent back would cause LB's to be exposed. If it is a pass I expect it to create pressure like we saw in 2011.

 

There is no benefit to putting Mario or Anderson inside in those positions when they can contribute more outside. Belicheck used Anderson at OLB sparingly in NE. KWilliams is like the article mentions, an undertackle, while Carrington is possibly one, too, but more agile against the run with his larger frame.

 

The strong side in this picture is the left, TE. If we want to play this scheme I would put Lawson over the TE to see if he could handle it against the run. I do not know enough about him but I am curious if he is able to shed blockers enough to stop a run, if not, I would bring Mario to play stand up DE there beside him, with Lawson next to him. Let Mario handle everything, let Lawson clean up what Mario leaves on the plate. That would mean removing the DB pictured - who would probably be Bryan Scott? At the two ILB's we would have to choose Bradham and Sheppard. At the opposite WLB we would possibly have Anderson or another guy snuck in that would strictly rush the passer. It is easily over looked how valuable it can be to rush the passer from the weakside. If Lawson could hold his own you want to have Mario at WLB, much like Philips and son did with the 44 and variations.

 

Dick LeBeau likes zone blitzing. We do not have the LB's to do that at this time, from my brief observations.

 

The article says you need 4 very good linebackers to run the scheme but I believe it is wrong. Know it is wrong. You need good coaching to run any scheme and the 43 and 34 are just names to schemes we relate to defenses. You need better DL in a 3-4 then you need LB's. In a 43 you need better LB's then you need DL. If the 3 DL's cannot do their job they will not hold the OL off of the LB's, regardless of how good they are - unless they are exceptional and there are only a handful of exceptional LB's in this league.

 

So, coming back to your issue with replacing an NT with two DE's - we would be replacing one position with two. Meh, not too happy to do that.

 

So, lets look at the 1-5-5. In this case it is basically going to be a 3-4 for our defense being that Anderson and Mario could pick their hand up to the OLB position, Lawson is pretty close to playing a SS, and Bryan Scott is a Monster back.

 

To illustrate this, look at the lineup below and tell me these guys are fit for any one position.

 

MWilliams - MDareus - MAnderson

Lawson - Sheppard - Bradham? - Scott

Gilmore - Searcy - Byrd - McKelvin

 

McKelvin and Gilmore are CB's.

Searcy and Byrd are S's

Sheppard is an ILB.

Bradham or someone like Carrington can just as easily blitz the QB from the inside.

Lawson can come outside to buffer Gilmore's man, at least in a short zone. Gilmore keeps him inside - Lawson keeps him out of the middle.

Scott goes toe to toe with 3rd WR or 2TE.

Mario unleashes against the QB.

MAnderson drops to the flat as he showed possible in 2012, and 2011 with Belicheck.

Dareus just has to steer anything up the middle because in most cases the offenses kill to the run and we watch the RB get 10 yards. (Wish we had Whitner, at least he'd stop them at 8 yards).

 

Gotta run wish I could write more. Defensive talk is like porn to me

 

OK, now that I have a moment...

 

As I've been thinking about it, I keep wondering if Scott is intended to be put back as a Safety. It was technically his position before getting moved to LB last year, and this would help alleviate concerns with our thinness at SS. With that, Sheppard and Bradham (or whoever we add in the draft) will be in the ILB spot.

 

I really don't like having Anderson or Williams anywhere except OLB, and even then I would have reservations with having more than one on the field at a time unless we knew it was a passing down. Mario showed that he could stop the run, but Anderson has a lot to prove.

 

I do suppose that Lawson might be able to work as a MLB, which would help the situation, especially if the WLB can be done by Bradham with backup from Scott.

 

I really am curious to see what Pettine has cooking.

 

This has been the most enjoyable original post and subsequent thread in weeks. Thanks to OP. I can actually see this working out to make a serviceable front seven and allow us to focus on the even greater needs at WR, QB, OL.

 

Thanks. I'm surprised and happy to see that people seem to be enjoying it.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

(good analysis)

 

This is one of the more thoughtful, careful analysis I've read - thanks for posting.

 

I keep hearing "43 is the MIke!" echoing out of Brady's mouth, followed by a run play. And I have grave reservations about Shepp, though some pros seem to feel it takes several years to educate an NFL linebacker so perhaps having him learn a new scheme and and play Mike in his 2nd year didn't do him justice.

 

So I still think we need a linebacker. Maybe 2. And some depth behind Anderson.

[boyst]

Thought about it today while gardening...

 

If we cook the pot too much won't we end up just burning it up? If Pettine over mixes it, if he tries too much I think it will back fire. It relates to my one of my current theories. That theory is a little bit at jeopardy with the new rules coming out, but I think this is going to turn in to a running league in a few years. We are seeing teams load up on coverage tight ends, defensive backs and man-up defensive players. If you get a running back who is able to move the pile up the middle - which, it is still legal to put your head down inside the box - you will can defeat the players designed to only cover the run. If you have a running back who is elusive with any speed he can reach any part of the field and defeat the coverage defenses.

 

The 43 and the 34 will be used less often this year then last and I have a feeling we will see more total rushing yards in this league then the last 3 or 4 seasons. This will be to our benefit.

[Kemp]

It's hard to tell what we really have as far as players go because we had such inept coaching last year. This year with a good Def coordinator we will see more of the potential of guys like sheppard and I think bradham is a Beast!! IMHO.

Wannstedt is a far better coach than Sheppard is a linebacker. Linebacker remains the weakest part of the D by far and the D was far worse than the O last two years. I think some of you have forgotten that the Bills gave up yards like no other team in memory. If an RB got past our D line he was off to the races.