Hackett is bad, like very bad

[fansince88]

It is the coaches' job to train players to execute the coaches' plays properly.

It is the coaches' job to teach players what will draw flags and what won't.

That is why they call them coaches and not just "play designers".

 

If it is the same player making the same mistakes week after week, then you can say it is a player talent problem. If it is different players making the mistakes week after week, then you can place more blame on the coaches not doing their jobs well enough. (In my opinion)

If the PLAYERS cant learn.....FIRE the COACHES??? Really?

[bananathumb]

We're 27th in points scored...and that's with a number of first rounders on O. Should tell you something about Hackett.

[PS 56]

Hackett's play-calling is unimaginative and predictable. Hackett designs and calls plays not for the players he's got, but for the players he wishes he had. Witness keeping EJ in the pocket - he's not [yet] a pocket passes, and flashes of greatness we saw from EJ came when he was out of the pocket and improvising. Not much, but enough to make you wonder what an offense tailored to the skills available, and a little experience, would bring. The Bills O-line is crappy. Why build a game plan and call plays that require a good one to execute? Look around the NFL, there are other teams with less-than-impressive offensive lines and they call plays that place less emphasis on it to succeed.

Totally agree with you. I just do not understand why Marrone, who has shown a willingness to make changes, keeps him around..

[Cash]

I see our RG, LG, and LT getting beat one on one consistently at the POA. And you're right about the stunts, they know it's coming and don't have the simple athleticism to match it. It's ugly to watch.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

We actually disagree about the stunts, I think. Like I said the first time, the issue I've seen is one of confusion, not lack of athleticism. One of the all-22 breakdowns in recent weeks highlighted how Richardson would frequently try to help out another lineman whenever Richardson thought he had no one to block. Unfortunately, he frequently did have someone to block; it's just that that someone was coming in late on a stunt or delayed rush. That's not an athleticism or physical skill problem, it's a mental/diagnostic problem. If that can be fixed - whether by replacing the player(s), changing techniques and/or blocking schemes, or just through learning from experience - I think we'll be in a lot better shape.

 

But whether it can be or not, I still don't think that putting extra TEs in the game helps the O-line. Extra TEs help the tackles a lot more than the guards. And I don't see them doing anything to help on the stunts and delayed rushes up the middle. If Richardson and Pears can't tell when to stay put and wait for a man to block, having extra blockers out wide won't do a thing to help. There is an argument for having multiple backs stay in to block, but I still feel that we're ultimately better off having better players on the field most of the time. And I have no doubt that our 5th-best WR is a better overall player than our FB or our 2nd-best TE.

 

If everyone running the Bills is good at their job, then we seem to have a serious disconnect between FO and coaches. Because the FO has put a lot of resources into the WR and RB positions, and very little into the TE and FB positions. If playing extra TEs and a FB is truly necessary to help the O-line (I disagree, but maybe you're right), then it still goes back to the FO for not providing the coaches with a good enough O-line. Alternatively, it's possible (but we can't prove it) that the O-line, while inadequate overall, wouldn't look as bad if the coaches were implementing the offense differently.

 

Hey Big Cat, since Kelly doesn't seem interested in fully answering your question, I'll take a stab at it. My guess is that with Orton, the Bills have played with:

 

4 WR/0 TE/1 RB - 3% of the time

3 WR/1 TE/1 RB - 40%

2 WR/2 TE/1 RB - 30%

1 WR/2 TE/2 RB - 15%

1 WR/3 TE/1 RB - 10%

0 WR/3 TE/2 RB - 2%

 

Totally guessing off the top of my head, so probably way off. I would say that if Goodwin was healthy, the 4 WR should be played a decent bit more, but as is, I won't call for it to be used more. I think the 3 WR set should be the base offense, as it was last year, and be used maybe 60-70% of the time.

[FireChan]

 

 

We actually disagree about the stunts, I think. Like I said the first time, the issue I've seen is one of confusion, not lack of athleticism. One of the all-22 breakdowns in recent weeks highlighted how Richardson would frequently try to help out another lineman whenever Richardson thought he had no one to block. Unfortunately, he frequently did have someone to block; it's just that that someone was coming in late on a stunt or delayed rush. That's not an athleticism or physical skill problem, it's a mental/diagnostic problem. If that can be fixed - whether by replacing the player(s), changing techniques and/or blocking schemes, or just through learning from experience - I think we'll be in a lot better shape.

 

But whether it can be or not, I still don't think that putting extra TEs in the game helps the O-line. Extra TEs help the tackles a lot more than the guards. And I don't see them doing anything to help on the stunts and delayed rushes up the middle. If Richardson and Pears can't tell when to stay put and wait for a man to block, having extra blockers out wide won't do a thing to help. There is an argument for having multiple backs stay in to block, but I still feel that we're ultimately better off having better players on the field most of the time. And I have no doubt that our 5th-best WR is a better overall player than our FB or our 2nd-best TE.

 

If everyone running the Bills is good at their job, then we seem to have a serious disconnect between FO and coaches. Because the FO has put a lot of resources into the WR and RB positions, and very little into the TE and FB positions. If playing extra TEs and a FB is truly necessary to help the O-line (I disagree, but maybe you're right), then it still goes back to the FO for not providing the coaches with a good enough O-line. Alternatively, it's possible (but we can't prove it) that the O-line, while inadequate overall, wouldn't look as bad if the coaches were implementing the offense differently.

 

Hey Big Cat, since Kelly doesn't seem interested in fully answering your question, I'll take a stab at it. My guess is that with Orton, the Bills have played with:

 

4 WR/0 TE/1 RB - 3% of the time

3 WR/1 TE/1 RB - 40%

2 WR/2 TE/1 RB - 30%

1 WR/2 TE/2 RB - 15%

1 WR/3 TE/1 RB - 10%

0 WR/3 TE/2 RB - 2%

 

Totally guessing off the top of my head, so probably way off. I would say that if Goodwin was healthy, the 4 WR should be played a decent bit more, but as is, I won't call for it to be used more. I think the 3 WR set should be the base offense, as it was last year, and be used maybe 60-70% of the time.

 

I think Kelly is saying what should be the standard formation. Obviously you're going to spread the field on 3rd and long. But when it's 1st and 10, we should be in a spread. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't disagree.

 

Though, looking at the first Watkins TD, I liked how we faked them out with the 3 TE set and ran verticals.

Edited October 21, 2014 by FireChan

[thewildrabbit]

I have a difficult time believing there are still some here defending the guy, and then blaming his ineptitude on the shortcomings of the RB's, O line, QB, head coach. He is responsible for the entire offense, including the O line, the run game, the QB.

 

That #2 rushing offense from last year is now 16th. The team is now 24th in total offense, 27th in first downs. 256 passing attempts vs 175 rushing attempts

 

The Bills won those first two games (Chicago-Miami) with a very good run game, 33 rushes vs 22 passes and then went pass happy against the Chargers, and haven't stopped being pass happy since. The Bills went 2-3 since going pass happy and are lucky to have Orton pulling out two of those games with last minute drives.

 

The only good thing to come from both Spiller & Jackson being out is that now Hackett finally has his up the middle, 3 yards and a cloud of dust RB. At 6'1'' 233 Boobie is perfect for that style of offense.

[Mango]

 

 

 

Okay, think of a percentage you think the Bills SHOULD run these formations, then try and guess what the actual number is. I'm curious what your perception is, and I'll gladly do the research to determine what the numbers really are.

 

I also think the offense is a state of evolution. I think it's clear that Orton gives them WAY more flexiblity than EJ ever did, I HOPE Brown is better suited to run for three to five yards on first down like CJ was supposed to and I think we're going to see a complete re-shuffling of the OLine at the bye.

 

So again, I think most of these critiques of Hackett are entirely premature and woefully oblivious to the personnel limitations he's faced the entire time he's been in Buffalo.

 

I'll bite on this. Just because I'm curious of my perception versus reality.

 

I watch the all 22, and I rarely if ever see anything that I would consider a spread offense. I discount bunch sets. Yes the formation of 4 WR on the field points there, but when 3 are standing next to the RT and the other is still between the numbers, it's nt spread.

 

Official guess < 10% of snaps have a 4/ 5WR set with no TE on the field, and no bunch formations. If I were feeling feisty I would put it under < 5%,

But today hasn't been great for me.

[uncle flap]

Leaving the o line in one on one matchups will allow the D to squat on the quick hitters and tee off on Orton.

 

We saw that with Chan- if there was a penalty or a run for no gain or a drop, the drive would stall. I'm exaggerating somewhat, but they basically had no plays for 3rd and long.

 

The reason screens worked better out of the spread was that they had a more athletic line, and that the d line had their ears pinned back to rush Fitz.

 

If they want to spread it out more frequently, we're gonna see even more hits on Orton. With EJ as the backup, I don't know how often the should really be hanging Orton out to dry.

 

The o line was noticeably better overall against the Vikes (moreso in the run game than pass pro). They did seem gassed at the end. Next week will be a tough test, but hopefully theyll continue to gel and develop.

[FireChan]

 

 

I'll bite on this. Just because I'm curious of my perception versus reality.

 

I watch the all 22, and I rarely if ever see anything that I would consider a spread offense. I discount bunch sets. Yes the formation of 4 WR on the field points there, but when 3 are standing next to the RT and the other is still between the numbers, it's nt spread.

 

Official guess < 10% of snaps have a 4/ 5WR set with no TE on the field, and no bunch formations. If I were feeling feisty I would put it under < 5%,

But today hasn't been great for me.

 

Do we even have 5 WR's?

[bigK14094]

My problem with Hackett is less the individual play calling - although the swing pass to Dixon, run Dixon up the gut, ask Dixon to be the key blocker with the QB in shotgun set of 3 calls was arguably the most befuddling I have seen in my years watching the Bills - my issue with him is the offensive concepts. What is the identity of the Buffalo Bills offense?? I don't think Hackett knows, or if he does he isn't sticking to it in his play calling. All of a sudden two weeks ago these 3 tight end, tight bunch sets came into being... it's like he has an idea it forms a major part of the gameplan for 3 weeks then it's gone to be replaced by something else. The best offensive coordinators could tell you what the basis of the scheme they run is in 1 sentence. If Hackett believe he can do that the evidence hasn't been on display through 7 weeks. I accept you put different game plans in for different opponents each week.... I accept that when you switch QBs there are some things you need to change, but it is all round badly conceptualised and there is no identity.

three tight end game plans are a staple around the league upon occasion....but, in the case of the Bills, we don't exactly have the cast at TE to make that offense a credible threat. Chandler is capable to some degree, a B player at TE , say,. Lee Smith is a C- player, at best, and Gragg is a C player as well. So, why are we focused on getting all three of that caliber players on the field, when we have all A and B players at Wide receiver. (OK, we can argue about HOGAN) Seems to me a system has to be designed to use talent at hand, not the system we would like if we had the players. Face it, our TE's are not GronK and Hernandez in their heyday.

[dave mcbride]

I have a difficult time believing there are still some here defending the guy, and then blaming his ineptitude on the shortcomings of the RB's, O line, QB, head coach. He is responsible for the entire offense, including the O line, the run game, the QB.

 

That #2 rushing offense from last year is now 16th. The team is now 24th in total offense, 27th in first downs. 256 passing attempts vs 175 rushing attempts

 

The Bills won those first two games (Chicago-Miami) with a very good run game, 33 rushes vs 22 passes and then went pass happy against the Chargers, and haven't stopped being pass happy since. The Bills went 2-3 since going pass happy and are lucky to have Orton pulling out two of those games with last minute drives.

 

The only good thing to come from both Spiller & Jackson being out is that now Hackett finally has his up the middle, 3 yards and a cloud of dust RB. At 6'1'' 233 Boobie is perfect for that style of offense.

 

Did you know that in 2011, the Patriots (a Super Bowl team) dropped back 634 times and ran it 438 times (59 percent passing)? Or that the Super Bowl-winning Packers threw dropped back 579 times in 2010 and ran it 421 times (58 percent passing)? Or that the 2008 Cardinals (a Super Bowl team) dropped back 658 times and only ran it 340 times (66 percent passing)? The 2011 Saints (13-3) dropped back 686 times and ran it 431 times ((61 percent passing). Last year, the Broncos dropped back 633 times and ran it 420 times (60 percent passing), and the 11-5 Saints dropped back 688 times and ran it 391 times (64 percent passing). This year, the 5-2 Colts have dropped back 317 times and run it 221 (61 percent passing) times so far. As you might imagine, teams that lose more than they win throw it a lot also -- they have to try and come back. Last year, the 7-9 Lions and 7-9 Giants both threw it 61 percent of the time.

 

To be sure, there are a number of teams that are closer to 50/50 - the Eagles last year were close to 50/50. The thing is, they had a young QB and a very strong running game. If you don't have the latter, it makes sense to lean pass heavy. The Bills have a veteran QB and an anemic running game, and in 5 of 7 games this year they've been down deep into the 4th quarter. They have to throw it late.

 

For the record, the Bills have dropped back 275 times and run it 175 (61 percent). (Incidentally, you didn't factor in the 19 sacks Bills' QBs have taken into the passing attempt total.) The Bills' opponents have dropped back 278 times and run it 174 times. That's pretty amazing symmetry.

 

The idea that running the ball 50/50 is anachronistic. The Bills are a better passing team than running team--the interior of their line is bad at run blocking, and they have an accurate QB with a good arm and top-flight receivers. Running it to prove a point would suggest that they are captives of an outmoded idea.

Edited October 21, 2014 by dave mcbride

[K-9]

three tight end game plans are a staple around the league upon occasion....but, in the case of the Bills, we don't exactly have the cast at TE to make that offense a credible threat. Chandler is capable to some degree, a B player at TE , say,. Lee Smith is a C- player, at best, and Gragg is a C player as well. So, why are we focused on getting all three of that caliber players on the field, when we have all A and B players at Wide receiver. (OK, we can argue about HOGAN) Seems to me a system has to be designed to use talent at hand, not the system we would like if we had the players. Face it, our TE's are not GronK and Hernandez in their heyday.

 

That three TE set was responsible for Sammy's first TD catch the other day.

 

Now, that doesn't mean Hackett is the 2nd coming of Marchibroda, but it does suggest he isn't the imbecile he may appear to be on the surface.

 

I'm not sure what his running schemes are trying to accomplish, but his passing game designs usually have 2 receivers wide open. If our OL can give Orton the time, I think Orton can make defenses pay more often than not. Big if though.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

I think Kelly is saying what should be the standard formation. Obviously you're going to spread the field on 3rd and long. But when it's 1st and 10, we should be in a spread. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't disagree.

 

Though, looking at the first Watkins TD, I liked how we faked them out with the 3 TE set and ran verticals.

Let's call it base formation. It doesn't at all mean even 80-90% of the plays. I want double TEs sometimes. I want bunch formations sometimes. I don't mind three TE sometimes. Mix it up. We don't need Lee Smith playing 37% of the snaps, which he did last week.

 

That three TE set was responsible for Sammy's first TD catch the other day.

 

Now, that doesn't mean Hackett is the 2nd coming of Marchibroda, but it does suggest he isn't the imbecile he may appear to be on the surface.

 

I'm not sure what his running schemes are trying to accomplish, but his passing game designs usually have 2 receivers wide open. If our OL can give Orton the time, I think Orton can make defenses pay more often than not. Big if though.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Or, you could say, like Orton did, that we practiced that play all week, and when I saw Sammy out there with only one guy on him, I went down the field to him and he beat his man. An occurrence which would happen more times a game if there are 3-4 wide. And happened on the game winning play from the spread.

[GG]

Let's call it base formation. It doesn't at all mean even 80-90% of the plays. I want double TEs sometimes. I want bunch formations sometimes. I don't mind three TE sometimes. Mix it up. We don't need Lee Smith playing 37% of the snaps, which he did last week.

 

While understanding limitations of simple statistics, it would be great if someone had time to spread out the success rate of plays based on the formations.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

While understanding limitations of simple statistics, it would be great if someone had time to spread out the success rate of plays based on the formations.

Yup. If you took out the last drive, which was out of necessity and he didn't play, Lee Smith was probably over 50%.

[Manther]

 

 

His GM gave him road graders who can't get out into space for plays that CJ excels at. How is this Hackett's fault?? He was given a power running team.

It my opinion Marrone and Hackett want this personelle to power run. It just doesn't work for us and they can't or won't adapt.

 

[K-9]

... Or, you could say, like Orton did, that we practiced that play all week, and when I saw Sammy out there with only one guy on him, I went down the field to him and he beat his man. An occurrence which would happen more times a game if there are 3-4 wide. And happened on the game winning play from the spread.

 

And they practiced that play all week because Hackett had the sense to put that in the game plan. That's not a defense of Hackett, but let's not go out of our way to NOT give credit where it's due.

 

I don't think it's a given at all that it would be a regular occurrence. 4 wide sets are gonna invite the extra DBs and given Dlines can readily win with four rushers against our anemic OLine, that's 7 DBs vs. 4 WRs and that's certainly not a given no matter how you slice it, especially since Orton doesn't have the luxury of enough time too often.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Gray Beard]

three tight end game plans are a staple around the league upon occasion....but, in the case of the Bills, we don't exactly have the cast at TE to make that offense a credible threat. Chandler is capable to some degree, a B player at TE , say,. Lee Smith is a C- player, at best, and Gragg is a C player as well. So, why are we focused on getting all three of that caliber players on the field, when we have all A and B players at Wide receiver. (OK, we can argue about HOGAN) Seems to me a system has to be designed to use talent at hand, not the system we would like if we had the players. Face it, our TE's are not GronK and Hernandez in their heyday.

I was happy to see Gragg get a few short passes thrown his way. Work him in, see what he can do, use him for dump offs and get a first down.

I am baffled how tight ends, a full back and a couple running backs are still not enough to keep the defense from mauling Orton. Of course, Orton is not very mobile. He reminds me of Bledsoe, who reminds me of Cuba Gooding walking across the courtroom with his diving suit on at the end of "Men of Honor"

[Orton's Arm]

More than play-calling, it is the groupings, philosophy and system that is the bigger and more troubling problem.

 

This team's strengths are its 4-5 playmaking WRs, its 4 playmaking RBs, and now, its gunslinger veteran QB.

 

Its glaring weaknesses are its interior line, power running game, and TEs.

 

There are ten reasons to spread the field, put 3-4 WRs out there with 1-2 backs, scrap the 2-3 TE sets and let the veteran QB spread the ball around quickly.

 

There are ten reasons not to play 2-3 TEs, run up the middle, be conservative predictable, and keep a lot of your talent on the bench.

 

Furthermore, Hackett and Marrone are going to be rewarding themselves for bad behavior because, for example, the first TD to Watkins was a Three TE formation. And we won the game.

 

They will ignore that the play worked because they simply saw a single guy on Watkins and threw it to him deep because he beat the guy cleanly off the line, and that they won because they scrapped the stupid philosophy and let (were forced into) Orton winging it.

 

I stuck up for Hackett for a long time, not because I thought he was good, but because I thought no one could have succeeded in the situation he was put in last year. It wasn't fair to say he sucked.

 

In the first two games this year, and even in the two losses with EJ, it wasn't fair to simultaneously say that there were a dozen wide open plays on the field that weren't made by EJ and then say that the playcalling sucked.

 

But the line has gotten progressively worse. They stopped playing MWilliams. They increasingly play 2-3 TE sets. The other teams knowing this are increasingly tightening the box and blitzing, which we often don't even have hot reads for. And for three games in a row the offensive game plan and philosophy has been increasingly, glaringly bad. That is both Marrone and Hackett's fault, and it was abysmal yesterday.

 

Good post.

 

Just to add to what you've written: a lot of times, offensive success in football is about creating space. Back in the '90s, the Cowboys would line their offensive linemen up relatively far apart, so that Emmit Smith would have more space in which to run.

 

Lots of times, Hackett will run Spiller up the middle, on plays that don't appear to have been designed to create any space. The hope seems to be that the Bills' offensive line will simply overpower the other team's DL. And that Spiller will use his raw power to muscle his way up the middle for a tough four or five yards. These hopes do not appear to be based on a realistic assessment of what the Bills actually have.

 

> They increasingly play 2-3 TE sets.

 

After Gailey was fired, I'd wanted the Bills to hire Chip Kelly. I loved the fact that he was a very smart, creative, outside-the-box thinker. The idea isn't to think outside the box for the sake of being outside the box. The idea is to find the most rigorous solution--a solution which will sometimes exist outside the box.

 

Chip Kelly believes that more offensive targets are better than fewer. Having more targets helps you spread the defense out, and take advantage of more of the available space on the field. You also reduce the defensive coordinator's opportunities to be flexible and unpredictable; because each of those targets dictates the location of one of his defenders. (Thereby constraining his freedom of action.)

 

When Marrone was hired, people here tried to cheer me up. To convince me he was better than Chip Kelly would have been. But based on Hackett's play calling, I'm not sure I agree. Nor has the offensive line progressed under Marrone's tutelage, despite his pedigree as an offensive lineman.

[The Frankish Reich]

We actually disagree about the stunts, I think. Like I said the first time, the issue I've seen is one of confusion, not lack of athleticism. One of the all-22 breakdowns in recent weeks highlighted how Richardson would frequently try to help out another lineman whenever Richardson thought he had no one to block. Unfortunately, he frequently did have someone to block; it's just that that someone was coming in late on a stunt or delayed rush. That's not an athleticism or physical skill problem, it's a mental/diagnostic problem. If that can be fixed - whether by replacing the player(s), changing techniques and/or blocking schemes, or just through learning from experience - I think we'll be in a lot better shape.

Agreed. And not just the guards. For what it's worth, profootballfocus has Seantrel as the 2nd worst rating of all tackles. He's been, in his own way, just as bad as Pears. The young guys do have size and talent, but 2 rookies on the line, plus the out of position (and crap to begin with) Pears is a recipe for the disaster going on right now. Defenses are exploiting the inexperience with stunts every week. At TBD we tend to obsess over two possible partial fixes: (1) playing Urbik at LG instead of Richardson; (2) signing Incognito and sitting Richardson or Pears. PFF has a different idea: (3) play Hairston, sit Seantrel. PFF says Hairston actually graded out positive in 2012. I like (1) + (3). Right now. (I hate (2))