Bangarang Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) This offense is a product of Marrone's scheme and philosophies. He's ultra conservative so that's how we gameplan on offense. Or at least that's how it looks like we gameplan. Perhaps Hackett is limited to what Marrone wants to do. We don't really know. All I know is that I'm not going to try and convince myself that our offense and production is good because it hasn't been. Marrone inherited a pretty solid offensive line and a top 5 running unit and both units have regressed significantly since he took over. I've criticized Hackett a lot over the last year and now I'm starting to believe that Marrone may be the problem. Edited October 31, 2014 by Bangarang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Oh, I understand that but I do not call what is occurring now working. I don't want a full spread line but i want something in between. I'm not quite sure. I hate saying it because I cannot offer a solution, but I want things to change. The solution is personel based. The guys we have are more suited for the scheme they are employing than a spread gapped zone blocking system, regardless of the fact that they haven't been very good. The young guys we have either need to develop, or we need to upgrade through FA. I think we're tied to our blocking scheme for the season, as it's far too late in the year to completely reinvent the entire offense. Assuming, however, that Henderson keeps improving and Wood and Urbik retain their starting jobs, we could easily transition to a spread zone scheme next season, assuming we brought in another guard whose skill set was a fit for it. Wood and Urbik are much better suited for a zone scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I'm sorry, but no. We may need a better O-Line, but many do more with less. The issue with him is his total lack of creativity and playcalling. We run on first and second down and it's always right up the middle. We don't pull and guards. We don't run any counters. We are just very, very predictable. Now granted, how much we run has set up our big play downfield. But that's about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 The solution is personel based. The guys we have are more suited for the scheme they are employing than a spread gapped zone blocking system, regardless of the fact that they haven't been very good. The young guys we have either need to develop, or we need to upgrade through FA. I think we're tied to our blocking scheme for the season, as it's far too late in the year to completely reinvent the entire offense. Assuming, however, that Henderson keeps improving and Wood and Urbik retain their starting jobs, we could easily transition to a spread zone scheme next season, assuming we brought in another guard whose skill set was a fit for it. Wood and Urbik are much better suited for a zone scheme. Urbik is surprisingly nimble on his feet. This guy acts like he is 80 lbs. just moving his feet all over and keeping his body upright. He's not terrific, but he has a lot of the base stuff down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) The solution is personel based. The guys we have are more suited for the scheme they are employing than a spread gapped zone blocking system, regardless of the fact that they haven't been very good. The young guys we have either need to develop, or we need to upgrade through FA. I think we're tied to our blocking scheme for the season, as it's far too late in the year to completely reinvent the entire offense. Assuming, however, that Henderson keeps improving and Wood and Urbik retain their starting jobs, we could easily transition to a spread zone scheme next season, assuming we brought in another guard whose skill set was a fit for it. Wood and Urbik are much better suited for a zone scheme. I don't think you have to change the whole scheme to open things up a bit. Against the Jets, the Bills were running the ball up the middle in 2 TE, 1 WR sets. Everyone was moved inside and the defense was able to play tight with very little threat of a deep pass. Why would you ever run that formation against that defense (against almost any defense for that matter)? Especially with two backup running backs! I'm not in the "fire Hackett now" camp, but saying there's no issues with his play calling at times is nonsense. My one biggest problem with him (maybe it's Marrone) is that he doesn't seem to be adjusting. Even if the results are the same, I'd like to see some new stuff after the bye. Edited October 31, 2014 by Acantha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I don't think you have to change the whole scheme to open things up a bit. Against the Jets, the Bills were running the ball up the middle in 2 TE, 1 WR sets. Everyone was moved inside and the defense was able to play tight with very little threat of a deep pass. Why would you ever run that formation against that defense (against almost any defense for that matter)? Especially with two backup running backs! I'm not in the "fire Hackett now" camp, but saying there's no issues with his play calling at times is nonsense. My one biggest problem with him (maybe it's Marrone) is that he doesn't seem to be adjusting. Even if the results are the same, I'd like to see some new stuff after the bye. Again, formations are dictated by blocking schemes, and we don't have the personel to run a spread zone blocking scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 let me play devil’s advocate In a "passing league" shouldn't he be putting up 400+ YPG? Go ahead it is Halloween after all If I could work with Hackett we would go to a High School coach in the area. Hell, 10 HS coaches. Ask to look at their playbook and ask what works for them. Hackett is trying to run with the big boys. He doesn't have the talent to let him do it. These T-Formation, H-back sets are a big ridiculous. By taking him to HS I could show him how unlikely the matchup of an extra TE would outmatch about any D formation or alignment. The wish bone, wing T, and flex bone are going to put the best talent on the field and he is simply refusing to do that. The big fear is that spreading the OL out a little bit would allow for more defensive penetration. That is true but it also offers more room in the pocket for the QB to move. Orton seems aware of his pocket and this may be a good move to make - spreading it out. Oh, I understand that but I do not call what is occurring now working. I don't want a full spread line but i want something in between. I'm not quite sure. I hate saying it because I cannot offer a solution, but I want things to change. I agree with this. There are many old school football alignments that the new school defenses really would have problems handling. I mentioned it in a post I made about Oline play a couple of weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Again, formations are dictated by blocking schemes, and we don't have the personel to run a spread zone blocking scheme. That's not my point. Two and Three WR sets don't automatically equal a spread offensive line. Our personnel do not lock us into those specific formations. If that were the case, we wouldn't be able to have a passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hackett actually designs some clever plays. He and Marrone brag, and have shown, that there are a lot of ways this offense can go. They are not a one dimensional offense at all. But right now, they are running one. I think Hackett is somewhat hamstrung by Marrone's philosophy (because he is known as the more creative guy and Marrone the conservative one). He's not a bad coordinator. He shouldn't be fired. He seems to understand offenses and the way to attack defenses. He is limited by some poor OL play. But what he is doing right now with these guys in the last few games IMO by playing to our weaknesses and not playing to our strengths is dead wrong. It would take them ten minutes to fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Apperciate the efforts. Allow me to counter: 1) IMO, QBR is a better stat than QB rating. QB is purely a passing and does not take things like sacks into account. IT's why RJ had a pretty decent QB rating when he was here and we all know how bad he was. Orton's QBR was 50.1 in 2010. http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr/_/year/2010 This year, he is at 46.1. 2) I'd credit Orton's improvement from his rookie year until now with growing with experience and other coaches, especially Josh McDaniel. This has nothing to do with Hackett. 3) In Gailey's last year, we averaged 138.6 yards per game and 5.0 ypc. Spiller averaged 6 ypc. Now, Spiller is bad? And this is with Fitz and teams stacking the box on defense because he couldn't throw deep. 4) You don't think the OC does not have a major say in personnel? The oline regressing is partly on him. 5) In Gailey's last year, our wrs consistented of Stevie Johnson (7th round), Nelson and Jones (UDFAs). We have a number 4 overall pick, Woods (2nd), and a guy who has produced 10 tds and 900 yards in a NFL season (williams). This core is 10 times better. 6) Honestly, which player on offense has become better? Watkins was a stud that's why he went 4th overall. But who has gotten better? I apperciate your efforts but this is not a good offense and Marrone/ Hackett share the blame. And it's one thing if they ran a powerhouse and creative offense in college. IT was a boring, middle of the pack Big East offense. So I disagree. He is a bad OC. I'll add #7: 5 OL from the Gailey era are still on the team. Make it work Marrone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 The solution is personel based. The guys we have are more suited for the scheme they are employing than a spread gapped zone blocking system, regardless of the fact that they haven't been very good. The young guys we have either need to develop, or we need to upgrade through FA. I think we're tied to our blocking scheme for the season, as it's far too late in the year to completely reinvent the entire offense. Assuming, however, that Henderson keeps improving and Wood and Urbik retain their starting jobs, we could easily transition to a spread zone scheme next season, assuming we brought in another guard whose skill set was a fit for it. Wood and Urbik are much better suited for a zone scheme. Again, formations are dictated by blocking schemes, and we don't have the personel to run a spread zone blocking scheme. The lack of spread formations is dictated by the blocking scheme of the O-line, which is a power, closed gap scheme, which relies on big, powerful linemen. Spread formations rely on wide gap, zone blocking schemes, which utilize smaller, more nimble offensive linemen. I am very confused. You think it is plausible and even in our best interest to move to some zone blocking schemes. If your general point is the personnel isn't good enough I will agree. I am also of the opinion that the group under Gailey was outright bad, but scheme and a super fast release from Fitz masked that quite a bit. I think the idea of moving to what Gailey did with less talent really masks the overall wants and needs of the team. What we are really asking for is for a coach to step up and out coach or out think the guys on the other sideline. Put players in a greater position to succeed. Are some, sure! Are our most dynamic, nope. Fine, we can't run an all out spread zone blocking scheme. The point is we seem to be shooting ourselves in the foot. At the rate this offense "adjusts" we will have Chandler lined up wide, Orton behind center with Summer in the backfield, and 8 other blockers/linemen at the line of scrimmage. All in the name of personnel. That is a little hyperbole, but I think the point is that we have yet to scheme to our benefit/to generate greater production. This is not you, but I hate giving coaches a pass based on "first year/time". It is an elite job, only a few people hold the position in the entire world. If you aren't prepared to step in and perform at a professional level almost immediately, then you don't deserve it. This is the NFL, and these are upper management positions more or less. Coaches shouldn't get the same grace period as 20 year-olds right out of college. I'll add #7: 5 OL from the Gailey era are still on the team. Make it work Marrone. This is actually a really interesting stat. Again I don't think that line was good, we just found ways to make it work. Doesn't have to be the same way, but Christ do something, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Go ahead it is Halloween after all I agree with this. There are many old school football alignments that the new school defenses really would have problems handling. I mentioned it in a post I made about Oline play a couple of weeks ago. On of the things I firmly believe is that modern day NFL offenses are too complicated. I was watching something on Manning a while back where he broke down some plays and they were about as simple as can be but ran thoroughly. Each route was specific for each WR and matched to their skillset. Each play was designed to feature more then one player. What I would like to see done is match our roster to our plays. We have 4 good backs and can use 3 of them reasonably soon. I'll take this simple formation. If we put Summers in the backfield he is going to be overlooked. With Anthony Dixon and Fred Jackson at HB you're going to have a mixture of speed, blocking and all around versatility. At WR you have many options but you do not have to have WR's there. We could start with T formation - all 3 backs in the backfield and two TE's at the LOS. Before setting the offense put those TE's outside - one of those TE's could be Chris Hogan or Robert Woods. With the TE's going wide you're going to open up a little bit of your backfield. As those TE's move the RB's go up to the wing formations above. Leaving Summers in the backfield. You could play action here and no one would expect PA to the fullback. You could run a quick pick up play to one of the wideouts/TE's. This play would have to be run quick to catch the D playing catch up. Later in the game come up to the line, take your time, set up exactly the same way. Instead of motioning anyone do what Manning does so well, come to the line nonchalantly and snap it quickly with a quick run right up the middle and the D will be off guard. My point, do not run a million different plays. Give a variety of options on 6 formations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billykaykay Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 let me play devil’s advocate In a "passing league" shouldn't he be putting up 400+ YPG? Are Manning & Brady averaging 400/game ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Are Manning & Brady averaging 400/game ? No, they're the best in the game. It's more like 500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 if that's the criteria, there are only 4 good OCs in the whole league. Oh wait, those 4 are only putting up 400+ ypg combining passing AND rushing. Carry on. sorry people - I was being a wise@ss. no reply is needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QB Bills Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Jim Norton is getting a bad rap here. The offense playing with cement blocks for shoes is all Marrone, in my opinion. Fire this meathead into the sun and we have ourselves a very dangerous team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackInDaDay Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) funny you picked the flexbone.. both our high schools ran out of this for a number of years. it's a great option offense, which uses deception in the backfield to confuse the D's reads - coupled with zone(angle) blocking to allow a smaller O lineman to steer the D lineman away from the point of attack. You can look it up, but it was designed to give our service academies a chance against big schools with scholarship players. I'm not sure - because the biggest program I've ever seen run out of it was Georgia Tech - what advantage an NFL offense would get, other than flexing the slot backs to get a cleaner release for a pass play. even at the HS level, teams with superior speed at the second level recover in time to defend it. Edited October 31, 2014 by BackInDaDay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Go ahead it is Halloween after all I agree with this. There are many old school football alignments that the new school defenses really would have problems handling. I mentioned it in a post I made about Oline play a couple of weeks ago. Man... I would love to see some old school Delaware Wing-T... Boobie Dixon would be the ideal Wing-T fullback, and Freddy, CJ, and Bryce Brown would thrive in the HB/Wing roles. I think using it as a base formation would really limit us at the WR spot, however, with only room for one on the field at a time, unless you mixed in split bunch formations with no TE, or used the Wing primarily as a receiver, in which case, it would be ideally suited for Watkins and CJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I agree about his inability to coordinate a better run game, Hackett is a ****ty blocker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I am very confused. You think it is plausible and even in our best interest to move to some zone blocking schemes. I said the opposite... We don't have the personel group to run a zone scheme this year. Our hole at RG is too big, and the wider gaps, and reliance on quickness would funnel DT's through the 1 and 3 gaps line **** through a tin horn. Urbik and Wood, however, are more suited to zone schemes, and Cordy Glenn is a strong enough LT to thrive in either a spread of tight gap; and if Henderson continues to develop, with his skill set and quick feet, I feel he could work effectively in a zone blocking scheme as well. Depending on how we address the RG situation in the off season, I feel we could zone block effectively next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts