Marrone in 2015

[NoSaint]

 

 

So how do you feel about the Broncos moving to a run first offense with a top 5 all time first ballot hof qb?

 

They don't even try to fool people as one of their tight ends is a tackle.

 

If we are running 90% of the time with lee smith, I'd rather have a tackle out there.

 

 

 

This is a very good point...it's a fundamental problem with the offense if you're broadcasting what plays you're going to run based off of personnel packages.

 

 

 

I do agree with the sentiment, and as Kirby said the two ideas are, IMO, mutually exclusive. Yes, this team would be better off with the same OC and a better QB than vice-versa, no question. I still prefer better in both spots, and I think they can do that.

 

An example of what bothers me about the offense: 1st half, GB gets themselves into a 3rd-and-short. What do they do? Spread the defense out by going to a 4-wide set and run the ball up the middle. First down.

 

Buffalo gets in the same situation, first half, and they bring in 3 TEs, which collapses the entire defense down into the box and try to run. Stuffed for loss of two. To me, that's a lack of fundamental understanding of the game.

 

It's not there all the time, but it's there often enough to drive me crazy.

 

Bingo.

 

[thebandit27]

So how do you feel about the Broncos moving to a run first offense with a top 5 all time first ballot hof qb?

 

They don't even try to fool people as one of their tight ends is a tackle.

 

Different scenario IMO. For one, they still have Peyton Manning, so teams would be categorically unwise to load the box against them.

 

Secondly, even when they go to 6 OL, they still have J. Thomas/D. Thomas/Sanders on the field, so the threat of throwing out of a 6 Jumbo set is very real.

[Wayne Cubed]

This is a very good point...it's a fundamental problem with the offense if you're broadcasting what plays you're going to run based off of personnel packages.

 

 

 

I do agree with the sentiment, and as Kirby said the two ideas are, IMO, mutually exclusive. Yes, this team would be better off with the same OC and a better QB than vice-versa, no question. I still prefer better in both spots, and I think they can do that.

 

An example of what bothers me about the offense: 1st half, GB gets themselves into a 3rd-and-short. What do they do? Spread the defense out by going to a 4-wide set and run the ball up the middle. First down.

 

Buffalo gets in the same situation, first half, and they bring in 3 TEs, which collapses the entire defense down into the box and try to run. Stuffed for loss of two. To me, that's a lack of fundamental understanding of the game.

 

It's not there all the time, but it's there often enough to drive me crazy.

 

Oh I know the plays and I agree it is frustrating to see but is that Hackett's call or Marrone's? It seems to me, based on Marrone's attitude, that it's him. He's going to run the ball the way he runs it because thats what he does. Stubborn to the end.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Different scenario IMO. For one, they still have Peyton Manning, so teams would be categorically unwise to load the box against them.

 

Secondly, even when they go to 6 OL, they still have J. Thomas/D. Thomas/Sanders on the field, so the threat of throwing out of a 6 Jumbo set is very real.

 

but if we are going to absolutely telegraph our play call as a run - we may as well get our best blocker on the field, and i dont think thats lee smith either.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

And you think that running these sets will allow Orton to finally put the ball on open receivers?

 

More importantly, do you think this team was wrong to move away from a run-first offense?

Well, they couldn't run and they can't move the ball in the air. Are you happy with the offense's performance? What would you do to improve it next year? If the answer is a franchise QB, who is that guy?

 

The defense is unbelievable. It may very well be the best in franchise history and IMO the best in the NFL. They probably won't make the playoffs. Kyle Orton isn't great but he's completing 64% of his passes and has a decent TD to INT ratio. I don't think that the players are put in position to succeed. Obviously you can still make plays (think of the Bryce Brown spin move in the backfield). That wasn't putting your team in a situation to succeed. I don't mind the play calling as much as the design.

[section122]

 

 

This is a very good point...it's a fundamental problem with the offense if you're broadcasting what plays you're going to run based off of personnel packages.

 

 

 

I do agree with the sentiment, and as Kirby said the two ideas are, IMO, mutually exclusive. Yes, this team would be better off with the same OC and a better QB than vice-versa, no question. I still prefer better in both spots, and I think they can do that.

 

An example of what bothers me about the offense: 1st half, GB gets themselves into a 3rd-and-short. What do they do? Spread the defense out by going to a 4-wide set and run the ball up the middle. First down.

 

Buffalo gets in the same situation, first half, and they bring in 3 TEs, which collapses the entire defense down into the box and try to run. Stuffed for loss of two. To me, that's a lack of fundamental understanding of the game.

 

It's not there all the time, but it's there often enough to drive me crazy.

 

Every single team does this it is not a special Bills are terrible idea.

 

A perfect example of this is goal line formations. When you need short yardage it doesn't matter that the other team knows what you are doing you still expect to be succesful.

 

I don't get why every single play needs to be a trick or deception. Sometimes it is up to the player to straight up beat their man. This is just a hindsight argument. If the Bills get the first running it on 3rd and short we are all happy.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

This is a very good point...it's a fundamental problem with the offense if you're broadcasting what plays you're going to run based off of personnel packages.

 

 

 

I do agree with the sentiment, and as Kirby said the two ideas are, IMO, mutually exclusive. Yes, this team would be better off with the same OC and a better QB than vice-versa, no question. I still prefer better in both spots, and I think they can do that.

 

An example of what bothers me about the offense: 1st half, GB gets themselves into a 3rd-and-short. What do they do? Spread the defense out by going to a 4-wide set and run the ball up the middle. First down.

 

Buffalo gets in the same situation, first half, and they bring in 3 TEs, which collapses the entire defense down into the box and try to run. Stuffed for loss of two. To me, that's a lack of fundamental understanding of the game.

 

It's not there all the time, but it's there often enough to drive me crazy.

That example is what I'm apparently not explaining very well. Thanks for cleaning it up Bandit.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Every single team does this it is not a special Bills are terrible idea.

 

A perfect example of this is goal line formations. When you need short yardage it doesn't matter that the other team knows what you are doing you still expect to be succesful.

 

I don't get why every single play needs to be a trick or deception. Sometimes it is up to the player to straight up beat their man. This is just a hindsight argument. If the Bills get the first running it on 3rd and short we are all happy.

 

a goal line situation is a whole different beast as its a tight space -- in the middle of the field do you think the bills running game is helped more by lee smith blocking a linebacker, or the defense going nickel and having to defend sideline to sideline and down the field 40 yards?

 

sure every team uses big packages - and we should too sometimes.... but.....

Edited December 15, 2014 by NoSaint

[Jmsbills]

He is back for 2015 and unless someone hires Jim Schwartz the staff will remain the same. Marrone did a nice job of hiring Schwartz, but also the other Defensive assistants as a result of the Pettine departure.

We need an upgrade at two positions Guard and QB. That alone will make a huge difference. There are no great options at QB unless we draft a lesser commodity who turns out to be GOLD. Not likely. So we must improve our offensive line - PERIOD!!! Now the next question - is it Kyle, EJ or someone else?

 

I believe Kyle gives us no better chance of winning than EJ - I would rather see EJ in there because of his athletic ability - Kyle can not get out of his own way. I am not sure this coaching staff sees it that way - but we question accuracy with both EJ and Kyle. Why not go with the better athlete next year? Give them the full offseason and training camp - then equal reps with equal talent and see who can take us to the next level. We can talk about QB free agents all we want but tell me who is any better than what we currently have and at an affordable price? I just do not see anyone out there. Let go Bills - and as always wait til Next Year.

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

Every single team does this it is not a special Bills are terrible idea.

 

A perfect example of this is goal line formations. When you need short yardage it doesn't matter that the other team knows what you are doing you still expect to be succesful.

 

I don't get why every single play needs to be a trick or deception. Sometimes it is up to the player to straight up beat their man. This is just a hindsight argument. If the Bills get the first running it on 3rd and short we are all happy.

I don't think that it is so much tricking them as it is creating space. If you bring in the 3 TEs and try to pound the ball there are lots of bodies where you are trying to go. The GB example is the opposite. With the 4 WR on the field there are in all likelihood 6 DBs on the field.

[The Big Cat]

Well, they couldn't run and they can't move the ball in the air. Are you happy with the offense's performance? What would you do to improve it next year? If the answer is a franchise QB, who is that guy?

 

The bolded question, per my prior post, is an inevitable one...ALWAYS in this discussion.

 

But moving on: going into 2013 we identified LB and WR's as the team's weakest units. All of a sudden: BOOM, that was fixed. Now we find ourselves saying the same thing about the O-Line and I have a lot of confidence we can find the personnel to improve up front.

 

I think this will go a long way to getting the run game going. While we B word about the multiple tight end sets, we fail to acknowledge that we haven't fielded a back to exceed 70 yds rushing yet this year. This notion that running out of a spread will suddenly cure that seriously overlooks the glaring deficiency we have up front.

 

Our offseason priorty will be securing two out of the three of the following: Dareus, Hughes and Spikes.

 

Second priority will be fixing the offensive line.

 

And through all of this, we have to look for ways to get better at QB. Franchise QB's don't grow on trees, and we can't assess the FO as if they do.

 

I've said previously in this thread, and in many other places prior to that, that we need a QB that's comfortably in the top-15 in the league. EJ could be that guy. With a better OLine that helps us dictatet he running game, Orton could be too.

 

I don't think we need to find a franchise QB.

Edited December 15, 2014 by The Big Cat

[dpberr]

I think a winning record doesn't necessarily mean Doug Marrone coaches the Bills in 2015.

 

When you consider:

 

We've fired 9-7 coaches before.

 

New owner.

 

Marrone could be told that Hackett has to go and he refuses to fire him.

 

However unlikely, a scenario where " a name" is available and wants to coach in Buffalo.

 

Even more unlikely, Marrone goes back to college and becomes a head coach at Wisconsin or Michigan. Lots of power and money in college football.

 

There are lots of variables.

[thebandit27]

Oh I know the plays and I agree it is frustrating to see but is that Hackett's call or Marrone's? It seems to me, based on Marrone's attitude, that it's him. He's going to run the ball the way he runs it because thats what he does. Stubborn to the end.

 

Could very well be...I'd hope whoever is making that call can learn a thing or two by watching other offenses.

 

but if we are going to absolutely telegraph our play call as a run - we may as well get our best blocker on the field, and i dont think thats lee smith either.

 

Absolutely. You've got Chris Hariston dressed; I'd 10x rather see him lined up as an extra TE than Lee Smith if you're determined to telegraph runs.

 

Every single team does this it is not a special Bills are terrible idea.

 

A perfect example of this is goal line formations. When you need short yardage it doesn't matter that the other team knows what you are doing you still expect to be succesful.

 

I don't get why every single play needs to be a trick or deception. Sometimes it is up to the player to straight up beat their man. This is just a hindsight argument. If the Bills get the first running it on 3rd and short we are all happy.

 

I don't believe that every team does that on 3rd-and-short, as we watched a team that doesn't do so yesterday. Also, I disagree fervently about goal-line running. I watched two teams that don't do it that way last night. Both Philly and Dallas almost always choose to spread teams out inside the 10-yard line. It's just smart football...force your opponent to move bodies out of the box, or else face one-on-one matchups on the boundary. Denver does the same.

 

Perhaps other folks use such opinions as hindsight arguments; not me.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

The bolded question, per my prior post, is an inevitable one...ALWAYS in this discussion.

 

But moving on: going into 2013 we identified LB and WR's as the team's weakest units. All of a sudden: BOOM, that was fixed. Now we find ourselves saying the same thing about the O-Line and I have a lot of confidence we can find the personnel to improve up front.

 

I think this will go a long way to getting the run game going. While we B word about the multiple tight end sets, we fail to acknowledge that we haven't fielded a back to exceed 70 yds rushing yet this year. This notion that running out of a spread will suddenly cure that seriously overlooks the glaring deficiency we have up front.

 

Our offseason priorty will be securing two out of the three of the following: Dareus, Hughes and Spikes.

 

Second priority will be fixing the offensive line.

 

And through all of this, we have to look for ways to get better at QB. Franchise QB's don't grow on trees, and we can't assess the FO as if they do.

 

I've said previously in this thread, and in many other places prior to that, that we need a QB that's comfortably in the top-15 in the league. EJ could be that guy. With a better Ovine that helps us dictatet he running game, Orton could be too.

 

I don't think we need to find a franchise QB.

I agree with most of it. I don't have much faith in EJ. His accuracy scares me.

 

I agree that we need to get better up front and need to get better TEs. That's all kind of the point though. If that is where you are weak why is that what you feature? We don't have a 70 yard rusher this year yet we keep trying to run out of multiple TE sets?!? That's a problem. Last week they spread the field in the 4th and moved the football.

[The Big Cat]

Could very well be...I'd hope whoever is making that call can learn a thing or two by watching other offenses.

 

 

 

Absolutely. You've got Chris Hariston dressed; I'd 10x rather see him lined up as an extra TE than Lee Smith if you're determined to telegraph runs.

 

 

 

I don't believe that every team does that on 3rd-and-short, as we watched a team that doesn't do so yesterday. Also, I disagree fervently about goal-line running. I watched two teams that don't do it that way last night. Both Philly and Dallas almost always choose to spread teams out inside the 10-yard line. It's just smart football...force your opponent to move bodies out of the box, or else face one-on-one matchups on the boundary. Denver does the same.

 

Perhaps other folks use such opinions as hindsight arguments; not me.

 

Well, you identified one play in which they spread us for a third and short. But you've conveniently ignored their goal line formation that let Lacy walk into the endzone.

 

How about we don't need to scheme gimmicks to pick up a yard and get a better O-line instead?

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

Well, you identified one play in which they spread us for a third and short. But you've conveniently ignored their goal line formation that let Lacy walk into the endzone.

 

How about we don't need to scheme gimmicks to pick up a yard and get a better O-line instead?

Its not a "scheme gimmick" it's good coaching!!!! Would you rather run against LB or DBs? Would you rather run into 8 guys or 5?

[947]

Getting a new OC has to be a stipulation of Marrone staying on. Marrone's biggest knock in my opinion is his failure to recognize how over-matched Hackett is. He needs to admit his mistake in hiring Hackett and get an experienced OC. It'll take an order from up above to get him to it though.

 

I could see Marrone being the long-term answer if a viable OC is brought in.

[The Big Cat]

Its not a "scheme gimmick" it's good coaching!!!! Would you rather run against LB or DBs? Would you rather run into 8 guys or 5?

 

I'd rather have an oline that can move the pile. Let's start there. Otherwise, we're just flaming the OC for inadequately covering deficiencies in talent.

[thebandit27]

Well, you identified one play in which they spread us for a third and short. But you've conveniently ignored their goal line formation that let Lacy walk into the endzone.

 

How about we don't need to scheme gimmicks to pick up a yard and get a better O-line instead?

 

I never said that there's no place for running out of Giant sets or 13 personnel, etc. All I said was that smart teams use formations to their advantage.

 

Yes, the team needs to upgrade the OG spots; I never said (or implied) otherwise. However, the myth of "we can run whenever we want" still seems to run rampant around these parts. Very few teams do that with any regularity.

 

My point is quite simple: smart teams use different sets/matchups to their advantage. GB was struggling to run against Buffalo early on, so they went to a 20 set and motioned the FB out wide. Buffalo responded by going to a nickel and removing BOTH a LB and a CB from the box to compensate. GB proceeded to run the ball for 45 yards on their next 3 carries. Is that a "scheme gimmick", or is that simply taking advantage of what the defense gives you? Does GB just need to go out and get a better OL too?

 

I'd rather have an oline that can move the pile. Let's start there. Otherwise, we're just flaming the OC for inadequately covering deficiencies in talent.

 

It's extremely rare for even the best NFL OL's to "move the pile". NFL OLs create creases and momentary gaps in the defense FAR more often than they block anyone's face into the dirt.

 

Matter of fact, take a swing on over to my "finer points" thread once I update it this week--there's some quality discussion by ALL and plenty of film from around the league to look at on the subject.

 

I'd welcome another perspective.

[NoSaint]

GB was struggling to run against Buffalo early on, so they went to a 20 set and motioned the FB out wide. Buffalo responded by going to a nickel and removing BOTH a LB and a CB from the box to compensate. GB proceeded to run the ball for 45 yards on their next 3 carries. Is that a "scheme gimmick", or is that simply taking advantage of what the defense gives you? Does GB just need to go out and get a better OL too?

 

 

to be fair there, look who was on our D Line too for that series. i believe we had everyone resting again, PLUS the nickel package.