Kirby Jackson Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 which just adds to the age old and TRUE point that it's a players league. We can go pour tons of resources into offense and try to prop up Hackett. Either that or we can pour tons of resources into our offense and get someone that doesn't believe in bunching the field in short yardage situations at midfield?Maybe someone that doesn't play Lee Smith 40 snaps a game?
The Big Cat Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 We can go pour tons of resources into offense and try to prop up Hackett. Either that or we can pour tons of resources into our offense and get someone that doesn't believe in bunching the field in short yardage situations at midfield?Maybe someone that doesn't play Lee Smith 40 snaps a game? Would you rather spread and confuse? Or be able to line up and drive the ball down the opponent's throat, even when they're expecting it? I'd rather we continue working toward the latter, personally.
Kirby Jackson Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Would you rather spread and confuse? Or be able to line up and drive the ball down the opponent's throat, even when they're expecting it? I'd rather we continue working toward the latter, personally. I'd rather not run against a loaded box. That's counterintuitive. I would rather spread and confuse. I would rather out scheme my opponent on every single play. I want my guys it advantageous situations. I want 2 guys being blocked by 1 on defense and space to operate on offense. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want that? I keep thinking of the 2 TDs this year for Alabama where Kiffin had his hands up signaling TD before the ball was thrown. That's what I want (not Kiffin he's an idiot but a good coach). I want my coaches to win their respective matchups just like I want the players to win theirs. Edited December 18, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
26CornerBlitz Posted December 17, 2014 Author Posted December 17, 2014 So the 2014 theme has shifted from "This is Our Time" to "We've Changed the Culture"?
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 I understand the concept. Why do you think he has little to do with the team winning? He is the Head coach. He has control over game plans of all 3 units. He has major role in the personnel. He hired the asst coaches. You can LOL all you want. I'm not sure you realize that while a fan message board or twitter thinks that his decision to punt, or when he calls a time out, or other situational decisions are fireable offenses, a FO is able to see a much more complex picture of the the role he has. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you are laughing at people who simply see things differently than you. Its mid week and all the people who are scared because the Bills are winning, but not the way they want, and that Marrone won't get fired, are out in full force after a couple days of licking their wounds. You are completely correct in you assessment. I contend that the Bills have improved both defensively and on special teams enormously since Marrone got here. The notion that he gets little or no credit for that is laughable. The chef doesn't always cook the meal himself. Further, this causation/correlation stuff that was brought up works both ways. You want to say all the offensive problems can be traced back to Marrone via Hackett. Then all the defensive and special teams successes he gets full credit for too. Can't have it both ways boys. I agree correlation doesn't equal causation. Lack of objectivity leads to hypocrisy.
FireChan Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 I'd rather not run against a loaded box. That's counterintuitive. I would rather spread and confuse. I would rather out scheme my opponent on every single play. I want my guys it advantageous situations. I want 2 guys being blocked by 1 on defense and space to operate on offense. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want that? Spread and confuse led to spread and be figured out the last time we had that scheme.
34-78-83 Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 We can go pour tons of resources into offense and try to prop up Hackett. Either that or we can pour tons of resources into our offense and get someone that doesn't believe in bunching the field in short yardage situations at midfield?Maybe someone that doesn't play Lee Smith 40 snaps a game? It's generally more of a pass protection and/or edge blocking and alignment balance (keeping opponent honest) issue that often"forces" a lot of teams to utilize the multiple TE sets. Ask an offensive-minded coach about it sometime if you know any. It's not the simple cut and dry thing that most think it is. I have a little bit of experience with it myself but only on the youth football coaching level.
Kirby Jackson Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 Spread and confuse led to spread and be figured out the last time we had that scheme. The receivers were Graham (cut & landed on Jets), Johnson (a #3), Jones (out of the league) and Nelson (out of the league). We moved the football with those scrubs. It's generally more of a pass protection and/or edge blocking and alignment balance (keeping opponent honest) issue that often"forces" a lot of teams to utilize the multiple TE sets. Ask an offensive-minded coach about it sometime if you know any. It's not the simple cut and dry thing that most think it is. I have a little bit of experience with it myself but only on the youth football coaching level. Why not use an extra OL instead? Your TEs aren't pass catching threats so teams are countering with DL or at worst LBs.
K-9 Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 It's generally more of a pass protection and/or edge blocking and alignment balance (keeping opponent honest) issue that often"forces" a lot of teams to utilize the multiple TE sets. Ask an offensive-minded coach about it sometime if you know any. It's not the simple cut and dry thing that most think it is. I have a little bit of experience with it myself but only on the youth football coaching level. Our OLine sells run action out of the multiple TE sets, bunched or not, nearly EVERY time. Hackett/Marrone have used it often to set up stuff later on. The QB play action is so much more effective when the OLine has shown run action previously. GO BILLS!!!
The Big Cat Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 The receivers were Graham (cut & landed on Jets), Johnson (a #3), Jones (out of the league) and Nelson (out of the league). We moved the football with those scrubs. Why not use an extra OL instead? Your TEs aren't pass catching threats so teams are countering with DL or at worst LBs. So do you think the defense is out-scheming opponents?
FireChan Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 The receivers were Graham (cut & landed on Jets), Johnson (a #3), Jones (out of the league) and Nelson (out of the league). We moved the football with those scrubs. Were they the problem? I mean, of course they didn't help, but that offense got shut down frequently in all facets. Run and pass.
The Big Cat Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 Were they the problem? I mean, of course they didn't help, but that offense got shut down frequently in all facets. Run and pass. I'm continually perplexed by the fondness with which Bills fans remember Chan's never-top-10 offenses.
CardinalScotts Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 Howards twitter followers all their tweets are about wgr lol....my god guys mix in something else.....backing your opinion of "fans" with made up twitter wgr guys doesn't carry much weight....Glen beck has already stole that act
FireChan Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 I'm continually perplexed by the fondness with which Bills fans remember Chan's never-top-10 offenses. It was an offense that was easily thwarted by top 10 defenses. Thwarted like managed 3 points against top 10 defenses. Marrone's "bully" offense, while not the forefront of innovation, does much better against good defenses.
The Big Cat Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) It was an offense that was easily thwarted by top 10 defenses. Thwarted like managed 3 points against top 10 defenses. Marrone's "bully" offense, while not the forefront of innovation, does much better against good defenses. Yep. And again, I want a football team who can line up to run, have everyone, coaches, players, Jills, fans and beer vendors KNOW they're going to run, and still churn out 3 to 4 yards. Coupled with our defense, that's the kind of team that...yes...wins the Super Bowl. Edited December 17, 2014 by The Big Cat
Kelly the Dog Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 Would you rather spread and confuse? Or be able to line up and drive the ball down the opponent's throat, even when they're expecting it? I'd rather we continue working toward the latter, personally. That's forcing your system on players that cannot play it, and not utilizing the players you do have to put them in the best positions to succeed. There are only 2-3 coaches who can play their system game and Marrone/Hackett ain't one of them.
26CornerBlitz Posted December 17, 2014 Author Posted December 17, 2014 Football Outsiders Ranks the Bills as Follows: Offense: #26 Defense: #1 Special Teams: #3 Aaron Schatz calls the Bills an imbalanced team which comes as no surprise to any of us. 12-17: AARON SCHATZ ON WGR (22:50)
FireChan Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 That's forcing your system on players that cannot play it, and not utilizing the players you do have to put them in the best positions to succeed. There are only 2-3 coaches who can play their system game and Marrone/Hackett ain't one of them. So why don't we give him the full 3 years to get more players that can play his system.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 So why don't we give him the full 3 years to get more players that can play his system. You don't. You build your offense around the players you have to play. Marrone doesn't do that. He forces players that cannot play that system into it. Same thing they did last year running the no huddle. They didn't have the right players to play it. You don't wait 2-3 years until you do. That's the sign of horrible coaching. You play the players and run the formations and plays within your system that utilizes the guys you have that particular year and game to help them succeed. We don't do that.
The Big Cat Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 So why don't we give him the full 3 years to get more players that can play his system. In 2012 16 players rushed, caught or threw a ball for the Bills. In 2014, 4 of those players are still on the roster, and one of them is Lee Smith. You don't. You build your offense around the players you have to play. Marrone doesn't do that. He forces players that cannot play that system into it. Same thing they did last year running the no huddle. They didn't have the right players to play it. You don't wait 2-3 years until you do. That's the sign of horrible coaching. You play the players and run the formations and plays within your system that utilizes the guys you have that particular year and game to help them succeed. We don't do that. I'll ask again: does our defense out-scheme opponents?
Recommended Posts