Kelly the Dog Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 26CB posted this in the game prep thread for the Raiders, and I think it belongs in this discussion: http://www.buffalorumblings.com/buffalo-bills-analysis-all-22/2014/12/19/7416833/buffalo-bills-offense-third-down-kyle-orton-sammy-watkins-fred-jackson Hackett might make some frustrating decisions, but he's doing just fine designing plays that get our best players open. I didn't find that article very enlightening at all. Although Rumblings has some great ones. The first play was obvious to everyone. That was totally on Orton even if it hit Woods in the hands. Wide open. Five yard pass. He can't miss that. The second play he chooses to me is a terrible play design and call. It not only didn't work but three of the four patterns were long developing and 20 yards. We needed to get in FG range like the author sad. That's a bad design and call there. The last play was a bad decision by Orton to go to Watkins but why the hell would you run your best player deep on 3rd and 5 when you need to milk the clock? Furthermore, and this is more important. I guarantee you, if you watch any team's all -22, even the Bucs and the Raiders and the Jags and the jets, you will see guys open on most every play. Not all of them, but the vast majority. The all-22 is a fabulous addition to fandom. But it also makes for a lot of bad information going around too. This article from Rumblings is a great one on why Hackett is not to blame, IMO. http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2014/12/18/7417287/rabble-rabble-rabble-why-everybodys-wrong-about-hackett-pt-1
Maddog69 Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 So do we. If we had Arians running this offense we would be in the playoffs. I don't think we should hire him, but I think if we had Chan running this offense we would be in the playoffs. Probably 10 other OCs around the league counting HCs who are offensive guys like Peyton. If Orton completed 1 of 7 redzone pass attempts (or if Bryce Brown doesn't fumble) we win the KC game and are in the playoffs.
The Jokeman Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 If Orton completed 1 of 7 redzone pass attempts (or if Bryce Brown doesn't fumble) we win the KC game and are in the playoffs. I'm still ailing as to why we chose to keep throwing it into the redzone on 2nd and 15 on the drive that ended us missing on all 4 attempts. As in that moment all we needed was to kill more clock and make a 1st down. Yes, eventually we needed a TD but damn. The Bryce Brown fumble play was a great play by their defender and a fluke. As Chandler still gets my evil eye for not falling on it.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) If Orton completed 1 of 7 redzone pass attempts (or if Bryce Brown doesn't fumble) we win the KC game and are in the playoffs. That is not true. We don't know how that game would have turned out if we scored on the fumble drive. Edited December 19, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
Mickey Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 If Marrone takes the blame for the offense, then he should also take the fall for it. There is some talent there and he has completely misused it. I disagree, I think the line, especially the interior three, and the play of the QB are the lion's share of the problem with this offense. The tackles are no spectacular mind you, just average. Those holding penalties are not by accident. The receivers are consistently unable to get to make their breaks before the protection breaks down. Orton is not going to buy any time at all back there so he often has to go with the only receiver whose back isn't still to him which usually means a dump off to Fred or the TE in the flat for next to no gain. On the rare occasions where the line holds up, Orton too often either misses his target or misses a guy wide open. Add in a few drops here and there by the WR's and there you have it, an offense that can't get out of its own way. Watch the all 22 and stop the tape at the point where the first down field receiver has started to turn his head to look for the ball. Then look at the pocket and you will see that by then, Orton's pocket is consistently collapsing. Then there are the misses like two of the three passes we tried during that last series when we were trying to run out the clock against GB. He missed an open Woods down the hashmarks. He hit Chandler down the middle for a first down when he was uncovered due to a blitz. Then on 3rd and 6 or 7, he badly missed a double covered Sammy down the left sideline when he had Freddy on the inside, wide open for what would have been an easy first down. The run blocking is almost as bad. I am especially disappointed by Eric Wood. We can't run a screen to save our souls because our pulling guards either can't get out in front in time or when they do, are too clumsy to make an open field block on an agile DB. The lone successful screen we ran against GB was the result of the DE on that side taking an inside gap giving Cordy Glenn position on him when he tried to get back outside to cover the screen. Two other GB lineman were trying to take the same route to Freddy and as a result, Glenn ended up blocking/getting in the way of three defenders and almost single handedly cleared the entire left side of the field. On top of that Woods was the WR on that side and he put the outside linebacker, Matthews, on his back. Freddie needed one more block but the Guard didn't get there in time or it would have been a TD. I'm not saying that our OC is a genius by any means but with a QB as sharply limited as Orton and an interior offensive line that is so consistently weak, slow and clumsy, I don't know how you can really evaluate Hackett. He has to call a game that is within the abilities of a sharply limited offense. The one good thing about Orton is that he is careful. He gets rid of it as soon as he sees the pocket falling apart which limits his turnovers. There has been a lot of carping about why we don't go for it more on 4th down and it being the result of Marrone being too conservative. I think its more likely because he has, deservedly, no faith in the offensive line. The metrics people so often talk about regarding 4th down are not based on the players we have but on league-wide performance. If we had an average line, I would expect to be able to achieve the same percentages as those metrics indicate would result. But not from this bunch. They are simply not even close to average.
The Big Cat Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 I don't think they do, I asked which is more likely. Probably OC, but it's like which is more likely: being elected president of the United States or waking up with Kate Upton on one arm and Sofia Vergara on the other, both gently kissing your cheek. You probably have a better shot at president.
thebandit27 Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 I didn't find that article very enlightening at all. Although Rumblings has some great ones. The first play was obvious to everyone. That was totally on Orton even if it hit Woods in the hands. Wide open. Five yard pass. He can't miss that. The second play he chooses to me is a terrible play design and call. It not only didn't work but three of the four patterns were long developing and 20 yards. We needed to get in FG range like the author sad. That's a bad design and call there. The last play was a bad decision by Orton to go to Watkins but why the hell would you run your best player deep on 3rd and 5 when you need to milk the clock? Furthermore, and this is more important. I guarantee you, if you watch any team's all -22, even the Bucs and the Raiders and the Jags and the jets, you will see guys open on most every play. Not all of them, but the vast majority. The all-22 is a fabulous addition to fandom. But it also makes for a lot of bad information going around too. This article from Rumblings is a great one on why Hackett is not to blame, IMO. http://www.buffaloru...ut-hackett-pt-1 I see your points and respectfully disagree about the 2nd and 3rd plays. The 2nd play, to me, seemed designed to get the ball into Watkins' hands with much of the secondary cleared out and Sammy running full speed in space. It's a call they used frequently against Miami the first time around with success. Now, it may not have gotten the first down (who's to say?), but conceptually it wasn't ill-advised IMO. The 3rd play was brilliant IMO. First down wins the game in that scenario, and Hackett used GB's aggressive doubling of Sammy to get Freddie wide open underneath for a cheap-and-easy 1st down to win. I very much agree with the article you posted as well.
Maddog69 Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 That is not true. We don't know how that game would have turned out. If course we don't. Same way we don't know for sure if a new OC would make any different with a questionable OL and crappy QB play. But, it makes sense to assume we would have won the game with an additional TD on the scoreboard. It would have meant 7 more points on the scoreboard. I
Kelly the Dog Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 I see your points and respectfully disagree about the 2nd and 3rd plays. The 2nd play, to me, seemed designed to get the ball into Watkins' hands with much of the secondary cleared out and Sammy running full speed in space. It's a call they used frequently against Miami the first time around with success. Now, it may not have gotten the first down (who's to say?), but conceptually it wasn't ill-advised IMO. The 3rd play was brilliant IMO. First down wins the game in that scenario, and Hackett used GB's aggressive doubling of Sammy to get Freddie wide open underneath for a cheap-and-easy 1st down to win. I very much agree with the article you posted as well. The second play took too long to develop. You can't lose yards there. I love get Sammy in space like that. That's a great play design in certain situations. And granted, if it worked, you could say good play. But you can do that with all plays and play calls. I was screaming at the TV no, no, no as soon as he dropped back and just stood there. I even said now isn't a bad time to run, I didn't even care if we got the first down. I understand what you mean about the last play. But they had been covering Fred all day. If course we don't. Same way we don't know for sure if a new OC would make any different with a questionable OL and crappy QB play. But, it makes sense to assume we would have won the game with an additional TD on the scoreboard. It would have meant 7 more points on the scoreboard. I I understand your point Maddog. I think we win too. It's just a long standing pet peeve of mine. If one play changes the entire game does not play out the same. Kc would have played a much different game from that point on had we scored. The field position would have changed. We would have not played the same defenses or offense, etc. it drives me nuts when someone says if we would have scored that TD in the second quarter in a game we lose by six we would have won. It's ridiculous. That's not what you did, I understand. And again, I believe we would have won without that fumble. Because we were playing well. But we don't know. Kc is a team that does just enough to win and they find ways a lot of times.
BmarvB Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 So do we. If we had Arians running this offense we would be in the playoffs. I don't think we should hire him, but I think if we had Chan running this offense we would be in the playoffs. Probably 10 other OCs around the league counting HCs who are offensive guys like Peyton. I agree with you on Chan. He always had a knack for getting as much as he could out of a mediocre QB. We'd be in the playoffs with him as OC.
Whack 'Em Williams Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 I'd rather he be real and state the obvious.. changes on the offensive side of the ball need to be made!
section122 Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 Didn't the Cardinals win a few games with Drew Stanton and Ryan Lindley? We don't even need the OC to make the offense look good, or the QB to play good. We need them to just look decent. The Cardinals are averaging 12.8 points per game with those 2 as their qb. Lets not pretend Arians is working miracles. nd Exactly. Andy Reid works with Alex Smith , who can't throw passes to wrs. Bruce Arians had a career scrub like Stanton look productive. Chip Kelly is making Sanchez look as good as Sanchez can possibly look. All of those guys would have our offense much better off with the same qbs. It's such a cop out to say Hackett just need a QB. He wasn't even a special college OC in a crappy Big East. Teddy Bridgewater got Norv Turner as an OC. Manuel got Hackett as an OC and QB coach. That's awful. And it's not just the QBs. It's the oline and rbs. Everyone is regressing. But let's just try ourselves that Hackett is fine. Then, we'll all be shocked when our offense sucks again and we're 7-9. It's ok to try and get better. And we can get much better than Hackett. He's just not ready for this position yet. Posted this elsewhere but since you keep going back to this well... Reid with a better qb: averaging 1.1 more ypg and 1.4 more ppg Arians with a better qb for half the year: averaging .3 less ypg and .9 less ppg It is funny you chose those 2 as well since it goes KC, Buffalo, Arizona at 21,22,23 in ypg in the league. Kelly is an absolute magician but coaches like him do not grow on trees. Norv as oc with Bridgewater btw?: 9 less ypg and 1.8 less ppg. 3 of the 4 coaches you listed as "improvements" are on par or worse production wise than Hackett.... I say having the OC because what happens if your top 10 QB gets hurt? Arizona is proving that if you have a good OC then you can win with other QBs besides your number 1. Arizona is proving that you can win with amazing defense to the tune of 3-2. Unless you want to claim their 12.8 ppg is why they are winning. They were 9-1 with Carson Palmer and 3-2 since. Surely you see a correlation there?
Dorkington Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 Probably OC, but it's like which is more likely: being elected president of the United States or waking up with Kate Upton on one arm and Sofia Vergara on the other, both gently kissing your cheek. You probably have a better shot at president. Are any of the current HCs that are on hotseats, formerly successful OCs? Schwartz was a crap head coach but is proving to be pretty good as a DC. It'd be wonderful to find similar sort of success on the offensive side.
Whack 'Em Williams Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 Hope itys smoke and mirrors, change is needed. Period.
Dorkington Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 26CB posted this in the game prep thread for the Raiders, and I think it belongs in this discussion: http://www.buffaloru...ns-fred-jackson Hackett might make some frustrating decisions, but he's doing just fine designing plays that get our best players open. Ouch.
section122 Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 Are any of the current HCs that are on hotseats, formerly successful OCs? Schwartz was a crap head coach but is proving to be pretty good as a DC. It'd be wonderful to find similar sort of success on the offensive side. I've always loved the idea of former hcs as coordinators. Something about stepping back in responsibility along with the idea that they were succesful enough to be promoted always makes that my first choice. That said Trestman and Philbin immediately spring into mind without doing too much thinking on it.
chris heff Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 That is easy, both of the QBs stink. Here is the thing. There are a couple posters on this board that study that all 22 film. (I am not one of them). The common theme that these posters state after reviewing the filmm is that Hacket has plays that has receivers open. Is it Hacket's fault that he doesn't have a competent QB? I think Hacket should get another year. In another thread last week someone ousted a quote from Hackett that basically said take what they give you and don't force the ball down field. That is playing scared. That is why they are ineffective in the red zone. That is why they check down. I agree it seems in this offense we look to throw the ball to RBs a lot as we've seen it both in EJ and Orton. The struggles in the red zone etc. To me it screams a poor offensive line and the WRs/TEs aren't good enough. I will give our WR a small "benefit of the doubt" because it's relatively inexperienced yet I am maddened by the play of Scott Chandler. As he's a seasoned vet and you'd think he'd be more consistent but he's not and that's why I let Lee Smith walk this offseason and bring in another TE who can push and/or start over Chandler who I then move to the #2 spot to replace Smith. The guy on my target list is Jordan Cameron with Julius Thomas a s a close second. Jermaine Gresham is another name I'd consider but not sure he good enough to supplant Chandler but would be an improvement over Smith. In terms of the up tempo, it be foolish to play that style with the current D we have as it would cripple it especially since we can't sustain drives so instead we have to sustain clock and hope in the end we can score enough points to beat the opposition. It's a tride and true formula that can win in the NFL. Seattle's doing it right now as our the Chiefs. The only issue is we have to avoid turnovers as our offense isn't good enough to make them and win. I agree that they shouldn't go with the up tempo, but that was what Marrone/Hackett was suppose to bring, innovation got thrown around a lot. My question is, what is this offense? What is their philosophy?
BrooklynBills Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 What's more likely? Getting a top 10 QB, or finding an OC who can work with the deficiency of talent on offense? A top 10 QB
thewildrabbit Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) Here are two additional links that I posted yesterday. Seems to me Marrone is laying the groundwork to justify bringing Hackett back. ... ... ... I get the distinct impression that some Bills fans are such homers that they just might be in Brandon's disinformation network. The Bills were 20th in offense last season despite the #2 rushing attack in the league, and the #1 in attempt's. This year the offense is running less, and throwing more and are actually much worse. Both years the Bills have been one of the worst teams in three and out percentage, meaning the team has great difficulty in sustaining drives. The Bills are 31st in red zone TD's. It seems like everyone in the world knows that Kyle Orton is not an elite QB but Bills OC Nate Hackett. The Bills won their first two games by rushing more then passing, and it was working. Suddenly in week 3 against the Chargers that plan went out the window, and this mental midget of an OC starts forcing the 2nd year QB to throw 40+ times a game while basically ignoring the run game. The Bills bench that 2nd year QB because he was failing, and the vet QB is also failing. The offense has regressed, the O line has regressed, the run game regressed. After two years of bad offenses I have no idea why anyone would want to give this offensive staff another year. Edited December 19, 2014 by FeartheLosing
bananathumb Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 He's saying the O is on him, not hacker, because he actually started calling plays part-way through the Packers game. And most of the plays were runs. What this means for hack, who knows? Maybe Marrone is pised that he has to do the hack's job as well as his own, or maybe he likes calling plays, in which case he'll keep the lapdog around.
Recommended Posts