Beerball Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Good thing Rex didn't.Your glass overfloweth!
boyst Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Yet I just post an article and suggest it's a good read (because it provides some contrary analysis) and I'm immediately mocked. Go figure. Some people just like to watch the world burn. Many of them frequent this forum. come on e. You weren't mocked. The article was. Don't take it so personally. Dunne's good article is a cited piece of others work and statements. Some times that is all you get. The frustration people voice maybe toward you in their statements but its not about you. Some people don't know what's going on and hold the messenger captive. Shake it off. Haters going to hate hate hate.
John from Riverside Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 I just don't think it required much effort, let alone "fine effort". Relax, the world isn't burning because your thread is being commented on. Now, if you wanted to say that the article was quietly spectacular, I might go along... In a world where we have to endure Rodak articles......your seriously bitching about Tyler Dunne?
boyst Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Damn skippy! Hello from 2002! every former water polo player should keep a photo around from their playing days. because that's about as good as it's going to get. ask my wife. she met me right around the time when that photo was taken. sorry, darling. I like your bonnet
Beerball Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 I like your bonnet#15 in your program, #1 in your heart. We now return you to your regularly scheduled B&M.
John from Riverside Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Some reasonable people, who want nothing more than to see the Bills win football games, disagree with you. Deal with it! Show me the reasonable people please
26CornerBlitz Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 again. No substance. Why not provide your insight and weigh in? Its easy to throw the lob and jab. But try supporting the empty statements. Its much more fun. You know football. I've seen evidence. So speak up I've already spoken enough on the same subject in various threads that have been created. How many times should I repeat myself just for your sake? Maybe it's time for some rumor mongering or conjecture for entertainment purposes only of course.
Beerball Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Show me the reasonable people pleaseI believe I'm a reasonable person & I don't find anything outstanding about the article.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 linky Well worth the read for those questioning Rex's ability to coach defense and how sacks/pressure relate to today's game. Summary: Bart Scott - Rex is a genius but mario didn't buy in Cowher- Rex's defense is hard to learn Interesting- what was the strength of steelers 3-4 D all those years. (Hint:article references it) Scott - what position did you play? What was the weakness of the bills defensive personnel groups? (DTs and Ends clearly the strength...) anyone? Let's blame buy-in and learning curve though...
The Big Cat Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 I like your bonnet Ha. Yeah. Blessed is the man/woman who can make one of those things look good. Didn't help that mine got pulled back on my forehead there. Yikes. #15 in your program, #1 in your heart. We now return you to your regularly scheduled B&M. Had to wait a season for 6 to free up.
Prickly Pete Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) "that defensive system had been successful there just two years before. Same defense, same philosophy, same everything. And everybody succeeded." Right, so if it succeeded with basically the same players, but a different coach, it must be the new coach that is the problem, no? "To him, the answer to the Bradys, Newtons, Rodgerses isn't releasing the hounds, isn't blitzing more. No, Scott believes it is more important than ever for defensive backs to tighten up in coverage." When I read this I think "Don't the Bills have a pair of excellent corners, better than the past few seasons?" Yet, it wasn't enough to work with for Wrex. "With all the pressure, guys are getting the ball out in 2.5 seconds," Scott said. "I think now — especially last week with what Wade Phillips did to Tom Brady — you get to quarterbacks who release the ball fast with coverage. Not with more pressure." The Broncos barely won that game, and the Patriots O-line was decimated all season. I think that had way more to do with it than Wade's scheme. The defense played great, but it still came down to a missed extra-point. And I'm pretty sure that this offseason, Belichick is going to dedicate himself to improving the O-line, and altering the offense to counter the schemes that had success against the Patriots. “It is complex," Cowher said. "And I think you’ll see a couple years in, they’ll have a better understanding of it." What a bold statement "in a couple years, they'll understand it better"...a couple years. Uhh, great. I'm really looking forward to 2017. Edited February 2, 2016 by HoF Watkins
Direhard Fan Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Kind of makes me laugh when a comment about the smartness of our players comes into play. I must have heard 1000 times how smart this guy is and that guy is. It's on Rex and nobody else period.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 In this case, I really don't care about Tyler Dunne's opinion of Rex and his D. What does Dunne actually know? But I do care about Bart Scott's opinion - Bart knows Rex and his D very well. (...) Scott also makes an interesting argument that you beat elite, quick-release QBs wtih coverage, not with sacks. Considering Scott played for Rex, I'm assuming this is Rex's opinion too. Regarding Bart Scott, it's pretty well documented that the guy would have run through a brick wall for Rex. He played with significant injuries, because he didn't want to disappoint Rex (per Collision Low Crossers, Davidoff). So I do think it's just possible he might be a leetle bit biased towards Rex. Regarding coverage, not sacks....erm, I might be missing something, but I thought you need both? You need tight initial coverage, so the QB has to be forced to his 2nd or 3rd read and can't make yards with a quick check down. But then you need pressure/sacks so that he doesn't have time to find his 2nd or 3rd read. Perhaps Scott is talking about blitzing, and sacks by blitzing, and that didn't come through?
The Big Cat Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Regarding Bart Scott, it's pretty well documented that the guy would have run through a brick wall for Rex. He played with significant injuries, because he didn't want to disappoint Rex (per Collision Low Crossers, Davidoff). So I do think it's just possible he might be a leetle bit biased towards Rex. Regarding coverage, not sacks....erm, I might be missing something, but I thought you need both? You need tight initial coverage, so the QB has to be forced to his 2nd or 3rd read and can't make yards with a quick check down. But then you need pressure/sacks so that he doesn't have time to find his 2nd or 3rd read. Perhaps Scott is talking about blitzing, and sacks by blitzing, and that didn't come through? How many times was Brady forced to throw the ball away in PATS2*? Four? Five? Six? The offense doesn't lose 4-8 yards and the clock stops, but they lose the down. Is this not essentially tantamount to a "sack?" I know it's a stretch here, but conceptually it's the same thing.
FireChan Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 How many times was Brady forced to throw the ball away in PATS2*? Four? Five? Six? The offense doesn't lose 4-8 yards and the clock stops, but they lose the down. Is this not essentially tantamount to a "sack?" I know it's a stretch here, but conceptually it's the same thing. :lol:
Prickly Pete Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 How many times was Brady forced to throw the ball away in PATS2*? Four? Five? Six? The offense doesn't lose 4-8 yards and the clock stops, but they lose the down. Is this not essentially tantamount to a "sack?" I know it's a stretch here, but conceptually it's the same thing. Yeah, that's just against the Patriots though. What about the other 14 games? What about against a guy like Blake Bortles?
Mr. WEO Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Got it. Your source good. His source bad. What "source"? He is just reporting what a guy said, quoting and naming him directly. What are you talking about?
The Big Cat Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 What "source"? He is just reporting what a guy said, quoting and naming him directly. What are you talking about? I'm talking about how your appeal to authority is clearly more valid than his. :lol: Well it is. The quarterback surrenders before a valid attempt can be made. Yeah, that's just against the Patriots though. What about the other 14 games? What about against a guy like Blake Bortles? You're talking about the QB who, prior to Robey's phantom PI that would have put them @ 4 and 17 was 11/27 for 146 yards? You think the defense failed that day because he only got sacked twice?
JohnC Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 The players are far from perfect. They lack focus, discipline and to some extent football IQ. That said there is just no questioning that other coaches did far better with those same flawed pieces. That's the point.
FireChan Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 I'm talking about how your appeal to authority is clearly more valid than his. Well it is. The quarterback surrenders before a valid attempt can be made. You're forgetting the psychological and physical impact of a 300 pound monster driving into your ribs. And while you hand-waved away the loss of yards, the loss of yards makes it easier to force a punt. 2-17 and 2-10 are two very different animals. So no. A throwaway is not tantamount to sack. I just enjoyed your line of "I'm stretching here, but yeah, I'm right."
Recommended Posts