hondo in seattle Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 Well, OK, you put it into percentages without any frame of reference, and I'll look at it as the following: As DEs, Hughes & Mario went from 25 times to 86 times collectively. Dareus & Williams, neither of which should ever drop into coverage IMO, went from 0 and 9, 9 total, for to 5 and 28, 33 total, for an overall total of 34 to 119, or a 350% increase. Again, assuming that this was a hybrid, as Ryan stated (or was he lying?), then clearly we should be able to expect more of Ryan's and less of Schwartz's (stay home) D, which is entirely logical. Let's assume that it was an exact 50/50 hybrid, then it seems to me that we can see those instances double, also entirely logical. So, instead of 86 times for whomever the DEs are, then an additional 61 times for the starting DEs, for 147 total there, and a doubling of the number of times a 300-and-some lb. DT drops into coverage, again, only for Dareus & Kyle, forgetting the depth DTs and DEs as well, to 57, an additional 24 again, for 204 total. I don't care what the percentage is, that's 13 times/game from just the DL. If that happens then everyone has excellent reason to agree with Mario this season. That figure doesn't even include the depth players, so it only goes up from there. Anyone that thinks that's normal by NFL standards, much less logical, well, perhaps Ryan is their coach after all. Kyle Williams, or Dareus for that matter, has absolutely no business dropping into coverage on a regular basis. Schwartz didn't do it and the results were pronounced. Seems like people are actually defending Ryan's nonsense. Given that Ryan's half of the "hybrid" that he said he ran, was clearly responsible for the drop from 4th to 15th in scoring D, my point is clearly the obvious, that as the vestiges of Schwartz's D are removed, do you think that that trend will continue upward from 15th, or trend back to 4th? Why would the D improve as Ryan's changes take over entirely, as any last vestiges of Schwartz's 4th ranked D are removed, changes that had this unit plummet from 4th to 15th? There is no reason whatsoever. In other words. there is absolutely no basis to argue that it should trend back down to 4th by removing any elements of the D that allowed it to be 4th, while enhancing the elements of the D that caused it to drop from 4th to 15th. Another very simple data point is how Bowles in NY got the essentially the same D that Ryan had the year before to jump from that 24th back up to 9th, and frankly it wasn't even that talented to be able to be 9th, IMO. I wasn't swayed by TaskersGhost original post. And his subsequent posts were not always written in the friendliest manner. But in there amongst the vitriol, he does make some valid points. But as a Bills homer who's always looking for reasons to be optimistic, let me present a different POV. TG suggests that as Rex removes the last vestiges of Schwartz's D from Buffalo, we'll see linemen dropping back into coverage even more often and the Bills defensive metrics drop in the rankings even further. But I don't think Rex is saying his D struggled last year because the holdover elements from Schwartz's D held him back. I think he's saying that his attempt to marry Schwartz concepts to his own failed. I think Rex would probably agree that it's better to either go all Schwartz or all Rex - just don't combine the schemes because the combo doesn't work (at least the way Rex attempted to do it). Rex was a good DC with Baltimore. He was the architect of a good defense his first few years with the Jets. Several successful ex-players have a lot of faith in his abilities. Then again, his defenses at the end of his tenure with the Jets were not good. His experiment with the Bills last season failed. TG praises Schwartz yet Schwartz's own track record has similar ups and downs. Schwartz certainly has not been successful every year either. Both Schwartz and Rex have proven they can truly suck at times. Both have proven they can succeed in the right circumstances. Let's wait and see if DW and Rex have created the right circumstances this year.
hondo in seattle Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) Let me tell the story of a NFL head coach who first made his name years ago when he was a DC and helped lead his team to a Super Bowl victory. That victory earned him a chance to become a NFL HC and he's been labeled a "defensive guru" ever since. But do the facts support the reputation? 4 times in the past 6 years, this supposed defensive guru's defense finished in the bottom half of the NFL! Clearly the game has passed Bill Belichick by. Because a good defensive coach will get his team in the top 5 each and every year, regardless of the circumstances. Edited June 4, 2016 by hondo in seattle
Saxum Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 The only thing better than the complete lack of football knowledge displayed in the opening post in this thread is the specious reasoning and logical leaps that follow. This is like accidental crayonz. Crayonzidental. No one could be that obtuse and inaccurate accidently! It would be like getting all of the questions on SAT wrong - statistical improbability. How about this 2014 game 1 interception by Kyle Williams while in coverage: http://www.buffalobills.com/video/videos/Cant-Miss-Play-Kyle-Williams-1st-Interception/9d0a1397-db1c-4d70-b710-afcc421a5a1c Oh the horror!! That wasn't trickery, it was pure Kyle Willams' athleticism. http://www.cover1.net/2016/02/20161212015-bills-defensive-study-defensive-line/ The article linked above is an excellent read on this topic. The author breaks down the stats on DL in coverage last year and provides some useful insight on the scheme and performance. Article wrote just what I saw: So the loss of Kyle was felt in the rush game, but lets look at the numbers from a pass rush perspective. During Kyle’s six game stretch to start the season, he was fifth in total pressures (sacks+QB hits+QB hurries) with 13, tying him with Gerald Mccoy and Shariff Floyd. Kyle was the Bills’ blue collar defender. A guy that could lead on the field by playing to the whistle. He is able to affect the timing of an offense just by his hustle alone. Kyle is seen by his fellow players as one of the best DTs in game when healthy and I hope he is healthy this year but Rex needs better game planning against the quick snap and throw offenses.
H2o Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 Let me tell the story of a NFL head coach who first made his name years ago when he was a DC and helped lead his team to a Super Bowl victory. That victory earned him a chance to become a NFL HC and he's been labeled a "defensive guru" ever since. But do the facts support the reputation? 4 times in the past 6 years, this supposed defensive guru's defense finished in the bottom half of the NFL! Clearly the game has passed Bill Belichick by. Because a good defensive coach will get his team in the top 5 each and every year, regardless of the circumstances. It helped when he had players like Bruschi, Seymour, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, Seau, Wilfork, Vrabel, McGinest, and other players of that caliber to work with. He also had Romeo Crennell running the defense for him as well. They still have a solid defensive unit, but things are changing in NE. Hopefully we all get to watch their complete demise
3rdand12 Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 Stating that part of the reason his defense didn't work so well was because he used Schwartz's scheme some of the times last year is nothing but another excuse from the master of excuses. There really is no excuse for a supposed defensive genius to take over a team with one of the best and highest paid pro bowl pass rushing defensive lines in the league and then make them look merely average attempting to run a scheme that doesn't suit what they do best...and that was rush the passer! Then ask his defensive line players to not rush the passer most of the season and thus creating animosity amongst those pro bowl D-line players. Yes, the Bills ran a Schwartz like wide nine scheme at times last year. Yes, the Bills ran multiple looks and fronts going from 3-4 to 4-3. But the one constant that Rex Ryan didn't do last year and something that he was noted for in his past defenses and... that ...was... blitzing... the... QB! In 2015 the Bills ran mostly a run stopping two-gap scheme. Also, the 2015 Buffalo Bills defense was a clusterfluck of problems from the many penalties (the Buffalo Defense gave the NY Giants offense 7 first downs! Yes, that's right 7 first downs!) to the late incoming play calls, late player substitutions. To the wrong play calls at the wrong time (Marcell Dareus was dropped into pass coverage on two of the Chiefs TD passes). When the Bills did decide to call a blitz it was usually ineffective and didn't work well. Last year Rex Ryan only blitzed around 10% or less for most of the games and he ran a scheme that is designed more for stopping the run than it is for getting pressure on the QB. It showed, as the lack of pressure on opposing QB's most of the season was alarming. I can only surmise that either Rex Ryan was either just too darn lazy to work a good defensive game plan against some teams. Patriots 1x, Giants, Chiefs, Eagles, Redskins, Bengals or he just didn't care to walk in Jim Schwartz's- Mike Pettine's shadows. The latter meaning that there was a real reason he didn't even attempt to call many blitzes because he didn't feel the need to compete against those two men for the sack title. Now, this year if he comes out guns blazing by calling blitzes on 50% of the opposing QB dropbacks and runs his 3-4 with mostly a one gap scheme then Ryan will look like the old sack master he was supposed to be in the first place. Bills fans and his players will forget that 2015 debacle and start loving his defense again. The Bills defense will start leading the NFL in sacks again and opposing QB's will start hating to play Buffalo again. We can only hope! LOL Is that a joke? Thanks for restating my entire point. In fact, it was quite a bit less. A. Now, consider, Schwartz had the 4th ranked scoring D, Ryan had the 15th. B. Ryan claims, per the original post, as an excuse as I see it, that he ran a hybrid of Ds last season, his and Schwartz's. C. This season he's going to remove any and all elements of game-planning that had our D performing to 4th ranked scoring standards, and replace it with elements of his own D that had our D operate at the 15th ranked scoring D standard. So, A + B + C = what to you? Worse than 15th scoring D, which is in keeping with Ryan's last five seasons of coaching, or better than 15th in scoring D? , To me it's entirely obvious. I guess not so much for others. In short, This D was highly successful in 2014. Elements of how that D was run were partially removed last season and the D was tremendously average. This year, LOL, offered as an excuse was that the methods that held us back last season were the same methods that generated our best D in a decade, and the methods that allowed us to diminish to average will be bolstered and reinforced, and that's going to propel this D back into top status?? LMAO Only in Buffalo. Truly. I realize that I'm a poster that people love to hate and go out of their way to hate, but a lot of the counter-commentary in this thread is comical. I don't hate you : ) I just dont agree with you completely. Still like to read your opinions though !
Ronin Posted June 4, 2016 Author Posted June 4, 2016 But as a Bills homer who's always looking for reasons to be optimistic, let me present a different POV. TG suggests that as Rex removes the last vestiges of Schwartz's D from Buffalo, we'll see linemen dropping back into coverage even more often and the Bills defensive metrics drop in the rankings even further. But I don't think Rex is saying his D struggled last year because the holdover elements from Schwartz's D held him back. I think he's saying that his attempt to marry Schwartz concepts to his own failed. I think Rex would probably agree that it's better to either go all Schwartz or all Rex - just don't combine the schemes because the combo doesn't work (at least the way Rex attempted to do it). Rex was a good DC with Baltimore. He was the architect of a good defense his first few years with the Jets. Several successful ex-players have a lot of faith in his abilities. Then again, his defenses at the end of his tenure with the Jets were not good. His experiment with the Bills last season failed. TG praises Schwartz yet Schwartz's own track record has similar ups and downs. Schwartz certainly has not been successful every year either. Both Schwartz and Rex have proven they can truly suck at times. Both have proven they can succeed in the right circumstances. Let's wait and see if DW and Rex have created the right circumstances this year. You seem to be very reasonable and not primarily led by emotions and more by factual informantion, you're clearly also not averse to reading something for its actual content, something that plagues this community sorely. Having said that, yes, you more or less hit several of the key points, and IDK, maybe I wasn't clear enough or anything in my original post, although I cannot see where not if not. What you may have perceived as "vitriol" is nothing more than pointing out some of the truly lame responses that ignore the tenets of my original post altogether and go off on unrelated tangents and citing info not originally cited by me while recreating an argument that I never made. I post these things hoping to truly draw some solid discussion, I guess I should know better generallly speaking as I can count the decent responses on one-hand, or at least the number of decent posters on one hand anyway of which I count you among them. I'll address the points you made that I put in quotes. TG suggests that as Rex removes the last vestiges of Schwartz's D from Buffalo, we'll see linemen dropping back into coverage even more often and the Bills defensive metrics drop in the rankings even further. That's correct and essentially the crux and core of my argument. Players, that's plural, not just Mario, complained about this all last season. The core point is that Ryan claims to have run a hybrid between his and Schwartz's system. Since the DL-men dropping into coverage except only occasionally wasn't from Schwartz, it must've been from Ryan's D. Since he plans on ridding himself of the influence of Schwartz's D, the assumption is that since this dropping of DL-men into coverage was his idea, namely Ryan's, that we can expect more of it as he takes the reigns of Schwartz's not doing so off of his plans for the D. This is logical. Unfortunately many respondents have gone running down the hall with their hair on fire ignoring that completely or citing LBs or whatever when it's meant to concern DL-men only as stated, clearly stated. The post was really nothing more than that. just don't combine the schemes because the combo doesn't work This wasn't really relevant to my original post to be honest. He's gonna do what he's gonna do. My point was the prior point, namely, again, that the dropping of DL-men into coverage came from Rex, not Schwartz. Whether it's effective or not stands for itself and it wasn't. Clearly the players, particularly those impacted the most, did not like it however. i.e., I'd suggest that we can expect more issues from the players if things don't work out immediately. What are the odds of that happening? Frankly, the combo may not have worked, but history suggests that all Ryan's schemes will be even less effective. He's had two good defenses in seven years of head coaching, his brother Rob hasn't had any. None of Ryan's have been in the last five of those seven seasons. Again, to me that speaks louder than anything. Rex was a good DC with Baltimore. Was he? You sure? Yes, he was good, but consider the talent that he had, he had both Ray Lewis and Ed Reed in their primes. Those are two of the greatest players at their positions in NFL history. Together they represented 22 Pro Bowl and 12 All-Pro season. We have nothing even remotely close to either player much less than tandem here. I think we have 1 Pro Bowl season at our LB and S positions currently, check me on that, but it's not significantly more if not. The talent in Baltimore otherwise exceeded what we have here as well. Having said all that, his defenses ranked 10th, 1st, 22nd, and 3rd in scoring from '05 to '08. To put this in perspective, Greg Mattison (hardly a household name in DCs) & Chuck Pagano, had the Ravens D ranked 3rd every season from '09 - '11 following Ryan's departure. From '99-'04 Marvin Lewis and Mike Nolan (also no household name in DCs) had the Ravens' D ranked 6th, 1st, 4th, 19th, 6th, and 6th in scoring. So Ryan had the Ravens' D average 9th in scoring. Mattison & Pagano had the Ravens' D average 3rd in scoring with Lewis out of his prime. Lewis and Nolan had the Ravens' D average 7th. Overall during that era Ryan averaged 9th the rest averaged better than 6th. So, based on that, would you say that Ryan's D in Baltimore overachieved or underachieved? Keep in mind that he had top talent at his disposal, better than what we had in Buffalo during our heyday and among the best if not the best all-time at the most key position on D and another highly key position, with rare special players. So was Ryan good there? Yes, yes he was, but not as good as his two predecessors or his two successors, he posted the worst D of that era there as well as two of the three worst Ds there in the same era, and given the talent that he had at his disposal I would say that he underachieved. Since he has nothing of equal talent here or even close, I think any comparisons are irrelevant otherwise, particularly considering how horribly he flopped last season coupled with the fact that he's not only underachieved his last five seasons as evidenced by a novice coach replacing him last season yet bumping up the same D 15 ranking spots in scoring, and considering how bad he actually was in dropping our 11 spots for a 26 spot swing between the two. He's nothing but a poster boy for excuses until further notice at this point. TG praises Schwartz yet Schwartz's own track record has similar ups and downs. I don't believe that I praised Schwartz's track record, I think you read into that. My point was entirely that he did not drop our D-linemen into coverage and his D was better. Limit my take to that singular fact for purposes of this argument. Otherwise Schwartz's brief record speaks for itself here. I think that we can at least agree that he definitely didn't underachieve though. So, to sum up, you hit the nail with your first comment, that's essentialy the crux of my original post. I don't hate you : ) I just dont agree with you completely. Still like to read your opinions though ! Thanks, appreciate that! Just FYI Schwartz also dropped DL into coverage though it was less. That's my point, entirely. The difference between the two is pronounced. It's one thing to drop a DT into coverage 5 times a season, it's another to do it 2 or 3 times a game. Same for DEs, it's one thing to drop them into coverage a time or two per game, but doing it many times/game is completely different. Schwartz did it rarely for DTs and in a limited manner for the DEs, it was a huge part of Ryan's changes, presumably changes that we'll see even more of this season. Given that multiple players complained and it didn't even work, I'd say he's on thin ice for production not to mention with fans and media outta the gates if as I suggest, the hybrid he ran last year will see to it that we see more of that this season.
Ronin Posted June 4, 2016 Author Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) I mean, Rex had to say something, right? LOL, pretty much, but that's it, it's all talk so far. As he gets rid of the elements that netted 54 sacks in favor of his 21 and that saw our D drop from 4th to 15th in scoring, it seems to me that we can only see a trend further on out towards where he had the Jets' D performing in his last four seasons there. Bringing his brother on merely adds insult to injury. Let me tell the story of a NFL head coach who first made his name years ago when he was a DC and helped lead his team to a Super Bowl victory. That victory earned him a chance to become a NFL HC and he's been labeled a "defensive guru" ever since. But do the facts support the reputation? 4 times in the past 6 years, this supposed defensive guru's defense finished in the bottom half of the NFL! Clearly the game has passed Bill Belichick by. Because a good defensive coach will get his team in the top 5 each and every year, regardless of the circumstances. And allow me to add to that and ask, how on earth was Ryan able to get only the 10th scoring D much less the 22nd ranked scoring D with the talent he had in Baltimore for two of the four years he was there. In fairness both Reed & Lewis missed games in 2005 (10th) but there's no excuse for logging the worst D of the era in 2007 at 22nd. As to Belicheat, his defenses have been crap in recent years. Over the last 6 seasons Belicheat's defenses have averaged 10th in scoring and 21st in yardage. And to be fair, it doesn't do much to his image in that way either to have been in a division with some of the most offensively inept teams in the AFCE during the Brady era that ever existed and for such a long ongoing time. There hasn't been a QB of note on any of the other three AFCE teams since Brady began playing in NE unless we count Bledsoe, whom Brady replaced and who couldn't play against good teams. The Pats have been a .500 team without Brady, he's the reason for their modern success, not Belicheat. Anyone that can't see that clearly doesn't understand the modern game. If Brady goes down this season we'll see the Pats winning no more than every other game. Edited June 4, 2016 by TaskersGhost
Cover 1 Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 One of my favorite articles of this offseason. Thanks for the support guys, I would love to add more to this discussion but honestly I think we have beaten it to death hahahah.
hondo in seattle Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) You seem to be very reasonable and not primarily led by emotions and more by factual informantion, you're clearly also not averse to reading something for its actual content, something that plagues this community sorely. Having said that, yes, you more or less hit several of the key points, and IDK, maybe I wasn't clear enough or anything in my original post, although I cannot see where not if not. What you may have perceived as "vitriol" is nothing more than pointing out some of the truly lame responses that ignore the tenets of my original post altogether and go off on unrelated tangents and citing info not originally cited by me while recreating an argument that I never made. I post these things hoping to truly draw some solid discussion, I guess I should know better generallly speaking as I can count the decent responses on one-hand, or at least the number of decent posters on one hand anyway of which I count you among them. I'll address the points you made that I put in quotes. That's correct and essentially the crux and core of my argument. Players, that's plural, not just Mario, complained about this all last season. The core point is that Ryan claims to have run a hybrid between his and Schwartz's system. Since the DL-men dropping into coverage except only occasionally wasn't from Schwartz, it must've been from Ryan's D. Since he plans on ridding himself of the influence of Schwartz's D, the assumption is that since this dropping of DL-men into coverage was his idea, namely Ryan's, that we can expect more of it as he takes the reigns of Schwartz's not doing so off of his plans for the D. This is logical. Unfortunately many respondents have gone running down the hall with their hair on fire ignoring that completely or citing LBs or whatever when it's meant to concern DL-men only as stated, clearly stated. The post was really nothing more than that. This wasn't really relevant to my original post to be honest. He's gonna do what he's gonna do. My point was the prior point, namely, again, that the dropping of DL-men into coverage came from Rex, not Schwartz. Whether it's effective or not stands for itself and it wasn't. Clearly the players, particularly those impacted the most, did not like it however. i.e., I'd suggest that we can expect more issues from the players if things don't work out immediately. What are the odds of that happening? Frankly, the combo may not have worked, but history suggests that all Ryan's schemes will be even less effective. He's had two good defenses in seven years of head coaching, his brother Rob hasn't had any. None of Ryan's have been in the last five of those seven seasons. Again, to me that speaks louder than anything. Was he? You sure? Yes, he was good, but consider the talent that he had, he had both Ray Lewis and Ed Reed in their primes. Those are two of the greatest players at their positions in NFL history. Together they represented 22 Pro Bowl and 12 All-Pro season. We have nothing even remotely close to either player much less than tandem here. I think we have 1 Pro Bowl season at our LB and S positions currently, check me on that, but it's not significantly more if not. The talent in Baltimore otherwise exceeded what we have here as well. Having said all that, his defenses ranked 10th, 1st, 22nd, and 3rd in scoring from '05 to '08. To put this in perspective, Greg Mattison (hardly a household name in DCs) & Chuck Pagano, had the Ravens D ranked 3rd every season from '09 - '11 following Ryan's departure. From '99-'04 Marvin Lewis and Mike Nolan (also no household name in DCs) had the Ravens' D ranked 6th, 1st, 4th, 19th, 6th, and 6th in scoring. So Ryan had the Ravens' D average 9th in scoring. Mattison & Pagano had the Ravens' D average 3rd in scoring with Lewis out of his prime. Lewis and Nolan had the Ravens' D average 7th. Overall during that era Ryan averaged 9th the rest averaged better than 6th. So, based on that, would you say that Ryan's D in Baltimore overachieved or underachieved? Keep in mind that he had top talent at his disposal, better than what we had in Buffalo during our heyday and among the best if not the best all-time at the most key position on D and another highly key position, with rare special players. So was Ryan good there? Yes, yes he was, but not as good as his two predecessors or his two successors, he posted the worst D of that era there as well as two of the three worst Ds there in the same era, and given the talent that he had at his disposal I would say that he underachieved. Since he has nothing of equal talent here or even close, I think any comparisons are irrelevant otherwise, particularly considering how horribly he flopped last season coupled with the fact that he's not only underachieved his last five seasons as evidenced by a novice coach replacing him last season yet bumping up the same D 15 ranking spots in scoring, and considering how bad he actually was in dropping our 11 spots for a 26 spot swing between the two. He's nothing but a poster boy for excuses until further notice at this point. I don't believe that I praised Schwartz's track record, I think you read into that. My point was entirely that he did not drop our D-linemen into coverage and his D was better. Limit my take to that singular fact for purposes of this argument. Otherwise Schwartz's brief record speaks for itself here. I think that we can at least agree that he definitely didn't underachieve though. So, to sum up, you hit the nail with your first comment, that's essentialy the crux of my original post. Thanks, appreciate that! That's my point, entirely. The difference between the two is pronounced. It's one thing to drop a DT into coverage 5 times a season, it's another to do it 2 or 3 times a game. Same for DEs, it's one thing to drop them into coverage a time or two per game, but doing it many times/game is completely different. Schwartz did it rarely for DTs and in a limited manner for the DEs, it was a huge part of Ryan's changes, presumably changes that we'll see even more of this season. Given that multiple players complained and it didn't even work, I'd say he's on thin ice for production not to mention with fans and media outta the gates if as I suggest, the hybrid he ran last year will see to it that we see more of that this season. TG, I'll repeat: you make some solid arguments. I fear you might be right. Then again, very few defensive leaders have records of consistent success. Schwartz had some bad years. Belichick had some bad years. Pete Carroll and Wade Phillips have had bad years. Roster, health of the roster, quality of the competition... even home life can all have an influence on a coach's metrics and lead to some ups and downs. Rex was bad last year. The questions are: How much did he learn from the experience? Did he make the right changes to the coaching staff? Did he and DW make the right changes to the roster? Will he go back to the old 'multiple' Rex scheme but update it for 2016? What will those updates look like? Rex is a blowhard but he's an intelligent blowhard and he's got some smart/experienced guys on his staff - what will they put together for 2016? I'm just not ready yet to give up on this season. I first want to see what he'll do different before condemning the man entirely. Edited June 4, 2016 by hondo in seattle
Cover 1 Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 No one could be that obtuse and inaccurate accidently! It would be like getting all of the questions on SAT wrong - statistical improbability. That wasn't trickery, it was pure Kyle Willams' athleticism. Article wrote just what I saw: Kyle is seen by his fellow players as one of the best DTs in game when healthy and I hope he is healthy this year but Rex needs better game planning against the quick snap and throw offenses. Rex was caught off guard on how offenses were going to attack him early in the season. But as the season went on he was able to disguise coverages and pressures better. I believe it occurred from the 2nd jets game on. He transitioned to more of his Defense, more odd front looks 3-3-5, 3-2-6 etc looks...The defense was bad last year but they came around later in the year and kept us in some games...
YoloinOhio Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 Rex was caught off guard on how offenses were going to attack him early in the season. But as the season went on he was able to disguise coverages and pressures better. I believe it occurred from the 2nd jets game on. He transitioned to more of his Defense, more odd front looks 3-3-5, 3-2-6 etc looks...The defense was bad last year but they came around later in the year and kept us in some games...i didn't think it was bad. I think they had a few bad games. Some were very, very good.
Cover 1 Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) And if u enjoyed the DL study, then here is the secondary study http://www.cover1.net/2016/01/20161122015-bills-defensive-study-secondary/ and the Linebacker study... http://www.cover1.net/2016/01/201616linebackers/ As a poster stated the lack of effectiveness of the Defensive lineman in coverage went hand in hand with the ineffectivness of our inside LBs to pressure the QB on those zone blitzes..I do believe that is the primary reason the Bills are attempting to put Striker at ILB, hes a fantastic blitzer.... http://www.cover1.net/2016/06/cover-1-film-room-eric-strikers-role/ Edited June 4, 2016 by TurnerE
Ronin Posted June 4, 2016 Author Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) TG, I'll repeat: you make some solid arguments. I fear you might be right. Then again, very few defensive leaders have records of consistent success. Schwartz had some bad years. Belichick had some bad years. Pete Carroll and Wade Phillips have had bad years. Roster, health of the roster, quality of the competition... even home life can all have an influence on a coach's metrics and lead to some ups and downs. Rex was bad last year. The questions are: How much did he learn from the experience? Did he make the right changes to the coaching staff? Did he and DW make the right changes to the roster? Will he go back to the old 'multiple' Rex scheme but update it for 2016? What will those updates look like? Rex is a blowhard but he's an intelligent blowhard and he's got some smart/experienced guys on his staff - what will they put together for 2016? I'm just not ready yet to give up on this season. I first want to see what he'll do different before condemning the man entirely. Well, it is what it is. I brought up the original topic since I haven't heard anyone anywhere even mention it, not local media, not national media, no forums, etc. It should be a high-profile topic, particularly since numerous players complained last season and will do the same if things don't go well out of the gate. I think we can count on that. As to good and bad DCs, Ryan's been mostly bad. He's had two good seasons in 7 as a head coach, led the Ravens to their worst D of the Lewis/Reed era in Baltimore with only two good seasons there as DC. But in Baltimore even the most nominal DC could do well as evidence by Mike Nolan and Greg Mattison outperforming Ryan, neither of which has gone on to do anything relevant in the NFL. Nolan has regressed down to LB coach and Mattison went back to college. Now on comes Rob Ryan who's done almost nothing relevant, but the oversized twins can sure talk up a hurricane. Rex was caught off guard on how offenses were going to attack him early in the season. But as the season went on he was able to disguise coverages and pressures better. I believe it occurred from the 2nd jets game on. He transitioned to more of his Defense, more odd front looks 3-3-5, 3-2-6 etc looks...The defense was bad last year but they came around later in the year and kept us in some gam Besides the Pats, name one good offensive team that his D kept us in games against? That all sounds good on paper, but at the end of the day the same players that logged 54 sacks in 2014 logged a mere 21 last season and saw us allow 4.3 more ppg than the year prior, with an easier schedule too. This year's schedule is more difficult by any standard. Even now players from the 2014 squad that logged 35 sacks are still here, those same players logged 12 last season, a mere third. And a seasoned head coach being "caught off guard?" Really? Edited June 4, 2016 by TaskersGhost
Cover 1 Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 Well, it is what it is. I brought up the original topic since I haven't heard anyone anywhere even mention it, not local media, not national media, no forums, etc. It should be a high-profile topic, particularly since numerous players complained last season and will do the same if things don't go well out of the gate. I think we can count on that. As to good and bad DCs, Ryan's been mostly bad. He's had two good seasons in 7 as a head coach, led the Ravens to their worst D of the Lewis/Reed era in Baltimore with only two good seasons there as DC. But in Baltimore even the most nominal DC could do well as evidence by Mike Nolan and Greg Mattison outperforming Ryan, neither of which has gone on to do anything relevant in the NFL. Nolan has regressed down to LB coach and Mattison went back to college. Now on comes Rob Ryan who's done almost nothing relevant, but the oversized twins can sure talk up a hurricane. Besides the Pats, name one good offensive team that his D kept us in games against? That all sounds good on paper, but at the end of the day the same players that logged 54 sacks in 2014 logged a mere 21 last season and saw us allow 4.3 more ppg than the year prior, with an easier schedule too. This year's schedule is more difficult by any standard. Even now players from the 2014 squad that logged 35 sacks are still here, those same players logged 12 last season, a mere third. And a seasoned head coach being "caught off guard?" Really? Yes, the coaches were honest about that after the Pats game. They didnt expect that kind of attack and combine that with the merged defense http://www.cover1.net/2016/01/2016122mergedsystems/ and we got smoked....And the whole top offenses argument means nothing to me, because coordinators and players get paid to coach, adjust, scheme and execute so just because an offense is ranked 22nd in the league doesnt mean they cant be effective on any given Sunday.
Ronin Posted June 4, 2016 Author Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) i didn't think it was bad. I think they had a few bad games. Some were very, very good. We held opponents to fewer than 20 points in 7 games. Four were the Jets and Fins, the other three were the Colts, Titans, and Cowboys, ranked 24th, 28th, and 31st in scoring. That's not impressive. Yes, the coaches were honest about that after the Pats game. They didnt expect that kind of attack and combine that with the merged defense http://www.cover1.net/2016/01/2016122mergedsystems/ and we got smoked....And the whole top offenses argument means nothing to me, because coordinators and players get paid to coach, adjust, scheme and execute so just because an offense is ranked 22nd in the league doesnt mean they cant be effective on any given Sunday. Stats are a guide. No team can claim to have a good D if they finish average in points allowed. And for every good game on any given Sunday, the average has to go that far in the opposite direction for others, so you can dismiss arguments like that, but at the end of the day for every good game you say they have like that, they'd have two horrid ones to compensate in keeping with their final ranking. Either way, look at our schedule from last season, our D didn't play well against any good offense except for one game against the Pats. It can also be argued that any team can easily get up for one game against a particular opponent, like the 14-2 Pats losing to the 5-11 Browns in '10. Consistency is key, Ryan has been anything but, here or in NY. Edited June 4, 2016 by TaskersGhost
Cover 1 Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 We held opponents to fewer than 20 points in 7 games. Four were the Jets and Fins, the other three were the Colts, Titans, and Cowboys, ranked 24th, 28th, and 31st in scoring. That's not impressive. Stats are a guide. No team can claim to have a good D if they finish average in points allowed. And for every good game on any given Sunday, the average has to go that far in the opposite direction for others, so you can dismiss arguments like that, but at the end of the day for every good game you say they have like that, they'd have two horrid ones to compensate in keeping with their final ranking. Either way, look at our schedule from last season, our D didn't play well against any good offense except for one game against the Pats. It can also be argued that any team can easily get up for one game against a particular opponent, like the 14-2 Pats losing to the 5-11 Browns in '10. Consistency is key, Ryan has been anything but, here or in NY. I am not saying that we had a good D bud, I am just saying that once he started the transition the defense played better. I expect the defense to be much better this year, of course it can only go up but to totally put the blame on Rex is absurd. The players werent executing, they werent holding themselves accountable either. If you read my articles, I dont just rely on the stats, thats my point about offensive rankings and such... We held opponents to fewer than 20 points in 7 games. Four were the Jets and Fins, the other three were the Colts, Titans, and Cowboys, ranked 24th, 28th, and 31st in scoring. That's not impressive. Stats are a guide. No team can claim to have a good D if they finish average in points allowed. And for every good game on any given Sunday, the average has to go that far in the opposite direction for others, so you can dismiss arguments like that, but at the end of the day for every good game you say they have like that, they'd have two horrid ones to compensate in keeping with their final ranking. Either way, look at our schedule from last season, our D didn't play well against any good offense except for one game against the Pats. It can also be argued that any team can easily get up for one game against a particular opponent, like the 14-2 Pats losing to the 5-11 Browns in '10. Consistency is key, Ryan has been anything but, here or in NY. Yeah and the seahawks held oppponents to fewer than 20 9 times, Panthers 8. Seven games for as bad as we played isnt all that bad. The problem is in some of those games our offense struggled too..It was a tough year no doubt, but I feel like its time to move on.
K-9 Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 The argument isn't so much that RR dropped his DLmen into coverage too much, as it is he dropped two OLBs into coverage that some feel shouldn't have been used as OLBs. Sorry, but in any scheme, OLBs are going to be asked to play more pass D. Period. Feel free to get all over Ryan for using Mario and Hughes that way, that's valid. But asking his OLBs to do what they did, is perfectly reasonable within the schemes they were asked to execute. GO BILLS!!!
Buffalo Barbarian Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 Is that Von Miller dropping into coverage and intercepting Brady I see... EDIT: In case you haven't notice, lots of teams and lots of DL do this. Even star players. this . It was Mario that was a b!tch about it, the rest of the D struggled because of last second substitutions and play calls which caught them with their pants down.
hondo in seattle Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 And if u enjoyed the DL study, then here is the secondary study http://www.cover1.net/2016/01/20161122015-bills-defensive-study-secondary/ and the Linebacker study... http://www.cover1.net/2016/01/201616linebackers/ As a poster stated the lack of effectiveness of the Defensive lineman in coverage went hand in hand with the ineffectivness of our inside LBs to pressure the QB on those zone blitzes..I do believe that is the primary reason the Bills are attempting to put Striker at ILB, hes a fantastic blitzer.... http://www.cover1.net/2016/06/cover-1-film-room-eric-strikers-role/ Erik, this is very nice work!
Recommended Posts