Article on why 2017 passing game can make giant leap forward

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

The only way the passing game will take a step forward is if Peterman beats out Tyrod in training camp.

 

Ha ha, spoken by someone who THINKS they know everything!

Oh look another one who THINKS they know everything. Haha

 

 

kind of contradictory on your part, not surprising though given the source...

[Bangarang]

I've always been a fan of the WCO. Getting Tyrod in space and giving him easy completions with the threat of taking off sounds great in theory.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Bangarang

[Chandler#81]

So, if things go well, then things will go well.

 

This is much the same thing we've heard again and again. Every year, in fact. And with the details of the plays taken out it's what every team is hearing ... that we're tailoring our offense/defense to our players strengths and this will allow us to get better. Teams that switch coaches say this. Our schemes are better for our guys, so this will improve us.

 

Thing is, defenses know those schemes and ways to counteract them. Defenses build around taking away offensive players' strengths and forcing them to rely on their weaknesses.

 

I could imagine this might work to some degree, especially in the early weeks. I just don't see it resulting in the major improvements this article and many similar ones hope for.

 

It'd be nice if I was wrong.

 

 

 

I can see this defense making major improvements under McDermott. But I doubt it will take full effect for a year or two.

 

We'll see.

 

If we can just become a 'Bend Don't Break' Defense, make the opponent travel the length of the field eating clock and settling for FG's or 4th down stops, it will be a major improvement. The glorious run game of the past 2 seasons we speak so highly of, was a significant detriment a lot of the time with far too many 3 and outs, trying to run too often. WCO will very likely mean much less rushing -say goodbye to our 2 years on top- but a more balanced attack. Keeping their offense on the sidelines and surrendering less big plays on Defense will have us in every game, and I believe this is McD's vision. IMO.

[transplantbillsfan]

So, if things go well, then things will go well.

 

This is much the same thing we've heard again and again. Every year, in fact. And with the details of the plays taken out it's what every team is hearing ... that we're tailoring our offense/defense to our players strengths and this will allow us to get better. Teams that switch coaches say this. Our schemes are better for our guys, so this will improve us.

 

Thing is, defenses know those schemes and ways to counteract them. Defenses build around taking away offensive players' strengths and forcing them to rely on their weaknesses.

 

I could imagine this might work to some degree, especially in the early weeks. I just don't see it resulting in the major improvements this article and many similar ones hope for.

 

It'd be nice if I was wrong.

The article doesn't talk about tailoring (heh ) a system to our QB. It says the system our OC runs (which has been extremely successful for years) is tailored to our QB.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

This is catering to your personnel....putting them in the best position to succeed.....a concept that was foreign to Rex.

...good article and GREAT point bud.......I think Schwartz did exactly that, namely adjusting his system to fit personnel.....Ditka said, "you can have THE greatest system in the world, but if you do not have the PERSONNEL to run it, you fail".......Mike is so prolific (COUGH)..........

[NoSaint]

This is catering to your personnel....putting them in the best position to succeed.....a concept that was foreign to Rex.

I'd argue that, generally speaking, we did a lot of that on offense already.

 

TT is a nice deep ball thrower that can take pressure off the system with his legs. We ran a scheme that saw him do some option threats with shots over the top. The run game certainly maximized the personnel.

 

What taylor skill set were we not really playing to?

...good article and GREAT point bud.......I think Schwartz did exactly that, namely adjusting his system to fit personnel.....Ditka said, "you can have THE greatest system in the world, but if you do not have the PERSONNEL to run it, you fail".......Mike is so prolific (COUGH)..........

One place I'll give marrone credit is that he brought in a D.C. that ran a scheme that fit the personnel like a glove. Schwartz wasn't making major changes for personnel- you'd be hardpressed to put together 11 better players for his scheme even with a totally open checkbook.

 

The front four had two solid edge rushers and good interior pressure with an elite DT in dareus-- if you look at his schemes that is really the formula (haynesworth, suh and now cox). Without that DT paired with around the edge rushing he flops.

 

Then at MLB we had his clean up the run game faux NT with Spikes.

 

We had some guys that were among the best in the league at the positions that make his scheme work. And that's ignoring strong corners to boot. Whoever had final say on the red hire and revamping that unit by proxy should be ashamed

Edited July 8, 2017 by NoSaint

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

I'd argue that, generally speaking, we did a lot of that on offense already.

 

TT is a nice deep ball thrower that can take pressure off the system with his legs. We ran a scheme that saw him do some option threats with shots over the top. The run game certainly maximized the personnel.

 

What taylor skill set were we not really playing to?

One place I'll give marrone credit is that he brought in a D.C. that ran a scheme that fit the personnel like a glove. Schwartz wasn't making major changes for personnel- you'd be hardpressed to put together 11 better players for his scheme even with a totally open checkbook.

 

The front four had two solid edge rushers and good interior pressure with an elite DT in dareus-- if you look at his schemes that is really the formula (haynesworth, suh and now cox). Without that DT paired with around the edge rushing he flops.

 

Then at MLB we had his clean up the run game faux NT with Spikes.

 

We had some guys that were among the best in the league at the positions that make his scheme work. And that's ignoring strong corners to boot. Whoever had final say on the red hire and revamping that unit by proxy should be ashamed

....it's pretty hard to fault Marrone from what I know.....the focal point of his Brandon interview was to urge a " winning culture change" which was and is SORELY needed..he called Brandon almost daily to find out the status of his application...problem was he wanted to emulate General Patton (or in NFL terms, da Fuhrer Coughlin) which Brandon and Whaley eventually resented as well as players....a typical St John Fisher training camp day was practice, dinner break and back to SJF for meetings which lasted until 9 or 10PM and he wanted Brandon and Whaley there.....they hated it, he knew it and took his $4 mil....Pegula would have NEVER offered him a 4 year, $19.6 mil extension if he did not agree with the culture change mentality....and now TP gets his no nonsense disciplinary HC which hopefully confirms what I am posting here..........

Edited July 8, 2017 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[#34fan]

:lol:

 

I'm a doubter because I think TT is what he is...

 

He may TRY to be something different, but in the heat of battle he'll REVERT to what he always was.

 

One-trick ponies are cool... But it better be one HELL of a trick...

[NoSaint]

:lol:

 

I'm a doubter because I think TT is what he is...

 

He may TRY to be something different, but in the heat of battle he'll REVERT to what he always was.

 

One-trick ponies are cool... But it better be one HELL of a trick...

I'll keep echoing because I'm curious the answer from folks -- in the grand scheme, do people really think we weren't playing to TTs strengths, in general?

 

I'll buy we didn't have a talented receiving core but scheme wise I think we did a lot to simplify and cover him up and use his strengths. I never felt like he was a square peg in a round hole as much as he is just a limited passer that was protected with a strong running game (that he contributed to). There could be some fine tuning but it's not like we forced him into a super complex stand in the pocket and make manning-esque reads to throw over the middle 45 times scheme that plays against his skill set

[#34fan]

There could be some fine tuning but it's not like we forced him into a super complex stand in the pocket and make manning-esque reads to throw over the middle 45 times scheme that plays against his skill set

 

With two years of TT's tendencies on film, I worry about his chances... I agree that he has a strong skill set, albeit a limited, and very predictable one.

 

Fact is, this is a make or break year for him as a starter... Unless he gets hurt, 2017-18 will define him as a QB....

[RevWarRifleman]

tpbf, love articles like this. Breaking down schemes. Thanks for posting.

[transplantbillsfan]

I'll keep echoing because I'm curious the answer from folks -- in the grand scheme, do people really think we weren't playing to TTs strengths, in general?

 

I'll buy we didn't have a talented receiving core but scheme wise I think we did a lot to simplify and cover him up and use his strengths. I never felt like he was a square peg in a round hole as much as he is just a limited passer that was protected with a strong running game (that he contributed to). There could be some fine tuning but it's not like we forced him into a super complex stand in the pocket and make manning-esque reads to throw over the middle 45 times scheme that plays against his skill set

I'll respond. Yeah, Roman's system catered to his deep ball throwing and his legs... but those plays were what % of his overall plays?

 

I think this article explains the other routes pretty well, but it's those other routes in the route tree Dennison's system focuses on that Roman's system and play calling didn't focus on that didn't cater as well to Taylor's strengths as this system hopefully will.

 

I think Lynn did better with the play calling in terms of those shorter routes than Roman, which was why for 13 games with Taylor getting plays from Lynn you saw a significantly more efficient team on offense in terms of staying on the field and moving the chains, but even Lynn was restricted by another guy's system.

 

Hopefully the article's analysis comes into fruition

[NoSaint]

I'll respond. Yeah, Roman's system catered to his deep ball throwing and his legs... but those plays were what % of his overall plays?

 

I think this article explains the other routes pretty well, but it's those other routes in the route tree Dennison's system focuses on that Roman's system and play calling didn't focus on that didn't cater as well to Taylor's strengths as this system hopefully will.

 

I think Lynn did better with the play calling in terms of those shorter routes than Roman, which was why for 13 games with Taylor getting plays from Lynn you saw a significantly more efficient team on offense in terms of staying on the field and moving the chains, but even Lynn was restricted by another guy's system.

 

Hopefully the article's analysis comes into fruition

I'll admit I only skimmed the article quickly (on my phone) but I'm not sure it really defined why most of that was tyrods strengths. It seemed to mostly focus on why they are effective plays in the scheme.

 

Examples -- yes, playaction is great for putting pressure on a defense. Especially in a strong running offense. Question though- Tyrod struggles to see the field as is, so I question if turning his back to the line and having to turn back and make a quick read from a blind start is "playing to his strength." I'll say I've long thought his pre snap reads were a coaching concern so if he's turning back from the play action truly blind because of that (doesn't know where to anticipate the coverage to be from pre snap reads) it could be a disaster

 

Similarly, I think TT was very weak at getting the ball out in time an offense that seemed to have simple reads. Why is a quick decision focus playing to his strengths? If anything, I feel like we will either need a very simplified version of the scheme or if really throwing him in, it plays to some of his currently perceived weaknesses.

 

We will see if he steps up, or flames out hugely. Quick reads and throwing in the middle might see some of those ball security numbers that have truly been his strength go the wrong direction. It feels like the ideal would be keeping last year's basics with just a few added wrinkles and talent at WR

Edited July 8, 2017 by NoSaint

[transplantbillsfan]

I'll admit I only skimmed the article quickly (on my phone) but I'm not sure it really defined why most of that was tyrods strengths. It seemed to mostly focus on why they are effective plays in the scheme.

 

Examples -- yes, playaction is great for putting pressure on a defense. Especially in a strong running offense. Question though- Tyrod struggles to see the field as is, so I question if turning his back to the line and having to turn back and make a quick read from a blind start is "playing to his strength." I'll say I've long thought his pre snap reads were a coaching concern so if he's turning back from the play action truly blind because of that (doesn't know where to anticipate the coverage to be from pre snap reads) it could be a disaster

Glad you bring this up. From FO after the 2015 season:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/2015-play-action-offense

 

As you'll see if when you read FOA 2016, the Bills were a bit bipolar offensively, with splits that were alternatively excellent and horrendous. Play-action was part of Buffalo's good side, as Tyrod Taylor led the league's best play-action offense last season. You might assume that including scrambles probably helped push Buffalo ahead of Arizona, but the Bills still finished first in the passes-only column with a DVOA basically indistinguishable from their standard play-action DVOA. The next logical step would be for Greg Roman to increase Buffalo's play-action usage in 2016, given Taylor's proficiency on deep passes (81.1% DVOA, fourth among qualifying quarterbacks), and the fact that the Bills only ranked 24th in play-action percentage despite their efficiency. Roman used plenty of play-action during Colin Kaepernick's peak seasons, as San Francisco ranked sixth and fifth in play-action usage during the 2013 and 2014 campaigns, respectively.

[NoSaint]

Glad you bring this up. From FO after the 2015 season:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/2015-play-action-offense

 

As you'll see if when you read FOA 2016, the Bills were a bit bipolar offensively, with splits that were alternatively excellent and horrendous. Play-action was part of Buffalo's good side, as Tyrod Taylor led the league's best play-action offense last season. You might assume that including scrambles probably helped push Buffalo ahead of Arizona, but the Bills still finished first in the passes-only column with a DVOA basically indistinguishable from their standard play-action DVOA. The next logical step would be for Greg Roman to increase Buffalo's play-action usage in 2016, given Taylor's proficiency on deep passes (81.1% DVOA, fourth among qualifying quarterbacks), and the fact that the Bills only ranked 24th in play-action percentage despite their efficiency. Roman used plenty of play-action during Colin Kaepernick's peak seasons, as San Francisco ranked sixth and fifth in play-action usage during the 2013 and 2014 campaigns, respectively.

I'm familiar with that rating

 

I do suppose I'm picturing in the roman offense the playaction often coming off the shotgun in a more read option keep your eyes up field style instead of the under center traditional turn your back to the defense style that I envision in a west coast offense

 

That's not to pigeonhole either as an end all be all philosophy and I don't have those splits to back up the roman feeling vs dennisons history (and guess at his future).... but I don't think that article, or any poster I recall seeing has laid out the argument that well. Tyrod isn't a mess but he's erratic and inconsistent and has definitely had coaches closest to him limit what they ask of him. Maybe he steps up but I think there's more work to be done in the argument that a west coast offense plays to his strength

 

(Though in that year I believe we were one of the lowest percentages in both passing plays, and snaps taken under center, and as you posted low in percentage of passes off play action so I'm guessing Tyrod threw very few traditional under center play action plays in the successful season you note....)

Edited July 9, 2017 by NoSaint

[QuoteTheRaven83]

All i read was "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."

 

I don't care what kinda offense or system we run. Show it on the field and win some fcking games. Sick of reading "Could this be the year" articles every year. Pure garbage.

[transplantbillsfan]

Similarly, I think TT was very weak at getting the ball out in time an offense that seemed to have simple reads. Why is a quick decision focus playing to his strengths? If anything, I feel like we will either need a very simplified version of the scheme or if really throwing him in, it plays to some of his currently perceived weaknesses.

 

We will see if he steps up, or flames out hugely. Quick reads and throwing in the middle might see some of those ball security numbers that have truly been his strength go the wrong direction. It feels like the ideal would be keeping last year's basics with just a few added wrinkles and talent at WR

Quick decisions and reads are actually the plays I think Taylor would thrive in. The WCO often has it so the QB knows where he's going before the ball is snapped.

 

One thing I've observed (and I thought I remember there being data to support this) is that when Taylor takes snaps from under center and takes 3 or 5 step drops and delivers the ball, he's good; helps him to maintain his mechanics, too.

 

Go back and watch the first few games after Lynn took over and I think you'd see some good examples of those types of throws.

[transplantbillsfan]

All i read was "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."

 

I don't care what kinda offense or system we run. Show it on the field and win some fcking games. Sick of reading "Could this be the year" articles every year. Pure garbage.

Fair enough. So why bother talking about the upcoming season until it's here?

 

Go enjoy your summer.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

All i read was "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."

 

I don't care what kinda offense or system we run. Show it on the field and win some fcking games. Sick of reading "Could this be the year" articles every year. Pure garbage.

....sand in thy jockey shorts is known to cause some discomfort......

[baskingridgebillsfan]

Im still surprised at how poorly Rex's defense performed after watching Pettine run essentially that type of system with a lot of the same players on the field.

 

Its too bad he took the Cleveland job, a place where all great coordinators kill their careers.

Rex flat out lost his mind, as the league started catching up to him , he tried to get more and more complex . To the point where what they drew up in the meeting room couldn't be reproduced on the field .He wouldn't allow players to play he wanted to be the smartest guy in the history of football. I suspect this d will be top half of the league and have fewer games where the d couldn't stop anything. The Jets and chiefs games come to mind