John Kryk: Bills' Defense First Model is Backward in Today's NFL

[dorquemada]

1 minute ago, Greybeard said:

            Good post.  If Mahomes was drafted here,  the odds of Mahomes having any where near the success he is having with the Chiefs, is very slim.  Very few seem to be able to comprehend that.    The search for a savior is how we ended up with Allen, and we are a long way from finding out how that will work out.

 

Yeah, I mean, the Bills are the Graveyard of Quarterbacks.  We could have the lovechild of Joe Montana and Tom Brady at QB and Coach Clappy McIdiot would get extra clever and put a bunch of high school players around him just to show the league how much smarter he is than everyone else.  I know nobody wants to hear this but watch the draft next year,  I will virtually guarantee that with our top pick we go either DL or a high motor project LB, or a CB.  I just dont think this regime has the mindset to 'waste' high draft picks on O.  also, in FA, we'll absolutely find another 3 or 4 trent murphys to keep the trainers busy to make sure we soak up the spare cap money, without actually making the team better

[Soda Popinski]

5 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

That's a tired old excuse to not get with the modern NFL. 

 

 

People act as if the days of the Steel Curtain or the 2000 Ravens D are still possible.

It is still possible to have a dominant defense in the NFL of today. I just don't see anyone winning  a super bowl without an elite QB.   The Eagles got their rings last year with a backup QB, great coaching, and a dominant defense.     But it was more of a fluke than anything I don't think we'll see that kind of thing happen again.

 

 

[Greybeard]

3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

That's a tired old excuse to not get with the modern NFL. 

    It is not an excuse.  Expecting someone to perform the same as he is in a good situation is not the same as he would in a bad situation.   It is the expectation I am commenting on, not the direction the team has taken.  The rules greatly favor the offense at the moment.  

[BillsFan130]

26 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Since the name of the game is out score the other guy that much is obvious.  But you can win by keeping the other guy from scoring more points than you.  By your opinion Pittsburgh should have beat Jacksonville in last year's playoffs as they clearly had more offensive weapons.  The Eagles won the SB because they departed from conventional wisdom on a few plays confusing Belichick versus being a pure offensive machine.

Eagles got 40 plus points to win that game an barely won lol.

 

You need to have an explosive offence to win in modern day Football

[GoBills808]

I have to wonder how many people saying ‘defense doesn’t matter’ right now were the ones clamoring for a better defense during the Taylor/Ryan era...

[Watkins90]

10 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Let me rephrase. 

 

I think they intend to score points, but as soon as something detrimental happens to a drive, like a penalty, or loss of yards on 1st or 2nd down that puts them behind the chains, that he immediately starts playing defense with his offense. 

 

It's like we no longer try to keep the chains moving, and revert to trying to limit the damage our offense could do by figuring out how to conservatively try to come close to getting a first down by not putting the ball in danger and being totally fine with punting and playing field position.

 

When the Bills get into 3rd and long they almost always throw short of the sticks. Just avoid the sack, check it down, and hope your receiver can break a couple tackles and convert the 1st down. We never put the ball in danger by forcing it down the field into coverage in a spot where a catch will move the chains. 

 

It's the same type of offense we saw from Dick Jauron when he had Trent Edwards. Play super conservative, and take the check down whenever possible. Play field position and let your defense try to force a turnover to give your offense a short field.

 

We saw the same thing from this offense even when Allen was on the field. His YPA is pathetic, and most of his throws a dink and dunk check downs. Despite having a howitzer for an arm, we haven't thrown the ball down the field at all this season and I think that's a product of how the coach over values protecting the football. 

I think it all comes down to personnel. If he has the Chiefs' personnel, I don't think we would see this conservative game plan, or at least what you claim is conservative. 

 

I don't see it, I just see ineptitude on the roster, especially at the QB position, which makes things look a lot more conservative than they are intended to be. 

 

Time will tell. 

 

I wouldn't be so quick to write off these guys. A lot of new head coaches in this league are struggling. Vance Joseph, who is only in his second year, is going to be fired at the end of this year. Pat Shermer is supposedly an offensive guru hasn't turned the Giants around. Mike Zimmer is a defensive minded head coach and his team is perfectly good on offense. 

 

I just think it takes time to employ a plan. It is either fire them both now, hire a new GM who then hires a coach, so the two can work together with the cap space and draft capital. 

 

Or, you stick it out with these guys through two more years from this exact point. They get next year and half the following year to turn it around, and maybe you fire them next year if you see no improvement what so ever. 

 

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  The ranking you are mentioning is based on the results of all nine games played versus one game.  Are you denying that less three and outs by our offense would help our defense?  More sustained drives even if they had to punt after 6 plays should give the opponent less favorable starting field position which would affect their scoring.

 

 That  is the same number they are averaging  through 9 games (7th worst in the NFL).  In this game, they were able to surrender that many points in 26 minutes.

 

The Titans and Jaguars  offenses suck,  but their defenses gives up only 17.6 and 21.2 ppg. 

 

 

 

 

 

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  I think that the FO's approach in part was driven by the dearth of free agent offensive players.  There were no big name players or even steady contributor's out there for us to have this past offseason.

And the same is true for this offseason, which is why they probably should have considered keeping their own "overpriced" receivers.

[LeGOATski]

How they build is going to be different for every team.

 

2019 is their chance to set the offense straight with FA and the draft. To build a complete team and make offense a priority. If they don't do that, then this argument will be valid at that time.

[26CornerBlitz]

8 minutes ago, Greybeard said:

    It is not an excuse.  Expecting someone to perform the same as he is in a good situation is not the same as he would in a bad situation.   It is the expectation I am commenting on, not the direction the team has taken.  The rules greatly favor the offense at the moment.  

 

A good situation should be built around the QB just as it's been done in PHI, KC, and LA with young QBs.  It's excuse making.

[boyst]

It's pretty much *****. Defense always wins championships in this league. In a few years it won't.

 

Last year's team with this teams fully healthy defense wins Jacksonville. 

[QCity]

John Kryk basically said you need a QB to win in the NFL. Enlightening. 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by QCity

[Lurker]

It is backward.   But that doesn't make it wrong.

 

I flipped to the New Orleans-Rams game after the Bills loss.    I got bored by the end of the first quarter with both teams moving up and down the field at will, like an NBA game with no defense.   

 

I'm not interested in that type of football and the NFL has a problem on it's hands if that's what the future looks like, IMO...

[LSHMEAB]

35 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

The Bills D was on the field for 26 minutes and gave up 27 points.  That was hardly the Rams/Saints/Chiefs they were facing. 

 

The safeties are becoming a liability.  Poyer is the softest tackler in the NFL.  He is frequently getting stiff armed to the ground or just blown up.

This seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. People tend to counter it with "they're on the field too much," which may be valid, but this is hardly a dominant defense.

 

It's not that I disagree with the premise that running the ball and playing great defense is outdated. It's that we can't run the ball and we don't play "great" defense. 

 

So we're not even particularly good at McDermott's antiquated philosophical approach.

[mjt328]

43 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I think there needs to be balance.....but I understand why a defense coach would biuld his defense first

 

To me it its about whether you think the rebiuld is done and this is the offense he wants to put on the field.....I believe we are in the middle of it and this is NOT the final look offense.

 

I agree.  There certainly needs to be overall balance when constructing a roster.

But the roster construction isn't done yet.

 

This was always a 3-4 year rebuilding project.  And it was always unlikely we were going to be competitive in 2018.

If the front office identified 12-13 spots that needed immediate upgrades, and we only had enough resources to address about half this year... does it really matter if our 2018 cap space and draft picks were split equally?

 

Let's say that instead of signing Star Lotulelei and Trent Murphy to big contracts, we replace Murphy with an free agent offensive lineman.  And then instead of drafting Tremaine Edmunds, we grab a rookie wide receiver.  Our offense is a little bit better.  Our defense is a little bit worse.  We still have major holes on the roster that need to be addressed in 2019.  Overall, I see no difference.

 

We went defense-heavy in 2018 and will go offense-heavy in 2019.  When we look back at the roster in 2-3 years, the ORDER we did things in will not be the difference in success or failure.

 

 

 

 

[John from Riverside]

9 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

And the same is true for this offseason, which is why they probably should have considered keeping their own "overpriced" receivers.

but they didnt....so now your just gonna have to see the product they come up with

[LSHMEAB]

5 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

I agree.  There certainly needs to be overall balance when constructing a roster.

But the roster construction isn't done yet.

 

This was always a 3-4 year rebuilding project.  And it was always unlikely we were going to be competitive in 2018.

If the front office identified 12-13 spots that needed immediate upgrades, and we only had enough resources to address about half this year... does it really matter if our 2018 cap space and draft picks were split equally?

 

Let's say that instead of signing Star Lotulelei and Trent Murphy to big contracts, we replace Murphy with an free agent offensive lineman.  And then instead of drafting Tremaine Edmunds, we grab a rookie wide receiver.  Our offense is a little bit better.  Our defense is a little bit worse.  We still have major holes on the roster that need to be addressed in 2019.  Overall, I see no difference.

 

We went defense-heavy in 2018 and will go offense-heavy in 2019.  When we look back at the roster in 2-3 years, the ORDER we did things in will not be the difference in success or failure.

 

 

 

 

By the time the offense is any good in this hypothetical rebuild, we'll have exactly zero edge pass rushers. You know, the most important position on defense.

 

Jerry Hughes is getting old and Trent Murphy will be in a hoverround. 

 

This whole damn rebuild consists of nothing but euphemisms for incompetence.

[QCity]

4 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

By the time the offense is any good in this hypothetical rebuild, we'll have exactly zero edge pass rushers. You know, the most important position on defense.

 

Jerry Hughes is getting old and Trent Murphy will be in a hoverround. 

 

 

 

 

Some would say we have zero edge pass rushers right now, and generate pressure through scheme. I guess a guy that's on target for 8 sacks is...pretty good?

[Mr. WEO]

17 minutes ago, Lurker said:

It is backward.   But that doesn't make it wrong.

 

I flipped to the New Orleans-Rams game after the Bills loss.    I got bored by the end of the first quarter with both teams moving up and down the field at will, like an NBA game with no defense.   

 

I'm not interested in that type of football and the NFL has a problem on it's hands if that's what the future looks like, IMO...

 

 

They know that you are in tiny minority with that view.  They are certain, by all evidence available, that this is the opposite of a problem.

 

 

That was a fantastic game by the way.  If you are bored with scoring, there is always "futbol"...

[Jrb1979]

19 minutes ago, Lurker said:

It is backward.   But that doesn't make it wrong.

 

I flipped to the New Orleans-Rams game after the Bills loss.    I got bored by the end of the first quarter with both teams moving up and down the field at will, like an NBA game with no defense.   

 

I'm not interested in that type of football and the NFL has a problem on it's hands if that's what the future looks like, IMO...

Thats the way the league is going. Why is it that Bills fans from the Rockpile days yearn for smash mouth pound the rock football. Sorry but you don't win many games that way now.