The Edmunds Report - Week 6, Bills v. Titians, 10/18/21

[Behindenemylines]

On 10/20/2021 at 1:39 PM, thenorthremembers said:

His responsibility wasn't to cover both Brown and Henry on the same play, his responsibility was determined by the offensive playcall.  It's football 101.   Even the Linebackers on my JV football team have gap responsibility for a running back on a run play, and need to drop into a zone if its a pass play, its not complicated.   Edmunds had the middle zone on those A.J. Brown routes and failed to drop into the zone because he got sucked forward by the play action thinking he had to fill the run gap.  

 

The Bills play zone coverage, so my guess (again I dont have All 22) is that Wallace was supposed to pass the coverage off over the middle of the field, which is why he was 1-2 yards off Brown when he caught the ball on those crossers.  Maybe the Bills were in man coverage, but I highly doubt they switched to man principles against AJ Brown and Julio Jones where their Cornerbacks would be grossly overmatched in both size and speed.

A question I have for which I wouldn’t know how to figure is what percentage of PA plays does Edmunds diagnose correctly?  And if you were to take that same formula and compare it to the elite of same position  and also the average how does he stack up?   
 

 

[WideNine]

2 minutes ago, Behindenemylines said:

A question I have for which I wouldn’t know how to figure is what percentage of PA plays does Edmunds diagnose correctly?  And if you were to take that same formula and compare it to the elite of same position  and also the average how does he stack up?   
 

 

 

I going to take a closer look at those plays in the second half.

 

Just like our players I think it helps us become better students of the game when fans take the time to break down plays even if we get it wrong. I have seen Gs shoot for Star's knees, Oliver getting bear-hugged... Milano brushed aside by blockers, there are a lot of things that go on each snap often away from the play that help temper my snap frustration and judgement with our players.

 

I did notice that earlier in the game TN would send their RB out into the flat to either side and then send their TE on a shallow crosser to the opposite side. Milano and Edmunds had coverage assignments to pick up those releasing receiving options on early passing downs - not sure if that changed later in the game, but could explain their absence covering the middle slot on some plays... but want to check it out when I have a bit of time.

 

 

 

 

[Freddie's Dead]

22 minutes ago, Behindenemylines said:

A question I have for which I wouldn’t know how to figure is what percentage of PA plays does Edmunds diagnose correctly?  And if you were to take that same formula and compare it to the elite of same position  and also the average how does he stack up?   
 

 

 

Good question.  Almost impossible to tell from the TV tape, you'd have to do All 22, and I don't have it.  Then you'd have to figure out where to get the stats for other LBs.  No clue there.

14 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

I going to take a closer look at those plays in the second half.

 

Just like our players I think it helps us become better students of the game when fans take the time to break down plays even if we get it wrong. I have seen Gs shoot for Star's knees, Oliver getting bear-hugged... Milano brushed aside by blockers, there are a lot of things that go on each snap often away from the play that help temper my snap frustration and judgement with our players.

 

I did notice that earlier in the game TN would send their RB out into the flat to either side and then send their TE on a shallow crosser to the opposite side. Milano and Edmunds had coverage assignments to pick up those releasing receiving options on early passing downs - not sure if that changed later in the game, but could explain their absence covering the middle slot on some plays... but want to check it out when I have a bit of time.

 

 

 

 

 

I tried to point this out in the report, but I neglected to add a conclusion that PA in the 2nd half killed us.  All the completions given up by 49 were in the 2nd half, and almost all were PA.  He didn't give up a lot of yardage, but he did give up a couple critical first downs.

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Are you saying that you think a QB sneak for than less than a yard is a low percentage play, offensively?

 

Re: Edmunds

 

 

  

 

I've made it very clear, again and again what I'm saying. Including in this thread.

 

But to repeat for the thousandth time ...

 

I'm saying - correctly - that every 1 yard sneak is different. That depending on how the defense is set up - and other aspects of the situation - that the chances of success are either low, medium or high.

 

And that since that defense was specifically set up to stop a quarterback sneak, with players who were excellent choices for stopping the sneak deployed in a manner well-calculated to stop the QB sneak that yes, absolutely ...

 

... in that situation, yes, the QB sneak for less than a yard was a low percentage play. 

 

There are indeed some situations where a QB sneak is a high percentage play. This was not one of those situations.

 

As for giving me a video labelled "Edmunds" with no other idea what you think it shows, I've already watched the game, and then gone through it on All-22 as well. So unless you have something you'd like to say, don't bother sending me gift videos, as I get plenty in spam and don't watch them either.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Thurman#1

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

  

 

Jesus Christ, I've made it very clear, again and again what I'm saying. Including in this thread.

 

But to repeat for the thousandth time ...

 

I'm saying - correctly - that every 1 yard sneak is different. That depending on how the defense is set up - and other aspects of the situation - that the chances of success are either low, medium or high.

 

And that since that defense was specifically set up to stop a quarterback sneak, with players who were excellent choices for stopping the sneak deployed in a manner well-calculated to stop the QB sneak that yes, absolutely ...

 

... in that situation, yes, the QB sneak for less than a yard was a low percentage play. 

 

There are indeed some situations where a QB sneak is a high percentage play. This was not one of those situations.

 

As for giving me a video labelled "Edmunds" with no other idea what you think it shows, I've already watched the game, and then gone through it on All-22 as well. So unless you have something you'd like to say, don't bother sending me gift videos, as I get plenty in spam and don't watch them either.

lol relax

 

The video was for the OP to keep it on topic, this being a thread on Edmunds

 

And since you appear to be operating under the assumption that somehow defenses aren't usually prepared for a QB sneak on 4th and inches, we have nothing further to discuss.

[Mike in Horseheads]

24 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

lol relax

 

The video was for the OP to keep it on topic, this being a thread on Edmunds

 

And since you appear to be operating under the assumption that somehow defenses aren't usually prepared for a QB sneak on 4th and inches, we have nothing further to discuss.

lMAO.... I thought when its 4th and a foot teams went into prevent defense.

30 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

  

 

Jesus Christ, I've made it very clear, again and again what I'm saying. Including in this thread.

 

But to repeat for the thousandth time ...

 

I'm saying - correctly - that every 1 yard sneak is different. That depending on how the defense is set up - and other aspects of the situation - that the chances of success are either low, medium or high.

 

And that since that defense was specifically set up to stop a quarterback sneak, with players who were excellent choices for stopping the sneak deployed in a manner well-calculated to stop the QB sneak that yes, absolutely ...

 

... in that situation, yes, the QB sneak for less than a yard was a low percentage play. 

 

There are indeed some situations where a QB sneak is a high percentage play. This was not one of those situations.

 

As for giving me a video labelled "Edmunds" with no other idea what you think it shows, I've already watched the game, and then gone through it on All-22 as well. So unless you have something you'd like to say, don't bother sending me gift videos, as I get plenty in spam and don't watch them either.

So on 4th and 1 the Bills don't setup a defense to defend it?

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

lMAO.... I thought when its 4th and a foot teams went into prevent defense.

No team is ever prepared for QB sneak on fourth and short, that’s why they get converted at such a high percentage

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

It's a HATERZ PLAY because the haterz will say that 49 lacked the "instinct" to prevent the first down.  I typically ignore plays where 49 is off-screen and not involved.  It's impossible for me to ignore a play where he made a solo tackle.  Other HATERZ PLAYs highlight the other haterz gripes:

 

- can't shed blocks

- blocked downfield by OL

- overruns the hole

- never gets to the hole 

 

None of us know what 49's assignment is on any given play, so any grade is subjective.  I do the best I can with what I see.  You don't wanna read 'em?  Fine.

 

 

Oh, please. 

 

This argument is complete nonsense. The old "we don't know what his assignment is on any play, so you can't grade him well" pile of phlegm.

 

That's nonsense. First of all, if nobody can grade a guy, then why are you doing it? In this thread, or anywhere? Your entire thread here is based on the methodology you decided on and implemented and are now trying to back up and criticize, which is watching film and drawing conclusions.

 

Of course you can grade a guy, and extremely effectively, watching tape. Yes, there will be a few plays where you're not sure. But yes most of it is very very obvious. Not before the fact, of course. That's why coaches get paid a lot of money, the other parts of their job are much much harder than watching tape and figuring out what it shows.

 

The problem isn't that you can't watch film and figure out what the player was supposed to do. You can. With high degree of accuracy. The problem is that you're trying to do that on a lot of plays where you can't see the guy for large amounts of the play. A problem I don't have. You're basing your conclusions on incomplete information. I'm not.

 

You say that if I don't like your posts, I shouldn't read 'em. Yeah, well, how about if you don't like people making legitimate criticisms of your posts maybe you shouldn't write them. Your methodology has a major flaw, one you acknowledge. 

 

When you post here, accept that some will criticize. Unfortunately, some might have excellent points. 

 

Because of the limitations you've chosen to work under, you're working with incomplete information. I only looked at one play, your first haterz play, and your take didn't make sense. I'm sure you get it right on some plays too. But going a clear 0 for 1 on the first one said enough for me.

 

 

[Mike in Horseheads]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

No team is ever prepared for QB sneak on fourth and short, that’s why they get converted at such a high percentage

I guess they need the right players on the field

[Thurman#1]

 

 

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

lol relax

 

The video was for the OP to keep it on topic, this being a thread on Edmunds

 

And since you appear to be operating under the assumption that somehow defenses aren't usually prepared for a QB sneak on 4th and inches, we have nothing further to discuss.

 

 

Yeah, um, if you want to help the OP keep something on topic, that's great. But if you want to leave a message for him, maybe next time don't put it in a reply to a post by me.

 

And I guess since you're apparently operating under the impression that a defense that has subbed out an LB for a 345 pound extra NT and greatly compressed their formation filling each of the central three gaps with a run stuffer, that that defense is not very well-prepared for a QB sneak, you're right, we probably have nothing further to discuss.

 

59 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

No team is ever prepared for QB sneak on fourth and short, that’s why they get converted at such a high percentage

 

And yet ... you've missed the point again. Nobody is trying to say that no team is ever prepared for a QB sneak on fourth and short. So you're using a strawman argument. 

 

The argument you're pretending I used is indeed nonsensical. Unfortunately, I never said that no teams were prepared.

 

Unfortunately for people making your argument, my argument makes a ton of sense. Yes, there are plenty of times, a majority in fact, when defenses facing 4th and shorts don't prepare for sneaks anywhere near as well as the Titans did on that play. In fact, on around 60 -70% of Allen's successful sneaks for the Bills, the defense left one of the 1-gaps on either side of the center unmanned. One of those gaps is unmanned in ordinary defensive alignments. On very few ordinary football plays do you see teams line up with two 1-techs. 

 

And yet that is exactly what the Titans did.

 

The main reason sneaks are successful at a high rate is that an awful lot of them are run with no defender directly in the one of the center-guard gaps. The Titans said, "We're not going to let you run a sneak, we're willing to weaken our defense elsewhere to make sure you don't run a sneak successfully."

 

And the Bills ran a sneak anyway. It was a low-percentage play, far lower than most sneaks run against more unprepared personnel groups and alignments.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

lMAO.... I thought when its 4th and a foot teams went into prevent defense.

So on 4th and 1 the Bills don't setup a defense to defend it?

 

 

I see this seems to be the thread designated for straw man arguments.

 

So rather than answer, let me just point out where you did that.

 

Could you just quickly point out in my post where I said that "on 4th and 1 the Bills don't setup a defense to defend it"? Once you point out where I made this argument, we can continue our discussion..

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Freddie's Dead]

25 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I see this seems to be the thread designated for straw man arguments.

 

So rather than answer, let me just point out where you did that.

 

Could you just quickly point out in my post where I said that "on 4th and 1 the Bills don't setup a defense to defend it"? Once you point out where I made this argument, we can continue this argument.

 

In the immortal words of John Cleese, "It's people like you what cause unrest".  You've now taken on me, @Mike in Horseheads and @GoBills808, not by debating our conclusions, but with condescending, ad hominem attacks.  This thread is for people that want to discuss football.  If you want to discuss football with respect, feel free to post.  If not, you're not welcome here.  Take your personal attacks and your condescending attitude to other threads, there are plenty of people out there who will be more than happy to engage you.  

 

 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

In the immortal words of John Cleese, "It's people like you what cause unrest".  You've now taken on me, @Mike in Horseheads and @GoBills808, not by debating our conclusions, but with condescending, ad hominem attacks.  This thread is for people that want to discuss football.  If you want to discuss football with respect, feel free to post.  If not, you're not welcome here.  Take your personal attacks and your condescending attitude to other threads, there are plenty of people out there who will be more than happy to engage you.  

 

 

 

 

You're cracking me up, seriously.

 

There's been a ton of football talk in what I said.

 

And if you were in your backyard telling me to stay out or what to do there, I'd really pay attention. But this is a public forum. Not your backyard. If you don't like that, I'd suggest you don't post.

 

If I went to a public park and some doofus said I wasn't welcome there according to him, I'd give his point zero attention. You're making the same argument.

 

You're trying to make conclusions based on incomplete information. And then telling me that when I look at the All-22 and therefore have all of what you only have part of, that my conclusions don't make sense. This is a ridiculous argument, completely specious.

 

And by the way, pointing out the shortcomings in your method is not an ad hominem argument. It might feel like one, but it is not a personal attack. In the posts above I've never attacked you. I've questioned your method and disagreed with some of your conclusions. That's not ad hominem. Whereas what you have here, including the quote from the great John Cleese, is in large part an ad hominem attack.

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Mr. WEO]

This all begs the question: If a player needs these kinds of threads (let alone threads like this every week) telling everyone "no, he's really good"...how good can he really be?

[Thurman#1]

35 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

This all begs the question: If a player needs these kinds of threads (let alone threads like this every week) telling everyone "no, he's really good"...how good can he really be?

 

 

The answer to that question would be, "Really good."

 

People put up poor arguments criticizing good people, good things and good play all the time. Scapegoating is a common human behavior. This is the internet. The fact that people have picked some guy to scapegoat says nothing about that player. Good and bad players have both been scapegoated a million times on the internet and just in life.

 

What says something about that football player are things like how well he plays, how many pro bowls he makes, whether his team picks up his 5th year option, what kind of contract he eventually gets, whether his teammates/coaches make him a captain, things like that.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Thurman#1

[ToGoGo]

On 10/20/2021 at 9:26 AM, gobills404 said:

 

Everytime I listen to Erik Turner I wonder why I listen to anybody on this forum. 

[purple haze]

On 10/20/2021 at 5:19 AM, First Round Bust said:

above is the best analysis on this portal and an example of how we got out-executed on the field, stings since we lost the game by inches, hindsight is 20-20...so on the key qb keeper by Josh the whole world knew what play was coming; we had timeouts, why not put a back in the formation, run an RPO, likely keeping it and running right for more options, including a shovel pass, tackle eligible, sweep run by Josh or pass...our red zone strategy needs some deep thinking for improvement.

No reason to run a different play.  If Dawkins gets dozed on your option play, like he did the  play they ran, it wouldn’t work either.  It wasn’t the play it was the execution.  Allen is 6’5, 240lbs.  He should get a yard.  Most times he does.

[Freddie's Dead]

4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

This all begs the question: If a player needs these kinds of threads (let alone threads like this every week) telling everyone "no, he's really good"...how good can he really be?

 

I did it because I wanted to see if all the Edmunds haterz were right.  I counted myself among them until I started analyzing his play.  He's better than he gets credit for, but I also see the seeds of the criticism.  It's going to be interesting to see what the Bills do with his contract.

[GunnerBill]

51 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

I did it because I wanted to see if all the Edmunds haterz were right.  I counted myself among them until I started analyzing his play.  He's better than he gets credit for, but I also see the seeds of the criticism.  It's going to be interesting to see what the Bills do with his contract.

 

This is exactly the point with Edmunds. The truth is in the middle. He is better than he gets credit for from a lot of fans, without doubt, but there are still mistakes in his game and the tendency to creep on play action is a problem that has raised its head previously in his career.  He was actually really good vs the run on Monday Night. His coverage play was up and down but he did struggle more in the second half when the Titans went heavy play action - and it isn't just him its Milano too. They are both naturally inclined to attack the line of scrimmage in those situations and Tennessee have been more successful than most in using that against us.

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

The answer to that question would be, "Really good."

 

People put up poor arguments criticizing good people, good things and good play all the time. Scapegoating is a common human behavior. This is the internet. The fact that people have picked some guy to scapegoat says nothing about that player. Good and bad players have both been scapegoated a million times on the internet and just in life.

 

What says something about that football player are things like how well he plays, how many pro bowls he makes, whether his team picks up his 5th year option, what kind of contract he eventually gets, whether his teammates/coaches make him a captain, things like that.

 

 

how many other players have so many “see?? He’s actually good” threads?