I hate to say i was right about the 4-3 and not the nikel

[Italian Bills]

Well... from yesterday i still feel very bad about the massacre we suffered at home... and i still think that using the 4-3 base defense and not the nikel, the outcome could have been very different. 

Ok... we had four turnovers, ok we played a poor offensive game and yes, as always, we played too soft... but i'm sure that using a 4-3 base defense Taylor would not have had 183 rushing yards and four rushing TDs. 

 

Many of you agreed with me when some days ago i was suggesting about using the 4-3 in this game because of Taylor... many of you didn't, saying that the nikel is our best  D and that we didn't have to change it... because it worked... i was thinking about the 4-3 because we always struggle against strong OLs with great RBs, like we did against the Titans. 

 

Sometimes better don't be stubborn and change your system to limit or nullify other Teams strenghts. Start with limit Taylor, then let see what happen with Wenz and our offense, but if you cut 183 yards to 70/80, i think the game is a totale different one. 

 

41-15 at home is brutal... maybe the worse possible scenario, but i still believe we can regain the lead in the Division if healty and maybe.............  smarter. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Italian Bills

[Wayne Cubed]

GunnerBill and I talked about it in Game Day thread. It's really about not having Edmunds. Not having 3 good/healthy LBs may is what forced it. The Bills coaches preferred to have Johnson on field to Tyrel Dodson. Think it says more about what they think about their LB depth. 

[Thurman#1]

Thinking that you've been shown to be right because they did something you don't like and then they lost doesn't make sense ... you've failed to indicate correlation.

 

Seems to me just as likely or probably more so to be about not having Lotulelei and Edmunds, and about the offense and the STs also having a crappy day and putting us way behind.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Thurman#1

[YoloinOhio]

Do you really hate to say it? 

[Italian Bills]

2 hours ago, Wayne Cubed said:

GunnerBill and I talked about it in Game Day thread. It's really about not having Edmunds. Not having 3 good/healthy LBs may is what forced it. The Bills coaches preferred to have Johnson on field to Tyrel Dodson. Think it says more about what they think about their LB depth. 

Well, not having Edmunds could have been something to be concerned, but with a RB like Taylor to face and knowing how much we suffer physical backs, it could have been enough to switch in a 4-3 base. But i understand your point. 

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

Do you really hate to say it? 

Yes i really do, because i’m italian and living here in italy but i follow this Franchise every single year since 1989  and came in the US more than one time just to go to watch them in Orchard Park, so yes i hate that i was right because we lost 41-15 !

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

They also did run effectively out of 3 wr sets, but why the bills d were in nickel even a 3 TE sets I can’t comprehend 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Italian Bills]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

Thinking that you've been shown to be right because they did something you don't like and then they lost doesn't make sense ... you've failed to indicate correlation.

 

Seems to me just as likely or probably more so to be about not having Lotulelei and Edmunds, and about the offense and the STs also having a crappy day and putting us way behind.

 

 

I honestly don’t see where i had to indicate the correlation: i simply said that maybe i was right to think about using a 4-3 base and not the nickel in this specifically game against the Colts.
I get you when you said we were without Lotulelei and Edmunds and that we had a very poor day, but leaving the Colts their main weapon, it could have helped. 

2 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

They also did run effectively out of 3 wr sets, but why the bills d were in nickel even a 3 TE sets I can’t comprehend 

Exactly, this is another interesting observation. 

[f150raptor]

Before the Tennessee game I thought we would go to a 4-3 and force Tannehill to beat us.  We didn't.

Before the game yesterday I was hoping they would rethink this approach and they didn't with worse results.  Do we not game plan or what.

Is it that coaches wont make obvious adjustments.

[Italian Bills]

1 minute ago, f150raptor said:

Before the Tennessee game I thought we would go to a 4-3 and force Tannehill to beat us.  We didn't.

Before the game yesterday I was hoping they would rethink this approach and they didn't with worse results.  Do we not game plan or what.

Is it that coaches wont make obvious adjustments.

They are terrified about make some changes and maybe lose… terrified to be attacked from everywhere about the changes made. 
Without “big balls” you don’t go anywhere in this game. 

[Jerome007]

A lot of us have been saying it. But Edmunds was injured. But yeah for heavy running teams such as the Colts, Pats, Ravens, having Klein-Milano-Edmunds would make sense. Star would have helped too. But still, 274 yards rushing? The Colts OL pushed the Bills DL like they were lightweights. DL and OL are the weak points of the Bills. For the DL it's stings more as so much money is invested in it, and so many roster spots taken.

[Italian Bills]

7 minutes ago, Jerome007 said:

A lot of us have been saying it. But Edmunds was injured. But yeah for heavy running teams such as the Colts, Pats, Ravens, having Klein-Milano-Edmunds would make sense. Star would have helped too. But still, 274 yards rushing? The Colts OL pushed the Bills DL like they were lightweights. DL and OL are the weak points of the Bills. For the DL it's stings more as so much money is invested in it, and so many roster spots taken.

Exactly. That ‘s you must fortify the DL in the 4-3 or even 8 in the box and the OL with a TD almost every play and maybe sometimes two backs together to give Josh more time to throw. More slant routes and jet sweep could help also. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, Italian Bills said:

Well... from yesterday i still feel very bad about the massacre we suffered at home... and i still think that using the 4-3 base defense and not the nikel, the outcome could have been very different. 

 

I'm sorry but you don't get to claim "right".  First of all, we don't get a "do over", so while we can speculate, we don't get to know we're rght

 

Second, look at it from a logical perspective.  We were already replacing our starting MLB with good LB who is not as good in coverage - the one who would come in for 4-3, Klein. 

 

So going to base defense would mean bringing in a 2nd backup player, probably Tyrel Dodson or Matakevich.  Are they better players, more capable than Taron Johnson?  Probably not; at the most, "not proven".

 

4 hours ago, Italian Bills said:

Ok... we had four turnovers, ok we played a poor offensive game and yes, as always, we played too soft... but i'm sure that using a 4-3 base defense Taylor would not have had 183 rushing yards and four rushing TDs. 

 

That's possible.  Wentz could have had a 300 yd passing game and 3 passing TDs instead.

 

Any time you turn the ball over twice down near your own goal line and spot the opponent 14 points, it's going to be a bad day.

 

 

4 hours ago, Italian Bills said:

Many of you agreed with me when some days ago i was suggesting about using the 4-3 in this game because of Taylor... many of you didn't, saying that the nikel is our best  D and that we didn't have to change it... because it worked... i was thinking about the 4-3 because we always struggle against strong OLs with great RBs, like we did against the Titans. 

 

I think the point people were making to you is like my first paragraph above - you're talking about basically putting a 2nd backup LB on the field to play 4-3.

 

[Jauronimo]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm sorry but you don't get to claim "right".  First of all, we don't get a "do over", so while we can speculate, we don't get to know we're rght

 

Second, look at it from a logical perspective.  We were already replacing our starting MLB with good LB who is not as good in coverage - the one who would come in for 4-3, Klein. 

 

So going to base defense would mean bringing in a 2nd backup player, probably Tyrel Dodson or Matakevich.  Are they better players, more capable than Taron Johnson?  Probably not; at the most, "not proven".

 

 

That's possible.  Wentz could have had a 300 yd passing game and 3 passing TDs instead.

 

Any time you turn the ball over twice down near your own goal line and spot the opponent 14 points, it's going to be a bad day.

 

 

 

I think the point people were making to you is like my first paragraph above - you're talking about basically putting a 2nd backup LB on the field to play 4-3.

 

Maybe.  We know Taylor had a 200 yard day.  Trying to stop the way the offense is killing you makes more sense than worrying about what might happen in the event you try to win the game.  

[hjnick]

I’m sorry but 4-3, star, and Edmunds would not have changed that game…

 

Did you see how that Oline physically DOMINATED our DLine?  All game they controlled the LOS and pushed us backward, then throw in the runs of Taylor pushing the pile… man that was a beating.

 

We have no answer for any team with a strong RB that has a great OLine in front of him.

 

We needed to draft a big fatty DT in the last draft to anchor that line for teams like this one.

[Motorin']

5 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Maybe.  We know Taylor had a 200 yard day.  Trying to stop the way the offense is killing you makes more sense than worrying about what might happen in the event you try to win the game.  

 

20 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm sorry but you don't get to claim "right".  First of all, we don't get a "do over", so while we can speculate, we don't get to know we're rght

 

Second, look at it from a logical perspective.  We were already replacing our starting MLB with good LB who is not as good in coverage - the one who would come in for 4-3, Klein. 

 

So going to base defense would mean bringing in a 2nd backup player, probably Tyrel Dodson or Matakevich.  Are they better players, more capable than Taron Johnson?  Probably not; at the most, "not proven".

 

 

That's possible.  Wentz could have had a 300 yd passing game and 3 passing TDs instead.

 

Any time you turn the ball over twice down near your own goal line and spot the opponent 14 points, it's going to be a bad day.

 

 

 

I think the point people were making to you is like my first paragraph above - you're talking about basically putting a 2nd backup LB on the field to play 4-3.

 

 

I think the Bills could have even gone with a 5-2 and dared Wentz to beat them.

 

Yes, Wentz might have had 300 yards, but he's more likely to make a mistake and throw a pick than Taylor fumbling. 

 

I do think the D would have played better with Star and Edmunds. But the refusal to adapt and try to stop them was infuriating. 

 

[Wayne Cubed]

7 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Maybe.  We know Taylor had a 200 yard day.  Trying to stop the way the offense is killing you makes more sense than worrying about what might happen in the event you try to win the game.  

 

I'm surprised they didn't even give it a shot. On the first couple drives seeing Taylor run over the DBs wasn't very good and the DBs just weren't in good positions to make tackles either.

 

Guess they REALLY don't like Dodson on the field.

[Jauronimo]

Just now, Wayne Cubed said:

 

I'm surprised they didn't even give it a shot. On the first couple drives seeing Taylor run over the DBs wasn't very good and the DBs just weren't in good positions to make tackles either.

 

Guess they REALLY don't like Dodson on the field.

Its the same ***** we watched against the Titans x2.  We have a singular game plan and when it becomes clear that our personnel can't execute the plan Frazier does nothing.  

[Wayne Cubed]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

Its the same ***** we watched against the Titans x2.  We have a singular game plan and when it becomes clear that our personnel can't execute the plan Frazier does nothing.  

 

It's odd because last season, they did run a more traditonal 4-3 against the Pats**. 

 

It's either arrogance or they don't trust their depth.

[Italian Bills]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm sorry but you don't get to claim "right".  First of all, we don't get a "do over", so while we can speculate, we don't get to know we're rght

 

Second, look at it from a logical perspective.  We were already replacing our starting MLB with good LB who is not as good in coverage - the one who would come in for 4-3, Klein. 

 

So going to base defense would mean bringing in a 2nd backup player, probably Tyrel Dodson or Matakevich.  Are they better players, more capable than Taron Johnson?  Probably not; at the most, "not proven".

 

 

That's possible.  Wentz could have had a 300 yd passing game and 3 passing TDs instead.

 

Any time you turn the ball over twice down near your own goal line and spot the opponent 14 points, it's going to be a bad day.

 

 

 

I think the point people were making to you is like my first paragraph above - you're talking about basically putting a 2nd backup LB on the field to play 4-3.

 

Yes… i think that using Tyrel Dodson or Matakevich, the second more than the first, would have been better that Taron in this particular game. And believe me, Wenz couldn’t have had 300+ passing yards and three TDs because our secondary is too good first and second because he’s not able to throw for 300+ yards. 
 

Agree on the turns. 
 At last, on the first instance, i didn’t mean that i’m the one the is right and the others not.. i just referred about the using the 4-3 and not the nickel when we face strong backs, the past showed this. 

[Draconator]

6 hours ago, Italian Bills said:

Well... from yesterday i still feel very bad about the massacre we suffered at home... and i still think that using the 4-3 base defense and not the nikel, the outcome could have been very different. 

Ok... we had four turnovers, ok we played a poor offensive game and yes, as always, we played too soft... but i'm sure that using a 4-3 base defense Taylor would not have had 183 rushing yards and four rushing TDs. 

 

Many of you agreed with me when some days ago i was suggesting about using the 4-3 in this game because of Taylor... many of you didn't, saying that the nikel is our best  D and that we didn't have to change it... because it worked... i was thinking about the 4-3 because we always struggle against strong OLs with great RBs, like we did against the Titans. 

 

Sometimes better don't be stubborn and change your system to limit or nullify other Teams strenghts. Start with limit Taylor, then let see what happen with Wenz and our offense, but if you cut 183 yards to 70/80, i think the game is a totale different one. 

 

41-15 at home is brutal... maybe the worse possible scenario, but i still believe we can regain the lead in the Division if healty and maybe.............  smarter. 

 

We do not have the personnel for a 4-3. Someone else suggest a 5-2 defense, and that would serve our personnel much better.