Base Defense

[Thriftygamer83]

I've never seen a team that sticks hard to a singular base not even in High School.  We were changing it up with 46, 53, 36, and 62 just never really saw this level of unimaginative play calling.  We see New England, Kansas City, and others continually changing while we have to much loyalty and haven't even really flipped over some players for picks when they are getting wrecked.  Are we stuck with guys who cannot get into step of managing a more complex rotation and defensive read?  

[hondo in seattle]

I find this very interesting.  We do run the 4-3 at times.  But 90% of the time, we're a 4-2/Nickel D.    

The thing is, assignments do change.  Sometimes one of the safeties moves up into the box, sometimes back.  Sometimes we're zone, sometimes man-to-man.  And so on.  It's not like we're lining up in exactly the same formation with exactly the same play-call every play.  McD and Frazier have been particularly good at confusing rookie/inexperienced QBs by giving them misleading reads.  

 

While it seems "unimaginative," we did lead the NFL in defense until this past weekend.   And, to me personally, the Colts game seemed more like a personnel problem than a scheme/play-calling problem.  Their OL was just too big and strong for our front four.  

[mikemac2001]

Our D is fine 

 

problem is sometimes we matchup poorly and like Sunday it was a bad matchup with key players missing and crap weather 

 

it’s a passing league 

[JohnNord]

11 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

I find this very interesting.  We do run the 4-3 at times.  But 90% of the time, we're a 4-2/Nickel D.    

The thing is, assignments do change.  Sometimes one of the safeties moves up into the box, sometimes back.  Sometimes we're zone, sometimes man-to-man.  And so on.  It's not like we're lining up in exactly the same formation with exactly the same play-call every play.  McD and Frazier have been particularly good at confusing rookie/inexperienced QBs by giving them misleading reads.  

 

While it seems "unimaginative," we did lead the NFL in defense until this past weekend.   And, to me personally, the Colts game seemed more like a personnel problem than a scheme/play-calling problem.  Their OL was just too big and strong for our front four.  

It was 100% that.  The defensive line was absolutely manhandled.  

[hondo in seattle]

5 minutes ago, mikemac2001 said:

Our D is fine 

 

problem is sometimes we matchup poorly and like Sunday it was a bad matchup with key players missing and crap weather 

 

it’s a passing league 

 

I get this.  From Day One, Beane and McD have been building a team around two simple ideas: pass the ball and stop the pass.  You can see this by the choice of defense (Nickel), the choice of linebackers (good coverage guys), our free agent signings (e.g. Beas), our trades (e.g. Diggs), our drafts (e.g. Josh), etc.

 

And it makes sense to prioritize the pass.  But eventually, we have to graduate from a pass/stop-the-pass only team to a multifaceted team.    If we don't, the Jonathon Tayors and Derrick Henrys of the world are going to keep eating us alive.  

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I get this.  From Day One, Beane and McD have been building a team around two simple ideas: pass the ball and stop the pass.  You can see this by the choice of defense (Nickel), the choice of linebackers (good coverage guys), our free agent signings (e.g. Beas), our trades (e.g. Diggs), our drafts (e.g. Josh), etc.

 

And it makes sense to prioritize the pass.  But eventually, we have to graduate from a pass/stop-the-pass only team to a multifaceted team.    If we don't, the Jonathon Tayors and Derrick Henrys of the world are going to keep eating us alive.  

with their combined zero rings. 
 

and at the end of this year, still zero rings.

 

we will have clunkers. We will lose some games. Know who we held under 4 yards per carry in the playoffs last year? 
 

we have a good team and good scheme. It’s rare a back will actually manage that, when compared to how often a qb can do real damage.

[FireChans]

4 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I get this.  From Day One, Beane and McD have been building a team around two simple ideas: pass the ball and stop the pass.  You can see this by the choice of defense (Nickel), the choice of linebackers (good coverage guys), our free agent signings (e.g. Beas), our trades (e.g. Diggs), our drafts (e.g. Josh), etc.

 

And it makes sense to prioritize the pass.  But eventually, we have to graduate from a pass/stop-the-pass only team to a multifaceted team.    If we don't, the Jonathon Tayors and Derrick Henrys of the world are going to keep eating us alive.  

Luckily there are only 2 of them. And one is out for the year.

[LeGOATski]

They do different things out of the same look. That's more confusing to the opponent than changing looks. In the NFL it more about disguising your intentions and simply out-executing, right?

[LABILLBACKER]

19 hours ago, mikemac2001 said:

Our D is fine 

 

problem is sometimes we matchup poorly and like Sunday it was a bad matchup with key players missing and crap weather 

 

it’s a passing league 

It wouldn't kill us to go with a 5 man DL when they're facing a marquee RB. Especially with Star out who automatically eats up 2 men. No one is doubling Butler or Phillips. 

[jkeerie]

19 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

I find this very interesting.  We do run the 4-3 at times.  But 90% of the time, we're a 4-2/Nickel D.    

The thing is, assignments do change.  Sometimes one of the safeties moves up into the box, sometimes back.  Sometimes we're zone, sometimes man-to-man.  And so on.  It's not like we're lining up in exactly the same formation with exactly the same play-call every play.  McD and Frazier have been particularly good at confusing rookie/inexperienced QBs by giving them misleading reads.  

 

While it seems "unimaginative," we did lead the NFL in defense until this past weekend.   And, to me personally, the Colts game seemed more like a personnel problem than a scheme/play-calling problem.  Their OL was just too big and strong for our front four.  

Couldn't agree more.  Even Tasker said that the Bills had 8 men in the box the majority of the snaps versus the Colts.  We were just overmatched.

[Jerome007]

36 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

It wouldn't kill us to go with a 5 man DL when they're facing a marquee RB. Especially with Star out who automatically eats up 2 men. No one is doubling Butler or Phillips. 

Yes!

 

Since they mostly play 2 LBs, instead of 5 DBs, sometimes put 5 DLs. They rotate so much anyway it sure can be done. Especially against good OL and running teams. 

 

If Edmunds is still out, 3 LBs is not really an option. But even when back, the occasional Milano-Edmunds-Klein sighting would be good too. Blitz Klein or Milano and voila, 5 on 5. Which should free LBs to make tackles on run plays, and increase the chance of sacks on pass plays. But it has to be drilled. The Bills secondary is awesome and almost never has broken coverages. No need to start now by confusing them...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:33 AM, LeGOATski said:

They do different things out of the same look. That's more confusing to the opponent than changing looks. In the NFL it more about disguising your intentions and simply out-executing, right?

 

During the Tennessee game, I questioned the decision to stay in nickel.  I thought the guys were wearing down and bringing in Coach Klein for Johnson might have been a breather and hey, give it a try.  But when I looked at the film and the box score, we only gave up one long run to Henry and contained him pretty well otherwise; the problem was giving up all the passes. 

 

In the Colts game though, as far as I can tell it was the DL that was the problem.  But Edmunds was out, so going to 4-3 would have meant seating Johnson for Dodson.  Might have been worth it just to try to get them to pick on Dodson in the passing game and give them a breather from defending the run.

 

 

[Jerome007]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

During the Tennessee game, I questioned the decision to stay in nickel.  I thought the guys were wearing down and bringing in Coach Klein for Johnson might have been a breather and hey, give it a try.  But when I looked at the film and the box score, we only gave up one long run to Henry and contained him pretty well otherwise; the problem was giving up all the passes. 

 

In the Colts game though, as far as I can tell it was the DL that was the problem.  But Edmunds was out, so going to 4-3 would have meant seating Johnson for Dodson.  Might have been worth it just to try to get them to pick on Dodson in the passing game and give them a breather from defending the run.

Henry was still a beast even with just one long run, and it made for tons of passes out of play action, but it was mostly HIM the factor. While with the Colts, yes Taylor is very very good, but it's the 5 guys on the OL that were the stars IMO. They could have made zero passes and won! Edmunds was out, put as mentioned in this thread and others, put the occasional 5 DL, so 5-2-4 instead of 4-3-4 (or 4-2-5). The Bills secondary is among the very best in the NFL, but why not, you know, help them by stopping the run on early downs so they make even more plays.

[LABILLBACKER]

3 hours ago, Jerome007 said:

Henry was still a beast even with just one long run, and it made for tons of passes out of play action, but it was mostly HIM the factor. While with the Colts, yes Taylor is very very good, but it's the 5 guys on the OL that were the stars IMO. They could have made zero passes and won! Edmunds was out, put as mentioned in this thread and others, put the occasional 5 DL, so 5-2-4 instead of 4-3-4 (or 4-2-5). The Bills secondary is among the very best in the NFL, but why not, you know, help them by stopping the run on early downs so they make even more plays.

Just like I mentioned earlier.  Run a 5-2-4 especially since Wentz is not a top tier qb. Stop Taylor first and take your chances with Wentz.  Thank god Kamara's not playing today. 

[Nextmanup]

On 11/23/2021 at 7:07 PM, Thriftygamer83 said:

I've never seen a team that sticks hard to a singular base not even in High School.  We were changing it up with 46, 53, 36, and 62 just never really saw this level of unimaginative play calling.  We see New England, Kansas City, and others continually changing while we have to much loyalty and haven't even really flipped over some players for picks when they are getting wrecked.  Are we stuck with guys who cannot get into step of managing a more complex rotation and defensive read?  

Who knows!  There is way to much inside stuff going on that we would need to know to accurately comment on that, but we don't know any of it.

 

Perhaps the coaching staff thinks there is a benefit that comes from consistency of scheme on D.  I.E., the players are so familiar with it they have a greater comfort level and can therefore focus better on the game and not their positioning, etc.

 

I don't know.

 

If you are saying: "Wouldn't it be nice to change it up on D now and again, especially when the base D doesn't work?"

 

My answer is "ABSOLUTELY!"

 

 

[Marvlevydraftdaygenius]

The Defense last night was what I wanted all season; different formations bear fronts, stunts you don't have to blitz like a mad man but confusing QB's is the key.

[Bob in STL]

On 11/23/2021 at 6:07 PM, Thriftygamer83 said:

I've never seen a team that sticks hard to a singular base not even in High School.  We were changing it up with 46, 53, 36, and 62 just never really saw this level of unimaginative play calling.  We see New England, Kansas City, and others continually changing while we have to much loyalty and haven't even really flipped over some players for picks when they are getting wrecked.  Are we stuck with guys who cannot get into step of managing a more complex rotation and defensive read?  

Yes, having a defense that ranks in the top 3 in every meaningful category is very bad.  
 

Oh brother, “flip players tor picks” , brilliant.