Any talk of 3-4 defense??

[R. Rich]

I think posters are too caught up in whether a player has the appropriate body size or theoretical demographics to man a particular position.  The key point for the Bills is can they play.

 

Demographically it would be crazy to use a stork like Denney in pass protection even in the short zone. This seemed particularly true since he had problems bending properly as a rookie and could be easily countered by opponents taking away his power because he did not athletically use his body properly to maintain leverage when he got locked up.

 

However, Denney proved teachable and the Bills retrained him to use his body properly. He is an athlete and a football player first and a DE second.  Though he is not the traditional pass rush specialist a DE can be, he is very effective even in the middle zone on pass coverage (he has exhibited characteristics more like the true stork Ted Hendricks as a player). Denney works well in pass coverage in the run blitz.

 

Even better, it means he is not being employed in a weaker area for him (pass rush) and he actually is being employed more in a stronger area for him (run D).

 

I think London Fletcher is a player (it did not surprise me at all he took a dominant role in ST last year once MM decided to use starters on ST unlike GW).  He is shorter than the traditional LB, but who cares if he leads the Bills in tackles.

 

Think back to how we employed the 3-4 successfully in the past.  A poster above makes the point we do not have a big body to play the NT role. Are you saying that Jeff Wright who played NT for the Bills for years in the 3-4 had a big body?

 

I think not. Folks need to get caught up a lot less in whether a player has a particualr body type and ask more whether they are players who can pull off non-traditional roles.

 

Denney has, Fletcher has and there is some potential that Schobel, Spikes or even Posey can.

 

I see no sign the Bills are going to switch to the 3-4 as a base D, but it strikes me as the case of being because our D has been in the top 5 statistically for a couple of years running a 4-3. Why change?

338956[/snapback]

 

 

Don't worry, FFS. The further we get from the draft, the less likely we are to hear about size and speed issues. Then, like you mentioned, it becomes more about if a player can actually play, as it should be.

[AKC]

The difficulty would be finding someone to put inside w/ Fletch. 

338886[/snapback]

 

My feeling is the Buck is the easiest spot to fill- look at Jay Foreman, a guy with hands of butter playing at the Mike in a 4-3 yet he became a sure tackler in the Texan's 3-4. We had John Holocek starting at the Buck effectively but when he was released on our move back to a 4-3 and I don't believe he even held a roster spot for a full season in San Diego. It's very forgiving as the second interior LB and there are lot's of 4-3 cast-offs who IMO can plug right in.

 

The bigger question in my mind is the readiness of Tim Anderson to spell Sam on first and second downs. The way we're seeing the 3-4 morph these days REdwards could get plenty of work at DE in a 3-4.

[Lori]

Lost in all this is the fact that we return 10 of 11 starters from last year's #2-ranked defense. Yeah, #2, even using a 4-3.

 

So do you switch to a 3-4 because you like the scheme, or do you stick with what has proven to be pretty darn good?

[R. Rich]

Lost in all this is the fact that we return 10 of 11 starters from last year's #2-ranked defense. Yeah, #2, even using a 4-3.

 

So do you switch to a 3-4 because you like the scheme, or do you stick with what has proven to be pretty darn good?

339133[/snapback]

 

 

Yes.

[ch19079]

if we did use it, it would only be for about 2 plays a game.

[ganesh]

I am not sure we have the Personnel to run a 3-4...Who is going to be our

4th LB. And we don't have monster DEs to handle the edge positions.

 

And I am sure how it will be cap friendly. Gettting a pass rushing LB

can be expensive too.

[BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land]

I am not sure we have the Personnel to run a 3-4...Who is going to be our

4th LB.  And we don't have monster DEs to handle the edge positions.

 

And I am sure how it will be cap friendly.  Gettting a pass rushing LB

can be expensive too.

339202[/snapback]

It was cap friendly for a while. The Pats made it work by a series of lunchpail guys. Now all of a sudden, 10 or 11 teams are going 3-4 and there is a run on players who can play in the scheme. Based on Bills personnel, and market value I think we are much better off in the 4-3 as a base D. You may see some 3-4 scheming, depending on the opponent.

[/dev/null]

as much as i prefer the 3-4, i don't think the bills can implement it with our current personel. our DEs are abit to small, tho Posey would make a decent 3-4 DE/LB tweener, but that would leave a gap at OLB. Sam Adams is more of a 4-3 DT, and London Fletcher is more of a MLB than an ILB

[stuckincincy]

as much as i prefer the 3-4, i don't think the bills can implement it with our current personel.  our DEs are abit to small, tho Posey would make a decent 3-4 DE/LB tweener, but that would leave a gap at OLB.  Sam Adams is more of a 4-3 DT, and London Fletcher is more of a MLB than an ILB

339207[/snapback]

 

I suppose they could implement Milloy as a 4th LB, but that leaves another gap and as has been mentioned, the DL is not structured for a 3 - 4.

[/dev/null]

I suppose they could implement Milloy as a 4th LB, but that leaves another gap and as has been mentioned, the DL is not structured  for a 3 - 4.

339215[/snapback]

 

or Coy Wire-youstillontheteam

[stuckincincy]

or Coy Wire-youstillontheteam

339221[/snapback]

 

That should be Coy Wire-youstillontheSpecialteams.

[obie_wan]

I think posters are too caught up in whether a player has the appropriate body size or theoretical demographics to man a particular position.  The key point for the Bills is can they play.

 

Demographically it would be crazy to use a stork like Denney in pass protection even in the short zone. This seemed particularly true since he had problems bending properly as a rookie and could be easily countered by opponents taking away his power because he did not athletically use his body properly to maintain leverage when he got locked up.

 

However, Denney proved teachable and the Bills retrained him to use his body properly. He is an athlete and a football player first and a DE second.  Though he is not the traditional pass rush specialist a DE can be, he is very effective even in the middle zone on pass coverage (he has exhibited characteristics more like the true stork Ted Hendricks as a player). Denney works well in pass coverage in the run blitz.

 

Even better, it means he is not being employed in a weaker area for him (pass rush) and he actually is being employed more in a stronger area for him (run D).

 

I think London Fletcher is a player (it did not surprise me at all he took a dominant role in ST last year once MM decided to use starters on ST unlike GW).  He is shorter than the traditional LB, but who cares if he leads the Bills in tackles.

 

Think back to how we employed the 3-4 successfully in the past.  A poster above makes the point we do not have a big body to play the NT role. Are you saying that Jeff Wright who played NT for the Bills for years in the 3-4 had a big body?

 

I think not. Folks need to get caught up a lot less in whether a player has a particualr body type and ask more whether they are players who can pull off non-traditional roles.

 

Denney has, Fletcher has and there is some potential that Schobel, Spikes or even Posey can.

 

I see no sign the Bills are going to switch to the 3-4 as a base D, but it strikes me as the case of being because our D has been in the top 5 statistically for a couple of years running a 4-3. Why change?

338956[/snapback]

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

I assume obi wan reprinted my entire post due to its final relevant question regarding why change drastically (improving must always be sought after, but fine-tuning and radical change are two entirely different things. The is always a good reason for improving but there seems to be little rationale reason for radical change of the D and asserting we should switch to a 3-4 because it is certainly true our D is not good enough to win it all does not follow).

 

However, this is the internet, so who insists that we be rational so the argument is an interesting football discussion to me even though it is quite pointless in terms of what the Bills should do.

 

The main thing that I think this thread shows is that it provides a stock example of how folks are too much slaves to body size and their supposed prototypes for a player's weight and size even though this is not the same as how he performs.

 

Folks keep saying we are unable to run a 3-4 capable of getting us to an SB (reaching the SB even if you lose it does mean you had a successful season- not total success certainly but success nonetheless- if you disagree then you are one of the few that considers the Bills SB lsosing teams of the early 90s as not being successful).

 

The early 90s Bills teams used a 3-4 D and one which irritatingly used a brnd but don't break approach and were successful to the tune of reaching 4 straight SBs. Folks who insist that is impossible to run a successful 3-4 because the Bills DEs are undersized and with the loss of Phat Pat we do not have the size needed to run a 3-4 ignore the fact that the Bills DL had:

 

RDE- Phil Hansen- not a small boy, but not a big boy either by any stretch of the imagination. I'd be shocked if he push the scales much above 290 and would not be surprised if his playing weight was close to 270. The NFL is bigger and faster today than even 10 years ago, but I do not think you need a behemoth to play RT in a 3-4. Schobel's big weakness has been strength at the point of attack and against the run. However, Denney is stronger against the run than against the pass to the tune that in the real world, the Bills have actually lined him up at DT on some plays. Though Denney was never the pass rusher we wanted, he overcame his problems which benched him as a rookie of not using his bodily properly so that most NFL vets could get leverage on him and nullify him after looking at the tape.

 

Though Denney never has developed the pass rush authority we want, he has learned how to use his body and not only shows enough strength at the point of attack to play DT, but has made great use of his huge wingspan and athleticism to make the run blitz a real threat because he can get back and do short and even medium zone pass coverage (this is how he got a pre-season INT last year). Even better Denney has developed the flexibility to play RDE and LDE (if you don't believe this because you believe all the TSW post still ragging on Denney becayuse of his rookie problems then take note of the fact the Bills had only 3 DEs on the roster last year with Denney backing up both Kelsay and Schobel. If he is so bad that the Bills should have cut him how do you explain this Bills decision and the statistical success the Bills D had using Denney alot in our DL rotation.

 

The fact is the Bills had success with the 3-4 even with an average size RDE and a behemoth is not required. A footbell player is required and Hansen was one and Denney (who even earned a shot at TE duty from the coaches is a football player).

 

NT- Jeff Wright- If ever there was a player at NT that is the opposite physically of behemoth DTs like Big Ted, Phat Pat, or Miami's Bowens it was Jeff Wright. Generally it was the strategy of the opponent to try to beat the Bills D by pushin him around (and this was successfully done on notable occaisions like the nTG SB win against our Bills) but in general the a big part of a successful Bils D in the early 90s was fleet-footed and undersized Jeff Wright manning the NT spot and holding his own.

 

A big reason for this was having BRRUUUCCCEEE lined up next to him and 2 and sometimes three blocker would flow toward Bruce leaving Wright to beat one on one blocking. Even still there was a ton of traffic in the middle and fleet-footed Wright picked his way through it or diagnosed theplay and occupied the correct blockers so LBs like Conlan and Talley could come in unchecked and clean up the trash.

 

You need some help at LDE which i think the Bills lack to make an undersized NT effective. However, using the run blitz and having a player like Adams who is not undersized by a longshot and still has one of the quickest first steps in the game, I could easily a see a 3-4 working with this crew.

 

LDE- Brucccceeee- The key to his game was when after his early seasons Bruce became a workout warrior and pushed his weight down to around 265 but maintained his strength and determination. Bruce is no example to build around because no one can imitate the quality of Bruce's play. yet, he does provide a real world example of how you can make things work with an undersized LDE.

 

Kelsay will never equal Bruce and should not even try to. However, the good things about his first two seasons is that he has shown some particiular strengths which might (I said MIGHT) end up with this year as a breakout year for him as a pass rusher and force opposing Os to shift two players his way to block him. If that is the case, and he actually fakes a rush but drops off into a short zone on the run blitz, you will have two blockers standing there dancing with the air while an OLB, a DB doing the safety blitz, or Adams with one on one coverage storm in to kill the QB.

 

Kelsay's good point to me have been:

 

1. Great athleticism- the pass block he made late last season was a good but typical use of athleticism. The fact he stayed on the batted ball and took it down for an INT was simply outstanding athleticism. If he can also harness this to use his body to keep him strong at the point of attack he will be a formibable tool. He will never reach Bruce levels (he was athletic enough that I saw him once get best on a play and still nail the runner flying by into the hole he had just left by hauling him down with ine hand) but he has shown some athletic ability which explains why he won the starting job last year.

2. He has developed a good second move- Great ends often have a devastating move which they love. However, it does not take a lot of film for an opposing OL player to catch on to and look for that move. Part of Schobel's problems as a youngster was that he had trouble developing a second move when plan A did not work and opponents could stand him up and neutralize him (he did have the motor to keep going, but then he was dependent on the DBs shutting down the opponent which often happened with AW/Clements but we could be had as the LBs led by Robinson were not up to the task of watching the middle of the field effectively. Now that Kelsay has the ability to use additional tricks when his first move is blocked he can still pressure the QB and get sacks.

3. He does have the constant motor- The best thing for the Bills sack totals is that with McGee coming into his own and teaming with Clements we are approaching having lockdown CBs. Add to that Vincent who is a CB by training and a vet to recognize plays next to Lawyer Milloy we have the DBs (even the nickel is strong with Thomas and Greer) to lock things down and allow a DE with motor to get some late sacks.

 

At any rate, while Bruce shows you can play the 3-4 with low weight DL players to join Hansen and Wright, Kelsay's skillset shows that he may be enough of a player that we could make the 3-4 work with the undersized personnel we have.

 

However, that football exploration being said, the 3-4 is a great theory which I think can work with out personnel, but why make this radical change when fine tuning of a D with 10 of 11 starters returning was quite productive last year.

[dave mcbride]

Denney would be our only DE who would be suited for it, and I'm not sure we have a good 4th LB; although I guess Haggan could move inside with Fletcher and Posey could go back to what made him so successful in Houston.

338871[/snapback]

re denney, that would explain why the steelers wanted him so much. he *would* be a good 3-4 end.

[obie_wan]

I assume obi wan reprinted my entire post due to its final relevant question regarding why change drastically (improving must always be sought after, but fine-tuning and radical change are two entirely different things. The is always a good reason for improving but there seems to be little rationale reason for radical change of the D and asserting we should switch to a 3-4 because it is certainly true our D is not good enough to win it all does not follow).

 

However, this is the internet, so who insists that we be rational so the argument is an interesting football discussion to me even though it is quite pointless in terms of what the Bills should do.

 

The main thing that I think this thread shows is that it provides a stock example of how folks are too much slaves to body size and their supposed prototypes for a player's weight and size even though this is not the same as how he performs.

 

Folks keep saying we are unable to run a 3-4 capable of getting us to an SB (reaching the SB even if you lose it does mean you had a successful season- not total success certainly but success nonetheless- if you disagree then you are one of the few that considers the Bills SB lsosing teams of the early 90s as not being successful).

 

The early 90s Bills teams used a 3-4 D and one which irritatingly used a brnd but don't break approach and were successful to the tune of reaching 4 straight SBs.  Folks who insist that is impossible to run a successful 3-4 because the Bills DEs are undersized and with the loss of Phat Pat we do not have the size needed to run a 3-4 ignore the fact that the Bills DL had:

 

RDE- Phil Hansen- not a small boy, but not a big boy either by any stretch of the imagination.  I'd be shocked if he push the scales much above 290 and would not be surprised if his playing weight was close to 270. The NFL is bigger and faster today than even 10 years ago, but I do not think you need a behemoth to play RT in a 3-4.  Schobel's big weakness has been strength at the point of attack and against the run.  However, Denney is stronger against the run than against the pass to the tune that in the real world, the Bills have actually lined him up at DT on some plays.  Though Denney was never the pass rusher we wanted, he overcame his problems which benched him as a rookie of not using his bodily properly so that most NFL vets could get leverage on him and nullify him after looking at the tape.

 

Though Denney never has developed the pass rush authority we want, he has learned how to use his body and not only shows enough strength at the point of attack to play DT, but has made great use of his huge wingspan and athleticism to make the run blitz a real threat because he can get back and do short and even medium zone pass coverage (this is how he got a pre-season INT last year).  Even better Denney has developed the flexibility to play RDE and LDE (if you don't believe this because you believe all the TSW post still ragging on Denney becayuse of his rookie problems then take note of the fact the Bills had only 3 DEs on the roster last year with Denney backing up both Kelsay and Schobel. If he is so bad that the Bills should have cut him how do you explain this Bills decision and the statistical success the Bills D had using Denney alot in our DL rotation.

 

The fact is the Bills had success with the 3-4 even with an average size RDE and a behemoth is not required.  A footbell player is required and Hansen was one and Denney (who even earned a shot at TE duty from the coaches is a football player).

 

NT- Jeff Wright- If ever there was a player at NT that is the opposite physically of behemoth DTs like Big Ted, Phat Pat, or Miami's Bowens it was Jeff Wright.  Generally it was the strategy of the opponent to try to beat the Bills D by pushin him around (and this was successfully done on notable occaisions like the nTG SB win against our Bills) but in general the a big part of a successful Bils D in the early 90s was fleet-footed and undersized Jeff Wright manning the NT spot and holding his own.

 

A big reason for this was having BRRUUUCCCEEE lined up next to him and 2 and sometimes three blocker would flow toward Bruce leaving Wright to beat one on one blocking. Even still there was a ton of traffic in the middle and fleet-footed Wright picked his way through it or diagnosed theplay and occupied the correct blockers so LBs like Conlan and Talley could come in unchecked and clean up the trash.

 

You need some help at LDE which i think the Bills lack to make an undersized NT effective. However, using the run blitz and having a player like Adams who is not undersized by a longshot and still has one of the quickest first steps in the game, I could easily a see a 3-4 working with this crew.

 

LDE- Brucccceeee- The key to his game was when after his early seasons Bruce became a workout warrior and pushed his weight down to around 265 but maintained his strength and determination.  Bruce is no example to build around because no one can imitate the quality of Bruce's play.  yet, he does provide a real world example of how you can make things work with an undersized LDE.

 

Kelsay will never equal Bruce and should not even try to. However, the good things about his first two seasons is that he has shown some particiular strengths which might (I said MIGHT) end up with this year as a breakout year for him as a pass rusher and force opposing Os to shift two players his way to block him. If that is the case, and he actually fakes a rush but drops off into a short zone on the run blitz, you will have two blockers standing there dancing with the air while an OLB, a DB doing the safety blitz,  or Adams with one on one coverage storm in to kill the QB.

 

Kelsay's good point to me have been:

 

1. Great athleticism- the pass block he made late last season was a good but typical use of athleticism. The fact he stayed on the batted ball and took it down for an INT was simply outstanding athleticism. If he can also harness this to use his body to keep him strong at the point of attack he will be a formibable tool. He will never reach Bruce levels (he was athletic enough that I saw him once get best on a play and still nail the runner flying by into the hole he had just left by hauling him down with ine hand) but he has shown some athletic ability which explains why he won the starting job last year.

2. He has developed a good second move- Great ends often have a devastating move which they love. However, it does not take a lot of film for an opposing OL player to catch on to and look for that move. Part of Schobel's problems as a youngster was that he had trouble developing a second move when plan A did not work and opponents could stand him up and neutralize him (he did have the motor to keep going, but then he was dependent on the DBs shutting down the opponent which often happened with AW/Clements but we could be had as the LBs led by Robinson were not up to the task of watching the middle of the field effectively.  Now that Kelsay has the ability to use additional tricks when his first move is blocked he can still pressure the QB and get sacks.

3. He does have the constant motor- The best thing for the Bills sack totals is that with McGee coming into his own and teaming with Clements we are approaching having lockdown CBs.  Add to that Vincent who is a CB by training and a vet to recognize plays next to Lawyer Milloy we have the DBs (even the nickel is strong with Thomas and Greer) to lock things down and allow a DE with motor to get some late sacks.

 

At any rate, while Bruce shows you can play the 3-4 with low weight DL players to join Hansen and Wright, Kelsay's skillset shows that he may be enough of a player that we could make the 3-4 work with the undersized personnel we have.

 

However, that football exploration being said, the 3-4 is a great theory which I think can work with out personnel, but why make this radical change when fine tuning of a D with 10 of 11 starters returning was quite productive last year.

339478[/snapback]

 

My prior posting was in error.

 

 

you reference the Bills Super Bowl era defense to support your arguments, however the inverse is true.

 

In spite of the all-star caliber talent on that defense, it consistently ranked in the bottom 25% of the league. Part of the reason is that defense was manhandled by strong running teams due to the undersized DL, especially the nose tackle.

 

To compound the problem, interior OL have increased in size by 25 -50 pounds from that era.

 

Your argument that size does not matter is just a bit shortsighted. To maintain that Fletcher will be as productive in a 3-4 where the scheme requires him to take on 340 OGs is just asinine. He has been productive for the Bills because he has been protected by Adams and Williams.

[mvbillsfan]

We do have the LB'S no question there.

 

We have DE IN Schobel and Kelsay

 

Edwards, Adams to clog the middle.

 

I thinks SAPE AND ANDERSON WILL SURPRISE.

 

The defense will allow us to provide pressure from anywhere. We will be able to attack more.

 

I agree we have had success with the 4-3. In losing Pat Williams our strength seems to be in the LB. Why not get another on the field. Between Crowell, Haggan, and Stamer we have a good group to choose from.

[plenzmd1]

We do have the LB'S no question there.

 

We have DE IN Schobel and Kelsay

 

Edwards, Adams to clog the middle.

 

I thinks SAPE AND ANDERSON WILL SURPRISE.

 

The defense will allow us to provide pressure from anywhere.  We will be able to attack more.

 

I agree we have had success with the 4-3.  In losing Pat Williams our strength seems to be in the LB.  Why not get another on the field. Between Crowell, Haggan, and Stamer we have a good group to choose from.

339565[/snapback]

 

Who be the DC if we go 3-4. Certainly not grey, who has never coached or played a 3-4

[Lori]

In losing Pat Williams our strength seems to be in the LB.  Why not get another on the field. Between Crowell, Haggan, and Stamer we have a good group to choose from.

339565[/snapback]

Have you really seen any of our backup LBs play enough to decide whether or not they'd be able to hold down a starting job in a 3-4? I haven't.