Coordinators not adapting schemes

[Jerome007]

Defenses often want opposing teams to dink and dunk, especially when that have gunslingers as QBs. The Packers decided to run run run with Rodgers as the QB. Yes, letting them run is awesome. Especially when 17 points behind. The ran put the clock for the Bills and you want to blame Frazier on this one?

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

1 minute ago, Big Turk said:

Or maybe they realized this:

 

 

 

 Oh don't show @Billz4ever this, he'll argue for 12 hour straight how this is wrong.😂😂

 

 

[Bruffalo]

2 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

 

You clearly missed the point, but OK.

But you aren't making a point at all. You're making up a scenario where maybe you're right, but that's not really grounded in anything. 

[Billz4ever]

Just now, Bruffalo said:

But you aren't making a point at all. You're making up a scenario where maybe you're right, but that's not really grounded in anything. 

my point where you expose the other team's weakness and force them to beat you?

 

Yeah, it's only been a standing philosophy in football for how many decades?

 

But yeah, the much better option is to play scared and play nickel and let your D get gashed rather than force those receivers to beat you.

[Bruffalo]

4 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

my point where you expose the other team's weakness and force them to beat you?

 

Yeah, it's only been a standing philosophy in football for how many decades?

 

But yeah, the much better option is to play scared and play nickel and let your D get gashed rather than force those receivers to beat you.

What are you talking about?  The Bills didn't sell out on the run at all, because relying on the run down 17 is a bad strategy that would ultimately lose them the game, 100/100 times. 

 

They basically sat back and said, "You want to beat us by running? Good luck." and let Aaron Jones have a nice day that was meaningless. They dared the RBs to beat them, and they failed HARD. They exposed a weakness.  They made the Packers, with a HOF MVP QB irrelevant in the passing game.  That's a success of strategy. 

Edited October 31, 2022 by Bruffalo
grammar.

[Billz4ever]

1 minute ago, Bruffalo said:

What are you talking about?  The Bills didn't sell out on the run at all, because relying on the run down 17 is a bad strategy that would ultimately lose them the game, 100/100 times. 

 

They basically sat back and said, "You want to beat us by running? Good luck." and let Aaron Jones have a nice day that was meaningless. They dared the RBs to beat them, and they failed HARD. They exposed a weakness.  They made the Packers, with a HOF MVP QB irrelevant in the passing game.  That's a success of strategy. 

No,actually the Packers weak receiving corps is what has made their HOF MVP QB irrelevant in the passing game.  They are 3-5 for a reason and Rodgers displeasure with the offense has been quite public. You have to be living under a rock to not know this.

 

But yes, keep thinking it was because of the Bills D that they couldn't throw the ball. The Packers knew they couldn't throw the ball before the game even started and instead of forcing them to, the Bills decide letting them gash the D on the ground was the better option.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Billz4ever said:

No,actually the Packers weak receiving corps is what has made their HOF MVP QB irrelevant in the passing game.  They are 3-5 for a reason and Rodgers displeasure with the offense has been quite public. You have to be living under a rock to not know this.

 

But yes, keep thinking it was because of the Bills D that they couldn't throw the ball. The Packers knew they couldn't throw the ball before the game even started and instead of forcing them to, the Bills decide letting them gash the D on the ground was the better option.

 

How did they score their 2 TDs?

[NoSaint]

13 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

my point where you expose the other team's weakness and force them to beat you?

 

Yeah, it's only been a standing philosophy in football for how many decades?

 

But yeah, the much better option is to play scared and play nickel and let your D get gashed rather than force those receivers to beat you.

rodgers has two weapons, a sheet of paper and an old musket. Neither likely to kill us but I’ll take the paper cuts to avoid the possibility of the musket getting a few shots off accurately 

 

one had no chance of winning, the other was simply a long shot. We let them go with the no chance.

[Bruffalo]

1 minute ago, Billz4ever said:

No,actually the Packers weak receiving corps is what has made their HOF MVP QB irrelevant in the passing game.  They are 3-5 for a reason and Rodgers displeasure with the offense has been quite public. You have to be living under a rock to not know this.

 

But yes, keep thinking it was because of the Bills D that they couldn't throw the ball. The Packers knew they couldn't throw the ball before the game even started and instead of forcing them to, the Bills decide letting them gash the D on the ground was the better option.

So, according to you, the Bills should have taken pressure off of their weak WR core by taking a DB off the field and selling out on the run, even though the Bills had a huge lead that could only be realistically countered by scoring fast and throwing the football? 

 

 

 

 

[BillsShredder83]

4 hours ago, nosejob said:

Well he/they allowed 6.7 per carry for 208 and 50% (6/12) 3rd down conversions. I ain't impressed.

As a matter of fact those numbers aren't that far off from Indy and the Pats last year. But,but,but we're/were statistically......bla,bla,bla.

 

I'm starting to think maybe it's McD making the half time adjustments when we have to and leaving things to Frazier when we don't.

"When your enemy is making a mistake, don't interrupt them"

- Jackie Chan

[billsfan1959]

23 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

Play like that against KC and let me know how it works out.

 

 

You mean all the mistakes they made in the first half against KC? Or all the mistakes they made in the 1st quarter + against Baltimore?

 

Yeah, it worked out fine…

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:

So, according to you, the Bills should have taken pressure off of their weak WR core by taking a DB off the field and selling out on the run, even though the Bills had a huge lead that could only be realistically countered by scoring fast and throwing the football? 

 

 

 

 

yes, he’s arguing we should’ve aggressively pursued a scheme that catered to the only route that could’ve realistically given the packers a chance to win because of…. Principles? Pride? 

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

yes, he’s arguing we should’ve aggressively pursued a scheme that catered to the only route that could’ve realistically given the packers a chance to win because of…. Principles? Pride? 

 

Or just a blatant ignorance of how football works?

[Wayne Cubed]

Just now, NoSaint said:

yes, he’s arguing we should’ve aggressively pursued a scheme that catered to the only route that could’ve realistically given the packers a chance to win because of…. Principles? Pride? 

 

And we should also completely ignore the fact that, when presented with the opportunity to hurt us with a big play, Rogers was STILL able to do it. That was with the Bills defense playing Nickel. 

But we should have abandoned Nickel defense to stop the run, which was working... even though it wasn't cause they lost, to let Aaron attempt to beat us throwing, which he showed he could still in fact do.

[Billz4ever]

7 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

And we should also completely ignore the fact that, when presented with the opportunity to hurt us with a big play, Rogers was STILL able to do it. That was with the Bills defense playing Nickel. 

But we should have abandoned Nickel defense to stop the run, which was working... even though it wasn't cause they lost, to let Aaron attempt to beat us throwing, which he showed he could still in fact do.

So if Rodgers could still beat the Nickel anyway (like you said) AND they are gashing the D on the run, why are you running Nickel again?

 

And if GB actually thought they were beating the Nickel with the pass, why did they stop?  You just said they could beat it anyway.

 

And what does it say about our nickel D if they were still getting beat by the pass (your words) anyway when GB's weakness is their receivers?

Edited October 31, 2022 by Billz4ever

[Bruffalo]

Just now, Billz4ever said:

So if Rodgers could still beat the Nickel anyway (like you said) AND they are gashing the D on the run, why are you running Nickel again?

You've picked such a weird hill to die on.   

 

Rodgers scored on big plays to WRs. Scoring fast is literally the only way they could get back in the game.  

 

How do you score fast? You make big plays to WRs, like the TD passes to Doubs. 

How do you make it less likely for the WR to make a big play?  You play with 5 DBs on the field. 

What happens when you take away the ability to make a downfield big play?  You check into the run because there's a light box. It looks like "gashing" but really it's just wasting away precious clock, because you're down 17 points.

 

Conceptually this isn't hard to understand.  I have no idea how you're still railing against very obvious football logic. 

[Billz4ever]

Just now, Bruffalo said:

You've picked such a weird hill to die on.   

 

Rodgers scored on big plays to WRs. Scoring fast is literally the only way they could get back in the game.  

 

How do you score fast? You make big plays to WRs, like the TD passes to Doubs. 

How do you make it less likely for the WR to make a big play?  You play with 5 DBs on the field. 

What happens when you take away the ability to make a downfield big play?  You check into the run because there's a light box. It looks like "gashing" but really it's just wasting away precious clock, because you're down 17 points.

 

Conceptually this isn't hard to understand.  I have no idea how you're still railing against very obvious football logic. 

So you're saying the Nickel didn't stop them and also allowed them to run the ball.  Gotcha.  Sounds like they should've switched it up.

[Wayne Cubed]

9 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

So if Rodgers could still beat the Nickel anyway (like you said) AND they are gashing the D on the run, why are you running Nickel again?

 

And if GB actually thought they were beating the Nickel with the pass, why did they stop?  You just said they could beat it anyway.

 

And what does it say about our nickel D if they were still getting beat by the pass (your words) anyway when GB's weakness is their receivers?

Mate, can you read?

 

I said when presented. No where in my post did I say Rodgers was consistently beating the Nickel. He beat it twice, because GASP the Bills are really good in the Nickel.

 

But obviously the Bills should have given up that Nickel, to protect aginst the run... which was working, your words, when it wasn't because they ran out of time and lost the game.

 

And this amazing hypothetical change of defense, we will never know would have actually worked... but we don't need to know because the Bills in fact won the game.

 

4 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:

You've picked such a weird hill to die on.   

 

Rodgers scored on big plays to WRs. Scoring fast is literally the only way they could get back in the game.  

 

How do you score fast? You make big plays to WRs, like the TD passes to Doubs. 

How do you make it less likely for the WR to make a big play?  You play with 5 DBs on the field. 

What happens when you take away the ability to make a downfield big play?  You check into the run because there's a light box. It looks like "gashing" but really it's just wasting away precious clock, because you're down 17 points.

 

Conceptually this isn't hard to understand.  I have no idea how you're still railing against very obvious football logic. 

 

Thank you.

3 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

So you're saying the Nickel didn't stop them and also allowed them to run the ball.  Gotcha.  Sounds like they should've switched it up.

 

No ones saying that. You are saying that.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Wayne Cubed

[Bruffalo]

1 minute ago, Billz4ever said:

So you're saying the Nickel didn't stop them and also allowed them to run the ball.  Gotcha.  Sounds like they should've switched it up.

Are you just being willfully ignorant now? 

 

I'm saying that playing with 5 DBs absolutely stopped them to get back into the game.  It severely limited the big plays of the Packers.  It didn't completely stop it, because they still have a HOF MVP caliber QB, but it limited it to the point where the Bills won by 10 points and had a lead the entire game.

 

Show me where the run game was more dangerous than Rodgers.  

[Billz4ever]

Just now, Wayne Cubed said:

Mate, can you read?

 

I said when presented. No where in my post did I say Rodgers was consistently beating the Nickel. He beat it twice, because GASP the Bills are really good in the Nickel.

 

But obviously the Bills should have given up that Nickel, to protect aginst the run... which was working, your words, when it wasn't because they ran out of time and lost the game.

 

And this amazing hypothetical change of defense, we will never know would have actually worked... but we don't need to know because the Bills in fact won the game.

 

 

Thank you.

 

N

Considering they weren't even really trying to pass, saying the Bills were really good in Nickel is a stretch.  And the times they did, they burned the nickel. So, it's probably not as great as you're saying it is.