The root source of D problems is the D Line

[Simon]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I've said above. Id have played more coverage, pushed my DBs up 5 yards and tried to flood the short zones Stafford was exposing. Blitzing repeatedly when your blitzes are not working is one of the surest ways to get beat in the NFL.

 

Being unwilling to take chances and push the envelope with your defensive alignments when your offense has a QB that is liable to score every freaking time he has the ball is chicken-hearted. If you give up the occasional deep shot because you were too aggressive, oh well; you've just given the ball back to Josh Allen sooner than he would have had it.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

Being unwilling to take chances and push the envelope with your defensive alignments when your offense has a QB that is liable to score every freaking time he has the ball is chicken-hearted. If you give up the occasional deep shot because you were too aggressive, oh well; you've just given the ball back to Josh Allen sooner than he would have had it.

 

I just philosophically disagree with this. You have to play defense to best frustrate the opposing offense and on Sunday that wad not to keep sending blitzes. We coulda blitzed Stafford from Sunday evening to now and it still wouldn't have disrupted him. You have to do something to affect him. Throwing pressure that he can diagnose and neutralise is not it.

[Simon]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I just philosophically disagree with this. You have to play defense to best frustrate the opposing offense and on Sunday that wad not to keep sending blitzes. We coulda blitzed Stafford from Sunday evening to now and it still wouldn't have disrupted him. You have to do something to affect him. Throwing pressure that he can diagnose and neutralise is not it.

 

Actually I was referring more to your suggestion to push DB's closer to the LOS, attack the short areas and try to force the issue in the secondary even at the risk of getting beat over the top.

As for the blitzing issue, those "blitzes" the Bills were running Sunday were half-measures that had virtually no chance to get home. You want to make Stafford uncomfortable, sending a 5th rusher every once in a while because you're afraid of getting beat up top isn't going to cut it. Throw two up the A-gaps, crash him with the Nickel and a 'backer from both edges. The price for failure is lessened when your offense is being run by the best QB in the world.

 

Oh, and neutralize is spelled with a "z", Tommy 

 

[ProcessTruster]

On 12/9/2024 at 6:57 AM, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Not just vs the Rams but it’s the main reason we don’t advance in the playoffs. We don’t have dominant force on the DL.

I hear ya, but there are only a half dozen of those bona fide run/pass "game wreckers" in the whole darn league (Jones, Bosa, Bosa, Watt, Crosby, Hutchinson, Hendrickson) and we ain't gettin any of them; plus we aren't getting one in the draft where we draft. 

 

 We had one with Von, but he blew his knee out, so at least Beane TRIED to get one.  

 

Our D Line is built to capitalize on Josh scoring a lot and then pressuring what becomes a "pass-first" opponent and generating turnovers.   this is the way of the world in the NFL these days for 3 out of 4 teams.  Works most times.    Doesn't work as well against HOF QBs.   Need to score a sh-t ton of points when you play those teams (and not give up punt block TDs or other turnovers), which these Bills can absolutely do. 

 

Is what it is.  

 

 

Edited December 13 by ProcessTruster

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Simon said:

 

Actually I was referring more to your suggestion to push DB's closer to the LOS, attack the short areas and try to force the issue in the secondary even at the risk of getting beat over the top.

As for the blitzing issue, those "blitzes" the Bills were running Sunday were half-measures that had virtually no chance to get home. You want to make Stafford uncomfortable, sending a 5th rusher every once in a while because you're afraid of getting beat up top isn't going to cut it. Throw two up the A-gaps, crash him with the Nickel and a 'backer from both edges. The price for failure is lessened when your offense is being run by the best QB in the world.

 

So yea I agree on the secondary. I don't see the Rams as a team that terrify me over the top. Kupp and Nacua are not those type of players. So I'd have tried to flood short and intermdiate zones and clog it all up. Just put more guys into shorter spaces for Stafford to diagnose and disect. 

 

On the blitzes... they did try some 6 man pressures. The issue is just the Bills are not a blitzing team. Once you are relying on asking your players to do something that isn't their stock in trade to make a difference you are grabbing at desperation already IMO.

[ProcessTruster]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So yea I agree on the secondary. I don't see the Rams as a team that terrify me over the top. Kupp and Nacua are not those type of players. So I'd have tried to flood short and intermdiate zones and clog it all up. Just put more guys into shorter spaces for Stafford to diagnose and disect. 

 

On the blitzes... they did try some 6 man pressures. The issue is just the Bills are not a blitzing team. Once you are relying on asking your players to do something that isn't their stock in trade to make a difference you are grabbing at desperation already IMO.

and with all that we were one blocked punt TD from coming out on top

[Simon]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

The issue is just the Bills are not a blitzing team. Once you are relying on asking your players to do something that isn't their stock in trade to make a difference you are grabbing at desperation already IMO.

 

But we have seen them do it against certain teams before, particularly when playing with a lead. So it's not like it's new hat to them.

They have those packages available if they are willing to use them. I hope to see them more willing to do so as Milano gets his feet under him.

With Allen as your QB, they don't have to work at a high rate for them to be a net positive, imo.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Simon said:

 

But we have seen them do it against certain teams before, particularly when playing with a lead. So it's not like it's new hat to them.

They have those packages available if they are willing to use them. I hope to see them more willing to do so as Milano gets his feet under him.

 

Doing them when you are in the lead is not the same as basically it being your only call on D because you can't get a stop. They blitzed too much on Sunday. That was the mistake.

[BillsFan130]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Stafford tore up their man looks even worse. When they blitzed and playes man they were significantly worse than when playing zone defense.

Problem was they telegraphed their blitzes. It was just so obvious when they were going to blitz vs rush 4 and play zone. They need more simulated pressures to keep the offence guessing a bit.

 

Cause if i can figure it out what they are doing pre snap from my couch, I am pretty sure Mcvay/Stafford can

[Simon]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Doing them when you are in the lead is not the same as basically it being your only call on D because you can't get a stop. They blitzed too much on Sunday. That was the mistake.

 

I don't think the frequency of their blitzes was an issue; I think the unwillingness to blitz like they meant it is an ineffective half-measure that compromises the secondary with no real payoff. If you're going to roll the dice, then step up and roll the dice. If you're not willing to gamble for real, then don't ante up with pennies.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, BillsFan130 said:

Problem was they telegraphed their blitzes. It was just so obvious when they were going to blitz vs rush 4 and play zone. They need more simulated pressures to keep the offence guessing a bit.

 

Cause if i can figure it out what they are doing pre snap from my couch, I am pretty sure Mcvay/Stafford can

 

The way Stafford figured it out was with cadence. He kept getting the Bills to show their hand on the fake snap. And that is cos the Bills are not exceptional blitzers. It isn't their defense. They should have played their defense and not go dragged into playing the game McVay wanted them to play which is exactly what happened.

1 minute ago, Simon said:

 

I don't think the frequency of their blitzes was an issue; I think the unwillingness to blitz like they meant it is an ineffective half-measure that compromises the secondary with no real payoff. If you're going to roll the dice, then step up and roll the dice. If you're not willing to gamble for real, then don't ante up with pennies.

 

Nah they blitzed too often. They blitzed badly. And Stafford caught them with cadence so he knew when they were coming. They got dragged into the Rams game rather than sticking with what the Bills do.

[BillsFan130]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The way Stafford figured it out was with cadence. He kept getting the Bills to show their hand on the fake snap. And that is cos the Bills are not exceptional blitzers. It isn't their defense. They should have played their defense and not go dragged into playing the game McVay wanted them to play which is exactly what happened.

 

Nah they blitzed too often. They blitzed badly. And Stafford caught them with cadence so he knew when they were coming. They got dragged into the Rams game rather than sticking with what the Bills do.

I agree with the first part and that's true- But what I'm saying is they should have put 4 lineman and the linebackers at line. They were blitzing from so deep, combined with stafford knowing the cadence to your point. Just way too easy

 

I disagree about the 2nd part. Mcvay just toyed with them. He knew they were gonna come out playing coverage and they ran the ball/did short passes and ate it alive.

 

Then he knew they would try to send more pressure and he had blitz beaters.

 

I would have started the game a lot more aggressive as that would have put a wrench in the opening script and would have caught them Off guard

Edited December 13 by BillsFan130

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, BillsFan130 said:

I agree with the first part and that's true- But what I'm saying is they should have put 4 lineman and the linebackers at line. They were blitzing from so deep, combined with stafford knowing the cadence to your point. Just way too easy

 

I disagree about the 2nd part. Mcvay just toyed with them. He knew they were gonna come out playing coverage and they ran the ball/did short passes and ate it alive.

 

Then he knew they would try to send more pressure and he had blitz beaters.

 

I would have started the game a lot more aggressive as that would have put a wrench in the opening script and would have caught them Off guard

 

Fans always = aggression with disruption. I don't think that is true. Confusion is what = disruption. The Bills didn't confuse Stafford enough and part of that was making it way too easy with their blitzes. They shoulda played more coverage but tightened it up. That was their best chance of turning the tide IMO. 

[FireChans]

IMO, while all this conversation about strategy is all well and good, I think we need to have a conversation about Jimmy’s and Joe’s.

 

there were several key plays or big third downs where the call was right, the coverage was good (Taron Johnson was in good position) and Puka just made a play and TJ didn’t. 
 

I think the world of Taron, but he may have gotten cooked more than he’s ever been cooked in his career. 
 

The coaching adjustments or lack thereof may have changed the game. A few key plays made or not made by some defenders paid handsomely may have also changed the game. 

[BillsFan130]

19 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Fans always = aggression with disruption. I don't think that is true. Confusion is what = disruption. The Bills didn't confuse Stafford enough and part of that was making it way too easy with their blitzes. They shoulda played more coverage but tightened it up. That was their best chance of turning the tide IMO. 

But that's exactly what I'm saying though. I'm saying if they were more aggressive from the first few drives, that would have confused them and caught them off guard as Mcvay knew they were gonna come out playing coverage.

 

I'm not saying be aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive. Starting off aggressive would have confused the rams and then could have always went to more coverage after 

[Allen2Moulds]

It felt like our defense was playing a preseason game.

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

Id have played more coverage, pushed my DBs up 5 yards and tried to flood the short zones Stafford was exposing.

 

Watching the first two drives of 49ers/Rams and this is exactly what San Fran's defense did. That strategy got them two 3 and outs to start the game. Stafford can't find passing windows and already has two almost INTs.

 

I'm no expert on what the exact right strategy should have been but clearly we had the wrong strategy. I don't think the commonly used excuse of "the Rams offense when healthy is unstoppable" is correct. They certainly don't look it tonight.

 

EDIT: Now three 3 and outs to start the game...

 

2nd edit: FOUR 3 and outs to start the game. Stafford is holding the ball unable to find anyone open. My god our defensive coaching really blew that game.

 

Edited December 13 by HappyDays

[starrymessenger]

We should not equate aggressive play just with blitzing. Playing to confuse the opposition is "aggressive" because it carries with it an element of downside risk. For example without working a man scheme as such you can have your CBs line up in press or nearly so (as opposed to 10-12 yards off the line). As they are responsible for deep coverage they need to be able to backpeddle quickly, flip their hips and change direction in response to the route concepts, but lining up in this way can confuse the QB regarding the coverage. Or you can run stunts bearing in mind that the opposition can counter with a run having the potential for a big play or you can rotate your safeties post snap or set up trap coverages. All of these devices carry more risk than the base D. I know our blitz rate is low but I'm not sure to what extent McD statistically employs any of the other techniques. My impression is that it's more plain vanilla.

Watching Rams/ 49rs Stafford & Co have four consecutive 3 & outs to start.

Edited December 13 by starrymessenger

[Nihilarian]

55 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Watching the first two drives of 49ers/Rams and this is exactly what San Fran's defense did. That strategy got them two 3 and outs to start the game. Stafford can't find passing windows and already has two almost INTs.

 

I'm no expert on what the exact right strategy should have been but clearly we had the wrong strategy. I don't think the commonly used excuse of "the Rams offense when healthy is unstoppable" is correct. They certainly don't look it tonight.

 

EDIT: Now three 3 and outs to start the game...

 

2nd edit: FOUR 3 and outs to start the game. Stafford is holding the ball unable to find anyone open. My god our defensive coaching really blew that game.

 

Wonder if any of those guys are watching tonight's game and thinking 'boy, did we screw up"?

[Sierra Foothills]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

Watching the first two drives of 49ers/Rams and this is exactly what San Fran's defense did. That strategy got them two 3 and outs to start the game. Stafford can't find passing windows and already has two almost INTs.

 

I'm no expert on what the exact right strategy should have been but clearly we had the wrong strategy. I don't think the commonly used excuse of "the Rams offense when healthy is unstoppable" is correct. They certainly don't look it tonight.

 

EDIT: Now three 3 and outs to start the game...

 

2nd edit: FOUR 3 and outs to start the game. Stafford is holding the ball unable to find anyone open. My god our defensive coaching really blew that game.

 

 

They're playing in a driving rainstorm.