Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 The last two weeks where we played teams with QB's who have good feet has exposed this defense's achilles heel, it can't generate pressure with only 4 guys rushing and often don't get it with 5. We tried staying in coverage with 7 and rushing only 4 against Vick and Brooks but although the coverage was often good, the resulting delay did not result in a coverage sack. The QB was able to eventually find an open man or wait until all the DB's were downfield and then just run it with no one to get him but some d-lineman fully enganged with an offensive lineman. The result was that we didn't put him down until he got well into the secondary. We tried blitzing like crazy but these nimble QB's were able to buy just enough time with their feet to expose the lack of bodies in the secondary. Vick often didn't have to buy time as he was able to hit totally uncovered guys from the git go. Mobile QB's like that with mediocre arms can be beat but you have to have better play from your front 4. When you are keeping that many people in coverage, the extra time should result in some coverage sacks. We only get pressure when we bring a corner or safety, we rarely get it from just the front four or even from London or Spikes/Crowel. That is the problem, we have to dangerously overcommitt to get much pressure. It works against the David Carr's of the world but it doesn't work against guys like Vick.
BuckeyeBill Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Very good point. Schobel is not as good as some on this board think. NOBODY on this line needs constant double teams like Bruce Smith did. That has been our number 1 weakness since the exodus of Smith. It hurts me knowing that if we had passed on Mike Williams, we could have traded down and picked up Dwight Freeney.
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Schobel would be much more effective if our interior lineman took up three blockers on pass plays. They don't. Sam Adams seems to have lost what made him special (please tell me it wasn't really Pat Williams). I don't think it's fair to compare Schobel to the leading sacker in the history of the NFL. I'm not sticking up for him (lord knows I've bashed him regularly) but that's not right.
ganesh Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Very good point. Schobel is not as good as some on this board think. NOBODY on this line needs constant double teams like Bruce Smith did. That has been our number 1 weakness since the exodus of Smith. It hurts me knowing that if we had passed on Mike Williams, we could have traded down and picked up Dwight Freeney. 463569[/snapback] I don't understand this......YOu need another team to do a trade.....In a draft that was weak compared to other years, there was no one willing to trade up to get a player.....TD tried trading down, but you need a trading partner.... What we really missed out was in pulling the trigger to get ahead of the steelers to get Big Ben....But again with this woeful line, I don't think Big Ben would have done anything BIG here..... I think Duke Preston should start ahead of Teague, considering that Teague is in his last year and we should give precious reps to our future center.
Tcali Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 The last two weeks where we played teams with QB's who have good feet has exposed this defense's achilles heel, it can't generate pressure with only 4 guys rushing and often don't get it with 5. We tried staying in coverage with 7 and rushing only 4 against Vick and Brooks but although the coverage was often good, the resulting delay did not result in a coverage sack. The QB was able to eventually find an open man or wait until all the DB's were downfield and then just run it with no one to get him but some d-lineman fully enganged with an offensive lineman. The result was that we didn't put him down until he got well into the secondary. We tried blitzing like crazy but these nimble QB's were able to buy just enough time with their feet to expose the lack of bodies in the secondary. Vick often didn't have to buy time as he was able to hit totally uncovered guys from the git go. Mobile QB's like that with mediocre arms can be beat but you have to have better play from your front 4. When you are keeping that many people in coverage, the extra time should result in some coverage sacks. We only get pressure when we bring a corner or safety, we rarely get it from just the front four or even from London or Spikes/Crowel. That is the problem, we have to dangerously overcommitt to get much pressure. It works against the David Carr's of the world but it doesn't work against guys like Vick. 463504[/snapback] Ho wmuch we paying Schobel??
The Jokeman Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Very good point. Schobel is not as good as some on this board think. NOBODY on this line needs constant double teams like Bruce Smith did. That has been our number 1 weakness since the exodus of Smith. It hurts me knowing that if we had passed on Mike Williams, we could have traded down and picked up Dwight Freeney. 463569[/snapback] and what you fail to understand is that Bruce Smith and Dwight Freeney are rare breed. Aside from us 9 other teams passed on the chance to take Freeney which shows he wasn't as well thought of as Smith coming out. At the same time I do agree we need to improve our pass rush as was calling for us to draft a guy you maybe familair with named Will Smith last year instead of Lee Evans. I admit eating crow in how well Evans played last year but in the long run my feelings might not have been completely off base. As to me you always look to get the best players to fill your trenches and can get away with less skilled players at positions like WR (see the New England model).
BuffOrange Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 You are correct. Like I've said many times, Scobel is great when we have a 31-10 lead against a 4-win team in the 4th Qtr. Otherwise we have to blitz to pressure the QB, and if the QB we're playing happens to be mobile....it can get ugly as we've seen. Fortunately Guss Forrotte and Vinny Testeverde are on deck.
dave mcbride Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 The last two weeks where we played teams with QB's who have good feet has exposed this defense's achilles heel, it can't generate pressure with only 4 guys rushing and often don't get it with 5. We tried staying in coverage with 7 and rushing only 4 against Vick and Brooks but although the coverage was often good, the resulting delay did not result in a coverage sack. The QB was able to eventually find an open man or wait until all the DB's were downfield and then just run it with no one to get him but some d-lineman fully enganged with an offensive lineman. The result was that we didn't put him down until he got well into the secondary. We tried blitzing like crazy but these nimble QB's were able to buy just enough time with their feet to expose the lack of bodies in the secondary. Vick often didn't have to buy time as he was able to hit totally uncovered guys from the git go. Mobile QB's like that with mediocre arms can be beat but you have to have better play from your front 4. When you are keeping that many people in coverage, the extra time should result in some coverage sacks. We only get pressure when we bring a corner or safety, we rarely get it from just the front four or even from London or Spikes/Crowel. That is the problem, we have to dangerously overcommitt to get much pressure. It works against the David Carr's of the world but it doesn't work against guys like Vick. 463504[/snapback] i agree. the bills have a pretty ordinary front 4. not terrible, mind you, but not great. hopefully the DEs can step up their games.
dave mcbride Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Schobel would be much more effective if our interior lineman took up three blockers on pass plays. They don't. Sam Adams seems to have lost what made him special (please tell me it wasn't really Pat Williams). I don't think it's fair to compare Schobel to the leading sacker in the history of the NFL. I'm not sticking up for him (lord knows I've bashed him regularly) but that's not right. 463593[/snapback] you're right - it's unfair to compare schoebel with one of the two greatest talents in bills history (the other being orenthal). schoebel is what he is - a guy he gives pretty fine production for a mid-second round pick. he's a good player who has been consistent and healthy. he's not scary, though.
obie_wan Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 and what you fail to understand is that Bruce Smith and Dwight Freeney are rare breed. Aside from us 9 other teams passed on the chance to take Freeney which shows he wasn't as well thought of as Smith coming out. At the same time I do agree we need to improve our pass rush as was calling for us to draft a guy you maybe familair with named Will Smith last year instead of Lee Evans. I admit eating crow in how well Evans played last year but in the long run my feelings might not have been completely off base. As to me you always look to get the best players to fill your trenches and can get away with less skilled players at positions like WR (see the New England model). 463951[/snapback] should have drafted Vince Wilfork - he would have pushed the pocket and made both DEs better immediately.
Mickey Posted October 4, 2005 Author Posted October 4, 2005 and what you fail to understand is that Bruce Smith and Dwight Freeney are rare breed. Aside from us 9 other teams passed on the chance to take Freeney which shows he wasn't as well thought of as Smith coming out. At the same time I do agree we need to improve our pass rush as was calling for us to draft a guy you maybe familair with named Will Smith last year instead of Lee Evans. I admit eating crow in how well Evans played last year but in the long run my feelings might not have been completely off base. As to me you always look to get the best players to fill your trenches and can get away with less skilled players at positions like WR (see the New England model). 463951[/snapback] I remember that draft, Mike Golic was harping on how great Freeney would be for weeks after Freeney ran a 4.5 40 during Syracuse's pro day. I know lots of teams passed on Freeney but even without hindsight, you have to wonder why. The guy was a big time sack artist in college so he had huge production. He also tested strong and freakishly fast. Therefore he had the numbers and the production. No question he wan't highly valued but that is no excuse, he should have been and our scouts missed this opportunity.
Coach Tuesday Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 It is little secret that the Bills will likely take the best available DT with their (unfortunately high) first-round pick this April...
Mickey Posted October 4, 2005 Author Posted October 4, 2005 You are correct. Like I've said many times, Scobel is great when we have a 31-10 lead against a 4-win team in the 4th Qtr. Otherwise we have to blitz to pressure the QB, and if the QB we're playing happens to be mobile....it can get ugly as we've seen. Fortunately Guss Forrotte and Vinny Testeverde are on deck. 463967[/snapback] Its not just the blitzing in of itself that gets us in trouble, its that we have to blitz safeties and corners. If we were able to send on LB or maybe two and get the pressure we need, we would be much less vulnerable to big plays. Sending Milloy, Nate and Troy really gives the offense an opportunity if they read it right, especially with a nimble QB who can by a little time.
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 I remember that draft, Mike Golic was harping on how great Freeney would be for weeks after Freeney ran a 4.5 40 during Syracuse's pro day. I know lots of teams passed on Freeney but even without hindsight, you have to wonder why. The guy was a big time sack artist in college so he had huge production. He also tested strong and freakishly fast. Therefore he had the numbers and the production. No question he wan't highly valued but that is no excuse, he should have been and our scouts missed this opportunity. 464450[/snapback] Because he's light in the ass and can be controlled when running the football - that was the consensus. It happens all the time. Guys like Zack Thomas fall in the draft while Aundray Bruce gets picked #1.
Blue Chipper Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 we were on of the last teams to switch from the 3-4 to the 4-3 a few years back. Now we are one of the last teams who still play the 4-3. Now I understand that nobody plays a base 3-4 or 4-3 because lineman drop in coverage or safeties blitz and so on but when the rest of league changes we seem to stay the same.
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 we were on of the last teams to switch from the 3-4 to the 4-3 a few years back. Now we are one of the last teams who still play the 4-3. Now I understand that nobody plays a base 3-4 or 4-3 because lineman drop in coverage or safeties blitz and so on but when the rest of league changes we seem to stay the same. 464767[/snapback] Mostly because we don't have the players to play a 3-4. Other than that, we should switch.
stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 I like seeing threads started that point out what the locals and the nationwide media have detected for several years. I guess it's that self-esteem stuff.
syhuang Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 It is little secret that the Bills will likely take the best available DT with their (unfortunately high) first-round pick this April... 464455[/snapback] But some impatient BIlls fans will ask for Matt Leinart if Losman doesn't improve quick enough.
Coach Tuesday Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Mostly because we don't have the players to play a 3-4. Other than that, we should switch. 465098[/snapback] I'm not sure that's true. We have more depth at LB than at d-line, especially at tackle. Plus, as I've said before, the 3-4 is more cap-friendly and cost-effective, because linebackers are cheaper than the stud linemen required to have a solid 4-3. If you want a front seven that consistently creates pressure using a 4-3, you need to have at least one STUD lineman (usually DE), and perhaps more. By contrast, you can create pressure more easily with a 3-4 using situational players. I'm all for making the switch, obviously not mid-season, but next season for certain.
stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 I'm not sure that's true. We have more depth at LB than at d-line, especially at tackle. Plus, as I've said before, the 3-4 is more cap-friendly and cost-effective, because linebackers are cheaper than the stud linemen required to have a solid 4-3. If you want a front seven that consistently creates pressure using a 4-3, you need to have at least one STUD lineman (usually DE), and perhaps more. By contrast, you can create pressure more easily with a 3-4 using situational players. I'm all for making the switch, obviously not mid-season, but next season for certain. 465162[/snapback] Depth? The Bills have a very thin bench, same now as for the last few years. There is nothing at OL, DL, DB.
Recommended Posts