I have changed my mind about third down backs

[Kelly the Dog]

I used to complain and think it was stupid to take Willis out on third downs, as he's clearly our best player, and he has some hands, and allegedly could block, although he has disappointed me a lot on that topic. However, now watching Shaud for a few games in that role, he's pretty darn good at it. His kind of running is actually better for draws and screens and dump passes than Willis's style, because he accelerates faster. It's a nice little change of pace against the defense. He has genuine football talent and is pretty good at knowing where the marker is and getting enough yardage for the first down. And he has the ability and speed to break a long one. He's had a darn good year and continues to impress me.

 

Now if we could only fix the 34 problems with this team. 3rd down back and this particular coaching decision is not longer one of them for me.

[Fezmid]

I don't have a problem with Williams as the third down back. My main beef is when it's 3rd and 2, and we lineup in shotgun formation (with or without a RB). I hate that, as we rarely run the ball in shotgun. 3rd and 6, fine, but 3rd and short shouldn't be shotgun formation in my mind.

 

CW

[34-78-83]

I agree and was saying the same things you were until Shaud has basically forced me to shut my own mouth on this issue. He's a jitterbug out there, and shows some occasional surprising tackle breaking ability at key times as well. Great game from him last night.

[34-78-83]

I don't have a problem with Williams as the third down back.  My main beef is when it's 3rd and 2, and we lineup in shotgun formation (with or without a RB).  I hate that, as we rarely run the ball in shotgun.  3rd and 6, fine, but 3rd and short shouldn't be shotgun formation in my mind.

 

CW

492265[/snapback]

 

That's also a valid point. It seems to be the trend amongst many teams these days too on that down and distance.

[smokinandjokin]

I was the same way as you Kelly. There were a few 3rd and 3s where I would have left McGahee in, but I can't complain about Shaud's performance yesterday. He did have a few nice 1st down pickups on screens and draws. He and Willis complement each other well, and they seem to like each other, which helps.

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't have a problem with Williams as the third down back.  My main beef is when it's 3rd and 2, and we lineup in shotgun formation (with or without a RB).  I hate that, as we rarely run the ball in shotgun.  3rd and 6, fine, but 3rd and short shouldn't be shotgun formation in my mind.

 

CW

492265[/snapback]

Totally agree with that. And after they run well, when they throw, it is usually not play action, when it clearly needs to be. 3rd and 2, Willis shoul be in there and behind the QB whether they are going to run or throw.

[UB2SF]

Are you talking about Shad Williams?

 

<Another fine Theisman-ism>

[ch19079]

I don't have a problem with Williams as the third down back.  My main beef is when it's 3rd and 2, and we lineup in shotgun formation (with or without a RB).  I hate that, as we rarely run the ball in shotgun.  3rd and 6, fine, but 3rd and short shouldn't be shotgun formation in my mind.

 

CW

492265[/snapback]

2nd and short is a passing down.

 

if you dont complete the pass, its still 3rd and short.

 

it gives you a chance to take a shot deep with out leaving you with a long 3rd down if you dont complete it.

[The Dean]

I don't have a problem with Williams as the third down back.  My main beef is when it's 3rd and 2, and we lineup in shotgun formation (with or without a RB).  I hate that, as we rarely run the ball in shotgun.  3rd and 6, fine, but 3rd and short shouldn't be shotgun formation in my mind.

 

CW

492265[/snapback]

 

 

You got it. We clear the backfield FAR too many times. When there's nobody in the backfield except the QB, the D is immediatly relieved from the responsibility of even THINKING about the run. When we have an RB he's already in motion...wide before the snap.

 

I don't get that.

[DeeRay]

I don't have a problem with Williams as the third down back. My main beef is when it's 3rd and 2, and we lineup in shotgun formation (with or without a RB). I hate that, as we rarely run the ball in shotgun. 3rd and 6, fine, but 3rd and short shouldn't be shotgun formation in my mind.

 

Trust me, it's not the formation/situation... it's the players. I'm so confident in that statement that I can honestly say you'd feel differently if the names were changed to protect the guilty. Decoding this garble...

 

You mean you really like this formation if the names in that formation/situation are kelly, thermal, reed, wolford, ritcher, hull, ballard, Davis, Metzallars, Beebe and Lofton.

[Kelly the Dog]

2nd and short is a passing down.

 

if you dont complete the pass, its still 3rd and short.

 

it gives you a chance to take a shot deep with out leaving you with a long 3rd down if you dont complete it.

492286[/snapback]

No, second and short is a do anything down. You don't always pass, you don't always run. You mix it up, depending on who you're playing, what you have had success with before, who is performing well that day, what kind of plays have gone well that day, and what kind of plays you have recently run in similar situations that you know the other team has scouted and practiced and anticipated. That does not seem to be what these Bills do, however. If something has worked, they often give up on it.

[The Dean]

Trust me, it's not the formation/situation... it's the players.  I'm so confident in that statement that I can honestly say you'd feel differently if the names were changed to protect the guilty.  Decoding this garble...

 

You mean you really like this formation if the names in that formation/situation are kelly, thermal, reed, wolford, ritcher, hull, ballard, Davis, Metzallars, Beebe and Lofton.

492290[/snapback]

 

 

But those AREN'T the players...and teams have succeded with the level of talent we have (at least have gone into the playoffs). The coaches are supposed to put their players in situations where they are likely to succed. Given the strengths and weaknesses of the hand they have been dealt, the formations, playcalling, etc, is perfectly legitimate conversation here, methinks.

 

(methinks?)

[Campy]

That does not seem to be what these Bills do, however. If something has worked, they often give up on it.

492293[/snapback]

Or they do the same thing and get stuffed and the TSW experts tell us the offense is too predictable...

[Buftex]

Speaking of Shaud, I have watched the replay a few times of the ill-fated 4th & 7 from last nights' game. Was that Shaud Williams, or Willis McGahee who was lined up in the backfield? Whoever it was (I think it was Williams) did a great job of getting open for a pass, in the middle of the field. Holcomb just got rid of the ball too quickly, or he would have seen him...

 

As disgusting as the game was last night, there were some good things. Willis and Williams ran well, and, for the first time in a while, it looks as though the Bills are starting to master the execution of the screen pass...if they continue, I expect Shaud Williams to become a significant contributor to the offense. Willis is turining into a pretty reliable receiver as well....

[DeeRay]

But those AREN'T the players...and teams have succeded with the level of talent we have (at least have gone into the playoffs). The coaches are supposed to put their players in situations where they are likely to succed. Given the strengths and weaknesses of the hand they have been dealt, the formations, playcalling, etc, is perfectly legitimate conversation here, methinks.

 

Now here is a thought that is up for debate. Does this team really have talent? Sure, we've had what we think are good draft picks and free agent pick ups. But, again, does this team really have the talent? If this team does have the talent, then why does this team suck? Who gets the indictment? If this team doesn't have talent, why not? Who do we indict?

 

Do we know for sure whether or not the coaches are putting the players in situations in which they can succeed or are the coaches intentionally putting the players in situations where it would be extremely difficult for them to succeed? And, do the coaches know the difference?

 

I have always been under the impression that the offense was supposed to be this big, physical smashmouth monster that would punish a defense. Well, if I take inventory up in the trenches, I see only Ben Anderson that fits the mold as that type of player... not a lot of finesse, just straight forward and physical. I look at the other four and I just don't see that ability or mentality. So then, if the coaches are expecting a smashmouth, grind it out offense, aren't they trying to put 4 square pegs into 4 round holes?

 

To run a little benchmark analysis to see where the Bills are...

 

Do we have more talent than Chicago or less talent? Why is Kyle Orton performing better than JP Losman? Do we have better coaching than Chicago or worse? Why is Chicago 4-3 and the Bills 3-5. I don't see where the victories they've garnerned are against worse team than the Bills have won against.

 

Either the Bills lack talent, coaching, or both. And the benching of one Sam Adams last night certainly could be interpreted as either or both.

[dave mcbride]

I used to complain and think it was stupid to take Willis out on third downs, as he's clearly our best player, and he has some hands, and allegedly could block, although he has disappointed me a lot on that topic. However, now watching Shaud for a few games in that role, he's pretty darn good at it. His kind of running is actually better for draws and screens and dump passes than Willis's style, because he accelerates faster. It's a nice little change of pace against the defense. He has genuine football talent and is pretty good at knowing where the marker is and getting enough yardage for the first down. And he has the ability and speed to break a long one. He's had a darn good year and continues to impress me.

 

Now if we could only fix the 34 problems with this team. 3rd down back and this particular coaching decision is not longer one of them for me.

492263[/snapback]

 

agreed, and i see him becoming a pretty good kevin faulk like player in the next couple of years. not this year - he's not there yet - but he's showing the promise to be really reliable in years to come.

[Buftex]

agreed, and i see him becoming a pretty good kevin faulk like player in the next couple of years. not this year - he's not there yet - but he's showing the promise to be really reliable in years to come.

492553[/snapback]

 

 

Shaud Williams reminds me a little of Warrick Dunn. I really think the more reliable he shows himself to be (and he has been very reliable this year), the more opportuities he gets to catch passes out of the backfield, he will start to get some recognition. I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable with him as the #1 guy, for a long period, but he is a terrific change of pace guy, and seems like a smart football player.