Did Troy Vincent suck last year?

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

The answer to the first question is No, the entire Bills D sucked last year and Vincent is a part of that D so one can easily make this general claim and really who cares as last season is over.

 

However, even a slight look beyond the aggregate team results or a superficial exam of his play as an individual indicates to me that clearly the answer is no.

 

1. He tied for the team lead in INTs with McGee with 4.

2. He tied for the team lead in fumble recoveries (though only with a paltry total of but this speaks more to the entire teams issues and he tied for the team lead among this disappointing crew.

3. He actually averaged almost 20 yards per pick in return which is a very good number, showing some escapability and that his 4 picks were plays he made with his head on straight and got going the right way.

4. His total tackles credited to him was not a huge number but was about middlin on this team and actually exceeded results from players at other positions more often at the point of attack.

 

True, there were individual plays where he may have looked bad, but which defender on the Bills did not suffer some embarassment last year as the D on the hole was overmatched and even overwhelmed by some opponents, If a poster wants to make a case that Vincent sucked which should be seen as anything more than the usual whining and bleating then the indictment needs a little more substance and meat that simply saying he is old.

 

The key question though is will he be any good in 06. I think the answer is almost certainly yes with Jauron announcing we are going to use a lot of cover 2.

 

There are some clear demands of a safety in the cover 2. Generally, the safeties divide the field in half and are responsible for any deep routes into their side. The safety needs:

 

1. Be a bright experienced guy who can read plays and cover the zone fron his position playing back.

2. Have some speed because he has a lot of ground to cover.

 

This is a far better D scheme for Vincent than what is required of the safety in the zone blitz. Vincent as FS had more coverage responsibility than Milloy at SS, but it was typical for the Bills to use the two safeties interchanably. Their primary duty was often to pinch in on run support and cover for a DL player whom the zone blitz surprisingly had drop back in pass coverage, or to fill in for an LB sent in on a surprising blitz.

 

Vincent will get the opportunity to play a more true centerfielder role in the cover 2. He will get to employ the coverage talents on deep receivers which made him a Pro Bowl CB several tines.

 

The major Vincent failing is that he lost a step due to age. He and the team knows this and this is why he flipped from CB to S. Now with more Cover 2, he gets the extra advantage that he will not have to sprint back immediately in press coverage of a CB, but generally the play will come to him. Speed will be important as he will have a lot of field to cover, but not as essential as it is for a CB. Even though all of us lose speed with age, he can easily make up for this with the play coming to him and his new role as a centerfielder rather than tackler in Cover 2.

 

I'm sure that some will have other thoughts about this, I just hope thay have something reasonable or even semi-objective to say to back up this view.

[Lee4.3]

I thought Troy did well. He isn't the hardest hitter in the world but he still makes plays. I don't have a problem with #23.

[stevewin]

Well - I do know that Coy Wire Sucks!.........

 

 

The thing w/ Vincent that I can't get out of my head - and which never was really picked up on as any kind of issue - is this blurb from Len P's 1/6 ESPN insider column:

 

In his role as NFLPA president, Vincent understandably has a pro-player mind-set. There is some thought that in a few areas, like counseling teammates on contract negotiations and playing hurt, that stance had some effect on the Bills' locker room in 2005

 

I find that *extremely* disturbing. I don't consider that leadership - I consider that cancer (if true). I was an advocate for Vincent at the beginning - but now I just get the sense he is not passionate about his play on the field - more interested in the politics off the field and building his empire for life after football.

[Dawgg]

I knew this itemized list was coming, FFS... my rebuttal follows:

 

Vincent certainly had his moments in 2005. The problem was that over a long, consistent period (16 games), he was well below average in terms of performance.

 

Tied for team lead in INTs

 

Vincent admitedly had 2 very solid games last season.

 

1. Week 1 vs. Houston: Recorded 2 INTs.

2. Week 5 vs. Miami: Had 1 INT and a fumble recovery.

 

But in the great majority of his games, he was missing tackles and was often times too late to break on a play. That speaks not only to his speed (which I still think he possesses), but his instincts as a safety.

 

Tied for team lead in fumble recoveries

 

Good stat. I will give TV credit for that.

 

20 yards per kick return

 

This is stretching it a bit. He posted returns of 22, 6, 8, and 42 yards respectively. You're choosing 4 distinct data points and averaging them out... when doing so, it sounds nice but doesn't mean a whole lot to me. INT returns depend a lot on the blocking you have in front of you and the location on the field in which the INT was made. If you want to talk about Terrance McGee's punt return average, that makes more sense because we're talking about 50 kick returns over the course of a season. Touting his average return on 4 instances is an awfully small sample size.

 

Total tackles credited to him was not a huge number but... insert excuse here...

 

I watched the games and saw numerous times when Vincent could have stopped a running back dead in his tracks and whiffed (not missed, but whiffed) on his tackles. He was often slow to help on the deep ball. Bottom line, opportunities were there for him to make tackles and he did not get the job done.

 

You seem to be willing to pull out his INT return average when it is favorable to him, yet you dismiss his poor tackling numbers and fumble recoveries as the product of being on a bad team.

 

 

 

1. He tied for the team lead in INTs with McGee with 4.

2. He tied for the team lead in fumble recoveries (though only with a paltry total of but this speaks more to the entire teams issues and he tied for the team lead among this disappointing crew.

3. He actually averaged almost 20 yards per pick in return which is a very good number, showing some escapability and that his 4 picks were plays he made with his head on straight and got going the right way.

4. His total tackles credited to him was not a huge number but was about middlin on this team and actually exceeded results from players at other positions more often at the point of attack.

597835[/snapback]

[BADOLBILZ]

The answer to the first question is No, the entire Bills D sucked last year and Vincent is a part of that D so one can easily make this general claim and really who cares as last season is over.

 

However, even a slight look beyond the aggregate team results or a superficial exam of his play as an individual indicates to me that clearly the answer is no.

 

1. He tied for the team lead in INTs with McGee with 4.

2. He tied for the team lead in fumble recoveries (though only with a paltry total of but this speaks more to the entire teams issues and he tied for the team lead among this disappointing crew.

3. He actually averaged almost 20 yards per pick in return which is a very good number, showing some escapability and that his 4 picks were plays he made with his head on straight and got going the right way.

4. His total tackles credited to him was not a huge number but was about middlin on this team and actually exceeded results from players at other positions more often at the point of attack.

 

True, there were individual plays where he may have looked bad, but which defender on the Bills did not suffer some embarassment last year as the D on the hole was overmatched and even overwhelmed by some opponents,  If a poster wants to make a case that Vincent sucked which should be seen as anything more than the usual whining and bleating then the indictment needs a little more substance and meat that simply saying he is old.

 

The key question though is will he be any good in 06.  I think the answer is almost certainly yes with Jauron announcing we are going to use a lot of cover 2.

 

There are some clear demands of a safety in the cover 2.  Generally, the safeties divide the field in half and are responsible for any deep routes into their side.  The safety needs:

 

1. Be a bright experienced guy who can read plays and cover the zone fron his position playing back.

2. Have some speed because he has a lot of ground to cover.

 

This is a far better D scheme for Vincent than what is required of the safety in the zone blitz.  Vincent as FS had more coverage responsibility than Milloy at SS, but it was typical for the Bills to use the two safeties interchanably. Their primary duty was often to pinch in on run support and cover for a DL player whom the zone blitz surprisingly had drop back in pass coverage, or to fill in for an LB sent in on a surprising blitz.

 

Vincent will get the opportunity to play a more true centerfielder role in the cover 2.  He will get to employ the coverage talents on deep receivers which made him a Pro Bowl CB several tines.

 

The major Vincent failing is that he lost a step due to age. He and the team knows this and this is why he flipped from CB to S.  Now with more Cover 2, he gets the extra advantage that he will not have to sprint back immediately in press coverage of a CB, but generally the play will come to him. Speed will be important as he will have a lot of field to cover, but not as essential as it is for a CB. Even though all of us lose speed with age, he can easily make up for this with the play coming to him and his new role as a centerfielder rather than tackler in Cover 2.

 

I'm sure that some will have other thoughts about this, I just hope thay have something reasonable or even semi-objective to say to back up this view.

597835[/snapback]

 

You can't judge Vincent's play by his numbers, as modest as they are. The major failing of Vincent is his knack for being out of position. It's the major failing because it was supposed to be his edge. A veteran, athletic cover corner moves to free safety? He should have been the next Rod Woodson. But he did not take naturally to the position, and is more than a step late and has shown no improvement. He is also a weak tackler who doesn't bring any lumber in the secondary, which is not unexpected.

[Sisyphean Bills]

You can't judge Vincent's play by his numbers, as modest as they are.  The major failing of Vincent is his knack for being out of position.  It's the major failing because it was supposed to be his edge.  A veteran, athletic cover corner moves to free safety?  He should have been the next Rod Woodson.  But he did not take naturally to the position, and is more than a step late and has shown no improvement.  He is also a weak tackler who doesn't bring any lumber in the secondary, which is not unexpected.

597936[/snapback]

 

The "next Rod Woodson"? Wasn't that just another TD sales job?

 

Vincent is (or was) an excellent cover corner but he's playing out of position and it shows. Woodson was a much more abrupt and physical corner and he was able to transition to safety because it suited his style. Ronnie Lott was another guy that made the switch, and that dude was ferocious.

 

Par for the course. The Bills seem to believe anybody can play any position like it was all some fantasy video game.

Edited February 8, 2006 by WillisIsAGod

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

You can't judge Vincent's play by his numbers, as modest as they are.  The major failing of Vincent is his knack for being out of position.  It's the major failing because it was supposed to be his edge.  A veteran, athletic cover corner moves to free safety?  He should have been the next Rod Woodson.  But he did not take naturally to the position, and is more than a step late and has shown no improvement.  He is also a weak tackler who doesn't bring any lumber in the secondary, which is not unexpected.

597936[/snapback]

 

 

I think the utility of the numbers and what prompted me to site them was not as proof that Vincent was a great player last year ( I don't think he or really any of the Bills defenders were - though I was impressed with Schobel's ability to both pass protect and rack up an impressive n# of sacks in the run blitz).

 

While the numbers provide no real proof that he was even a good player, I do think they provide a strong indication that he does not suck as some folks maintain.

 

I think those who maintain that he sucked do not really explain how if he was so bad he put up among the best stats of Bills defenders.

 

Even if one agrees with the episodic anecdotes provided by good watchers like Dawgg, even these indicators could also be caused in some or even in most cases because Vincent is out of position covering up for someone else or a scheme problem.

 

I really can't say for sure, not do I think that anyone else can at the level of claiming he sucks.

 

What I think we do know for sure is:

 

1. If he fails to produce at the same level next year as this year, this team is going to have to find some INTs, fumble recoveries and a middlin amount of tackles somewhere as like it or not Vincent did produce these in 05.

 

2. I think that the zone blitz is not the best scheme to use someone of Vincent's skillset, but the good news is that I think playing safety in the Cover 2 will employ his skillsets in a better wau.

 

I am curious what you think of these two thoughts.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

I knew this itemized list was coming, FFS... my rebuttal follows:

 

Vincent certainly had his moments in 2005. The problem was that over a long, consistent period (16 games), he was well below average in terms of performance.

 

Tied for team lead in INTs

 

Vincent admitedly had 2 very solid games last season.

 

1. Week 1 vs. Houston:  Recorded 2 INTs.

2. Week 5 vs. Miami: Had 1 INT and a fumble recovery.

 

But in the great majority of his games, he was missing tackles and was often times too late to break on a play.  That speaks not only to his speed (which I still think he possesses), but his instincts as a safety.

 

Tied for team lead in fumble recoveries

 

Good stat.  I will give TV credit for that.

 

20 yards per kick return

 

This is stretching it a bit.  He posted returns of 22, 6, 8, and 42 yards respectively.  You're choosing 4 distinct data points and averaging them out... when doing so, it sounds nice but doesn't mean a whole lot to me.  INT returns depend a lot on the blocking you have in front of you and the location on the field in which the INT was made.  If you want to talk about Terrance McGee's punt return average, that makes more sense because we're talking about 50 kick returns over the course of a season.  Touting his average return on 4 instances is an awfully small sample size.

 

Total tackles credited to him was not a huge number but... insert excuse here...

 

I watched the games and saw numerous times when Vincent could have stopped a running back dead in his tracks and whiffed (not missed, but whiffed) on his tackles.  He was often slow to help on the deep ball.  Bottom line, opportunities were there for him to make tackles and he did not get the job done.

 

You seem to be willing to pull out his INT return average when it is favorable to him, yet you dismiss his poor tackling numbers and fumble recoveries as the product of being on a bad team.

597858[/snapback]

 

I actually went to the stats here because I think they do very easily show that an attack made on Vincent;s plat by you (I think, though I do not remember if you these exact words) and others that Vincent sucked.

 

I think the stats (for example even his middlin number of tackles) certainly do not indicate at all that he is great or even a very good player, but they strongly indicate he does not suck.

 

Vincnet produced numbers which to me clearly indicate there is something to work with here.

 

Even better for us, the switch to the cover 2 from the zone blitz would seem to be just the move to work with these numbers and it is to hoped produce even better results from Vincent in 06.

 

Instead of calling on him to play closer to the line and provide even frontline run support if the LB is blitzing or the DL is doing pass coverage, Vincent instead will be called upon to play a few steps back and do deep zone pass coverage.

 

The major issue for his demographics appears to be that cover 2 safeties who divide the field in half may well have to cover a lot of ground. However, though I certainly feel that he has lost a step, he started at a high rate of speed as one ofthe best cover CBs in the game and even a slower Vincent with a lot of experience should prove quite adequate in a cover 2 which minimizes the tackling weaknesses you site.

 

The key questions for those who claim Vincent sucked last year are:

 

1. Is there any value or indication to be found in him tying for the team lead in INTs and FRs and for his middling performance (rather than sucking performance( getting tackles and making returns after this team leading INTs.

 

2. Do you think that the cover 2 is a defense which suits Vincent's skills (not all, a little, or a lot) better than the zone blitz.

 

I recite the stats not to claim Vincent was great (he was not) or even very good (some games yes he was and some games no he was not). I site them to say that they indicate that he did not suck last year even despite some anecdotes of bad play.

[Dawgg]

The stats you cite in your argument that Vincent was a solid player (not great, not bad, but solid) are as follows:

 

4 Interceptions (20 yards per return)

2 Fumble recoveries

 

These are a reflection of stellar play during 6 snaps over the course of a 16 game season. This represents a minute fraction of actual number of snaps for which TV was on the field -- and it is the subpar performance in those snaps that statistics simply do not capture.

 

Perhaps it was improper for me to say he "sucks" (if I did indeed say that), but the bottom line is that he is not a good player by any stretch of the imagination, ESPECIALLY as a safety. Maybe the Cover 2 suits his skills better -- but there are certain fundamentals in this game that are scheme-independent, such as tackling, anticipation and speed. It is some of these fundamentals that were lacking in Vincent from my vantage point (and those Bills fans that I was watching with). Football isn't nearly as complicated as many tend to make it. At the end of the day, it's about throwing, catching, blocking tackling and running. I am sick of debating whether or not a new scheme will suddenly turn a marginal, aging player into a solid contributor. I have gone down that road -- Bledsoe, RJ, Chris Watson, and Mike Williams come to mind.

 

 

1. Is there any value or indication to be found in him tying for the team lead in INTs and FRs and for his middling performance (rather than sucking performance( getting tackles and making returns after this team leading INTs.

 

2. Do you think that the cover 2 is a defense which suits Vincent's skills (not all, a little, or a lot) better than the zone blitz.

 

I recite the stats not to claim Vincent was great (he was not) or even very good (some games yes he was and some games no he was not). I site them to say that they indicate that he did not suck last year even despite some anecdotes of bad play.

598109[/snapback]

[apuszczalowski]

He's old, therefore he is no good and useless, get rid of him, all of our answers are drafting a new player to replace him (in a late round of course cause every early pick should be spent on linemen)

[Lofton80]

I thought he was terrible as a run defender. He looked pathetic versus Caddilac Williams in Tampa. We have gotten so few interceptions the last few years I will applaud the 4 int's.

[apuszczalowski]

I think the entire D looked Pathetic versus Caddilac

[Guest BackInDaDay]

Both of our starting safties are old, which is why the installation of the Tampa-2 is a solid decision. It's almost a cover-3 because the middle 1/3 of the deep zone is defended by a dropping LB (or sometimes a CB rotating in while an outside LB moves out).

 

Vincent's not a sure tackler. Never had to be. As noted, his cover skills were always his bread and butter. He has a nose for the ball, and as FFS points out, his reponsibilities in the new D will play to that talent.

 

He shouldn't be out of position as often. Monte Kiffin's version may have more wrinkles than a vanilla c-2, but it's not as demanding (keys-wise) as what Williams and Gray installed. It seems to depend more on the athleticism of it's defenders.

 

Vincent and Milloy aren't spring chickens but they can keep things in front of them. We should resign Clements, get faster at LB, and get an aggressive DT and DE. Pressure from our front 4 is a must, and unless Edwards, Anderson, Bannan, Kelsay, Denny have a lot more than what they've shown, Marv better start looking. Same goes for LB. If the best interior D linemen are off the board, look for the Hawk in red, white and blue. He's got speed to match his agressive play.

 

Make these moves and Vincent might make the Pro-Bowl.

 

The rumors about TV advising players not to play hurt don't bother me. Looking back on Ralph's collection of $hitheads, and how Travis Henry was rewarded for being a 'warrior', why should they. That's in the past. Those guys didn't know who they were playing for. Money is not, and never will be, enough to bring out a player's best effort. Playing for their teammates does that. Every dope who's no longer here, never grasped that notion. That's why I like Marv. At least we know that he understands that.

[MDH]

You want numbers, how about this one: The Bills led the league in plays of 20+ yards against them on D. That is an indication of many things and one of them is weak saftey play. It's indicative of Safeties being out of position and/or not making tackles when they need to.

 

Trying to use fumble recoveries (a stat that says Vincent was standing around the pile and not in it) and return yard average (how on earth did you even come up with this one?) to prove that he did a decent job is ridiculous.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

You want numbers, how about this one: The Bills led the league in plays of 20+ yards against them on D.  That is an indication of many things and one of them is weak saftey play.  It's indicative of Safeties being out of position and/or not making tackles when they need to.

598306[/snapback]

 

I don't profess to understand all of the nuances of Williams and Gray's hybrid 46D that they attempted to install here, but I know it relies heavily on pressure from the safety spot at the LOS. Had the Bills been playing a 'zone over' type coverage in their base D with Vincent and Milloy as the deep zone guys, then your the amount of big plays would be more of an indication of weak safety play.

 

With either, or both, of the safeties having run-support/blitz responsibilities on any given play, I think your more accurate assesment was that they found themselves out of position too often. I think that can be blamed on the failure of the D coordinator to adapt his system to his opponents and the DB coach for not giving them a more accurate set of 'keys' to play off of.

[Dawgg]

It's that simple.

 

That's not to say that Vincent is the only one to blame. But more often than not, it was he was beaten or 2 steps too late on these deep balls.

 

You want numbers, how about this one: The Bills led the league in plays of 20+ yards against them on D.  That is an indication of many things and one of them is weak saftey play.  It's indicative of Safeties being out of position and/or not making tackles when they need to.

 

Trying to use fumble recoveries (a stat that says Vincent was standing around the pile and not in it) and return yard average (how on earth did you even come up with this one?) to prove that he did a decent job is ridiculous.

598306[/snapback]

[Guest BackInDaDay]

It's that simple.

 

That's not to say that Vincent is the only one to blame.  But more often than not, it was he was beaten or 2 steps too late on these deep balls.

598360[/snapback]

 

It's not that simple.

 

If he was being beaten from a traditional, deep-zone FS role, then he's either too slow to react or too confused to react.

 

If he was being beaten bcause his coverage responsibilities began close to the LOS and his man got a step on him, then again, he's either too slow to catch his man or too slow in recognizing the play.

 

It's a fair assumption to make that Vincent's lost a step or two. The same can be said for Milloy, which is why Fewel's on board. They have to find out which of the above better defines Vincent's play. If Jauron starts seeing receivers running past flat-footed safeties, there will be hell to pay by player and coaches alike. Until then, pencil Vincent in as our starting FS.

 

BTW, I'm really looking forward to seeing Milloy laying the wood on guys in the open-field again. I don't think you'll get that kind of aggression from Vincent, but he will could be king of the tip-drills out there.

[Sisyphean Bills]

BTW, I'm really looking forward to seeing Milloy laying the wood on guys in the open-field again.  I don't think you'll get that kind of aggression from Vincent, but he will could be king of the tip-drills out there. 

598463[/snapback]

 

I'm reminded of a saying from hockey. "You can't check what you can't touch." I think Milloy is done. Like Henry Jones before him, he's just playing on his laurels.

[Dawgg]

I thought he played fairly well last year.

 

I'm reminded of a saying from hockey.  "You can't check what you can't touch."  I think Milloy is done.  Like Henry Jones before him, he's just playing on his laurels.

598474[/snapback]

[Guest BackInDaDay]

I'm reminded of a saying from hockey.  "You can't check what you can't touch."  I think Milloy is done.  Like Henry Jones before him, he's just playing on his laurels.

598474[/snapback]

 

Good saying, but this relates to one skater having no answer for an opponent's speed.

 

Keep the speed in front of you, where it can be managed.

 

This is why the c-2 (espaecially Monte Kiffen's version of it) is dependent upon LBs with great closing speed. If the front seven can't make the plays underneath then the DBs will be running after guys in the secondary all day.

 

If you think Milloy needs an attitude adjustment, maybe you're right. I wouldn't stop with him, either.

 

I think it's less a case of reading these vets a riot act, as it is giving them goals that they need to, and can, achieve. If they understand their reponsibilities with the D system and their assignments are clear-cut, and doable, then they've got a better chance at success. When one unit begins taking care of it's business, then it challenges the other units to take care of theirs.

 

I don't think we have anyone on this team that won't take pride and personal responsibility in their job if the GM and coaching staff can give them a consistent, workable plan.