Orton's Arm Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Right now, we're barely calling any pass plays, and the plays we have called have gotten us about 100 passing yards a game the past two weeks. So why have a passing offense at all? Why not just get rid of the QB and replace him with a RB? Get rid of the puny WRs, and replace them with FBs and extra offensive linemen? Why not run the ball every single play? We're pretty close to doing that anyway. But right now when we run, the QB just stands there; neither blocking nor running. Going to an all-running offense gives yourself one extra player on running plays. Imagine an offense that did literally nothing but run the ball. One of your formations could have five linemen in the middle, and another four over to one side. Your, um "quarterback" (actually a running back) would line up behind center, and there'd be another RB lining up behind the four extra offensive linemen. How many teams have enough good defensive linemen to stop nine offensive linemen at once? How long would defenses hold out against the physical pounding your team would deliver? Another offensive set would consist of seven massive men up front, with a RB and a bunch of blocking FBs in the backfield. This offensive set would be designed to punish the defense. Wear 'em down. Never again would you have to use a high round draft pick on some QB or WR. All those extra picks could feed your defense or your offensive line. A mauling-type OL who didn't know beans about pass protection could have success in this style of offense. So could a blocking TE who couldn't catch passes. I'm not saying this would be an ideal offense. But last week's offense put up about 200 yards against Indy, and was responsible for six points. Do you think a running-only offense would be less productive than that? Well, you say, what about the fact that the threat of our passing game wouldn't be there any more? Well, is that "threat" really there now? I mean, how many defensive coordinators do you think are losing sleep over the fact that the Bills' passing game has put up 100 yards a game the last two weeks? Do you honestly think people are defending the Buffalo pass first, and the run second? Ha! Would a running-only offense actually work? I have no idea. But I like the idea of a running-only offense a lot more than I like the Bills' offense as it is right now. My suggestion couldn't possibly make things worse, and might make them better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Right now, we're barely calling any pass plays, and the plays we have called have gotten us about 100 passing yards a game the past two weeks. So why have a passing offense at all? Why not just get rid of the QB and replace him with a RB? Get rid of the puny WRs, and replace them with FBs and extra offensive linemen? Why not run the ball every single play? We're pretty close to doing that anyway. But right now when we run, the QB just stands there; neither blocking nor running. Going to an all-running offense gives yourself one extra player on running plays. Imagine an offense that did literally nothing but run the ball. One of your formations could have five linemen in the middle, and another four over to one side. Your, um "quarterback" (acutally a running back) would line up behind center, and there'd be another RB lining up behind the four extra offensive linemen. How many teams have enough good defensive linemen to stop nine offensive linemen at once? How long would defenses hold out against the physical pounding your team would deliver? Another offensive set would consist of seven massive men up front, with a RB and a bunch of blocking FBs in the backfield. This offensive set would be designed to punish the defense. Wear 'em down. Never again would you have to use a high round draft pick on some QB or WR. All those extra picks could feed your defense or your offensive line. A mauling-type OL who didn't know beans about pass protection could have success in this style of offense. So could a blocking TE who couldn't catch passes. I'm not saying this would be an ideal offense. But last week's offense put up about 200 yards against Indy, and was responsible for six points. Do you think a running-only offense would be less productive than that? Well, you say, what about the fact that the threat of our passing game wouldn't be there any more? Well, is that "threat" really there now? I mean, how many defensive coordinators do you think are losing sleep over the fact that the Bills' passing game has put up 100 yards a game the last two weeks? Do you honestly think people are defending the Buffalo pass first, and the run second? Ha! Would this actually work? I have no idea. But I like the idea of a running-only offense a lot more than I like the Bills' offense as it is right now. My suggestion couldn't possibly make things worse, and might make them better. 836050[/snapback] How did someone as utterly !@#$ing dense as you ever figure out how to use a keyboard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Yeah, let's get rid of the QB, that direct snap to Reed worked so well a couple weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Ask Atlanta how well that works for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 How did someone as utterly !@#$ing dense as you ever figure out how to use a keyboard? 836051[/snapback] He took lessons from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 14, 2006 Author Share Posted November 14, 2006 How did someone as utterly !@#$ing dense as you ever figure out how to use a keyboard? 836051[/snapback] You evidently missed the cynical tone of my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 You evidently missed the cynical tone of my post. 836055[/snapback] Is that your new defense now? When called out for being wrong, you say you were only kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 14, 2006 Author Share Posted November 14, 2006 Yeah, let's get rid of the QB, that direct snap to Reed worked so well a couple weeks ago. 836052[/snapback] I think the direct snap to Reed resulted in three yards or something. Not too bad, considering. But in the offense I described, nobody would be on the field, unless he weighed at least 250 pounds. Well, I guess you could keep whatever running backs you have that are lighter than that. But mostly, you're trying to take advantage of the fact that there are only so many big men on the other team's defensive roster. If your guys are bigger and stronger, hopefully you can push them backwards a few yards each play. Say for example you were going up against a Ted Washington type of player. You'd use the 5/4 offensive line formation I described earlier, and you'd run the ball away from Ted. You'd keep running it away from him, until he got tired. Then you'd ram it down his throat. Again, I'm not suggesting the Bills actually implement this offense, but it'd sure be better than whatever on earth they're trying to do right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 14, 2006 Author Share Posted November 14, 2006 Is that your new defense now? When called out for being wrong, you say you were only kidding. 836060[/snapback] Hey, I never said this was the right offense, just that it'd be an improvement over the offense I've been watching lately. Which, by the way, isn't saying much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Is that your new defense now? When called out for being wrong, you say you were only kidding. 836060[/snapback] More effective than being called out for being in error and calling it regression toward the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Yeah, let's get rid of the QB, that direct snap to Reed worked so well a couple weeks ago. 836052[/snapback] In fairness to him, it worked like a charm for New Orleans yesterday. Direct snap to deuce, with a lineman playing TE. And although, WITH a QB.....it was working last night for the Giants in the first half when they used an extra lineman as their TE. They had to quit doing when Petigout got hurt.....but they basically lined up and said.....beat us.....and in the first half, it was working. Not saying I like it, just saying it worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 You evidently missed the cynical tone of my post. I got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 In fairness to him, it worked like a charm for New Orleans yesterday. Direct snap to deuce, with a lineman playing TE. And although, WITH a QB.....it was working last night for the Giants in the first half when they used an extra lineman as their TE. They had to quit doing when Petigout got hurt.....but they basically lined up and said.....beat us.....and in the first half, it was working. Not saying I like it, just saying it worked. 836068[/snapback] Did you watch that play? It was a broken play and I am not even sure it was supposed to be a direct snap. I think Brees just missed the snap. Seriously you don't design plays to have the ball scooting around in the backfield on the ground. As far as the Extra TE, we did that with Peters 2 years ago. Again, it may work but it takes guys out of patterns and give the defense less guys to cover. With our receivers already struggling to get seperation, and find openings not a good thing. Having Reed out this week made it even more obvious, since he seems to be the only one consistantly getting open in the slots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Did you watch that play? It was a broken play and I am not even sure it was supposed to be a direct snap. I think Brees just missed the snap. Seriously you don't design plays to have the ball scooting around in the backfield on the ground. As far as the Extra TE, we did that with Peters 2 years ago. Again, it may work but it takes guys out of patterns and give the defense less guys to cover. With our receivers already struggling to get seperation, and find openings not a good thing. Having Reed out this week made it even more obvious, since he seems to be the only one consistantly getting open in the slots. 836072[/snapback] It was not a broken play.....it was a snap. The snap was supposed to be in the air, not rolling, so don't even go there. It was a designed play. They even talked about the snap today on the NFL network on Sirius. I understand all of that about the lineman. Just pointing out, that while his version is far fetched, it is used to some degree, during normal game time. But I hear ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 14, 2006 Author Share Posted November 14, 2006 With our receivers already struggling to get seperation, See? You're making my case for me. Our receivers are "struggling to get separation," so why not separate them from the field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 lets just get rid of all the players and just have QBs play . everything is the QBs fault anyway . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I 90 Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Is that your new defense now? When called out for being wrong, you say you were only kidding. 836060[/snapback] Right on. Maybe he's not so wrong. Anyone remember Marv's first offense at Kansas City ? Steve Fuller at QB running the "Wing T" ? On the Marv Levy Show (WKBW ?) he was going on about running the ball, how crucially important it was ... I thought it was some sort of flashback going on. Then I saw the game on Sunday. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Someone actually thought he was being serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I 90 Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Someone actually thought he was being serious? 836114[/snapback] Yes, even if he himself didn't think he was being serious. Sticking to a Plan Eighth paragraph... "Before we move on, let's take a trip down memory lane. When Marv took over the Chiefs in 1978, he believed in the running game. Levy inherited a team long on running backs and short on receivers and quarterbacks, so that first year he went with a Winged T offense. The Chiefs put up some impressive numbers on the ground, averaging 41 carries per game and totalling nearlly 3000 rushing yards. The team finished 4-12 but that season built a mentality and toughness that Levy wanted to establish..." Don't make me tell you about Fairchild's time at Colorado State. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 What I don't understand is, if you want a QB who hangs in the pocket (and then gets sacked) why get rid of Bledsoe? JP's got a great arm and he can scramble, so why do they insist on forcing him to execute (or fail to execute) plays that don't utilize his best talents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts