generaLee83 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Perry Fewell was quoted earlier in the season as saying that the Bills 'D' is not strictly Cover 2 all the time. If he is comfortable with some modification then why not add a big DT for 1st and 2nd downs. I believe that run defense starts with a mammouth tackler at one of the DT positions. There are DT's out there that maintain quickness but also do not get pushed off the ball quite as badly as our current DT's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zona Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 It's my opinion that we have the right personnel already on this team. I believe that the reason we suck against the run is the overall philosophy of the coaching staff. When the Bills call a defense thats main purpose is designed to stop the run, we do fine. All year long we have done well against the run in that circumstance. The problem we have is when the Bills are in a pass defense when a run play is called. How many times this year have we actually seen a D-lineman get pushed all over the place? Most of the time, I see a D-lineman trying to penetrate through a "gap" to get in the backfield. They are being told to penetrate to get after the QB, and if it's a run play, try to get the RB on the way. THIS is the reason our run defense sucks. We do fine against the run for 3 or 4 plays, then we get caught going for the sack, and giving up the 30 yard run. In the San Diego game and the Tennessee game, I saw several examples of this. If anyone has these games on Tivo, maybe you can look at this. There have been many situations where the offense has been able to get Guards downfield and onto the linebacker. I saw Spikes and fletcher being blocked by O-lineman while the D-lineman basically being trapped by FB's and TE's as they are allowed to penetrate into a backfield that doesn't have the ball. And yet, if the d-lineman look to stop the run first, they are in the proper position to do just that. Anyway, my point is just that maybe we dont need to get a huge run stuffer in the middle. Maybe we just need to rein in the horses a little bit and play run first. Go after the personal glory and the sacks AFTER you make sure its a pass play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Perry Fewell was quoted earlier in the season as saying that the Bills 'D' is not strictly Cover 2 all the time. If he is comfortable with some modification then why not add a big DT for 1st and 2nd downs. I believe that run defense starts with a mammouth tackler at one of the DT positions. There are DT's out there that maintain quickness but also do not get pushed off the ball quite as badly as our current DT's. It's probably only for lack of a good name that they don't do that. You really want a defense that Chris Berman will refer to as the "Blubber Two?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Trooth Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 There are DT's out there that maintain quickness but also do not get pushed off the ball quite as badly as our current DT's. Who are they, and how do the Bills get their hands on one of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills Fan888 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Dick Jauron had Ted Washington with him so it's possible we'll get a big guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koufax Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I would like to add a bigger tackle to the rotation in place of Anderson, as long as he is still agile. Nobody said they have to be small (so funny to use the word "small" to talk about a 300 pound human being), but they have to be quick to be able to penetrate and not just take up space. So we can't put Ted Washington in there without compromising how the D works, but we can certainly get an even larger human being if he is agile (the way a lot of people refer to Ngata as quick for his size, for example). I think the scheme works but the personnel matters a lot. Larry, Kyle, and Tim just didn't stack up well enough especially considering the LB turnover behind them. Add in McCargo, a year of experience for Kyle, and an upgrade over Tim, and I think things work out, but if that upgrade is 315 instead of 298 I'll be happy with that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOOOOOO Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 It's my opinion that we have the right personnel already on this team. I believe that the reason we suck against the run is the overall philosophy of the coaching staff. When the Bills call a defense thats main purpose is designed to stop the run, we do fine. All year long we have done well against the run in that circumstance. The problem we have is when the Bills are in a pass defense when a run play is called. How many times this year have we actually seen a D-lineman get pushed all over the place? Most of the time, I see a D-lineman trying to penetrate through a "gap" to get in the backfield. They are being told to penetrate to get after the QB, and if it's a run play, try to get the RB on the way. THIS is the reason our run defense sucks. We do fine against the run for 3 or 4 plays, then we get caught going for the sack, and giving up the 30 yard run. In the San Diego game and the Tennessee game, I saw several examples of this. If anyone has these games on Tivo, maybe you can look at this. There have been many situations where the offense has been able to get Guards downfield and onto the linebacker. I saw Spikes and fletcher being blocked by O-lineman while the D-lineman basically being trapped by FB's and TE's as they are allowed to penetrate into a backfield that doesn't have the ball. And yet, if the d-lineman look to stop the run first, they are in the proper position to do just that. Anyway, my point is just that maybe we dont need to get a huge run stuffer in the middle. Maybe we just need to rein in the horses a little bit and play run first. Go after the personal glory and the sacks AFTER you make sure its a pass play. Schobel said this a couple weeks ago....they are told to rush the passer first then react to the run...I think that philosophy has gotta change.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOOOOOO Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I would like to add a bigger tackle to the rotation in place of Anderson, as long as he is still agile. Nobody said they have to be small (so funny to use the word "small" to talk about a 300 pound human being), but they have to be quick to be able to penetrate and not just take up space. So we can't put Ted Washington in there without compromising how the D works, but we can certainly get an even larger human being if he is agile (the way a lot of people refer to Ngata as quick for his size, for example). I think the scheme works but the personnel matters a lot. Larry, Kyle, and Tim just didn't stack up well enough especially considering the LB turnover behind them. Add in McCargo, a year of experience for Kyle, and an upgrade over Tim, and I think things work out, but if that upgrade is 315 instead of 298 I'll be happy with that too. Bigger Tackle....Robaire Smith(328 lb.) will be a Bill....He fits the this defense scheme...inside presence that can rush the passer.... He's definately strong but can he turn into a two gap run down type DT?? I have my doubts..... but I think he will def be a Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPTheRealDeal07 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Bigger Tackle....Robaire Smith(328 lb.) will be a Bill....He fits the this defense scheme...inside presence that can rush the passer....He's definately strong but can he turn into a two gap run down type DT?? I have my doubts..... but I think he will def be a Bill I like the idea of Smith being a Bill, hes a pass rushing DT but has the strength and big frame to hold up against the run as well, anybody know how he's been playing this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generaLee83 Posted January 1, 2007 Author Share Posted January 1, 2007 It's probably only for lack of a good name that they don't do that.You really want a defense that Chris Berman will refer to as the "Blubber Two?" nice Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generaLee83 Posted January 1, 2007 Author Share Posted January 1, 2007 Schobel said this a couple weeks ago....they are told to rush the passer first then react to the run...I think that philosophy has gotta change.... This is a really poor approach in my opinion, it would seem apparent to me and I would also hope to the coaches that when your defense effectively stops the run you tend to win more games. Force the opposing team into passing mode, force turnovers and sacks and get your 'O' back on the field. Maybe I'm an idiot but it seems that to win in the NFL or football in general you really have to do 2 things effectively, there are of course other factors but these two seem quite paramount. 1. Run the ball 2. Stop the run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Bills need better LBs. Keith Ellison is a nice story but there is a reason he was a 6th rounder. Spikes played like crap. Fletcher had a lot of tackles, but they weren't in the same zip code of the line of scrimmage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts