I need to change your guys ways of thinking

[Shanahan's Horseshoe]

You make good and interesting points. What would be your suggestions on what the Bills could/should do differently?

 

Believe it or not, I think our D did what it had to do to win that game. The mistakes and turnovers killed us yesterday. Sure TGJR looked like JRice out there yesterday, but we held their running game in check and neutralized that gimmicky Wildcat. I actually think if we played a little MORE cover 2, we would have been more effective in stopping Ginn. But if you ask a few on this board, all we play is Cover 2 which is laughable. Our blitz packages were pretty effective when they were dialed up but I think they were very situational and to few.

The Arizona game was an exact replica of the Florda/OSU Championship game. We played DEEP ZONE COVERAGES NOT COVER 2, the cards caught the ball underneath and our LB's were left in space against WR's and RB's. Unfortunatley, lateral speed is not the strength our LB's. I thought that PF blew that game all by himself. We should have gone Jim Johnson and blitzed on every other play!

[The Dean]

I hope you're right. I'm getting a bit tired of waiting for next year every year. I'm not giving up on this season yet, but I see some troubling signs of things to come.

 

 

Well, the team DID add Stroud, Spencer Johnson and Mitchell, in the offseason. Let's not pretend they did nothing to attack these areas. That should give you encouragement...but, somehow it doesn't.

[Dr. Fong]

Well, the team DID add Stroud, Spencer Johnson and Mitchell, in the offseason. Let's not pretend they did nothing to attack these areas. That should give you encouragement...but, somehow it doesn't.

 

 

Who said it's not? I mean 5-2 is a good start. It's better than 2-5. It's just tough to have this much patience year after year and always come up just short.

[ChasBB]

Believe it or not, I think our D did what it had to do to win that game. The mistakes and turnovers killed us yesterday. Sure TGJR looked like JRice out there yesterday, but we held their running game in check and neutralized that gimmicky Wildcat. I actually think if we played a little MORE cover 2, we would have been more effective in stopping Ginn. But if you ask a few on this board, all we play is Cover 2 which is laughable. Our blitz packages were pretty effective when they were dialed up but I think they were very situational and to few.

The Arizona game was an exact replica of the Florda/OSU Championship game. We played DEEP ZONE COVERAGES NOT COVER 2, the cards caught the ball underneath and our LB's were left in space against WR's and RB's. Unfortunatley, lateral speed is not the strength our LB's. I thought that PF blew that game all by himself. We should have gone Jim Johnson and blitzed on every other play!

I still think we need a legitimate pass-rushing threat from the DE position -- someone like a Bruce Smith. I think a dominating (not just good or adequate, but really dominating) DE is a cornerstone to very solid defense and we just don't seem to have that right now.

[YOOOOOO]

Believe it or not, I think our D did what it had to do to win that game. The mistakes and turnovers killed us yesterday. Sure TGJR looked like JRice out there yesterday, but we held their running game in check and neutralized that gimmicky Wildcat. I actually think if we played a little MORE cover 2, we would have been more effective in stopping Ginn. But if you ask a few on this board, all we play is Cover 2 which is laughable. Our blitz packages were pretty effective when they were dialed up but I think they were very situational and to few.

The Arizona game was an exact replica of the Florda/OSU Championship game. We played DEEP ZONE COVERAGES NOT COVER 2, the cards caught the ball underneath and our LB's were left in space against WR's and RB's. Unfortunatley, lateral speed is not the strength our LB's. I thought that PF blew that game all by himself. We should have gone Jim Johnson and blitzed on every other play!

 

 

 

Im pretty sure in the Arizona game we played alot of man under coverage...

[The Dean]

How can we be sure of this Dean-o? I fail to see the absolute mandate to chase first round dbs. We could have taken a corner in another round (which we did twice anyway), and perhaps took a good player at another position with a #11. Why did it have to be a corner?

 

The problem is making the "secondary" the "primary" goal. Doing so directly coincided with the Bills turning into a losing team. Perhaps I am thick headed, but I don't even see how this issue is debateable.

 

 

Am I sure of it? No, of course not. Anyone who says they are sure what the Bills will draft in any given round is a fuc#ing liar. As Dibs and I and other have explained there is no MANDATE to draft 1st round DBs and you have to be fairly myopic to believe their is. What you see is a philosophy that actually considers what player are available, what the team needs, what was acquired in FA, what depth already exists on the team...etc...etc.

 

Now, I understand that you and other don't like that the Bills drafted DBs in the first round 2 of the past 3 years. (Taking into account what was done by a different administration is simply not applicable, anymore.) Well boohoo. Complain about the pick, if you like, but don't make it seem like there is more to it than simply, the team liked that guy, for that pick, for a number of different reasons. You don't have to try real hard to see why they thought McKelvin was a good choice at that slot.

 

What I can tell you Bill, is that this administration is not likely to eliminate DBs as an area for consideration on draft day, just as I am fairly certain they didn't eliminate the interior line, LBs, or TEs from consideration, last year. I wish I had the link where it was mentioned that the team was trying to find a center, but didn't get that accomplished, in the offseason. They aren't just going to draft guys that they don't think are worth the pick, or don't think fit the system, of don't like for other reasons, simply because they weigh 300lbs.

 

The interior of this team is much, much better than it was two years ago...doesn't that say SOMETHING? I prefer to judge the job management did on rebuilding the team as a whole, not to nitpick the way they managed to do it.

[The Dean]

Im pretty sure in the Arizona game we played alot of man under coverage...

 

 

They played some combinations in the SD game, but they did put pressure on Gates right from the LOS.

[ChasBB]

Well, the team DID add Stroud, Spencer Johnson and Mitchell, in the offseason. Let's not pretend they did nothing to attack these areas. That should give you encouragement...but, somehow it doesn't.

Good and needed moves for sure. I just wished they had addressed the need for a true pass-rushing DE.

[Shanahan's Horseshoe]

Im pretty sure in the Arizona game we played alot of man under coverage...

If the Bills were in Man Under, why did we not blitz that game? You don't play man under when the offense has 4 or 5 guys in the pattern like the Cards did. What is the point then? Two men playing over the top when the WR's are running across the field doesnt make sense. Do you think we had Poz and Mitchell in man because they werent blitzing? Again, we played a lot of Deep Zone stuff in that game.

[Dibs]

.......The problem is making the "secondary" the "primary" goal. Doing so directly coincided with the Bills turning into a losing team. Perhaps I am thick headed, but I don't even see how this issue is debateable.

I think it just perception and not the reality that we have made the "secondary" the "primary" goal(I've addressed the current regimes 1st/2nd round drafting here.)

 

Doing so directly coincided with the Bills turning into a losing team?

It is debatable because you directly correlate drafting DBs in the first round with the Bills inability to win games. This is not the case.....it is the success or failure of a pick(regardless of position) and what the team does with the player which helps determine the success of a team.

It makes no difference if the player was a DB, QB, OT, DE or DT.....if the player busts they do not help the team win games. Similarly, if a team(for whatever reason) lets a good player go, this has nothing to do with drafting. Pat Williams was let go, as was Antoine Winfield. How we acquired them in the first place is irrelevant......two good players were let go which their positions then needed replacing.

 

Our lack of success is really from 2000-2007.....it is our bad drafting/bad management of players/bad luck over the 1997-2004 drafts that is the reason....not that we spent 2 1sts & a 2nd on DBs over that period.

 

Going through our 1st & 2nd round picks 1997-2004

red=player didn't pan for the team long term

bold=long term key player

 

1997

1st Antowain Smith(bust)

2nd Marcellus Wiley(let go at prime)

1998

Sam Cowart(injury)

1999

1st Winfield(Let loose in prime)

2nd Peerless Price(???)

2000

1st Eric Flowers

2nd Tillman

2001

1st Clements

2nd Schobel

2nd Henry(???)

2002

1st Mike Williams

2nd Josh Reed

2nd Ryan Denney

2003

1st McGahee

2nd Kelsay

2004

1st Lee Evans

1st JP Losman

 

Having all that said.....I see no real correlation anyway between drafting DBs & losing seasons. The only section that one could draw a comparison on was 1999-2001 drafts leading to 6 dodgy seasons(2002-2007). Lack of coaching/QB/overall drafting through that period is unquestionably the biggest reason for lack of success.

 

Year....(DBs selected in 1st or 2nd rounds)....record

 

1985....(1st) 2-14

1986....(-) 4-12

1987....(2nd & 2nd) 7-8

1988....(-) 12-4

1989....(-) 9-7

1990....(1st) 13-3

1991....(1st) 13-3

1992....(-) 11-5

1993....(1st) 12-4

1994....(1st) 7-9

1995....(-) 10-6

1996....(-) 10-6

1997....(-) 6-10

1998....(-) 10-6

1999....(1st) 11-5

2000....(2nd) 8-8

2001....(1st) 3-13

2002....(-) 8-8

2003...(-) 6-10

2004....(-) 9-7

2005....(-) 5-11

2006....(1st) 7-9

2007....(-) 7-9

[YOOOOOO]

If the Bills were in Man Under, why did we not blitz that game? You don't play man under when the offense has 4 or 5 guys in the pattern like the Cards did. What is the point then? Two men playing over the top when the WR's are running across the field doesnt make sense. Do you think we had Poz and Mitchell in man because they werent blitzing? Again, we played a lot of Deep Zone stuff in that game.

 

 

 

Well the reason i think we played alot of man under is because we were playing shifted over to there weak side...leaving POZ in alot of man responsibility thru out most of the game........

 

In man under coverage the Safties still have deep responsibility....Its just leaves your underneath coverage(CB's and MLB in man coverage, while your other two defenders(LB's or LB/NB) shift the weak side....

 

 

 

Your saying we mixed in alot of deep zone coverages....but what deep zone coverage do you think we played thru out that game??

[cantstopbeastmode]

The Bills have put together a very nice group of young DBs. Even if they loose Greer, I think they are, mostly, set at DB. But, that wouldn't be true without McKelvin. They need to have him around for a year, before he can be relied on, every week, IMO. They need to increase the pressure on the QBs (though personnel or scheme changes) and increase the pressure by DBs on receivers, too, IMO. As long as they win with the passive approach, I won't complain, but they should have aggressive options to use, when needed. That seems to be lacking, right now.

The last few sentences there are dead on. I was just making sure I wasn't the only one who thought so, I guess. Thanks for seeing exactly what I've been thinking but most fans on here seem to miss.

[cantstopbeastmode]

These are comments that I can agree with. The Bills have invested a lot in terms of early draft picks in their secondary. This is Jauron's area of expertise. It's time to stop playing so damn conservative all of the time, and let your play makers impact the game. If all you want out of your db's is to line up 8 yards off of the LOS and backpedal on the snap, then any 5th-7th rounder will do.

EXACTLY. I don't get why we draft guys in the first round and then play them as if they don't have any talent whatsoever. I feel like this thread is really confirming I'm not the only one seeing these basic problems with our defense that Fewell is really missing.

[BillsVet]

Good info here. Fewell is not the problem. It has to be Jauron. If Jauron didn't agree with Fewell's strategies, he would certainly tell him to change it. Particularly for the defense since Jauron's coaching experience is mostly on the defensive side of the ball.

 

The Bills IMO gave the Dolphins "O" far too much respect yesterday. The only way Pennington beats a team is by playing the short game. He's done that most of his career. He's not a QB that will beat you deep. So what do the Bills do? Gave him exactly what he wanted. Gave him the short stuff all day. Rushed more than 4 guys very sparingly. The cover 2 depends upon a good pash rush from the front 4, BUT when you aren't getting pressure from the front 4, there has to be a plan ""B". Plan "B" probably didn't get used as the Bills were winning the game until late. You wonder if the Bills were behind at the half whether or not any change in approach would have been used.

Jauron is a very polite man who deploys a polite game plan. It's a "we'll take what you give us and we'll give you a little bit" approach. He has never expressed publically to my knowledge a desire or intent to dominate the opponent. Too risky for this coach. Time will tell if he is able to direct and lead a team to a playoff victory. Certainly the Bills are in a very good position this year to gain a playoff birth. How they respond to this loss both as coaches and players is what matters most.

 

Jauron has proven that he will not overrule a coordinator, no matter how bad things are. Fairchild's play calling was never explained away in 07, and the blame was placed squarely at the feet of SF. DJ received little criticism for choosing him, and subsequently permitted SF to drive the offense into the ground.

 

Choosing coordinators is a big deal, and DJ has never been particularly good in this area, especially offensively. SF became a whipping boy, and for good reason. Should the defense continue

 

Having a gameplan is important, though adjusting it when things aren't going well is more crucial. The reluctance to change by this coaching staff is alarming, considering they've been beaten by two QB's who used the short passing game to nickel and dime the Bills defense.

[The Dean]

Jauron has proven that he will not overrule a coordinator, no matter how bad things are.

 

 

Um...really? Jauron never tells his coordinators to change things? Are you certain?

[cantstopbeastmode]

Whatever they played in the Cardinals and Miami games, it DIDNT WORK. It clearly WAS NOT GOING TO JUST START WORKING AT SOME RANDOM POINT IN THE GAME. Therefore, we need Perry/Dick or anyone for that matter to switch our defenses up, do some sh-- to confuse the quarterbacks.

 

As to the Arizona game, it seemed like we may have ran a lot of cover 3, but in any case, we needed to get out of the soft sh-- and play like men. Only give a 2 yd cushion, blitz, whatever it takes, but goddamn it dont just sit in 8 yd cushions and give them 7 yd passes all game long.

 

The San Diego game, we were in Cover 2 all game long, I witnessed it personally. They hit a 15 yd curl to Jackson/Floyd on just about every big 3rd down. Its a good thing it finally clicked in Fewell's mind to send Mitchell on a blitz, otherwise we could have been in trouble.

 

The Miami game, it seemed like we were in a lot of cover 2, even with Scott up, it was still our basic play. Maybe they put scott on the weak/strong/camarillo side where he'll never really need to cover deep? Maybe he was only in the box on obvious running plays? In any case, our D wasn't working and we did nothing to change it.

 

Basically, my point is, we need to change sh-- if the current sh-- isnt working. It's that simple. We have the players to do it, now all we have to do is use them. Mitchell can blitz, Greer can cover man, and Whitner can ballhawk, but if these players never get the chances, then they'll never do those things, and qbs will tear us up.

 

As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, this defense can carry us to a 5-2 record, and probably take us to the playoff, but I can't possibly see it delivering us a playoff win, unless we do blitz and switch things up. Hopefully Fewell notices that.

[Thoner7]

Bob Sanders seems to make a lot of big plays from his safety spot. They run the same defense, and title aside they play the same position as free and strong are not much different. So he doesn't get many picks, ok I can deal with it, but he misses too many tackles. He missed 2 or 3 on 3rd down situations that would have forced punts vrs. Miami....

[BillsVet]

Um...really? Jauron never tells his coordinators to change things? Are you certain?

 

When he's had the most obvious opportunities, it hasn't happened. We'll never know everything which occurs behind closed doors, but that alone should not preclude us from wondering just when coordinators are checked by the HC.

 

I cannot explain last year's debacle on offense with SF. To be honest, the offense never really improved over the course of two seasons, and little changed over that period. If the HC stepped in, it produced no effect.

 

Yesterday's defense (with PF now in his third season) was eerily similar to the way it looked against Arizona. In that game, the Cardinals run game was not anything special, but their passing game was. Yesterday, it happened again, only it wasn't a strong armed QB like Warner with his complement of WR's doing it.

 

I'm not a proponent of micromanagement, but abdicating complete responsibility to a DC or OC is not responsible coaching. And if things aren't changing, and you're losing in the same fashion, the HC ought to take responsibility.

[Shanahan's Horseshoe]

Well the reason i think we played alot of man under is because we were playing shifted over to there weak side...leaving POZ in alot of man responsibility thru out most of the game........

 

In man under coverage the Safties still have deep responsibility....Its just leaves your underneath coverage(CB's and MLB in man coverage, while your other two defenders(LB's or LB/NB) shift the weak side....

 

 

 

Your saying we mixed in alot of deep zone coverages....but what deep zone coverage do you think we played thru out that game??

 

If the Bills are playing strong on the WS of the offense, dont you think the Cards would have audibled out of whatever play they were in and run away from our overshifted defense? I think so. Plus, the cards run a lot of even sets.

 

Again, you rarely run man under when you are anticipating 4 or 5 guys in a pattern, it just doesnt make sense because you are going to have LB's on WRs. The only time the Bills are going to run man under is when we are blitzing which we we did not do that game.

 

We ran all deep zone stuff, T2, C3 and quarters. Warner completed 33 passes for only 260. He would've averaged way more per completion if we were in man. Everything was underneath and in space and since in the C2 is all short zones and takes away the run after the catch, we had to be in deeper coverages.

[Tcali]

i think its a blessing in guise