34-78-83 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 and by having "2 safeties deep", it makes it a cover 2. no it doesn't. Maybe you can review this a bit more: Cover 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The safeties were in a deep cover 2 (the safeties were 25 yards back to prevent a big gain), no question. The play rolled the safeties and corners on both sides out with intermediate outs. Fitzgerald crossed into the middle of the field where he had a LB on him, got depth, and exploded right up the middle just as one draws it up on the whiteboard. Perfect call. Except for one thing. The Cardinals defense was gassed and it left too much time on the clock. Oh well. I thought the Steeler CB (inside left) should have stayed with Fitz and let Polamalu follow his man going to the sidelines. If a pass was going to be complete, to either Fitz or to the other WR (on the out route) it would have been a big gain but not a TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Some of you people spend more time on the draft than me, so would anybody mind explaining to me how this kid could possibly have lasted until the mid second round. Was it his height? 40 time? Was he a late bloomer? Character issues? I don't get it. I know that players slip under the radar every year. Bryce Paup was great imo. He was strong as an ox, had extremely long arms and he was agile, but he did play at Northerm Iowa, where I guess there is little exposure and was a 6th round pick. Woodley went to freaking Michigan, where everyone in the world could watch him every week. Imo, this kid is already one of the best players in the NFL. Talk about a "motor?" He is relentless, uses his hands well, and is as quick as a cat. Is he only suited for a 3/4? It doesn't seem possible. I freaking hate this dumbass cover-2!!!! For the same reason players like Carlos Rogers and Mike Williams go in the top of the draft while players like Boldin fall to the second...the draft is no exact science by any means when your biggest evaluator is physical attributes in terms of projecting at the next level... Like other posters said, he was undesized coming out of college...thats a draft slot killer. Similar to Boldin...Boldin was a first round talent but they said he was too slow, so he slipped to the 2nd round where he went on to set the rookie record for debut game and rookie reciveing records for a season with 101 catches... Thats why it cracks me up when I see threads claiming there are no players worthy of the #11 pick...how can anyone make that claim? I mean does anyone really think that there will be no Pro Bowl players taken after the top 10 picks in the first round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 no it doesn't. Maybe you can review this a bit more: Cover 2 please explain to me how that link goes against what I said. and, additionally, you don't even need to have your safeties being the ones dropping back to make it a cover 2. all it means is that 2 people are covering the back halves of the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 actually, ike taylor was on fitzgerald. Ike Taylor wears number 92? Since when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Ike Taylor wears number 92? Since when? ike taylor is #24, and he was matched up with larry fitzgerald on that play 1-on-1. james harrison was on the left side of the field, away from fitz/taylor, in pursuit of fitzgerald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 This is what I don't quite get as far as fitting people into systems. The Bills made a big hullaballoo last year about how light their defensive ends play. At the time it was revealed that Schobel played at around 243 lbs despite previously being listed at 262. The same article said that Kelsay played at 261 lbs even though he had been previously listed at 275. For comparison, LaMarr Woodley plays at 265 lbs. So essentially we have two undersized defensive ends. That being said, why can't we just draft tweeners (and it seems like there are so many of them now) to play defensive end for us? The guys we already have are undersized anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I understand what you are saying. The scheme can work if you have good players/coachs. My point is that I believe a 3-4 is much easier to stockpile with talent. I can only think of one true stud traditional DE to come out of college in the last few years. On the otherhand these undersized DEs/rush linebackers are available year in, year out. It has alot to do with what college defenses are doing today. I also think it's easier to find big space eating DTs, as opposed to a Warren Sapp. Tampa had great players and a great coordinator. You need alot of luck to land the pieces that they had. Without these supreme players it's a vanilla scheme. JMO The 3-4 isn't necessarily "easier" to stock. Finding a monstrous NT thats actually good is a herculean task. Then you need to find 2 large DEs that can hold their line at the point of attack. If the line gets knocked back in a 3-4, those LBs don't stand much of a chance against the opposition OL. My overall point is that you can win with various defenses, and i dont think that 1 particular defense is "easier" to stock than any other. Most defenses rely on 2-3 outstanding players for that defense to be great. And i dont care too much about what type of base defense we run. I'm more concerned with the coaching staff fitting a scheme around the players you have rather than forcing their scheme on everyone else. The Bills problem wasn;t choosing to run the cover-2. the Bills problem was finding great talent to successfully run the cover-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The 3-4 isn't necessarily "easier" to stock. Finding a monstrous NT thats actually good is a herculean task. Then you need to find 2 large DEs that can hold their line at the point of attack. If the line gets knocked back in a 3-4, those LBs don't stand much of a chance against the opposition OL. My overall point is that you can with various defenses, and i dont think that 1 particular defense is "easier" to stock than any other. Most defenses rely on 2-3 outstanding players for that defense to be great. And i dont care too much about what type of base defense we run. I'm more concerned with the coaching staff fitting a scheme around the players you have rather than forcing their scheme on everyone else. The Bills problem wasn;t choosing to run the cover-2. the Bills problem was finding great talent to successfully run the cover-2. Perfect. Couldn't have said it any better. The same applies for offense. Anybody can draw up the play that Fitzgerald scored on, but it takes a guy like Fitzgerald to read the hole in the zone, the O-line to block, a QB like Warner to make the right read and the quick throw, and the other receivers on the play to sell their routes. Then it takes a guy like Fitzgerald to accelerate to top speed so quickly. That's what's so great about this game: It's the ultimate team sport, even though it's marketed via superstars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el Tigre Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The 3-4 isn't necessarily "easier" to stock. Finding a monstrous NT thats actually good is a herculean task. Then you need to find 2 large DEs that can hold their line at the point of attack. If the line gets knocked back in a 3-4, those LBs don't stand much of a chance against the opposition OL. My overall point is that you can with various defenses, and i dont think that 1 particular defense is "easier" to stock than any other. Most defenses rely on 2-3 outstanding players for that defense to be great. And i dont care too much about what type of base defense we run. I'm more concerned with the coaching staff fitting a scheme around the players you have rather than forcing their scheme on everyone else. The Bills problem wasn;t choosing to run the cover-2. the Bills problem was finding great talent to successfully run the cover-2. Great points. It's very hard to find effective NFL NT's. Most guys coming out of the draft (like Ted Washington) take several years to develop. For the Tampa 2 to be effective you need your D-line to consistently get pressure on the QB. The Bills just don't have the front 4 to run an effective cover 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Not only is Cover-2 horrible from a schematic point of view, it's also RIDICULOUSLY DUMB for a small market team. We need to find four quality d-linemen? And rangy linebackers? And draft safeties high? For what? Whereas a 3-4, you find a solid NT, plug athletes into various LB roles and let them make plays, and take advantage of angles and speed instead of scheme. Linebackers are cheaper and easier to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 From the link posted... In a true Cover 2, defensive linemen provide all the pressure. Blitzing should be unnecessary For the Bills? That's laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 ike taylor is #24, and he was matched up with larry fitzgerald on that play 1-on-1. james harrison was on the left side of the field, away from fitz/taylor, in pursuit of fitzgerald. I don't know wtf you are arguing about then. Like my original post said, they were in 2-man. Fitzgerald crossed, broke free, got depth on the LB (as he ran away from the Taylor), and ripped the middle of the defense for a score. It was a perfect call against that defense and perfectly executed. Taylor was a non-factor by design of the play and proper execution; Fitz simply beat him and he couldn't make the play even with a last ditch dive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Ys0iEpz8A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 So again, Can someone please explain to me that if Schobel is playing at 242 and Kelsay at 261, why can't we just draft "tweeners" to play defensive end for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I don't think the Tampa 2 is the Bills problem. I think the problem was that they locked in on a scheme that required a great amount of talent they didn't have, and required them to ignore the talent that was available at the time. Three years in, we're beginning to put together a decent defense for this scheme. But in 2006, they started attaching themselves to a scheme that wasn't maximizing the opportunities they had. They didn't need Whitner, they already had Lawyer Milloy back there, and he's still a successful safety, but they junked him. Ngata was on the board, but they passed to fill the hole from Milloy. London Fletcher was replaced with Paul Posluszny because of the 'scheme.' If Dwight Freeney were the man available at #8 say, then it makes sense to take him and start building around him. Or if you realize that you have a significant talent gap at CB and no options in the draft/FA. But they went out of their way to both avoid utilizing the talent they had (Fletcher, Milloy, Nate Clements), and avoiding the top players they could acquire (Haloti Ngata, Kimo Van Oellenhoffen, and of course Woodley) in order to stock a defense with a slew of real averagenauts in order to play the scheme Jauron wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 You make some good points. However, it does take some time to get the personnel you need to play a particular defense. So then the question becomes: How flexible should the team be in its defense? Should they change their defense each year to suit the talent that's available in the draft? That's the tough part. Right now the most recent trend seems to be toward the 3-4. A few years ago, the cover 2 was hot. And yet, one of the best defenses of this era is the Steelers defense, which is and always has been the 3-4. So which way do the Bills go? Change defenses every year or two to suit the draft talent available, or pick one scheme and stick to it? I don't think the Tampa 2 is the Bills problem. I think the problem was that they locked in on a scheme that required a great amount of talent they didn't have, and required them to ignore the talent that was available at the time. Three years in, we're beginning to put together a decent defense for this scheme. But in 2006, they started attaching themselves to a scheme that wasn't maximizing the opportunities they had. They didn't need Whitner, they already had Lawyer Milloy back there, and he's still a successful safety, but they junked him. Ngata was on the board, but they passed to fill the hole from Milloy. London Fletcher was replaced with Paul Posluszny because of the 'scheme.' If Dwight Freeney were the man available at #8 say, then it makes sense to take him and start building around him. Or if you realize that you have a significant talent gap at CB and no options in the draft/FA. But they went out of their way to both avoid utilizing the talent they had (Fletcher, Milloy, Nate Clements), and avoiding the top players they could acquire (Haloti Ngata, Kimo Van Oellenhoffen, and of course Woodley) in order to stock a defense with a slew of real averagenauts in order to play the scheme Jauron wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 So then the question becomes: How flexible should the team be in its defense? Should they change their defense each year to suit the talent that's available in the draft? That's the tough part. Right now the most recent trend seems to be toward the 3-4. A few years ago, the cover 2 was hot. And yet, one of the best defenses of this era is the Steelers defense, which is and always has been the 3-4. So which way do the Bills go? Change defenses every year or two to suit the draft talent available, or pick one scheme and stick to it? I think I'd come down in favor of picking one scheme and sticking to it, because I think you have to consider the fact that changing schemes likely means hurting the performance of most of the players on your roster, and you should expect to return at least 8 of them from year to year. The other benefit to base-scheme continuity, I think, is that the more familiar your players are with your base package, the more able they'll be to spend time working on throwing different looks at the opposing offense. Look at the Steelers again here - they play a 3-4, but they spent a good chunk of the game in a 2-4-5 nickel package, and even played some Cover 2 (albeit with three down linemen instead of the Bills' four). That flexibility gives you the best options, I think, and other strong defenses familiar with their base sets can do this as well (look at the Patriots flex back and forth between the 3-4 and the 4-3). I think the Bills' problem right now is that even after three years of the Tampa 2, they STILL don't have enough talent to make it work, due to very few of their choices landing. They have one good defensive end in Aaron Schobel, and despite a lack of pass rush from the ends, the player they've added in the Jauron era who's made the most plays from that position is what, Copeland Bryan? Meanwhile Kelsay plays like an Arena bowler and Denney shows why he's a backup. Inside, they hit on Stroud and whiffed on McCargo, leaving them starting a depth DT in Kyle Williams, who plays with heart but not with the skill they need. The LB corps suffered due to some injuries, but still, they have an average LB in Poz, and some promise in Mitchell, though his strength seems to be as a blitzing LB. I've lost track of what I expect from Crowell, but he's never been a star player. Then in the secondary, you've got Whitner playing more like Jim Leonard than Bob Sanders across from Ko Money Ko Problems, and neither providing the run support a Tampa 2 needs. And somehow, they've put together a solid corps of cover corners after telling us they didn't need cover corners So what I'm saying is that while I'm all for sticking with a scheme to try to really master it and suit the talent you've already got other than pipe-dreaming about copying some playoff team's defense, the Bills have failed to acquire the talent they needed to run their own damn scheme. I'd say we transition to a base 4-3, trying to take advantage of our ability to blitz from Mitchell and Whiter, and get solid coverage from Greer, McGee, and McKelvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Not only is Cover-2 horrible from a schematic point of view, it's also RIDICULOUSLY DUMB for a small market team. We need to find four quality d-linemen? And rangy linebackers? And draft safeties high? For what? Whereas a 3-4, you find a solid NT, plug athletes into various LB roles and let them make plays, and take advantage of angles and speed instead of scheme. Linebackers are cheaper and easier to find. Exactly my point, Coach! You are right on with this post. The successful 3-4 teams don't have studs up and down their D-lines. They have solid big-bodied and disciplined role players. If you think finding a Mario Williams is as easy as finding a Lamarr Woodley you are out of your mind. The steelers and ravens are so stocked with these types, they can afford to let go of Adalius Thomas and Joey Porter. They just reload with a fresh crop and continue attacking. This draft alone has 6-8 of these type of guys who project better to a 3-4 than they do a traditional 4-3 DE. The college game has gotten away from the big DE and relies on the best athletes instead. Who in this draft is going to come in and be our Mario Williams? Tyson Jackson? Even a great player like Mario Williams plays on a defense that can't get pressure. The Texans have spent high draft picks trying but haven't been able to compliment him. What makes you think the Bills are going to find a player like that? We will either take a big no impact DE or we will take an undersized guy and put his hand in the ground and negate his greates strength, you watch. James Harrison would not have the same impact on the Bills as he does on the steelers. You can say the same about Orakpo, Brown, Maybin, English, and Johnson. It's only going to get harder for small market teams to retain the Freeneys, Strahans, and Allens. What about depth? Think it's easier to have a group of rush LBs or a group of stud DEs? What about tackles? I'd rather replace a space eater than a guy you rely on to slash through gaps. We don't even have ONE that can do that with any shred of consistency. The system worked well with HOF talent everywhere on the field in Tampa but it's not going to work in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Exactly my point, Coach! You are right on with this post. The successful 3-4 teams don't have studs up and down their D-lines. They have solid big-bodied and disciplined role players. If you think finding a Mario Williams is as easy as finding a Lamarr Woodley you are out of your mind. The steelers and ravens are so stocked with these types, they can afford to let go of Adalius Thomas and Joey Porter. They just reload with a fresh crop and continue attacking. This draft alone has 6-8 of these type of guys who project better to a 3-4 than they do a traditional 4-3 DE. The college game has gotten away from the big DE and relies on the best athletes instead. Who in this draft is going to come in and be our Mario Williams? Tyson Jackson? Even a great player like Mario Williams plays on a defense that can't get pressure. The Texans have spent high draft picks trying but haven't been able to compliment him. What makes you think the Bills are going to find a player like that? We will either take a big no impact DE or we will take an undersized guy and put his hand in the ground and negate his greates strength, you watch. James Harrison would not have the same impact on the Bills as he does on the steelers. You can say the same about Orakpo, Brown, Maybin, English, and Johnson. It's only going to get harder for small market teams to retain the Freeneys, Strahans, and Allens. What about depth? Think it's easier to have a group of rush LBs or a group of stud DEs? What about tackles? I'd rather replace a space eater than a guy you rely on to slash through gaps. We don't even have ONE that can do that with any shred of consistency. The system worked well with HOF talent everywhere on the field in Tampa but it's not going to work in Buffalo. please list which "successful" 3-4 teams do NOT have a monster DL. The Ravens have one of the best DL in the biz, as do the patriots*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I don't know wtf you are arguing about then. Like my original post said, they were in 2-man. Fitzgerald crossed, broke free, got depth on the LB (as he ran away from the Taylor), and ripped the middle of the defense for a score. It was a perfect call against that defense and perfectly executed. Taylor was a non-factor by design of the play and proper execution; Fitz simply beat him and he couldn't make the play even with a last ditch dive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Ys0iEpz8A you said: Fitzgerald crossed into the middle of the field where he had a LB on him I said: no, ike taylor was on him the whole time. and he would have been, had he not gotten smoked on the inside slant and dove and missed fitz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts