tennesseeboy Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Let's ignore the (lack of a) pass rush yet again and load up on O linemen. It'll work. Our biggest problem is the o-line..a close second is our pass rush and defensive line. Getting the players we have gotten (TO etc.) doesn't address either problem. Trading peters only exacerbates the biggest problem we have. First we have to stop the arterial bleeding from the o-line and the d-line.
KRC Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Not trying to jump in, but we actually run more cover 3 and 4 than we do the Tampa 2. Do we employ a primarily one gap based defense? Yes - but that isn't necessarily screaming Tampa 2. Eagles and any Wade 3-4 runs a one gap - the Tampa 2 just refers to the coverage behind the rush. A lot of posters here are getting caught up in the Tampa 2 and 1) not realizing what it actually is and 2) thinking that is the only defense we run. To address the point previously, just because we are in a Tampa 2 (or Cover 3, Cover 4, etc), doesn't mean that the pressure strictly comes from the DL. You can change things up with various types of firezone blitzes, where the DL will drop back into the underneath zones for coverage. This works perfectly for undersized DL, where they are more athletic and can act more like a larger LB and can cover the middle underneath zones. Rotating the players around will still give you the Tampa 2 (or other coverages), while messing with the blocking schemes of the OL. To address R. Rich, I completely agree with your take. DL in the first round, OL in the second and fill in with a TE in the third or later rounds. I haven't looked at an available free agent list, but I would not be opposed to bringing in another OL FA (position would be dependent on who we draft in the second round). If Peters is gone, we have another player to fill in. If Peters stays, we have depth.
KRC Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Well, a standard cover 2 might refer to the coverage, but the Tampa 2 - when it is employed - refers to the entire scheme and doesn't generally employ blitzes. I would disagree with this. Tampa 2 is just another way of saying that you toss in a Cover 2 look pre-snap and morph it into a Cover 3 after the snap. You don't have to have 2 CB and 2 LB underneath to make it a Tampa 2. You just need three on the over zone, 4 in the under zone and 4 rushing. There is nothing saying who needs to make up the particular zones and what they are doing in those.
Bill from NYC Posted April 8, 2009 Author Posted April 8, 2009 I would disagree with this. Tampa 2 is just another way of saying that you toss in a Cover 2 look pre-snap and morph it into a Cover 3 after the snap. You don't have to have 2 CB and 2 LB underneath to make it a Tampa 2. You just need three on the over zone, 4 in the under zone and 4 rushing. There is nothing saying who needs to make up the particular zones and what they are doing in those. Well, I for one think it is a stupid defense. Before Schobel was hurt and he was a viable pass rusher, it seemed like he was either downfield on coverage, or practically in the stands he was so wide. Plus, they can't stop 3rd and short, but that is probably due to the fact that they are small and weak, as much as the scheme.
KRC Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Well, I for one think it is a stupid defense. Before Schobel was hurt and he was a viable pass rusher, it seemed like he was either downfield on coverage, or practically in the stands he was so wide. Plus, they can't stop 3rd and short, but that is probably due to the fact that they are small and weak, as much as the scheme. That is a whole other thread, my friend.
Poeticlaw Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 The following is a very short synopsis of the Bills starting OL..... OC) Geoff Hangartner: Should be an upgrade but why was he let go of so easily? Jmo. He want let go he was a free agent and the Panthers have an abundance of OL and there starters are already in place. They knew he could be a starter on a team and gave him the chance to pursue the starting Job if noone gave him the opprotunity the would have resigned him. There was a link to this but im sure you could look it up. Either way hes is an upgrade over preston and fowler!
Deadstroke Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 I will address your points one at a time..... 1) If Peters is made the highest paid LT in the NFL (and I am hoping that he settles for less), this will only be the case for a month or so. I don't think that the highest paid thing is much of an issue. 2) LG should improve, but it will probably require Jauron to devorte draft resources to blockers, something he is little known for. 3) I love your comments about Hangartner and hope that you are carrect. We need a physical Center. 4) I focused on Butler all season. Having no way to prove it, I make the case that he played hurt a lot. While this is quite admirable, he does seem to have a history of being injured in 08, and 07 as well iirc. Just something to watch. 5) Agreed about Walker, although I get the feeling that he would be a better player if he was in better condition, but this too is ultimately speculation. 2 through 5 are ok, but 1 is fuzzy thinking, Bill. You pay a guy what he is worth, at least in MHO. And Peters, although very good, is not the top T in the game, and with scads of sacks allowed it's a shame that the players, etc, voted him into the pro bowl again because he most certainly did not deserve it. Pay him the top T $ in the game and it would be a shame. Hopefully the Bills use integrity and dump him off for a 1st and a 3rd and again, hopefully, things turn out well. One more quickie... if we didn't need the players so badly I'd say let him play out his contract for the next 2 years at his PRESENT salary and then pay him the avg of the top 5 in the 3rd and let him rot! The guy is a certified jerk and deserves to be treated like one. However........
Lofton80 Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 The lack of a pass rush has as much to due with the scheme Fewell is using as the personnel. Nothing drives me crazier than his delayed blitzes by linebackers 10 yards off the ball or better yet saties 25 yards back. To ignore the offensive line, for the sake of the "pass rush" is a recipe for a top 5 pick in 2010 and the chance for the some great TO episodes. On one hand it would be the end of the Jauron era
R. Rich Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 The lack of a pass rush has as much to due with the scheme Fewell is using as the personnel. Nothing drives me crazier than his delayed blitzes by linebackers 10 yards off the ball or better yet saties 25 yards back. To ignore the offensive line, for the sake of the "pass rush" is a recipe for a top 5 pick in 2010 and the chance for the some great TO episodes. On one hand it would be the end of the Jauron era It may just be me, but I do not consider using a first round pick on a pass rusher (which should be available where we're picking) while using a second round pick on a quality interior OL (which should also be available where we're picking) to be "ignoring the offensive line". The draft is not just one round. Now, if I thought there was enough depth in terms of pass rushers that we could flip that scenario and still land one, I'd be all for it. In years past, I've been leading the charge here in regard to fixing the offensive line woes. I just don't see the Bills being able to adequately address the pass rush after the 11th pick in this draft. While we do not want to "ignore" the O line, we certainly do not want to do the same in regard to the pass rush, do we?
billybob Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Madness ? THIS IS BUFFALO!!!!!! (throws self down a well). I wanted the Bills to extend preemptively Jason Peters right after he was announced for his first Pro Bowl but that's not the Bills ways ( I think with a lot of praise and expressed love the Bills could have paid 6mil last year and 7mil this year) but everyone wants to play hardball, well take that fast ball to the crotch and suck it up- The Peters situation probable cost the Bills a game or two last year and Peters is probably gonna be traded this year. I wanted the Bills to take Jason Brown and/or Chris Kemoeatu in FA but that's water under the bridge. Hey wouldn't it feel better if the LG position was a little more settled but hey this is Buffalo. Now if we are gonna trade Peters to Philly we want to get Max Jean-Gilles and 21st pick overall back. If the Bills trades Peters away for less it would set a bad example. my draft preference is 1. Raji but I think he is unlikely to be there 2. Andre Smith 50% chance 3. Oher good chance 4. Tyson Jackson as a DT almost sure to be there. If I had 21st I'm looking at Jerry, Beatty, Pettigrew, LBs, DEs,.
BillsWatch Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 The following is a very short synopsis of the Bills starting OL.....2008 LT) Jason Peters: Off year but easily the best player on the OL and the team. It was NOT the starting lineup for Peters came into camp out of shape and benched. He was also not in the lineup in last two games again. Include all of your facts if you are sooooo concerned about the OL and not just your boy. The line (pun intended) is getting old.
Lurker Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 The offense performed perfectly fine in the games where Peters was absent. I don't see that continuing over a longer term once teams get enough film on Walker and Chambers...
iccrewman112 Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 2008 LT) Jason Peters: Off year but easily the best player on the OL and the team. LG) Derrick Dockery: Average OG. Seemed to lack effort at times. OC) Melvin Fowler/Duke Preston: Pushed around at will/Ineffective at all phases of position RG) Brad Butler: Good player imo but frequently injured. RT) Langston Walker: A little above average but gets beat around the edge a bit too often. Is this potential line better than last years? (Heavy draft class for the o-line assuming a Peters trade) LT - Michael Oher LG - Duke Robinson C - Alex Mack RG - Butler/Hargartner RT - Langston Walker
Lofton80 Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Rich: My thinking is based on Peters not being at LT which appears to be more and more likely. I can't see the #11 pick going to a pass rusher with 2 open spots on the OL. Trent vs. Clev scared to death to throw downfield will be a repeat week after week. If Peters is signed then I am on board with a D-lineman at #11. But in Fewell's scheme, the lighter speed rushers like Maybin and English are not going to fit. I almost would rather see Raji or Jerry taken at DT. It may just be me, but I do not consider using a first round pick on a pass rusher (which should be available where we're picking) while using a second round pick on a quality interior OL (which should also be available where we're picking) to be "ignoring the offensive line". The draft is not just one round. Now, if I thought there was enough depth in terms of pass rushers that we could flip that scenario and still land one, I'd be all for it. In years past, I've been leading the charge here in regard to fixing the offensive line woes. I just don't see the Bills being able to adequately address the pass rush after the 11th pick in this draft. While we do not want to "ignore" the O line, we certainly do not want to do the same in regard to the pass rush, do we?
BillsVet Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 The problem Buffalo has every season has too many positions to improve, and not enough resources to do it with. We could not have expected the team to do this in 2006 alone, but by 08 it should have happened. The bigger picture here is that despite allocating so much to the OL, it's still a work in progress. Some teams can have plenty of picks and free agent money to build their franchise. In the end, not all teams can realistically do it with their current management teams. I have serious doubts that Ralph, Littman, Brandon and Jauron will allow personnel people like Modrak and Nix to take the players necessary to ensure Buffalo enters an off-season without glaring issues. As much as there has to be cooperation at different levels, I'm sure most owners don't interfere in personnel matters. But it is what it is in Buffalo, and continued mediocrity is the result. The OL, pass rush, LB corps, TE's, etc have not been solved adequately after 3 drafts and 4 FA periods. Obviously no team enters any draft without needs, but some go into it with more pressing needs than others.
dave mcbride Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 The offense performed perfectly fine in the games where Peters was absent. To your point, the short yardage conversions did not improve with Peters in the line up. OTOH, the defensive effort has been far more lacking, especially on the DL. If you believe that Peters has created an irrevocable rift with Ralph Wilson, then the team has a LT hole along with a DL hole. Looking at the remaining available bodies in FA vs the draft, it would seem wise to go DL in the draft and pick up OL in FA. In one of those three games, the Bills scored a grand total of zero points at home ...
dave mcbride Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Well, a standard cover 2 might refer to the coverage, but the Tampa 2 - when it is employed - refers to the entire scheme and doesn't generally employ blitzes. And I'm not surprised that we use cover 3, but when do we use cover 4 besides 3rd and very long?? Jauron's best Chicago LBs in the "Tampa 2": 2000: Colvin - 3 sacks; Urlacher - 8 sacks (11 total) 2001: Colvin - 10.5 sacks, Urlacher - 6 sacks (16.5 total) 2002: Colvin - 10.5; Urlacher - 4.5 (15 total) 2003: Urlacher was hurt; Colvin was gone. Total team sacks - a pathetic 18.
bladiebla Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 How can you guys not like the Langston Walker videos???!!! Those are the highlight of my week. Allthough saying it'd be my highlight of the week is overrated, I too do look forward to his silly funny vids.
bladiebla Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 “He has tremendous upside,” Owens said of Edwards. “He’s an accurate passer. One of the things I asked my receiver coach [Tyke Tolbert] is how many times was he sacked this year. [Edwards was sacked 23 times.] With that being said he’s getting protection, and if he’s getting protection we’re going to get open.” Source: http://www.terrellowens.com//news/news.php?newsid=511 So it looks like the Bills told TO that they would be upgrading their o-line. What worries me is that even if we manage to fill the oline with pure top quality players, fresh olines need a full season to develop and wont start to blossom untill late in the season/their second year. The whole situation spells trouble.
offde-fence Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 With DE a need early (unless Raji falls to eleven, in which case I think they'd take him), I beleive, absent Peters, we're looking at Walker moved to Lt, Bell or a rookie at LG, Hangartner, Butler, and Chambers at RG. They'll draft depth later. As I see it, they will get an O-lineman in the first two rounds, with or without Peters here. My feeling on Peters is that they want to move him, but they don't want to seem that way. He obviously is too much trouble, all him and no team. Hopefully we can work a trade and get a good young guy - and if we do, I still think they'd have Walker starting at LG and the rookie at RG. Our line was pretty good the first few games of last year without Peters.
Recommended Posts