billsrcursed Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 Yeah, that's exactly right, but he seemed to be saying that we change personnel creating a mismatch and then prevent them from subbing. Outside of substitutions, the thing that creates mismatches in the first place is having personnel who are very adaptable. Thurman, for instance, could run or catch passes with the absolute best of them. Switch where he lined up and you had a mismatch. Do we have anyone like that now? I don't see it, though perhaps they just haven't been used that way. Both Marshawn and Jackson are excellent RBs, and good out of the backfield, but I don't see them causing tremors of fear if they lined up out wide. McKeller was the other guy who was extremely adaptable. Right now our new TE, Nelson, is a good reciever but won't cause fear as a blocker, though he could develop in that direction. He's unlikely to be a full-time TE this year. Right now, I just don't see it, at least not as more than a sometime thing. How often did Lynch or Jackson actually line up outside last year?? Wait, let me answer that for you; NOT ENOUGH!!!! My point is, aside from our OC not utilizing our weapons to the best of their abilities, we may actually have guys that can mimmick the K-gun position by position. Turk needs to find ways to get our playmakers the ball as quickly as possible, so if a no huddle does that (and it does if executed properly) than I say why the hell not, we have nothing to lose. I also agree with some others who have stated the screen was and is sorely missed on this team. For the life of me I can't understand why we didn't involve Lynch AND Jackson more in our offense last year.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 FWIW, Keith McKellar was never a really dominant TE and his stats were quite pedestrian. His two best years were 34 catches for 13.6 yards per catch and 5 TDs in '90, and 44 catches for 9.9 yards per and 3 TDs in 91. Metzelars did nothing those two years. In 92 we didnt have much production out of the two TEs at all. In 93, Metzelars had 68 grabs for 9.4 YPC and 4 TDs. In 94, he was at 49 for 8.7 YPC and 5 Tds. Then he disappeared. In those years, he basically caught a short pass and fell down. Never were either of those guys a real threat. McKellar helped stretch the field a bit and Metzelars was a reliable pass catcher but never was either very dynamic.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 FWIW, Keith McKellar was never a really dominant TE and his stats were quite pedestrian. His two best years were 34 catches for 13.6 yards per catch and 5 TDs in '90, and 44 catches for 9.9 yards per and 3 TDs in 91. Metzelars did nothing those two years. In 92 we didnt have much production out of the two TEs at all. In 93, Metzelars had 68 grabs for 9.4 YPC and 4 TDs. In 94, he was at 49 for 8.7 YPC and 5 Tds. Then he disappeared. In those years, he basically caught a short pass and fell down. Never were either of those guys a real threat. McKellar helped stretch the field a bit and Metzelars was a reliable pass catcher but never was either very dynamic. Yeah....but that's not really the point though. The point is that for the K-Gun/hurry up to work, you have to have a TE who can block reasonably, and change who he is blocking on the fly based on the play call/audible at the line. The other point is that you have to have a TE who is a credible pass catching "threat" to draw defenders, and burns people when they don't cover him. If you recall correctly, that's exactly the role that McKellar/Power Pete played. They'd always show up when you least expect it and get the TD or the 1st, especially when teams would scheme to take away our WRs and Thomas/Davis. It's really a "one thing leads to another" concept: the TE going down the field draws a Safety, which means the corner on that side has to play off his guy, which opens up the crossing pattern for the WR, which creates space for RB on a screen/out pattern etc. The avg # of catches per season in the stats you provided is 48. (92 was the year that they transitioned from McKellar to Metzelaars in terms of starting, so both got less, but Pete led the team in receptions in 93) That's 4 per game. Last year Royal caught less than 2 per game. We need much better production from the TE position = credible threat, and consistent blocking = blitz pickup/safety valve, for the hurry up to work. It's like others have said here, a good % of the concept is mismatches. The more people you have in the pass pattern, the more mismatches you create, and the more chances for the D to get confused and make mistakes (see: 4 blown coverages for TDs in The Comeback).
Lori Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 I have only one question about a return to the no-huddle: will Langston Walker be curled up next to an oxygen tank by the end of the second quarter?
Whites Bay Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 I have only one question about a return to the no-huddle: will Langston Walker be curled up next to an oxygen tank by the end of the second quarter? That's the big question, Lori. I've been getting more excited the further through this thread I dig. I'm not so naive to think that we're ready to step back into the glory days of two decades ago, but Tim might be onto something here. We may indeed have the components to make this work. Countering the concern about Walker, however, is the fact that we're possibly (likely?) to have two brand shiny new guards in place. Conditioning was the key in the K-Gun. Frankly, I'd rather have a bunch of 21-22 year-olds propping up the middle than, say, Melvin Fowler or Mike Gandy. Two "skill" players (and I use "skill" in quotes, because the O-Line isn't exactly chopped liver in the K-Gun) whom I think could have a field day in this offense would be Fred Jackson and Roscoe Parrish. Lord, get those two open in a seam somewhere in the middle of the second quarter and it's "Oh St" time on the opposing bench. A worn-down LB isn't going to lay a hand on either one of them.
scribo Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 I'm in love with the idea of the Bills running a no-huddle offense, even if it is the old Bengals' version rather than a new generation of the K-Gun, which I think would now need to be called the S-Gun any way. I think having an majorly remodeled offensive lineup would actually make this transition easier as everyone would be learning together at the same time. This is about the best way I can think of to capitalize on the intelligence which has seemed to be such a large part of of the team's player selection. It is important to note the major risk of running this type of offense is that if you get stopped, you quickly wear your own defense out and can badly lose the time of possession battle. Big guys like Stroud probably won't be a fan of this idea. Our d-line will have to be in tip-top cardiovascular shape 2. Here's a handy copy of the 1994 K-gun offense for X's and O's dweebs(including me). Thanks, OC. That's great. I was really surprised to see the notes on the huddle in there. The "don't lean on other men" and "the QB is the only person talking in the huddle" sounds exactly like what I had to tell the 9-year-olds I coached last year.
scribo Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 Oh, and if I read the article correctly, it appears the Bills intend to do this -- it's not just an idea they are kicking around, according to Tim's source. That said, Bellychick won't be that surprised as I would presume he reads Tim's blog, and Trent and company will need to practice this in the preseason games.
bourbonboy Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 That said, Bellychick won't be that surprised as I would presume he reads Tim's blog... Blogs?? Bellicheck don't need no stinking blogs!!! He'll have plenty of his own film....
JinWPB Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 The offensive personnel is only part of what's needed for the no huddle - you also have to be able to trust your own defense. If our D can't get off the field and is giving up long drives, we can't go no huddle because a quick out results in putting our D back on the field too soon. If we can get a decent pass rush and start forcing some 3 and outs ourselves, that's where the no huddle becomes a serious weapon. I also love our offensive personnel for the no huddle, but strange as it may sound, I don't know if our D will be good enough for us to go no huddle often. D is the biggest question mark. Too many people think the "no huddle" is the same as a two minute drill , it is not. In a "no huddle" the offense gets over the ball quickly to keep the D from catching up , but the QB can still let the play clock run down and he has more time to survey the field and change the play if he wants.
The Dean Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 Too many people think the "no huddle" is the same as a two minute drill , it is not. In a "no huddle" the offense gets over the ball quickly to keep the D from catching up , but the QB can still let the play clock run down and he has more time to survey the field and change the play if he wants. That's true. The Bills, in their heyday, ran the no huddle at break-neck speed and used it to wear down the defense. They had much less success when they slowed it down, in the mid 90s. But, you don't have to run the offense at a high speed the entire game, if a different strategy warrants change. As long as the D knows you can, and will, run the offense at a fast pace, that keeps them from substituting players. If you establish that early, you can vary the speed of the offense, to fit the game situation.
Magox Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 In a REAL NFL offense, I'd agree. But given the clusterfuc# the Bills have run, I'm not so sure. If he doesn't get traded, I hope your right.
eball Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 "droptastic Robert Royal" is my phrase of the day. Well done Tim!!
RkFast Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 Hey Turk....1991 called. They want their offense back. Maybe we can all close our eyes and pretent Jim Kelly is out there.
SKOOBY Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 "droptastic Robert Royal" is my phrase of the day. Well done Tim!! LOL.
dave mcbride Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 Sorry, that doesn't equate to "he has trouble running routes". It could mean, he can't get off the first bump. More likely, it means he is being poorly used by the coaching staff, and Trent doesn't look his way, as he tends to go to the check-down option more often than not. Or, when he is lined up, and a real option, it is in one of the many formations the Bills use to announce their intentions to the defense, before the snap. You try getting open when the D knows exactly what you are going to do. I have yet to see that Parrish isn't open, play after play. I don't make the leap of faith that, because he isn't getting the ball, then he MUST be covered. Even if that were true, I'd probably start my thought process (as I usually do) with the fact that the offense has been incompetently designed and run, for several years. I might be overly swayed by his explosive talent on ST, but I have to believe he would excel on another team, in a different system. Desmond Howard was a great returner but simply couldn't get off the bump and was weak as a result.
dave mcbride Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 That's true. The Bills, in their heyday, ran the no huddle at break-neck speed and used it to wear down the defense. They had much less success when they slowed it down, in the mid 90s. But, you don't have to run the offense at a high speed the entire game, if a different strategy warrants change. As long as the D knows you can, and will, run the offense at a fast pace, that keeps them from substituting players. If you establish that early, you can vary the speed of the offense, to fit the game situation. I recall them slowing it down after Wolford left and Lofton disappeared due to declining skills. They weren't good enough anymore to roll over people, and that's evident in the stats (and from my eyeball test) from 93 on. Superfast 3 and outs weren't welcome.
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 I recall them slowing it down after Wolford left and Lofton disappeared due to declining skills. They weren't good enough anymore to roll over people, and that's evident in the stats (and from my eyeball test) from 93 on. Superfast 3 and outs weren't welcome. I don't recall either the Bills or Bengals version of the hurry-up offense being run with a number of rookies, 2nd, and 3rd year guys in the starting lineups. Now, at least our WRs are veterans.
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 You know I'm not a fan of the coach. I just don't see how a guy who was a position coach for many years couldn't get promoted to OC for multiple franchises. The jury is still out on this guy, and the guy who hired him. What I saw last year was some unpreparedness and inability to adapt in-game to opposing defenses. People like to point out that Cleveland picked off Edwards 3 times early. I was there and it was painful to watch a guy make those mistakes. But I also don't think his OC helped him at all either. Let's recall this was the fifth time TE saw a 3-4 defense. An experienced NFL coach needs to do better than that, regardless of how many games he's been an OC. I expect more from the OC when he's been around the game his entire adult life. I still believe TS would not be more than a position coach for 31 other teams in the NFL. His not being hired after 10 seasons as a QB coach tells me something. Schonert was hired to keep the continuity in the offense. Apparently, that's why they are changing the offense this year to something he is more comfortable with.
Lori Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 I don't recall either the Bills or Bengals version of the hurry-up offense being run with a number of rookies, 2nd, and 3rd year guys in the starting lineups. At least our WRs are veterans. Ickey Woods was a rookie in 1988, but split time with veteran James Brooks. The line was anchored by Munoz and Montoya, and the other starters were all in at least their third year in the league. For the Bills, Thurman, House Ballard and Don Beebe were really the only young'uns, and Beebe the only second-year guy. Wish I'd had a chance to read this before heading north yesterday.
Poeticlaw Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afceast/0-7-176...-for-Bills.html Now that would actually make me optimistic about this teams chances if that is indeed what they plan on doing. Because that puts in in the play to win not play to lose and more playcalling on the QB and less on the OC which I have more confidence in Trents ability to call the right play then i do Turk. If this does indeed tunr to fruition and they look good at it I might actually have to change my prediction. We will see!
Recommended Posts