offde-fence Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I'm a Bills fan, and I follow football all year round, but, I never played much football. I can see the sense in playing a 3-4 defense, because if you can do with 3 players what other teams do with 4, namely, clogging up the O-line, then you can let the more talented athletes, the linebackers, wreak havoc. The Tampa 2 scheme is about speed, having the front four get penetration into the backfield, to slow runs down enough to allow speedy linebackers to make plays; or, everyone is fast enough to be around the ball enough to make "Big Plays" and those come in the form of interceptions mostly. I think I understand the mentality of the two, but, I haven't seen the Tampa 2 done right since Tampa Bay in their SB years, or, more recently Chicago, and Indy...But, Indy's defense seemed more a compliment to their offense. The Bills had great defenses in the last decade or so with the 3-4. Cottrell (Spelled right?) had us in the top every year. What I'm asking is, and I know it depends on what the prevalent offensive schemes are, but, what is the ideal defense? We are all arm chair QB's, so to speak, but I think a lot of us have real football intelligence. So, if you were to create a defense, what would it look like? And, as an afterthought, why can't the Bills put together a good defense of late? We have a defensive minded coach, and now he's had enough years to assemble his cast. I'd have to say it's at Perry Fewell's feet. I just haven't gotten the feeling that his defenses are up to the task.
deep2evans Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Bruce - Mean Joe - Sapp - Reggie LT - Singletary - D. Thomas Rod Wood - Reed - Lott - Deion Did I answer this right?
offde-fence Posted May 21, 2009 Author Posted May 21, 2009 I caught you quick - no, not a hall of fame defense. I mean, what kind of defense would you install, and why? What are the merits of it, and why would it be the best now? It could be something we've never seen before...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 My ideal defense is simplistic in nature. 2 big run stopping defensive tackles in the vain of A Ted Washington/Pat Williams type combo. Which is part of the reason why Im jumping on the early bandwagon for the Terrence Cody 2 Buffalo campaign for 2010. Stock up on multiple pass rushing ends kind of like the giants do. I wanna come at you in waves, and if it means I'm sacrificing talent in the back half of the defense so f'n what. When you got players the caliber of Tuck/Osi/Kiwanuka/Sintim wtf cares who's playing corner. Lbs- I want my lb's to have sideline to sideline range with coverage ability. Size isn't all that important, but if you aren't covering you are useless in my defense. Too many teams run the short area passes over the middle, te's are a staple of any good offense, and there are plenty of good receiving backs in the league. Coverage ability for lb's is a must. Know how to form tackle. You can teach a backer pass rush moves. Good coverage ability is a gift, seldom learned. I want my corners with good size and physical. I'll sacrifice some speed for the ability to jam up at the los. Too much of football is won/lost in short down and distance. Fast corners are great. 5'11-6'1 200-210lb corners who can man up in the redzone and stop the quick slants and fades are a godsend. My nickle corners I want a quicker faster player to play up in the slot. My safeties I want interchangeable. In the box ss are a thing of the past. Gotta be the total package. Good up in run support, with the speed to cover deep. Have the knack for blitzing, and the hands to pick off passes. As far as my philosophy I'd probably lean towards a Jim Johnson agressive style defense. I'm coming after your offense with pressure as often as possible. Yeah I may give up some plays, but with my 2 stout dt's playing the run, and the lb's with good coverage ability I'm letting my dend talent play up to their strengths. I'm not gonna throw many fancy looks. You'll know I'm coming, and it's up to your offense to stop it, and my defense to make a play. Again I would majorly go very talent heavy along the dline, using multiple high end picks/free agent pickups to stockpile talent, while sacrificing areas like corners/safeties/lb's
billybob Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 My ideal defense is simplistic in nature. 2 big run stopping defensive tackles in the vain of A Ted Washington/Pat Williams type combo. Which is part of the reason why Im jumping on the early bandwagon for the Terrence Cody 2 Buffalo campaign for 2010. Stock up on multiple pass rushing ends kind of like the giants do. I wanna come at you in waves, and if it means I'm sacrificing talent in the back half of the defense so f'n what. When you got players the caliber of Tuck/Osi/Kiwanuka/Sintim wtf cares who's playing corner. Lbs- I want my lb's to have sideline to sideline range with coverage ability. Size isn't all that important, but if you aren't covering you are useless in my defense. Too many teams run the short area passes over the middle, te's are a staple of any good offense, and there are plenty of good receiving backs in the league. Coverage ability for lb's is a must. Know how to form tackle. You can teach a backer pass rush moves. Good coverage ability is a gift, seldom learned. I want my corners with good size and physical. I'll sacrifice some speed for the ability to jam up at the los. Too much of football is won/lost in short down and distance. Fast corners are great. 5'11-6'1 200-210lb corners who can man up in the redzone and stop the quick slants and fades are a godsend. My nickle corners I want a quicker faster player to play up in the slot. My safeties I want interchangeable. In the box ss are a thing of the past. Gotta be the total package. Good up in run support, with the speed to cover deep. Have the knack for blitzing, and the hands to pick off passes. As far as my philosophy I'd probably lean towards a Jim Johnson agressive style defense. I'm coming after your offense with pressure as often as possible. Yeah I may give up some plays, but with my 2 stout dt's playing the run, and the lb's with good coverage ability I'm letting my dend talent play up to their strengths. I'm not gonna throw many fancy looks. You'll know I'm coming, and it's up to your offense to stop it, and my defense to make a play. Again I would majorly go very talent heavy along the dline, using multiple high end picks/free agent pickups to stockpile talent, while sacrificing areas like corners/safeties/lb's I so agree
Hardy Pyle Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I think every armchair coach agrees with this. I think the magic is finding those 2 big tackles, hence the problem. This is why letting Pat Williams go was a massive mistake.
billsfanmiami(oh) Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Our D was pretty damn good in 2003. If we had any assemblance of an offense that year we would have been a playoff team.
Tcali Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Bruce - Mean Joe - Sapp - ReggieLT - Singletary - D. Thomas Rod Wood - Reed - Lott - Deion Did I answer this right? I think Singletary,Sapp,D Thomas dont belong in that D. But it aint a bad lineup.
Tcali Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Our D was pretty damn good in 2003. If we had any assemblance of an offense that year we would have been a playoff team. Aaah...the sad laments of a pathetic franchise.-And we woulda won SB25 if we kept Smerlas. Our 266 LB nose tackle Jeff wright going up against 300 + pounders...3 and 1/3 yds per carry....
Tcali Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I think every armchair coach agrees with this. I think the magic is finding those 2 big tackles, hence the problem. This is why letting Pat Williams go was a massive mistake. Thats true---but we had so many other weak spots that even Fat pat wouldnt have made us a contender. YES--that was a big mistake. But lets say we had him now---when we really need aguy like that----He is 36 yrs old.
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I'm a 3-4 devotee. I think it's easier to find players for that defense than a 4-3. D-Line: In the 3-4 you only need 2 genetically freakish NTs, they don't have to be overly quick or athletic, just gigantic and strong. In the 4-3 you need 4. These genetic freaks are hard to find and generally very expensive. Your DE's need to be a little bigger than a 4-3 but you can also get away with them being a little slower and less athletic. You also have the option of taking tweener college DTs who are skilled but too small and pushing them out to DE. LBs: OLB is easy, you get all the undersized college DEs you can find and tell them to rush the QB to death. Coverage skills are a bonus. 4-3 OLBs need to rush the QB and cover, be 245 lbs AND run a 4.5. hard to find and expensive. ILBs can be little slower than a 4-3 MLB who again, needs to be large and very fast to the ball. It's much easier and less expensive to find 2 Posluzny's than 1 Patrick Willis. Dbs: 3-4 is usually a zone scheme so I don't need to shell out big coin for the "lock down" corner. Zone corners are almost always cheaper than good man corners. At Safety I'd like a ballhawk at FS and a hammer at SS. SS is probably the hardest position to fill well in this defense. You need a guy who can come into the box and lay wood but who can also cover a TE well, or a slot WR, when the LBs blitz. You need size and speed. But...most teams don't value SS that highly so you can get a genetic freak later in Rd 1 than you would normally be able to at other positions. FS I want range, height and speed. Tackling is a bonus. Give me a tall college corner who runs a 4.6 that I can get in rd 4. That's my new FS. Sean Taylor would be ideal, but he's rare.
stuckincincy Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 So, if you were to create a defense, what would it look like? Big linebackers that hit hard and are sure tacklers. DEs that string run plays outside so the above can get good whacks on the ball carrier. A DT that is lightning-quick off the snap (Sam Adams-type). A couple of DBs that are terrific blitzers.
bluv Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Schemes don't win - players do. As a coach you have to find the best scheme to get the most out of your players. The debate for the 4-3 vs the 3-4 is ridiculous. It all depends on the personell. Right now this team is best suited to fit a 4-3 sceme. As a matter of fact with more teams shifting to a 3-4 there will be better players that fit our scheme available. Some players can fit any scheme. Bruce, while I think he would have been untouchable in a 4-3 still is the record sack king playing ina 3-4. Others such as Bryce Paup (for those who can remember that far back!) was a dominant Pro Bowl player in a 3-4 but an average LB in a 4-3. The hardest fill on this team to transistion to a 3-4 would be the NT as we don't have protypical NT. Stroud is an above average DT in a 4-3 but would be an average NT at best and behind him on the depth chart - Idon't even want ot go there! Honestly the past 2 years I give Fewell praise as he has overachieved with the talent he has had. Think about it: the year before we lost SEVEN starters to injury and while they gave up a lot of yards they still surrended about mid pack in points allowed. Last year after losing their best pass rusher, the D was not the reason we were 7-9; as a matter of fact it kept us in most games. With the return of Schoebel and hopefully contribution from Maybin or Ellis in pass rush rotation, the D has a chance to be good. Not dominant but good. It is up to the offense to step up its game, score more, and control the clock so that the oppositon will have to pass more, abandon the run game, and give our D ample time to rest. The biggest change I would make on D would be to allow McKlevin to play more man technique as he seems to thrive better in man than zone (Ditto for Greer but he is a Saint now so it doesn't matter!) and more blitzing as Kawika is keen to timing the blitz well.
offde-fence Posted May 21, 2009 Author Posted May 21, 2009 The biggest change I would make on D would be to allow McKlevin to play more man technique as he seems to thrive better in man than zone (Ditto for Greer but he is a Saint now so it doesn't matter!) and more blitzing as Kawika is keen to timing the blitz well. I like that you mentioned Kawika being a good blitzer. There seems to be a lot of Bills fans that don't like him, or that think he's average. I think he's done pretty well so far, and I also think he looks good going after the QB. It shouldn't be a shocker considering he came from the Giants. And, as far as the reply on the Giants and their D-line, I agree 100%. Stock up on the line, and no one can run, and no one gets much time to throw. I wonder why more teams don't follow that pattern?
/dev/null Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Dick Jauron's ideal defense: LDE = DB LDT = DB RDT = DB RDE = DB WLB = DB MLB = DB SLB = DB CB = DB CB = DB SS = DB FS = DB
thebandit27 Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Dick Jauron's ideal defense: LDE = DB LDT = DB RDT = DB RDE = DB WLB = DB MLB = DB SLB = DB CB = DB CB = DB SS = DB FS = DB Ah yes, perpetuate the myth! Unbelievable.
Coach55 Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Schemes don't win - players do. As a coach you have to find the best scheme to get the most out of your players. The debate for the 4-3 vs the 3-4 is ridiculous. It all depends on the personell. Right now this team is best suited to fit a 4-3 sceme. As a matter of fact with more teams shifting to a 3-4 there will be better players that fit our scheme available. Some players can fit any scheme. Bruce, while I think he would have been untouchable in a 4-3 still is the record sack king playing ina 3-4. Others such as Bryce Paup (for those who can remember that far back!) was a dominant Pro Bowl player in a 3-4 but an average LB in a 4-3. The hardest fill on this team to transistion to a 3-4 would be the NT as we don't have protypical NT. Stroud is an above average DT in a 4-3 but would be an average NT at best and behind him on the depth chart - Idon't even want ot go there! Honestly the past 2 years I give Fewell praise as he has overachieved with the talent he has had. Think about it: the year before we lost SEVEN starters to injury and while they gave up a lot of yards they still surrended about mid pack in points allowed. Last year after losing their best pass rusher, the D was not the reason we were 7-9; as a matter of fact it kept us in most games. With the return of Schoebel and hopefully contribution from Maybin or Ellis in pass rush rotation, the D has a chance to be good. Not dominant but good. It is up to the offense to step up its game, score more, and control the clock so that the oppositon will have to pass more, abandon the run game, and give our D ample time to rest. The biggest change I would make on D would be to allow McKlevin to play more man technique as he seems to thrive better in man than zone (Ditto for Greer but he is a Saint now so it doesn't matter!) and more blitzing as Kawika is keen to timing the blitz well. I completely agree. It doesn't matter what defense that you run, it matters about exploiting the talents and hiding the weaknesses of the players you have. Great coaches build a system around the players. Crappy coaches force their players into a system. Practically every team in the NFL has the talent to be a playoff caliber team. The problem is coaches don't know how to exploit their players.
thebandit27 Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I think every armchair coach agrees with this. I think the magic is finding those 2 big tackles, hence the problem. This is why letting Pat Williams go was a massive mistake. I think it comes down to rushing the passer. Look at the Superbowl-winning defenses of the past 10 years, very few of them have 2 big DTs: 2009 - Pittsburgh: 1 big NT (Hampton) and two 290 pounders (Kirschke/Smith) 2008 - NY Giants: Nobody over 300 lbs on the whole d-line 2007 - Indianapolis: Tampa-2, best DT was 295-lb A. McFarland 2006 - Pittsburgh: see above 2005 - New England: Wilfork goes 325, but Seymour/Warren hover around 290 2004 - New England: see above 2003 - Tampa Bay: A. McFarland (295) and Warren Sapp (300+), I guess this is a good example of what you said 2002 - New England: Now we're in the pre-Warren/Wilfork days, but they still had Seymour 2001 - Baltimore: Another good example for your argument with Adams/Siragusa Not too many teams with those big lugs at DT, but every one of them had good pass rushers: 2009 - Pittsburgh: Harrison/Woodley 2008 - NY Giants: Strahan, Umenyiora, Tuck 2007 - Indianapolis: Freeney/Mathis 2006 - Pittsburgh: Porter/Gildon 2005 - New England: Vrabel/Colvin 2004 - New England: see above 2003 - Tampa Bay: S. Rice/G. Spires 2002 - New England: Vrabel/Phifer 2001 - Baltimore: McCrary/Burnett Just my 1 cent.
playman Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 no matter what you play, it needs to fit your personell. as easy as that. it just depends on how well you draft as an NFL team, or how well you adjust as a small-town high school coach.
GOBILLS78 Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I think Singletary,Sapp,D Thomas dont belong in that D. But it aint a bad lineup. Definitely not Singletary or Sapp.
Recommended Posts