Guest dog14787 Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 This was not directed towards you. I know, I just love to brag about Jim Kelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 On the Conference Championship (Super Bowl losers) team of 1993, Pete Metzelaars started all 16 games and recorded 68 catches for 609 yards, and 4 TDs. He was no speed merchant by any means. The K-gun did NOT depend on the particular attributes/skills of the individual playing the tight end position. Not to say that it would work better with a loser tight end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteBills4ever Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I don't think they will be using a whole lot of the no huddle early this season, but when needed they want the offense to be ready to operate with the no huddle. I think Trent still has to show improvements in his decision making, before we go all out with the no huddle. To start a game with successive series of fast 3 and out would put a lot of pressure on our defense. with the backfield we have Lynch(from game 4)-Jackson-Rhodes we should run the ball more often and take deep shots with TO and Lee Evans to keep the opposing defenses from loading the line vs the run... Simple and smart play calling, eat the clock, and let the special teams(where we have our proven best coaching weapon in April) make the difference, is that too much too ask???...Anyway still dreaming about mid-late January football games in Buffalo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I know, I just love to brag about Jim Kelly. Understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 On the Conference Championship (Super Bowl losers) team of 1993, Pete Metzelaars started all 16 games and recorded 68 catches for 609 yards, and 4 TDs. He was no speed merchant by any means. The K-gun did NOT depend on the particular attributes/skills of the individual playing the tight end position. Not to say that it would work better with a loser tight end... Stats never tell the whole story and don't always give a fair representation of what clutch catches by the TE means to an offense and not just the K-Gun, I'm talking about any offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Stats never tell the whole story and don't always give a fair representation of what clutch catches by the TE means to an offense and not just the K-Gun, I'm talking about any offense. Granted, of course. My posts were mostly aimed at your snarky colleagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I already posted this over on Sal Maiorana's blog, but I'll repeat it here: Oh, I don't know. It might make the line look better because you don't see them that much, and given most people's short attention span and short-term memory issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 The cons are that our defense would be on the field for more minutes. Don't have too much of a problem with that, as long as the offense is scoring. A comment on this bit: you realize that you are basically saying, "so long as it works like the Colts", in a nutshell. Except the Colts don't run a hurry-up in terms of clock. They can do that sometimes, but Manning is often using the entire clock, calling plays at the line, and giving the defense fits with false tells, etc. I'm not convinced the Bills offense is on par with the Colts. Also, the Colts had a veteran line for a long time in front of Manning and have struggled more recently after the notable retirement of their franchise LT. Finally, there is a problem with putting the smaller, quicker Tampa-2 defense out on the field often. It's smaller and the more snaps it faces the more it will wear down and the more players will break. This has been the case for the Bills with this defense, where they've had to reach quite deep, especially at some secondary positions. Also, the strategy of the Tampa-2 defense is to defend the field and force the opponent to methodically matriculate down the field. Speeding things up on the offensive side can translate into the opponent getting more opportunites. More opportunites means more chances to put drives together without shooting oneself in the foot. It's the NFL afterall -- even the Lions, as inept as they were, scored a few touchdowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 On the Conference Championship (Super Bowl losers) team of 1993, Pete Metzelaars started all 16 games and recorded 68 catches for 609 yards, and 4 TDs. He was no speed merchant by any means. The K-gun did NOT depend on the particular attributes/skills of the individual playing the tight end position. Not to say that it would work better with a loser tight end... By the 93 season, the K-Gun had evolved, after McKeller's defection to the Broncos, to the point where Kelly&Co. didn't rely on the TE mismatches created by McKeller's versatility. Metz never split out wide after lining up off tackle as a blocker like McKeller did. But you are mistaken if you think the genesis of the K-Gun didn't revolve around McKeller. It did, plain and simple. Your inability to grasp the concept, aside. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 In terms of offense, the Bills have more skill at the skill positions in some time. The youth on the OL and transition of other players makes it seem difficult to run it more than a few series per game. At the end of the day, no DJ team has been stellar offensively. Opening up the offense isn't something's he's done since Gary Crowton ran the wide open style in 1999 and 2000. In neither season did the Bears win many games. And inevitably running the no-huddle will force the defense onto the field more frequently. I just can't see a defensive minded and very conservative coach running the risk of exposing his defense more than is absolutely necessary. The no-huddle may work initially, even with a transitional OL. The key will be adjusting it when facing the better opponents. And last year, adapting to situations (3-4 defenses with 6+ in coverage) didn't seem to be the coaching staff's strong point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Ralph Wilson wanted to fire Turk Schonert the offensive coordinator after last season because of his moronic play calls,Jets game-49ers game come to mind first. Jauron refused to fire Schonert stating "continuity". Funny word to use because I see it most used in conjunction with the O line, which Jauron completely tore apart. The O line has zero continuity, but the play calling will stay the same. Turk Schonert has a propensity to constantly call pass plays, especially from the shotgun formation. Irregardless of down and distance. One thing you can count on, this OC will be calling passing plays at the most ridiculous times. Last season he kept calling for pass plays when the opposing defense was in a constant dime package and only rushing four and with a back up QB in the game. Even when Josh Reed was injured and Lee Evans was always doubled covered and Trent Edwards had nobody open, Schonert just kept calling for shotgun passing plays, on the sideline...up in the booth. He could be on planet Mars, not even see the earth and he would still call shotgun passing plays. I look at the announcement of the "no huddle" in that Schonert is going to call passing plays no matter if the O line can't handle it,won't matter or if the other offensive skill players can't handle it. He is going to make the offense pass the ball no matter what. Last year after Schonert was first hired to replace Fairchild he stated he was going to stop using the TE's as fullbacks and bring in a fullback to block. I thought that is great, the Bills will run the ball more, and with that huge O line they should be pancaking defensive players and build a power running game to setup the passing game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I don't think they will be using a whole lot of the no huddle early this season, but when needed they want the offense to be ready to operate with the no huddle. I think Trent still has to show improvements in his decision making, before we go all out with the no huddle. To start a game with successive series of fast 3 and out would put a lot of pressure on our defense. with the backfield we have Lynch(from game 4)-Jackson-Rhodes we should run the ball more often and take deep shots with TO and Lee Evans to keep the opposing defenses from loading the line vs the run... Simple and smart play calling, eat the clock, and let the special teams(where we have our proven best coaching weapon in April) make the difference, is that too much too ask???...Anyway still dreaming about mid-late January football games in Buffalo... What decision is there? if the Bills offensive coordinator comes out after the season and openly states that Trent often had nobody open because the opposing defense was doubling the deep threat and the team LACKED another top receiver opposite Lee Evans. So basically he was saying Trent had Josh Reed and lee Evans and Evans was always covered. Is there any wonder as to why he kept dumping the ball to his outlets in Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch? The Bills failed to address the real need for a quality tight end,they tried to trade for Tony Gonzalaz last season but he refused to be traded to Buffalo You can dream all you want about football in mid late January, the Bills won't be there because when it gets cold and snowy the Bills OC will still be calling passing plays in the no huddle, instead of building a power running game. Simple and smart play calling won't happen as long as Schonert is the OC for the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 What decision is there? if the Bills offensive coordinator comes out after the season and openly states that Trent often had nobody open because the opposing defense was doubling the deep threat and the team LACKED another top receiver opposite Lee Evans. So basically he was saying Trent had Josh Reed and lee Evans and Evans was always covered. Is there any wonder as to why he kept dumping the ball to his outlets in Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch? The Bills failed to address the real need for a quality tight end,they tried to trade for Tony Gonzalaz last season but he refused to be traded to Buffalo You can dream all you want about football in mid late January, the Bills won't be there because when it gets cold and snowy the Bills OC will still be calling passing plays in the no huddle, instead of building a power running game. Simple and smart play calling won't happen as long as Schonert is the OC for the Bills. Turk is the reason they can't run on 3rd and short. with his penchant for shot gun passes, he has failed miserably to instill a kickass attitude in the OL. He coaches soft and the team plays soft. the question is how long does it take to convert these nasty rookie OL into pansies under Turk & Kugler's coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Last year after Schonert was first hired to replace Fairchild he stated he was going to stop using the TE's as fullbacks and bring in a fullback to block. I thought that is great, the Bills will run the ball more, and with that huge O line they should be pancaking defensive players and build a power running game to setup the passing game... That could've been great, but it ignored that the line, other than Peters, was below average to downright pathetic (IQ Preston in the latter) at run blocking. Quantity does not mean quality; the Broncos under Mike Shanahan never had the "biggest OL in the NFL". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'm wondeing if the no huddle helped play a part in the Bills' decision to trade Jason Peters this offseason. Can the no huddle help overcome some of the inexperience of our OL? Any input on the pros and cons on running this type of offense with our young OL would be appreciated. http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-3...ab-c16f5d7c8fed I think so. The hurry-up approach is predicated on quick, up-tempo decisions at the line- thus not allowing or eliminating certain packages that a defense would employ. I think that it forces the hand of the defense, and also has some conditioning aspects to it as well- it tires out a defense. With it being quicker and less opportunity for a defensive package to confuse a rookie, this plays to the offense IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I think so. The hurry-up approach is predicated on quick, up-tempo decisions at the line- thus not allowing or eliminating certain packages that a defense would employ. I think that it forces the hand of the defense, and also has some conditioning aspects to it as well- it tires out a defense. With it being quicker and less opportunity for a defensive package to confuse a rookie, this plays to the offense IMHO. No-huddle or not, if an inexperienced line can not handle a blitz, it does not matter what kind of offense you run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 That could've been great, but it ignored that the line, other than Peters, was below average to downright pathetic (IQ Preston in the latter) at run blocking. Quantity does not mean quality; the Broncos under Mike Shanahan never had the "biggest OL in the NFL". I look at the Baltimore Ravens with envious eyes, with Cam Cameron hired last year, he instituted an awesome power running attack which made it so much easier for Flacco to throw and be successful his rookie year. Not to mention that when the snow,wind and cold came in Nov-DEC they still moved the ball effectively. In one game the Ravens started on their own 18 yard line and and ran the ball 12 consecutive plays utilizing three and sometimes 4 offensive tackles sometimes replacing a guard and tight end with a tackle. The opposing team knew that the Ravens were going to run and stacked the box and were pushed back every play, resulting in several first downs. (You know, much the same way Schonert calls shotgun passing plays and the opponent knows its a pass, only it ends up a punt) Finally at the opponents 30 yard line and the opposing defense completely worn down by the fullback Le'Ron McClain . The Ravens OC calls for the first pass of the drive, not expecting a pass the opposing defense gives up a TD, thing of beauty! That is what I was hoping for when Schonert stated he wanted to utilize a fullback... I'm not completely sold on the fact that the Bills line was downright pathetic. Don't forget that they replaced a very senior O line coach with a rookie O line coach and the line immediately went into the ceramic convenience, and they had Schonert. Seems odd to me that when the Bills needed to replace the D line coach they went and hired an extremely experienced coach and yet the O line and play calling get noobs! Don't you think that if the coaches were doing the proper job that they would have noticed that the line wasn't going to get the job done? The Bills have made several changes to the O line every year Jauron has been in Buffalo and they have continuously stunk it up! I don't get why everyone thinks that this year with 2 rookies and a backup center from another team will make the O line any better then previous years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No-huddle or not, if an inexperienced line can not handle a blitz, it does not matter what kind of offense you run. I disagree. If the offense is calling (and executing) plays faster than the blitz penetrates it would actually open up more options. Also, personnel will be limited and not allowed to be substituted. Granted, the onus of EXECUTION is on the offense. But if they execute correctly, I believe that it is a superior way to march down the field. Don't you remember the K-Gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No-huddle or not, if an inexperienced line can not handle a blitz, it does not matter what kind of offense you run. Quite true. If running a no-huddle offense meant that the offense would be more effective (to the point of being able to paper over potential disadvantages that encompass ~50% of the players on the unit) then we'd see a majority of teams necessarily running no-huddle offenses in order to keep up with the efficiency gains of their opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No-huddle or not, if an inexperienced line can not handle a blitz, it does not matter what kind of offense you run. Blitz's will be called on the run without proper substitution, mistakes will be made, players will be left uncovered and TE will make them pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts