stuckincincy Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) Game planning and in game adjustments are pointless and potentially counterproductive in the preseason. I disagree, Simon. You want to look at the new crop, but you also have to tune up your veterans. And I feel you have to see if this new bunch can play the schemes used during the regular season. Every pro ball team has seen every formation or offensive/defensive philosophy and plays ever concocted. Football has been played for a hundred years. The "plain vanilla" approach is dumb, IMO. Nobody is going to be fooled by any playcall. I want to see how the rookies and the 2nd, 3rd year folks deal with a regular season offense and defense. The staff has to winnow down from 80 to the best 53 who might show the best performance when the games count. I would never overplay vets in preseason. But I need to know who among the youngsters can deal with the offense or defense I plan for the regular season, with its' complexity. I sure don't want to have one of those 53 spots occupied by a body that simply excelled in Preseason Football 101. I would game plan for preseason tilts. I want my players involved in that. I know about clubs that try to run up undefeated PS schedules in hopes of tix sales. I'm not advocating that. Edited August 24, 2009 by stuckincincy
Guest dog14787 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Game planning doesn't explain away losing one on one matchups. Nor does it explain why the Bills coaching staff didn't use the situation as an opportunity to make their own game time adjustments. If an internet nerd can tell they are beating Kelsay like a drum... Like you said, these guys are professionals. Ummmm, we did out play them in the 2nd half in my opinion
Reed83HOF Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 While I think it is important to evaluate players and not necessarily care too much about the outcome of the game, remember that these athletes are competitors and no one wants to lose... Part of preseason should not only be a tune-up for the players but for the coaches as well, this would include game planning and attacking your opponents weaknesses. The player evaluation on the playing field should not be simply plain vanilla, as that is not used in the regular season. You want/need to know if your players can execute the plays that you will be using in the regular season. You should also be using this time to shore up your weaker areas and experiment a bit with possible solutions. Obvisouly you don't want to tip your hand too much as to what you are going to do, but the shock and awe is only there for the first game or two in the regular season. Each preseason game should be devote to further developing certain plays and styles and seeing how your talent fits in. This way you can ensure that you are keeping the right players and not just the ones who can play in a plain vanilla system... Also I found this quote from Byrd, very interesting... “They didn’t really try to go deep,” said Byrd of Green Bay’s passing game. ”Everything was pretty vanilla out there so it was hard to be aggressive. They just ran a lot of quick hits and ran the ball a lot."
stevewin Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Going a little off topic, I think this could generate some legitimate discussion. Wouldn't game planning and adjustments be a worth while tool to use when evaluating a player in the preseason? IMO, it would. Right now, they pretty much just go out there and run plays, and evaluate how the player does. But during the regular season, that's not what happens at all. Wouldn't it be favorable to a coaching staff to design gameplans and configure adjustments in the preseason to watch how well the player can carry out those orders? Can they stick with their assignments? Do they freelance? Do they have the mental makeup to be able to not just act on talent alone, and instead be able to read-and-react while simultaneously processing their assignment(s)? I think that would be a very important factor, especially for the Bills, who claim to value how smart they want their players to be. On the other hand, if this was actually an effective method, I'd think coaches around the league would actually be doing it. Not only that - but also get some *practice*/experience in real game conditions for all the personnel (incl veterans/starters) who are going to see the same looks in the regular season. Isn't it better to at least go over various schemes/assignments prior to the game and have the units execute against in live game conditions in pre-season games than wait until the first regular season to do it live for the first time? Part of it I think is how you define 'gameplanning'. I don't think you need to come up with exotic schemes intended to specificaly defeat an opponent in preseason, but it would be nice to minimally (for example from an offensive POV) go over potential looks, where blitzes/stunts might be coming from w/ protection responsibilities etc. This isn't "giving anything away" - it's just preparing and practicing execution against a certain type of defense...
KD in CA Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Do you really think Belichik needs this piece of film to hand Jauron his ass? Belichik could spend a month in a coma, wake up 5 minutes before kickoff and still hand Jauron his ass.
Guest dog14787 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Not only that - but also get some *practice*/experience in real game conditions for all the personnel (incl veterans/starters) who are going to see the same looks in the regular season. Isn't it better to at least go over various schemes/assignments prior to the game and have the units execute against in live game conditions in pre-season games than wait until the first regular season to do it live for the first time? Part of it I think is how you define 'gameplanning'. I don't think you need to come up with exotic schemes intended to specificaly defeat an opponent in preseason, but it would be nice to minimally (for example from an offensive POV) go over potential looks, where blitzes/stunts might be coming from w/ protection responsibilities etc. This isn't "giving anything away" - it's just preparing and practicing execution against a certain type of defense... Evaluating rookies is hard enough, there's a reason you keep things simple, we need to see them execute properly so we can judge their athletic abilities. Some folks seem to have this idea that because Buffalo is a young team we should be practicing game planning, but its just the opposite. Rookies are still trying to grasp playing in the NFL, everything is completely new to them, does this even register with some of you guys.
ans4e64 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Some folks seem to have this idea that because Buffalo is a young team we should be practicing game planning, but its just the opposite. we need to see them execute properly so we can judge their athletic abilities.
Mr. WEO Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 What he said. "To evaluate players. Period. End of story." Game planning and in game adjustments are pointless and potentially counterproductive in the preseason. If I have any distress following this game, it's not because the Bills got beat by a team that was more motivated with a staff that was more intent on "winning" this scrimmage. It's because they have seemingly taken no time to work against the kind of defenses they'll be frequently seeing in the regular season. Ok, fine. What is the accurate assement of the running game? The passing game? The pass rush? The run defense? Were they as bad as they looked? Or do we fall back on--"well, we didn't gameplan so it's hard to evaluate..."?
Whites Bay Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 While I think it is important to evaluate players and not necessarily care too much about the outcome of the game, remember that these athletes are competitors and no one wants to lose... Part of preseason should not only be a tune-up for the players but for the coaches as well, this would include game planning and attacking your opponents weaknesses. The player evaluation on the playing field should not be simply plain vanilla, as that is not used in the regular season. You want/need to know if your players can execute the plays that you will be using in the regular season. You should also be using this time to shore up your weaker areas and experiment a bit with possible solutions. Obvisouly you don't want to tip your hand too much as to what you are going to do, but the shock and awe is only there for the first game or two in the regular season. Each preseason game should be devote to further developing certain plays and styles and seeing how your talent fits in. This way you can ensure that you are keeping the right players and not just the ones who can play in a plain vanilla system... Also I found this quote from Byrd, very interesting... “They didn’t really try to go deep,” said Byrd of Green Bay’s passing game. ”Everything was pretty vanilla out there so it was hard to be aggressive. They just ran a lot of quick hits and ran the ball a lot." Perhaps looking at this off-topic topic from yet ANOTHER angle, it perhaps would also make sense to game plan a particular player if you're considering putting that individual into either a different role, or into multiple roles. All this talk about Maybin being ideal at LB comes to mind. One would know that....how? Similarly, I guess, would be the case of Byrd and Harris, both of whom are trying out new positions. It might be better to test the hypothesis when the scores don't count (I recognize that we're already doing that to an extent with Byrd and Harris, and Harris looks like he's taking to the new position very well).
Reed83HOF Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Perhaps looking at this off-topic topic from yet ANOTHER angle, it perhaps would also make sense to game plan a particular player if you're considering putting that individual into either a different role, or into multiple roles. All this talk about Maybin being ideal at LB comes to mind. One would know that....how? Similarly, I guess, would be the case of Byrd and Harris, both of whom are trying out new positions. It might be better to test the hypothesis when the scores don't count (I recognize that we're already doing that to an extent with Byrd and Harris, and Harris looks like he's taking to the new position very well). One thing I did add at the end of my post was to indicate that according to Byrd, everything that GB did during the game was pretty much plain vanilla, which would lead me to believe that not much game planning on offense from GB went on...other than, hey look these plays against these defensive players seem to be working - so lets keep at it and exploit it.
Mr. WEO Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 One thing I did add at the end of my post was to indicate that according to Byrd, everything that GB did during the game was pretty much plain vanilla, which would lead me to believe that not much game planning on offense from GB went on...other than, hey look these plays against these defensive players seem to be working - so lets keep at it and exploit it. If it's an "ingame adjustment", it counts.
Reed83HOF Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Evaluating rookies is hard enough, there's a reason you keep things simple, we need to see them execute properly so we can judge their athletic abilities. Some folks seem to have this idea that because Buffalo is a young team we should be practicing game planning, but its just the opposite. Rookies are still trying to grasp playing in the NFL, everything is completely new to them, does this even register with some of you guys. I am sorry their athletic abilities better be judged well before the draft...In some cases the coaching that some of our rookies got in college, may be much better than what they are getting from our coaches...Not to mention prior to the draft, players who entered the draft are brought in for workouts. A player's atheltic ability best be known prior to drafting them or signing them. Not to mention it will be evident in training camp and daily practices. As far as because Buffallo being a young team, we should we practice game planning and making in-game adjustments...have you watched any of the games the past three years??? We do a poor job in the regular season in regards to game planning or making in-game adjustments...why not practice that a bit too. We might actually be able to win a game or two if the coaches can learn how to adjust during the half. Our players needed to be able to adjust as well. I love how every thinks that it is just preseason let's evaluate our players and leave it at that. Yes it part of it, but unless you have a veteran team that has been together and playing together for awhile - the preseason needs to be used as an opportunity to improve in real life games and not against each other in practice. If a rookie needs to step in during a game in their regular season due to an injury, I would hope that they are able to make an in game adjustment...
K-9 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Ok, fine. What is the accurate assement of the running game? The passing game? The pass rush? The run defense? Were they as bad as they looked? Or do we fall back on--"well, we didn't gameplan so it's hard to evaluate..."? You'd have to ask the coaches but it would help us as fans if we had the coaches tape from the game. We are not in a position to accurately assess player performances except on the most basic level. So I'll try: Running game - overpowered at the POA. very vanilla approach in terms of blocking schemes and our backs didn't look very interested either. Passing game - agree with Jauron that the protection was generally good and allowed enough time to throw on both TE's INT and on his fumble. I'll give the protection additional points for holding up as well as they did considering the packages that Capers threw at them. Pass rush - not enough pressure, especially against a good QB like Rogers. He got rid of the ball on time and took advantage of the atrocious coverage by our secondary, especially our SS. Our rush was extremely vanilla with the exception of a couple basic blitz packages. No stunting, etc. Run defense - overpowered at the POA. Especially to the defense's left side. On the service they WERE every bit as bad as they looked. But I'd need additional information before I could fully assess individual performances. GO BILLS!!!
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Ummmm, we did out play them in the 2nd half in my opinion I said "in game" not "halftime". The second half is for evaluation of backup, bubble and younger players. Making halftime adjustments wouldn't be a good use of coaching time, as you just want to see if the young guys can execute the fundamentals and there is nothing at stake. That's not to say that the coaching staff should have the night off completely. There is a value in trying to counter what the other team is doing to you, be able to get in different sets and packages. It helps you know your own weaknesses and what to work on.
34-78-83 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 You'd have to ask the coaches but it would help us as fans if we had the coaches tape from the game. We are not in a position to accurately assess player performances except on the most basic level. So I'll try: Running game - overpowered at the POA. very vanilla approach in terms of blocking schemes and our backs didn't look very interested either. Passing game - agree with Jauron that the protection was generally good and allowed enough time to throw on both TE's INT and on his fumble. I'll give the protection additional points for holding up as well as they did considering the packages that Capers threw at them. Pass rush - not enough pressure, especially against a good QB like Rogers. He got rid of the ball on time and took advantage of the atrocious coverage by our secondary, especially our SS. Our rush was extremely vanilla with the exception of a couple basic blitz packages. No stunting, etc. Run defense - overpowered at the POA. Especially to the defense's left side. On the service they WERE every bit as bad as they looked. But I'd need additional information before I could fully assess individual performances. GO BILLS!!! Only part I'll disagree with is: "Run defense - overpowered at the POA. Especially to the defense's left side. " I saw that more as they over committed to and stuffed the Pack at the point of attack, but the cutback lane was open all night long.
K-9 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Only part I'll disagree with is:"Run defense - overpowered at the POA. Especially to the defense's left side. " I saw that more as they over committed to and stuffed the Pack at the point of attack, but the cutback lane was open all night long. Good observation. And I agree. I also have trouble with their pursuit angles as well, but that's another thread. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts