thewildrabbit Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 This whole article is fascinating and well researched. Kudos to Mark Gaughan. http://www.buffalonews.com/452/story/772903.html In particular, two points jumped off the page at me (even though as I said, the entire article is outstanding): "We haven't faced a 3-4, a full-speed, live-contact 3-4 defense since last year against the Patriots." And later on in the article, Edwards is quoted once again: "It's good for us," but the hard part now is I don't know how much scout team we're going to be running [in practice]. We didn't face a scout team 3-4 defense [last week], we faced our 4-3 defense. it is the preseason. We do kind of need to just learn things on the fly and be able to make in-game adjustments. But I don't know how much scout team we'll get, how many looks we'll get of [the] Steelers' defense. Edwards is accountable in the article but he also suggests that the Bills are not practicing to play against a type of defense that is so critical for our team to succeed against. From Hangartner's quote and throughout the whole piece, this is must read stuff. The thing is, this is payback for 06 pre season when the Packers came to Buffalo for a pre season game and the Bills lambasted Brett Farve. The Bills scouted and game planned for those Packers and blitzed Farve a ton and really gave him a tough time. The Bills didn't game plan this year, and it showed big time. The Packers game planned, and it showed big time. After watching this game and knowing that Bill Belichick will have new blitz packages installed just for Trent Edward's leaves me thinking that the Bills will look just as bad against the Patriots as they did against the Packers
thewildrabbit Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 If you look at what the Bears did this week against a really good NY Giants defense, compared to what they did last week against the Bills defense you will notice that the Bears were missing some key players. Most notable was Matt Forte, their star RB, this week the Bears made that great Giants defense look horrid. I would think that the addition of TO to the offense will make a huge difference in terms of Buffalo's down field passing. The problem I see is with that O line and their inability to hold blocks for the passing game and run block for the rushing attack.
DaGimp Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 i don't care how many excuses you make or how hard some people try to defend certain players-this team top down is bad, real bad. Bad decisions start at the top with the owner and continue with players on the field. In order to change this team Ralph would have to see the light and hire a real football person (hmm maybe Cowher) and let them take care of it. There is no excuse this year or next not to get real management and coaching in here- Cowher, Shanahan, Jimmy Johnson
Magox Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I'm glad TE is asserting himself. Coaching staff has got to prepare better
John Adams Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 If you look at what the Bears did this week against a really good NY Giants defense, compared to what they did last week against the Bills defense you will notice that the Bears were missing some key players. Most notable was Matt Forte, their star RB, this week the Bears made that great Giants defense look horrid. Oh my God! You're comparing teams' performances week to week against different opponents during the pre-season! Noose please.
Bufcomments Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Since training camp is over the focus for the next three weeks is to stay healthy and prepare to face the 3-4 defense since they have not shown they can handle it . If the Bills are not prepared to face the 3-4 they will be 1-5 or 0-6 again in the division. Trent was right to say it in the paper...they haven't seen it in practice enough. Things like this make me wonder why they keep Jauron....
BuffaloBill Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 What is concerning to me is that the Bills have had no practice against a 3-4 in preseason. You have got to be kidding me. This points straight towards the head coach. You went 0-6 in the division last year and you think you do not need to get your QB some practice at the 3-4? I've tried to support Jauron because we are stuck with him but this, for a brilliant Yale graduate, is just plain stupid. Spend some time now getting ready for a defensive scheme that owned you last year. It is as simple as that.
Peter Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Another factor to look at is the quality of the nose tackles that we faced last year playing for the teams that run the 3-4. That also explains a lot about how poorly we did (regardless of the scheme that those defenses employed). The three in our division are all excellent. We had a horrendous time against them.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Edwards was very smart in this situation, he basically called out the coaching staff in a politically correct way. Hopefully it will show some results thats basically my impression as well on what Trent was trying to say
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 24, 2009 Author Posted August 24, 2009 Tim Graham asked him, and got limp Dicks response: "Tim Graham here ... When I passed through Orchard Park on Thursday, I twice asked Jauron about preparing for the Patriots' defense in the opener since they're moving to a 4-3. He essentially informed me -- and in what I thought was a pretty condescending tone -- the Patriots always have run four-man fronts. So what? I guess they're wasting an awful lot of ink and bandwidth in Boston. " Linky? Edwards was very smart in this situation, he basically called out the coaching staff in a politically correct way. Hopefully it will show some results I also liked Geoff Hangartner's quote (paraphrasing), "Anytime we turn the ball over, the offensive line takes it personally." He said it with a totally straight face so he either meant it or he's a really good liar. Either way it was a good "team" thing to say, FWIW. Back to the original post and in fairness to the whole discussion, I understand that the coaching staff is trying to install our offense and our defense and that there's a limited time to do so. I guess for the young players it would be hard to install our base defense and a scout team look at the same time. But, as has been pointed out, good teams are mixing up 3-4 and 4-3 schemes and it would be a benefit to our defense (Maybin?) to install some 3-4 looks. Also, our utter failure against the 3-4 makes it imperative in my eyes that the offense practice against it. You can argue that our whole season's success depends upon improving in this area.
wonderbread Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 "Obviously you'd like to prepare for an opposing defense..."
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 24, 2009 Author Posted August 24, 2009 "Obviously an interesting day Caper-wise."
Beerball Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I'm glad TE is asserting himself. Coaching staff has got to prepare better He said the exact same thing last year when asked about the team's troubles vs. the 3-4.
Lori Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Tim Graham asked him, and got limp Dicks response: "Tim Graham here ... When I passed through Orchard Park on Thursday, I twice asked Jauron about preparing for the Patriots' defense in the opener since they're moving to a 4-3. He essentially informed me -- and in what I thought was a pretty condescending tone -- the Patriots always have run four-man fronts. So what? I guess they're wasting an awful lot of ink and bandwidth in Boston. " Linky? Linky: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afceast/0-9-209...eason-loss.html Scroll down to the comments.
Fan in San Diego Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Very interesting article. I hope RW reads it as well.
Same old Story Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 thats basically my impression as well on what Trent was trying to say Instead of calling each other out they should freaking practice against a freaking 3-4 defense. I just find it hard to believe that Edwards spent the ENTIRE off season without analyzing how he needs to improve against a particular type of D. I'm concerned but I won't believe that things will be the same until I see it in the regular season. I know in the glory years we didn't look so hot in the preseason and things turned out fine. http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2009/8/24/...-call-out-trent
BuffaloBill Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Linky: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afceast/0-9-209...eason-loss.html Scroll down to the comments. "Tim Graham here ... When I passed through Orchard Park on Thursday, I twice asked Jauron about preparing for the Patriots' defense in the opener since they're moving to a 4-3. He essentially informed me -- and in what I thought was a pretty condescending tone -- the Patriots always have run four-man fronts. So what? I guess they're wasting an awful lot of ink and bandwidth in Boston. " I actually like the fact that Jauron was condescending. At least it strats to show some sort of underlying emotion. The man's job is on the line and it would be nice to know he has some passion about it.
evilcape Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 i HATE scrawny, pathetic dick jauron. He looks terrified constantly. He looks afraid when talking to the officials like they are going to hit him. Did that mans father whoop his ass bad when he was a boy? Any man who is a fan of dick, or sticks up for him, you are a complete FOOL!!!!!!! i bet you 90% of posters on this board could run a tighter ship, a more powerful fearful team that other teams are scared to play. Dick likes to end each practice with a round of Duck-Duck-Goose followed by naptime. This idiot should open a daycare center instead of half-ass coaching the football team i love more than my girlfriend and my parents.
K-9 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Other than being condescending, I don't see what the problem is with Jauron's answer to the question regarding NE's* use of the 4-3 fronts. He's correct in his answer. They've run a ton of 4-3 since Belichek got there. Why is that news? Seems to me the only news here is that the Pats* intend to run MORE 4-3, perhaps even make it their base defensive front. And that makes perfect sense since with the loss of Vrabel, the decline/ascension of Bruschi/Mayo, and the acquisition of Burgess MIGHT suggest that Bellyache's BEST personnel better fit a 4-3. Hence all that use of ink and bandwidth in the NE* region. I can understand how that's grist for the media mill as it represents a change in what the good folks in NE* are accustomed to and the media in that region would be remiss not to provide insights into the changes but to coaches, I don't think NE's* intended use of more 4-3 is that big a deal. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts