GG Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 We can probably deduce quite a bit of it by looking at what the Bills are not running in the preseason. No screens means we probably see the Bills using them attempting to slow down the Pats pass rush. No looks to the TE with the first unit offense means we see a heavy dose of it vs the Pats LB's. No carries outside the Tackles means we'll probably try to get Fred wide a bunch of times. Very few shots downfield means we'll probably take more than a couple vs NE. Will it work? Who knows, but it's an appropriate gameplan vs NE and what we should probably expect to see. We probably will, but as you conclude it's far from certainty in whether it will work. You put down a reasonable plan that would keep a game vs Pats close, yet this team continues in its futility against Belichick despite the obvious ways to beat his team. To me it's a matter of attitude - for the last few years Bills tried to be coy and not play to the opponents' strength rather then playing to their own strength. I don't care about not gameplanning the preseason games. But I do care that they look pathetic on routine plays, where players are out of position, assignments are missed, blocks are missed and the passes are nowhere near the receivers. I don't know if there's a single team outside the Raiders who hasn't scored a TD with their first unit yet. If we had more faith in the players executing the fundamentals, then we would not be concerned about whatever game plan Turk & Dick dream up for MNF.
Chandler#81 Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 offensively speaking, I also would think it would be wise to use a lot of 2 TE formations. It's our first game of the year against arguably the best team in the NFL, we have a very inexperienced offensive line, and I think it would be prudent to run the ball and give max protection to our QB. Hopefully if Trent has enough time, you would think that T.O and Evans should have a good chance at getting open. I would hope to use the No - huddle as a supplemental part of the offense, to either try to get things going or keep them off balanced. I imagine we will not use the No huddle as our base offense. I think the most important thing we can do is try to establish the run game, be somewhat effective with possession passes and mix in some deeper passes. To me this would make the most sense. I'll argue this. Granted, it was without Brady, but the Pats* had a noticeable falloff last year, across the board. Their defense was often suspect and if they didn't beat the Bills twice, they wouldn't have had a winning record. As Lori has alluded to, they've added new pieces to their D, but they had to. They weren't any better than we were. Their OLine can be manhandled and they aren't a good running team. Welker & Moss still got enough catches to land Cassel a huge payday and starting gig, but IMO, the luster is off their invinceability. This said, playing it close to the vest, double TE's, clock draining has proved disasterous repeatedly against them. We have offensive horses now. I think we have to light it up against them, and I hope we do.
CodeMonkey Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 That would be nice, if we had a more experienced offensive line. I like the idea of opening it up, but considering that we are playing on the road (which most likely means a very loud and raucous crowd) against the *Pats, with an inexperienced line, I just don't see how we would be able to get ample time to get the ball off on a consistent basis. Do you? I agree with BuffaloBill. While I feel we have little or no chance of winning that game, I think if we go into a conservative shell trying not too lose too badly we have no chance at all. Open it up, see if T.O. and Evans can work together and give Edwards something downfield to throw to. The reality is, even a small chance at winning is better than no chance at all, what have they got to lose?
Lori Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 I could not disagree more. Too conservative. I would rather see 3 and 4 WR sets to open up the field. It is sick that Marshawn is out for this game. But if one of those TEs is Shawn Nelson, he may just be a better receiving option than a fourth WR. Just a thought.
Magox Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 I agree with BuffaloBill. While I feel we have little or no chance of winning that game, I think if we go into a conservative shell trying not too lose too badly we have no chance at all. Open it up, see if T.O. and Evans can work together and give Edwards something downfield to throw to. The reality is, even a small chance at winning is better than no chance at all, what have they got to lose? My optimistic side wants to believe you, my realistic senses tell me that we need to try to give as much protection as possible to our QB. I just don't know what on earth makes you or anyone for that matter, believe that if we went with constantly with 3-4WR formations that we will have enough time and protection to make it work. I'm not saying go into a shell, I just think that we need to concentrate on having enough time to release the ball effectively and hopefully hit them with a couple deep passes.
Dan Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 We probably will, but as you conclude it's far from certainty in whether it will work. You put down a reasonable plan that would keep a game vs Pats close, yet this team continues in its futility against Belichick despite the obvious ways to beat his team. To me it's a matter of attitude - for the last few years Bills tried to be coy and not play to the opponents' strength rather then playing to their own strength. I don't care about not gameplanning the preseason games. But I do care that they look pathetic on routine plays, where players are out of position, assignments are missed, blocks are missed and the passes are nowhere near the receivers. I don't know if there's a single team outside the Raiders who hasn't scored a TD with their first unit yet. If we had more faith in the players executing the fundamentals, then we would not be concerned about whatever game plan Turk & Dick dream up for MNF. And if I may add, the players and coaches seem to be perfectly content with all that. If you listen to them, they're right on track and everything is progressing according to plan. Why get emotional? Why show any desire to win on or off the field? They look good in practice and that seems to keep them all happy.
Fan in Chicago Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 I agree with BuffaloBill. While I feel we have little or no chance of winning that game, I think if we go into a conservative shell trying not too lose too badly we have no chance at all. Open it up, see if T.O. and Evans can work together and give Edwards something downfield to throw to. The reality is, even a small chance at winning is better than no chance at all, what have they got to lose? We can lose confidence early on in the game if we play the high risk strategy. If initially we come out with 4 WR sets without adequate extra protection, TE may get pummeled or may fumble/throw an interception. NE* will make sure they will then take full advantage of that situation and not take their boots off our fallen necks. OTOH, if we go max protect and then attempt to take a few minor risks we can see where our OL stacks up in protection. As the game goes along we can then tune our O to be more or less conservative depending on the early outcomes. I am not saying not to be aggressive early, but don't risk too much. We do not want the Pats* to gain a psychological advantage in addition to the coaching advantages they already possess.
CodeMonkey Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 My optimistic side wants to believe you, my realistic senses tell me that we need to try to give as much protection as possible to our QB. I just don't know what on earth makes you or anyone for that matter, believe that if we went with constantly with 3-4WR formations that we will have enough time and protection to make it work. I'm not saying go into a shell, I just think that we need to concentrate on having enough time to release the ball effectively and hopefully hit them with a couple deep passes. Oh don't get me wrong, if we go into 4 WR formations Edwards will be spending a lot of time running for his life. But if we go into a maximum protection mentality Edwards won't have anyone to throw to and we have seen what happens when that is the case.
Fan in Chicago Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Oh don't get me wrong, if we go into 4 WR formations Edwards will be spending a lot of time running for his life. But if we go into a maximum protection mentality Edwards won't have anyone to throw to and we have seen what happens when that is the case. With double TEs, we can: - go empty backfield giving us 3 WRs. If they double one of our WRs, one of the TEs will be open - Have Jackson in the backfield giving us 2 WRs, 2 TEs and 1 RB as pass catching options. If they drop coverage, we can run on them
nonprophet Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 offensively speaking, I also would think it would be wise to use a lot of 2 TE formations. It's our first game of the year against arguably the best team in the NFL, we have a very inexperienced offensive line, and I think it would be prudent to run the ball and give max protection to our QB. Hopefully if Trent has enough time, you would think that T.O and Evans should have a good chance at getting open. I agree. I imagine we will not use the No huddle as our base offense. I disagree; the no-huddle doesn't preclude the Bills from using a 2 TE set. Being that most of Trent's passes are so short, it doesn't matter if the receivers running the short and intermediate routes are TEs and not WRs except for the diminished YAC potential. There's a lot of flexibility in a 2 TE set and, being that our two best receivers are still going to be on the field, you're not sacrificing much.
stuckincincy Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 We can probably deduce quite a bit of it by looking at what the Bills are not running in the preseason. No screens means we probably see the Bills using them attempting to slow down the Pats pass rush. No looks to the TE with the first unit offense means we see a heavy dose of it vs the Pats LB's. No carries outside the Tackles means we'll probably try to get Fred wide a bunch of times. Very few shots downfield means we'll probably take more than a couple vs NE. Will it work? Who knows, but it's an appropriate gameplan vs NE and what we should probably expect to see. Maybe they'll whip out one of the current NFL darling plays, fades and fade stops. They are just waiting to unleash 'em against the regular season foes, they have that timing in their pocket sans practice against live opponents, and wisely refused to tip off the competition in the preseason.
Magox Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 I disagree; the no-huddle doesn't preclude the Bills from using a 2 TE set. Being that most of Trent's passes are so short, it doesn't matter if the receivers running the short and intermediate routes are TEs and not WRs except for the diminished YAC potential. There's a lot of flexibility in a 2 TE set and, being that our two best receivers are still going to be on the field, you're not sacrificing much. You are absolutely correct when you say that it doesn't preclude the Bills from using a 2 TE set, and I also agree that it does give us more flexibility and as Lori had aforementioned earlier, it would allow Nelson (who is an attractive receiving option) to get out on the field more. The reason why I believe we shouldn't use the no-huddle as our base offense is for a couple reasons. *Considering it is the first game of the year, and it will be in a hostile, loud atmosphere, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea to slow things down a little bit. The huddle will allow the Bills to be able to communicate a little better, as opposed to trying to call plays at the line with a very raucous crowd screaming down on to the field. *It will slow the tempo of the game a bit, and not play to the strengths of the *Patriots. In my view, the strength of the *Patriots is their offense, it is just simple, basic common sense to try to not have their offense out on the field as much as possible. So, I would try not to get into a gunslinging match with a team that carries a much bigger revolver than ours. JMO *I am not advocating that we shouldn't use the no-huddle, I do think it would be a good idea to pick our moments to use it, such as maybe trying to jumpstart the offense if we are sputtering, or and ideally, if we do happen to start driving, that we go into a no-huddle offense, to try to keep their defense off balanced.
bizell Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 I have a feeling our game plan is going to involve a lot of passes within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. Several will even be behind the line of scrimmage.
CodeMonkey Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Several will even be behind the line of scrimmage. Even that has it's place. A well called screen can be a beautiful thing against a defense that is pinning it's ears back and blitzing like madmen.
Magox Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 I have a feeling our game plan is going to involve a lot of passes within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. Several will even be behind the line of scrimmage. of course you feel that way
Fan in Chicago Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 You are absolutely correct when you say that it doesn't preclude the Bills from using a 2 TE set, and I also agree that it does give us more flexibility and as Lori had aforementioned earlier, it would allow Nelson (who is an attractive receiving option) to get out on the field more. The reason why I believe we shouldn't use the no-huddle as our base offense is for a couple reasons. I have stated this in another thread but - My beef with the no huddle is that I am not convinced we have the multi-skilled personnel to pull it off successfully. Can our OL pass as well as run block well, do we have a real pass catching & blocking TE, can the RBs help pick up the blitz and be a receiving threat, can TE read coverages correctly and make all required throws ? Too many questions to answer before we commit to the no huddle. Else we risk falling behind quickly with a gassed D. And looking like a$$es in the process
scoring is not hardy Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 I see Owens and Nelson split out wide, running slants all night!
Magox Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 I have stated this in another thread but - My beef with the no huddle is that I am not convinced we have the multi-skilled personnel to pull it off successfully. Can our OL pass as well as run block well, do we have a real pass catching & blocking TE, can the RBs help pick up the blitz and be a receiving threat, can TE read coverages correctly and make all required throws ?Too many questions to answer before we commit to the no huddle. Else we risk falling behind quickly with a gassed D. And looking like a$$es in the process I agree, as I mentioned earlier, I think it should be used to supplement the offense.
bizell Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 of course you feel that way Yeah, because our gameplans from the past few years haven't shown me any reason to think it'd be any different.
Ray Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Defensively expect the CBs to play 10-15 yards off the line of scrimmage and let TB pick them apart again.
Recommended Posts