4thand1 Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 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. They were 11-5 last year, if they lost both Bills games (lol) they would have been 9-7. Not a good running team? Weren't they ranked like 6th in rushing last season?
Simon Posted September 1, 2009 Author Posted September 1, 2009 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. What makes you believe that a 2TE set is going to provide that time or protection since after the ill-advised release of Robert Royal the Bills no longer have a TE on the roster who's shown they can block anybody.
Magox Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 What makes you believe that a 2TE set is going to provide that time or protection since after the ill-advised release of Robert Royal the Bills no longer have a TE on the roster who's shown they can block anybody. I agree that our TE's that we have right now are probably not on par with the rest in the league in regards to blocking, but it isn't so much who we have blocking from the TE spot as much as that we do have TE's staying back to help block. It is more a philosophy of numbers staying back to block, and at this stage of the game, considering the O-line's inexperience, Trent's tendency to get rattled, I'd just rather have 6-7 guys constantly providing protection for our QB as opposed to have 5-6 guys. I think Owens and Evans if given time should be able to get open. The other reason that I wouldn't want to go with a 3-4 WR set up, in this particular game is that we will be playing on a Monday night, in a very hostile and loud environment, and I think it would be best to limit the amount of options and reads that our QB has to decide who he will get the ball to. I'm not saying that this is the way we should go every game, all the time, I'm just suggesting that as our base offense, in this particular game, I think it makes sense to try to give our QB max protection.
boltuprite Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 whatever the Bills do might be effective in te first 1/2 but Bellichik will adjust at halftime. Jauron on the otherhand has proven he does not know how to make 1/2 time adjustments. I don't think this one is going to be pretty. Patriots by at least 14.
billfan63 Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 DJ gave us a clue in the Steelers post game presser. We will play to our strenght, do what we do best....punt and return kick-offs we're bringing back the coffin corner
Dante Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 Coach Jauron should really focus on owning the coin toss. 50/50 is as good as it's going to get at winning any battle this game.
BUFFALOTONE Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 I think first and foremost you have to pressure Brady and bump the WRs at the line. We saw what the Giants aggressive game plan did to there offensive scheme and that set the tone for NY to grind the game to their pace. Granted NY had some great bounces and took advantage of them. Come at Brady from all angles. That knee may be healed but he is thinking about it and if we put his azz on the grass a few times it will start to get to him. That D is aging but is still very good, keep them on the field as long as possible. They have youth and veterans in the right place but they can be exploited. Turk has to find the soft spots and TE has to execute. This kid needs to get some swagger and fast.
SlamnSam Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 I think first and foremost you have to pressure Brady and bump the WRs at the line. We saw what the Giants aggressive game plan did to there offensive scheme and that set the tone for NY to grind the game to their pace. Granted NY had some great bounces and took advantage of them. Come at Brady from all angles. That knee may be healed but he is thinking about it and if we put his azz on the grass a few times it will start to get to him. That D is aging but is still very good, keep them on the field as long as possible. They have youth and veterans in the right place but they can be exploited. Turk has to find the soft spots and TE has to execute. This kid needs to get some swagger and fast. I vote for 3 hail marys and then a punt on every possesion. What the hells the difference with this team at least it could be exciting.
Bufcomments Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 OK my two cents. The Bills come out with a 3 WR set with Nelson as the TE. They split Nelson out in the slot. If the Pats blitz this there is gonna be mismatches all day. But the question is can the OL and back give Trent time to throw the rock?? People seem to forget the Jackson had a great day in the last game against them. If he can post 90yds they have a good chance at this. But if he cannot run well this is gonna be a long game because right now if you place the game in Edwards hands against Billechek I don't like our chances. I hope Action Jackson has a huge day because that will open things up for TO and Evans.
vincec Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 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 wouldn't do this. I say, put your best players on the field. That doesn't include 2 TEs, which is probably one of our weakest positions. I would play a ton of 3 and 4 WR (where we are deep) and try and manage the pass rush with quick passes, runs, screens, etc. Look at Arizona's offense from last year. I know they had Warner, but they didn't have much of a O-line either. I would also run the no-huddle much more as a hurry-up to really put some pressure on the defense to simplify their schemes and declare what they're doing. Jim Kelly always said that the no-huddle worked best when they were working at a quick pace and he may know a thing or two about the no-huddle.
lvbillzfan Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 My game plan for New England -- Start game planning for Tampa.
Bufcomments Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 I wouldn't do this. I say, put your best players on the field. That doesn't include 2 TEs, which is probably one of our weakest positions. I would play a ton of 3 and 4 WR (where we are deep) and try and manage the pass rush with quick passes, runs, screens, etc. Look at Arizona's offense from last year. I know they had Warner, but they didn't have much of a O-line either. I would also run the no-huddle much more as a hurry-up to really put some pressure on the defense to simplify their schemes and declare what they're doing. Jim Kelly always said that the no-huddle worked best when they were working at a quick pace and he may know a thing or two about the no-huddle. Who are your best 4 WRs? I like the way you are thinking. I would like to see them play T.O , Evans , Reed ( mainly for short zone throws) and Johnson . Mix in Roscoe and Nelson in the Red zone. I notice during the Steelers game that the refs were taking their time with spot the ball after plays. I would if the Bills set in a request so they can spot the ball quicker after the play is over so that NE wont be able to mass sub on us.
CodeMonkey Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 I would if the Bills set in a request so they can spot the ball quicker after the play is over so that NE wont be able to mass sub on us. I remember reading somewhere that the Bills have already been in contact with the league regarding this.
Magox Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 I wouldn't do this. I say, put your best players on the field. That doesn't include 2 TEs, which is probably one of our weakest positions. I would play a ton of 3 and 4 WR (where we are deep) and try and manage the pass rush with quick passes, runs, screens, etc. Look at Arizona's offense from last year. I know they had Warner, but they didn't have much of a O-line either. I would also run the no-huddle much more as a hurry-up to really put some pressure on the defense to simplify their schemes and declare what they're doing. Jim Kelly always said that the no-huddle worked best when they were working at a quick pace and he may know a thing or two about the no-huddle. On the surface, it sounds logical to put your best players out on the field at the same time, in practical terms, I'm not too sure. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of 3 and 4 WR's, I find it somewhat exciting, but at the same time, I'd like to keep our QB alive as well.
vincec Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 Who are your best 4 WRs? I like the way you are thinking. I would like to see them play T.O , Evans , Reed ( mainly for short zone throws) and Johnson . Mix in Roscoe and Nelson in the Red zone. I notice during the Steelers game that the refs were taking their time with spot the ball after plays. I would if the Bills set in a request so they can spot the ball quicker after the play is over so that NE wont be able to mass sub on us. That sounds about right. TO, Evans and Reed, obviously, but I would alternate between Parrish, Johnson and Nelson depending on play call and field position, and sometimes we need to go with 3 and a TE to have a more legitimate run threat.' If the Bills want the ball spotted quicker, they should run it to the ref in the middle of the field like Steve Tasker suggested in one of their preseason games. I think that a quick pace to the no-huddle is key. I just can't see TE trying to organize the players and call a play at the LOS on the road in NE. They need to come to the line and go, otherwise they'd be better off huddling, IMO.
Guest dog14787 Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 Why not Stupar in instead of Nelson? Why not Stupar and Nelson
vincec Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 Why not Stupar in instead of Nelson? I was actually thinking of Nelson as a wide out in goal line situations, not as a traditional TE. I would probably use Stupar as the blocking TE in a 3 wide alignment. He probably needs to alternate with Schouman for the first few games until he establishes that he is better against starting caliber opponents.
Guest dog14787 Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 I was actually thinking of Nelson as a wide out in goal line situations, not as a traditional TE. I would probably use Stupar as the blocking TE in a 3 wide alignment. He probably needs to alternate with Schouman for the first few games until he establishes that he is better against starting caliber opponents. Stupar shows allot of potential, I'll be happy just keeping him on the active roster at this point. I would love to see Stupar, Nelson, TO and Lee all on the field at the same time, be pretty tough to defend against in my opinion.
manbeast Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 Not sure the Bills can afford to use T.O. as a decoy. Right now, he's about the only WR out there who can fight through coverage and still make the catch. Depends on how they roll their coverage, of course -- if they want to double 81, I'm sure Evans will be pleased. Assuming they don't blitz the crap out of Edwards and that new line with all those young, fast LBs. Think you're right about the two-TE sets; I do NOT want to see McIntyre out there in the base offense. (Nothing personal; I just think that if Schonert wants his best 11 out there, those plans don't include a FB.) Our follback is a great blocker and thats why we have him and we may need him more than you think
Recommended Posts