Wayne Cubed
-
Posts
8,829 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Wayne Cubed
-
-
Didn't want the Bills to go after him but why would you help a team within your division?
-
1 minute ago, Billz4ever said:
Considering they weren't even really trying to pass, saying the Bills were really good in Nickel is a stretch. And the times they did, they burned the nickel. So, it's probably not as great as you're saying it is.
Obviously you are just being ignorant now. The Bills are good in Nickel, that isn't arguable. It's their base defense, the Bills are a good defense. Both facts. Therefore they are good in the Nickel.
They weren't trying to pass because the Nickel makes it hard to do it. They were able to beat it 2 times for a TD because they still have a HOF Qb playing for them.
This hill you want to die on is just nuts.
-
9 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:
So if Rodgers could still beat the Nickel anyway (like you said) AND they are gashing the D on the run, why are you running Nickel again?
And if GB actually thought they were beating the Nickel with the pass, why did they stop? You just said they could beat it anyway.
And what does it say about our nickel D if they were still getting beat by the pass (your words) anyway when GB's weakness is their receivers?
Mate, can you read?
I said when presented. No where in my post did I say Rodgers was consistently beating the Nickel. He beat it twice, because GASP the Bills are really good in the Nickel.
But obviously the Bills should have given up that Nickel, to protect aginst the run... which was working, your words, when it wasn't because they ran out of time and lost the game.
And this amazing hypothetical change of defense, we will never know would have actually worked... but we don't need to know because the Bills in fact won the game.
4 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:You've picked such a weird hill to die on.
Rodgers scored on big plays to WRs. Scoring fast is literally the only way they could get back in the game.
How do you score fast? You make big plays to WRs, like the TD passes to Doubs.
How do you make it less likely for the WR to make a big play? You play with 5 DBs on the field.
What happens when you take away the ability to make a downfield big play? You check into the run because there's a light box. It looks like "gashing" but really it's just wasting away precious clock, because you're down 17 points.
Conceptually this isn't hard to understand. I have no idea how you're still railing against very obvious football logic.
Thank you.
3 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:So you're saying the Nickel didn't stop them and also allowed them to run the ball. Gotcha. Sounds like they should've switched it up.
No ones saying that. You are saying that.
-
1
-
-
Just now, NoSaint said:
yes, he’s arguing we should’ve aggressively pursued a scheme that catered to the only route that could’ve realistically given the packers a chance to win because of…. Principles? Pride?And we should also completely ignore the fact that, when presented with the opportunity to hurt us with a big play, Rogers was STILL able to do it. That was with the Bills defense playing Nickel.
But we should have abandoned Nickel defense to stop the run, which was working... even though it wasn't cause they lost, to let Aaron attempt to beat us throwing, which he showed he could still in fact do.-
1
-
1
-
-
Agree with Gunner, the tackling wasn't good which is why the running yards were higher than normal.
Other than that, the strategy was correct. The Bills defense does not care about yards. They'll take yards over points, every time. Also, the poor offensive showing the sencond half, didn't punish the Packers.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:
Dude, you are hilarious.
It worked so well the Pack were down by double digits all game! What a plan! Man, did Frazier get out-schemed!
Doing what worked and losing the game. You can't make this stuff up.
The Bills just took the ball out of the reigning back-to-back MVPs hands, and let's be honest he still is the best player on that team, and turned them into a running team.But, it's what they do best 🙄
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
I agree with a lot of this but the game reminded me the New England game last year. As for a defensive game plan wouldn't it have been smarter to go 4-3-4 instead of the base nickel in order to take away the run and force Rodgers and the Packers to pass? Why allow them to control the ball and control the clock and basically execute the offensive game plan they developed for the game. Their WR group is limited in both talent and experience. Its rule number one of defensive game planning try to take away what the opponent does best? Instead they allowed the opponent to do what they do best given the circumstances the Packers faced. They won because the offense was just too much for the Packers, and likely any NFL, defense to contain. Even on what you can argue was an off night for Josh Allen. They need to be sharper and cleaner against the Jets next Sunday.
You don't go to a 4-3-4 because Taron Johnson > Tyrel Dodson. However bad the GB wide recievers are there's a major difference between this and the New England game and that's the guy throwing the football. You can talk about how bad the WR group is, and they are bad but it's still Rodgers dealing the ball, not Mac Jones. And Rodgers 2 touchdowns show you that he can still throw it. He can still read the defense and pick you apart.
They allowed the Packers to "do what they do best' and that still wasn't enough to beat the Bills. In fact it pretty much played them out of the game. Their best player on offense is still Aaron Rodgers and the Bills took the ball out of his hands. Just like with the Bills when you take the ball out of Josh's hands, it's a win for the defense when the Bills are running the ball more than throwing.
1 hour ago, Billz4ever said:I wouldn't exactly call ripping off 10, 20+ yards runs dink/dunks. A fairly weak OPI call and a missed FG were the only thing keeping this game from being tied.
GBs weakness is their receivers. You make them beat you, not give up the equivalent of long pass plays on the ground because your play calling is too rigid. There as no reason to be in nickel all night, especially when the other team isn't passing much and their formations show run down after down.
What we saw last night was a form of prevent defense, except they were giving up huge chunks of yards on the ground instead of through the air.
Yea I wouldn't call that dink/dunk either but what I would call dink/dunk are the short throws and screens... which the Packers were running a lot of. They also ran the ball, which I said is what you do against Cover 2.
-
1
-
-
I’ve got to slightly disagree with this.
Frazier refused to bring a safety down into the box and refused to sub off Taron Johnson for a LB. The Pack did exactly what you are meant to do against the cover 2 shell, you run into it and dink/dunk your way down the field. And that’s going to happen against that alignment. The issue is, can you sustain that many plays in a drive without committing an error. And when the field compresses as you get towards the goal line can you punch it in for 7? The Pack couldn’t do it.
That’s an effective defensive game plan. Sure, the rush numbers look high but does that matter if they aren’t converting any of those drives? You also have to say that had the offense not laid an egg in the 2nd half, this outcome would have been very different.
-
11
-
7
-
2
-
2
-
-
I don’t think it’s doom and gloom to point out the Bills looked pretty flat/bad in the 2nd half. That’s just being observational.
It was a combination of things, thought the offensive play calling was pretty bad. Josh made mistakes and was trying to force it. Mental errors that led to penalties.
Not as worried about the run defense, I think there was no way Frazier was going to bring an extra safety into the box or bring an extra LB on the field. All those yards on the ground and time used up, the Pack sort of played themselves out of the game.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:
And that’s actually what Tottenham looks like.
I'd say that angle is no where near indicitive of how much the roof covers.
You can see the lower seating in that image and how much of the seating is actually covered.
-
We really taking stadium renderings as final size and perspectives?
This is Tottenham Stadium early renderings...
Roof looks pretty small early on.
-
6
-
-
The huge buffalo statues out front though!
-
21
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Steel City Mafia said:
The bison statues out front 🤌🏻 -
41 minutes ago, BLeonard said:
Looking at this, I just had another potential thought.
That jersey and looking at a lot of other pics of Kelly from 1986, the part where the numbers are is practically mesh, especially compared to the shoulders and sleeves. Makes me wonder if they still had some of those type of jerseys (which would have the box 2 on them) while new jerseys were at the bottom of the pile, waiting to be used when the older ones were no longer salvageable.
If they just got jerseys in bulk and then stitched the names and numbers on as needed, it could be that they used the rest of the old 2's up and then switched the the new one, as someone said earlier. Probably didn't help that there was a strike in the middle of the 87 season. Maybe some of the replacement players kept their jerseys, thus forcing the team to get some new ones on short notice?
It wouldn't suprise me, from 87-00 the jerseys didn't really change, looks wise, home or away. The stripes on the sleeves changed in 85-86, then didn't change again until the Bills jersey revamp in 00. It's entirely possible they had mixed jerseys out on the field. This was before the NFL had official sponsors and I mean, Ralph is cheap.
-
10 minutes ago, BLeonard said:
I know some places can replace the nameplates nowadays. Curious as to if places like that would have the resources to help you at all.
The other thought that crept into my head as a possible explanation was that I know Champion took over their jerseys somewhere in that timeframe (the jersey you have is a Champion, as the logo is on the white stripe). I guess it's possible that Champion used the diagonal numbers, while the previous manufacturer used the box numbers?
Then there's the case of when OJ Simpson was playing:
I believe the Jersey supplier switched in 1987 to Champion? But the previous supplier used stitched on numbers, not the heat transfer that @UConn James talks about above. I could be wrong but I don't think they would be using stiched on with heat transfer numbers.
This is Kelly in 86, also last year of the blue facemask, and that number plate is stitched on.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:
Allen is the single most dynamic player in the NFL right now. I don't know how many of you are watching a lot of other games but if you put on RedZone it's painful to watch some of these other teams have to scheme around poor QB play.
We're getting spoiled quickly (and I love it).
Agreed.
You look around the league and realize just how much of a different category both Allen and Mahomes are in. The QB play in the NFL is very average.
-
6
-
2
-
-
Massive kudos to Leslie Frazier. Designed up that spy roll for Milano. It was very very effective.
-
12
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
Kelce is going to get his, it’s crazy to think he won’t. But to @GunnerBill point don’t let him beat you big.
-
1 minute ago, CountDorkula said:
The only thing about the offense that concerned me is the Ravens Dline almost knew the Bills were trying to run quick hitters and tipped a lot of balls, one was picked, could have been two more.
Buffalo still has to try and throw deep. My only criticism of yesterday.
Other than that, hell of a game against a great team on both sides of the ball.
Yea, the tip balls to me are on the OL. Got to engage the pash rusher who's given up on the rush, can't just allow him to jump.
And yea they have to do have to still throw deep. No doubt about that. They just need to pick when to do it.
-
16 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
Sounds like the OP listening to WGR this morning.
"I'm concerned about the offense."
-- Jeremy White hot take of the day
Because we're not taking deep shots.
No. Be concerned about the RBs and Gabe Davis ankle. And Knox's foot. And I guess replacing Crowder.
Not about the offense - it is an elite offense. Maybe this is just their way of saying "yea we were wrong about neglecting RB because duh analytics."
Jeremy also argued with Sal saying he wanted Cook to play more. Ridiculous. He hasn't earned it.
In that weather yesterday (it matters) we scored 20 points from the end of the 2nd to the end of the game having the ball less then about 15 minutes.
We just faced the 3 toughest Defenses we'll see all year - Rams Miami and Ravens (their secondary is good I don't care what the inflated stats from the Miami implosion say).
The O needs Davis and Knox healthy.
Oh Jeremy, oh Jeremy.
Both Miami and Ravens went to a Cover 2 shell to absolutely limit the deep shots. It's the same defense we play against Mahomes. Those are 2 teams that like to play a lot of Man coverage.
-
2 hours ago, BobbyC81 said:
It’s probably been mentioned, but this thread is up to 39 pages, so: do the Bills have a QB sneak in their playbook?
4th and one, your QB is 6-5, 240+ lbs and he rolls out to the left then has to outmaneuver defenders and runs about 30 yards to get the first down? He should be able to lean left or right of the center and pick up a yard. Great run to watch but it’s ridiculous to not run a sneak.
2 hours ago, Scott7975 said:Yeah, I really dont know why the hell they dont run the QB sneak anymore. Josh Allen is money with it and honestly almost all QBs are money with it because success rate is high across the NFL. Its like we had one bad time against the Titans last year and they took it out of the playbook.
Think it has to do with the OL. They just aren't a run blocking OL and Morse, who Josh would be running behind, just doesn't get that push up front. I think they know they can't do it.
-
-
-
Former Patriot OL
How Many Regular Season Games Will Josh Allen Miss With His Current Elbow Injury?
in The Stadium Wall
Posted · Edited by Wayne Cubed
Voted zero on the elbow but I know a pretty good doctor that could look at his spleen.