GunnerBill

Fans always = aggression with disruption. I don't think that is true. Confusion is what = disruption. The Bills didn't confuse Stafford enough and part of that was making it way too easy with their blitzes. They shoulda played more coverage but tightened it up. That was their best chance of turning the tide IMO.

The way Stafford figured it out was with cadence. He kept getting the Bills to show their hand on the fake snap. And that is cos the Bills are not exceptional blitzers. It isn't their defense. They should have played their defense and not go dragged into playing the game McVay wanted them to play which is exactly what happened. Nah they blitzed too often. They blitzed badly. And Stafford caught them with cadence so he knew when they were coming. They got dragged into the Rams game rather than sticking with what the Bills do.

Doing them when you are in the lead is not the same as basically it being your only call on D because you can't get a stop. They blitzed too much on Sunday. That was the mistake.

So yea I agree on the secondary. I don't see the Rams as a team that terrify me over the top. Kupp and Nacua are not those type of players. So I'd have tried to flood short and intermdiate zones and clog it all up. Just put more guys into shorter spaces for Stafford to diagnose and disect. On the blitzes... they did try some 6 man pressures. The issue is just the Bills are not a blitzing team. Once you are relying on asking your players to do something that isn't their stock in trade to make a difference you are grabbing at desperation already IMO.

Dunno reckon I could play 1T as well as Daquan.

I just philosophically disagree with this. You have to play defense to best frustrate the opposing offense and on Sunday that wad not to keep sending blitzes. We coulda blitzed Stafford from Sunday evening to now and it still wouldn't have disrupted him. You have to do something to affect him. Throwing pressure that he can diagnose and neutralise is not it.

I've said above. Id have played more coverage, pushed my DBs up 5 yards and tried to flood the short zones Stafford was exposing. Blitzing repeatedly when your blitzes are not working is one of the surest ways to get beat in the NFL.

Stafford tore up their man looks even worse. When they blitzed and playes man they were significantly worse than when playing zone defense.

They tried more man to man and bitzing for pressure and the defense was obviously worse when they did. Haven't listened to Joe this week but see my post above. That correlates with what I saw.

So for all the people saying the Bills stayed in zone all day.... their season averages in man coverage ticked up after this game by a percentage point, which matches what I saw on the all 22. The Bills played a fair amount of man coverage looks and they sent 5 (and sometimes 6) defenders more than I have seen them do in any other game this season. When the Bills defense gets shredded everyone immediately jumps to "argghhh it's the soft zone." Well on Sunday they absolutely did not sit in soft zone all day. They played very little cover 2, their two main coverages were cover 1 (with man outside) and cover 3 zone. The problem was the Rams guys were better than our guys. They won upfront and they won their matchups in the passing game - particularly Nacua on Taron Johnson. So when the Bills best defensive guy loses his matchup pretty convincingly it is going to impact what they can do on the rest of the defense. None of which is to say I don't think this was on scheme or defensive playcalling. I do think some of it was but for pretty much the opposite reason of everyone in this thread. I think the Bills blitzed way too much. From mid 2nd quarter they were sending a ton of run blitzes then when Stafford used play action he had 1 on 1s all over the field he liked. Added to that as has been said earlier, Stafford used cadence brilliantly all game to get the Bills out of their disguise, to reveal the blitzers pre-snap. Personally I'd have tried to play more cover 2 but creep that secondary shell up a bit closer to the line, because I wasn't worried about the Rams beating us deep, but I'd have mixed in 3 and 4 man rush, try and confuse Stafford with people sinking into zones rather than with people rushing. I think flooding the zones would have been more effective against the offense they were running rather than sending pressure and leaving even bigger holes behind them for the short passing game to work in.

Wow. Bill is doing it

I'm talking specifically about his match up with Nacua.

Okay, I'm open to discussion, what about it do you think is a s**tfest? What makes it unsustainable? How do you think that divide is going to reveal itself? On the "heard it all before" argument, sure. When the only incentive was playing time. But now it is playing time and NIL money, oh and with the expanded playoff more games are going to matter all season long and there will be more exposure as a result for those schools ranked in the teens the last 5 weeks rather than everyone fixating on only the top half dozen (in the four team playoff era, and arguably the top 2 or 3 before that). Plus NFL scouting departments are bigger than ever (unless you are in Cincinnati) and even small school kids are going in the first and second round more these days than in times past, let alone kids going to less high profile schools in the bigger conferences. The one point where we have agreement is the future is a two conference "premier division" of college football. The Big 10 and the SEC hoovering up the remaining prestige programmes from other conferences. I think college football has needed that though. The power 5 structure never made any sense to me as an outsider. Get the schools willing to spend big on their football programmes all together, let them compete for talent, don't allow a small cadre to stockpile, make them play each other much more frequently and allow the talent to decide who wins. College football's problem was lack of competitive games. This has been the most competitive season in the 11 or 12 years I've been watching. That's a step in the right direction.

Why because you have been wrong for 5 years so you are going to claim this bad year as victory?

Yea the downside of the NFC North is there are three very well coached and talented teams infront of you. That division is going to be tought to fight out of every year even if Caleb can turn into a stud. I do think Jacksonville (speaking of AFC South) is a possibility, but the noises out of there seem to be they are after a culture setter rather than an offensive playcaller after the Pederson hire has been a disaster. Of the jobs we know will, or very likely will, come open it is one of those two or back to Detroit one more time for me. And you say he is more likely to stay if they fall short of the Superbowl, I sort of think the opposite. Teams rarely want to wait until mid Feb to hire their new coach, so if Detroit goes all the way it probably reduces his chances anyway.

100% right. The number of times he faked the Bills with the snap count to identify the blitzer then re-set and throw right into the window vacated was way above the average for an NFL game. The rotation isn't the problem. The talent is.

In what world is Calais Campbell a 1 tech?

Wasn't it a late growth spurt?

Unless a job we don't expect becomes available they are the front runners IMO. He isn't going to the Saints or the Jets. He won't go to the Raiders if that comes open. Don't think he would go to the Giants, don't see it being the Bengals because even though they have Burrow the infrastructure is a disaster. So it is basically the Bears or the Jags IMO. Now if the Eagles opens up, or the 9ers opens up or something like that... I could see it. But of the likely jobs I think the Bears is the best job all things considered.

It is not true that they never added more rushers. We blitzed plenty. Just unsuccessfully.

Yea AJE had the one nice tackle for loss 4th quarter. Otherwise he was atrocious Sunday. Yea Taron had his worst game of the year. He got got by one of the best big slots in the league and his kryptonite has always been big slots who still have excellent movement skills. Nacua is a tough matchup for him in that sense. And he got beat. That is fine. He is still an elite nickel corner. The other guys get paid too and some days they will just be better than you. That happens to every player in the NFL.

He did play pretty well against KC. I think elite is a stretch. His best game this year was Seattle IMO. But he played decent vs KC, Tennessee and the first Miami game. The other 7 he has played he has simply not been good enough for a player of his ability.

My take on the pros and cons from Bill's perspective. Pros: - total control - east coast - transfer portal and NIL means its possible to turn a programme around quickly - ACC is weak meaning 12 team playoff is achievable maybe even year 1 - chance to be only the 4th man to win a National Championship and a Superbowl - avoids any risk of failing in a new NFL spot and damaging his legacy. Cons: - he will hate recruiting - his schemes are about smarts and no mental mistakes (not well suited to teenagers?) - limited practice time - won't break Shula's record - doesn't get a chance to prove he can build an NFL winner without Tom.

He is not going to Cincinnati. I know QB wise that is the most attractive but organisationally it is the least coveted job in the entire league - and we are already seeing the result of an owner who can't afford to pony up the big bucks year after year to pay his guys and the adjust contracts to free up cap space.

Klint would be near the top of my list. I wouldn't hire Frank Reich if he was the only option.