HoofHearted

Sorry, I meant give specifics about what we are or are not doing within the scheme, not just general themes which you originally posted.

Be specific. I keep seeing these grand remarks about Dorsey's poor play calling, use of personnel, lack of innovation, lack of complexity etc. but no one ever wants to site specific examples. How is it the same as last year?

Doesn't help that Dorsey is in the box. Daboll was on the field with Allen. That makes a huge difference.

Didn't need to shift. Backers bumped. We were gapped out. One missed tackle and poor pursuit angles by third level defenders was the issue.

We look so unathletic as a unit...

Missed tackles lead to big plays. Our tracking and tackling were atrocious at times last night.

His conclusion is correct, but his reasoning for getting there is nonsensical. Teams with QBs who can run generally don’t have their RBs getting 28 carries a game because they don’t have to. You’re at a numerical advantage on the field when your QB is a threat with his legs. A defense either has to commit an extra defender to the box or just live with the fact that one of their defenders will be slow to fit because they are being read. The off script stuff has nothing to do with the run game whatsoever. QB run game can almost guarantee you a 1 on 1 with your QB on a lesser athlete so why wouldn’t teams take that matchup more often than not? Only reason not to do it 100% of the time is because a defense will eventually adjust and start sending double edge pressure where they’d get a 2v1 on your QB, but then of course it’s pulling a defender either out of the box or coverage. And the other reason is to not get the crap beat out of your QB every play. The idea that QB run game lessens the effect of true RB run game is just moronic. If anything it should improve it because of how defenses have to play the QB run threat. Bills haven’t had a run game because they’re soft at the LoS, not because Josh runs.

The last two plays I don't have time to diagram, but the 3rd and 4 looked like we we're trying to disguise a Rat concept with Tremaine mugging and dropping out late underneath into a slant window. On the initial broadcast I thought we were just playing sticks alignment and playing catch technique at the sticks, but we clearly were not. There's no other explanation for us to be playing those alignments in that coverage unless we were suppose to drop someone out. The final play was the third and long where we brought pressure and ran Bronco coverage behind it again. Jaquan Johnson is the Hot 2 player until something crosses his face (which it did, but he kept carrying). He should have let the seam of 2 go because Milano (the final 3 player) replaces him as 3 releases out to the flat. Another coverage bust by a Safety.

Play three - the stalk and go. Pre-snap we are disguising this look at 3. Erik claims we're in Quarters coverage, but based on the route concepts there's really no way he could know if it was 2 or Quarters unless he was told by one of the players. Lets cover both scenarios. If it is Quarters coverage the Safeties responsibility in Quarters coverage is 2 to 1. So pre-snap eyes will be backfield to 2. As soon as Poyer see's 2 work out towards the corner his eyes will immediately shift to 1 - if 1 is coming inside (like he does on this tunnel path) he plays all of 1 (man on 1 essentially - so he should be driving downhill). The Corner in Quarters is also playing 2 to 1 meaning if 2 is vertical then he needs to continue to push vertical in his drop. 2 runs directly at Trey so he should be gaining depth in order to play over top of the stalk and go. If we were playing Quarters coverage here Trey was in the wrong and blew the coverage. If it is Cover 2 the Safeties responsibilities are still 2 to 1 but the rules change since it's no longer a pattern match. Poyer should be over top of everything in this coverage. When 2 goes out his eyes should shift to 1 to see if they're running any type of quick switch at the LoS, but he should be getting depth in the drop to stay overtop of any vertical routes. Trey should be reading QBs eyes first for quick game - he will jump any quick game to the flat in Cover 2. If he bites on a pump (like he does here), he will then regather and work a trail technique on the vertical from #2. If we were playing Cover 2 here Poyer was in the wrong and blew the coverage. Again, based on the route concepts it's difficult to tell whether we were in Quarters or Two, but based on how Tremaine played the back out I'm inclined to think Erik is correct that we were in Quarters and Trey blew the coverage.

Second play we're playing split coverage - Quarters to the strongside and Man on the backside. Bengals motion from 2x2 to 3x1 with back set to the trips (treat it like Quads) which pulls Edmunds out of the box. Because of this there should now be a gap exchange between Edmunds and Rousseau meaning Rousseau is now playing the strongside A gap through the heel line of the offense and Edmunds is now our QB player for any read scheme. The Bengals run Dart (pull the strongside tackle to wrap up to a second level defender). Both Edmunds and Rousseau sit on the QB read which is why there was no one inside of Taron when he leveraged (fit outside and force the ball back inside) the puller.

First play is a simple Curl/Flat concept that turns into a scramble drill once Burrow leaves the pocket. We're running a fire zone pinching our strongside defensive end and bringing Taron off the edge. With the fire zone we're playing what I call Bronco coverage behind it. Milano and Marlowe are responsible for the Hot of 2 (second receiver in from the sideline on that respective side of the field) until something crosses their face and pulls them to the flat and playing 3 deep over top. Poyer busted the coverage biting on Burrows eyes instead of working his read progression of 3, 2, 1 strongside before checking backside. Chase is initially running a slant trying to influence Edmunds and open up the Curl window, but once he sees Burrow leave the pocket it turns into scramble drill and he just works to green grass. Scheme was fine - execution was awful.

You need to take some of what they say with a grain of salt. For example Erik suggested playing more 2 Man in the game which would have gotten us gashed even more than we already did in the run game since you're taking guys out of the box. His comments about Leslie sitting in the 4-2 Over is nonsensical since switching to an under front vs a Tight End would put our Nickel on the LoS playing essentially a 9 technique on the Inline-Tight End (I assume you can come to a logical conclusion about how that'd turn out). That first touchdown they say we got out-schemed - we didn't get out-schemed... Poyer just busted the coverage and Edmunds didn't re-route the in-cut. It's actually pretty amusing watching their film breakdown because schematically we are sound to everything they did. It was just failure to execute from a player standpoint, and this is where I think we are with Erik and Cover 1. He used to do a better job, but now that he's got some players ears it seems like he's so afraid to put blame on players and instead consistently puts everything on the staff and the scheme. The third and 4 is the only thing that legitimately deserved any gripe out of the stuff they showed. I have to assume the Bills were playing some sort of Rat concept on that play - it's the only thing that makes sense based on the alignment of the defensive backs and coverage. If you want I can breakdown every single one of those plays for you and show you how the scheme isn't what screwed us on those examples they showed.

1) Number of reads won't change. Number of checks certainly could. 2) I'd say the opposite from what Cover 1 said about Frazier adding more checks in the playoffs - he's adding more checks because he does trust his players to be able to 1) make the checks and 2) execute them at a high level. If he came out and played vanilla then I'd be concerned he didn't trust his players to run the scheme. 3) All of those obviously affect results positively or negatively. 4) The scheme is not the issue if that's what you're asking. Adjustments are being made throughout games consistently, and we've been extremely innovative since this regime got here. Teams are going to score points in the playoffs - you're playing the best of the best. Frazier is never going to be the ra-ra guy who gets players fired up before games, but he shouldn't have to be. These are professional athletes. He's extremely methodical in his approach to games - shows a couple different looks early in games just to see how our opponents will try to attack them and then makes adjustments from there. It's why our defense seems to play better and better throughout games. Stay the course - we had one bad game. Then I don't know what to tell you. In that game, on that day, that was the issue. Nothing more - nothing less.

If you're asking if I think changes are needed based on one game the answer is unequivocally no. Wholistically, that really just depends on what the staff expects to get out of their players and whether or not they think those players met those expectations. I know that's kind of a non-answer but that's how these things kind of operate. I do think you have a good example with Salgado though. Our Safeties have been a staple in our defense for so long it makes whoever is coaching them look really good. When those guys weren't there this year that's when you could really tell how well coached that unit was. Obviously there was going to be drop off from an athletic standpoint since the majority of those guys who were in to replace were late round guys, but what really showed was the lack of scheme knowledge in those players. There was a noticeable shift in what we were able to do and call when the back-ups had to come in the game. At that position specifically, with the way this defense is designed, that made us very vanilla.

Because he's one of the best Tight Ends in football. Couple that with speed on the outside and a mobile quarterback it makes it tough. You have to pick your poison as a defense.

We got out-physicalled in the trenches on both sides of the ball. That was the root of all the problems. It put us behind the sticks offensively, and put the Bengals ahead of them offensively. Secondary had some mental lapses. Edmunds played pretty terribly early on in the game. Offensively we couldn't get into any sort of rhythm. We just didn't execute. I know everyone wants some profound answer that they can point to and say "this is the issue!". Truth of the matter is we just got flat out beat.

Good job regurgitating Cover 1 and not understanding a word of what was said lol. Coverage isn't "assumed post-snap". Based on the formation and receiver splits they know what coverage they're running pre-snap. The Bills play a bunch of pattern match coverages - meaning based on what their key does post-snap determines what they will do and who they will cover. The number of keys they have on a given play doesn't change though lol. This is not uncommon and certainly not specific to Buffalo or Frazier/McDermott. EVERY team in the NFL does this. Are there more formational checks put in during the post-season? That's entirely possible since you have an entire seasons worth of film on a team to narrow down specific tendencies and put yourself in the most advantageous position possible against specific looks. These guys have been running pattern match coverages since they were in High School though. Having to make checks on the field shouldn't be anything new to them, and the volume of checks shouldn't be either. For example, TCU's base 4-2-5 system has like 12 different coverage checks they can make out of their Quarters coverage based on whether you're aligned to the Read side or Away side of the defense, what the offensive formation is, and what the splits of those receivers are.

That's embarrassing if true. Teams change their signals and calls within games - why would they think it would remain the same from week to week?

Buffalo brought Quarters coverage to the NFL - before it was a "college" coverage that'd never work in the NFL... oops. Now it's a staple of every defense in the league. This schtick is getting old...

The other obvious one was the second touchdown to Hurst when Poyer drove the fast screen to Chase and Hurst ran the stalk and go on him. There were multiple instances of us carrying a player too far vertically and allowing the easy catch and run underneath, or us not switching off routes in a timely manner in our Quarters looks. It was a bad day at the office all around.

Multiple coverage busts from the Safety position against the Bengals in addition to the very obvious lack of scheme knowledge that our depth safeties possessed cost our defense huge this year.

LOL. You need to actually watch the games, smart. Whatever "Jonny Page" is calling a 3-3-5 is really a four man front with a stand-up defensive end. Look at the alignments - the majority of the time they're in a 5-3-1-5 across the defensive line. By the way we run 4-2-5 personnel, not "4-3 Nickel" (I don't even know wtf this is). Additionally, I have no idea what you're trying to convey with your comments about Bad QBs vs. Good QBs and there being no keys but then all of sudden there are keys if you're good? If you'd like me to explain basic defensive principles to you I'd be more than happy to. Sounds like you're the one who needs to be educated, not me.

I’m sure Cover 1 did a good job; they usually do. It doesn’t change the fact that there isn’t a scheme in the world that will overcome getting physically dominated at the point of attack all game long. The bolded part made me laugh. Unfortunately, I feel like this is common thinking around here. Football has rules regardless of the scheme you’re in. This idea that players can just go out and “free-lance” is amusing to me.

Exactly my point. We won't be transitioning our personnel to fit another scheme under this regime.

I think there's value in the rotation. I'd like to see a better job as far as the management of it throughout games, but there's definitely value to doing it.