HoofHearted

This notion that we have to do things wildly different in order to get our 12 personnel on the field is baffling to me. We can run the same exact stuff we run out of 11 or 10 with our 12 personnel. It's simply just putting our best 11 players on the field at the same time. That's it. You must not have watched last week.

To both of your points. Dorsey is absolutely a more aggressive play caller than Daboll is. That being said there are very few times where I see a concept called that is just plain bad to what the defense is giving them coverage-wise. I think we saw Dorsey take another step this past week in his use of personnel. We played a ton of 12 personnel, but not in conventional 12 personnel sets. There's a lot of really good things we can do out of those sets, and a lot of really good things we did do out of those sets that make things extremely hard on a defense and the personnel they choose to put out on the field. The advantages that can be gained in match-ups are endless so I'm encouraged to see that continue to grow throughout the season. I do think that a big thing that isn't really being talked about is the fact that Dorsey calls it from the box unlike Daboll who was on the field for a large portion of his time here (I feel like there was a time he called from the box as well? Can't remember). Josh needs someone to reel him in when he starts getting wild. Daboll was not afraid to do that. I remember multiple times seeing Josh getting his butt ripped by Daboll on the sideline. I don't recall ever seeing Brady do this, but I do think Dorsey would if he were on the field. I wonder if having that OC presence on the field would help reel Josh in a little more. On the flip side - how much does that impact Dorsey's ability to call a game though.

This isn't new. The QB run game has been drastically reduced for some time now.

Yeah, more often than not when formations are condensed your corner will be primary force. The issue on that play was no one had the first gap inside the widest tight end.

This isn't true. There's plenty of scenarios where the corner can and will be the force player.

Yeah, Sauce played in no mans land in between both routes which muddied the read. Josh should have just taken the sure thing underneath. In reality it was a culmination of a bunch of bad. Josh didn't read it well, Davis ran a lazy route, and Josh threw a ball low and behind his receiver on an out breaking route.

This is correct. Specifically in this concept you are reading the defender - not working a receiver progression. If the corner sits you throw the over, if he bails you throw the under, if it's murky you throw the under because it's the safer of the two options.

It is because it puts the Corner in conflict. It's a great concept against what the Jets gave us, Josh just threw it to the wrong guy. The Corner will play the concept top down (take away the corner and force the ball to be thrown underneath), which is exactly what happened. The throw should have went to Kincaid.

Sure but then that makes Micah your field side A gap run fitter which isn’t something they would do.

Yeah, I watched that after the user posted it. Erik says it's just his opinion and what he's saying is logical from the standpoint of just trying to put bodies in gaps, but when you look at the defense wholistically it doesn't really make a ton of sense. We're showing a true 4-3 over front pre-snap to their 13 personnel set. Rapp and Epenesa are clearly working an exchange to the field (Epenesa pinching to B gap while Rapp works C). Everyone else is playing their gap integrity vs the Duo Run Concept they get. Backers see it quick and react quick - really good reads by both of them. We're disguising our Hole coverage as Quarters pre-snap (which is why I don't think a timeout was called - we wouldn't know until the safeties start rolling the wrong way that we're not gapped out and by that point it's too late). Micah is rolling into the box but to a covered gap. Structurally we wouldn't ever put our Mike outside the box and keep our Will inside the box, plus we would never ask a Safety to be an A gap fitter, so the backer shift doesn't make sense. No, Cover 1 gave their opinion.

Doesn't look like the LBs at all. Looks like we rolled coverage the wrong way. The DL stunts and Backer fits are all working in tandem. Micah is rolling down into a covered gap. He's the outlier. Wasn't a blitz at all. Just dudes being dudes and reading keys and filling gaps fast.

Except he’s throwing a Smash concept into Cover 2. Corners are taught to play that too down essentially bracketing the Corner route Davis ran. He should have just taken the underneath to Kincaid.

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.