HoofHearted
-
Posts
982 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HoofHearted
-
-
This thread is fun lol
-
1
-
-
This idea that we are built defensively to just beat the Chiefs is a fallacy - we are built to stop modern offenses. There's two ways to build a defense - be bigger than everyone or be faster than everyone. We've built our defense to be faster and more athletic than everyone. You see the Buccaneers following this same philosophy and don't hear anyone saying anything about them being only built to beat the Chiefs.
-
1
-
-
Unfortunately you can't just jump into whatever fronts and coverages you want week to week. Alignments, keys, techniques, fits, rules, etc. all change when you change the base front.
-
6 hours ago, Italian Bills said:
Personally, going against a not so great QB, good but not great, i would switch from Nickel to 5-2 to have more protection against the run, maybe not all game long, but i would mix those two formations more, sticking with the Nickel we could have problem limiting their run offense.
On offense i think that Josh play better under center than the shotgun. He can use more play action plays, make quicker throws for short and more safe passes and avoiding the pass rush that is our weakest point.
I also noticed that playing under center our backs play better because they get the ball in speed and not starting from a still.
Doesn't matter what defensive personnel grouping we put out there if guys can't fit their gaps correctly. If we continue to get reached or get washed we're gonna get gashed regardless.
This idea that there's not play action possible out of shotgun is absurd to me. Plus you completely remove the RPO game if you play solely under center - which has been the major way we've had any type of success in the redzone this year.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:
I've yet to see the play live as I missed it after tuning out most of the second half, but just looking at this still frame did Breida try to turn too much upfield. Looking at this still it looks like if he tries a horizontal line to the sticks he likely out runs everyone to the marker. Just would depend on if the corner covering the gunner could be run off or blocked.
No, he took a good path. Gunner did a good job running off the Jammer. Matakevich just let his man go essentially unblocked.
-
30 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
So what do you think happened there? Matakevich was kind of key on the blocked punt in the Steelers game too.
Man has One Job - Special Teams.
Did he lose his block or did he come off?
Either way, Thanks for the great breakdown
I kind of agree with the guys who say...if you're going to Go For It, let the best players on the field Go For It, and that would be the offense.
Didn't look to me like he ever committed to the block. Looked like a miscommunication as he worked almost immediately up to the second level. I also agree. I understand there's an element of surprise to the fake punt, but why take your best player off the field in a crucial situation. I'd feel more confident in the offense being able to gain 2-3 yards than my punt team.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, MJS said:
Two metrics from two organizations I have no faith in combined into one metric to rule them all!
100% - a bunch of non-football guys grading players without knowing play calls or assignments. Brilliant!
3 hours ago, GoBills808 said:Slow feet don't eat. Our OL is so unathletic.
4 hours ago, dave mcbride said:I don't think their pass pro is that bad; the issue is that because the run blocking is so bad, teams can tee off on the pass.
This definitely compounds the issue, but we are very unathletic up front.
-
10 minutes ago, LyndonvilleBill said:
Would this be McDermott or Special teams coordinator play design? Does McDermott call the play or does he just say let's fake the punt and they have a play they call?🤔
Typically SPT Coordinator will come up with the scheme (with approval from the head coach). Head Coach will just determine when/if he wants it run in a game.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:
Whoever handed the ball off to Breida should've just kept it and continued right. He could've run open for days.
Incorrect, they overloaded that side. Would have been a sure tackle for loss.
Just now, GoBills808 said:I don't mind going for it there...I do mind taking the ball out of Allen's hands.
That's what I questioned as well.
-
Nothing on film suggests they picked up that Breida was in the game (slow getting lined up, no one communicating or pointing, no one on the second level in a stance even). Regardless, it's not about fooling the defense with the personnel you put on the field. They could very well have known a fake was coming - they'd still have to stop it. It's a defensive play just like any other on 1st-3rd down. Every player has their assignment and executes it the same whether it's a punt or fake. The design of the fake was a solid one for the look they got from the Bucs.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
On first viewing it looked to me like Breida was at fault for getting tripped up so easily. He is fast but has zero contact balance.
If Matakevich holds his block for just 1 more second that dudes not even there to make the shoestring tackle.
-
Saw a lot of people bashing the play design of the fake punt on here so I thought I'd break it down so everyone could see what the coaching staff saw. Coaches designed the fake so that we could get numbers to the offensive left side of the play. The backside (Center, Right Guard, and Right Tackle) are essentially blocking Power here (Center and Right Tackle block down while Right Guard pulls to wrap on the opposite side). To the playside they are zone over-take blocking which essentially means the Left Tackle and Left Guard are going to combo the Tackle until the Left Guard can overtake him and then the Left Tackle will work up to a 2nd level defender (the Sam in this case). The slot to the playside (Gilliam) is responsible for overtaking the End (get outside leverage and pin him back inside). Gilliam does a poor job of reaching the End and never does get outside leverage of him, but with a chip from the pulling Right Guard (Dodson) the play could have still been successful. What ultimately blew the play up was Matakevich and Giles-Harris actually do a really good job with their zone over-take. Matakevich has great positioning on the Tackle but then just lets him go and works to the second level (either there was a miscommunication on the combo or the timing of the play was off). Either way Matakevich has to stay on that block longer as the Tackle was ultimately the one who made the tackle on the play.
Overall the play design was sound vs what the Buccaneers were showing. If executed properly, we had numbers on the left side and should have easily been able to pick up the first down and likely a lot more.
-
1
-
4
-
-
20 hours ago, BillsMafi$ said:
This first play was a set up for the same look we showed later and threw it to Gabe Davis over the backers head.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:
I don't begrudge Edmunds for the TD. Perriman should have been covered already. But Edmunds not finishing that tackle on Fournette might've been the game. His run support skills are waining.
Gabe Davis needs to Immediately become our WR2. Limit Sanders's snaps now. The structure of the fake punt was destined to fail. Not going for 4th & 3 was a fail on McD. Dane played commendable and will be a good depth cb when Tre returns. Love Harry's motor but Ed deserves a true 1T next to him. Coaching has to improve. Daboll's runs on 1st down are so frustrating. I think we'll limp to 10-7 and be the 7th WC. But this OL is not getting us to LA.
The Punt Fake actually looked really good if Matakevich held his block a second longer. We had numbers on the edge.
-
9 minutes ago, CookieG said:
I don't agree that it was a Catch22. First, Edmunds had inside leverage on the guard. Second, his head was above the guard's left shoulder. He had perfect line of sight on Fournette, probably the best line of sight of anyone on the D. There was no reason for him not to see Fournette's cut upfield.
When Fournette makes his cut, Edmunds does nothing to attempt to mirror him and in fact, keeps moving outside. By the time he makes any type of move back to the inside, Fournette has taken three strides up field and is long gone.
https://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=32854225&ex_cid=espnapi_internal
It can be argued, perhaps, that he couldn't have shed and came back to make a tackle in time...but the point is moot because he never even attempted to do so.
But I also realize that he was drafted for his size/speed/COD skills. It is in a situation like that where those skills come in handy.
Someone else said it best about Edmunds. By the time he diagnoses a play, the RB is already through the hole.
In below average QB's, some call it slow eyes. And that's what he has.
You can disagree all you want - what you are saying isn't within the scope of the defense (or any defense). Defensive players have run fits and they must all fit correctly to get stops. He fit correctly. It hit inside and the person who was supposed to fit inside of him missed the tackle. That's all there is to it.
Without a hat in every gap you get gashed.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:
The Patriots were doing this thing on running plays where they strung out their runs sideways and waited until the defenders (linebackers in particular) hit their gaps and took on blockers, and then cut upfield and past the defense. Over and over again with little adjustment from Frazier and co.
Yeah they ran a lot of G Lead and Outside Zone against us from condensed sets forcing our corners to set an edge. For the most part we handled it well, the long run being the exception.
1 minute ago, RichRiderBills said:You don't allow the ballcarrier to run right by you for the sake of holding your gap. It's silly. The gap system is not as rigid as you portray.
It is my friend.
-
2 minutes ago, Old Coot said:
Good question. I was referring to the sideline dumpoffs. It seems that our dumpoffs get less yardage than dumpoffs by other teams and I wondered if that had to do with Josh's ball placement.
Your analysis is excellent. You are the Romo of this board. I hope that you will continue to do analysis of crucial plays in games. The average fan -- & I include myself here -- just sees what happens on a play on the surface, not the intricacies of what the O & D were trying to do. As a result we often think that the play call was bad when in fact, as you have shown, the fault may lie in the execution.
On an unrelated note re that fade to Diggs at the end of regulation. Some have said it was a bone head call but maybe not. Diggs was singled up and the DB had inside leverage so it seems to me that the fade to Diggs was the correct call. Do you agree?
Good question. I was referring to the sideline dumpoffs. It seems that our dumpoffs get less yardage than dumpoffs by other teams and I wondered if that had to do with Josh's ball placement.
Your analysis is excellent. You are the Romo of this board. I hope that you will continue to do analysis of crucial plays in games. The average fan -- & I include myself here -- just sees what happens on a play on the surface, not the intricacies of what the O & D were trying to do. As a result we often think that the play call was bad when in fact, as you have shown, the fault may lie in the execution.
On an unrelated note re that fade to Diggs at the end of regulation. Some have said it was a bone head call but maybe not. Diggs was singled up and the DB had inside leverage so it seems to me that the fade to Diggs was the correct call. Do you agree?
Good question. I was referring to the sideline dumpoffs. It seems that our dumpoffs get less yardage than dumpoffs by other teams and I wondered if that had to do with Josh's ball placement.
Your analysis is excellent. You are the Romo of this board. I hope that you will continue to do analysis of crucial plays in games. The average fan -- & I include myself here -- just sees what happens on a play on the surface, not the intricacies of what the O & D were trying to do. As a result we often think that the play call was bad when in fact, as you have shown, the fault may lie in the execution.
On an unrelated note re that fade to Diggs at the end of regulation. Some have said it was a bone head call but maybe not. Diggs was singled up and the DB had inside leverage so it seems to me that the fade to Diggs was the correct call. Do you agree?
Good question. I was referring to the sideline dumpoffs. It seems that our dumpoffs get less yardage than dumpoffs by other teams and I wondered if that had to do with Josh's ball placement.
Your analysis is excellent. You are the Romo of this board. I hope that you will continue to do analysis of crucial plays in games. The average fan -- & I include myself here -- just sees what happens on a play on the surface, not the intricacies of what the O & D were trying to do. As a result we often think that the play call was bad when in fact, as you have shown, the fault may lie in the execution.
On an unrelated note re that fade to Diggs at the end of regulation. Some have said it was a bone head call but maybe not. Diggs was singled up and the DB had inside leverage so it seems to me that the fade to Diggs was the correct call. Do you agree?
Good question. I was referring to the sideline dumpoffs. It seems that our dumpoffs get less yardage than dumpoffs by other teams and I wondered if that had to do with Josh's ball placement.
Your analysis is excellent. You are the Romo of this board. I hope that you will continue to do analysis of crucial plays in games. The average fan -- & I include myself here -- just sees what happens on a play on the surface, not the intricacies of what the O & D were trying to do. As a result we often think that the play call was bad when in fact, as you have shown, the fault may lie in the execution.
On an unrelated note re that fade to Diggs at the end of regulation. Some have said it was a bone head call but maybe not. Diggs was singled up and the DB had inside leverage so it seems to me that the fade to Diggs was the correct call. Do you agree?
On those sideline throws you’re taught as a QB to throw to the inside hip of the receiver which forces them to turn back to the ball slowing down their momentum so they don’t run out of bounds and allowing them to get some yac. This is just a general rule obviously - certain coverages and field position will change where you want to place the ball.
As far as the play to Diggs I think they had the right mindset. Throw to your best receiver who’s singled up. Only so many routes you can run that close to the endzone - fade, slant, whip, or cross. If they thought the fade gave them the best chance then I’d tend to agree with them. They’re around those guys way more than we are.
-
1
-
-
Just now, bigduke6 said:
good breakdown i guess, doesnt explain why Edmunds cant ever get off a block.
Well that’s easy - because he’s 6’5” and takes on blockers standing straight up. Loses the leverage battle and isn’t very active with his hands to either shock and shed or hand fight so they can’t get their hands on him in the first place.
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, RichRiderBills said:
The purpose of gap coverage is not to fill a gap by hopelessly engaging with an OL while the ball crosses your path and you don't disengage.
The film does not lie: Edmunds is tunnel vision focused on meeting an OL in a hole, at the cost of letting the ball carrier cross in front of him. He is also unable to disengage to attempt a tackle. This isn't some inflexible system, it's a screw up.
I will tip my hat that other players like Poyer, who gets buried. And Hyde could have stopped the TD, but Edmunds is mainly at fault.
Incorrect, sir. Read this. It talks about if he fit tighter as you suggested. Gap integrity is the fundamental building block that run defense is built around. Every man has a responsibility and when they don’t do it the whole thing collapses. The ball hit in Taron Johnson’s gap - he missed the tackle - they scored.
-
6 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:
whatever the writeup/responsibilities were- all Truman had to do was keep filling the hole he had filled and engage the running back. instead he ran past the hole to engage the blocker. it is inexcusable as the first responsibility is to get the guy with the ball down on the ground.
Read this.
3 minutes ago, bouds said:So Edmunds is RAT, he has to disrupt and carry the crosser, but should he ultimately pass it off to Jackson or carry it across the entire way.
If the crosser came in front of him he’d have it man to man. Since it went behind Johnson should have carried it all the way.
-
5 minutes ago, bouds said:
Thanks for breaking this down, question for you, what do you think of Dan's take. Watching it live I felt like maybe we had to switch the crossers off? And Dan alludes to that but then doesn't mention that Jackson never switched off.
Yeah, he's essentially saying the same thing I am. Typically in 1 RAT Coverage you're going to pass off the shallow crossers to whoever the RAT is. The shallow cross must be working IN FRONT of the RAT for this to be done though so that he can step up and impede the path of the receiver to slow him down in order to allow him to continue carrying. If it's behind the RAT then the DB should carry that across the field.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
Do you think the advantages in the pass defense outweigh the liabilities in the run game? Especially considering that we struggle to consistently dictate on offense so we cannot necessarily rely on playing with a lead.
Personally, yeah. It's a pass driven league and it's moving even more and more in that direction every year. There's obviously got to be a balance, right? You saw us start to gash the Bucs in the second half with our run game and it was all because they were penetrating up front which created lanes and angles for us to run through. I think this defensive scheme does a really good job overall of being gap sound regardless of what we're doing which both helps and hinders us at times. You'll never see us run these exotic blitzes that other teams run because they technically aren't gap sound and would get completely gashed if a team tried to run on us while running one, but at the same time those exotic blitzes are often better at overloading a side and getting a guy free or at the very least forcing 1v1 matchups up front. We are very vanilla in what we do up front which makes it easier for teams to pick up in pass pro, but what we do also creates 1v1's for most of our guys (who should be far more athletic than the guys they line up across from).
Ultimately very few teams are going to be patient enough to run for 4 yards a pop all the way down the field.
-
1
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Dopey said:
14 hours in and barely into page 2 ?!?!? I guess the bashers moved on to a thread that fits their narrative. I'm amazed at how little interaction there is on this post. Great job, HoofHearted. I am wondering if you have an opinion on the long TD run vs. N. E. ? it looked to me that Edmunds made the edge hard for the RB to get anything out of it, so he cut back. I want to ask if you noticed how far off Milano was on that play. At the snap, Milano was to Edmunds' left, but somehow when the cutback happens, Milano is now behind Edmunds and to his right(way out of the play). Obviously the safety was the main culprit with how he over ran the play, but would you say Edmunds was at fault or was Milano way out of position to stop the cutback? I feel it was on Milano and Hyde. I would love a reply from someone who seems level headed, If you disagree, cool. I would rather hear it from you. Thanks in advance, if you decide to answer.
I had a breakdown of this play here. A few posts below that is the X's and O's drawn up. Basically it came down to a total collapse of the entire defense. Everyone was wrong.
-
15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
This is great stuff. My old-ass Eyes wish you would chart your Xs and Os a bit bigger, but fantastic that you took the time to do it.
Wish you'd post more.
As far as the "step back" on tackling:
Last year, when we would have a bad defensive game, McDermott would harp on fundamentals. I suspect that the difference between a clean tackle and a whiff is often literally inches or milliseconds. I speculate that with so many returning players, either the coaches haven't drilled on fundamentals as hard (these guys know what they're doing, right?) or the players have not been as driven (We're good, right?) or both. There's also a matter of have you watched enough film that your recognition is instantaneous, or do you have to think for a millisecond.
It's pretty inexcusable to let Tampa march down the field and score on 4 successive drives in the first half, 3 of them TDs.
McDermott said in a presser "you have to have a burning desire to be the Best, Every week"
That has to be somewhat on coaching, but there's also a "cup and the platter clean only on the outside" aspect to it - if the coaches preach the same message, but the players are going "yeah, yeah", it's a player problem too - the coaches think they have players who have a "burning desire to be the best every week" but that fire has been banked and allowed to be embers.
It's probably a little of both. We have largely the same defensive group as last year so the emphasis on the basics, blocking and tackling, i'm sure aren't being reinforced the way they were year one when this staff got here. At the same time I'm sure the players have become more complacent with the basics as well partly due to the success we've had and how that affects one's ego. When you do the same thing over and over and over it's easy to get complacent, but the best teams are the ones who have longevity in their focus and drive and never get bored working on the boring things.
12/26/21 Week 16 Gameday Bills @ Patriots* First Half Thread
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
They started to - played some 4 toward the end of that drive and got out of their roll 3 coverages.