[X’s and O’s Thread]

2 hours ago, BCAS Baritone said:

 

I think option routes can contribute to that, especially if all the receivers have an option route.  Basically, you want to run to the empty part of the field.  If everybody sees the same thing, that a certain part of the field is open, they all run to it.  And they have a nice group hug when they all show up together.

I apologize. I haven't done a great job of explaining how Deep Choice works on here. Only one of the receivers in the concept will have the option route. So for example lets say we're running "DC2" which is Deep Choice to the slot receiver. You're #1 receiver (widest receiver to that side of the field) is running what is called a "collector" route. Essentially it's his responsibility to occupy the corner outside - he does this by pushing vertically until he can get in that corners cushion and then will shut it down right in front of him to draw him into coverage (typically a comeback route). The #2 (slot receiver) is the one running the option route.

 - Lets say it's cover 1 and he sees a corner pressed outside of him on the #1 and a safety walked down on top of him - he will take an outside release and run a vertical pushing toward the sideline (Slot Fade) in order to work as far away from the MoF Safety as possible.

 - If it's a Cover 3 look he'll run a straight vertical off the LoS and try to split the corner and MoF Safety up the seam - if the corner carries and squeezes the slot vertical then the QB will check it down to the #1 receiver who ran the 10 yard comeback.

 - If it's a Cover 2 look the slot will push vertical and run a Post to the open middle of the field.

 - If it's a Quarters look you can either run a Corner to the sideline away from the Safety or a Dig right underneath (this is gameplan specific for the opponent).

 

Essentially it sets up your option guy to run to green grass and have the best possible opportunity to be open on the play. So while I understand your thought process - it doesn't actually play out that way.

 

EDIT: And just to be clear this is just one example of the many variations of choice concepts we run.

[X’s and O’s Thread]

2 hours ago, mrags said:

The problem I see with this is the X and H are in same exact spot to start the play. Generally running a similar route (at least general direction) and the Y is crossing right into the same zone as both of them. So to start, 2 players are lined up and running in the same general vicinity and the Y is about to enter the same zone. So 3 DBs/Ss/LBs don’t have to move a whole lot to cover a small space. 
 

I’m not an X and O guy. So maybe I’m wrong. But I know what I see on a weekly basis. And that’s multiple receivers running in the same general vicinity and defenders crowding those zones. 
 

someone brought it up the other day here. When was the last time you saw receivers just wide open and no one around them. Haven’t really seen it since Daboll left. I don’t know what the difference is, but there’s a clear difference and that’s coming from a guy that played 2 months of organized football in his life. If I can see it, DCs can see it. and honestly, it’s not really arguable as our offense has pretty much looked like trash for the last 16 games or so. So right around when everyone figured out what Dorsey was all about. Since then we’ve been trash. 

Right. That's all intentional. The play is designed to attack the underneath coverage of the defense and put a ton of stress on them to try and fit that out. Generally speaking we mostly see 4-2 or 3-2 boxes which essentially means we're seeing two backers (often lined up in 30's) responsible for the hook to curl zones. This concept puts those defenders in conflict if they are running zone coverages. There's two ways the concept can be played - either the two backers pass off the crossers to the other backer and they widen with the route until they can pass it off to the curl/flat defender which then opens the passing lane for the snag route sitting over the center at 10 yards - or they match the routes and run with them in which case whoever is covering the underneath crosser will get picked by the receiver running the deeper crosser. If it is man coverage the backers either won't be there because they are both blitzing or one backer will be there playing a Rat concept (essentially a low hole robber) - if they Rat then the backer will end up sitting under the snag and the DBs in man responsibility will play the concept just as I described above with the backers matching the routes (the deeper DB will get picked). Typically the progressing to this concept looks at the RB on the wheel first if the QB reads man coverage pre-snap then works across the field to the crossers then snag. The backside Out is your man match-up if you like it.

[X’s and O’s Thread]

2 hours ago, 34-78-83 said:

@HoofHearted, It appears to me in watching the games and some of the all-22's that Terrel Bernard has become a consistent performer throughout the season with not only his play making abilities, but also his zone coverage and gap filling responsibilities. The focus of the fans and media has kinda come off of him for a number of weeks now as the team has struggled in other areas. Can you confirm this from a full season with what you've seen of him on tape? What opportunity areas do you still see for growth with him?

 

Also, It feels like Dodson, while certainly a limited player in coverage, has played up near his ceiling when out there and contributed without being too major of a liability. Do you see that similarly?

Bernard has certainly been coming along. He's still learning and improving, but he's been trending upwards the entire season which is really good to see. He plays extremely fast and has the same type of play style as Milano which is really good to see. Athletically he's got it - he lacks size but is able to overcome a lot of situations because of his athleticism. More often than not he's able to use his athleticism to bend around blockers working up to the second level, but when he does get engaged he naturally gets pushed because of his lack of size. What I love is that in those situations he stays active - actively working feet - actively working escapes - always trying to get off the block and more often than not does. In Coverage he's at his best in pattern match schemes where he's able to drop to a specific player and everything turns into man eventually. Where I think he can get caught at times right now (and its certainly not just him) is awareness when he's working a true zone drop - understanding where his fit in the coverage is and how to relate to routes in those fits. A lot of eyes in backfield pulling him off simple underneath coverages.

 

Dodson has been improved with more reps as well. Obviously he's a liability in the pass game due to lack of athleticism, but he has been much more consistent recently in run fits and pulling the trigger, but there are still lapses there. He plays slower than Bernard, but I've seen that improve as well as the season has progressed. He's a decent back-up, but he can't be relied upon to be an every down backer.

[X’s and O’s Thread]

4 minutes ago, Logic said:

Thanks.

I'm familiar with the mesh concept. It's ubiquitous in modern football. I think just about every team runs some version of it.

My question is, was Dorsey running it somehow differently than other teams run it? Did he alter it in some way that led to disadvantageous spacing? I don't imagine that the Bills frequently turning to Mesh is what led to all the hand wringing, in and of itself. There must have been more to it.

 

Every time Cover 1 talked about spacing issues it was Mesh that he was talking about.

 

EDIT: I have seen people on here complain about spacing issues on scramble drill.

[X’s and O’s Thread]

20 minutes ago, Logic said:

Thanks, Hoof.

I have a general question pertaining to the Bills' offensive scheme this year. I'm not sure if it's specific enough to warrant a response. Let's see:

I saw guys like Dan Orlovsky and the Cover 1 film crew saying again and again that Dorsey's scheme did not make very good use of spacing in his route concepts.

Without having access to the All-22 and without having the necessary knowledge to parse through it even if I did, I'm not able to suss out the truth of this statement. I DID see with my own eyes on TV every week that two receivers (and sometimes even three) tended to wind up in the same cluster of space on the field a bit too often for my liking, though I can't say whether this was due simply to poor execution, or to the theoretical poor use of spacing about which I'm asking.

From your perspective, were there legitimate issues with the way Ken Dorsey's scheme did or did not make use of spacing in his route concepts and combinations, and is there a way that Joe Brady can realistically improve in this area going forward this season, in your opinion?

This whole spacing thing didn’t show up until this year when we started running a mesh concept quite a bit. Mesh creates a rub across the field and uses a snag that sits over top of it. This gives you both a man beater concept and zone beater concept all within the same full field concept. 

 

[X’s and O’s Thread]

25 minutes ago, mrags said:

Seriously? I see it like every single game all the time. Like 2 games ago a couple of our receivers took each other out and both fell down in a play. Imo it’s a huge reason why Allen has thrown as many picks and has as many incomplete as he does. He’s throwing into defenses that are stacked on the same side of the field. For the life of me I don’t understand why Dorsey never spread guys out more. With Allen at QB you should be in 4wr sets like every damn play and make the defense try and figure out what you are doing. And just when they think they have everyone covered, Allen should be running. Not sure what’s so hard about the concept 

That was on a rub route.

[X’s and O’s Thread]

59 minutes ago, 34-78-83 said:

Do you think that Brady will reduce the number of option routes built into pass plays in the current Bills scheme in order to reduce the amount of thinking necessary (by both WR and QB) and to somewhat alleviate how much "perfect execution" will be required to have successful outcomes?

Deep Choice will likely still be a big part of this offense. He ran a bunch of it while at LSU. What may happen is he limits the volume of choice plays they have and instead focus on just a few.

48 minutes ago, mrags said:

All I know is this. With Dorsey done, I truly hope we don’t see 2 and sometimes 3 receivers all within 5-10 yards of each other downfield. Bumping into each other. Tripping over each other. Telegraphing to the defense that you only need to cover one half of the field. 
 

biggest issue since Dorsey took over IMO. With Daboll and other good offenses I see all over the league. You have guys that are just wide open. Good players. Bad players. Fast players. Slow players. It’s route/play design and something I thought Dorsey was terrible at. Hopefully Brady sees this. Or hopefully Josh and Steff and some of the other guys can point it out and have it changed. 

Really the only times we saw that was on Mesh concepts (which that’s part of the design of the play) or on scramble drills.

[X’s and O’s Thread]

1 hour ago, WideNine said:

 

This is my question too, but mentally I have been leaning towards first how does he get the offense better prepared to limit the mistakes?

 

A lot of analysis this year pointing to mental lapses by our WRs. Have wondered how the loss of Chad Hall would affect that unit and why Hall left the organization for what amounted to a lateral coaching move with the Jaguars?

 

Xs & Os:

That perhaps leads to think about what types of plays do the Bills execute well on Offense?

 

Of those which have a chance for some success against the defensive looks the Jets tend to counter with?

 

 

 

We HAVE to win the LoS. Specifically, early on we’ll need to be able to run the ball off tackle. Against the Jets I’d expect some type of Buck or Pin & Pull schemes to accomplish this. I don’t think we’d have a chance to be successful just trying to run outside zone. We also need to be able to attack the perimeter in the pass game early on using flat screens and RPOs. Anything to get the interior of their DL moving sideline to sideline and wear them down. If we can successfully do that it opens up our play action game off of that action which should allow Kincaid to get going. Jets play like us defensively - they’re not going to give up the deep ball and they’re good at playing tight underneath. Change of strength motions and shifts would be big to get them having to communicate and make checks right before the snap but with a short week I’m not sure how much of that to expect because I have no clue how much of that is currently built in to the system. We need to make a conscious effort to motion Diggs away from Sauce as much as we can to get him going. Still think Deep Choice will be a big part of what we do.

1 hour ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

So why do we see some teams use the slant route to take advantage of holes in the defense and favorable matchups while others don't use slant routes at all? What are the negatives of using them?

The easy answer is different systems specialize in different things, but on top of that how a defense is playing you will dictate what concepts you want to use to attack teams. Pros and cons depend on how the defense is playing you.

[X’s and O’s Thread]

9 hours ago, finn said:

I always appreciate your expert, dispassionate posts. Here's a question: What do you think Brady should do to turn this thing around, given that he has to pretty much work with the same playbook--and given that the Bills are about to run the gauntlet of some of the best defenses in the league, starting with the Jets, who seem to have figured them out? 

The biggest and most important thing (and probably the tallest task) is to rebuild the confidence in that offensive room. He has to command the room from the jump, show a clear direction for where he wants to take things, and be able to provide answers when questions ultimately arise. If he can’t do that then it doesn’t matter what we do as far as scheme is concerned.

7 hours ago, boyst said:

i don't know that it is a question but i am amazed at the inability of most of the NFL to incorrectly place value on prospective linebackers in the league. college prospects never seem to really have the pizzazz as they did just 10-15 years ago, and especially as they did 20-25 years ago or more. i don't know of a position more poorly graded for defensive prospects coming out of college than this right now.

Can you provide more detail? Are you speaking of teams struggling to find competent players or just that they are harder to project to the next level now?

[X’s and O’s Thread]

Just wanted to throw this out there as an outlet for some of you guys to get answers on scheme, specific plays, coaching, etc.

 

What I envision this thread being is a place where you guys can come ask questions and I can help provide answers all in one place instead of a lot of answers being buried 12 pages deep in sporadic threads every week. I’ll try my best to get to everyone’s questions as quickly as I can.

 

What I do not want this thread to devolve into is a gossip/fire whoever/hot take of the week type of deal.

 

I want this to be specifically about learning more about the game so if you’ve got something else, respectfully, take it to another thread. Thanks!

 

Fire away!

[Second blitz at end of game]

2 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

I know this is going to come as a shocker to you so you might want to stand up. A QB can get rid of the ball faster than a defense can arrive. It's sort of like science or something. 

Well damn, how are sacks even a thing then!?!?!? 😉

[Second blitz at end of game]

3 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

Except the pressure was never going to get home because of the sequence of the plays. It had no element of surprise. 

I know this is going to come as a shocker to you so you might want to sit down, but pressure's don't get home because of the "element of surprise".

[Second blitz at end of game]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

 

This is actually one of my problems with that 2nd blitz call.

Aside from the fact that you're telegraphing to a veteran QB that you're again leaving your corners out to dry, that entire series Oliver was pushing the pocket down after down after down and there was not a thing their OLine could do about it.

There was minimal upside to sending the house there again. There is no longer any element of surprise to create doubt or confusion, a veteran like Wilson is not going to take a sack there, none of our our DB's or LB's are particularly effective rushers, dropping that DE into coverage does nothing to improve it, etc. But there is a significant downside there where an unsuccessful blitz likely costs you the game in that spot, which it did. It was a foolish gamble with way more negative potential than positive.

All that needed to be done was to defend the sticks on 3rd down while the inevitable interior pressure forces Wilson into a too quick decision.

McDermott is a bit of a micromanager with an observable tendency to overcoach games and that was another example of it right there.

Yep. That’s definitely the downside to playing man. From a purely schematic standpoint it was a good call. We got the matchups we wanted (Poyer and Demar 2v1 on a back). If Poyer hits it tighter Demar has a shot at the sack. Playing Man 7 took away the quick throw and forced them into a pass that hits about 35% of the time versus a ten yard completion that’s around 65%. Definitely a gamble. Definitely not as egregious as some are making it out to be.

[Second blitz at end of game]

6 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Maybe you saw it differently but I thought a lot of the pressure was undisciplined. Like Oliver running right by Wilson at full speed and giving him an easy lane to step up into multiple times. Sure it counts as a pressure but it doesn't lead to a negative outcome. Or a blitzer failing to account for the leaking RB - we gave up big 1st downs several times on this same play, and it was especially frustrating to see Denver hit it on their first play of the last drive for a big gain which immediately took the pressure off them and put our defense on its heels. I don't understand why we hadn't adjusted to it by then.

 

I watch other defenses against us and they wisely have spies making sure Allen can't just step up like that or dump the ball off to a RB with 10 yards of separation. They do a mush rush where they barely even try to sack Allen off the snap, they instead prioritize making sure he can't escape the pocket and slowly compress in on him from all sides. Whereas I felt that most of the night our pressure looks let Wilson off the hook and gave him easy answers.

 

100% - we had poor rush integrity all night. We did a poor job with our low box/hi box rules. Ed was winning all night though.

[Firing Dorsey did not solve Bills' number 1 problem: Sean McDermott (damning Warren Sharp article)]

8 minutes ago, Logic said:

Cheap response.

There are lots of "clowns" in football analysis and on Twitter, specifically.

Warren sharp is a reasonably bright guy, and his piece at least provided lots of numbers and reasoning for his conclusion.

Totally reasonable to disagree with him -- there were some sections of the article that I had issues with, too -- but if you disagree with him SO strongly that you're willing to dismiss his article out of hand and call him a "clown", you'd think it shouldn't be too difficult to list at least a few of the reasons why you disagree so strongly. 

 

I didn’t read the article. I’m sure the analytics stuff is fine. He’s just a hack. Sold himself as this big time NFL Consultant and it’s all false. He doesn’t know a dang thing about football. Just numbers.

9 minutes ago, 34-78-83 said:

you sure though man? I mean don't gambling advice and stat web guys always know more that actual film analysts and scouts? (sorry this is more of a response to an argument that's following you around than to this post)

I need to just stop responding 🤣

[Firing Dorsey did not solve Bills' number 1 problem: Sean McDermott (damning Warren Sharp article)]

1 hour ago, boyst said:

@HoofHearted argue this article. even here he calls out all of our defense and the blitz on 3rd down.

Sure. That dudes a clown. End of discussion.

[Second blitz at end of game]

1 hour ago, boyst said:

meh, it's easy to be incoherrent.

 

my point was simple. you are trying to over complicate and explain the problems in a way that isn't valid beyond the stats/paper/etc.

 

in practice the entire game was terrible at generating pressure. there was no need to continue to do something that wasn't working all day even if it was "not the same play as before"

 

that's what people are getting at.

We did generate pressure. Ed was a monster all night. That’s why we didn’t blitz a whole lot. Did you watch the game?

[Second blitz at end of game]

1 minute ago, Snappysnackcakes said:

Tell me about it. I’m becoming increasingly convinced HoofHearted is lightly associated with the team. 

[The elephant in the room that there is no thread about - Josh Allen has a severe turnover problem]

He always has. This isn't anything new to this season.

[is there a HC out there worth going after?]

2 minutes ago, Einstein said:

I understand the sentiment, but fixing the OC unfortunately doesn't fix some glaring weaknesses we have at HC. For example: In-game decision making. 

In-game decisions as in play calling or as in situationals?

[Second blitz at end of game]

33 minutes ago, boyst said:

Your entire point is analytics without real football insight. 

 

Our attack to the QB sucked. Regardless of blitz or rush. You're also provoking semantics knowing yourself most people don't grasp all the lingo and blitz to most is the same as a rush. You're doing this on purpose knowing better. It's weaksauce. 

 

Further. We couldn't effectively get to rusa. We had a lot of issues in the secondary with communication, as well. We gambled and brought pressure and it was ok. The second time the broncos saw it coming. Anyone did. We don't need % comp rate or anything. 

 

So many of us saw the strategy of how to achieve defensive success just like the chiefs 13 seconds. It's been pointed out so I won't be redundant. 

 

Step down from your perch. Your analysis is fine but on the field it didn't work and was not going to. It is not about hindsight. All game we were missing Wilson and the jackass coach wouldn't and couldn't adapt.

My posts are always about football insight. Not sure what you're getting at in the rest of your incoherent post.

[is there a HC out there worth going after?]

5 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

1) Then what do you do if they are successful and end up the lead HC candidate for 2025? You firing McD then or just keep the OC carousel going?

 

2) And if you are bringing in someone as OC, you are promoting someone who has likely never called plays before. Again.

 

3) I'd rather make a hot OC our Head Coach since that is what will need to happen anyways.

 

1) Deal with it if/when it happens

2) Probably

3) It's not okay to hire an OC who's never called it before, but okay to hire a HC who's never been a HC before?

[is there a HC out there worth going after?]

3 hours ago, dbfla10 said:

Is the risk reward of firing McDermott worth it? I don't see a coach out there that is worth the risk of firing McDermott. At the very least he has made the Bills relevant the last 5/6 years. Something the city was craving/needed.

 

Who is out there that would truly make a difference as HC.

 

IMO theres only 1 coach, and thats a trade with the rams for McVay.

I'd much rather keep McDermott and bring in someone who's worked under Kyle Shanahan as the OC. IMO that is the toughest offense to prepare for in the NFL right now, and I think it plays right into what McDermott wants to be as a football team. Tough nosed, run to set up the pass mentality with a lot of new age shifts and motions to keep a defense off kilter.

[Second blitz at end of game]

19 minutes ago, Snappysnackcakes said:

No play, by design, is called to fail. As an example, a FB dive is not designed to result in an 80 yard TD, but getting even 4 yards is a successful design and likely solid execution. In this case, by calling, essentially, consecutive identical blitzes, and leaving TJ alone in coverage, we gave Denver a do over and we got burned. It cannot be this difficult to understand the coach telling his QB, “If they try this again, then do this” which is EXACTLY what transpired. And I stand by my post in strongly believing Coach has reached his ceiling in this league. For this call, 12 men, and a slew of other reasons. It’s not an attack on the man, it’s just an obvious reality - at least to me and 3/5 of Wallers. Nobody has to agree with me, and clearly you do not. All I can picture is Pee-Wee Herman repeating “I know you are but what am I?” after someone calls him a name. That’s literally how you’ve treated this thread, with the redundant responses. 

There’s the disconnect. This isn’t about McDermott to me. I’ve been solely speaking about the call itself. To be clear - it was not the identical call as the play before. Also, I’ve never said it was the only call that should be made there. I just want us (as a board) to get out of this mindset of “if a play doesn’t work it was a bad call” mentality. Or at the very least be able to back up why it was a bad call from a schematic/situational standpoint.

 

And to be very clear Russ threw up a prayer - all you guys saying the rainbow was intentional to draw a flag are hilarious.

[Second blitz at end of game]

48 minutes ago, EmotionallyUnstable said:

My question was (and I haven’t rewatched so my memory could be hazy…thanks blue light) …why in this scenario when we are sending pressure on 3&10 just narrowly out of FG range…are we taking a flat foot read from 5 yards off the ball. Why not press tighter to the LOS?

It’s called Man 7 coverage. Basically you sit at 7 knowing it’s gotta be a quick pass because of the blitz so you sit on top of the route expecting a quick hitter inside that you can drive to the catch point which is typically 5 yards. It’s a safer way to play 0 when you don’t have guys who can consistently win at the LoS.