The Big Cat Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Too many holes at LB to fill, but up front we don't look all that bad. Could we be going back to the 4-3? One or two 4-3 linebackers from FA could seal the cracks nicely. How does this look for a six man rotation: Kelsay, Dwan, Troup, Williams, Carrington, Clayborne? They give you a some good base and situational looks from the 4-3, IHMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Too many holes at LB to fill, but up front we don't look all that bad. Could we be going back to the 4-3? One or two 4-3 linebackers from FA could seal the cracks nicely. How does this look for a six man rotation: Kelsay, Dwan, Troup, Williams, Carrington, Clayborne? They give you a some good base and situational looks from the 4-3, IHMO. What's the concensus re: Dwan, Troup and Carrington? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I like the 4-3 as it allows both Troup and Williams to both be on the field together utilizing both their strengths, Williams quickness and Tropu's size and strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted December 9, 2010 Author Share Posted December 9, 2010 What's the concensus re: Dwan, Troup and Carrington? Bad-Poor-Decent-Good-Great--Excellent 2010: Dwan = Decent-Good Troup = Decent-Good Carrington = Good ------------ Williams = Great Kelsay = Good Johnson = Poor-Decent My expectation for 2011: Dwan = Decent-Good Troup = Good Carrington = Good-Great --------- Williams = Great Kelsay = Good Clayborne = Good-Great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I'd be okay with going back to the 4-3 if someone can convince me that the following 5 players can be effective in this system: 1. Troup, 3-4 NT...4-3 DT 2. Carrington, 3-4 DE...4-3 DE or DT? 3. Edwards, 3-4 DE...4-3 DE or DT? 4. Moats, 3-4 OLB...4-3 OLB or DE? 5. Batten, 3-4 OLB...4-3 OLB or DE? That's 4 draft picks and 1 expensive free agent we'd be throwing away because our 4yr/$24 million princess, Christina Kelsay, can't handle her OLB assignments. In my opinion, just stick with the original plan in the offseason. For one thing, the 3-4 is a superior scheme simply because of the greater number of pass rushing options. But also, Nix will have another offseason to add 4-5 more draft picks and 1-2 quality free agents. We can get this thing turned around quickly if we stick with the plan. Williams is a beast no matter what system we play, and Posluszny is versatile as well. A healthy and slimmed down Stroud can adequately finish out the last 2 years of his contract, and Maybin...well okay this loser sucks in any defensive system and so doesn't really factor into this decision...but for what it's worth, his best hope of making it in the NFL is as a 3-4 OLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 who thinks kyle williams can play end in the 3-4? glenn dorsey did it in kc and kyle is a pretty athletic guy. williams-troupe carrington could be a solid line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Going back to the 43 after an entire offseason of teaching and practicing the 34 is another example of this magical plan being smoke and mirrors. OK, I get that they wanted to go to a 34. Fine, but the players they've acquired for it aren't interchangeable and it's not like they've got Belichick coordinating this defense. Sure they need more talent, but can't they get one thing right before trying another? This is what makes the Kelsay deal maddening, because he can't play the 34 and remains one of the highest paid players on the team. Ah well. Next thing you know, TBC will predict this will be a 2-14 or 3-13 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 KW could play 3-4 DE nicely. He's shown playing nose tackle this year that his althleticism makes up for the perceived lack of size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b stein 22 Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Fire George Edwards and hire that guy who coached PITT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Too many holes at LB to fill, but up front we don't look all that bad. Could we be going back to the 4-3? One or two 4-3 linebackers from FA could seal the cracks nicely. How does this look for a six man rotation: Kelsay, Dwan, Troup, Williams, Carrington, Clayborne? They give you a some good base and situational looks from the 4-3, IHMO. Stroud and Johnson are in that rotation somewhere as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Too many holes at LB to fill, but up front we don't look all that bad. Could we be going back to the 4-3? One or two 4-3 linebackers from FA could seal the cracks nicely. How does this look for a six man rotation: Kelsay, Dwan, Troup, Williams, Carrington, Clayborne Robert Quinn ? They give you a some good base and situational looks from the 4-3, IHMO. Just one minor change. Clayborn would be better suited to play DT in the 4-3. We would have that position pretty much locked down with our current players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted December 9, 2010 Author Share Posted December 9, 2010 Stroud and Johnson are in that rotation somewhere as well. Are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Grid Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) Id love to see a return to the 4-3 and don't believe the personnel would be wasted. I think Carington works as a DE. Kelsey plus a draft pick at DE fills the other side. Dwan backs up, and Kyle, Johnson and Troup run a three man rotation at the DTs. Stroud and others get bus fare. Personally id love that DL with a top 5 DE added to the mix. We'd have a good DL that could help set the tone for the rest of the defense. Edited December 9, 2010 by DC Grid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfaninFl Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Abandoning the 3-4 would be a horrible mistake. The Bills must play a 3-4 defense against the teams in the AFC East who get a ton of big plays by running or throwing screens wide. It's true that the Bills do not have the right players in place, but to go back to the 4-3 (which they have been using a lot this year) means continuing to get our butt kicked on defense. They need to bring in the right players to work the 3-4 scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steampunk Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) Stroud and Johnson are in that rotation somewhere as well. Are they? Stroud's been mailing it in. I think Johnson has been the best DE throughout the season (but let's keep that praise in context). Kelsay's been playing well in just the last 3 games. The announcers and CBS graphics were still calling him a linebacker on Sunday, but he's obviously playing a 43 DE. About bagging the 3-4: I hope not. With all the LBs hitting IR, I understand not having the depth to stay with it for the whole 16, but I want to see them finish the switch in the offseason. Chan's pretty flexible though. I figure the new D-Coord will have a lot of influence on the scheme. Edited December 9, 2010 by steampunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I agree with steampunk and others - Buffalo shouldn't scrap the 34, just build the personnel around Edwards' scheme. Which means that Kelsay will play, um, the pine. Great extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I don't have a problem returning to run the 3-4 as long as we get a real DC who can coach it. I also don't have a problem continuing to run the 4-3 as long as we get a real DC who can coach it. There will be some out there unemployed who had success in the past like the guy from Pitt and probably Marvin Lewis. Look what getting a real DC and OC did for the Clowns. Also, some better players might be good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 We've seen everytthing this year from mixing 3-4/4/3 to Creep. Some of the changes are due to injury, some due to misfit players and the rest is down & distance strategy. Given that there will very likely be 2 more regular season games next year and beyond and a 4-5 player increase in eligible gameday players, I see the 'whatever it takes to stop 'em this play' defense carrying on into the future. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 If they want to continue to recycle the team Jauron built, then they should play the Tampa-2 as that is the system he was selecting players to play in. If they actually want to build a stout defense that can stop the run, they'll have to make a lot of changes to the defensive front 7, because the players that Jauron left behind simply aren't good enough. "Kelsay = Good"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted December 9, 2010 Author Share Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) If they want to continue to recycle the team Jauron built, then they should play the Tampa-2 as that is the system he was selecting players to play in. If they actually want to build a stout defense that can stop the run, they'll have to make a lot of changes to the defensive front 7, because the players that Jauron left behind simply aren't good enough. "Kelsay = Good"? As a 4-3 D-end Kelsay has played "good." I know your brain can't a.) grapple with anything positive and b.) has written Kelsay into irreversible corner of shame, but since they switched back, he's looked infinitely better. TROOF! I love all the claims that reverting back to the 4-3 would be a mammoth step backward, that somehow it would offset ALL the time and resources we've committed to building the 3-4, all the fixtures to our defense who in any other context are scrap heap players but now suddenly represent lynch pins in the Nix/Gailey plan for the future. Really, how much have truly "invested" in this 3-4 defense? Edited December 9, 2010 by The Big Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts