Cheddar's Dad Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 The Bills are not likely to announce whether or not they are switching to the 43 defense. To do so would not be smart. But if they do not select Upshaw with their 1st., that could signal that they are moving to the 43. The reason is simple. With the 43, they need more speed at OLB than Upshaw can deliver. He is a 34 OLB. If they do select Upshaw, the opposite would seem to be true. It likely means they are staying with the 34 as their base defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed since there will be 3-4 OLB's available in rounds 2 and 3. If the Bills don't take a 3-4 OLB in the first, they could take a skill position like Alshon Jeffrey at WR if he's there. Edited January 15, 2012 by BEAST MODE BABY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipers Hair Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 If they select Upshaw in the 1st Round, they better damn well trade back to do so. He is NFL starting material, but not a top 10 pick - those should be elite prospects. There is nothing elite about Upshaw - he's a reach at 15, let alone 10. He should go mid 20's to high 2nd round... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheddar's Dad Posted January 15, 2012 Author Share Posted January 15, 2012 I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed since there will be 3-4 OLB's available in rounds 2 and 3. If the Bills don't take a 3-4 OLB in the first, they could take a skill position like Alshon Jeffrey at WR if he's there. No! Not flawed. The subject is Upshaw. It is not that there might be a player out there that the Bills like better than Upshaw. My statement included such speech as "could signal" and "likely means". It's merely an interpretation or theory about what selecting Upshaw or not selecting him MIGHT mean. Reading comprehension is important here, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 No! Not flawed. The subject is Upshaw. It is not that there might be a player out there that the Bills like better than Upshaw. My statement included such speech as "could signal" and "likely means". It's merely an interpretation or theory about what selecting Upshaw or not selecting him MIGHT mean. Reading comprehension is important here, folks. If we take Whitney Mercilus it will still leave them guessing because he has the athleticism to be a 3-4 OLB and a 4-3 DE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JStranger76 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Upshaw is a very solid LB, who you would take in the bottom 3rd of the 1st round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cocktosten Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 The Bills are not likely to announce whether or not they are switching to the 43 defense. To do so would not be smart. But if they do not select Upshaw with their 1st., that could signal that they are moving to the 43. The reason is simple. With the 43, they need more speed at OLB than Upshaw can deliver. He is a 34 OLB. If they do select Upshaw, the opposite would seem to be true. It likely means they are staying with the 34 as their base defense. If Trent Richardson is still on the board your hypothetical scenario could be in jeopardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) No! Not flawed. The subject is Upshaw. It is not that there might be a player out there that the Bills like better than Upshaw. My statement included such speech as "could signal" and "likely means". It's merely an interpretation or theory about what selecting Upshaw or not selecting him MIGHT mean. Reading comprehension is important here, folks. The thing that I don't like about Upshaw is that he has short arms. If they go pass rusher with the first pick then they need to get a guy who is both talented and has that extra reach factor. I don't know of any great pass rushers who have short arms. Look at the difference between Upshaw and Perry... http://media.scout.com/media/image/70/704160.jpg http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/765/346/92552298_display_image.jpg?1325790896 I see the Bills picking a prototypical pass rushing DE like Perry or going either OT or WR and saving the LB for the second round. Edited January 15, 2012 by 1billsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) No! Not flawed. The subject is Upshaw. It is not that there might be a player out there that the Bills like better than Upshaw. My statement included such speech as "could signal" and "likely means". It's merely an interpretation or theory about what selecting Upshaw or not selecting him MIGHT mean. Reading comprehension is important here, folks. Ok Mr Reading Comprehension, it's a circular argument. If they don't take Upshaw, it COULD mean any number of things. It could mean that Buddy doesn't like Upshaw. It could mean they take a WR and go 3-4 OLB in the 2nd or 3rd. Or 87 other things, only one of which is a move to the 4-3. I mean, if I wanted to couch a post with "could signal" and "likey means" you could turn vaporware into wine.. Edited January 15, 2012 by BEAST MODE BABY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 The Bills are not likely to announce whether or not they are switching to the 43 defense. To do so would not be smart. But if they do not select Upshaw with their 1st., that could signal that they are moving to the 43. The reason is simple. With the 43, they need more speed at OLB than Upshaw can deliver. He is a 34 OLB. If they do select Upshaw, the opposite would seem to be true. It likely means they are staying with the 34 as their base defense. If we don't know pretty solidly as fans watching the offseason by about march 5th, we have already failed 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 What if The Bills go after Mario Williams hard in FA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheddar's Dad Posted January 15, 2012 Author Share Posted January 15, 2012 Ok Mr Reading Comprehension, it's a circular argument. If they don't take Upshaw, it COULD mean any number of things. It could mean that Buddy doesn't like Upshaw. It could mean they take a WR and go 3-4 OLB in the 2nd or 3rd. Or 87 other things, only one of which is a move to the 4-3. I mean, if I wanted to couch a post with "could signal" and "likey means" you could turn vaporware into wine.. Let me re-state. 1.If you read the latest mock drafts, you notice some things. A. Many have the Bills selecting Upshaw. B. Many have Upshaw ranked in the top half of the first rd. of the 2012 draft. 2. There have been a number of topics started here that have discussed Upshaw; especially since the BCS Championship game in which he was named defensive MVP. Some here want him badly, others less so. 3. A strong argument can be made that the Bills' greatest need is for a pass rusher and some feel Upshaw could be that for Buffalo. With the above as a backdrop, I proposed the idea stated above focusing on Upshaw and no one else. It's just an idea but one that I think has merit; especially if the Bills DO select Upshaw. I think that would be a strong indicator they will stay with the 34 defense. Now, how is that circular? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Trooth Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 The Bills are not likely to announce whether or not they are switching to the 43 defense. I don't know hy folks might be awaiting an "anouncement" that they will be going 4-3. I think it is a big mistake going backward to the 4-3 since they've made the decision and initial investment of a 2 year transition to the 3-4. The players drafted or brought in the past two years were acquired specifically with the plan that they would be key gogs in a 3-4 defense (Troup, Carrington, Batten, Moats, Edwards, Torbor, Davis, Merriman. Enough on that, though... back to whether or not they will be a 4-3. When Wanny was named DC a couple weeks ago, that was your first clue that the Bills are now a 4-3. They indeed are. Wanny has absolutely no experience running a 3-4. His entire career was as a 4-3 guru. Second clue... in Nix's presser, he was asked whether there would be a switch to the 4-3. His answer? Well, ya know, when I reviewed all of the game tape, we played 4-3 47% of the time". Decoded, "I really did a bad job in getting the right DC and the right players in here to running the 3-4". So, all this time, the 5-2 front the Bills had been running, wasn't really that, it was a thinnly veiled 4-3. So. Some folks may be confused and could be waiting for some sort of official announcement. But, I'll clear it up for them and go on record now... the Bills are a 4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 No! Not flawed. The subject is Upshaw. It is not that there might be a player out there that the Bills like better than Upshaw. My statement included such speech as "could signal" and "likely means". It's merely an interpretation or theory about what selecting Upshaw or not selecting him MIGHT mean. Reading comprehension is important here, folks. Man i can see that you haven't been posting here long & would like to welcome you to the site !! But if you think that there are any Bills fans (for the most part) that can comprehend what you type i'm sorry to tall you you be be disappointed !!! Reading Comprehension is not at the fore front of this blog . Matter of fact that is on the bottom of the list . Picking up on misspelled words & correcting your English is a higher priority than actually TRYING to understand from the posters view the point that you are trying to get across . Just a heads up so good luck & welcome to TBD rookie !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheddar's Dad Posted January 15, 2012 Author Share Posted January 15, 2012 I don't know hy folks might be awaiting an "anouncement" that they will be going 4-3. I think it is a big mistake going backward to the 4-3 since they've made the decision and initial investment of a 2 year transition to the 3-4. The players drafted or brought in the past two years were acquired specifically with the plan that they would be key gogs in a 3-4 defense (Troup, Carrington, Batten, Moats, Edwards, Torbor, Davis, Merriman. Enough on that, though... back to whether or not they will be a 4-3. When Wanny was named DC a couple weeks ago, that was your first clue that the Bills are now a 4-3. They indeed are. Wanny has absolutely no experience running a 3-4. His entire career was as a 4-3 guru. Second clue... in Nix's presser, he was asked whether there would be a switch to the 4-3. His answer? Well, ya know, when I reviewed all of the game tape, we played 4-3 47% of the time". Decoded, "I really did a bad job in getting the right DC and the right players in here to running the 3-4". So, all this time, the 5-2 front the Bills had been running, wasn't really that, it was a thinnly veiled 4-3. So. Some folks may be confused and could be waiting for some sort of official announcement. But, I'll clear it up for them and go on record now... the Bills are a 4-3. Now that's the kind of discussion I hoped to stimulate. Playing the 43 47% of the time sounds like playing the 34 53% of the time. Let me check my math. Yes. That's it. This means to me that the 34 was our base D in 2011 and could be again in 2012 despite the clues you mentioned. I think I'm hoping the team uses the 43 as our base in 12 and it is disconcerting that so much effort was made to acquire 34 personnel. Yet, I don't know if the effort was wasted. I think Troup, Carrington, Batten and Moats can develop as valuable backups in the 43. That means Buffalo's primary needs are pass rushing DE and fast OLB. That is why passing on the chance to get Upshaw will confirm, in my mind, that the 43 is definitely in since I don't think he can play 43 OLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Now that's the kind of discussion I hoped to stimulate. Playing the 43 47% of the time sounds like playing the 34 53% of the time. Let me check my math. Yes. That's it. This means to me that the 34 was our base D in 2011 and could be again in 2012 despite the clues you mentioned. I think I'm hoping the team uses the 43 as our base in 12 and it is disconcerting that so much effort was made to acquire 34 personnel. Yet, I don't know if the effort was wasted. I think Troup, Carrington, Batten and Moats can develop as valuable backups in the 43. That means Buffalo's primary needs are pass rushing DE and fast OLB. That is why passing on the chance to get Upshaw will confirm, in my mind, that the 43 is definitely in since I don't think he can play 43 OLB. Going off memory alone, I think the quote is wrong. I remember it being "we played nickel 47% which had a 4 man front" that means in a standard secondary they still could go either way, and I'm guessing on 3% of those base secondary plays we had a 4 man front. Playing an even front, regardless of how the back 7 configured was likely the "base" if you want to argue 50% as the standard. We might keep building to an odd line but I think we are steering towards a base even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Let me re-state. 1.If you read the latest mock drafts, you notice some things. A. Many have the Bills selecting Upshaw. B. Many have Upshaw ranked in the top half of the first rd. of the 2012 draft. 2. There have been a number of topics started here that have discussed Upshaw; especially since the BCS Championship game in which he was named defensive MVP. Some here want him badly, others less so. 3. A strong argument can be made that the Bills' greatest need is for a pass rusher and some feel Upshaw could be that for Buffalo. With the above as a backdrop, I proposed the idea stated above focusing on Upshaw and no one else. It's just an idea but one that I think has merit; especially if the Bills DO select Upshaw. I think that would be a strong indicator they will stay with the 34 defense. Now, how is that circular? We have Upshaw at #13 right now. http://www.drafttek.com/ We also have him as a 3-4 OLB, now even on our list of 4-3 LB's. Selecting Upshaw (or Mario Williams in FA) signals we're retaining the 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) We have Upshaw at #13 right now. http://www.drafttek.com/ We also have him as a 3-4 OLB, now even on our list of 4-3 LB's. Selecting Upshaw (or Mario Williams in FA) signals we're retaining the 3-4. Mario would be clearly returning to 43 end if he leaves Houston. He would give some options to move him around, but he would be as near a pure 43 pickup as I can imagine, with some roaming the field tendencies to get mismatches. Edited January 15, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBD Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Now that's the kind of discussion I hoped to stimulate. Playing the 43 47% of the time sounds like playing the 34 53% of the time. Let me check my math. Yes. That's it. This means to me that the 34 was our base D in 2011 and could be again in 2012 despite the clues you mentioned. It would mean that if those were the only two options, but they're not. I hope they remain in a 34 base for 2011, I feel there are more holes to fill in a 43 than there are in a 34 with their current roster. On if he prefers a 4-3 or 3-4 defensive look: I knew you guys were going to ask that so I looked at the stats of how much we played a four-man front this year and it was 47-percent of the time. Forty-seven percent of the time we were in nickel, and when we were in nickel we had four down linemen. I watched, all of us did, the playoff games. I watched Houston and Wade Phillips is probably the granddaddy of the 3-4 right now and they played at least 50-percent of the time they had four down linemen. So I’m not so sure that it matters. I think Dave’s (Wannstedt) expertise is more 4-3, but again you’re talking 50-percent of the time we’ll be in that and 50 percent of the time you may be in a three-man rush. And you’re blitzing some. So, I don’t think it’s as big a deal as everyone wants to make it. I know that the one thing that I said before and I think that’s true is that you need to get players that are playmakers and put them in a position where they can play. Now I know that sounds simple but that is the key to it. You take a guy like Von Miller. If you’re a 4-3 team and you put Von Miller down in a three-point stance and have him set the edge on the running game and make him a three-down player it’s not what he does best. So you’ve got to move him around and he’s a pass rusher. I’m just using that (as an example). http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-2/Transcript-General-Manager-Buddy-Nix/037507a7-365d-401e-9d19-477e152d0082 47% of the time they were in a nickel defense which has 4 down linemen according to Nix. Not a 43 look. From where I've seen Upshaw ranked on draft boards pick #10 would be a bit of a reach for him and the same statement could be said for them passing on someone like Melvin Ingram. So I don't think passing on Upshaw alone means anything regarding the defensive system that they plan on playing. However if they do draft him I think it is a signal that they will remain in a 34 as that is where he is best suited. Edited January 15, 2012 by Carey Bender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 It would mean that if those were the only two options, but they're not. http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-2/Transcript-General-Manager-Buddy-Nix/037507a7-365d-401e-9d19-477e152d0082 47% of the time they were in a nickel defense which has 4 down linemen according to Nix. Not a 43 look. That's what I thought, the alternative nickel look being 3-3 instead of the 4-2 we ran. That's why I started the even vs odd front talk instead of 34 vs 43 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts