angryfan62 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I found this posted on "Buffalo Rumblings" today and found it very educational and enlightening. I had been thinking that with our present defensive personnel it would be best to run a "4-3" in order to get our best defensive players out on the field at the same time and also help shore up our suspect run defense. I have heard many differing opinions on this board for a long time but it turns out that it may not matter nearly as much as you all or I for that matter have been thinking. Please read when you get time and let me know what you think. WARNING: Long Read with tons of X's and O's Part 1 http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2012/1/26/2732917/buffalo-bills-defense-dave-wannstedt Part 2 http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2012/1/29/2754642/why-the-buffalo-bills-defensive-alignment-doesnt-matter-part-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think the writer is spot on. As I have said, if the Bills could get a hold of C. Upshaw in the 1st (Jack LB), and Ronnell Lewis in the 2nd (Sam LB, he may not last that long, but he does in most mocks)I think they could cure a lot of defensive ills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 So we are still basically picking 34 guys, it would be nice to have Zero Technique NT like Vince Wilfork ( still mad we didn't draft him). Could you imagine what a line of Ngata, Wilfork and Dareus would look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) The premise of this articles is that players line up in similar areas of the field in both systems therefore the scheme doesn't matter. This is a stupid premise. It doesn't matter where the players line up pre snap it matters what their responsibilities are during the play. Which vary based on the scheme. Guess what the scheme does matter but its not the only thing that matters when drafting a player Edited January 30, 2012 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I found this posted on "Buffalo Rumblings" today and found it very educational and enlightening. I had been thinking that with our present defensive personnel it would be best to run a "4-3" in order to get our best defensive players out on the field at the same time and also help shore up our suspect run defense. I have heard many differing opinions on this board for a long time but it turns out that it may not matter nearly as much as you all or I for that matter have been thinking. Please read when you get time and let me know what you think. WARNING: Long Read with tons of X's and O's Part 1 http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2012/1/26/2732917/buffalo-bills-defense-dave-wannstedt Part 2 http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2012/1/29/2754642/why-the-buffalo-bills-defensive-alignment-doesnt-matter-part-2 I heard we ran both almost equally. Really does't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) So we are still basically picking 34 guys, it would be nice to have Zero Technique NT like Vince Wilfork ( still mad we didn't draft him). Could you imagine what a line of Ngata, Wilfork and Dareus would look like. EXACTLY! I love KW but I think he is being wasted a bit at NT because he IS a great penetrater. We need a guy that can play the zero technique and push the Center back into the QBs face if he is single blocked or shade to either side and penetrate. We need a 350 lb fat bastard, with short area quickness and a good motor! Edited January 30, 2012 by PDaDdy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBD Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) It doesn't matter where the players line up pre snap it matters what their responsibilities are during the play. Which vary based on the scheme. Which the writer addressed as to why they won't change to a traditional 43 as Wanny has run in the past. Because the personnel they have currently doesn't fit that type of scheme. I think it's highly unlikely that Wannstedt will so drastically change the Buffalo defense as to completely undo two years' worth of transition. Wannstedt's defenses in the past call for players most similar to a Tampa 2 alignment - a formation that Buffalo just ditched, and rid themselves of most of the players that were scheme fits. Wannstedt, and especially head coach Chan Gailey, don't have time for another wholesale changing of the defensive guard. It's more likely that Wannstedt will continue to use the hybrid defense Buffalo has, and integrate traditional 4-3 sets when the situation dictates. Beyond this use, Buffalo's current set of defenders fit 46 and 3-4 schemes that are very similar. Edited January 30, 2012 by Carey Bender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Here's the TLDR version: It doesn't matter because we lack skilled players on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Which the writer addressed as to why they won't change to a traditional 43 as Wanny has run in the past. Because the personnel they have currently doesn't fit that type of scheme. Which is incorrect. We don't have players for a 3-4, a 4-3 or 4-6. So it doesn't matter if Wanny changes the base scheme because we don't have the players to play either scheme today. He mentions we're 2 years in a rebuild of a transition to a 3-4 but I argue we haven't transitioned anything in LB core. Barnett is really the only LB you would want to keep. Shepp has shown some flashes but he plays the same position as Barnett and Kelsay is much better as a DE than a stand up backer. He uses Merriman as an example in the first article but if you're going to base your system on Merriman than that's even more a bone-headed idea than saying that the scheme doesn't matter. If Merriman plays, its a nice to have, but you can't build a system where Merriman is a dependency again We saw that in 2011. The core concept of a 3-4 if you have 3 down line man and send a forth rusher from any LB spot. Generally the "Jack" player will be the 4th rusher but that player has to also be able to drop back and cover when you send pressure from a different LB spot. Something a 4-3 DE would only do in an exotic blitz package. So the scheme does matter no matter where the players line up pre-snap. Chris Kelsay should be the prime example of why scheme matters. He is a horrible OLB. Like liability on the field at OLB. But actually is a very good, better than average 4-3 DE. Scheme does matter. Here's the TLDR version: It doesn't matter because we lack skilled players on defense. Or It does matter because we lack skilled players and can "transition" quickly to any base system in 2012. Edited January 30, 2012 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 EXACTLY! I love KW but I think he is being wasted a bit at NT because he IS a great penetrater. We need a guy that can play the zero technique and push the Center back into the QBs face if he is single blocked or shade to either side and penetrate. We need a 350 lb fat bastard, with short area quickness and a good motor! Dontari Poe 6'5" 350 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 ... We don't have players for a 3-4, a 4-3 or 4-6. ... Can you elaborate on this 4-6 defense? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 We only effectively have 10 players on the field on defense at a time. Er... I mean... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46_defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) We only effectively have 10 players on the field on defense at a time. Er... I mean... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46_defense Haha. Because I think in terms of fronts when talking defensive alignments (notice I didn't use the word "schemes"), I'm thinking that the secondary is not part of the equation. So I was envisioning a 4-6-1 defense, with 10 guys as the front and only one safety back there. Perhaps he's referring to a "dime" defense? BTW, the 46 that Buddy Ryan made so popular was a "scheme" with a 43 defensive alignment so I hope that wiki link mentions that. GO BILLS!!! Edited January 30, 2012 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Can you elaborate on this 4-6 defense? GO BILLS!!! Sure can, Bills have 1.5 LBs so it does not matter what front or alignment we're in. However whatever scheme we use in 2012 will steer the type of players (DEs\LBs) we need to add to the defense. Scheme does matter. (Who cares about alignment?) Edited January 30, 2012 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The premise of this articles is that players line up in similar areas of the field in both systems therefore the scheme doesn't matter. This is a stupid premise. It doesn't matter where the players line up pre snap it matters what their responsibilities are during the play. Which vary based on the scheme. Guess what the scheme does matter but its not the only thing that matters when drafting a player Apparently the Bills personnel guys are so good they can look for talent to fit 2 defenses, unlike the traditional base one most teams play. They still don't have the personnel to rush the passer regardless of running a 30 or 40 front. From Tampa-2 to 3-4 to 4-3 in less than 3 seasons. The indecision and reluctance to commit to a defense is emblematic of this team's woes the past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#34fan Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) I think it matters because none of the schemes shown worked! With the exception of the Redskins and the Denver game, We FAILED to get pressure on opposing QB's! -Period. If the writer of this article really thinks it's no big deal, then by default, isn't he also saying that our players aren't that good?! But lets set that aside for a moment. I don't think that I mind Dave Wannstedt's traditional 4-3. I think we actually have the players to pull that one off successfully. Merriman may not work in this scheme, but I don't think anyone hase a problem with Williams lining up next to Dareus as a DT. I may have this all wrong, but I think regardless of what 3-4 variations you dabble with, you need a threat that demands the double team. Otherwise, what's the point? IMO Buddy may have oversimplified when he said it was "no big deal". Edited January 30, 2012 by #34fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Sure can, Bills have 1.5 LBs so it does not matter what front or alignment we're in. However whatever scheme we use in 2012 will steer the type of players (DEs\LBs) we need to add to the defense. Scheme does matter. (Who cares about alignment?) Only anybody that likes to identify defensive fronts. But perhaps we're just speaking semantics here. Scheme matters. But it matters far less than the players you have to implement it. I'm not sure where you get that other .5 linebacker. After Barnett, I'm stumped. Unless he's 1.5 all on his own. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in Syracuse Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I found this posted on "Buffalo Rumblings" today and found it very educational and enlightening. I had been thinking that with our present defensive personnel it would be best to run a "4-3" in order to get our best defensive players out on the field at the same time and also help shore up our suspect run defense. I have heard many differing opinions on this board for a long time but it turns out that it may not matter nearly as much as you all or I for that matter have been thinking. Please read when you get time and let me know what you think. WARNING: Long Read with tons of X's and O's Part 1 http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2012/1/26/2732917/buffalo-bills-defense-dave-wannstedt Part 2 http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2012/1/29/2754642/why-the-buffalo-bills-defensive-alignment-doesnt-matter-part-2 Now that we know we are a 43 team I guess I have to read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angryfan62 Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 I believe what the what the writer of the article was trying to say is that alignments are sometimes based on the strengths and weaknesses of your personnel and that alignment really doesn't matter nearly as much as compared to whether your defensive can be effective from that formation. In 1991 I believe the Giants used only 2 down linemen against us for most of the game, today the Giants have 4 DE's lined up as their front many times, against Bledsoe the Pats went with no down lineman for a while(God why didn't we run the Ball). Anyhow gotta get back to work here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Only anybody that likes to identify defensive fronts. But perhaps we're just speaking semantics here. Scheme matters. But it matters far less than the players you have to implement it. I'm not sure where you get that other .5 linebacker. After Barnett, I'm stumped. Unless he's 1.5 all on his own. GO BILLS!!! I'm counting Shepp, as he showed some promise, but definitely has a learning curve. (Although Mason Foster or Justin Houston were better picks but lets not go there) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts