ramses Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 this past year, we were a pass-first offense. gailey has gone on record to say this is largely his offensive philosophy (mirroring what is going on in the league) but our two best players on offense are RB's (jackson without question - i would argue that spiller is a bigger offensive threat than johnson). we have correctly switched our defense from 3-4 to 4-3 because we have better personnel for that. so why don't we do this for the offense? i think most of us agree that we don't 4-5 WR's to run 4 or 5 wideout sets. there isn't even consensus that we have a #1 receiver, while we have two homerun threats at running back. we should not be at 55-65% passing team; it should be the reverse. is this wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 It's an interception first offense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Because the rules favor receivers instead of DBs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cincinnati Kid Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Because the rules favor receivers instead of DBs Yup. The biggest advantage, for every team, is in the passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 this past year, we were a pass-first offense. gailey has gone on record to say this is largely his offensive philosophy (mirroring what is going on in the league) but our two best players on offense are RB's (jackson without question - i would argue that spiller is a bigger offensive threat than johnson). we have correctly switched our defense from 3-4 to 4-3 because we have better personnel for that. so why don't we do this for the offense? i think most of us agree that we don't 4-5 WR's to run 4 or 5 wideout sets. there isn't even consensus that we have a #1 receiver, while we have two homerun threats at running back. we should not be at 55-65% passing team; it should be the reverse. is this wrong? Most likely. The two best players on offense are "without question" Jackson and Fitzpatrick (you forgot about him, I see). Spiller is a situational back that didn't do anything better than Jacskon last year. No team runs the ball 65% of the time. Even Denver was under 55% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Gailey reminds me of Kildrive when he was here. Gailey isn't going to change anything, so expect more of the same this year. Also, when defenses fugured Gailey out, end of story. No changes and no adjustments. Gailey will probably cost the team a couple games every year with suspect ot play calling or situational awareness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) this past year, we were a pass-first offense. gailey has gone on record to say this is largely his offensive philosophy (mirroring what is going on in the league) but our two best players on offense are RB's (jackson without question - i would argue that spiller is a bigger offensive threat than johnson). we have correctly switched our defense from 3-4 to 4-3 because we have better personnel for that. so why don't we do this for the offense? i think most of us agree that we don't 4-5 WR's to run 4 or 5 wideout sets. there isn't even consensus that we have a #1 receiver, while we have two homerun threats at running back. we should not be at 55-65% passing team; it should be the reverse. is this wrong? People get too caught up in the pass first league crap. If we really are that obsessed with it we need much better WRs and we need a line that affords it's QB more than an average of 2.36 seconds to get rid of the ball. What we do have are two really good RBs and it is foolish for us to not use them more. Both can run and both can catch. I understand Gailey's philosophy about using the pass to set up the run but you still have to run it. I'm still a bit old school in that a GREAT offensive line can open up holes for their RB even when the defense knows you are going to run. That is the difference. IF you have to rely on trickery 100% to get the run game going you don't have the right guys blocking up front. Edited February 27, 2012 by PDaDdy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Gailey reminds me of Kildrive when he was here. Gailey isn't going to change anything, so expect more of the same this year. Also, when defenses fugured Gailey out, end of story. No changes and no adjustments. Gailey will probably cost the team a couple games every year with suspect ot play calling or situational awareness. Ya too bad Kildrive now has two super bowls under his belt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Running out of the spread makes it easier on your line and backs. I dont think the coaches buy that we have the hogs and horses to line up and force the run game near as effective. Coupled with the huge passing advantages- it makes sense. I'd like to see a few extra carries situationally but nothing outrageous. Edited February 27, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Ya too bad Kildrive now has two super bowls under his belt Right. I knew that was coming. Well I guess when you have a QB who can throw the ball and a D line that gets after it, you can win. Just not the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 People get too caught up in the pass first league crap. If we really are that obsessed with it we need much better WRs and we need a line that affords it's QB more than an average of 2.36 seconds to get rid of the ball. What we do have are two really good RBs and it is foolish for us to not use them more. Both can run and both can catch. I understand Gailey's philosophy about using the pass to set up the run but you still have to run it. I'm still a bit old school in that a GREAT offensive line can open up holes for their RB even when the defense knows you are going to run. That is the difference. IF you have to rely on trickery 100% to get the run game going you don't have the right guys blocking up front. yeah- so what's your point? The Bills have not had an offensive line that could move the chains since the ealry 1990's what's the point of trying to run when your OL is a liability at least with passing gamel you have a chance to make some plays if your QB can get the ball out in 2 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 It's an interception first offense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 yeah- so what's your point? The Bills have not had an offensive line that could move the chains since the ealry 1990's what's the point of trying to run when your OL is a liability at least with passing gamel you have a chance to make some plays if your QB can get the ball out in 2 seconds. I thought we ran reasonably well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I thought we ran reasonably well? only out of the spread formation with 5 WRs on the field with the defense forced to defend the pass. this OL has proven inept in a traditional offense and cannot pound the ball with any success Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#34fan Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Gailey reminds me of Kildrive when he was here. Gailey isn't going to change anything, so expect more of the same this year. Also, when defenses fugured Gailey out, end of story. No changes and no adjustments. Gailey will probably cost the team a couple games every year with suspect ot play calling or situational awareness. Yah, I saw a total lack of situational awareness from Chan in quite a few games last season. Here's my theory: Gailey can't think fast, so he tries to think ahead. Offensively, he's got every game written out like a script, which makes him vulnerable to experienced DC's. One little adjustment in coverage, or a new wrinkle in a blitz package, and we're completely out of a game. Ryan made him look stupid last year in Dallas. -As did Nolan in both Miami Games. Yah, Chan looked like a genius for a few games, but who expected Fred to have such a banner year in '11? IMO, this is all the more reason to go out and get a REAL Offensive coordinator. I see this style of coaching as a huge liability going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Well i am not sure but if we have 5 wide we have no backer! But i hear your point. I offer that we did run decently till the LT situation and again we suffered Greatly with our center Woodman going out for season. I tend to give them more credit than others have as a decent line even after injury. Chan made some major errors with Levitre but still that got some nice work done for Spiller late in the season. i still feel we have some brawlers on the line on the right side. This year we have two excellent backs that bring different styles, if we cant get it done this year we have some concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 this past year, we were a pass-first offense. gailey has gone on record to say this is largely his offensive philosophy (mirroring what is going on in the league) but our two best players on offense are RB's (jackson without question - i would argue that spiller is a bigger offensive threat than johnson). we have correctly switched our defense from 3-4 to 4-3 because we have better personnel for that. so why don't we do this for the offense? i think most of us agree that we don't 4-5 WR's to run 4 or 5 wideout sets. there isn't even consensus that we have a #1 receiver, while we have two homerun threats at running back. we should not be at 55-65% passing team; it should be the reverse. is this wrong? nope, right on the money plus our line is all maulers not dancing bears. Time to break out the old pro two back sets from the 80s (backs split to each side of the QB). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Man wouldn't that be a treat! We still have Corey in there too to help grind the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgbe Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) never ceases to amaze me how negative everyone is, lol. Edited February 28, 2012 by markgbe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts