eball Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I don't know, I'm certainly no expert, but I would think that if you have the luxury to decide which DC is going to help lead your Defense, you go with the guy that has had success in "the scheme" that he is most familiar with. At least to me, the point is that no one "scheme" is the be-all-end-all. Belichick has made a HOF career out of adapting his defenses, sometimes in the middle of a game. Give me a guy who "knows defense" and will adapt to fit the personnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo1983 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 RT @JamesWalkerESPN: Mike Pettine also would probably call plays working for an offensive head coach. And the #Bills are much less of a zoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Yeah, I just read that in the article provided by Coach Tuesday...ok the article still puts him HEAVILY in a 3 man front. 37% in base 34, with a 335 nickel being the number two scheme (no percentage given but we can infer its more than the 16% given for a 137, which would put them with a 3 man line at minimum 54 percent of the time, likely a decent chunk more than that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I like the idea that he's been involved in a successful, "exotic", blitzing schemed Defense. Whoever we choose, I just hope that we blitz a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAWNDO Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 RT @JamesWalkerESPN: Mike Pettine also would probably call plays working for an offensive head coach. And the #Bills are much less of a zoo. Its nice not to be the tire fire of the AFC East for once!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 RT @JamesWalkerESPN: Mike Pettine also would probably call plays working for an offensive head coach. And the #Bills are much less of a zoo. hed without question call the plays.... oh james walker.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 the article still puts him HEAVILY in a 3 man front. 37% in base 34, with a 335 nickel being the number two scheme (no percentage given but we can infer its more than the 16% given for a 137, which would put them with a 3 man line at minimum 54 percent of the time, likely a decent chunk more than that) A three man front doesn't at all mean a 3 man rush as you well know. The Jets will often rush 4-5-6 guys with that 3 man front. It also depends on what kind of 3-4 you are playing. The old Charger 3-4, for instance, had Merriman lining up on the line of scrimmage and rushing virtually every single play. Pettine, or anyone, would probably love the opportunity to mess with Mario, Kyle, Darius, Mark Anderson, and even Carrington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Just makes me think, how freaking bland and predictable our D has been over the past few years. No innovation, disguise, just a regular boring 4 man rush... I would think it's much easier to block incoming pass rushers when you know who's rushing the passer every freaking down. God I hope we have disguised exotic blitzes this coming year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBills Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Jets ran alot of 43 defense this year. And they ran alot of 43/46 at Baltimore. They do use 3/4 as the base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) i'd be happy with this. our defense is actually probably closer to a 3-4 than a 4-3 (as crazy as it may sound). we don't have a single quality LB. you can put KW/DAREUS/Carrington on line, and anderson and mario at OLB. Edited January 7, 2013 by bobobonators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenews Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 does he have any tatoos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) does he have any tatoos? he has one of fitzpatrick Edited January 7, 2013 by bobobonators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekJ Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 It matters, if you have a coach who has coached and led good defenses under a 3-4 for most of professional career, then ideally you would be hiring someone to help install a defense he has familiarity with. I think we would want someone who can adapt his approach to fit the players he has. Didn't we see enough of someone who couldn't/wouldn't do that in Gailey? What if the team is beset with injuries and the best personnel grouping left is better suited for a 4-3? You're screwed if the coach can't adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 going back to the 34 (maybe) I now every one thinks we cant do it but we have the guys to do it. SO TRUE. The screwy thing about the "big switch to the 4-3" last season, is that the addition of Mario and Anderson actually sets the Bills up better for the 3-4. In a 3-4 system, both of those guys are OLB's - in other words, a 3-4 is essentially a 5-2, and the Bills have extra DL talent right now and are dying for 4-3 LB's they don't have. Paradoxically a switch to a "3-4" would actually leave them with only 2 ILB spots to fill, presumably with some combination of Bradham and or Sheppard being able to take one spot. It would also mean more time for Carrington, who along with Dareus and KW make a fine front 3. They would still need a stud ILB something awful, but at least they wouldn't need OLB(s) too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) All this 3-4, 4-3 stuff is nonsense. First, good DCs out there are not running pure 3-4s or 4-3s. Second, there's likely no such DC currently employed by an NFL team who doesn't know how to run both. If he doesn't, he doesn't take his career seriously, which would be unprofessional. That said, if you held a toy gun up to one of their heads, they'll definitely have an opinion on what they think is the superior scheme. But, this may change based on personnel. Edited January 7, 2013 by kas23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 i'd be happy with this. our defense is actually probably closer to a 3-4 than a 4-3 (as crazy as it may sound). we don't have a single quality LB. you can put KW/DAREUS/Carrington on line, and anderson and mario at OLB. Damn - beat me to it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 i'd be happy with this. our defense is actually probably closer to a 3-4 than a 4-3 (as crazy as it may sound). we don't have a single quality LB. you can put KW/DAREUS/Carrington on line, and anderson and mario at OLB. These two sentences would seem to contradict one another. If you don't have enough LBs for a 43, you sure as hell don't have enough to run a 34. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 These two sentences would seem to contradict one another. If you don't have enough LBs for a 43, you sure as hell don't have enough to run a 34. GO BILLS!!! Actually if you read the next sentence, then it makes a little more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Actually if you read the next sentence, then it makes a little more sense. A little. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) These two sentences would seem to contradict one another. If you don't have enough LBs for a 43, you sure as hell don't have enough to run a 34. GO BILLS!!! Anderson and Mario would move to the outside. All this 3-4, 4-3 stuff is nonsense. First, good DCs out there are not running pu. Second, there's likely no such DC currently employed by an NFL team who doesn't know how to run both. If he doesn't, he doesn't take his career seriously, which would be unprofessional. That said, if you held a toy gun up to one of their heads, they'll definitely have an opinion on what they think is the superior scheme. But, this may change based on personnel. i don't necessarily agree..sure all teams will switch it up between a 4/6, 3-4/etc, but the philosophy your DC prefers will dictate the kind of player you draft and sign off FA. Von Miller probably wouldn't be as productive in the Bears defense or Wanny's defense this past season. Edited January 7, 2013 by bobobonators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts