Pitta Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 http://blogs.canoe.ca/krykslants/nfl/roundtable-interview-with-bills-coach-marrone-on-ej-corey-graham-possibly-a-safety-the-4-3-lbs-and-more/ 3-4 4-3 3-4 4-3 new coordinator new coach, it's dizzying! Can we just get some damn continuity around here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Just because you are dizzy don't assume that others are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 blogs.canoe.ca?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Shocking a new DC would bring in his own scheme What's next Duff's wings at the Ralph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 http://blogs.canoe.c...3-lbs-and-more/ 3-4 4-3 3-4 4-3 new coordinator new coach, it's dizzying! Can we just get some damn continuity around here! I understand your sentiment .Honestly .But the team should neither tell nor repeat the scheme . Unless they are saying they are and then dont . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitta Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Shocking a new DC would bring in his own scheme What's next Duff's wings at the Ralph? Changing schemes on a yearly basis sounds like a good recipe for success, as evidenced by the recent history of the franchise. Edited March 25, 2014 by Pitta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Sure. I want a 4-3 coach to run a 3-4 he possibly knows absolutely nothing about. Why? Cause that'll give us fans something to B word about for another decade or so. Oh, wait. We'll find something else I'm sure. Edited March 25, 2014 by Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Changing schemes on a yearly basis sounds like a good recipe for success, as evidenced by the recent history of the franchise. I didn't expect Schwartz to run Pettine's scheme. Pettine was more hybrid than a 3-4 or 4-3 anyway. Funny that here they are all complaining that the Browns are switching again too, this time from a 3-4 with Horton to a 4-3 with Pettine. I swear they must talk about this on the radio every day. I don't know why they think he runs a 4-3. He really runs neither, all the time. Edited March 25, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Sure. I want a 4-3 coach to run a 3-4 he possibly knows absolutely nothing about. Why? Cause that'll give us fans something to B word about for another decade or so. Oh, wait. We'll find something else I'm sure. Do you honestly feel that a DC in the NFL that prefers 43 fronts would know "absolutely nothing" about 34 and other fronts? It's a matter of philosophy, not intimate knowledge. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Do you honestly feel that a DC in the NFL that prefers 43 fronts would know "absolutely nothing" about 34 and other fronts? It's a matter of philosophy, not intimate knowledge. GO BILLS!!! I don't know. That's why the word "possibly" is in there. I don't know what Schwartz knows and doesn't know. But to my limited understanding he's mainly a 4-3 guy and has been throughout his entire career. I wouldn't hire him to run a 3-4 scheme. I didn't think Pettine was a 3-4 guy. It looked to me like the Bills had four down linemen most of the time, and ran 2 or 3 linebackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Changing schemes on a yearly basis sounds like a good recipe for success, as evidenced by the recent history of the franchise. How much of a grasp of the previous scheme do you have? How much of a grasp of the new scheme do you have? I am sorry, but you are bringing more emotion than critical thinking to these types of discussions. You act like these NFL defenses are so alien to each other. Ask yourself how players can possibly grasp playing a 3-4, then a 3-3 nickel on second down, then a dime package with a safety in the box, then back to a base look with RE a step wider than the previous first down with the NT 2 gapping inside? It's not the big deal you want to make it out to be. Just look at all the sub-packages that every DC uses from one play to the next. There comes a point when even young players have done it all, it's more of a matter of terminology. The same goes for offense. Try to relax about it. I doubt the players are sweating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitta Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 Sure. I want a 4-3 coach to run a 3-4 he possibly knows absolutely nothing about. Why? Cause that'll give us fans something to B word about for another decade or so. Oh, wait. We'll find something else I'm sure. Finally enjoy a modicum of success on defense, turn around and hire a replacement that runs a completely different scheme after having already changed schemes each year for the past 4 seasons, sounds legit. How much of a grasp of the previous scheme do you have? How much of a grasp of the new scheme do you have? I am sorry, but you are bringing more emotion than critical thinking to these types of discussions. You act like these NFL defenses are so alien to each other. Ask yourself how players can possibly grasp playing a 3-4, then a 3-3 nickel on second down, then a dime package with a safety in the box, then back to a base look with RE a step wider than the previous first down with the NT 2 gapping inside? It's not the big deal you want to make it out to be. Just look at all the sub-packages that every DC uses from one play to the next. There comes a point when even young players have done it all, it's more of a matter of terminology. The same goes for offense. Try to relax about it. I doubt the players are sweating it. Thanks for taking the time out to respond with your literary essay; unfortunately I read none of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Finally enjoy a modicum of success on defense, turn around and hire a replacement that runs a completely different scheme after having already changed schemes each year for the past 4 seasons, sounds legit. Thanks for taking the time out to respond with your literary essay; unfortunately I read none of it. The only other guy with a similar scheme is coaching the Jets, or you could have had Jim O'Neil, who has worked under Pettine but never been a DC or called plays. Unfortunately, we needed a DC with experience running that side of the ball because Marrone is an offensive head coach. Need to deal with reality - not fault the Bills for not being able to clone Pettine. Also, his scheme was not perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Finally enjoy a modicum of success on defense, turn around and hire a replacement that runs a completely different scheme after having already changed schemes each year for the past 4 seasons, sounds legit. Thanks for taking the time out to respond with your literary essay; unfortunately I read none of it. in fairness, you likely weren't lobbying for Wannstadt's scheme last year, and he was brought in because our defense blew chunks before that...then Petine came in and while improved---he left. so, two changes were necessary because we sucked, one because the DC was acknowledged and given his next shot. would you have promoted from within, or brought in a scheme specific coach, and if so, who(m)? while like most i wanted to see Petine x2, that wasn't meant to be. i love the fact that they are bringing in a guy with an agressive mindset, whatever that really means. At a minimum--he seems to be a coach that encourages his guys to play with passion and a mean streak. i'm with RealityC--i'm going to relax (at least until it's time to hurl another remote through the flat screen). Edited March 25, 2014 by leh-nerd skin-erd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Finally enjoy a modicum of success on defense, turn around and hire a replacement that runs a completely different scheme after having already changed schemes each year for the past 4 seasons, sounds legit. Thanks for taking the time out to respond with your literary essay; unfortunately I read none of it. Then why do you post? If you don't want people to reply to your posts then don't post. You owe it to him to at least read his reply, whether you like it or not. As for your reply to me, did you forget that Pettine took all but one or two of his defensive staff with him? So, who are the Bills going to hire to run Pettines system when they are all in Cleveland now? The defensive backs coach? The Bills didn't really have a choice in this matter. They hired the best possible replacement they could IMO given the cluster ---- that Haslam ran for a coaching search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitta Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 The only other guy with a similar scheme is coaching the Jets, or you could have had Jim O'Neil, who has worked under Pettine but never been a DC or called plays. Unfortunately, we needed a DC with experience running that side of the ball because Marrone is an offensive head coach. Need to deal with reality - not fault the Bills for not being able to clone Pettine. Also, his scheme was not perfect. Are you suggesting we couldn't have hired a DC that runs a base 3-4? You know, as opposed to running a 4 man front that neutralizes the impact of two of the defense's best performers last year in Lawson and Hughes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Are you suggesting we couldn't have hired a DC that runs a base 3-4? You know, as opposed to running a 4 man front that neutralizes the impact of two of the defense's best performers last year in Lawson and Hughes. Again, the Bills needed to bring in an experienced DC. Who was available in late January after the Browns finally wrapped up their dissertation. Who was available like that and you feel is a better DC than Schwartz AND runs a base 3-4? It doesn't matter what the heck the guy runs, as long as he runs it well. With the amount of sub-packages used anymore, the base doesn't mean as much as it used to. Also, Pettine didn't really run a base 3-4 from what I could tell - it was the most hybrid D I've seen. So unless someone comes in with the same scheme, not going to be the same. BTW Lawson and Hughes were not two of the defense's best performers last year. They did well in their roles. But let's look at the 3 voted to the PB and Kiko. You don't cater your scheme to two role players. But, I'm sure you didn't bother reading any of this, right? If you read anything, read this: Nickel & diming: How subpackages have become the new base defense in the NFL http://www.sbnation.com/2014/3/13/5503674/2014-nfl-draft-free-agency-defense-seahawks-49ers-nickel-dime Edited March 25, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Finally enjoy a modicum of success on defense, turn around and hire a replacement that runs a completely different scheme after having already changed schemes each year for the past 4 seasons, sounds legit. Thanks for taking the time out to respond with your literary essay; unfortunately I read none of it. Well then. To your first point you make it sound simple. To your second point , that's rather insulting to our friend here. and a bit rude. Changing your avatar is not as stealthy as you hoped maybe ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Again, the Bills needed to bring in an experienced DC. Who was available in late January after the Browns finally wrapped up their dissertation. Who was available like that and you feel is a better DC than Schwartz AND runs a base 3-4? It doesn't matter what the heck the guy runs, as long as he runs it well. With the amount of sub-packages used anymore, the base doesn't mean as much as it used to. Also, Pettine didn't really run a base 3-4 from what I could tell - it was the most hybrid D I've seen. So unless someone comes in with the same scheme, not going to be the same. BTW Lawson and Hughes were not two of the defense's best performers last year. They did well in their roles. But let's look at the 3 voted to the PB and Kiko. You don't cater your scheme to two role players. But, I'm sure you didn't bother reading any of this, right? I think Pitta falls into the category that nothing will be good enough. Losing Pettine was a bad deal for Buffalo, and possibly a worse deal for Pettine depending on how the issues with Cleveland fall. However, they didn't have much of a choice in the matter. Pettine took his guys with him. Pettine didn't run a traditional 3-4, so the argument about getting a 3-4 guy doesn't really add up. We have no nose tackle, Mario doesn't want to play OLB, and I'd hate to see him in coverage. The Bills did the 3-4 experiment a couple of years ago, and failed miserably. No, I don't want a 3-4 guy. Pettine wasn't a 3-4 guy, what made Pettines scheme special was the exotic blitz that he drew up. We have 4-3 personnel. Switching to a true 3-4 would require completely revamping the defense, again. I just don't see what the problem is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I think Pitta falls into the category that nothing will be good enough. Losing Pettine was a bad deal for Buffalo, and possibly a worse deal for Pettine depending on how the issues with Cleveland fall. However, they didn't have much of a choice in the matter. Pettine took his guys with him. Pettine didn't run a traditional 3-4, so the argument about getting a 3-4 guy doesn't really add up. We have no nose tackle, Mario doesn't want to play OLB, and I'd hate to see him in coverage. The Bills did the 3-4 experiment a couple of years ago, and failed miserably. No, I don't want a 3-4 guy. Pettine wasn't a 3-4 guy, what made Pettines scheme special was the exotic blitz that he drew up. We have 4-3 personnel. Switching to a true 3-4 would require completely revamping the defense, again. I just don't see what the problem is. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts