TC in St. Louis Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Crossman goes on about the bottom of the roster changing during the season. If they are using the bottom of the roster to fill special teams it is no wonder that they suck. Special teams has a huge impact on the game. Why would you put the bottom of the roster in a position to ruin a game? Something in there about not knowing the guy next to you, and not knowing what he's going to do. What? Why doesn't Marrone put more emphasis on Special Teams? Last year they sucked. The year before they were just fine. They blamed it on the players. It's the coach. He sucked at Detroit, and he sucks here. This is nonsense. When Marrone insists on running a hurry up offense and drives last 14 seconds before the punter hits the field....and you load up the field with the bottom of your roster, you're not likely to win many games. One of our prior coaches insisted that everybody on the team, with the exception of the quarterback, was going to be considered part of the special teams unit. That sounds like a plan to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Got a link to the article? Your comments surprised me because Marrone (and Whaley) actually put a ton of emphasis on ST with their signings and which players they choose to keep. Clearly their ST was not good last year, but they have made personnel changes to address that. Also, all teams utilize the "bottom of the roster" on ST. There are only 53 spots, as you know. The players who are fringe at their position can make the team based on ST ability. The ST unit is not made up of key starters. They will put the best ST players out there, but they aren't going to be your top players on offense or defense for many reasons (except for the KR or PR). Last year's best was not good enough. Several notable additions this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) Got a link to the article? Your comments surprised me because Marrone (and Whaley) actually put a ton of emphasis on ST with their signings and which players they choose to keep. Clearly their ST was not good last year, but they have made personnel changes to address that. Also, all teams utilize the "bottom of the roster" on ST. There are only 53 spots, as you know. The players who are fringe at their position can make the team based on ST ability. The ST unit is not made up of key starters. They will put the best ST players out there, but they aren't going to be your top players on offense or defense for many reasons (except for the KR or PR). Last year's best was not good enough. Several notable additions this year. Here you go boss. http://www.buffalone...two-bills-drive This part made me laugh: “Last year we went in the season and we had a lot of guys that had never done it, either because they were young and hadn’t done it in college or hadn’t done it period,” Isn't that what coaches are for??? To coach people how to play a position/role? I have a hard time believing of those 11 guys on the field MOST of them had never played special teams before. More like Crossman making up excuses. Edited July 15, 2014 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I think the OP misses the point. There was a ton of roster turnover going into last season which meant no continuity on ST. It's not that Marrone/Whaley "ignored" ST as much as they were simply trying to find quality football players to back up all of the injured folks. I think Gaughan does a nice job of explaining (through Crossman's quotes) how continuity in ST really works. I was on the "fire Crossman" bandwagon but I think I now understand the situation a little bit better. The return of a number of guys who did well on ST, and the addition of Corey Graham and Boobie Dixon (two ST beasts), leads me to believe the Bills will return to being at least middle of the pack in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC in St. Louis Posted July 15, 2014 Author Share Posted July 15, 2014 Got a link to the article? Your comments surprised me because Marrone (and Whaley) actually put a ton of emphasis on ST with their signings and which players they choose to keep. Clearly their ST was not good last year, but they have made personnel changes to address that. Also, all teams utilize the "bottom of the roster" on ST. There are only 53 spots, as you know. The players who are fringe at their position can make the team based on ST ability. The ST unit is not made up of key starters. They will put the best ST players out there, but they aren't going to be your top players on offense or defense for many reasons (except for the KR or PR). Last year's best was not good enough. Several notable additions this year. Sorry. I read the story on the front page of tbd. Anybody think Steve Tasker was at the bottom of the roster? You need to have great special teams to succeed in this league. Ours dropped off the map last year. Cost us a few games. Why he didn't fire that coach is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) Sorry. I read the story on the front page of tbd. Anybody think Steve Tasker was at the bottom of the roster? You need to have great special teams to succeed in this league. Ours dropped off the map last year. Cost us a few games. Why he didn't fire that coach is beyond me. Yes, Tasker was technically a "bottom of the roster" guy in the sense that he was not a starting WR. He was a ST ace who was part of the WR depth. I don't have enough info on the coach to have an opinion on whether he should have been fired. I was upset about the ST play on many occasions, but firing the coach of one of the 3 team units after one season usually is rare, I think. Edited July 15, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Yes, Tasker was technically a "bottom of the roster" guy in the sense that he was not a starting WR. He was a ST ace who was part of the WR depth. Perfect correlation on this roster is Easley. Can't crack the lineup as a WR but stands to keep his roster spot because he led the freaking league in ST tackles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Johnson Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Almost everyone who plays ST in the NFL is on the "bottom of the roster." Where do you think Mark Pike was on the depth chart for the '90s Bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 He sucked at Detroit, and he sucks here. This is nonsense. dont forget carolina. he sucked there too. it seems the general theme is he gets a good year and fades from there. we didnt get that good year out of him but it would seemingly point to 1 of 2 issues. He inherits a well coached squad and as those guys get shuffled out he either 1) doesnt coach the new guys well 2) doesnt have the organizational sway/confidence enough to get a few of his guys. both bad. this year they certainly added a lot to his arsenal. if we arent a top ten unit in just about all phases, i would call it a coaching let down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 dont forget carolina. he sucked there too. it seems the general theme is he gets a good year and fades from there. we didnt get that good year out of him but it would seemingly point to 1 of 2 issues. He inherits a well coached squad and as those guys get shuffled out he either 1) doesnt coach the new guys well 2) doesnt have the organizational sway/confidence enough to get a few of his guys. both bad. this year they certainly added a lot to his arsenal. if we arent a top ten unit in just about all phases, i would call it a coaching let down. Most likely gone after this year then if we don't improve significantly with the guys they added. 2 years makes more sense than 1, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 dont forget carolina. he sucked there too. it seems the general theme is he gets a good year and fades from there. we didnt get that good year out of him but it would seemingly point to 1 of 2 issues. He inherits a well coached squad and as those guys get shuffled out he either 1) doesnt coach the new guys well 2) doesnt have the organizational sway/confidence enough to get a few of his guys. both bad. this year they certainly added a lot to his arsenal. if we arent a top ten unit in just about all phases, i would call it a coaching let down. A top ten offense, defense and special teams? That's a division winner. That's your expectation?' I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC in St. Louis Posted July 15, 2014 Author Share Posted July 15, 2014 Just found this, special team rankings from some on-line thing I googled: Number 30. 30. Buffalo Bills The Bills have a kick coverage superstar named Marcus Easley, who made 19 solo tackles on kicks and punts last year. But why was Easley forced to impersonate Steve Tasker? Dan Carpenter's low touchback percentage (41 percent, 24th in the NFL) was part of the problem: More returnable kicks mean more tackles for Easley types. Punters Shawn Powell and Brian Moorman were a bigger issue. Powell was released after booting returnable line drives straight at Travis Benjamin in the Browns loss, prompting the return of Moorman, whose leg is nearly gone. Harvard punter Jacob Dombrowski will challenge Moorman in camp. Leodis McKelvin returned three punts for touchdowns in 2011 and 2012 but averaged just 5.6 yards per return last year. It's misleading to judge returners based on one or two plays (or the lack of those plays), but whether it was McKelvin, his blockers or the circumstances, the Bills return game was lacking. Marquise Goodwin was also ineffective on kickoff returns despite track-star speed. Carpenter was fine on field goals, but the Bills aren't getting the production from teams that they got in the mid-to-late 2000s, when their special teams were often their best attribute. Almost everyone who plays ST in the NFL is on the "bottom of the roster." Where do you think Mark Pike was on the depth chart for the '90s Bills? Mark Pike was a backup DL. But his special teams talent kept him on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDIGGZ Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 fire Crossman and bring in Steve Tasker to coach special teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 fire Crossman and bring in Steve Tasker to coach special teams Or sign Luke Tasker off of the Hamilton Tiger Cats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Just found this, special team rankings from some on-line thing I googled: Number 30. 30. Buffalo Bills The Bills have a kick coverage superstar named Marcus Easley, who made 19 solo tackles on kicks and punts last year. But why was Easley forced to impersonate Steve Tasker? Dan Carpenter's low touchback percentage (41 percent, 24th in the NFL) was part of the problem: More returnable kicks mean more tackles for Easley types. Punters Shawn Powell and Brian Moorman were a bigger issue. Powell was released after booting returnable line drives straight at Travis Benjamin in the Browns loss, prompting the return of Moorman, whose leg is nearly gone. Harvard punter Jacob Dombrowski will challenge Moorman in camp. Leodis McKelvin returned three punts for touchdowns in 2011 and 2012 but averaged just 5.6 yards per return last year. It's misleading to judge returners based on one or two plays (or the lack of those plays), but whether it was McKelvin, his blockers or the circumstances, the Bills return game was lacking. Marquise Goodwin was also ineffective on kickoff returns despite track-star speed. Carpenter was fine on field goals, but the Bills aren't getting the production from teams that they got in the mid-to-late 2000s, when their special teams were often their best attribute. Mark Pike was a backup DL. But his special teams talent kept him on the team. Nobody is questioning the sucktastic unit that was the Bills special teams last year. But what is it you're trying to say? Put all of the starters in to play special teams? Nobody does that because they don't want to risk injury to those guys. So by the very nature of it, special teams consists primarily of the guys who are at the bottom of the roster -- not starters. Steve Tasker was a mediocre WR who excelled on special teams, and it was his special teams talent that kept him on the team. Same, as you say, for Mark Pike. These guys were bottom of the roster guys just like Easley. I guess I just don't see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 A top ten offense, defense and special teams? That's a division winner. That's your expectation?' I love it. realistically our defense and special teams should be top ten. Our offense just needs to be middle of the pack and "make the play" at a few key moments, and we could be a playoff team. i dont think those would all be unreasonable expectations for this roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 realistically our defense and special teams should be top ten. Our offense just needs to be middle of the pack and "make the play" at a few key moments, and we could be a playoff team. i dont think those would all be unreasonable expectations for this roster. A top 15 offense in 2013 would have put us in the playoffs A top 20 defense in 2012 would have done the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris heff Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Just FYI the link on this site to the Buffalo News limits 10 articles a month, unless you subscribe. The link at Buffalo Rumblings is different and appears to be unlimited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Just FYI the link on this site to the Buffalo News limits 10 articles a month, unless you subscribe. The link at Buffalo Rumblings is different and appears to be unlimited. Incognito tab, bro. you'll find they work well for...other...things too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Incognito tab, bro. you'll find they work well for...other...things too. Like online banking. That's what you meant right? Or you could just clear your cookies for buffalonews.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts