Hackett is bad, like very bad

[Kelly the Dog]

The SD game doesn't count? That game has served as the blueprint for every DC since. EJ or no EJ. Thank God Orton was playing Sunday because he took advantage of those middle gap blitzes on the last drive, but man, he paid the price.

 

GO BILLS!!!

The SD game doesn't count because Orton was not in there. You couldn't have done what I am suggesting. It would have made a bad thing worse.

[K-9]

I'm oversimplifying for the sake of brevity. I think we should spread it out MORE OFTEN. Not every play. I think a lot of what our O does can be successful, has been successful, and would be even more successful if we incorporated even 15% more West Coast style especially on first and second down Open running lanes by taking guys out of the box, create the easier matchups with linebackers on slot receivers while linebackers are in on 1 and 2 down before they go to nickel/dime in 2 or 3 and long. I'm not saying run five wides every play. Orton would be a corpse. But there are situations, especially early down situations, where spreading the field looks like it could be a more effective position for out O.

 

I think we an agree that we'd like to see a bit more of it. All I'm saying is it's readily apparent to me why we can't do it more often. But I would like to see it with a healthy Goodwin's speed lined up in the slot. And I'll pray Orton can survive the beating until the OL gets its schit together.

 

But again, how does removing a safety and/or an LB from the box make our OL able to beat their guys one on one? Theoretically you are correct; removing a run defender should make it easier to run the ball. But only if you have the horses up front and I've seen precious little evidence to suggest we do.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

The SD game doesn't count because Orton was not in there. You couldn't have done what I am suggesting. It would have made a bad thing worse.

 

Well, I've been witnessing our QB, whoever it is, getting abused because we STILL can't handle the stunt schemes SD used and every team has copied since. I think it counts for that reason alone.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited October 21, 2014 by K-9

[The Big Cat]

My "unseen scenario," is also known as the West Coast offense, which, again, almost every successful NFL offense utilizes more than the Bills do in the NFL. This big scary concept is actually remarkably simple. Any receiver, player, coach in the NFL who knows a route tree can run it. They could add in these plays in pregame and they could run it. The trick is using it successfully in the best scenarios and situations, especially early downs.

 

I firmly believe it would help our line, rather than expose it, if used effectively.

 

Okay, well I maintain that it will expose our line, so this is where we disagree. Are you also suggesting we NEVER run these concepts, because I think it's clear we do.

 

And please provide a pct. of plays you think we should run these plays and please also estimate how frequently they're run now.

[Kelly the Dog]

I honestly don't know what you're basing that on and I don't know enough to argue with you about it. But you seem too eager to glom to it as a truth when it makes your point. Just being honest.

I stuck up for Hackett all of last year and the first four games this year. There were both good and bad signs but I stuck up for him. I didn't get down on him too much for the Lions game because it was Orton's first.

 

When something doesn't work for 4-5-6 weeks in a row, however, and you now have the players that can make it work, and it plays to your team's strengths, you go that way.

 

In the last three weeks, he has gone the other way. Closer in. More FB and 2-3 TE. Lee Smith flat out stinks. Frank Summers does not do what he is in there to do on the vast majority of the plays. And the fact they are in there adds players to the box, usually 2 more. Chris Gragg does very little too and isn't ready for extended action.

[K-9]

I stuck up for Hackett all of last year and the first four games this year. There were both good and bad signs but I stuck up for him. I didn't get down on him too much for the Lions game because it was Orton's first.

 

When something doesn't work for 4-5-6 weeks in a row, however, and you now have the players that can make it work, and it plays to your team's strengths, you go that way.

 

In the last three weeks, he has gone the other way. Closer in. More FB and 2-3 TE. Lee Smith flat out stinks. Frank Summers does not do what he is in there to do on the vast majority of the plays. And the fact they are in there adds players to the box, usually 2 more. Chris Gragg does very little too and isn't ready for extended action.

 

Why do you think that is? I suggest it's not simply because Hackett is stupid.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

Why do you think that is? I suggest it's not simply because Hackett is stupid.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I really couldn't tell you. I think Marrone is stubborn and Hackett is his right hand man. I think as evidenced by now, Marrone and Hackett want to shove their idea/system onto the players rather than play to the player's strengths.

 

I think there is something going on with Mike Williams perhaps that keeps them from practicing it during the week.

 

Mostly, however, I think because the defense is playing so well they get lulled into the idea that all we need to do is score 17 points and we win, which to me is just plain stupid when you can be scoring 20-24.

 

I think beating the Lions rewarded bad behavior (and this last win will, too).

 

I think Goodwin hurt may have affected this game and I know it affected an earlier game (the Lions?) where he didn't play so that may be an element.

 

I don't think they know how to utilize Spiller (although that is no longer a part of it but it applies to your question).

[Homey D. Clown]

Someone please explain to me how you use a running back who fumbles frequently, gets injured often, and is in a slump right now better. Please tell me HOW. I'm tired of this **** getting posted every single week, month, year. Maybe CJ needs to learn how to be patient with his gaps, and be a more consistent runner. Blaming anyone else is mindlessly stupid. The Hackett hate is completely a waste of time to even discuss, if the team's offensive line was performing better, execution would also be up, and the hackett hate would cease... well, who am I kidding...this forum will hate just about anything at the drop of a dime.

[Deranged Rhino]

So again, I think most of these critiques of Hackett are entirely premature and woefully oblivious to the personnel limitations he's faced the entire time he's been in Buffalo.

 

And there's the rub. The personnel limitations are being exacerbated by Hackett's scheme and player groupings, his actions are making the issues worse -- not improving them. That's on Hackett.

 

What Kelly and company are advocating is using the personnel limitations to the team's benefit rather than their detriment. Spreading the field helps the O-Line by making their job easier, not more difficult. This is something you either refuse to admit or aren't willing to believe, but it happens to be true as evidenced by countless examples. What you're suggesting, giving the O-Line more help on the edges with extra TEs and FBs, exacerbates the personnel issues and as we've seen in the past few games and ultimately makes the offensive line problems even more acute.

 

Hackett and Marrone should be able to realize the strengths of their team -- it's not Lee Smith and Frank Summers. Continuing to put them out onto the field over more talented players is why they are being called out. Worse, putting them out on the field forces the team into formations that put more strain on the weakest part of the offense: the offensive line.

 

Defending Hackett by blaming the offensive personnel only shows that you're not seeing the forest through the trees in this situation.

Edited October 21, 2014 by GreggyT

[A Dog Named Kelso]

I really couldn't tell you. I think Marrone is stubborn and Hackett is his right hand man. I think as evidenced by now, Marrone and Hackett want to shove their idea/system onto the players rather than play to the player's strengths.

 

I think there is something going on with Mike Williams perhaps that keeps them from practicing it during the week.

 

Mostly, however, I think because the defense is playing so well they get lulled into the idea that all we need to do is score 17 points and we win, which to me is just plain stupid when you can be scoring 20-24.

 

I think beating the Lions rewarded bad behavior (and this last win will, too).

 

I think Goodwin hurt may have affected this game and I know it affected an earlier game (the Lions?) where he didn't play so that may be an element.

 

I don't think they know how to utilize Spiller (although that is no longer a part of it but it applies to your question).

All they would have to do is look at film. I think the problem is that Marrone had an O-Line philosophy and is not changing it. That is limiting the screens the team can run because this group on O-Line can't shift and move well enough to get there and block their man. Marrone has the same Linemen Sans Levtre and Rhinehart to run the same schemes Gailey did, he chooses not to.

[K-9]

I really couldn't tell you. I think Marrone is stubborn and Hackett is his right hand man. I think as evidenced by now, Marrone and Hackett want to shove their idea/system onto the players rather than play to the player's strengths.

 

I think there is something going on with Mike Williams perhaps that keeps them from practicing it during the week.

 

Mostly, however, I think because the defense is playing so well they get lulled into the idea that all we need to do is score 17 points and we win, which to me is just plain stupid when you can be scoring 20-24.

 

I think beating the Lions rewarded bad behavior (and this last win will, too).

 

I think Goodwin hurt may have affected this game and I know it affected an earlier game (the Lions?) where he didn't play so that may be an element.

 

I don't think they know how to utilize Spiller (although that is no longer a part of it but it applies to your question).

 

Not one mention of the OL? Do you think that plays at all into what they do or don't do on offense?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[The Big Cat]

And there's the rub. The personnel limitations are being exacerbated by Hackett's scheme and player groupings, his actions are making the issues worse -- not improving them. That's on Hackett.

 

What Kelly and company are advocating is using the personnel limitations to the team's benefit rather than their detriment. Spreading the field helps the O-Line by making their job easier, not more difficult. This is something you either refuse to admit or aren't willing to believe, but it happens to be true as evidenced by countless examples. What you're suggesting, giving the O-Line more help on the edges with extra TEs and FBs, exacerbates the personnel issues and as we've seen in the past few games and ultimately makes the offensive line problems even more acute.

 

Hackett and Marrone should be able to realize the strengths of their team -- it's not Lee Smith and Frank Summers. Continuing to put them out onto the field over more talented players is why they are being called out. Worse, putting them out on the field forces the team into formations that put more strain on the weakest part of the offense: the offensive line.

 

Defending Hackett by blaming the offensive personnel only shows that you're not seeing the forest through the trees in this situation.

 

But we're right back to where we were about an hour ago: you assume your ideas are a cure-all. You assume that you know more about the players' strengths than the coordinators do. You assume Marrone has some vendetta against ideas.

 

Yet you ignore what K-9 and I have been saying about how spreading it out by no means is a guarantee for success. You also haven't answered my questions about how often you think they SHOULD employ that strategy and how often you think they do now.

[Clippers of Nfl]

Okay, think of a percentage you think the Bills SHOULD run these formations, then try and guess what the actual number is. I'm curious what your perception is, and I'll gladly do the research to determine what the numbers really are.

 

I also think the offense is a state of evolution. I think it's clear that Orton gives them WAY more flexiblity than EJ ever did, I HOPE Brown is better suited to run for three to five yards on first down like CJ was supposed to and I think we're going to see a complete re-shuffling of the OLine at the bye.

 

So again, I think most of these critiques of Hackett are entirely premature and woefully oblivious to the personnel limitations he's faced the entire time he's been in Buffalo.

Not premature. He was predictable as hell last year too.

[Deranged Rhino]

But we're right back to where we were about an hour ago: you assume your ideas are a cure-all.

 

Not a cure all, but plays more to the strengths of the personnel on the roster. Mike Williams, Hogan, and Goodwin are all more skilled players than Lee Smith and Frank Summers. The sample size of 3 games with Orton (I agree with Kelly we can't look at EJ's games in this discussion) clearly shows the formations and personnel groupings being used most frequently are not helping to alleviate the biggest ills facing this team, namely the poor play of the offensive line.

 

It hasn't helped the running game get going, it hasn't helped the pass protection get better. If anything, it's stymied both of those elements of the offense.

 

That said, this isn't me (or anyone else taking this position) pulling things out of thin air, it's something that you can see working all across the NFL. It makes sense to collapse the field when you have a mauling offensive line that's just blowing guys back and two running backs that are tearing things up. That makes the play action passes work better as well as the running game. But the problem is Marrone and Hackett seem to think their offensive line ARE mauling people when clearly they are the weak link.

 

You assume that you know more about the players' strengths than the coordinators do.

 

I don't assume to know more. But I have played the game at a high level and coached as well. That makes me the WORST kind of armchair coordinator, I know, but I will confidently state that it doesn't take a football genius to determine running a screen pass to Frank Friggin' Summers, or passing to Lee "Flag me" Smith, over getting the ball into Williams/Hogan/Woods' hands is a poor choice that's destined to fail.

 

And has, as we've seen over these past three games.

 

You assume Marrone has some vendetta against ideas.

 

I don't assume that either and haven't made that statement. What I've said is that it's confusing to me, and a sign that Marrone might be too stubborn for his own good, that an idea as basic as spreading the field (which this team has done, continues to do at times, and clearly has those packages installed in their offensive playbook) over collapsing it is continuing to be ignored.

 

The best example of the head scratching was the second to last Bills drive of the game. The one where they punted. They were down a score and came out in bunched sets, three TEs and a third string RB and opted to play right into Minny's hands. It wasn't until the final drive where they spread the field that the offense actually began to have rhythm. That's not me saying Marrone is stubborn, it's me saying, "this guy makes odd choices".

 

Pears as the unquestioned RG on this team is Marrone's worst decision to date. Keeping him there, despite all evidence of his suck-a-tude, smacks of pride. That's alarming for me as a fan because you'd hope your coach would care more about winning than being proven right.

 

Still, I don't assume Marrone is against trying new things.

 

Yet you ignore what K-9 and I have been saying about how spreading it out by no means is a guarantee for success.

 

The best this offense has looked under Orton has been when they've spread the field. That's undeniable and on film for you to see yourself.

 

You also haven't answered my questions about how often you think they SHOULD employ that strategy and how often you think they do now.

 

Their base offense should be 3 - 4 WRs with the jumbo packages being used situationally rather than as your first down offense. Right now that's reversed. And that's a problem.

[TheFunPolice]

Did he fail to develop EJ or us EJ just inaccurate?

[Kelly the Dog]

Not one mention of the OL? Do you think that plays at all into what they do or don't do on offense?

 

GO BILLS!!!

I think the OL issue is implicit in the Marrone problem of playing his system as well as someone only he seems to agree with, that your five best players regardless of position and continuity gets you the best result. The Pears OG experiment and disaster being the prime example.

 

I think and have said several times here that the OL issues are exacerbated rather than helped by the formations and groupings and strategy. And that they can be masked easier, because they surely exist, by getting the extra 1-2 TEs and the FB out of there, getting the safety out of the box and a DB or two more on the field instead of LB. If the field is spread and they blitz it is easier for a vet QB like Orton to see it and throw to a hot read who is looking for the ball. Some plays he tries to get rid of it and no one as finished their pattern yet.

 

But we're right back to where we were about an hour ago: you assume your ideas are a cure-all. You assume that you know more about the players' strengths than the coordinators do. You assume Marrone has some vendetta against ideas.

 

Yet you ignore what K-9 and I have been saying about how spreading it out by no means is a guarantee for success. You also haven't answered my questions about how often you think they SHOULD employ that strategy and how often you think they do now.

Okay, 12.3 plays per game more with 3 WRs, 1 TE and 1 RB and 12.3 plays per game less with 2-3 TE and/or a FB.

[dave mcbride]

I think the OL issue is implicit in the Marrone problem of playing his system as well as someone only he seems to agree with, that your five best players regardless of position and continuity gets you the best result. The Pears OG experiment and disaster being the prime example.

 

I think and have said several times here that the OL issues are exacerbated rather than helped by the formations and groupings and strategy. And that they can be masked easier, because they surely exist, by getting the extra 1-2 TEs and the FB out of there, getting the safety out of the box and a DB or two more on the field instead of LB. If the field is spread and they blitz it is easier for a vet QB like Orton to see it and throw to a hot read who is looking for the ball. Some plays he tries to get rid of it and no one as finished their pattern yet.

 

 

Okay, 12.3 plays per game more with 3 WRs, 1 TE and 1 RB and 12.3 plays per game less with 2-3 TE and/or a FB.

I don't know if you're factoring in how truly awful the Bills guards are. I mean, they're historically bad. Cyril Richardson may be the worst I've seen in a long while. Seantrel Henderson has been absolutely terrible the past couple of weeks too.

[K-9]

I think the OL issue is implicit in the Marrone problem of playing his system as well as someone only he seems to agree with, that your five best players regardless of position and continuity gets you the best result. The Pears OG experiment and disaster being the prime example.

 

I think and have said several times here that the OL issues are exacerbated rather than helped by the formations and groupings and strategy. And that they can be masked easier, because they surely exist, by getting the extra 1-2 TEs and the FB out of there, getting the safety out of the box and a DB or two more on the field instead of LB. If the field is spread and they blitz it is easier for a vet QB like Orton to see it and throw to a hot read who is looking for the ball. Some plays he tries to get rid of it and no one as finished their pattern yet.

 

 

Okay, 12.3 plays per game more with 3 WRs, 1 TE and 1 RB and 12.3 plays per game less with 2-3 TE and/or a FB.

 

This sounds like a chicken/egg thing.

 

For as bad as Pears has looked, he is the second coming of John Hannah compared to Richardson. And Wood is left to pick the lesser of two evils on most plays.

 

When you have the horses up front, you have the luxury of doing more things from a formation standpoint. But not before. Getting safeties out of the box or forcing LBs off the field with receiver-heavy formations, does nothing to impact the DLine and their ability to abuse our OLine and we are simply getting beat up by opposing front fours, regardless of the game situation and regardless of the play type. I submit that when a DLine has more space to operate from, and they do in spread formations, it will be even harder for us to counter given the lack of talent I see up front. In short, our OLine just isn't doing enough to keep us in manageable down/distance situations and that prevents us from dictating play.

 

I'm confident in Orton's ability to run any scheme. I'm not confident in our OLine's ability to allow him that. I really can't say anything more about it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[GG]

I don't know if you're factoring in how truly awful the Bills guards are. I mean, they're historically bad. Cyril Richardson may be the worst I've seen in a long while. Seantrel Henderson has been absolutely terrible the past couple of weeks too.

 

Which really begs the question of why is Urbik on the bench? He was slipping, but he wasn't historically bad.

[Kelly the Dog]

This sounds like a chicken/egg thing.

 

For as bad as Pears has looked, he is the second coming of John Hannah compared to Richardson. And Wood is left to pick the lesser of two evils on most plays.

 

When you have the horses up front, you have the luxury of doing more things from a formation standpoint. But not before. Getting safeties out of the box or forcing LBs off the field with receiver-heavy formations, does nothing to impact the DLine and their ability to abuse our OLine and we are simply getting beat up by opposing front fours, regardless of the game situation and regardless of the play type. I submit that when a DLine has more space to operate from, and they do in spread formations, it will be even harder for us to counter given the lack of talent I see up front. In short, our OLine just isn't doing enough to keep us in manageable down/distance situations and that prevents us from dictating play.

 

I'm confident in Orton's ability to run any scheme. I'm not confident in our OLine's ability to allow him that. I really can't say anything more about it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

The point is how does bringing Frank Summers and Lee Smith and Chris Gragg in and those three guys clearly doing nothing help in any way? It has been worse. All it has done has been bringing more people into the mix that can screw with the heads of the rookie OL, and making it easier to blitz. We have clearly seen it not work. Repeatedly. And for three straight games.

 

It's hard to argue when they win the game, but they won it doing what others and myself are suggesting.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

The point is how does bringing Frank Summers and Lee Smith and Chris Gragg in and those three guys clearly doing nothing help in any way? It has been worse. All it has done has been bringing more people into the mix that can screw with the heads of the rookie OL, and making it easier to blitz. We have clearly seen it not work. Repeatedly. And for three straight games.

 

It's hard to argue when they win the game, but they won it doing what others and myself are suggesting.

Didn't they take quite a few sacks by doing so and thus put them in positions they would not want to be in at any point during the normal course of a game?