Yet another fine effort by Ty Dunne...re: the D

[Beerball]

Good thing Rex didn't.

Your glass overfloweth!

[boyst]

 

Yet I just post an article and suggest it's a good read (because it provides some contrary analysis) and I'm immediately mocked. Go figure.

 

Some people just like to watch the world burn. Many of them frequent this forum.

come on e. You weren't mocked. The article was. Don't take it so personally.

 

Dunne's good article is a cited piece of others work and statements. Some times that is all you get.

 

The frustration people voice maybe toward you in their statements but its not about you. Some people don't know what's going on and hold the messenger captive. Shake it off. Haters going to hate hate hate.

[John from Riverside]

 

I just don't think it required much effort, let alone "fine effort". Relax, the world isn't burning because your thread is being commented on.

 

Now, if you wanted to say that the article was quietly spectacular, I might go along...

In a world where we have to endure Rodak articles......your seriously bitching about Tyler Dunne?

[boyst]

 

Damn skippy!

 

Hello from 2002!

 

 

every former water polo player should keep a photo around from their playing days. because that's about as good as it's going to get. ask my wife. she met me right around the time when that photo was taken. sorry, darling.

I like your bonnet

[Beerball]

I like your bonnet

#15 in your program, #1 in your heart.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled B&M.

[John from Riverside]

Some reasonable people, who want nothing more than to see the Bills win football games, disagree with you. Deal with it!

Show me the reasonable people please

[26CornerBlitz]

again. No substance. Why not provide your insight and weigh in? Its easy to throw the lob and jab. But try supporting the empty statements. Its much more fun.

You know football. I've seen evidence. So speak up

 

I've already spoken enough on the same subject in various threads that have been created. How many times should I repeat myself just for your sake?

 

Maybe it's time for some rumor mongering or conjecture for entertainment purposes only of course.

[Beerball]

Show me the reasonable people please

I believe I'm a reasonable person & I don't find anything outstanding about the article.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

linky

 

Well worth the read for those questioning Rex's ability to coach defense and how sacks/pressure relate to today's game.

Summary:

Bart Scott - Rex is a genius but mario didn't buy in

Cowher- Rex's defense is hard to learn

 

 

Interesting- what was the strength of steelers 3-4 D all those years. (Hint:article references it) Scott - what position did you play? What was the weakness of the bills defensive personnel groups? (DTs and Ends clearly the strength...) anyone?

 

Let's blame buy-in and learning curve though...

[The Big Cat]

I like your bonnet

 

Ha. Yeah. Blessed is the man/woman who can make one of those things look good. Didn't help that mine got pulled back on my forehead there. Yikes.

 

#15 in your program, #1 in your heart.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled B&M.

 

 

Had to wait a season for 6 to free up.

[Prickly Pete]

"that defensive system had been successful there just two years before. Same defense, same philosophy, same everything. And everybody succeeded."

Right, so if it succeeded with basically the same players, but a different coach, it must be the new coach that is the problem, no?

 

"To him, the answer to the Bradys, Newtons, Rodgerses isn't releasing the hounds, isn't blitzing more. No, Scott believes it is more important than ever for defensive backs to tighten up in coverage."

 

When I read this I think "Don't the Bills have a pair of excellent corners, better than the past few seasons?" Yet, it wasn't enough to work with for Wrex.

 

"With all the pressure, guys are getting the ball out in 2.5 seconds," Scott said. "I think now — especially last week with what Wade Phillips did to Tom Brady — you get to quarterbacks who release the ball fast with coverage. Not with more pressure."

 

The Broncos barely won that game, and the Patriots O-line was decimated all season. I think that had way more to do with it than Wade's scheme. The defense played great, but it still came down to a missed extra-point. And I'm pretty sure that this offseason, Belichick is going to dedicate himself to improving the O-line, and altering the offense to counter the schemes that had success against the Patriots.

 

“It is complex," Cowher said. "And I think you’ll see a couple years in, they’ll have a better understanding of it."

 

What a bold statement "in a couple years, they'll understand it better"...a couple years. Uhh, great. I'm really looking forward to 2017.

Edited February 2, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[Direhard Fan]

Kind of makes me laugh when a comment about the smartness of our players comes into play. I must have heard 1000 times how smart this guy is and that guy is. It's on Rex and nobody else period.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

In this case, I really don't care about Tyler Dunne's opinion of Rex and his D. What does Dunne actually know? But I do care about Bart Scott's opinion - Bart knows Rex and his D very well.

(...)

Scott also makes an interesting argument that you beat elite, quick-release QBs wtih coverage, not with sacks. Considering Scott played for Rex, I'm assuming this is Rex's opinion too.

 

Regarding Bart Scott, it's pretty well documented that the guy would have run through a brick wall for Rex. He played with significant injuries, because he didn't want to disappoint Rex (per Collision Low Crossers, Davidoff). So I do think it's just possible he might be a leetle bit biased towards Rex.

 

Regarding coverage, not sacks....erm, I might be missing something, but I thought you need both? You need tight initial coverage, so the QB has to be forced to his 2nd or 3rd read and can't make yards with a quick check down. But then you need pressure/sacks so that he doesn't have time to find his 2nd or 3rd read. Perhaps Scott is talking about blitzing, and sacks by blitzing, and that didn't come through?

[The Big Cat]

 

Regarding Bart Scott, it's pretty well documented that the guy would have run through a brick wall for Rex. He played with significant injuries, because he didn't want to disappoint Rex (per Collision Low Crossers, Davidoff). So I do think it's just possible he might be a leetle bit biased towards Rex.

 

Regarding coverage, not sacks....erm, I might be missing something, but I thought you need both? You need tight initial coverage, so the QB has to be forced to his 2nd or 3rd read and can't make yards with a quick check down. But then you need pressure/sacks so that he doesn't have time to find his 2nd or 3rd read. Perhaps Scott is talking about blitzing, and sacks by blitzing, and that didn't come through?

 

How many times was Brady forced to throw the ball away in PATS2*? Four? Five? Six? The offense doesn't lose 4-8 yards and the clock stops, but they lose the down. Is this not essentially tantamount to a "sack?"

 

I know it's a stretch here, but conceptually it's the same thing.

[FireChan]

 

How many times was Brady forced to throw the ball away in PATS2*? Four? Five? Six? The offense doesn't lose 4-8 yards and the clock stops, but they lose the down. Is this not essentially tantamount to a "sack?"

 

I know it's a stretch here, but conceptually it's the same thing.

:lol:

[Prickly Pete]

 

How many times was Brady forced to throw the ball away in PATS2*? Four? Five? Six? The offense doesn't lose 4-8 yards and the clock stops, but they lose the down. Is this not essentially tantamount to a "sack?"

 

I know it's a stretch here, but conceptually it's the same thing.

 

Yeah, that's just against the Patriots though. What about the other 14 games? What about against a guy like Blake Bortles?

[Mr. WEO]

 

Got it. Your source good. His source bad.

 

 

 

What "source"? He is just reporting what a guy said, quoting and naming him directly.

 

What are you talking about?

[The Big Cat]

 

What "source"? He is just reporting what a guy said, quoting and naming him directly.

 

What are you talking about?

 

I'm talking about how your appeal to authority is clearly more valid than his.

:lol:

 

Well it is. The quarterback surrenders before a valid attempt can be made.

 

Yeah, that's just against the Patriots though. What about the other 14 games? What about against a guy like Blake Bortles?

 

You're talking about the QB who, prior to Robey's phantom PI that would have put them @ 4 and 17 was 11/27 for 146 yards?

You think the defense failed that day because he only got sacked twice?

[JohnC]

The players are far from perfect. They lack focus, discipline and to some extent football IQ. That said there is just no questioning that other coaches did far better with those same flawed pieces.

That's the point.

[FireChan]

 

I'm talking about how your appeal to authority is clearly more valid than his.

 

Well it is. The quarterback surrenders before a valid attempt can be made.

You're forgetting the psychological and physical impact of a 300 pound monster driving into your ribs. And while you hand-waved away the loss of yards, the loss of yards makes it easier to force a punt. 2-17 and 2-10 are two very different animals.

 

So no. A throwaway is not tantamount to sack.

 

I just enjoyed your line of "I'm stretching here, but yeah, I'm right."

[John from Riverside]

I believe I'm a reasonable person & I don't find anything outstanding about the article.

Me neither.....its just interesting to get it from a player and coach pov.

[The Big Cat]

You're forgetting the psychological and physical impact of a 300 pound monster driving into your ribs. And while you hand-waved away the loss of yards, the loss of yards makes it easier to force a punt. 2-17 and 2-10 are two very different animals.

 

So no. A throwaway is not tantamount to sack.

 

I just enjoyed your line of "I'm stretching here, but yeah, I'm right."

 

And he definitely got crunched on a few non-sacks in that game too, just like he did last week against Denver when I was SCREAMING at the TV that it's time to change the IG rules.

 

The point was to offer a counter to "if we're not registering countable sacks, our defense is ineffective" a prevailing and curious theory that's really starting to take hold with a couple of posters here.

[SWATeam]

It's amazing that all of his previous playes are wrong about Rex. I can't believe with how horrible Rex is, I never here anything negative from his previous players. I guess that don't know football as well as this board...

[FireChan]

 

And he definitely got crunched on a few non-sacks in that game too, just like he did last week against Denver when I was SCREAMING at the TV that it's time to change the IG rules.

 

The point was to offer a counter to "if we're not registering countable sacks, our defense is ineffective" a prevailing and curious theory that's really starting to take hold with a couple of posters here.

And your counter that throwaways are equal to sacks was, well, weak. IMO.

[JohnC]

So..by said logic if the D becomes a force next year Rex is a genius?

I don't root against the players, the coaches or the team. I want them to succeed. What I can say is that Rex did a poor job of coaching the talent he had on hand this past season. If you want to disagree with that then fine do so.

 

Rex Ryan will never be a coaching genius. He simply isn't that caliber of coach nor will he ever be. So let's get serious. Rex is one of the better coaches when it comes to performances at the podium but as a coach on the sidelines he is mediocre. Rex has been a HC for seven years. He has a losing record. I'm confident I won't ever see his statue in Canton, Ohio.

 

Odds are the defense will improve next season. It can't perform much worse considering the talent already on the roster. If you believe that Rex is going to be the mastermind elevating it to a top tier level then you are much more optimistic than I am.

[The Big Cat]

And your counter that throwaways are equal to sacks was, well, weak. IMO.

 

Which is stretching an already stretched assertion, but whatever, that's your style, just go with it.

[FireChan]

 

Which is stretching an already stretched assertion, but whatever, that's your style, just go with it.

Dude, what? YOU said they were tantamount.

 

This victim act is boring.

Edited February 2, 2016 by FireChan

[John from Riverside]

I don't root against the players, the coaches or the team. I want them to succeed. What I can say is that Rex did a poor job of coaching the talent he had on hand this past season. If you want to disagree with that then fine do so.

 

Rex Ryan will never be a coaching genius. He simply isn't that caliber of coach nor will he ever be. So let's get serious. Rex is one of the better coaches when it comes to performances at the podium but as a coach on the sidelines he is mediocre. Rex has been a HC for seven years. He has a losing record. I'm confident I won't ever see his statue in Canton, Ohio.

 

Odds are the defense will improve next season. It can't perform much worse considering the talent already on the roster. If you believe that Rex is going to be the mastermind elevating it to a top tier level then you are much more optimistic than I am.

This post is hilarioous

 

"I dont root against anyone"

 

and

 

"odds are the D will improve"

 

then

 

the the obligatory "we have a mediocre coach"

 

You have in essence biult in a way out if the team improves....but left the door open to crit the heck out of them if they dont

 

GOOD JOB

[eball]

First of all, I don't take reaction to the article I linked "personally." I didn't write it. What irritates me is the downright arrogance of some on this board. I haven't blindly defended Rex Ryan -- I've said numerous times how disappointed I am in how the defense performed. The arrogant experts of TSW have declared Rex is a buffoon, forgot how to coach, can't adapt to his talent, and can barely tie his own shoes. Ty Dunne could have taken the easy way out and piled on Rex like the rest of The Buffalo News, but he found a way to present a different side of the story. The quotes from Scott and Cowher don't exonerate Rex but they help to explain why things weren't so rosy in his first season here. They also provide a glimmer of optimism going forward. Why does that anger some of you so much?

[26CornerBlitz]

First of all, I don't take reaction to the article I linked "personally." I didn't write it. What irritates me is the downright arrogance of some on this board. I haven't blindly defended Rex Ryan -- I've said numerous times how disappointed I am in how the defense performed. The arrogant experts of TSW have declared Rex is a buffoon, forgot how to coach, can't adapt to his talent, and can barely tie his own shoes. Ty Dunne could have taken the easy way out and piled on Rex like the rest of The Buffalo News, but he found a way to present a different side of the story. The quotes from Scott and Cowher don't exonerate Rex but they help to explain why things weren't so rosy in his first season here. They also provide a glimmer of optimism going forward. Why does that anger some of you so much?

 

Great points made by you but the disappointment by the defense after so much big talk that ended up in yet another non-playoff year sent many off the rails against Rex as evidenced by some of the vitriol you pointed out.

[John from Riverside]

First of all, I don't take reaction to the article I linked "personally." I didn't write it. What irritates me is the downright arrogance of some on this board. I haven't blindly defended Rex Ryan -- I've said numerous times how disappointed I am in how the defense performed. The arrogant experts of TSW have declared Rex is a buffoon, forgot how to coach, can't adapt to his talent, and can barely tie his own shoes. Ty Dunne could have taken the easy way out and piled on Rex like the rest of The Buffalo News, but he found a way to present a different side of the story. The quotes from Scott and Cowher don't exonerate Rex but they help to explain why things weren't so rosy in his first season here. They also provide a glimmer of optimism going forward. Why does that anger some of you so much?

Because Rex cant tie his own shoes of course!

[FireChan]

First of all, I don't take reaction to the article I linked "personally." I didn't write it. What irritates me is the downright arrogance of some on this board. I haven't blindly defended Rex Ryan -- I've said numerous times how disappointed I am in how the defense performed. The arrogant experts of TSW have declared Rex is a buffoon, forgot how to coach, can't adapt to his talent, and can barely tie his own shoes. Ty Dunne could have taken the easy way out and piled on Rex like the rest of The Buffalo News, but he found a way to present a different side of the story. The quotes from Scott and Cowher don't exonerate Rex but they help to explain why things weren't so rosy in his first season here. They also provide a glimmer of optimism going forward. Why does that anger some of you so much?

I don't think you understand the criticisms levied in this topic.

[John from Riverside]

This has been discussed ad nauseam and I expect more writing/threads to continue because its a long offseason.

 

With that said, Rex did a bad job this season with the defense considering where it was before he was hired. Yes, the blame goes around. The players deserve criticism for sure, but IMO the majority of the blame lays at the feet of Rex Ryan... no?

So do you plan on parroting this all offseason....or is it ok for fans to have some optimism going forward without you pissin in the punchbowl every chance you get?

[Prickly Pete]

 

I'm talking about how your appeal to authority is clearly more valid than his.

 

Well it is. The quarterback surrenders before a valid attempt can be made.

 

You're talking about the QB who, prior to Robey's phantom PI that would have put them @ 4 and 17 was 11/27 for 146 yards?

You think the defense failed that day because he only got sacked twice?

 

I don't care about sacks, I care about good defense. Sacks are just an indicator that the defense was creating pressure.

 

But here we are trying to use stats to demonstrate the weaknesses of the defense....F*** it. How is this, just good and direct...

 

The defense sucked, and none of the stats matter as much as to me as the crappy, ineffective play I witnessed. We can bicker all offseason, but the defense obviously wasn't very good.

[John from Riverside]

 

Absolutely.

 

Go for it. The season is over. Rex sucked and its a new year and a new opportunity for him to show Bills fans and the NFL him and his brother can still coach. Good for them, hopefully they seize the opportunity and we have our first playoff season in !@#$ing 16 years.

Thats the spirit!

 

I don't care about sacks, I care about good defense. Sacks are just an indicator that the defense was creating pressure.

 

But here we are trying to use stats to demonstrate the weaknesses of the defense....F*** it. How is this, just good and direct...

 

The defense sucked, and none of the stats matter as much as to me as the crappy, ineffective play I witnessed. We can bicker all offseason, but the defense obviously wasn't very good.

I also dont care about sacks....literally at all

 

QB hits and pressures

 

Turnovers

 

3 and outs

 

Those are the things I want to see

[baskingridgebillsfan]

Rex coached the defense so well last year that it got worse. His approach was to take what works and bend it to what he wanted to do. If it doesn't then blame the dumb players who couldn't absorb your brilliant concepts.

 

Rex Ryan has an MBA in weasel management. He takes credit for the successes and he blames others for the failures. If you want to believe that Rex did a stellar job coaching last year then go ahead and ignore the stats that demonstrably say otherwise. I may be stupid but I am not gullible.

Your statement would be correct if Rex was working with the same roster, since he was at time missing half of the starters from the 14 team your point is moot

[The Big Cat]

 

I don't care about sacks, I care about good defense. Sacks are just an indicator that the defense was creating pressure.

 

But here we are trying to use stats to demonstrate the weaknesses of the defense....F*** it. How is this, just good and direct...

 

The defense sucked, and none of the stats matter as much as to me as the crappy, ineffective play I witnessed. We can bicker all offseason, but the defense obviously wasn't very good.

 

So do nothing but trust your eyes on the matter?

[FireChan]

Thats the spirit!

I also dont care about sacks....literally at all

 

QB hits and pressures

 

Turnovers

 

3 and outs

 

Those are the things I want to see

All three of those things go hand in hand with sacks.

[John from Riverside]

All three of those things go hand in hand with sacks.

I consider hits and pressures to be much more valuable then sacks

 

but that is just me

[baskingridgebillsfan]

All three of those things go hand in hand with sacks.

not really. Sacks have nothing to do those things.