K-9 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) 3 of front 4 in pro bowl. 4th overall defense in the NFL pts yards etc... Forced career worst performance from Rodgers. Led NFL in sacks. Unquestioned strength of a 9-7 team with a poor offense. Dominant may be a stretch, but it's not completely unfounded. Dominant defense are superior at all three levels. We were superior in one, our DL. We had our moments, but at no time did I ever have the sense we could stop a team whenever we had to. They were good, not dominant. GO BILLS!!! Edited March 12, 2016 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dopey Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 That's is a whole bunch of assumptions rolled into one post. I can make some as well, here goes; Rex taught the defense his scheme during training camp and saw there was some "push-back" or reluctance of some players to 'get into" the new scheme. Rex knowing that the defense was stout the last 2 years under Pettine and Schwartz decides to do a mix between his own scheme and that of the Pettine/Schwartz scheme to mollify players. Rex understands that even though his scheme has proven successful, so has Pettine and Schwartz's recent schemes as well. The season starts and our defense for the beginning part of the year is "ok". Rex tries to install a little more of his scheme to the mixed scheme they are running to improve the defense, but it makes it worse. He backs off a bit and uses a little more of the prior regime's scheme and it doesn't seem to help as well. As the season progresses and the clearer the picture becomes to who can and/or will do the Rex scheme becomes apparent, as well as our playoff hopes are finalized. Rex finally goes "all in" on his own scheme the last 2 games and our defense plays some great ball. Thinking about the season in retrospect, Rex realizes that he should have stuck with his full out scheme from the first game and endeavors to not only bring the current players up to full speed on the scheme but also bring in new players, as well as drop existing players, to solidify that scheme for the upcoming season.Sounds like anything but solid coaching to me. "Well, I tried my deal and it wasn't working so I tried another coaches' approach and that didn't work so...". We had our best chance in 30 yrs to make the playoffs and he screwed it up. We are not going this year either,now 31 yrs and counting. Dominant defense are superior at all three levels. We were superior in one, our DL. We had our moments, but at no time did I ever have the sense we could stop a team whenever we had to. They were good, not dominant. GO BILLS!!! Superior in one? OK the dline accounted for a lot of sacks, curious though, who had all those int's for us. The dline!? Weren't we top 5 in int's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Dominant defense are superior at all three levels. We were superior in one, our DL. We had our moments, but at no time did I ever have the sense we could stop a team whenever we had to. They were good, not dominant. GO BILLS!!! We need to pin this. The revisionism on the 2014 defense is astonishing at times. It nearly rivals how we remember the 2013 defense that couldn't stop anything when it mattered. The 2013 defense slipped in its 10th ranking thanks in large part to the statistical anomaly they posted at home against Miami in week 16 (only allowed 100 yards of total offense, posted a shut out, sacked Tanny 7 times). Then the Patriots ran for more than 260 yards the following week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Since he was only here one season, probably he shouldn't have used the word historically, but 23 out of 32 is the bottom 25%. That would be like calling a "D" student a good student. I think a number of responses here called it right, Rex felt he could teach his scheme to the current players and make things better. That didn't work. It's been stated many places that one of the biggest detractors to this was Mario, I'd be very surprised if he didn't cause many more issues in the locker room over this than has even leaked out. What's been stated publicly may only be the tip of the iceberg. Why do i think that? The fact that the #1 overall pick who had some good years in Houston (maybe not warranting the #1 overall pick but still good) was let go to become a FA is telling. In hind sight we should have ran for the hills. And that could be a lesson, when someone who's an amazing talent is a FA, unless the former team had incredibly bad salary cap issues, there's a reason for it. They gave up 4.4ypc (23rd in the league that season)Stellar? No. Historically bad? Come on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 We need to pin this. The revisionism on the 2014 defense is astonishing at times. It nearly rivals how we remember the 2013 defense that couldn't stop anything when it mattered. The 2013 defense slipped in its 10th ranking thanks in large part to the statistical anomaly they posted at home against Miami in week 16 (only allowed 100 yards of total offense, posted a shut out, sacked Tanny 7 times). Then the Patriots ran for more than 260 yards the following week. Is it any more astonishing than the other revisionism on the '14 defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) Superior in one? OK the dline accounted for a lot of sacks, curious though, who had all those int's for us. The dline!? Weren't we top 5 in int's? If you want to make it all about stats, be my guest. I don't believe for a minute we had a great back seven because we garnered a bunch of INTs. I would attribute most of those INTs to the great pressure our superior front four generated. Our back seven was not so dominant so much as they were the beneficiaries of great play up front. I'm not saying they sucked, but they weren't superior at all three levels. I need that level of superiority before I can say they were dominant. Never had the sense that we could stop a team whenever we wanted to. GO BILLS!!! Edited March 12, 2016 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 30 years, that's since 1986 Since we mad the playoffs was it 8 out of 10 years in the 1990's I'm a bit confused to say the least? . We had our best chance in 30 yrs to make the playoffs and he screwed it up. We are not going this year either,now 31 yrs and counting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) I always get that sense watching the Bills. However, they did it on the first play of the Packets potential game winning drive in week 15 of the 2014 season. Mario "the whipping boy" Williams sacked Rodgers for a Safety with just under two minutes left to play to essentially seal the game. The defense wasn't dominant. It was very good and a lot better then the one we fielded last season. I'm not sure what the argument is here... My argument is with Bradham's characterization of the defense as dominant as he said in the linked article. Not sure what anyone else is arguing. I say the use of the word dominant is totally misplaced when describing our defense. People can cite single plays here and there as a testament to dominance all they want. Show me entire games where our defense was dominant and then show me the amount of entire games in the season they delivered that same dominance. No matter how you slice, we haven't had a play in, play out; game in, game out dominant defense in years. GO BILLS!!! Edited March 12, 2016 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 At this point, the only issue that matters is whether Whaley and the Pegulas were promised by Rex that he could run his defense with the existing personnel, nor not. If Rex (or Whaley) lied to Terry and Kim (or simply got it wrong), they're in serious trouble. Alternatively, it's possible that Rex explained that there would need to be a year or two of transition and that new defensive personnel would be needed. Somehow I doubt that, but it's a possibility. My speculation is that Rex believed he could run his defense with the existing personnel and specifically promised as much during the interview process. I highly doubt the Pegulas would've signed up for a 2-3 year rebuild of a unit that was already a strength. And if I'm right, Rex is on a VERY short leash, although Whaley's may be shorter. The reality is that like 90%+ of coaches in the NFL are "scheme guys." They have their pet scheme and they are going to run it. That's the way it is with Rex, as it was with Schwartz, as it was with Pettine, as it was with Jauron, etc. Either you hire a guy to run a scheme that largely fits your personnel, or you change your personnel. I love the idea behind being multiple and molding your scheme to your players-- but that doesn't seem to ever work in practice. I hope that Whaley and the Pegulas appreciate that now, if they didn't when they hired Rex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) As good as our defense was under Schwartz, I would hardly classify it as "dominant." We haven't had a dominant defense in years. Not since the days of Phat Pat. We were good in a couple nice statistical areas, but let's reserve the term "dominant" for defenses that really merit the title. GO BILLS!!! I half agree but they were pretty damn dominant in a handful of games that year. And they were good in virtually all of the key statistical areas. They were 4th in scoring, 4th overall (yards), 1st in sacks and I believe 1st in turnovers. I hear what you're saying but man, the regression to this past season was startling. This is really just a matter of semantics. If your point is that they weren't the 2015 Broncos, then yes, of course. Edited March 12, 2016 by metzelaars_lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackInDaDay Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 At this point, the only issue that matters is whether Whaley and the Pegulas were promised by Rex that he could run his defense with the existing personnel, nor not. If Rex (or Whaley) lied to Terry and Kim (or simply got it wrong), they're in serious trouble. Alternatively, it's possible that Rex explained that there would need to be a year or two of transition and that new defensive personnel would be needed. Somehow I doubt that, but it's a possibility. My speculation is that Rex believed he could run his defense with the existing personnel and specifically promised as much during the interview process. I highly doubt the Pegulas would've signed up for a 2-3 year rebuild of a unit that was already a strength. And if I'm right, Rex is on a VERY short leash, although Whaley's may be shorter. i'm guessing Rex's time with the excited and impressionable new owners was spent effectively pitching his successes and excusing his failures - same as any presser he's ever given after his teams under-achieve... and i can understand the Pegula's excitement in signing him up. what i don't understand - and what concerns me - is that they seem to be agreeable to Ryan's plans of rebuilding a team, that many thought was very close to playoff caliber. the fact that the Pegulas are ok with Rex bringing his failed brother onto this staff, leads me to believe that the Pegulas need to hear a voice - stronger than Rex's. here's why.. because for whatever reasons - the coaches failed the team. regardless of the money involved in the pros, football will always be a team game that demands each players' commitment to excel in whatever's being asked of him. when players try and fail to commit to what's being taught - coaches can either recognize and adjust to them, or keep pushing them. in fairness to Rex's staff - both decisions will lead to uncertain outcomes - but in hindsight, we're able to clearly see where this staff led the team in 2015.. and how that direction now impacts the upcoming season. i'd like to agree with the you about your 'short leash' speculation, but i think Rex has a tight hold of the keys - and will leave Whaley on the side of the road (as he did Tannenbaum in NYC) before crashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 It did not take time for Denver to adjust for a new DC. Good coaches adjust to the talent they have. How did that work out for us? Oh yeah the fans ran him out of town, and they have never had a playoff team since him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 How did that work out for us? Oh yeah the fans ran him out of town, and they have never had a playoff team since him Who did the fans run out of town? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Dominant defense are superior at all three levels. We were superior in one, our DL. We had our moments, but at no time did I ever have the sense we could stop a team whenever we had to. They were good, not dominant. GO BILLS!!! I'm not sure how often that exists in the NFL these days. We were by far among the best of the year even if not the generational type.... I think better than just good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 If Rex's defense is so complicated that it takes multiple years to understand and excel in it, and he is too dumb too realize this, than he should be fired sooner rather than later. In this era of the salary cap and f/a where there is constantly player turnover, guys need to be able to step into a defense and play well right away, not sign and then wait three years to see if you can pass Rex's Rhodes Scholar Exam. IMO Rex is the Bill's HC because PT Barnum I mean PT Brandon and the Pegula's were hypnotized by Rex's personality. Will never know, but I wish I knew exactly how much say Whaley had in the hiring of this buffoon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 If Rex's defense is so complicated that it takes multiple years to understand and excel in it, and he is too dumb too realize this, than he should be fired sooner rather than later. In this era of the salary cap and f/a where there is constantly player turnover, guys need to be able to step into a defense and play well right away, not sign and then wait three years to see if you can pass Rex's Rhodes Scholar Exam. IMO Rex is the Bill's HC because PT Barnum I mean PT Brandon and the Pegula's were hypnotized by Rex's personality. Will never know, but I wish I knew exactly how much say Whaley had in the hiring of this buffoon? Very well put Plus how many years to draft the right players to fit Rex's system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codyny13 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Scheme change and personnel change always happen when there's anew regime. Nobody expected this when DouG Marrone opted out. Sucks but it's an unfortunate process that needs to play itself out. The d will get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Automated Response: The Rex Haters are posting in multiple other threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellDopeland Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Brandon and the Pegulas were hoodwinked by a charlatan. This is probably already recognized in the halls at One Bills Drive. They had to retain Rex in order to save face. And in a stroke of genius, they lashed Whaley to Rex with an extension. If 2016 is as disappointing as 2015 was, Rex no longer has the life-preserver that he had with the NYJ, i.e. throwing an executive (Tannenbaum, Idzik) under the bus as the "problem". His first year here, a fall guy was easily identified and sacrificed (M.Williams); next year it will not be so easy for Huckster Rex. If things go awry, and Whaley is jettisoned, me thinks it won't just be the executive that takes the fall- blowhard Rex is going right out the door with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Brandon and the Pegulas were hoodwinked by a charlatan. This is probably already recognized in the halls at One Bills Drive. They had to retain Rex in order to save face. And in a stroke of genius, they lashed Whaley to Rex with an extension. If 2016 is as disappointing as 2015 was, Rex no longer has the life-preserver that he had with the NYJ, i.e. throwing an executive (Tannenbaum, Idzik) under the bus as the "problem". His first year here, a fall guy was easily identified and sacrificed (M.Williams); next year it will not be so easy for Huckster Rex. If things go awry, and Whaley is jettisoned, me thinks it won't just be the executive that takes the fall- blowhard Rex is going right out the door with him. Dumbass Rex! I'll bet all of the players hate him and know he's a total fraud. @buffalobills "Rex had a lot to do with it. I love playing for him." How Rex influenced Incognito's deal: http://bufbills.co/IOuVc2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts