PatsFanNH Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Do you consider Seattle, Denver, Dallas, and Pittsburgh modern football? I too want a more potent passing attack. I too don't want to rely on Watkins and TT bombs. But you can win a lot of games with a ground attack leading the way. Not the way I would do it, but you can not say it doesn't work. Dallas -- that was their undoing in the playoffs. Seattle -- they were a run first team but the last 2 years been very very pass happy. Denver - no that O sucked for 2 years! Pitt - while Bell is amazing, he is so amazing because of Big Ben and Brown being a threat. Add in the suspended WR next year and they would be even more pass happy. (Also had a hard time scoring TDs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1st Ammendment NoMas Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Why scrap a top ten scoring offense and instill a new one that will necessitate a learning curve. Because Rex did it with our D and it set us back three years. Now we need to rinse and repeat on O simply because we are the Buffalo F'kin Bills and that's they way we screw **** up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Because Rex did it with our D and it set us back three years. Now we need to rinse and repeat on O simply because we are the Buffalo F'kin Bills and that's they way we screw **** up. Sounds about rite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 The teams that succeed are always the ones that use their personnel best. Rex came in and made the comment that he will use the successful defense to become a bully, but in reality wanted the players to shift to his playbook, which in turn frustrated the players. We had similar issues when Doug came in and dismantled Chan Gailey's offense. He didn't know what to do with Spiller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenseWins Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 "He didn't know what to do with Spiller." - Apparently no one else does either... Last i read was that New Orleans cut him... He was just another one of Buddy Nix's horrible picks... (EJ being another...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jethro_tull Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 a smart new coordinator would not try to reinvent the wheel all at once. he has a learning curve to understand the player's strengths and weaknesses just like the players would have a learning curve trying to learn a new set of plays in a new system. i doubt the play set will look much different at first, possibly with some new wrinkles. i am interested to see how well he calls plays that suit the situation and that are flexible enough to exploit the other team's weaknesses. will he call plays that are based on down and distance statistics or will he decide by gut / emotion / momentum? you aren't going to win very often if you run plays that your offense is not capable of executing consistently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 in all honesty the offense will be very very much like it was last year....as close to indentical with the exception of qb out of pocket more boots, play action, occasional shots down field. One reason he was hired I believe is he can come right in and click and not have everyone learn a new offense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billykaykay Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Like all the hires except OC. This guy didn't call plays and when he did on a limited basis, it seems that the offense in Denver pretty much sucked. Furthermore, the fans and players weren't exactly disappointed after he wasn't retained. I prefer guys who adjust their scheme around the players than the other way around. I hope I am wrong but I am not too enthusiastic about this offense in 2017 under this guy's watch. Fans rarely like their OC's. I guess we think that we could call plays better. Fans are the masters of hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Dallas -- that was their undoing in the playoffs. Seattle -- they were a run first team but the last 2 years been very very pass happy. Denver - no that O sucked for 2 years! Pitt - while Bell is amazing, he is so amazing because of Big Ben and Brown being a threat. Add in the suspended WR next year and they would be even more pass happy. (Also had a hard time scoring TDs) Dallas undoing in the playoffs had nothing to do with their being focused on the run. Garrett simply mismanaged the final minute of the game by having Prescott spike the ball on the final drive . They easily moved the ball over midfield with two passing plays and should have slowed things down at that point. The goal should have been to score a TD or have a FG try with around 5 seconds left. That had a TO and the spike saved time for A Rodgers heroics. Fans rarely like their OC's. I guess we think that we could call plays better. Fans are the masters of hindsight. So true. Anytime a team loses you hear about " play calling" . Almost never has anything to do with it. It's valid when a play is oddly timed ( Reggie Bush trick play with the season on the line sound familiar?" or doesn't match the down and distance etc. Criticizing playcalling has become a catchall complaint for a loss. Execution and mental mistakes are usually at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) On what basis? on the basis of what he's run before fitting our current roster and their stregths. The focus of the run game always been a huge part of what Dennison does, the zone blocking scheme he uses. What he asks his quarterback to do- what his HISTORY will tell you repeatedly here this should help you http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/01/19/4-things-you-need-to-know-about-new-bills-oc-rick-dennison/ Edited January 29, 2017 by CardinalScotts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 The teams that succeed are always the ones that use their personnel best. Rex came in and made the comment that he will use the successful defense to become a bully, but in reality wanted the players to shift to his playbook, which in turn frustrated the players. We had similar issues when Doug came in and dismantled Chan Gailey's offense. He didn't know what to do with Spiller. Coaches always talk about running what works best for their players and "putting their players in the best position to succeed", but in reality no coach is that good. They don't have such a great breadth of knowledge and so much flexibility in their concepts that they can run anything effectively. Coaches have a philosophy. They will adapt it somewhat to suite their players and evolve it over time but can not and typically will not try to switch from black to white to suit personnel. Dennison has a philosophy and the Bills are going to employ it more or less. If some of their players don't fit well then they will be phased out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 If they wanted continuity on offense, why not just keep Lynn? As good as Shady and the run blocking were, I'd prefer seeing a passing game at least compete with the standards of this millennium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice2145 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 A new coaching staff, new offensive system, healthy players, added players, and a more experienced TT leads us to our first playoff game in almost two decades. That's my bold call... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Gun Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 in all honesty the offense will be very very much like it was last year....as close to indentical with the exception of qb out of pocket more boots, play action, occasional shots down field. One reason he was hired I believe is he can come right in and click and not have everyone learn a new offense Not a chance. If the Bills wanted to stand pat they would have kept A Lynn. Changes all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Maybe not keep the same offence, but modify Dennison's system to fit the personnel that we have. BLASPHEMY! This team has zero history of ANY new Coach implementing such a ridiculous concept! (I wish I was being facetious) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 How do we know that he won't? I believe the original post is valid. We don't know what he will do but just like switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3. Totally overhauling either side of the ball generally means one thing. You rarely have the pieces to make the new scheme work. It would seem to me transitioning to something new as you acquire said pieces would make more sense. Belichick uses whatever he has in the cupboard and makes it work. When coaches and coordinators are locked onto one idea and don't have the components to make it work or have second tier players trying to execute that philosophy, they get exposed and disaster strikes. Look Phillips, he uses what he has and makes a top ten defense. It is called hedging your bets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TANK2 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Maybe he brings in an offense that makes taylor better. If they wanted continuity on offense, why not just keep Lynn? As good as Shady and the run blocking were, I'd prefer seeing a passing game at least compete with the standards of this millennium. Because they want somebody to fix the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Maybe he brings in an offense that makes taylor better. Because they want somebody to fix the defense. Couldn't Lynn, as HC, have hired a new DC to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 If they wanted continuity on offense, why not just keep Lynn? As good as Shady and the run blocking were, I'd prefer seeing a passing game at least compete with the standards of this millennium. what was Lynns plan on defense? Who are his assistant coaches ? Those answers might not have made Pegula's feel confident Lynn is the man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BmarvB Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) I would definitely say keep the base of the offense and build on it. We have a championship level running game that needs an improved passing game to compliment it. And if Frazier can tighten up the defense, We're a playoff team. The offense doesn't need anything more from Dennison than add an upgraded passing game to what we already have on the ground. Edited January 30, 2017 by BmarvB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 what was Lynns plan on defense? Who are his assistant coaches ? Those answers might not have made Pegula's feel confident Lynn is the man Absolutely that's possible - and may well be why he didn't get the job. My point is a criticism of the OP suggestion. You don't hire a new set of coaches and then immediately hamstring them by saying: "oh by the way you need to continue the status quo on offense that the old guys we fired taught." That's ludicrous. What if Dennison et al donmt have the knowledge to teach such a scheme? Does the team really want to immediately cripple their incoming staff with directives on how to coach? That's how you go 8-8 every year, which is exactly what our "existing offense" has produced in the past. Dumb idea, in other words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Because Rex did it with our D and it set us back three years. Now we need to rinse and repeat on O simply because we are the Buffalo F'kin Bills and that's they way we screw **** up. Apply to be Bills' mascot. You will fit right in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I dont know man.....doesnt the higher of McD feel the exact opposite of RR? I hope this was a situation of doug w getting one more crack at really finding his guys and wanting to start fresh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) If Tyrod Taylor is retained, would it not be best to keep the same offense that we've been running the past two years. Why scrap a top ten scoring offense and instill a new one that will necessitate a learning curve. Depends how he's kept. If he's kept on his old contract, you're essentially saying he's your quarterback until someone else knocks him off. So you would want to build around his strengths and weaknesses. And this offense would be a very good place to start, with some tweaks, modifications and improvements, as much as seems reasonable. Which seems to me to be yet another reason not to keep him if he doesn't re-negotiate and you have to pick up that option. Putting a young QB with more traditional skills in an offense built around Tyrod's would not be the best way to develop him. On the other hand, if he re-negotiates you're saying we want to build for the long-term and that means bringing in other QBs and expecting them to take over as time passes. And if Tyrod improves hand over foot and beats them all out in the long-term, so much the better. So in that case you'd be less concerned with keeping so much of the old offense together and would put in whatever Dennison was hired to bring in and install. And if you're doing that, you need to build an offense that would not be built around Tyrod's strengths, an offense built around a more traditional and efficient passing attack, though it should ideally be a balanced offense. You could keep some plays built around Tyrod's abilities but wouldn't build the whole attack around them. Edited January 31, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Do you consider Seattle, Denver, Dallas, and Pittsburgh modern football? I too want a more potent passing attack. I too don't want to rely on Watkins and TT bombs. But you can win a lot of games with a ground attack leading the way. Not the way I would do it, but you can not say it doesn't work. Pittsburgh passed 58.96% of the time. Denver passed 59.80% of the time. Seattle 59.37%. That made them the 13th, 16th and 18th highest run:pass ratios in the league. They were absolutely not "leading the way with a ground attack." All of those teams could run very effectively. Having an effective run game is certainly nothing to be scoffed at, in modern football or any other kind. But they passed a lot more than they ran. In fact, there wasn't a team in the league that ran more than they passed this year. Dallas led the league with 48.7% run plays (Buffalo was #2), which makes sense when you've got a rookie behind center. Doubt they'll be doing the same thing three or four years from now, at least if Prescott is still thriving. Edited January 31, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Your right. Let's just swing a deal for Matt Ryan or Aaron Rodgers. Or, you know, obtain and develop a guy with the skill set to become a top ten or twelve guy in the passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Or, you know, obtain and develop a guy with the skill set to become a top ten or twelve guy in the passing game. why not do both....and i dont mean the fantasy trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TANK2 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Couldn't Lynn, as HC, have hired a new DC to do that? Yes but I think they just wanted an outside guy. I really didnt like the fact that all the players where backing him up. Lynn that is. Think they felt a little too comfortable with him. Nothing wrong with the fear of the unknown. Gonna keep people on their toes. Edited January 31, 2017 by TANK2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 why not do both....and i dont mean the fantasy trade The quick answer: because $30.5 mill guaranteed is insane for Tyrod, and then $10 mill more guaranteed if you keep him for another year is again wildly out of whack. And beyond that, because Tyrod's style is likely to be different from most guys you can bring in. You can't tailor an offense around both.a Tyrod and a drop-back guy. Something would have to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 The quick answer: because $30.5 mill guaranteed is insane for Tyrod, and then $10 mill more guaranteed if you keep him for another year is again wildly out of whack. And beyond that, because Tyrod's style is likely to be different from most guys you can bring in. You can't tailor an offense around both.a Tyrod and a drop-back guy. Something would have to give. what exactly would that take? this is a OC that went to the playoffs with Tim Tebow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Yes but I think they just wanted an outside guy. I really didnt like the fact that all the players where backing him up. Think they felt a little too comfortable with him. Nothing wrong with the fear of the unknown. Gonna keep people on their toes. What? An outside guy as HC? Sorry I'm not following you anymore. The OP's point was ludicrous, for reasons that I and a lot of others have said. I can't really follow what you're saying above but if your point is "they wanted an outside guy" then my initial point still stands - you don't impose a previous regime's strategy on a new coaching staff, especially when that previous regime produced thoroughly mediocre results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TANK2 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) What? An outside guy as HC? Sorry I'm not following you anymore. The OP's point was ludicrous, for reasons that I and a lot of others have said. I can't really follow what you're saying above but if your point is "they wanted an outside guy" then my initial point still stands - you don't impose a previous regime's strategy on a new coaching staff, especially when that previous regime produced thoroughly mediocre results. Well lets try to explain it. Outside guy. As in someone who hasnt worked for the Bills before. Someone who has a little different point of view on how things should be done. Somebody who has zero loyalty to any player or assistant coach currently in the organization. Somebody the players might not feel comfortable with due to their unfamilarity with said coach. There seems to be a heightened sense of fear amongst employees (players) when a new boss is brought in from another company as opposed to promoting from within. At least thats been my experience at any company I ever worked for. Fear tends to motivate people. And who says they are scrapping the offense? What I read about Dennison in another thread is that hes adaptable to his personel. We may run an offense similar to last year. With a few new wrinkles. The blocking scheme is different but Ive heard more than one national guy say the players currently on the oline can handle that change. On another note Im watching Basic Instict right now. Good god Sharon Stone and Jeanne Tripplehorn where off the charts smoking hot in that movie. Not sure who was hotter. Maybe I should start a poll. Edited January 31, 2017 by TANK2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts