Jump to content
YoloinOhio

Seahawks may embrace a college style offense

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, FearLess Price said:

 

Normally your on an agenda when its at QB but thats a dope comment

 

:beer:

 

No agenda -- in fact, I was big on Tyrod in the beginning. I was at the Colts game when he hit Harvin and I remember saying "We got ourselves a QB, boys"... The guy looked the part, had the presence and charisma to be the face of the franchise, and was a great story too -- being a 6th round pick and all of that. 

 

But over time, it unfortunately just didn't work out. He never really progressed and then this season, things went south. Which is why I started to wonder why -- he's a really smart guy, I can't imagine he would put himself in a position to fail. I may seem to be very anti-Taylor, but it's more of a problem with the narratives going around about him from people who don't watch Bills games like we do.  I have all the respect in the world for the guy as a person and a professional. You really can't do much better than TT in that regard. 

 

Most of all though, I've had enough of watching nearly two decades of football that looks nothing like the fun, exciting games we see from other teams -- like the Saints, Patriots, Steelers, etc. I mean, those teams have QBs that have all thrown for 500 yards in a game.... could you imagine what a 47-45 Bills game would be like where we see our QB go for 502 yards and 5 TDs? That's what I want to see. 

 

This is what we've had though: 

2015-2017 NFL Passing

 

Games over 300 yards passing - 301 - 161-138-2 (.538)
Bills - 2 (0-2-0) 32nd in NFL
http://pfref.com/tiny/a9ysV

 

Games with less than 280 yards passing  - 1106 - 533-571-2 (.483)
Bills - 45 (24-21-0, .533) - 1st in NFL
http://pfref.com/tiny/3tBoH

 

Games with less than 230 yards passing - 732 - 328-403-1 (.449)
Bills - 35 (21-14-0, .600) - 1st in NFL
http://pfref.com/tiny/MJ346

 

Games with less than 200 yards passing - 500 - 216-284-0 (.432)
Bills - 27 (18-9-0, .667) - 1st in NFL
http://pfref.com/tiny/WdGiP

 

Games with less than 180 yards passing - 352 - 150-202-0 (.426)
Bills - 21 (14-7-0, .667) - 1st in NFL (31 teams)
http://pfref.com/tiny/Nkp1X

 

Games with less than 130 yards passing - 111 - 46-65-0 (.414)
Bills - 8 (4-4-0, .500) - 2nd in NFL (28 teams)
http://pfref.com/tiny/w9aOz

 

Games with less than 100 yards passing - 47 - 17-30-0 (.362)
Bills - 5 (3-2-0, .600) - 1st in NFL (20 teams)
http://pfref.com/tiny/TUChT
 

The Bills have led the league in most games with the least amount of passing offense. It's like they aren't even playing the same sport as the really good teams. 

 

Now, I already know what's coming. "But they have a winning record in those games!" True, but those are all crappy, boring wins against mostly garbage teams. Against big-time teams like New England or New Orleans, we get blown out of the stadium. I'd like to see the Bills be an entertaining, marquee matchup for a change. Instead, we get 3 points on the big stage against the Jaguars with everyone watching. 

 

 

 

Edited by twoandfourteen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Explains the housecleaning. This looks like it might be a trend ... Chicago just hired Mark Helfrich. Perhaps Carroll hires Matt Canada?

 

 

 

 

Not if they hire Brian Schoenheimer as coach.  

 

Strange things in the Pacific Northwest.

 

Edited by Rochesterfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Buffalo30 said:

I'm aware, however, if you expect a mobile QB to be forced into an NFL system that limits their running, they won't be as effective plain and simple.  

I don’t disagree.

 

It does seem like people look past the deficiencies in the passing game because of running ability. Which to my point either isn’t sustainable or can’t be used regularly. For a running QB to be effective in the NFL he still has to be at least an average passer, or good passer.  It’s where most of these very athletic college QB’s falter. 

 

It isn’t sustainable to have these guys running around. It will catch up. Look at Vick (excluding prison time). They can’t run forever. Tebow another extreme. Manziel. The list goes on. Athletic QB’s need to be pass first on an NFL level. Running is an added wrinkle that makes up for some deficiency, but not much. And not nearly as much as people give it credit for, as exciting as it is to watch at times 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Explains the housecleaning. This looks like it might be a trend ... Chicago just hired Mark Helfrich. Perhaps Carroll hires Matt Canada?

 

 

 

How is it that super Chip tried to  run this in Philly and failed but now these teams want to try it again?

 

 

15 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Arizona should bring in Tyrod and do the same thing.  With that defense and David Johnson, they’d be really exciting to watch.

 

And good for Carroll thinking outside the box - kinda the opposite of McD hiring Dennison to fit a traditional timing offense to Tyrod...

 

They should totally do this!!

 

It won't be sustainable but I would love the picks acquired in the trade.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

It kind of is.  The NFL probably needs to move away from complex systems that rely on veteran QBs and depth along the offense.  College has adapted to an easier system that features athletic QBs and can accommodate constant roster cycling.

 

Problem is, is defenses will eat it up, once they go through a learning Curve they will shut down the Simplistic Spread. An Offense Needs To Be Able To Audible, Make Line Adjustments And Go Through Multiple Progressions.

 

Now I understand a rookie can't have it to complex at first but over time needs to develop into amore complex system to stay ahead of the defense.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is mostly being discussed is the RPO's, spread, read option, single wing concepts. With NFL athletes, it still will boil down to who can throw the ball better in the conventional passing game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Doc said:

So "the next level" is...college level?

 

Nothing I’d enjoy more than Seattle going 2-14 for the next five years after that totally classless display when they were a top team

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

It kind of is.  The NFL probably needs to move away from complex systems that rely on veteran QBs and depth along the offense.  College has adapted to an easier system that features athletic QBs and can accommodate constant roster cycling.

and it's fun to watch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ittakestime said:

 

I personally believe Wilson has been effective in his time not playing a QB running style. Don't see why u need to change it and expose him to injuries. It's not like he has been bad in other offenses. 

That's only one mobile QB, I was talking about all of them.  I also believe he will be more effective if he ran more.  He's smart, he knows how to slide and protect himself.  It's all about the creative design of the play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mango said:

I don’t disagree.

 

It does seem like people look past the deficiencies in the passing game because of running ability. Which to my point either isn’t sustainable or can’t be used regularly. For a running QB to be effective in the NFL he still has to be at least an average passer, or good passer.  It’s where most of these very athletic college QB’s falter. 

 

It isn’t sustainable to have these guys running around. It will catch up. Look at Vick (excluding prison time). They can’t run forever. Tebow another extreme. Manziel. The list goes on. Athletic QB’s need to be pass first on an NFL level. Running is an added wrinkle that makes up for some deficiency, but not much. And not nearly as much as people give it credit for, as exciting as it is to watch at times 

Oh I don't disagree with that.  You certainly have to throw the rock well.  Also, I'm not a fan of having a running QB on our team.  I was simply stating for the teams that do have those players, they should use them to their full potential and that includes running the rock.  The creativity in playcalling can actually make this safer for a QB and also the knowledge to know when to get out of bounds or slide.  A QB really never has to take a hit running the ball, they just choose to a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2018 at 9:51 AM, Coach Tuesday said:

 

It kind of is.  The NFL probably needs to move away from complex systems that rely on veteran QBs and depth along the offense.  College has adapted to an easier system that features athletic QBs and can accommodate constant roster cycling.

You mean dumb QBs that only read half the field.

 

Athletic is the nice way of saying dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nucci said:

and it's fun to watch

60 to 10 games are fun to watch?

 

I don’t watch most probably because of how they “buy” opponents to play them.   

If you want to play an exhibition game fine.  Just don’t count it as a valid win. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll never work.

 

NFL defenses are too fast and hit too hard.  This will be a backup QB league.  Of course ... that would make the Bills revolutionaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

Simplicity is how the Bills offense was so successful for 2 years.

 

They made the opponent defend the entire field.

 

It was an experiment that they should have stuck with.

 

They'll be looking to upgrade the OC'ing and passing game this off-season.  In the mean time, they made the playoffs with what they had. 

 

4 hours ago, row_33 said:

Nothing I’d enjoy more than Seattle going 2-14 for the next five years after that totally classless display when they were a top team

 

It starts at the top: with Pete Carroll.  And I've hoped they fail since they choked in the SB a couple years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

60 to 10 games are fun to watch?

 

I don’t watch most probably because of how they “buy” opponents to play them.   

If you want to play an exhibition game fine.  Just don’t count it as a valid win. 

I meant when top teams play each other. Come on...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a joke the NFL is.  Keeping recycling the same garbage coaches because you were friends with their dad haha. Little Marty is awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeterGriffin said:

You mean dumb QBs that only read half the field.

 

Athletic is the nice way of saying dumb.

So “athletic” QBs are dumb? Colin Kaepernick scored a 38 on the wonderlic. Jim Kelly had a 15. Let’s not paint “athletic” QBs all the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

So “athletic” QBs are dumb? Colin Kaepernick scored a 38 on the wonderlic. Jim Kelly had a 15. Let’s not paint “athletic” QBs all the same.

I think he means in terms of mentally playing the position.  Lots of athletic guys have struggled with the other half of playing QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

I think he means in terms of mentally playing the position.  Lots of athletic guys have struggled with the other half of playing QB.

 

2 hours ago, PeterGriffin said:

You mean dumb QBs that only read half the field.

 

Athletic is the nice way of saying dumb.

Not seeing it that way JMC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

 

Not seeing it that way JMC. 

I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt a little.

 

Keep in mind the context is college QB's.  Athletic, raw QB's are a mainstay.

Edited by jmc12290

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt a little.

 

Keep in mind the context is college QB's.  Athletic, raw QB's are a mainstay.

I know that you are. Chivalry isn’t dead after all. ;)

 

It’s just cringe worthy when someone stereotypes like that. That is why I intentionally used Kaep and Kelly to dismiss it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

How is it that super Chip tried to  run this in Philly and failed but now these teams want to try it again?

 

 

 

They should totally do this!!

 

It won't be sustainable but I would love the picks acquired in the trade.

 

 

Chip never changed his plays. He was a one trick pony. And too much up tempo led to quick 3 and outs and a tired D.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "college style" do they mean having an athletic QB who can't throw a football combined with a run-based offense that is quickly and easily shut down with NFL defensive team speed?
 

That should work really well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×