Important shift in the right direction in Bills offensive philosophy.

[Kelly the Dog]

2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

That just isn't true, you are replacing a LB (who was on DiMarco) with a DB (who is on the WR) who is in turn lining up close to the box. Once the run comes, the defense has an extra player to make the tackle. Adding the WR doesn't remove a guy from the box.  Motioning DiMarco outside, however, removes a run defender from the box.  

 

ALSO, if the defense is playing zone, it means there is a DB on DiMarco, leaving a LB/safety on a WR somewhere else, thereby creating a mismatch. 

i'm talking about the grouping not after the line is set. With DiMarco in every play there is an extra LB in on every play. If he is replaced by a WR there is an extra DB. I would prefer that trade off, and it is the reason most every team goes 3-4 wide. The Pats like to use a FB but not 18 plays in a row.

 

The Jets wanted us to do what we did and they think they won that battle, the stats say they did (counting turnovers) and the score surely said they did. We moved the ball pretty well and very well at times but their scheme was designed to force mistakes from the short passing game and that is exactly what happened.

[ColoradoBills]

I wasn't a big fan of DiMarco last year and I have wondered about his usefulness.

It seems that Daboll has different plans for him this year.

I will wait to see how this works out and if he becomes a more useful player I'm all for it.

[Real McClappy]

17 hours ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

Bold makes me sad. I work for a Boston based company.  I am the only Bills fan. 

I feel your pain.  I lived it for 15 straight years from 2001-2016. It's definitely no easy life listening to the spoiled fools that have no clue half the time WTF they are even talking about when it comes to football.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

12 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

i'm talking about the grouping not after the line is set. With DiMarco in every play there is an extra LB in on every play. If he is replaced by a WR there is an extra DB. I would prefer that trade off, and it is the reason most every team goes 3-4 wide. The Pats like to use a FB but not 18 plays in a row.

 

The Jets wanted us to do what we did and they think they won that battle, the stats say they did (counting turnovers) and the score surely said they did. We moved the ball pretty well and very well at times but their scheme was designed to force mistakes from the short passing game and that is exactly what happened.

So you would rather 7 in the box, with one dB, than 6 in the box? You think that is an easier front to run against?

[Reed83HOF]

44 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Yes really. My original point was precisely BECAUSE they checked out of called runs. I didn't fault Josh for doing it. He made the right call because the Jets didn't change. That was precisely my point. I didn't like the trade off. I like DiMarco. I like the idea of having him in at times and even splitting him out at times. I didn't like the one dimensional trade off the entire time.

 

And if you like an offense with a no threat fullback split wide forced into all short passes with no run game versus a three dimensional one with a run game, short and deep passing game have at it all day. 

 

The Jets told us before the game what they were going to do and then they did it. They were going to make Josh beat them with a short passing game planning on him making mistakes. That's kinda what happened. I don't think he was totally at fault but they were still all mistakes. When we took them out of that idea we succeeded. 

this is a fair and balanced point

14 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

i'm talking about the grouping not after the line is set. With DiMarco in every play there is an extra LB in on every play. If he is replaced by a WR there is an extra DB. I would prefer that trade off, and it is the reason most every team goes 3-4 wide. The Pats like to use a FB but not 18 plays in a row.

 

The Jets wanted us to do what we did and they think they won that battle, the stats say they did (counting turnovers) and the score surely said they did. We moved the ball pretty well and very well at times but their scheme was designed to force mistakes from the short passing game and that is exactly what happened.

Considering the Jets DBs are lousy and their LBs are a better group for them, you should force them to play their weakest hand...

[Kelly the Dog]

2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

So you would rather 7 in the box, with one dB, than 6 in the box? You think that is an easier front to run against?

No, there is the same number in the box.

 

The reasonable alternative to what they did, if they wanted to show run, look for the defense, and then split out and create mismatches is to play Tommy Sweeney instead of DIMarco on half of those plays. Put him on the line, read the defense, and then split him out. He becomes a threat in the passing game as well as a blocker, and he paid off with more good and important blocks in this game than DiMarco made, as well as a downfield reception. He blocked tremendously for his first game.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

No, there is the same number in the box.

 

The reasonable alternative to what they did, if they wanted to show run, look for the defense, and then split out and create mismatches is to play Tommy Sweeney instead of DIMarco on half of those plays. Put him on the line, read the defense, and then split him out. He becomes a threat in the passing game as well as a blocker, and he paid off with more good and important blocks in this game than DiMarco made, as well as a downfield reception. He blocked tremendously for his first game.

 

TEs are just as easily lined up against Safeties as LB.  The same is not true of a full black lined up behind the QB. 

[Kelly the Dog]

10 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

TEs are just as easily lined up against Safeties as LB.  The same is not true of a full black lined up behind the QB. 

He was never going to be lined up behind the QB, and he never was, because of what the Jets did repeatedly. He was always split out, and we always passed, and we always played 10 on 10 because he was no threat whatsoever. Again, that is the whole point. The trade off.