ROCKPILE REVIEW - FInding Ways to Win

[LB48]

14 hours ago, Beast said:

I wasn't quitee as high on Edmunds as you were, Shaw. In fact, I thought he looked like a chicken with his head cut off quite a few times, especially in the first half.

I have to agree about Edmunds.  I think without Star he is taking on more blockers right behind the line of scrimmage and he's not strong enough to handle that!

[Jumpsuit Jim]

I don’t understand the Edmunds disapproval. The Bills play primarily a nickel defense. This means that they are susceptible to the run. A good coach with a hard hitting running back can, with motion, manipulate a gap which will by necessity be filled by either the nickel back or a safety playing in the box. It isn’t that Edmunds isn’t shedding blocks or hitting his gap; it’s that the backs are running to the gap being filled by someone from the secondary. It’s the old “attack where they are weak”. Why would anyone want to run at Edmunds?

 

How do we fix this? I dunno...Play less nickel? Do we want to do that?  Because I would rather give up 130 yards rushing than 330 yards passing. 

 

 

[Shaw66]

26 minutes ago, Jumpsuit Jim said:

I don’t understand the Edmunds disapproval. The Bills play primarily a nickel defense. This means that they are susceptible to the run. A good coach with a hard hitting running back can, with motion, manipulate a gap which will by necessity be filled by either the nickel back or a safety playing in the box. It isn’t that Edmunds isn’t shedding blocks or hitting his gap; it’s that the backs are running to the gap being filled by someone from the secondary. It’s the old “attack where they are weak”. Why would anyone want to run at Edmunds?

 

How do we fix this? I dunno...Play less nickel? Do we want to do that?  Because I would rather give up 130 yards rushing than 330 yards passing. 

 

 

That's interesting analysis.   I think it explains the philosophy.  

 

The question is this: when you play the Pats in a few weeks, how are you going to stop their running game?  The front four has to win, or at least neutralize, the offensive line, in a sense to protect Edmunds.   I don't disagree with others who say he needs to be stouter against the run, I just think he's worth investing another year or two in him to get him there.  He's a physical star who can change the opponent's game plan every week.  

[Logic]

32 minutes ago, Jumpsuit Jim said:

I don’t understand the Edmunds disapproval. The Bills play primarily a nickel defense. This means that they are susceptible to the run. A good coach with a hard hitting running back can, with motion, manipulate a gap which will by necessity be filled by either the nickel back or a safety playing in the box. It isn’t that Edmunds isn’t shedding blocks or hitting his gap; it’s that the backs are running to the gap being filled by someone from the secondary. It’s the old “attack where they are weak”. Why would anyone want to run at Edmunds?

 

How do we fix this? I dunno...Play less nickel? Do we want to do that?  Because I would rather give up 130 yards rushing than 330 yards passing. 

 

 

Exactly right.

 

Philosophically, the Bills defense is more than willing to give up some runs if it means limiting the opposition’s passing game.

 

As for Edmunds: whatever deficiencies he has in stopping the run are more than made up for by what he offers in the passing game.

 

The team to beat in the AFC for the foreseeable future is Kansas City. With that in mind, I’d way rather have an elite pass defense and mediocre run defense than vice versa. 
 

Besides, the Bills have actually stopped the run quite well in three out of four games this year.

[Jumpsuit Jim]

14 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

That's interesting analysis.   I think it explains the philosophy.  

 

The question is this: when you play the Pats in a few weeks, how are you going to stop their running game?  The front four has to win, or at least neutralize, the offensive line, in a sense to protect Edmunds.   I don't disagree with others who say he needs to be stouter against the run, I just think he's worth investing another year or two in him to get him there.  He's a physical star who can change the opponent's game plan every week.  

That’s the key: the front four. They need to shed and charge into gaps rather than just engage blockers and let the LBs (we play 2 of them...not 3 or 4) hit the gap. Defending the run from the nickel is more about the front four than the line backing corps.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Jumpsuit Jim
Spelling

[stuvian]

the deep ball is for real. Was nice to see our D contribute as well

[Figster]

13 hours ago, Logic said:

Exactly right.

 

Philosophically, the Bills defense is more than willing to give up some runs if it means limiting the opposition’s passing game.

 

As for Edmunds: whatever deficiencies he has in stopping the run are more than made up for by what he offers in the passing game.

 

The team to beat in the AFC for the foreseeable future is Kansas City. With that in mind, I’d way rather have an elite pass defense and mediocre run defense than vice versa. 
 

Besides, the Bills have actually stopped the run quite well in three out of four games this year.

It was interesting to see how well B B could stop Mahomes and the Chiefs last night. I'm of the opinion had Cam Newton been able to play the Pats probably win the game. Great thing about brilliant coaches is they help pave the way for the rest of the league IMO.

 

Its not going to be easy, but Mahomes and Co. can be beat...

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, Figster said:

Its not going to be easy, but Mahomes and Co. can be beat...

Bills still might be a year away.  

 

We'll see where we stand in a couple of weeks.   And even the Bills can go toe to toe with them, it's one thing to do it in the regular season, it's another to do it in the playoffs.   

[Figster]

The season so far almost reminds me of a video game with Allen at the controls where the bosses keep getting tougher level by level. One more level to clear before Buffalo plays the big boss.

 

MERCY!!!

[Beast]

20 hours ago, Jumpsuit Jim said:

I don’t understand the Edmunds disapproval. The Bills play primarily a nickel defense. This means that they are susceptible to the run. A good coach with a hard hitting running back can, with motion, manipulate a gap which will by necessity be filled by either the nickel back or a safety playing in the box. It isn’t that Edmunds isn’t shedding blocks or hitting his gap; it’s that the backs are running to the gap being filled by someone from the secondary. It’s the old “attack where they are weak”. Why would anyone want to run at Edmunds?

 

How do we fix this? I dunno...Play less nickel? Do we want to do that?  Because I would rather give up 130 yards rushing than 330 yards passing. 

 

 

I never said Edmunds problem was strictly against the run. What I said is he looked like a chicken with its head cut off multiple times in the first half and I won’t back off from that. He seemed confused, in general, whether it be when dropping into coverage or playing the run.

 

I don’t care if the Bills are playing a strict dime and he is the only LB on the field. When a team doesn’t force a punt for 7 quarters, the guy in the middle is going to be a reason for that.