Another team angle related to Josh’s play...

[eball]

Yes, it’s a Josh Allen thread.  Sort of.  Deal with it.

 

So until last week the Bills’ defense has been decidedly mediocre, and in some instances just plain bad.  They’ve had key injuries, sure, but the game plan against KC made me want to vomit.  I think we saw a turning point with the defense, however, that I believe is in large part due to McD’s and Frazier’s confidence in the offense.  The Bills’ D played with a risky, go-for-broke mentality against Seattle we have not seen previously.  Did they play that way last season?  Hell no they didn’t; they essentially played Jauron-ball (like they did against KC).  I think McD now trusts Josh and Daboll to put points on the board against anyone, and if the D happens to get burned on a play or series the mentality is now “we’ll get it back” and they’re going to keep putting the pressure on opposing offenses.  I will be watching the defensive game plans very closely from here on out.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

3 minutes ago, eball said:

Yes, it’s a Josh Allen thread.  Sort of.  Deal with it.

 

So until last week the Bills’ defense has been decidedly mediocre, and in some instances just plain bad.  They’ve had key injuries, sure, but the game plan against KC made me want to vomit.  I think we saw a turning point with the defense, however, that I believe is in large part due to McD’s and Frazier’s confidence in the offense.  The Bills’ D played with a risky, go-for-broke mentality against Seattle we have not seen previously.  Did they play that way last season?  Hell no they didn’t; they essentially played Jauron-ball (like they did against KC).  I think McD now trusts Josh and Daboll to put points on the board against anyone, and if the D happens to get burned on a play or series the mentality is now “we’ll get it back” and they’re going to keep putting the pressure on opposing offenses.  I will be watching the defensive game plans very closely from here on out.

 

What I saw in the Seattle game was a recognition that we'd be screwed if we put up fewer than 35 points due to how Wilson and Metcalf had been rolling opponents this year, so the risk taking on defense got stepped up and it worked.  Hard to know if it was also motivated by the good conditions and how confident they were about Josh moving the ball but we didn't see nearly the same aggression against NYJ or NE so I think it had more to do with the opponent.  Hope to see more of the same against Arizona with the caveat that you do not break contain against Murray.

[eball]

1 minute ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

 

What I saw in the Seattle game was a recognition that we'd be screwed if we put up fewer than 35 points due to how Wilson and Metcalf had been rolling opponents this year, so the risk taking on defense got stepped up and it worked.  Hard to know if it was also motivated by the good conditions and how confident they were about Josh moving the ball but we didn't see nearly the same aggression against NYJ or NE so I think it had more to do with the opponent.  Hope to see more of the same against Arizona with the caveat that you do not break contain against Murray.

 

Yeah I think that is sort of my point.  No more “playing not to lose” against good offensive teams.  The Jests and Pats*** are not good offensive teams.

[Don Otreply]

11 minutes ago, eball said:

Yes, it’s a Josh Allen thread.  Sort of.  Deal with it.

 

So until last week the Bills’ defense has been decidedly mediocre, and in some instances just plain bad.  They’ve had key injuries, sure, but the game plan against KC made me want to vomit.  I think we saw a turning point with the defense, however, that I believe is in large part due to McD’s and Frazier’s confidence in the offense.  The Bills’ D played with a risky, go-for-broke mentality against Seattle we have not seen previously.  Did they play that way last season?  Hell no they didn’t; they essentially played Jauron-ball (like they did against KC).  I think McD now trusts Josh and Daboll to put points on the board against anyone, and if the D happens to get burned on a play or series the mentality is now “we’ll get it back” and they’re going to keep putting the pressure on opposing offenses.  I will be watching the defensive game plans very closely from here on out.

Wallace, Norman, White, Milano, Edmunds, one of our safety duo, plus a bunch of rotational players and backups on the D have been out or playing injured for a long period of time, the game plans were adjusted because of that, also consider our QB, John Brown, and multiple O lineman were out or playing injured, and we still went 2-2 during that period, so.... what the hell were you expecting to happen?

 

Go Bills!!!

[GunnerBill]

The defensive gameplan against the Chiefs was designed to play the Chiefs. And while it was hard to watch it was not a bad plan. The problem that night was the offensive gamplan and then the execution or lack thereof by the offensive players.

 

The reason you can blitz the Seahawks in a way you can't the Chiefs is because the Seahawks do not have great tight ends, they lack a top slot receiver and they don't really use their backs in the passing game. Most of their passes are downfield routes, that take longer to come open and require Wilson to hold the ball and extend plays. The Chiefs offense is completely different. They can burn you deep, no doubt, but they can also burn you with designed quick hitters, screens and dump offs with loads and loads of YAC with Kelce, Edwards-Helaire and Hardman. Basically if you use the plan the Bills D used against Seattle vs Kansas City the chances are the ball is gone before your pressure gets there. That exact same defensive gameplan does not knock Mahomes down 16 times.

 

We did not lose to Kansas City because of defense. People really need to get over that. It is not what happened. Was the defensive plan hard to watch? Yes. But especially down the players the Bills were down I am not sure there was a better plan open to them. And if they had tackles who played to run a little better it might even have been enough to win. Hell.... had CEH's knee hit the turf one split second later in the 4th Quarter it might have been enough to win anyway.     

[atlbillsfan1975]

You could be right @eball I think McD knew how bad the D was for Seattle. Daboll and McDermott most likely go over the initial game plan after Daboll and McD watch the tape for the first time. It’s probably a broad approach early in the week. Strengths vs weaknesses. Then as the week goes along the keep refining the plan into details and plays they feel will work. I wonder if McD has been more involved this season in the offensive game planning for a few reasons. McD knows Daboll will be interviewing for jobs. McD wants to try and bring his O cognitive understanding closer to his defense. This will help McD make a hire for a new OC. Possibly McD is more comfortable now and able to bounce back to the D meetings a little more 50/50. Pure speculation and probably totally wrong on my part. 

[Kwai San]

17 minutes ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

 

What I saw in the Seattle game was a recognition that we'd be screwed if we put up fewer than 35 points due to how Wilson and Metcalf had been rolling opponents this year, so the risk taking on defense got stepped up and it worked.  Hard to know if it was also motivated by the good conditions and how confident they were about Josh moving the ball but we didn't see nearly the same aggression against NYJ or NE so I think it had more to do with the opponent.  Hope to see more of the same against Arizona with the caveat that you do not break contain against Murray.

 

My thoughts are the Bills were up 7-0 in less than 2 minutes and then again had good field position after the 3 and out to go up 14-0....the reins were off after that.....lets face it if Roberts doesn't get that awesome return to open the game and JA doesn't drive them to 7-0 right off the bat this could have been an entirely different game.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Kwai San

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

8 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Yeah I think that is sort of my point.  No more “playing not to lose” against good offensive teams.  The Jests and Pats*** are not good offensive teams.

 

To a certain extent I think McD is unlearning habits from his first couple years as HC when the Bills had a lot of heart but a remarkably untalented roster.  We were 15-17 in those two seasons and probably had a talent edge in 5 of those games.  It was very impressive but I think he learned to "stay off the freeway" in order to win and is just now realizing that we're now one of the talented teams. 

 

Probably the most furious I've been about a coaching decision is when he punted with 3 minutes left in OT in the Indy snow game when tying essentially meant missing the playoffs.  I'll be happy when the propensity for that kind of thing is completely scrubbed and I do believe he's getting there.

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

 

Probably the most furious I've been about a coaching decision is when he punted with 3 minutes left in OT in the Indy snow game when tying essentially meant missing the playoffs.  I'll be happy when the propensity for that kind of thing is completely scrubbed and I do believe he's getting there.

 

But we won the snow game and made the playoffs?

[SCBills]

16 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

The defensive gameplan against the Chiefs was designed to play the Chiefs. And while it was hard to watch it was not a bad plan. The problem that night was the offensive gamplan and then the execution or lack thereof by the offensive players.

 

The reason you can blitz the Seahawks in a way you can't the Chiefs is because the Seahawks do not have great tight ends, they lack a top slot receiver and they don't really use their backs in the passing game. Most of their passes are downfield routes, that take longer to come open and require Wilson to hold the ball and extend plays. The Chiefs offense is completely different. They can burn you deep, no doubt, but they can also burn you with designed quick hitters, screens and dump offs with loads and loads of YAC with Kelce, Edwards-Helaire and Hardman. Basically if you use the plan the Bills D used against Seattle vs Kansas City the chances are the ball is gone before your pressure gets there. That exact same defensive gameplan does not knock Mahomes down 16 times.

 

We did not lose to Kansas City because of defense. People really need to get over that. It is not what happened. Was the defensive plan hard to watch? Yes. But especially down the players the Bills were down I am not sure there was a better plan open to them. And if they had tackles who played to run a little better it might even have been enough to win. Hell.... had CEH's knee hit the turf one split second later in the 4th Quarter it might have been enough to win anyway.     

You seem to be swinging the pendulum the entire other way by trying to shift blame from the defense in the KC game by way of a good gameplan.  
 

Sure, the game plan was fine.... if we get off the field on 3rd down.  The defense did not do that.   Therefore the defense was a problem in that game.   
 

Holding KC to below 30 because they held the ball for 2/3rds of the game isn’t anything to be proud of.   Nor is it conducive to winning a football game. 
 

The offense didn’t do it’s part either, but the defense still warrants blame for their play on the field, even if the game plan was sound in theory.  
 

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by SCBills

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, SCBills said:

You seem to be swinging the pendulum the entire other way by trying to shift blame from the defense in the KC game by way of a good gameplan.  
 

Sure, the game plan was fine.... if we get off the field on 3rd down.  The defense did not do that.   Therefore the defense was a problem in that game.   
 

Holding KC to below 30 because they held the ball for 2/3rds of the game isn’t anything to be proud of.   Nor is it conducive to winning a football game. 
 

The offense didn’t do it’s part either, but the defense still warrants blame for their play on the field, even if the game plan was sound in theory.  

 

KC wouldn't have held the ball so long if the offense could stay on the field. That game was on offense not defense. The plan was stop KC scoring big. It worked. You might not have enjoyed it, but it worked. The offense sucked. Could the defense have made a couple of extra plays here and there? Sure. But they were not the reason we lost. And with the health of our defense at that point and the opponent if we'd have tried to play the way we did this past Sunday KC might have put up 50. We lost to KC on offense. Simple as that.

[Magox]

52 minutes ago, eball said:

Yes, it’s a Josh Allen thread.  Sort of.  Deal with it.

 

So until last week the Bills’ defense has been decidedly mediocre, and in some instances just plain bad.  They’ve had key injuries, sure, but the game plan against KC made me want to vomit.  I think we saw a turning point with the defense, however, that I believe is in large part due to McD’s and Frazier’s confidence in the offense.  The Bills’ D played with a risky, go-for-broke mentality against Seattle we have not seen previously.  Did they play that way last season?  Hell no they didn’t; they essentially played Jauron-ball (like they did against KC).  I think McD now trusts Josh and Daboll to put points on the board against anyone, and if the D happens to get burned on a play or series the mentality is now “we’ll get it back” and they’re going to keep putting the pressure on opposing offenses.  I will be watching the defensive game plans very closely from here on out.

I think you hit the nail right on the head.  I was talking with my brother about this very same topic and idea.  The Bills have a fair amount of play makers on defense with a good secondary.  They also have an offense that can put a lot of points in the board.  Considering the league is scoring more and more points it just makes sense to let Josh and the offense do their thing and play a lot more aggressive defense and give them a chance to make more plays.  If they get burnt a couple times then so be it, you have an offense that can put up points themselves.

 

The defensive philosophy should be focused not so much in trying to contain the opposing offense but putting the defense in a position to make plays.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

36 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But we won the snow game and made the playoffs?

 

Yep, but in my opinion it was an indefensible punt.  It made a tie by far the most likely outcome in a game where a tie ended the season.

[eball]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

The defensive gameplan against the Chiefs was designed to play the Chiefs. And while it was hard to watch it was not a bad plan. The problem that night was the offensive gamplan and then the execution or lack thereof by the offensive players.

 

The reason you can blitz the Seahawks in a way you can't the Chiefs is because the Seahawks do not have great tight ends, they lack a top slot receiver and they don't really use their backs in the passing game. Most of their passes are downfield routes, that take longer to come open and require Wilson to hold the ball and extend plays. The Chiefs offense is completely different. They can burn you deep, no doubt, but they can also burn you with designed quick hitters, screens and dump offs with loads and loads of YAC with Kelce, Edwards-Helaire and Hardman. Basically if you use the plan the Bills D used against Seattle vs Kansas City the chances are the ball is gone before your pressure gets there. That exact same defensive gameplan does not knock Mahomes down 16 times.

 

We did not lose to Kansas City because of defense. People really need to get over that. It is not what happened. Was the defensive plan hard to watch? Yes. But especially down the players the Bills were down I am not sure there was a better plan open to them. And if they had tackles who played to run a little better it might even have been enough to win. Hell.... had CEH's knee hit the turf one split second later in the 4th Quarter it might have been enough to win anyway.     

 

As always, your comments are well-reasoned, and I acknowledge that the offense had a bad night against KC.  I'm not suggesting that the Bills use the same defense against every team that they used against Seattle, but I do think they are now willing to take more chances based upon the strength of the offense.  They may have known Josh wasn't 100% against Tennessee and KC...I'm sure they'll never tell.  Anyway, I'll be very curious to see how we play KC the next time, because I do believe there will be a "next time" this season.

[Don Otreply]

39 minutes ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

 

Yep, but in my opinion it was an indefensible punt.  It made a tie by far the most likely outcome in a game where a tie ended the season.

But that did not happen, that’s a pff revisionist concept you’re employing. What happened was we won the game. Was it ugly? Sure, did we win? Yes, 

 

Go Bills!!!

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, eball said:

Yes, it’s a Josh Allen thread.  Sort of.  Deal with it.

 

So until last week the Bills’ defense has been decidedly mediocre, and in some instances just plain bad.  They’ve had key injuries, sure, but the game plan against KC made me want to vomit.  I think we saw a turning point with the defense, however, that I believe is in large part due to McD’s and Frazier’s confidence in the offense.  The Bills’ D played with a risky, go-for-broke mentality against Seattle we have not seen previously.  Did they play that way last season?  Hell no they didn’t; they essentially played Jauron-ball (like they did against KC).  I think McD now trusts Josh and Daboll to put points on the board against anyone, and if the D happens to get burned on a play or series the mentality is now “we’ll get it back” and they’re going to keep putting the pressure on opposing offenses.  I will be watching the defensive game plans very closely from here on out.

 

2 or 3 weeks ago Rex Ryan said the Bills defense would improve as the season went on. 
 

kiss of doom entered my mind. 
 

but the last 2 weeks has been encouraging 

Josh has been the reason the team won imo. Removing doubts of the D is nice 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

Yeah I think that is sort of my point.  No more “playing not to lose” against good offensive teams.  The Jests and Pats*** are not good offensive teams.

 

From your Keyboard to McD's ears, I hope.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

7 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

But that did not happen, that’s a pff revisionist concept you’re employing. What happened was we won the game. Was it ugly? Sure, did we win? Yes, 

 

Go Bills!!!

 

Go Bills!  But is every coaching decision that happens in a win validated by the win?

[Ethan in Cleveland]

There is no denying a bend but don’t break strategy can work against many teams. But the OP is correct. Against a team that can move the ball at will giving up a few chunk plays is worth the risk of forcing negative plays and turnovers. I hope they stay aggressive but also understand there is a time and a place to play it safe. No sense letting  bottom tier offenses like Patriots, Jets, Broncos, and Dolphins get big plays when it is more than likely they can’t sustain long drives.

But if they want to beat KC, Pittsburgh, and Arizona they need to play like they did last week. Bills had the most short field scoring opportunities in one game than I can ever recall thanks to defense and Andre Roberts.

24 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

2 or 3 weeks ago Rex Ryan said the Bills defense would improve as the season went on. 
 

kiss of doom entered my mind. 
 

but the last 2 weeks has been encouraging 

Josh has been the reason the team won imo. Removing doubts of the D is nice 

All in all Rex is not bad as a commentator. I thought that last year as well.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, eball said:

Yes, it’s a Josh Allen thread.  Sort of.  Deal with it.

 

So until last week the Bills’ defense has been decidedly mediocre, and in some instances just plain bad.  They’ve had key injuries, sure, but the game plan against KC made me want to vomit.  I think we saw a turning point with the defense, however, that I believe is in large part due to McD’s and Frazier’s confidence in the offense.  The Bills’ D played with a risky, go-for-broke mentality against Seattle we have not seen previously.  Did they play that way last season?  Hell no they didn’t; they essentially played Jauron-ball (like they did against KC).  I think McD now trusts Josh and Daboll to put points on the board against anyone, and if the D happens to get burned on a play or series the mentality is now “we’ll get it back” and they’re going to keep putting the pressure on opposing offenses.  I will be watching the defensive game plans very closely from here on out.

 

Interesting post.

 

It may be interesting in this regard to listen to Leslie Frazier's interview on Monday.  I know our coaches interviews are frequently nothing-burgers, but I found this one interesting.

https://www.buffalobills.com/video/leslie-frazier-have-to-reset-every-week

 

The part that interests me starts about 10:43 with a question from @john wawrow.  (I previously put some stuff on it up in the Milano Contract thread).  Leslie Frazier flat out said that part of what the defense has done to develop is "learning to play without Matt Milano".  He acknowledged "we were so reliant on him in so many ways that we did things in the past" and "we've had to adapt and adjust". 

 

I think part of what we saw in the Seahawks game was the result of that adjustment.

[eball]

@Hapless Bills Fan good addition to this thread.  That could very well be a big part of it.

[ProcessAccepted]

I'm expecting another big day for #17. Josh's shoulder seems healthy again from the Raiders game. Morse will be back at center freeing up Mongo to be Mongo. We'll burn this Cards defense with play action.

[HardyBoy]

Were the coverage disguises by the safeties there all year and they just started working this week (genuine question)?

 

It seemed like they were just coming out playing vanila without disguising coverages like the last three years and suddenly they added that back into the defense this past week.

 

After the fast start to the season, maybe they were keeping that in their back pocket for these two games going into the bye to set up things for the rest of the year and playoffs (fingers crossed).

 

Setting up 8 weeks of vanila defense and then flipping a switch for two nfc opponents, especially seattle who you might see again (fingers double crossed) could be like when they go out in an all out blitz look on a 4th and short early in the game to see how the offense adjusts and then calls timeout.

[Rochesterfan]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

The defensive gameplan against the Chiefs was designed to play the Chiefs. And while it was hard to watch it was not a bad plan. The problem that night was the offensive gamplan and then the execution or lack thereof by the offensive players.

 

The reason you can blitz the Seahawks in a way you can't the Chiefs is because the Seahawks do not have great tight ends, they lack a top slot receiver and they don't really use their backs in the passing game. Most of their passes are downfield routes, that take longer to come open and require Wilson to hold the ball and extend plays. The Chiefs offense is completely different. They can burn you deep, no doubt, but they can also burn you with designed quick hitters, screens and dump offs with loads and loads of YAC with Kelce, Edwards-Helaire and Hardman. Basically if you use the plan the Bills D used against Seattle vs Kansas City the chances are the ball is gone before your pressure gets there. That exact same defensive gameplan does not knock Mahomes down 16 times.

 

We did not lose to Kansas City because of defense. People really need to get over that. It is not what happened. Was the defensive plan hard to watch? Yes. But especially down the players the Bills were down I am not sure there was a better plan open to them. And if they had tackles who played to run a little better it might even have been enough to win. Hell.... had CEH's knee hit the turf one split second later in the 4th Quarter it might have been enough to win anyway.     

 

Agree 100% and the plan that the Bills played versus KC was very similar to what NE and LV played and LV won because their offense moved the ball enough to win.  NE and Buffalo - due to a myriad of reasons did not do enough offensively and lost.

 

I would expect when we play them again - hopefully in better weather with a healthy JA - we will see a very similar game plan trying to force them to run or throw short all game.  
 

Sometimes even with the correct gameplan you don’t win - see Ravens last year - that does not mean you abandon it - it means you need to be even better at complementary football.  The Bills offense needs to find wins in the KC and Tenn games to counteract the defensive game plan.  

[Don Otreply]

1 hour ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

 

Go Bills!  But is every coaching decision that happens in a win validated by the win?

For the most part yes it is, it is a rare day when every single aspect of a game plan is spot on.

Go Bills!!!

[MJS]

3 hours ago, eball said:

 

Yeah I think that is sort of my point.  No more “playing not to lose” against good offensive teams.  The Jests and Pats*** are not good offensive teams.

"Playing not to lose" is the appropriate approach sometimes.

 

We can't be so rigid. Being too aggressive when you really should drop into coverage will burn you. Each game and each down of football requires a unique approach.

 

I do like it when our defense is aggressive, but there are times (like earlier in the year when we blitzed Fitz over and over and he picked apart the defense) that I want to bleeding to stop and the defense to change their approach. I feel like the team needs to be very nimble. One aggressive approach will not get it done.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

13 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

For the most part yes it is, it is a rare day when every single aspect of a game plan is spot on.

Go Bills!!!

 

That part I agree with.  I do think that there are pretty simple in-game decisions that don't qualify as game planning though, but agree to disagree.

[eball]

@MJS I don't disagree with you that situations should dictate the strategy.  Again, my overall point is that with an offense that has shown itself to be explosive the options on defense are more varied than they have been before, and "playing not to lose" should never be the default.

[aceman_16]

Lol yeah... definitely needed its own thread.

[BarleyNY]

3 hours ago, eball said:

 

Yeah I think that is sort of my point.  No more “playing not to lose” against good offensive teams.  The Jests and Pats*** are not good offensive teams.

To add to what others, like @GunnerBill,have said the Seahawks have arguably the worst passing defense in the league.  If not, they’re very close to it.  Their rush defense has been very good however.  KC, by contrast, has a slightly above average defense against both the pass and run.  Both game plans made a lot of sense when you consider that. 

[Don Otreply]

9 minutes ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

 

That part I agree with.  I do think that there are pretty simple in-game decisions that don't qualify as game planning though, but agree to disagree.

I think we are closer on this than it would at first appear, that’s why I say , “for the most part”’ 

 

Go Bills!!!

[GunnerBill]

36 minutes ago, MJS said:

"Playing not to lose" is the appropriate approach sometimes.

 

We can't be so rigid. Being too aggressive when you really should drop into coverage will burn you. Each game and each down of football requires a unique approach.

 

I do like it when our defense is aggressive, but there are times (like earlier in the year when we blitzed Fitz over and over and he picked apart the defense) that I want to bleeding to stop and the defense to change their approach. I feel like the team needs to be very nimble. One aggressive approach will not get it done.

 

Yep. They ran an "aggressive" gameplan at Miami and it was a disaster. I also think the long touchdown on Sunday where they blitzed Poyer up 3 scores with 8 minutes left was a "ugh" moment. There I'd have been inclined to call off the horses and let them dink and dunk but I know there are lots of fans who'd have gone mad about "soft zone" and "prevent defense" etc.... calling plays on both sides of the ball is always so game and situation specific. That is the beauty of football. You have to win the mental battle and the physical one.

[GoBills808]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

The defensive gameplan against the Chiefs was designed to play the Chiefs. And while it was hard to watch it was not a bad plan. The problem that night was the offensive gamplan and then the execution or lack thereof by the offensive players.

 

The reason you can blitz the Seahawks in a way you can't the Chiefs is because the Seahawks do not have great tight ends, they lack a top slot receiver and they don't really use their backs in the passing game. Most of their passes are downfield routes, that take longer to come open and require Wilson to hold the ball and extend plays. The Chiefs offense is completely different. They can burn you deep, no doubt, but they can also burn you with designed quick hitters, screens and dump offs with loads and loads of YAC with Kelce, Edwards-Helaire and Hardman. Basically if you use the plan the Bills D used against Seattle vs Kansas City the chances are the ball is gone before your pressure gets there. That exact same defensive gameplan does not knock Mahomes down 16 times.

 

We did not lose to Kansas City because of defense. People really need to get over that. It is not what happened. Was the defensive plan hard to watch? Yes. But especially down the players the Bills were down I am not sure there was a better plan open to them. And if they had tackles who played to run a little better it might even have been enough to win. Hell.... had CEH's knee hit the turf one split second later in the 4th Quarter it might have been enough to win anyway.     

Exactly right re: the Chiefs game imo. I remember saying basically this verbatim afterwards

 

Especially in this particular season, with this team and with the injuries they've had...it's gotta be a week-to-week approach. A lot of times it might leave us scratching our heads about the gameplan when it doesn't work perfectly and it's going to look like we aren't blowing out teams we are much better than, but overall it's probably the right approach.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, eball said:

@Hapless Bills Fan good addition to this thread.  That could very well be a big part of it.

 

Maybe I'm just....Hopeful

 

Anyway, I've thought that maybe part of the Bills problem was trying to basically 1:1 substitute backups for starters at LB instead of looking at what the healthy guys we have can do best, and putting them in position to do that thing.  So I thought it was interesting to hear something from Frazier himself that appeared to support that.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

The defensive gameplan against the Chiefs was designed to play the Chiefs. And while it was hard to watch it was not a bad plan. The problem that night was the offensive gamplan and then the execution or lack thereof by the offensive players.

 

The reason you can blitz the Seahawks in a way you can't the Chiefs is because the Seahawks do not have great tight ends, they lack a top slot receiver and they don't really use their backs in the passing game. Most of their passes are downfield routes, that take longer to come open and require Wilson to hold the ball and extend plays. The Chiefs offense is completely different. They can burn you deep, no doubt, but they can also burn you with designed quick hitters, screens and dump offs with loads and loads of YAC with Kelce, Edwards-Helaire and Hardman. Basically if you use the plan the Bills D used against Seattle vs Kansas City the chances are the ball is gone before your pressure gets there. That exact same defensive gameplan does not knock Mahomes down 16 times.

 

We did not lose to Kansas City because of defense. People really need to get over that. It is not what happened. Was the defensive plan hard to watch? Yes. But especially down the players the Bills were down I am not sure there was a better plan open to them. And if they had tackles who played to run a little better it might even have been enough to win. Hell.... had CEH's knee hit the turf one split second later in the 4th Quarter it might have been enough to win anyway.     

 

Actually, Gunner, I think YOU need to get over that viewpoint.  The KC loss was a team loss, and defense was most surely part of the reason for that loss.  Not the only reason, but a major reason.

 

Was the Bills defensive gameplan a bad one?  No, not intrinsically. 

 

Was the offense a part of the loss, failing to sustain drives and keep the ball away from KC/score points?  Surely.  If the offense had contributed more, could we have won?  Yes.

 

But anyone who thinks it was part of the Bills defensive game plan to give up 245 (two hundred and forty five) yards on the ground, or to allow 9-of-14 3rd down conversions including 2 3-7, 3-14, and 3-12 should really think again, OK?  The D lost contain.  It made mistakes.  It allowed long 3rd down conversions, repeatedly.  Those were NOT part of a reasonably executed reasonable defensive plan.  They were absolutely part of the reason the Bills lost the game.

 

Against KC, we had almost the same cast of players as against Seattle and they played almost the same percentages.  It's in the snap counts, Check It out.  We had a better defensive plan that made better use of the players we had, and we didn't have as many of the same out-of-position mistakes that haunted the KC game (we still had a few, and they could have been critical had Seattle slowed our offense more). 

 

Two differences: Levi Wallace played against Seattle in place of Josh Norman against KC.  Bryan Cox Jr played against KC and was not active against Seattle.   Wanna construct an argument those two were the difference? 

 

Frazier in his presser this week admitted the Bills needed to change how they were using the players they had.  Against KC, the Bills were still playing "pound the square peg linebackers into the round hole left by Milano's injury" and it didn't work so well.  Against Seattle, they tried something different and it indeed worked better. 

 

Against Arizona, TBD

[LABILLBACKER]

Even with our current injuries and deficiencies on defense we will improve as the year goes on if allowed to pressure the qb like we did Russ. We'll generate double the turnovers we did to start the season. We'll force teams to throw more than they want. Our run D won't be as exposed especially with no Star clogging the middle. Milano should be 90% after the bye. Maybe Edmunds and Klein have found new roles. Bench Taron. This D will chip away at that 26 pt per game average. 

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Actually, Gunner, I think YOU need to get over that viewpoint.  The KC loss was a team loss, and defense was most surely part of the reason for that loss.  Not the only reason, but a major reason.

 

Was the Bills defensive gameplan a bad one?  No, not intrinsically. 

 

Was the offense a part of the loss, failing to sustain drives and keep the ball away from KC/score points?  Surely.  If the offense had contributed more, could we have won?  Yes.

 

But anyone who thinks it was part of the Bills defensive game plan to give up 245 (two hundred and forty five) yards on the ground, or to allow 9-of-14 3rd down conversions including 2 3-7, 3-14, and 3-12 should really think again, OK?  The D lost contain.  It made mistakes.  It allowed long 3rd down conversions, repeatedly.  Those were NOT part of a reasonably executed reasonable defensive plan.  They were absolutely part of the reason the Bills lost the game.

 

Against KC, we had almost the same cast of players as against Seattle and they played almost the same percentages.  It's in the snap counts, Check It out.  We had a better defensive plan that made better use of the players we had, and we didn't have as many of the same out-of-position mistakes that haunted the KC game (we still had a few, and they could have been critical had Seattle slowed our offense more). 

 

Two differences: Levi Wallace played against Seattle in place of Josh Norman against KC.  Bryan Cox Jr played against KC and was not active against Seattle.   Wanna construct an argument those two were the difference? 

 

Frazier in his presser this week admitted the Bills needed to change how they were using the players they had.  Against KC, the Bills were still playing "pound the square peg linebackers into the round hole left by Milano's injury" and it didn't work so well.  Against Seattle, they tried something different and it indeed worked better. 

 

Against Arizona, TBD

 

I don't disagree there were spots where the D could have executed better. 

 

Nor was my argument about the personnel compared to the Seattle game. It was about the personnel to play a team like KC.If the Bills had played the Seattle defensive gameplan against KC it would not have gone well. Different teams need different plans.

 

But the KC loss was on the offense. The defensive plan was fine and while they could have executed better in spots the Bills knew when they put thar plan out there they were going to get run on. They wanted KC to run on them. They were practically begging them to. 

 

The offensive gameplan meanwhile was incoherent and confused and while they did make some changes at half it was too little too late. Coupled with some ordinary execution that is why we lost. Every loss is a "team loss" but this is as close as you get to a game you have to put on the offense.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by GunnerBill

[CorkScrewHill]

7 hours ago, eball said:

Yes, it’s a Josh Allen thread.  Sort of.  Deal with it.

 

So until last week the Bills’ defense has been decidedly mediocre, and in some instances just plain bad.  They’ve had key injuries, sure, but the game plan against KC made me want to vomit.  I think we saw a turning point with the defense, however, that I believe is in large part due to McD’s and Frazier’s confidence in the offense.  The Bills’ D played with a risky, go-for-broke mentality against Seattle we have not seen previously.  Did they play that way last season?  Hell no they didn’t; they essentially played Jauron-ball (like they did against KC).  I think McD now trusts Josh and Daboll to put points on the board against anyone, and if the D happens to get burned on a play or series the mentality is now “we’ll get it back” and they’re going to keep putting the pressure on opposing offenses.  I will be watching the defensive game plans very closely from here on out.

Interesting observation. In the Super Bowl years I always thought our Defense should have been more aggressive but we played a bend but don't break .. hold them to FG style. We won a lot of games, but I suspect we might have done better if we pushed for sacks and turnovers more .. getting it back into the hands of our offense. The 1st Super Bowl was an example where we scored9 points with only 19 minutes of possession time.

[HOUSE]

The whole game plan was something you find in the kitty litter box

[MDH]

9 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

KC wouldn't have held the ball so long if the offense could stay on the field. That game was on offense not defense. The plan was stop KC scoring big. It worked. You might not have enjoyed it, but it worked. The offense sucked. Could the defense have made a couple of extra plays here and there? Sure. But they were not the reason we lost. And with the health of our defense at that point and the opponent if we'd have tried to play the way we did this past Sunday KC might have put up 50. We lost to KC on offense. Simple as that.

The plan was good, the execution was not. Even though they gave KC light boxes and enticed them to run they still didn’t have to get gashed as badly as they did and could have gotten off the filed on the occasional 3rd down.

 

I agree, I liked the plan though D execution and O struggles made it look worse than it was.