Are the Bills now a "Spread Offense" and is the "Book" out on how to hinder us?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

I think my source in playaction was here: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2021/passing_advanced.htm

 

it’s under play type. 
 

I think the problem is not so much the packages but what they are doing in those packages. Eyeball test says they aren’t doing motions and misdirections as much. They certainly aren’t doing McKenzie jet sweeps or fake jet sweeps. Those were staples that help keep the defense guessing. It pretty much covered for the lack of run game in that sense. 
 

typically you don’t need to run effectively to run play action. That is not true of our team because they threat of run is not there at all.

 

I would think PA would be effective for us from under center, because we run 75% of the time from under center.  And when we do pass, it's reasonably efficient (60% completion) and we get 2.6 more YPC than we do from shotgun (9.5 vs 6.9 ypa) - perhaps that's the play action?

 

McKenzie's snap counts have dropped from 25% to 16% this season.  That's significant, because a jet sweep or reverse can't be effective if the only time he's out there is when you're running one.   Otherwise, it's a gimondulous tell.  And, we're running fewer 4WR and 5WR sets.

 

So who to take snaps from to put McKenzie out there more?

 

Davis snap count is also down, even accounting for the fact that he was an injury replacement for Brown and close to a full-time starter for half the games last year.

 

Beasley is getting about the same number of snaps, 66% last year 68% this year.

 

Knox snap count is up, from 58% to 78% of the snaps.  Based on his results so far, it's hard to say that's not a well-deserved change.

 

Manny Sands is getting 84% of the snaps.  On paper, he's a more accomplished WR and deserves them, but he's rocking like a 54% completion rate on the season.  IMO lacking pre-season and perhaps something about practice, he and Allen are just not fully on the same page.  Not advocating that he get less, but one thing the Bills might want to look at is whether he should get a bit less work to keep his 34 year old legs fresh, while Davis and McKenzie get more.

[Scott7975]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I would think PA would be effective for us from under center, because we run 75% of the time from under center.  And when we do pass, it's reasonably efficient (60% completion) and we get 2.6 more YPC than we do from shotgun (9.5 vs 6.9 ypa) - perhaps that's the play action?

 

McKenzie's snap counts have dropped from 25% to 16% this season.  That's significant, because a jet sweep or reverse can't be effective if the only time he's out there is when you're running one.   Otherwise, it's a gimondulous tell.  And, we're running fewer 4WR and 5WR sets.

 

So who to take snaps from to put McKenzie out there more?

 

Davis snap count is also down, even accounting for the fact that he was an injury replacement for Brown and close to a full-time starter for half the games last year.

 

Beasley is getting about the same number of snaps, 66% last year 68% this year.

 

Knox snap count is up, from 58% to 78% of the snaps.  Based on his results so far, it's hard to say that's not a well-deserved change.

 

Manny Sands is getting 84% of the snaps.  On paper, he's a more accomplished WR and deserves them, but he's rocking like a 54% completion rate on the season.  IMO lacking pre-season and perhaps something about practice, he and Allen are just not fully on the same page.  Not advocating that he get less, but one thing the Bills might want to look at is whether he should get a bit less work to keep his 34 year old legs fresh, while Davis and McKenzie get more.

PA is not a threat because even though there is a mix in that formation we don’t run enough per game basis and when we do it’s usually nothing for a defense to worry about because our o line is terrible and our backs while ok are not great either. McKenzie jet sweeps were a threat. They got away from it and I think it’s a mistake. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

PA is not a threat because even though there is a mix in that formation we don’t run enough per game basis and when we do it’s usually nothing for a defense to worry about because our o line is terrible and our backs while ok are not great either. McKenzie jet sweeps were a threat. They got away from it and I think it’s a mistake. 

 

OK, but see my point in the post you're responding to.  McKenzie needs to see the field other than for jet sweeps.  Otherwise they'll be getting stuffed in the backfield and we'll all be saying "too predictable, whenever he's out there teams go here's that Jet Sweep or fake Jet Sweep again"

 

Overall we're running fewer 5, 4, and even 3 WR sets.

 

So how do you adjust, to put McKenzie out there enough that he's not just a "Fun Size" Jet-Sweep "Tell"?

[BigAl2526]

I think that Buffalo is only capable of running the ball (using running backs) against some teams.  Part of that is the interior linemen for Buffalo, and part of it is the running backs.  Otherwise, I think Buffalo has an unusually large playbook on offense and can do a lot of things.  Daboll is good, but I don't think he always makes the right choice on the best way to attack a given team..

[Scott7975]

38 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, but see my point in the post you're responding to.  McKenzie needs to see the field other than for jet sweeps.  Otherwise they'll be getting stuffed in the backfield and we'll all be saying "too predictable, whenever he's out there teams go here's that Jet Sweep or fake Jet Sweep again"

 

Overall we're running fewer 5, 4, and even 3 WR sets.

 

So how do you adjust, to put McKenzie out there enough that he's not just a "Fun Size" Jet-Sweep "Tell"?

yes absolutely. They do it the same way they did it last season. Same personnel. Sometimes fake them and sometimes give it to him. It’s what’s missing with the lack of run game imo. Some threat needs to be there.  Plus McKenzie is explosive. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Scott7975

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, BigAl2526 said:

I think that Buffalo is only capable of running the ball (using running backs) against some teams.  Part of that is the interior linemen for Buffalo, and part of it is the running backs.  Otherwise, I think Buffalo has an unusually large playbook on offense and can do a lot of things.  Daboll is good, but I don't think he always makes the right choice on the best way to attack a given team..

 

Certainly we have more success running against some teams than others.  That was the observation last season - that we simply didn't have the guard play to run against the best DLs.  So it's disappointing to have that be the same story this season, after supposedly Motor and Moss "reset" in the off season.

 

Buffalo is rumored to have an unusually large playbook.  My understanding is that from a playbook, a team pulls somewhere between 50-100 pass plays and 15-25 running plays for the gameplan each week.  Some of these are related to each other.  Some of these are unique, 1-off trick or gadget plays.  They all have to be practiced.

 

There's obviously a balance here - diversity is good up to a point, but if practicing gadget plays takes away from perfecting "your fastball" or the core plays your offense thrives on, then less diversity and more focus might be good. 

 

I tend to agree with your last, and to that point, I think Daboll may believe he understands how a team will try to stop us and how he should attack - and may focus the game plan on that perceived weakness to the point where when it turns out the team is playing us totally differently, he might not have enough in the week's gameplan to adjust and counter. 

 

Example:  Pittsburgh, I believe Daboll expected them to be Blitzburgh and play man and we were gonna shred them like Weetabix.  So when they rushed 3 or 4, flooded the center of the field with 7 or 8, and disguised both their coverage scheme and their rush, we didn't have as many counters as we would have liked.  We couldn't run 2 TE sets, Sweeney was inactive.  We couldn't run Moss up the middle at them, ditto. 

 

I think something similar occurred with Jacksonville.  You could tell pretty quickly that our plan was to play from shotgun and sling it at them all day, and when that wasn't working, what else?

 

 

[cwater10]

I once had the ... "experience" of attending one of those "self help, self improvement" series of leadership training things that were popular in the 80's.  Yeah... the 80's were tough on a lot of us ...  😬.  Anyway, there was a prevailing question that served as the foundation of the entire deal...  "What are you pretending not to know?"  The theory goes that true breakthrough only occurs when we fully acknowledge and own that which we are pretending not to know.  Breakthrough follows once that reality is confronted and addressed with action.  I appreciate that this is not exactly behavioral rocket science, but the resistance to it amongst a group of 100 individuals was something to behold.

 

The 2021 Buffalo Bills have me flashing back to those days.  It appears that there is are a handful of issues that they and perhaps we (definitely ME) have been pretending not to know.  The paper thin OL depth, the mediocre RB room and maybe, just maybe a lack of some non-Diggs explosiveness would all appear to be on that list.  I was encouraged to hear McDermott's presser this week.  If words matter, if only as a road map to intended action, then I believe that at least McD has stopped "pretending not to know" that a superstar QB alone can not quite take you where we all want this to go.  

 

So if coach has, as it appears, stopped pretending and confronted that which is staring him in the face, the reasonable question is what tangible, difference making action will follow?  I am no X's and O's resource, so I am not going to pretend to offer a fix.  Because hey... no more pretending...  I can only hope that scheme, physical healing and resources on hand can be shuffled to an extent to make a difference.  I think our best cause for optimism can probably be found somewhere between the above and the raised awareness of our limitations.  I Urban Myer can jot down a defense to our offense on a cocktail napkin, let's hope McBean can decode the napkin with a sober assessment of where we are.  If not, maybe we can send Belichick a table dance and a shot...

[Thurman#1]

16 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

All true BUT play action doesn't work unless you have a running threat.

 

 

First, we have a running threat, particularly when the OL is healthy. We're not wildly dangerous or anything but we're decent.

 

And second, it's been shown a bunch of times that play action works even if your team is not that great in running. Even if your run game isn't effective, it will become effective if the LBs don't come up when they think you are running.

[machine gun kelly]

A simple short answer is Allen is too predicate let (Daboll and really McD’s fault) as he tends to be under center for predominantly run plays and it’s too easy to figure us out.  
 

Allen is more than capable of running this offense under center and can create more questioning of what we will do.

 

I believe McD in that I think he’s had enough of what Daboll has done and knows how defenses are playing us.  I can see us making some changes this week and the Jets are a good team to make those changes.  Life gets

a little harder against the Colts and so on with the Saints.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

24 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:

A simple short answer is Allen is too predicate let (Daboll and really McD’s fault) as he tends to be under center for predominantly run plays and it’s too easy to figure us out.  
 

Allen is more than capable of running this offense under center and can create more questioning of what we will do.

 

I believe McD in that I think he’s had enough of what Daboll has done and knows how defenses are playing us.  I can see us making some changes this week and the Jets are a good team to make those changes.  Life gets

a little harder against the Colts and so on with the Saints.

one can say any player is predictable 

 

Lamar Jackson is a prime example 

 

Play calls are more predictable over any possible JA ad lib

 

They may know he will scramble 

 

but not how and where

 

Predictable — always dumping off to the back in the flat 

Edited November 13, 2021 by SlimShady'sSpaceForce

[Toyo321]

Another thing I have noticed in our games this year when we struggle to get anything going.  None of our receivers are coming back to the line of scrimmage to help Josh when the coverage is tight or in cover 2, or when the other teams safeties are playing two high.  Our receivers always seem to run just side line to side line and never seem to come back to the ball to help out Josh.  I don't know but this team has gotten so focused about breaking up field that they forget that coming back to the LOS if they are covered, is an acceptable option, and it is the only way to get open when you covered most of the time,  running back towards your QB seems to be a forgotten tactic with our wideouts and would be a huge help for JA.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

18 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

I think my source in playaction was here: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2021/passing_advanced.htm

 

it’s under play type. 
 

I think the problem is not so much the packages but what they are doing in those packages. Eyeball test says they aren’t doing motions and misdirections as much. They certainly aren’t doing McKenzie jet sweeps or fake jet sweeps. Those were staples that help keep the defense guessing. It pretty much covered for the lack of run game in that sense. 
 

typically you don’t need to run effectively to run play action. That is not true of our team because they threat of run is not there at all.

 

Thanks.  So the play action % is now 23.5%: 75 out of 319 pass attempts.

 

It is evidently reasonably successful for us because it says we have 705 of our passing yards on PA, 9.4 ypa.

That is 31.5% of our 2236 passing yards

 

I would say that not only are we running PA a good amount, the data at your link show that it is MORE effective for us than other pass attempts (23.5% of the attempts, but generating 31.5% of the yards)

 

So evidently perception, or the "eyeball test" is a bit deceptive.

 

I've seen us attempt Jet sweeps a few times, and more often just put McKenzie in motion across the formation.  I don't have data, but I see that a fair bit.  I think we use pre-snap and post-snap motion more than people are perceiving us as doing.  And again, when McKenzie is only on the field 15% of the time this season, if we run them more often teams will understandably key off him - and if we want him on the field more, we need to address "who comes off?"

 

Of interest to me in that dataset you linked is the RPO.  We apparently run RPOs 12% or 16% of the time (depending upon whether the run choice of an RPO  is scored as a pass attempt).  However, when we pass, we gain 7.7 ypa which is less effective than play action although a bit more effective than our overall 7 ypa.  Passing from RPOs is apparently not particularly effective for us, perhaps because we only run out of the RPO about 1 in 5 times.  So teams diagnose RPO and think "pass!"

 

 

 

[Scott7975]

11 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Thanks.  So the play action % is now 23.5%: 75 out of 319 pass attempts.

 

It is evidently reasonably successful for us because it says we have 705 of our passing yards on PA, 9.4 ypa.

That is 31.5% of our 2236 passing yards

 

I would say that not only are we running PA a good amount, the data at your link show that it is MORE effective for us than other pass attempts (23.5% of the attempts, but generating 31.5% of the yards)

 

So evidently perception, or the "eyeball test" is a bit deceptive.

 

I've seen us attempt Jet sweeps a few times, and more often just put McKenzie in motion across the formation.  I don't have data, but I see that a fair bit.  I think we use pre-snap and post-snap motion more than people are perceiving us as doing.  And again, when McKenzie is only on the field 15% of the time this season, if we run them more often teams will understandably key off him - and if we want him on the field more, we need to address "who comes off?"

 

Of interest to me in that dataset you linked is the RPO.  We apparently run RPOs 12% or 16% of the time (depending upon whether the run choice of an RPO  is scored as a pass attempt).  However, when we pass, we gain 7.7 ypa which is less effective than play action although a bit more effective than our overall 7 ypa.  Passing from RPOs is apparently not particularly effective for us, perhaps because we only run out of the RPO about 1 in 5 times.  So teams diagnose RPO and think "pass!"

 

 

 

 

 

If that's what it shows then that's what it shows.  I haven't looked at it too much other than the percentages of times.

 

As for who comes off when McKenzie is on the field... who came off last year?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

 

If that's what it shows then that's what it shows.  I haven't looked at it too much other than the percentages of times.

 

As for who comes off when McKenzie is on the field... who came off last year?

 

Last year we were running more 5, 4, and 3 WR sets.  Other than that I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

 

We have a somewhat different cast nowadays with Sanders on the field almost all the time and Gabe Davis fighting for reps

[Scott7975]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Last year we were running more 5, 4, and 3 WR sets.  Other than that I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

 

We have a somewhat different cast nowadays with Sanders on the field almost all the time and Gabe Davis fighting for reps

 

Would you say our O looked more successful last season or this season?  Maybe they should go back to SOME of last season.  Sanders to me is a Brown replacement so it really shouldn't be all that much different to do so.

Oh and I think its been 23.5% play action.  Its not something that changed this week.  Im not sure who said it was 30% or whatever it was.  I recall in another thread someone said we need to be running it more and I argued that between RPO and play action we were running them almost 40% of the time.

Edited November 13, 2021 by Scott7975

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

Would you say our O looked more successful last season or this season?  Maybe they should go back to SOME of last season.  Sanders to me is a Brown replacement so it really shouldn't be all that much different to do so.

 

Yes and no. 

 

No: One reason we've been running less 3 and 4 and 5 WR sets is that it would take Knox off the field. 

Is there real argument that Knox has been a success story so far, or desire to put him on the field less?

 

No: As far as going back more to what worked last season....you "can't go home again".  Teams have decided on a strategy to defeat or hamper that, and it's worked, starting in Week 1 where Daboll clearly decided to run 4 and 5 WR sets and empty backfields to "burn" Blitzburgh, but Pittsburgh flooded the middle of the field with defenders instead and made Allen's life hell with stunts and overloads on one or the other side of the line (that's how they got home with 4 or 3 defenders most of the day).

 

The reason we aren't doing "what worked last year" is that when we try, it doesn't work, because we don't get the defensive coverage that made it work last year.

 

Yes: Sanders....IMO Sanders was supposed to be an improvement on Brown, someone almost as fast who is also a shiftier route runner and a more physical player who can not be neutralized as easily by press man coverage.  The whole idea of Sanders IMO was to have someone who would burn teams bad when they doubled down on Diggs.

 

Has it worked?  IMO, not well enough.  His overall catch % is 55%, which sucks.  50% in the Pittsburgh game, 33% in the first MIA game - the story was "he and Josh need to get on the same page" because he missed playing in preseason and even practicing the first couple weeks with his "foot" injury.  Washington, Houston, KC: he looked great and caught most of what was thrown his way.

 

But when we've needed him, 2nd MIA game and JAX, even TENN - he's been missing.  He also started out the season blocking well and last couple games, he has whiffed.

 

IMO we need to see less Sanders and more Davis and McKenzie.  You can't tell me that a 34 yr old guy who couldn't practice in preseason and early season because of his foot, who has a history of foot and ankle injuries, is a-OK and going 100% while taking 84% of the offensive snaps - 92% vs Tenn, 77% vs MIA, 99% vs JAX - sit the man ferchristsakes and let Davis and McKenzie take part of the load.

 

So in that sense, I think we should "go back to SOME of last season. 

 

 

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

56 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yes and no. 

 

No: One reason we've been running less 3 and 4 and 5 WR sets is that it would take Knox off the field. 

Is there real argument that Knox has been a success story so far, or desire to put him on the field less?

 

No: As far as going back more to what worked last season....you "can't go home again".  Teams have decided on a strategy to defeat or hamper that, and it's worked, starting in Week 1 where Daboll clearly decided to run 4 and 5 WR sets and empty backfields to "burn" Blitzburgh, but Pittsburgh flooded the middle of the field with defenders instead and made Allen's life hell with stunts and overloads on one or the other side of the line (that's how they got home with 4 or 3 defenders most of the day).

 

The reason we aren't doing "what worked last year" is that when we try, it doesn't work, because we don't get the defensive coverage that made it work last year.

 

Yes: Sanders....IMO Sanders was supposed to be an improvement on Brown, someone almost as fast who is also a shiftier route runner and a more physical player who can not be neutralized as easily by press man coverage.  The whole idea of Sanders IMO was to have someone who would burn teams bad when they doubled down on Diggs.

 

Has it worked?  IMO, not well enough.  His overall catch % is 55%, which sucks.  50% in the Pittsburgh game, 33% in the first MIA game - the story was "he and Josh need to get on the same page" because he missed playing in preseason and even practicing the first couple weeks with his "foot" injury.  Washington, Houston, KC: he looked great and caught most of what was thrown his way.

 

But when we've needed him, 2nd MIA game and JAX, even TENN - he's been missing.  0 for 4 vs Miami and 4 for 8 vs. JAX.  He also started out the season blocking well and last couple games, he has whiffed.

 

IMO we need to see less Sanders and more Davis and McKenzie.  You can't tell me that a 34 yr old guy who couldn't practice in preseason and early season because of his foot, who has a history of foot and ankle injuries, is a-OK and going 100% while taking 84% of the offensive snaps - 92% vs Tenn, 77% vs MIA, 99% vs JAX - sit the man ferchristsakes and let Davis and McKenzie take part of the load.

 

So in that sense, I think we should "go back to SOME of last season. 

 

 

Honestly need Knox on the field lots. To beat cover 2 shell. Thinking lots of teams going to try this coverage early and often.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

19 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

PA is not a threat because even though there is a mix in that formation we don’t run enough per game basis and when we do it’s usually nothing for a defense to worry about because our o line is terrible and our backs while ok are not great either. McKenzie jet sweeps were a threat. They got away from it and I think it’s a mistake. 

 

Just looping back here to point out data.  We actually run play action almost 1 in 4 plays, and are significantly more successful gaining 9.4 ypa on passes from play action compared to overall, 7.0 ypa.  Play action passing is 2.4 ypa more successful than our average!  So I think a defense should worry about that!

 

[Putin]

21 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

All true BUT play action doesn't work unless you have a running threat.

I disagree completely , even if you don’t have to have a great running game you can still run play action and be successful at it 

[JMF2006]

Its on the O line to open up a hole once in while for the run game.

 

But the pass game needs to be effective to open up the run lanes.

 

The Bills will get it worked out....only 2 teams shut the Bills down for 4 quarters...the Steelers and the Jags.

Edited November 14, 2021 by JMF2006

[Niagara Bill]

On 11/12/2021 at 4:40 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, but see my point in the post you're responding to.  McKenzie needs to see the field other than for jet sweeps.  Otherwise they'll be getting stuffed in the backfield and we'll all be saying "too predictable, whenever he's out there teams go here's that Jet Sweep or fake Jet Sweep again"

 

Overall we're running fewer 5, 4, and even 3 WR sets.

 

So how do you adjust, to put McKenzie out there enough that he's not just a "Fun Size" Jet-Sweep "Tell"?

McKenzie is busy returning kicks and he xannot get hurt so I am sure they are being careful with his time.

[Beerball]

15 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

McKenzie is busy returning kicks and he xannot get hurt so I am sure they are being careful with his time.

If the team was interested in being careful with any player it would be the QB, no? Yet he is put into harms way many times/game.  The NFL is a business and the Bills are treating their players as such.  If Allen survives his second contract he won't be getting a third.

 

McKittrick falls well down the list of players the Bills would protect if that were a concern of theirs.

[Niagara Bill]

26 minutes ago, Beerball said:

If the team was interested in being careful with any player it would be the QB, no? Yet he is put into harms way many times/game.  The NFL is a business and the Bills are treating their players as such.  If Allen survives his second contract he won't be getting a third.

 

McKittrick falls well down the list of players the Bills would protect if that were a concern of theirs.

So Beerball, the reason for less playing time for McKenzie IS  ??? 

If you include the kicking game he is touching the ball more than last year, just in a different way, so I still say he is held off the O due to kicking duties!!!

 

If you cannot run the ball in a more traditonal sense then jets sweep become ineffective. Football 101.

 

[Beerball]

36 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

So Beerball, the reason for less playing time for McKenzie IS  ??? 

If you include the kicking game he is touching the ball more than last year, just in a different way, so I still say he is held off the O due to kicking duties!!!

 

If you cannot run the ball in a more traditonal sense then jets sweep become ineffective. Football 101.

 

I would assume that McKittrick isn't on the field because the coaches don't feel he would be effective.  It has nothing to do with saving him for return duty.

[Niagara Bill]

6 minutes ago, Beerball said:

I would assume that McKittrick isn't on the field because the coaches don't feel he would be effective.  It has nothing to do with saving him for return duty.

Strange, he is on the field more than last year, just different duties. I think they limit him on O because yo play him more would limit some receivers and they picked up Saunders, so to play him more on O would limit Saunders or Diggs, or Beas. Davis has already played less. 

[Scott7975]

2 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

McKenzie is busy returning kicks and he xannot get hurt so I am sure they are being careful with his time.

 

He was in there blocking before and catching passes.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

So Beerball, the reason for less playing time for McKenzie IS  ???

 

1 hour ago, Beerball said:

I would assume that McKittrick isn't on the field because the coaches don't feel he would be effective.  It has nothing to do with saving him for return duty.

 

I don't think it has to do with coaches feeling McKenzie would not be effective on the field per se.  Less effective than the receivers who are on the field in the sets we run, sure (might not be correct with Beasley hurt).  I'm sure it doesn't have to do with not risking injury.

 

First of all let's define the problem.  McKenzie got 25% of the offensive snaps last season, and so far 15% this season.

 

The Bills are running 3% less 4 WR sets, and 5% less 3 WR sets.  So that's 8% less chances for McKenzie to be on the field.  We're running 2% vs 1% 5WR sets, but I believe that's still skewed by the Steelers game.  Call it 7% fewer sets with 3 or or more WR. 

 

Part of that is the emergence of Knox as a better receiving threat AND a better blocker.  His snaps have jumped up, Big Time, from 58% to 78%.

 

What are we running instead?  We're running a so-called (2,1) set 7% more - though it may be Gilliam, now labeled a HB - not a back - and a (2,2) set 2% more (that is sometimes an extra OLman and sometimes 2 TE).

 

Is that putting the guys who are objectively, our most effective players on the field more?  Probably not.  It's trying to get more yards after contact on all the short passes we're throwing to backs, in part.  It's trying to get extra blocking in both the pass and the run game, in part.

 

In any case, it's probably driven more by what we can't do (protect long enough to throw deep, pull the LB closer to defend the run and hit the intermediate crossers) and what we need help with, than by either saving McKenzie or thinking he's on some objective scale a less effective player than the guys we're putting out there.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

On 11/12/2021 at 6:02 PM, Buffalo Bills Fan said:

 

Have Allen do west coast, short, quick, timing, quick hitting style, then hit teams the Bill's like to do. Force them to adjust. If teams go for quick early adjust to what they like. Or other way around. Put that pressure in a unique style on the defense.

 

 

It is easy to say that but you can't just install a new offense every week. The Bills have used some quick game - indeed I would argue against Jacksonville they used too much quick game and screen game - but you have to be true to what you do. This is the same as the argument about the defense after the AFCCG when everyone was saying "you can't beat KC playing zone the Bills need to play man." Teams have to balance addressing what the other team does while not losing their own identity and the principles that make their own scheme work. The big difference between the WCO and the E-P (the Bills essentially run a spread variant of the E-P) is that the west coast is a pure receiver timing scheme. Play is called, Quarterback has a specific drop and has to get the ball out at a specific point at which time a receiver needs to have hit a specific mark. The E-P has more read and react built in - especially for receivers running their routes there is more choice based on how the defense reacts and so it is tricky to just flip in an instant. There are quick hitters built into the E-P and the Bills have used some. I also think having Knox back is big because the area the cover two shell style scheme tends to be vulnerable is the middle of the field with both safeties sitting back in the shell. Knox is a big matchup factor that can force teams out of that defense. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

When was McKitterich a Main player on O?

 

beyond 4th or 5th in depth