Rex Ryan defense is back

[PoundingDog]

As Eric Wood is speculating in his latest podcast.

 

As a former player and Center calling out protections against Rex's defense, I found Eric provided some unique perspective in terms of what Leonhard will deploy the secondary players - and yes Eric played against Leonhard too.

 

1. His alma mater HC Jeff Brohm told Eric that TJ Parker looked to be an NFL 1st round pick. Note Louisville played Clemson both 2024 and 2025.
2. When Marino argued he didn't like Bills' 2nd round pick IGB because he won't see the field much, Eric mentioned how he faced Rex's Jets where on passing downs, it is all match up based where you may see 4 safeties or 4 corners. So he thinks that IGB, if he is capable, will play a lot. Eric mentioned that as soon as you stop them on 1st down run, then in comes nickel package with matchup based personnel ... I'm wondering a) can we stop 1st down run for no gain and b) we do need our OLB who can stop runs because otherwise, we may give too much size outside the 3 interior D line guys (and Oliver is under sized too) when we run nickel. 
3. I also noticed Eric skipped talking about the Tackle and Guard we picked as he normally gives some view on O-Line people. But maybe as he mentioned, the more he removed from college football, the less he knows about players.  

 

 

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

10 minutes ago, PoundingDog said:

As Eric Wood is speculating in his latest podcast.

 

As a former player and Center calling out protections against Rex's defense, I found Eric provided some unique perspective in terms of what Leonhard will deploy the secondary players - and yes Eric played against Leonhard too.

 

1. His alma mater HC Jeff Brohm told Eric that TJ Parker looked to be an NFL 1st round pick. Note Louisville played Clemson both 2024 and 2025.
2. When Marino argued he didn't like Bills' 2nd round pick IGB because he won't see the field much, Eric mentioned how he faced Rex's Jets where on passing downs, it is all match up based where you may see 4 safeties or 4 corners. So he thinks that IGB, if he is capable, will play a lot. Eric mentioned that as soon as you stop them on 1st down run, then in comes nickel package with matchup based personnel ... I'm wondering a) can we stop 1st down run for no gain and b) we do need our OLB who can stop runs because otherwise, we may give too much size outside the 3 interior D line guys (and Oliver is under sized too) when we run nickel. 
3. I also noticed Eric skipped talking about the Tackle and Guard we picked as he normally gives some view on O-Line people. But maybe as he mentioned, the more he removed from college football, the less he knows about players.  

 

 

 

 

My take on the run defense is to attack on offense. Score early and often. Last year the Bills had a negative point differential in the 1st half. That’s impossible and a HORRIBLE strategy. The Bills plan was to keep it close, make adjustments, and get them in the 2nd half. What does that mean? Teams can run the ball well into the 2nd half. 
 

The solve for the run defense is the lead. Play from ahead. Make teams become one dimensional. If they get down 2 scores in the first half and have to “keep up” with Josh Allen, there is no run defense. Someone posted it a while back but the 2007 Patriots saw the fewest rush attempts against in the league. Their elite offense put pressure on opposing offenses. They became one dimensional. That’s the answer for the Bills. Score fast and score often. 

[blacklabel]

I'm sure there'll be some similarities and things that Leonhard learned from those Rex systems that he's using in his own. From what I recall, the big knock on Rex's scheme was the constant checks upon checks, clearly they wanted to create confusion for the offense but it'd happen with the defense getting things crossed up and miscommunicated.

 

Schemes and calls gets pretty complex I'm sure but I've always kinda leaned towards the whole whatever can go wrong will go wrong theory so you hope they streamline things and because the more you have going on the more opportunities for things to go not so great. 

 

I think I'm pretty excited for the change. There were seasons where McDermott's defense was a real strength, but it always kinda felt like they allowed the offense to dictate things. It'll be interesting to see what these guys can do when they're in a more attack-based system.

[PoundingDog]

A few months ago cover 1 played some coaching clinic audio that Jim Leonhard gave. The background was he was still with the Badgers. In the audio, Jim said something like we have a fairly complex system, but we modulize it and have smart people who learns the concept. That way on the field they all execute the rules very fast. 

 

I do think there's likely a ramp up period this season on defense, so I hope the offense can blast out of the door hot to cover up the defense jelling period. I'm optimistic in the sense that if Jim Leonhard could successfully teach it the college kids at Wisconsin, then he should be able to teach it to the NFL players. How many dumb Bills D players we have, especially the back 6?   

 

Here is a recent video that Erik Turner talking to Sal about Leonhard's system.

 

 

[strive_for_five_guy]

I know some have complained about our first three picks being more depth pieces, but for years there have been complaints that the Bills have picked for need only to end up with picks like Elam.  If the staff views these guys as BPA, isn’t that the better strategy for drafting?

[Stenbar]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

My take on the run defense is to attack on offense. Score early and often. Last year the Bills had a negative point differential in the 1st half. That’s impossible and a HORRIBLE strategy. The Bills plan was to keep it close, make adjustments, and get them in the 2nd half. What does that mean? Teams can run the ball well into the 2nd half. 
 

The solve for the run defense is the lead. Play from ahead. Make teams become one dimensional. If they get down 2 scores in the first half and have to “keep up” with Josh Allen, there is no run defense. Someone posted it a while back but the 2007 Patriots saw the fewest rush attempts against in the league. Their elite offense put pressure on opposing offenses. They became one dimensional. That’s the answer for the Bills. Score fast and score often. 

Attack early and often is exactly what they needed to do. Win the coin toss, take the damn ball and score. Put the pressure on them right off the bat. 

[Richard Noggin]

13 minutes ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

I know some have complained about our first three picks being more depth pieces, but for years there have been complaints that the Bills have picked for need only to end up with picks like Elam.  If the staff views these guys as BPA, isn’t that the better strategy for drafting?

 

Parker fits your thinking imho. High pedigree/upside guy who the Bills apparently have some inside intel on at a position of high value. But he's not going to be a starter, which somehow upsets fans. Don't the best orgs pick the best players at high value positions early in the draft? According to many, it would be better to rely on a late 1st or early 2nd rd pick rookie to be a starter at a high leverage position? That's somehow GOOD roster management? (Aren't Chubb and Rousseau only definitely here for 2 more seasons? Stocking an EDGE pipeline is always smart.)

 

The IGB pick is different. He actually fills an immediate need imho. What so many have been ignoring about IGB is what it says about the 2026 D plan: CLEARLY Leonhard's defensive approach absolutely NEEDS his CBs to be able to play 1:1 on the boundaries. Gonna be a lot of single-high and aggressive looks that can't work if your boundary CBs can't jam and man. Hairston will have a place, but we can't be 1 injury away from scrapping our core outside pass coverage philosophy. You can't be super aggressive on D without boundary dudes who can man up (at least in Leonhard's view). 

 

Bowry was a smart investment in lifetime value rather than immediate reward. Although, he could challenge for starting LG and should provide immediate depth at OT and OG, plus long term starting upside at OT. Just a solid pick. 

[BigDingus]

I'm hopeful but also nervous.

 

If we had fired McDermott after the 4th Chiefs playoff loss, I would've been all on board with changing everything.

 

But after last season, things became more muddied. He was more willing to send pressure, play man, not always be in nickel, etc. and got a lot more out of players than I thought he would. Tre White went from being a huge liability to being really darn good for us after he settled in. 

 

Even Cole Bishop, who was starting to look like another bust, finally saw some life... something I think was in large part due to resigning & playing Poyer. 

 

Injuries derailed some of the young guys, key players like Ed & acquisitions, but come playoff time, they did step up. The Jags were one of the hottest teams in the league, and we went to their place & won. 

 

We then had to go play the 1 seed on the road (in Mile High of all places), and the D actually performed very well given the circumstances. 4 turnovers by the offense, putting the D in a tough position, and still they managed to keep things within reach. Then in OT, they do the one thing that I never thought they'd do - force a punt!

 

It was everything we could ask for - ball in the offense's hands, next score wins, and.... the offense blew it. This was the 3rd straight year the offense got the ball back with a chance to win the game & failed, but at least in the other 2 games the D wasn't much help through most of it. 

 

So to fire McDermott the year after he seemed to be doing more with less, actually making good adjustments & doing it with very little impact from draft picks or free agents makes him look more like a scapegoat than anything else. He definitely did enough in the past to warrant making a change, but his 2025 defense didn't seem like the thing holding this team back from making the SB.

 

I only hope Leonhard's D is more like last year's Denver D than Rex Ryan's D. If so, then maybe our D will actually be a unit that can win games for us rather than simply not lose them.

[BuffaloBillyG]

30 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

Parker fits your thinking imho. High pedigree/upside guy who the Bills apparently have some inside intel on at a position of high value. But he's not going to be a starter, which somehow upsets fans. Don't the best orgs pick the best players at high value positions early in the draft? According to many, it would be better to rely on a late 1st or early 2nd rd pick rookie to be a starter at a high leverage position? That's somehow GOOD roster management? (Aren't Chubb and Rousseau only definitely here for 2 more seasons? Stocking an EDGE pipeline is always smart.)

 

The IGB pick is different. He actually fills an immediate need imho. What so many have been ignoring about IGB is what it says about the 2026 D plan: CLEARLY Leonhard's defensive approach absolutely NEEDS his CBs to be able to play 1:1 on the boundaries. Gonna be a lot of single-high and aggressive looks that can't work if your boundary CBs can't jam and man. Hairston will have a place, but we can't be 1 injury away from scrapping our core outside pass coverage philosophy. You can't be super aggressive on D without boundary dudes who can man up (at least in Leonhard's view). 

 

Bowry was a smart investment in lifetime value rather than immediate reward. Although, he could challenge for starting LG and should provide immediate depth at OT and OG, plus long term starting upside at OT. Just a solid pick. 

The thing with IGB, he seems like he could be a starter at CB at some point. I wonder if long term thinking they would move Hairston to NCB. I think he's shifty enough to hang with slot WRs, and his speed can help him cover a lot of ground in the middle of the field. 

[Richard Noggin]

5 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

The thing with IGB, he seems like he could be a starter at CB at some point. I wonder if long term thinking they would move Hairston to NCB. I think he's shifty enough to hang with slot WRs, and his speed can help him cover a lot of ground in the middle of the field. 

 

IGB is definitely a potential "starter" caliber boundary CB in an aggressive, man-heavy scheme. That's the important point.

 

He has things to work on, but his size and athleticism and super competitive mentality makes him a great fit for what the Bills want to do. The greatest risk is that he's like a McKelvin who is always in position but rarely gets his head around to play the ball. Except IGB is so much bigger and more physical. And we have coaches who can hopefully help him grow into his best self in this new scheme. Clearly, he was a priority target compared to the rest of the CBs on the board. 

[Buffalo716]

7 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

IGB is definitely a potential "starter" caliber boundary CB in an aggressive, man-heavy scheme. That's the important point.

 

He has things to work on, but his size and athleticism and super competitive mentality makes him a great fit for what the Bills want to do. The greatest risk is that he's like a McKelvin who is always in position but rarely gets his head around to play the ball. Except IGB is so much bigger and more physical. And we have coaches who can hopefully help him grow into his best self in this new scheme. Clearly, he was a priority target compared to the rest of the CBs on the board. 

All of igb's metrics are better in press zone then pressman .. and historically Leonard doesn't run a lot of press man coverage

 

He's not the type of guy who's going to follow NFL receivers all around the field 

 

He's certainly going to be better in a press cover 3 than a press man situation

 

When he faced NFL level wide receivers he was always more comfortable in zone even if it was head under chin in press... I think he has much more ceiling as a press zone corner than a guy who is going to be darrelle revis playing man all over the field

 

The bills are still going to be running 60% zone coverage maybe 65% zone coverage like the majority of the league

Edited May 1 by Buffalo716

[Richard Noggin]

21 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

I'm hopeful but also nervous.

 

If we had fired McDermott after the 4th Chiefs playoff loss, I would've been all on board with changing everything.

 

But after last season, things became more muddied. He was more willing to send pressure, play man, not always be in nickel, etc. and got a lot more out of players than I thought he would. Tre White went from being a huge liability to being really darn good for us after he settled in. 

 

Even Cole Bishop, who was starting to look like another bust, finally saw some life... something I think was in large part due to resigning & playing Poyer. 

 

Injuries derailed some of the young guys, key players like Ed & acquisitions, but come playoff time, they did step up. The Jags were one of the hottest teams in the league, and we went to their place & won. 

 

We then had to go play the 1 seed on the road (in Mile High of all places), and the D actually performed very well given the circumstances. 4 turnovers by the offense, putting the D in a tough position, and still they managed to keep things within reach. Then in OT, they do the one thing that I never thought they'd do - force a punt!

 

It was everything we could ask for - ball in the offense's hands, next score wins, and.... the offense blew it. This was the 3rd straight year the offense got the ball back with a chance to win the game & failed, but at least in the other 2 games the D wasn't much help through most of it. 

 

So to fire McDermott the year after he seemed to be doing more with less, actually making good adjustments & doing it with very little impact from draft picks or free agents makes him look more like a scapegoat than anything else. He definitely did enough in the past to warrant making a change, but his 2025 defense didn't seem like the thing holding this team back from making the SB.

 

I only hope Leonhard's D is more like last year's Denver D than Rex Ryan's D. If so, then maybe our D will actually be a unit that can win games for us rather than simply not lose them.

 

There are some contentious claims in your post ("the offense blew it" as the definitive take on OT, without looking at THE REFS but then how rigid and vanilla and predictable the Bills D was when Jackson had to come in at CB). It was terribly obvious what the Broncos would do, and yet that seemed like news to McD and Babbich. WTF was that situational coaching job?

 

However, I do agree overall that McD seemed for the first time to be truly hamstrung by injuries and roster limitations, and mostly maximized results. Mostly. 

 

But the situational failures to see and adapt to matchups and in-game circumstances continued to expose our coaching, unfortunately. 

 

3 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

All of igb's metrics are better in press zone then pressman .. and historically Leonard doesn't run a lot of press man coverage

 

He's not the type of guy who's going to follow NFL receivers all around the field 

 

He's certainly going to be better in a press cover 3 than a press man situation

 

When he faced NFL level wide receivers he was always more comfortable in zone even if it was head under chin in press... I think he has much more ceiling as a press zone corner than a guy who is going to be darrelle revis playing man all over the field

 

Matchup zone is one of his go-tos, innit? Where it starts as like a cover-3 concept but then evolves into man for a few select routes, right? But PRESS is a hallmark for the most part, unless I'm an idiot.

Edited May 1 by Richard Noggin

[Ethan in Cleveland]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

My take on the run defense is to attack on offense. Score early and often. Last year the Bills had a negative point differential in the 1st half. That’s impossible and a HORRIBLE strategy. The Bills plan was to keep it close, make adjustments, and get them in the 2nd half. What does that mean? Teams can run the ball well into the 2nd half. 
 

The solve for the run defense is the lead. Play from ahead. Make teams become one dimensional. If they get down 2 scores in the first half and have to “keep up” with Josh Allen, there is no run defense. Someone posted it a while back but the 2007 Patriots saw the fewest rush attempts against in the league. Their elite offense put pressure on opposing offenses. They became one dimensional. That’s the answer for the Bills. Score fast and score often. 

Exactly.  Many people posted this last year.  Josh should have been in no-huddle from the start of the game.  Every time they went quick after a big gain to keep their defense on the filed good things happened.  And many of those quick plays were runs against 3rd down defenses.  

If Kincaid can stay healthy they will be a matchup nightmare and can attack any spot on the field.  

[Buffalo716]

3 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

There are some contentious claims in your post ("the offense blew it" as the definitive take on OT, without looking at THE REFS but then how rigid and vanilla and predictable the Bills D was when Jackson had to come in at CB). It was terribly obvious what the Broncos would do, and yet that seemed like news to McD and Babbich. WTF was that situational coaching job?

 

However, I do agree overall that McD seemed for the first time to be truly hamstrung by injuries and roster limitations, and mostly maximized results. Mostly. 

 

But the situational failures to see and adapt to matchups and in-game circumstances continued to expose our coaching, unfortunately. 

 

 

Matchup zone is one of his go-tos, innit? Where it starts as like a cover-3 concept but then evolves into man for a few select routes, right? But PRESS is a hallmark for the most part, unless I'm an idiot.

You are correct that match coverage is a big part of his identity 

 

Jim doesn't press as much as a Rex Ryan.. but he presses at a higher rate than McDermott 

 

Whether it's going to be 25 or 40% of the time is probably going to be found out 

 

Looking at what he did at Wisconsin versus what he was implementing at Denver but not calling there is a distinction... They're not exactly the same but close 

 

There were some differences that Jim Ran versus what Vance ran.. Vance is actually more aggressive... Jim prefers simulated pressures at Wisconsin 

 

But Jim does press you at a decent clip... Benford and Hairston and IGB are great for a press zone match scheme .. because they all have the ability to play Man coverage well 

 

It will keep your disguises better

 

 

[Richard Noggin]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

You are correct that match coverage is a big part of his identity 

 

Jim doesn't press as much as a Rex Ryan.. but he presses at a higher rate than McDermott 

 

Whether it's going to be 25 or 40% of the time is probably going to be found out 

 

Looking at what he did at Wisconsin versus what he was implementing at Denver but not calling there is a distinction... They're not exactly the same but close 

 

There were some differences that Jim Ran versus what Vance ran.. Vance is actually more aggressive... Jim prefers simulated pressures at Wisconsin 

 

But Jim does press you at a decent clip... Benford and Hairston and IGB are great for a press zone match scheme .. because they all have the ability to play Man coverage well 

 

It will keep your disguises better

 

 

 

Love it. We've been clamoring for a more aggressive approach to pass defense, and now we're gonna get it. For better and for worse. I actually prefer the sound of Leonhard's in-between scheme as you describe it: still providing some of the flex and fluidity of zone concepts, but with the aggression and disruption of more press-based techniques/alignments. Somewhere between Sean McDermott and Buddy Ryan...

[Buffalo716]

9 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

or

 

9 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

Love it. We've been clamoring for a more aggressive approach to pass defense, and now we're gonna get it. For better and for worse. I actually prefer the sound of Leonhard's in-between scheme as you describe it: still providing some of the flex and fluidity of zone concepts, but with the aggression and disruption of more press-based techniques/alignments. Somewhere between Sean McDermott and Buddy Ryan...

 

 McDermott is probably the best ot top 3 secondary coach in the world.. without a doubt he is considered a guru in the secondary .. world-class 

 

There was only one guy I actually wanted to hire and it was Jim Leonard because he is the only one who had the ability to keep our pipeline of tremendous secondary development going 

 

He might not have the experience and he might have to grow into it but he was the guy I wanted

 

I understand his coverage schemes and I like them just like I liked McDermott's 9 years ago

 

If I was a young corner or safety jim Leonard would be a guy I would want to play with.. just like Sean would have been at the top of my list a decade ago 

 

His simulated pressure approach should help the bills on running Downs too

Edited May 1 by Buffalo716

[PRBills]

I was thinking more like the ameba defense is back…. The Mike Pettine defense and im all for it!

[hondo in seattle]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

My take on the run defense is to attack on offense. Score early and often. Last year the Bills had a negative point differential in the 1st half. That’s impossible and a HORRIBLE strategy. The Bills plan was to keep it close, make adjustments, and get them in the 2nd half. What does that mean? Teams can run the ball well into the 2nd half. 
 

The solve for the run defense is the lead. Play from ahead. Make teams become one dimensional. If they get down 2 scores in the first half and have to “keep up” with Josh Allen, there is no run defense. Someone posted it a while back but the 2007 Patriots saw the fewest rush attempts against in the league. Their elite offense put pressure on opposing offenses. They became one dimensional. That’s the answer for the Bills. Score fast and score often. 

 

First of all, this is a misuse of the word strategy which refers to "a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim."  The long-term, overall goal of McD was to win a Super Bowl.  Having a losing halftime differential isn't a strategy, or even a tactic.    It's simply a statistical fact.  

 

And second of all, I doubt if McD ever went to his coordinators and said, "I want us to be behind at half.  That's an important part of my plan to get us to the Super Bowl."   And I don't think McD or Brady opposed the idea of 'scoring fast and often.'  Instead, I think our roster talent and initial game plans were just inadequate.  Fortunately, our halftime adjustments were better.  

[Richard Noggin]

1 minute ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

First of all, this is a misuse of the word strategy which refers to "a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim."  The long-term, overall goal of McD was to win a Super Bowl.  Having a losing halftime differential isn't a strategy, or even a tactic.    It's simply a statistical fact.  

 

And second of all, I doubt if McD ever went to his coordinators and said, "I want us to be behind at half.  That's an important part of my plan to get us to the Super Bowl."   And I don't think McD or Brady opposed the idea of 'scoring fast and often.'  Instead, I think our roster talent and initial game plans were just inadequate.  Fortunately, our halftime adjustments were better.  

 

No, you're right, but McD 100% throttled 1st half offensive gameplans and play-calling to some extent to draw out intel on opposing defensive gameplans and to try to limit his own defense's exposure (limiting offensive turnovers a yuge part of that thinking, which is mostly smart). Play sequencing was NOT situationally aggressive, especially on 3rd downs and immediately following successful runs or even clusters of successful runs. They seemed to almost never call the shot-play that quality OCs have queued up following specific rushing success. 

 

Shortening the number of possessions when you have Josh Allen and the other team doesn't is just bizarre and probably frustrating for the players. Sure, it's great to physically impose your will on a defense using the same 2 or 3 rushing play calls, but that doesn't happen very often. What DID happen fairly often is mediocre opponents hanging around deep into the 2nd half until the Bills finally took the governor off their play-calling. 

[Kirby Jackson]

8 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

First of all, this is a misuse of the word strategy which refers to "a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim."  The long-term, overall goal of McD was to win a Super Bowl.  Having a losing halftime differential isn't a strategy, or even a tactic.    It's simply a statistical fact.  

 

And second of all, I doubt if McD ever went to his coordinators and said, "I want us to be behind at half.  That's an important part of my plan to get us to the Super Bowl."   And I don't think McD or Brady opposed the idea of 'scoring fast and often.'  Instead, I think our roster talent and initial game plans were just inadequate.  Fortunately, our halftime adjustments were better.  

Reading that back I was not clear. The strategy, was to establish the run and limit possessions. The Bills played slow and that wasn’t accidental. They led the league in time of possession last year. In my opinion, that’s not a good thing with the way that they’re built. They don’t want the game to slow down with each team having a low number of possessions.
 

Each NFL game typically has somewhere between 10 & 14 possessions. The Bills tried to keep that number on the lower end of the range when they should have done the opposite. Instead of worrying about your defense being out there once or twice more, you should have wanted Josh Allen out there once or twice more.

 

Hopefully that clears it up…