Rex Ryan defense is back

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

Agreed.

I noticed that quote when Brady said it and couldn't help but think he was probably saying that wasn't how things were done before.  Given that he was the OC, I thought that was odd, but I don't know what McD was telling him.  

 

And I agree with the comparison.  The 90s Bills, who were prolific at moving the ball and scoring, didn't seem to let defenses dictate what they did.  

 

My outlook on 2026 is a tangled bunch of hopes and fears.  

 

 

I don’t know if this makes it better or worse but the reality is they will almost certainly be around where they’ve been. If Josh stays healthy the Bills are pretty much a lock to win 10 games. I don’t believe in the Pats (at all). The Bills are a bigger betting favorite to win the division than any other team currently. That probably happens. That’s why I’ve always been fine to move on from McDermott. I don’t think that the floor moves much. Maybe the ceiling does but I don’t see a world where the Bills go out there and are 7-10 (assuming Josh’s health).

 

From there, that’s where the unknown creeps in. Do the Bills show up and lay an egg in the WC round? Do they get the big stop in the championship game? That is all TBD. The likeliest outcome IMO is probably about where they’ve been for the last bunch of years. The Bills are at the 2 yard line and have been for a few years. Hopefully they can punch it in.

[Shaw66]

9 hours 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.

You say "things became more muddled." I very much had this feeling too, but I've come to believe that was false hope.  Here's what I think the reality of McDermott's defense was (I'll state it as fact, but it's just what I believe):

 

McDermott believed that the best possible defense was one where the players' roles were interdependent - that when they all worked together they could stop the offense often enough to keep their score down to a manageable level.  His defense wasn't stifling - it wasn't going to put up shutouts or even single-digit games, but it was going to make it tough to score a lot. The defense put a premium on every guy doing his job, because if everyone did his job, he'd make it easier for everyone else to do his job. The reason why I came to believe that his system gave me false hope is that the system got the Bills tantalizingly close, over and over, but too often it gave up the game-losing play.

 

I think McDermott's system ultimately fails for two reasons. One is that it's just too difficult to get every guy to do his job on every play. Guys make mistakes, guys aren't quite good enough physically (either because they don't have the natural talent or because they're playing hurt), and most importantly, the other team is getting in the way and forcing defenders to be unable to make plays as the defensive scheme demands. Second, by requiring players to "do their job" all the time, the system reduces the impact of the best players in the defense.  In essence, "doing your job" makes it possible for less talented players to survive on the field by relying on the most talented players doing their jobs instead of doing what their special skills allow them to do. 

 

Edge is the perfect example. McDermott's perfect edge does his job on every play. Rousseau is a big, fast, talented guy who does his job on every play. He's very effective, but he doesn't make many big plays. I think his talent is wasted, and I think we'll see the difference this season. Bosa wasn't very useful to the Bills; he often failed to hold the edge (play in the system), because he sought to beat his man by playing outside the system. 

 

In short, the consistency that McDermott loved, the consistency that he got from his defense, came at a price: losing the big-play ability of his best players. He was willing to pay the price because that consistency meant that his less talented players could survive on the field. That philosophy worked pretty well, but it was somewhat predictable.

 

McDermott's system got the Bills close, but watching defenses last season, I thought I could see the flaw in his thinking. I think defenses last season were showing that they could get similar consistency on defense without sacrificing the talents of their best players. That is, they had a system (similar in many ways to McDermott's system - they were denying the deep ball, they were platooning defensive linemen, they weren't blitzing much), but their systems played consistently tough defense and also allowed their best players to make individual plays. They showed it's possible to do both. 

 

And that's exactly what we heard from Leonhard when he arrived in Buffalo.  He didn't criticize McDermott, but he said his defense would be one where his best players would make plays. He said his defensive design would look for, even create, opportunities for his best players.  He didn't say it, but I expect Rousseau was one of the guys he was talking about. I think he was saying that he wasn't going to use all of Groot's special talents to execute what McDermott's system requires of an edge; he's going to be sure that his role-player type guys have roles that allow Rousseau and other stars the freedom to do more than just execute a system. 

 

Beyond Rousseau, I think there are several other guys who will do eye-popping things this season. In no particular order:  Bishop is physically more talented than Jim Leonhard ever was, and Bishop has the brains and instincts that allowed Leonhard to survive in the league as long as he did. I think Leonhard is going encourage Bishop to make the plays that Leonhard could see but couldn't execute as a player.  Oliver has often been touted as a guy who could be a disruptive force like Aaron Donald; I think by going to what is in effect a five-man line, Leonhard is going to spread the line out, move players around, and put Oliver in positions where he can create special plays. Walker is a unique athlete for his position, and I think Leonhard will get special plays out of him, too. Parker, same thing. The corners - Max and Igbinosun both have special press coverage skills; Benford isn't far behind and has other skills, too. Bernard. The point is, there are a lot guys on this defense who have special skills, and I think Leonhard is going to take the wraps off. 

 

For me, it's simplest to see across the D-line. Look at the guys out there with special skills:  Chubb, Rousseau, Parker (probably), Oliver, Walker, Bernard. Leonhard wants to rush four, and he wants to create advantages by getting one or more of those guys in mismatch situations where they can use their special skills to create pressure. Get a size mismatch, get a quickness mismatch, create an attack angle to gives a guy leverage.  All the guys I just named have shown the ability to get home when they have a mismatch like that. Leonhard's philosophy is to create those mismatches by design and let the player's special skills make the play. I'm looking for some special things from the front seven this season.

 

[colin]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think “pace of play” and overall approach is McDermott. “We want to be a run first team, and control the clock.” I think that the design of plays and execution of them is Brady. I feel pretty strongly that the bubble screens were Brady. The talent, or lack thereof, is Beane.

 

There were issues with all of those. I’ll stick to the overall approach though because that was the initial point. The Bills averaged 2.7 points per drive and allowed 2.09 points per drive. The more possessions that each team has the wider the gap between them becomes. So while the concern was, “we don’t want to give them the ball back” they should have been saying, “we need more possessions.” Every time, each team has a possession is a .6 point bonus for the Bills. 
 

The way the Warriors changed the NBA is so appropriate here. They did 2 things really. They shot a zillion 3’s knowing that if I shoot 39% from 3 and 54% from 2, over time you’re much better with the 3’s. Each NBA team averages roughly 100 possessions a game. If you use those numbers the team shooting the 3’s are at 117 and the team playing inside is at 108. Obviously these are just averages and it can move from game to game but over time, it’ll level out. 
 

Because of that math, their goal was to play quickly. The faster they went, the more possessions per game there became. The more possessions that each game had, the wider the gap would be of points they scored vs. points they gave up. If I were in charge of the Bills the 2015 (or around then) Warriors would be the team that I modeled my philosophy after. 

 

between the patented mcdermot absolute truck ramp of a run d, and his insistence on "complimentary football" we reduced the number of snaps in nfl games more than any other team.  this increased variance, which is why we couldn't come back and win vs less but tough match up teams like the back qb led texans and at atl, not to mention ne in buffalo.

 

also, for all the glazing clappy gets about being this hands on prepared no nonsense coach, how the hell is a d biased head coach consistently putting out just the worst special teams?  if you want complimentary football, start with just not losing the kicking game.  but up until the last draft, we never really focused on athletes on d, it was all heady plucky tre whites and poyers and taron jonsons.  so instead of screaming barbarians just mashing things up on special teams, we'd have effete cam lewis and dane jackson type guys not being fast or big or strong enough.  the results show it too, we lose almost exactly the number of games necessary to get the 1 seed every season due to special teams play.

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:

Sounds nice and it works in the regular season. When you face other great teams, not so much, and they run on you. I'd like to be more like hockey, build for the playoffs. 

It holds though if your offense holds. You average 2.7 points per possession and you allow 2.09 points per possession. If you keep scoring, they have to keep up with you. The fewer the possessions that there are the narrow the gap. 
 

Let me ask it another way. Would you rather Josh Allen has 12 possessions and the defense has to defend for 12 possessions OR Josh Allen has 10 possessions and the defense has to defend for 10 possessions?

[Green Lightning]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It holds though if your offense holds. You average 2.7 points per possession and you allow 2.09 points per possession. If you keep scoring, they have to keep up with you. The fewer the possessions that there are the narrow the gap. 
 

Let me ask it another way. Would you rather Josh Allen has 12 possessions and the defense has to defend for 12 possessions OR Josh Allen has 10 possessions and the defense has to defend for 10 possessions?

I get it, but Josh has had the ball in the last minutes of several playoff games and it didn't get done. I want the D to make a key stop and not let a playoff team play ball control at games-end for once. 

[jahbonas]

32 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:

I get it, but Josh has had the ball in the last minutes of several playoff games and it didn't get done. I want the D to make a key stop and not let a playoff team play ball control at games-end for once. 

Im not so sure you get his point actually  - Kirby is talking in the aggregate and you point to a single event  - apples and oranges

 

If you increase the number of posessions it more likely does not come down to a single play to win  - you have a bigger lead

[BuffaloMatt]

[Green Lightning]

Just now, jahbonas said:

Im not so sure you get his point actually  - Kirby is talking in the aggregate and you point to a single event  - apples and oranges

 

If you increase the number of posessions it more likely does not come down to a single play to win  - you have a bigger lead

I do get his point. My point is that while his theory does work in the aggregate, our failures in the playoffs come down to single events where we don't have the one elite player or make a key stop to win against the top teams. I am in, for the most part, the defense wins championships camp. The Bills have dominated the league during he regular season and fail against the tough D's we face in the playoffs - in that we are a play short, a stop short. I get the overall philosophy, I do. But we're not in the bowl because of our D.

[Kirby Jackson]

37 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:

I do get his point. My point is that while his theory does work in the aggregate, our failures in the playoffs come down to single events where we don't have the one elite player or make a key stop to win against the top teams. I am in, for the most part, the defense wins championships camp. The Bills have dominated the league during he regular season and fail against the tough D's we face in the playoffs - in that we are a play short, a stop short. I get the overall philosophy, I do. But we're not in the bowl because of our D.

Where I always go back to is that I don’t care at all if the Bills win because they got one more stop or 1 more score. If the Bills win 9-6, great!! If the Bills win 48-45, great. I don’t subscribe to the theory that ____ wins championships (outside of having a QB). There are countless examples of high octane offenses and world class defenses winning titles. 
 

I think that you win by doing what you do best at an elite level. That’s been my biggest issue with Beane (and McDermott to a degree). The Bills have spent an ungodly amount of resources trying to fix the defense. They’ve used dollars and a lots of top 100 picks. Their theory has been, “the offense is well ahead of the defense so we need to focus on fixing that.”
 

My belief is a 180 from that. It’s the Strengthfinders theory. You’re better off amplifying your strengths than you are improving your weaknesses. This wasn’t the year to hammer on drafting a WR but that’s why I’ve been so vocal about getting better there. It’s a force multiplier. If you can threaten more of field, that has a trickle down impact. If you can make plays, consistently, 25 yards down the field, and outside the hash marks, everything changes. Now, there’s more room for Shakir and Kincaid over the middle. The S are away from the LOS so Cook has more room. The CBs are less aggressive at the LOS. One WR can open all this up. You then have the best player in the game, at the most important position, with a full arsenal to work with. Imagine how good Josh would be if he had better players AND more space to operate within?!? 

IMO, that’s infinitely more impactful than the difference between Dorian Williams and CJ Allen. You are way more likely to win because your offense is generational (which they can be) than you are because your run defense is incrementally better. That’s the way the Bills are built. FWIW, I would feel the exact opposite way if I were a Texans fan. Their defense is incredible but adding top talent to it, has a similar force mutiplier impact.

Edited May 1 by Kirby Jackson

[machine gun kelly]

The thing about Wrex’s defenses is he made it so complicated, players are stunted by overthinking situations.  Leonard has not demonstrated that behavior neither at Wisconsin, nor in Denver.  To indicate Leonard is replicating Wrex is a mistake.  Leonard realized what he liked about a Rex defense, and made it better, faster, and far more attacking.

[Green Lightning]

16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Where I always go back to is that o don’t care at all if the win because they got one more stop or 1 more score. If the Bills win 9-6, great!! If the Bills win 48-45, great. I don’t subscribe to the theory that ____ wins championships (outside of having a QB). There are countless examples of high octane offenses and world class defenses winning titles. 
 

I think that you win by doing what you do best at an elite level. That’s been my biggest issue with Beane (and McDermott to a degree). The Bills have spent an ungodly amount of resources trying to fix the defense. They’ve used dollars and a lots of top 100 picks. Their theory has been, “the offense is well ahead of the defense so we need to focus on fixing that.”
 

My belief is a 180 from that. It’s the Strengthfinders theory. You’re better off amplifying your strengths than you are improving your weaknesses. This wasn’t the year to hammer on drafting a WR but that’s why I’ve been so vocal about getting better there. It’s a force multiplier. If you can threaten more of field, that has a trickle down impact. If you can make plays, consistently, 25 yards down the field, and outside the hash marks, everything changes. Now, there’s more room for Shakir and Kincaid over the middle. The S are away from the LOS so Cook has more room. The CBs are less aggressive at the LOS. One WR can open all this up. You then have the best player in the game, at the most important position, with a full arsenal to work with. Imagine how good Josh would be if he had better players AND more space to operate within?!? 

IMO, that’s infinitely more impactful than the difference between Dorian Williams and CJ Allen. You are way more likely to win because your offense is generational (which they can be) than you are because your run defense is incrementally better. That’s the way the Bills are built. FWIW, I would feel the exact opposite way if I were a Texans fan. Their defense is incredible but adding top talent to it, has a similar force mutiplier impact.

I get you. True, great O's and D's have prevailed in the biggest games. It's just been my experience that we don't have enough D to go with our elite O. It's just tougher in the playoffs and we wouldn't need heroics by 17 if our D would just make a damn stop when it mattered. 3rd and 25 is a makeable down against us. Hard for our O to have another go when we can't off the field against a quality QB. At the end of the day, whatever works, I'm for.  I've been following the team since 1963. I just want a SB before it's all said and done!

[Kirby Jackson]

11 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:

I get you. True, great O's and D's have prevailed in the biggest games. It's just been my experience that we don't have enough D to go with our elite O. It's just tougher in the playoffs and we wouldn't need heroics by 17 if our D would just make a damn stop when it mattered. 3rd and 25 is a makeable down against us. Hard for our O to have another go when we can't off the field against a quality QB. At the end of the day, whatever works, I'm for.  I've been following the team since 1963. I just want a SB before it's all said and done!

No doubt they need to get better at both. How much is scheme vs. talent? How much is just a flawed philosophy?

The reality is it’s almost certainly a bit of all of it. The challenge that the Bills have is that they need to identify the quickest, and best, way to take the next step.  They started with a coaching change.That was an obvious next step. “Does a new voice, new scheme and different philosophy do enough to take a step forward?” Who knows but that was the easiest starting point. 
 

 

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, Green Lightning said:

I get it, but Josh has had the ball in the last minutes of several playoff games and it didn't get done. I want the D to make a key stop and not let a playoff team play ball control at games-end for once. 

in Kirby’s hypothetical the average gap after ten touches is 6 points, after twelve just north of 7

 

playing averages - which obviously isn’t an individual game, the last drive for either side wouldn’t matter near as much if up more than 7 more often

[nuklz2594]

the talking heads on draft are sitting back eating chips with beer.  we will be fine...we aren't the fuc(*& browns

[Mikey152]

16 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. 

It also helps that the run fits are all different thanks to a few things:  Willing to play middle closed so we don't have to have a nickel CB as a primary flow player, 5 man fronts to mess up blocking schemes, more balanced lines, and more slants and stunts to muddy the point of attack.

[Mikey152]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Where I always go back to is that I don’t care at all if the Bills win because they got one more stop or 1 more score. If the Bills win 9-6, great!! If the Bills win 48-45, great. I don’t subscribe to the theory that ____ wins championships (outside of having a QB). There are countless examples of high octane offenses and world class defenses winning titles. 
 

I think that you win by doing what you do best at an elite level. That’s been my biggest issue with Beane (and McDermott to a degree). The Bills have spent an ungodly amount of resources trying to fix the defense. They’ve used dollars and a lots of top 100 picks. Their theory has been, “the offense is well ahead of the defense so we need to focus on fixing that.”
 

My belief is a 180 from that. It’s the Strengthfinders theory. You’re better off amplifying your strengths than you are improving your weaknesses. This wasn’t the year to hammer on drafting a WR but that’s why I’ve been so vocal about getting better there. It’s a force multiplier. If you can threaten more of field, that has a trickle down impact. If you can make plays, consistently, 25 yards down the field, and outside the hash marks, everything changes. Now, there’s more room for Shakir and Kincaid over the middle. The S are away from the LOS so Cook has more room. The CBs are less aggressive at the LOS. One WR can open all this up. You then have the best player in the game, at the most important position, with a full arsenal to work with. Imagine how good Josh would be if he had better players AND more space to operate within?!? 

IMO, that’s infinitely more impactful than the difference between Dorian Williams and CJ Allen. You are way more likely to win because your offense is generational (which they can be) than you are because your run defense is incrementally better. That’s the way the Bills are built. FWIW, I would feel the exact opposite way if I were a Texans fan. Their defense is incredible but adding top talent to it, has a similar force mutiplier impact.

I agree and disagree at the same time...

 

First re: strengthfinders. If you read the book (seems like you might have) one of the concepts they talk about when the mention weakness is it is often times the "darkside" of a strength. The fact that we had a well established defensive coach with a statistically successful defense that failed at the most inopportune times is pretty much the definition of a basement/blindspot. 

 

I also get the idea of a force multiplier, but we have to be careful when we talk about WR. #1 WR is a force multiplier. #2 can be, to a lesser extent. #3-5 not as much. It is also a multiplier, not a creator. By that I mean that even if we totally  neglected the defense to draft more offense, you still have to consider positions like Oline, RB, TE, etc...A QB can't complete passes to a WR if he is on his back.

 

I get the idea that balance isn't always the right move and you have to lean in to your strengths more. But its not like that hasn't been tried by teams and it hasn't been so successful. It is like Joe Brady said...every minute your defense is on the field is a minute your offense is not. 

[Buffalo716]

7 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Again disagree.

 

The very sentence "get your head around to locate the ball" means that you are in a trail position on a vertical or diagonal route.

 

Any other technique or leverage and the defender doesn't have to get his head around... he's either facing the LOS reading the QB or he's running  horizontally and can pickup the flight of the ball with peripheral vision.

 

I get what you're saying and I know you were talking specifically about a 9 ball 

 

It is coached that way though through college and beyond.. like I said very skilled players have the ability to get their head around on that high 9 ball when they're trailing .. which is why corners who can it is noted in their scouting reports

 

It's a skil thing.. you are coached to break up the hands because you are less likely to get pass interference 

 

That's why players who can locate the ball and have ball skills are always valuable... Because if you have 10 NFL corners they don't all have the ability to play that ball 

 

That is why they are coached to play hands on that type of route.. Dane Jackson doesn't have the ball skills to play that kind of ball 

 

If you have the ability to locate the ball and play it that is a plus.. but they dont coach players top down from college to play the ball in that route they do coach to play the hands 

 

The players who can play the ball are the exception to the speed of the game and how hard it is

 

So yes you always want your corner to be able to play the ball.. but those are the rare talented ones, they do coach you while trailing on a nine route to now play hands

 

Most of the corners in the NFL are backups.. statistically... Coaches are trying to maximize what they have.. which is why that technique is coached 

 

You have to realize most corners don't actually have ball skills... That's why this skill is coached 

 

The ones who have ball skills , they can play the ball if they are in position on that nine route trailing.. but that's not the majority of corners in the NFL in fact it's the minority

 

Everything I just said is a fact not even an opinion.. ball skills for a corner are good.. if they have the ability to play that nine route while trailing that's good 

 

But as a whole corners are coached in that position to play the hands because most of the corners physically can't even make that play on the ball in that one technique

 

Trailing on a nine route is literally one technique where that is coached.. if you are staying on top of the route and you're not trailing you don't have to do that 

 

But at the college and professional level defending that high9 route while trailing is coached that way now.. which is why you see it at all levels of football including the NFL 

 

But then you see The talented corners who have ball skills and they are able to locate the ball and make a play on it.. and their defensive backs coach will allow them to do that... Just because they are coached that way en Mass doesn't mean the ones who can are no longer allowed to play the ball

 

If you have the ability to every coach is going to tell you to do that but they don't coach it that way anymore en mass because the speed of the game is too fast and a lot of corners don't have big time ball skills 

 

If you have the ability to your coach certainly is not going to tell you no.. but he is coaching all eight corners on the team to play the hands even if you have the green light to go after the ball

 

Edited May 1 by Buffalo716

[T master]

18 hours 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.  

 

 

 

 

If it is back I hope this time around they get the players to fit the scheme instead of taking a prefect 4/3 wide 9 defense & trying to change it, if Rex was any kind of a really good HC he would have noticed what he had & just left Schwartz alone but didn't & F'd up that defense .

 

I hope Leonard was paying attention & noticed that having a huge ego as a coordinator or a HC isn't something that can be put to good use in the NFL but can be very detrimental if the coaches ego is as big as Rexy's was ...

[The Cincinnati Kid]

5 hours ago, colin said:

 

if marvin lewis had allen he might have messed around and won a superbowl.  he would have at least made it to the bowl or the the afc chip a few times.

 

 

Pretty sure he had Carson Palmer. 😂 

[billsfan89]

I don't think Rex Ryan's defense is quite the fit for this defense and how it intends to play. But I do think that this defense will be much more attacking and putting pressure on the offense than McD's defense. McD built a defense suited for the 2010's pass happy super offense era. Zone coverages that can confuse lesser QB's, commitments to not give up big plays and allow make it so that offenses have to consistently execute to get TD's because there wont' be any big plays given up and the defense will almost always have a chance to stiffen up and force field goals in the redzone. 

 

What's flawed about it is that offenses adapted to defenses running cover 2 and are much more willing to run the ball and attack a zone with a thousand cuts. Better QB's and better rushing attacks could easily get into the redzone and if you are scoring a lot of field goals you can get 1-2 TD's and get above 24 points which is a good amount of points and likely going to put you in a position to win games. 

 

Overall, I would rather be aggressive and proactive on defense than bend don't break. It is just my preference, I would rather let up a few big plays but also make a few big plays on defense. I feel like McD's defense often allows better offense to control the flow of the game which just compounds bad results.