Did Troy Vincent suck last year?

[The Dean]

And Aeneas Williams was the next Rod Woodson.

And Ray Buchanan was the next next Rod Woodson.

But Troy Vincent could still be the next next next Rod Woodson.

Unless Charles Woodson beats him to it.

599423[/snapback]

 

 

I shouldda been the next Rod Woodson.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

I'm reluctant to assume what the plan is 'til I actually see it. But I like this defensive roster and think if you put an anchor on this ship, the right cap'n could do damned near anything he wanted with it.

599423[/snapback]

 

No assumptions necessary. I was referring to Jauron's hiring of Fewell to install the Dungy/Kiffin version of the cover-2. No biggie.

[Simon]

No assumptions necessary.  I was referring to Jauron's hiring of Fewell to install the Dungy/Kiffin version of the cover-2.  No biggie. 

599451[/snapback]

I'd think it would be a huge improvement from last year.

But I don't know if we have the pass rush to really capitalize on the available possibilities which really make it a great defense instead of just a solid one.

In the cap era it's almost impossible to assemble the kind of Front4 that really makes that D go. Only Tampa and Baltimore, with Carolina coming close, have been able to put out the kind of fronts that really make it go; and even those they haven't been able to hold together for very long.

I'm happy to be moving toward something that I think the players will be able to get comfortable with, and if it's coached and executed well it will certainly be good.

But if we want it to be very good, we've reallllly got to get better at 2 positions up front in order to take advantage of all the good personell we have at the other 9 spots.

Cya

[Simon]

I shouldda been the next Rod Woodson.

 

You could still be the next Wooderson.

[The Dean]

You could still be the next Wooderson. 

599462[/snapback]

 

 

 

I'd have to triple the amount of toxic material I currently put into my body, for a susbstantial number of years, to end up looking THAT stupid.

 

(Actually...that's a thought...)

[Guest BackInDaDay]

I'd think it would be a huge improvement from last year.

But I don't know if we have the pass rush to really capitalize on the available possibilities which really make it a great defense instead of just a solid one.

In the cap era it's almost impossible to assemble the kind of Front4 that really makes that D go. Only Tampa and Baltimore, with Carolina coming close, have been able to put out the kind of fronts that really make it go; and even those they haven't been able to hold together for very long.

I'm happy to be moving toward something that I think the players will be able to get comfortable with, and if it's coached and executed well it will certainly be good.

But if we want it to be very good, we've reallllly got to get better at 2 positions up front in order to take advantage of all the good personell we have at the other 9 spots.

Cya

599457[/snapback]

 

You like Fletcher dropping back into the mid 1/3? I'm thinking we can get by with him on the outside, where he'll still have to take men downfield, if the CB and S are occupied, but even that scares me. Fletcher and Spikes are our two best LBs and I don't see either one matching up well in this D.

[Dawgg]

This is true for virtually any scheme.

 

Execution is the problem here and I have a hard time believing that this Cover 2 scheme will help Vincent learn how to stop missing tackles.

 

With that being said, I wouldn't necessarily give up on him but I would hope that a decent young safety is waiting in the wings.

 

and if it's coached and executed well it will certainly be good.

599457[/snapback]

[Guest BackInDaDay]

Execution is the problem here and I have a hard time believing that this Cover 2 scheme will help Vincent learn how to stop missing tackles.

599505[/snapback]

 

That's the point Dawgg. This is the best D for him because his responsibities shift from run-support to coverage. That's his strong suit. If he can't cut it covering a deep 1/3 zone, then he's done.

 

I'm more concerned with Milloy and (gulp) Fletcher covering the other 2/3s with Spikes chasing RBs and fast TEs up the seam.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

This is true for virtually any scheme. 

 

Execution is the problem here and I have a hard time believing that this Cover 2 scheme will help Vincent learn how to stop missing tackles.

 

With that being said, I wouldn't necessarily give up on him but I would hope that a decent young safety is waiting in the wings.

599505[/snapback]

 

 

The Cover 2 should help Vincent over the zone blitz in several ways:

 

1, In the zone blitz tackling RBs is one of the primary jobs of the safety whereas in the Cover 2 takling WRs and downfield receivers will be his job (hough his primary job will be blocking and INTing passes.

 

Admit it or not, TV will have a much easier time tackling even a top quality WR (like a Moulds) going for a catch or even trying to RAC than he will Caddillac Williams. In the zone blitz, the safeties have a primary duty of run stopping when it is sending the LB in on the blitz or a DL player is dropping back in zone coverage.

 

2. In the zone blitz, the safeties play closer to the LOS rather than further back. While a safety might have a tougher against a rusher with a head of steam rushing toward TV in the Cover 2, such cases are unlikely to occur unless there has been a total breakdown in the Bills front 7.

 

TV will mostly be called upon to tackle players who he is covering as the go for a pass rather than someone rushing the ball.

 

3. This will be the second full season (and really about half a season playing the safety position for TV. He may lose another step as he gets older, but the case in the NFL is experienced players find a step through experience. Unless he has gotten so old he ends up looking like Eddie Robinson trying to tackle Pennington, it is not irrational to hope the additional experience at safety will make him a better tackler.

 

It may not when all the factors come into play, but it easily could also. Because though he was not great in 05 (a middlin number of tackles among Bills D starters, ok return yardage) but he far from sucked (tied for the team lead in INTs and in FRs) I think most Bills fans would be pretty reasonably hopeful his tackling in 06 will not elicit many real complaints or the usual whining.

[Simon]

You like Fletcher dropping back into the mid 1/3?

I don't like any 'backers taking deep drops. But I don't think Fletcher is particularly weak in coverage and the instances of him being asked to cover a deep 1/3rd should theorietically be rare enough in a cover2 that I'm not especially worried about it.

From what I saw of Crowell this season, I'm thinking that the Bills ability to use any of their LB's in coverage should be more of a strength than anything. If Spikes recovers and Crowell kicks Posey to the curb the Bills will likely have one of the better LB units in the NFL in terms of coverage ability.

There are certainly going to be instances where opponents flood one of the deep halves and we'll need a LB to get downfield and create some kind of presence. But sending multiple guys deep on routes that take longer to develop is going to weaken protection and expose QB's to punishment and sacks and it's not something offenses are going to be willing to do with any kind of regularity.

If I'm going to worry about somebody downfield in this defense, I'm going to worry about Milloy before I'll worry about the Bills' LB corps.

Cya

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

I don't like any 'backers taking deep drops. But I don't think Fletcher is particularly weak in coverage and the instances of him being asked to cover a deep 1/3rd should theorietically be rare enough in a cover2 that I'm not especially worried about it.

From what I saw of Crowell this season, I'm thinking that the Bills ability to use any of their LB's in coverage should be more of a strength than anything. If Spikes recovers and Crowell kicks Posey to the curb the Bills will likely have one of the better LB units in the NFL in terms of coverage ability.

There are certainly going to be instances where opponents flood one of the deep halves and we'll need a LB to get downfield and create some kind of presence. But sending multiple guys deep on routes that take longer to develop is going to weaken protection and expose QB's to punishment and sacks and it's not something offenses are going to be willing to do with any kind of regularity.

If I'm going to worry about somebody downfield in this defense, I'm going to worry about Milloy before I'll worry about the Bills' LB corps.

Cya

599886[/snapback]

 

Definitely there are other issues of concern for how effective the Bills cover 2 will be:

 

1. We need to get some significant pass rush pressure out of the DL in order to make the cover 2 work at its best (or even adequately with the current question marks on the DL. I think Jauron's endorsement of the cover 2 heightens the probability of us going for Ngota if he has any kind of a first step or has shown the ability to pressure up the middle. It does also bring the idea of us going DE into play if the braintrust judges their to be a monster pass rusher out there.

 

2. I think this raises interesting issues regarding Milloy. he has the experience to be a good cover 2 safety, he has seemed a little too prone to injury and nicks on the backside of his career, so asking him to be pivotal to the cover 2 rather than the zone blitz makes sense.

 

However, his rep for hitting rather than speed when the cover 2 will call for him to cover a lot of ground and his cap hit which is higher than Vincent's may put him at greater risk of being cut than TV though I think the cover 2 would be a boon for him.

 

3. The tough thing for the LBs at that this will require them to do a lot of good reads and decide whether they should be pinching in for run support or doing pass coverage.

 

I think Fletcher is probably the least of our worries at LB.

 

A. We'll see how TKO comes back from the injury.

B. We'll see how young Crowell does in a new D and with a lot more read responsibility.

C. Fletcher was D captain because he seemed to always know what was going on and what was the right thing to do even before the refs. Fletcher's game is about and his motor due to his limited size, he was often covering folks downfield deeper than should be expected for an LB already.

 

We'll see.

[The Dean]

I think Fletcher is probably the least of our worries at LB.

 

599930[/snapback]

 

 

I think you got all that right...but, especially the part above.

 

This is nice football discussion, I must say.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

I don't like any 'backers taking deep drops. But I don't think Fletcher is particularly weak in coverage and the instances of him being asked to cover a deep 1/3rd should theorietically be rare enough in a cover2 that I'm not especially worried about it.

From what I saw of Crowell this season, I'm thinking that the Bills ability to use any of their LB's in coverage should be more of a strength than anything. If Spikes recovers and Crowell kicks Posey to the curb the Bills will likely have one of the better LB units in the NFL in terms of coverage ability.

There are certainly going to be instances where opponents flood one of the deep halves and we'll need a LB to get downfield and create some kind of presence. But sending multiple guys deep on routes that take longer to develop is going to weaken protection and expose QB's to punishment and sacks and it's not something offenses are going to be willing to do with any kind of regularity.

If I'm going to worry about somebody downfield in this defense, I'm going to worry about Milloy before I'll worry about the Bills' LB corps.

Cya

599886[/snapback]

 

If the reports were quoting Jauron correctly, and he's indeed going to install Monte Kiffin's (by way of T. Dungy and Bud Carson) Tampa c.2, the safeties are given less middle 1/3 deep responsibilites by dropping an undersized , fast LB into that area. For example, Dungy uses Cato June in Indy and Gruden uses Shelton Quarles in TB. These guys are much smaller (6' & 6'1") and lighter (227lb & 225lb) than any of our LBs. They read pass and get their butts back into that deep zone to relieve the safeties. This lets the CBs hand their receivers off when the O stretches the field vertically without leaving the middle un-manned. This version of the c.2 also gives more coverage responibilities to the 2 remaining LBs since the underneath zone is broken into 1/4s instead of the normal 1/5s of a traditional c.2.

 

If Spikes is healthy, I think he and Fletcher can handle their coverage reponsibilities, but you know opposing teams will look for a speed mismatch there. You don't want to give up too much bulk against the run (the Tampa c.2' Achilles heel), so I'd be content to see how they fair. I'm just curious where our cover LB is who can make this work. College? UFA?

[Guest BackInDaDay]

I think Fletcher is probably the least of our worries at LB.

599930[/snapback]

 

Fletcher's a very good LB, and may even be athletic and savvy enough to get back to his zone quickly. But if that's the D look I'm gameplanning against, my 2 wide men will run deep flys to occupy Vincent and Milloy while I send 3rd man up the hash marks, on Milloy's side. If he has speed, he will outrun Fletcher, leaving Milloy to cover 2 men.

 

This is not what "cover 2" is supposed to mean.

 

This is where the Bill's D rush comes in. To keep Clements and McGhee occupied I'll run a RB and TE inside/out. This leaves me with minimal pass-protection (my 5 on the Bills 4) on a deep pass play that's gonna take a few seconds to develope.

If my O-line can't handle the Bills front 4 (say the Bills are playing it straight and their LBs are in coverage) this won't work. Then I have to go back to throwing underneath the deep drops and running at the Bills new under-sized LB.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

I think you got all that right...but, especially the part above. 

 

This is nice football discussion, I must say.

600279[/snapback]

 

Nicer than crowing about how you could "throw a football over those mountains"? Nice T-shirt! I was down at the Manning Passing Academy last summer - that would've been the shirt to wear!

[The Dean]

Nicer than crowing about how you could "throw a football over those mountains"?    Nice T-shirt!  I was down at the Manning Passing Academy last summer - that would've been the shirt to wear! 

600336[/snapback]

 

 

Shirt? Uncle Rico?

[Guest BackInDaDay]

Shirt?  Uncle Rico?

600343[/snapback]

 

Uncle, "Coulda won state" , Rico!

[Kultarr]

Fletcher's a very good LB, and may even be athletic and savvy enough to get back to his zone quickly.  But if that's the D look I'm gameplanning against, my 2 wide men will run deep flys to occupy Vincent and Milloy while I send 3rd man up the hash marks, on Milloy's side.  If he has speed, he will outrun Fletcher, leaving Milloy to cover 2 men. 

 

This is not what "cover 2" is supposed to mean. 

 

This is where the Bill's D rush comes in.  To keep Clements and McGhee occupied I'll run a RB and TE inside/out. This leaves me with minimal pass-protection (my 5 on the Bills 4) on a deep pass play that's gonna take a few seconds to develope.

If my O-line can't handle the Bills front 4 (say the Bills are playing it straight and their LBs are in coverage) this won't work.  Then I have to go back to throwing underneath the deep drops and running at the Bills new under-sized LB. 

600333[/snapback]

 

Can we just call this a "mike cover 3" (MC3) since there are 3 deep zones and the mike is in the middle? (and, its not a rolled cover 3)

 

In this MC3 scheme the deep zones seem to be the least of the Bills worries, no?

 

In the under zones, it's almost all question marks:

 

- Clements? someone else?

- can Spikes come back?

- can Posey cover anybody? is he gone?

- McGee should be ok

 

But the scary part is the front. How do you run a zone like this with no pass rush? For that matter who stops the run? They couldn't do it last year with 8 and 9 in the box. And, then you mention a smaller mike. Scary stuff.

 

But, it just goes to show once again, that the Bills need to fix the mess in the trenches on both sides of the ball.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

Can we just call this a "mike cover 3" (MC3) since there are 3 deep zones and the mike is in the middle?  (and, its not a rolled cover 3)

 

In this MC3 scheme the deep zones seem to be the least of the Bills worries, no?

 

In the under zones, it's almost all question marks:

 

  - Clements? someone else?

  - can Spikes come back?

  - can Posey cover anybody? is he gone?

  - McGee should be ok

 

But the scary part is the front.  How do you run a zone like this with no pass rush?  For that matter who stops the run?  They couldn't do it last year with 8 and 9 in the box.  And, then you mention a smaller mike.  Scary stuff.

 

But, it just goes to show once again, that the Bills need to fix the mess in the trenches on both sides of the ball.

600614[/snapback]

 

Well it doesn't necessarily have to be Mike (MLB). Quarles lines up there, but June usually play weakside and rotates up - so you could call his a will c.3, but I get your point. Also, since you mentioned rolling corners up and safeties over, that's gotta be available if the pass rush isn't there and the middle's taking a beating.

 

The deep zones are a problem because Milloy has to cover some fast dudes, and we don't currently have that hybrid LB/S on our roster to take the deep middle. Wire's a converted LB. He he may not have great speed, but he may be better suited in that role than Fletcher. Another option is to bring Milloy up and play Baker at his S spot.

 

I think this public choice in a D scheme cements Clements future as a Bill, unless theres a Winfield type CB out there. McGee will have his mettle tested, too.

Spikes is a huge question mark. I'm not even sure Posey's in the plans for '06. He should play quicker than either Spikes or Fletcher, but never seems to.

 

It all starts up front, no doubt. The better we can pressure from our front 4 and stand up to a big O-line's drive blocks the better. Teams will attack an undersized LB and look for speed mismatches on Spikes, Fletcher and Milloy. We really need some animals inside playing 2-gap, and demanding double teams to keep the C and/or Gs off our LBs.

 

It's gonna be interesting to see what Fewell and Jauron can come up with to implement this D, and who Marv gives them to man it.

[Kultarr]

Well it doesn't necessarily have to be Mike (MLB).  Quarles lines up there, but June usually play weakside and rotates up

 

Shelton Quarles plays mike. Derrick Brooks is their will. Ryan Nece is the sam. Of course, it's understood that they'll change their coverages down to down.

 

- so you could call his a will c.3, but I get your point.  Also, since you mentioned rolling corners up and safeties over, that's gotta be available if the pass rush isn't there and the middle's taking a beating.

 

The deep zones are a problem because Milloy has to cover some fast dudes, and we don't currently have that hybrid LB/S on our roster to take the deep middle.  Wire's a converted LB. He he may not have great speed, but he may be better suited in that role than Fletcher.  Another option is to bring Milloy up and play Baker at his S spot.

 

I was thinking about Wire too, actually, when reading your earlier post. Spikes, if he can still play at a high level, should really stay at the wil spot in this Pewter Power defense; but, if he can't run, maybe he flips over to sam. Crowell, I think, got his legs under him during the season as wil too (2nd on the team in tackles IIRC).

 

I think this public choice in a D scheme cements Clements future as a Bill, unless theres a Winfield type CB out there.  McGee will have his mettle tested, too.

Spikes is a huge question mark.  I'm not even sure Posey's in the plans for '06. He should play quicker than either Spikes or Fletcher, but never seems to.

 

Posey had his best year in a 3-4 defense for the Texans. He may just be better suited in that system.

 

It all starts up front, no doubt.  The better we can pressure from our front 4 and stand up to a big O-line's drive blocks the better.  Teams will attack an undersized LB and look for speed mismatches on Spikes, Fletcher and Milloy.  We really need some animals inside playing 2-gap, and demanding double teams to keep the C and/or Gs off our LBs. 

 

Yep. The Bills don't have a McFarland on the inside nor do they have a Rice and SPires on the ends.

 

It's gonna be interesting to see what Fewell and Jauron can come up with to implement this D, and who Marv gives them to man it.

600671[/snapback]

 

Marv and the new deputies have their work cut out for themselves.