What is the offensive system run by Buffalo?

[Fingon]

Excellent post Dazed,

 

We run a west coast offense but instead of Brent Jones or Tony Scheffler for that matter (pass catching TE) we have Robert Royal (blocking TE) and instead of Tom Rathman (excellent receiving FB) we have...who do we have?

 

You're right, we're a few pieces away yet and it does make you wonder how well thought out it was to go to this offense without the requisite pieces. Hopefully this offseason that happens.

We don't need an excellent receiving FB.. we have two RB's.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

We don't need an excellent receiving FB.. we have two RB's.

Yeah Fingon, I hope you're kidding.

 

I thought (obviously mistaken) that it went without saying that fullbacks are blocking backs. We need the guy who can block and catch a la Rathman.

 

Have you forgotten that it was a stated goal of the Bills to run true fullbacks? That's why we got rid of Neufeld, etc. So we go to a system where a receiving tight end and pass catching (and blocking) fullback are essential and we have neither.

[crazyDingo]

Hmmm I am sure the person asking the question was looking for a bunch of sarcasm. I love the observations.

"I love the observations" is sarcasm

[Sisyphean Bills]

Modified WCO, indeed. AFAIK, they kept the terminology of Steve Fairchild who brought to Buffalo the Mike Martz system which descends from Coryell and not Walsh at all. Indeed, Fairchild's input pointed this team on a certain track, a big road grader OL (see San Diego), a vertical game (see Losman airing it out to Evans in season 1), ground and pound, downhill power running with blocking FBs, WBs, and/or TEs. It's unclear why Schonert, a WCO guy, was the QB coach, but he was and for the sake of continuity he got the job when Fairchild left to turn around a flagging CSU program. Schonert's efforts to simplify things, get more aggressive, and work WCO principles into Fairchild's system and players made for a situation that was/is morbidly curious. The Bills have a WCO QB, perhaps, in Edwards, but it's anybody's guess what they're really trying to accomplish.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Modified WCO, indeed. AFAIK, they kept the terminology of Steve Fairchild who brought to Buffalo the Mike Martz system which descends from Coryell and not Walsh at all. Indeed, Fairchild's input pointed this team on a certain track, a big road grader OL (see San Diego), a vertical game (see Losman airing it out to Evans in season 1), ground and pound, downhill power running with blocking FBs, WBs, and/or TEs. It's unclear why Schonert, a WCO guy, was the QB coach, but he was and for the sake of continuity he got the job when Fairchild left to turn around a flagging CSU program. Schonert's efforts to simplify things, get more aggressive, and work WCO principles into Fairchild's system and players made for a situation that was/is morbidly curious. The Bills have a WCO QB, perhaps, in Edwards, but it's anybody's guess what they're really trying to accomplish.

Good analysis.

[Fingon]

Yeah Fingon, I hope you're kidding.

 

I thought (obviously mistaken) that it went without saying that fullbacks are blocking backs. We need the guy who can block and catch a la Rathman.

 

Have you forgotten that it was a stated goal of the Bills to run true fullbacks? That's why we got rid of Neufeld, etc. So we go to a system where a receiving tight end and pass catching (and blocking) fullback are essential and we have neither.

The point is that it makes no sense to have a full back and two RBs out on passing downs. Therefore, a pass catching FB isn't a top priority. It would be nice, but he would be wasted. IMO, we need a fullback that can block... with receiving ability a distant second.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

The point is that it makes no sense to have a full back and two RBs out on passing downs. Therefore, a pass catching FB isn't a top priority. It would be nice, but he would be wasted. IMO, we need a fullback that can block... with receiving ability a distant second.

Gotcha, sorry.

[Sisyphean Bills]

The point is that it makes no sense to have a full back and two RBs out on passing downs. Therefore, a pass catching FB isn't a top priority. It would be nice, but he would be wasted. IMO, we need a fullback that can block... with receiving ability a distant second.

I'm confused. Are you talking about the WCO or something else? If you are a WCO, as defined by Bill Walsh, you do want a pass catching HB, FB, and TE. In the WCO, every snap is a potential passing play and passing the ball is the core identity of the scheme.

[BillsVet]

The point is that it makes no sense to have a full back and two RBs out on passing downs. Therefore, a pass catching FB isn't a top priority. It would be nice, but he would be wasted. IMO, we need a fullback that can block... with receiving ability a distant second.

 

Read "The Genius" by David Harris about Walsh and his ideas on offense. A great book that talks about Walsh's evolution into becoming the coach we all know him as with the 49ers.

[DazedandConfused]

I really hope the Bills agree with this, as I do.

 

Given the weakness of the receiving unit as a whole, they should draft a receiver again day 1.

 

===================================================

 

Reed is not a starter, he's more of a possesion guy, situational receiver.

 

Parrish probably isn't anything more than a punt returner. Gotta wonder what TD was thinking with that pick.

 

Hardy, well, he may or may not contribute this next year after coming back from injury, but even if he

comes back and develops, I don't think you can bank on him based on what we've seen so far.

 

I think more of Parrish than you seem to.

 

He is certainly not big enough that one would count on him to win the jump balls one expects a #2 possession WR to consistently win and one would simply be playing with fire to demand that he take the punishment of the at least 80 catches in a season we hope for from our #2 (a # whose primary benefit would be that it would attract attention away from Evans and allow him to be at or above the century mark as he would be difficult to dt).

 

However, I do like him as my as my #3 as I think his speed simply gives the opposing DC fits to cover and if we had a very good #2 (actually given history it was a silly for anyone to expect the rookie Hardy to produce anything near the 80 catches we should want from the position as a rookie) Parrish at #3 would likely get the 4th best CB on a team to pick on and really would simply force the opponent into a zone if Evans and an adequate #2 demanded dts).

 

The thing that surprised me and impressed me about Parrish was that even though the bad tidings on his quick rookie injury, he has shown a willingness and ability to catch the ball in the slot in addition to having scary speed and the escapability he has shown as a PR guy.

 

Hindsight is 20/20, so take this for the little it is worth, but the Bills should have used the considerable cap room they have to gone after the best WR they could get in FA last year and slotted him in at #2, where we could have used a proven producer instead of Hardy at best learning as a rookie.

 

If we had done this, it would have liberated Parrish for use in 3 WR sets where we could have truly made the Bills into the snowbound version of the Rams east coast version. If we had this as our base set-up, I not only think Lynch would have performed well as a lone RB, but if we decided to go to an empty backfield, Reed would have come on as our #4 and this vet would have eaten zone coverage alive or feasted on mismataches as other teams tried to cover him with a slower than him LB or a lightweight safety he would have pounded into the ground.

 

It would have made Edwards a better QB as well as his job would basically be to pick the best mismatch to exploit before the snap and throw as quick as he could to that receiver, or handoff to Lynch would be running behind the 5 OL players and Royal blocking, or likely check down and throw to Lynch or Jackson slipping out of the backfield.

 

Instead we had no real identity on O for this team.

.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I have to agree with you Dazed. I will say that Roscoe was not effective last season but you raise the valid point that if we had a legitimate #2 receiver, then Josh Reed as our #3 and Roscoe as our #4 would have been much more effective. Both of them were miscast in their roles.

 

In rewinding back to this time last year. I know for fact that the Bills did bring in Bryant Johnson (who as it was pointed out is again available) and make him an offer but we didn't land him. In hindsight Isaac Bruce actually played well for San Francisco in spite of his age and their unstable quarterbacking for most of the season. He would possibly have helped.

 

Antonio Bryant, who had a great year was available but every team treated him like kryptonite last year before Tampa Bay took a chance on him late in the offseason. He's gonna get big bucks now. We had a chance to get him for cheap but didn't want to take it.

 

Finally Bernard Berrian who also had a great year, was available but the Bills didn't seriously consider him because he came at a high price and they hadn't yet signed Lee Evans to his extension. They didn't want two expensive receivers. In retrospect he would have been well worth the money.

 

With Berrian (or Antonio Bryant) starting opposite Evans and Reed and Parrish properly relegated to their 3rd and 4th receiver roles, the Bills would have had a very nice arsenal. Oh well.

 

Like most of us I'm high on Steve Johnson but he's not yet a proven commodity and I'd just as soon get a veteran in here, a known quantity.

 

T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Antonio Bryant are the most attractive unrestricted guys out there. The rest are serviceable but flawed in some way (Amani Toomer, Devery Henderson, Ashley Lelie) or just solid (Shaun McDonald, Bryant Johnson, Justin McCareins).

 

I'd love to see the Bills dish it out for T.J. Housh or Antonio Bryant. We'd instantly have an above average receiving corp with some young talent in the wings.

[DazedandConfused]

I have to agree with you Dazed. I will say that Roscoe was not effective last season but you raise the valid point that if we had a legitimate #2 receiver, then Josh Reed as our #3 and Roscoe as our #4 would have been much more effective. Both of them were miscast in their roles.

 

In rewinding back to this time last year. I know for fact that the Bills did bring in Bryant Johnson (who as it was pointed out is again available) and make him an offer but we didn't land him. In hindsight Isaac Bruce actually played well for San Francisco in spite of his age and their unstable quarterbacking for most of the season. He would possibly have helped.

 

Antonio Bryant, who had a great year was available but every team treated him like kryptonite last year before Tampa Bay took a chance on him late in the offseason. He's gonna get big bucks now. We had a chance to get him for cheap but didn't want to take it.

 

Finally Bernard Berrian who also had a great year, was available but the Bills didn't seriously consider him because he came at a high price and they hadn't yet signed Lee Evans to his extension. They didn't want two expensive receivers. In retrospect he would have been well worth the money.

 

With Berrian (or Antonio Bryant) starting opposite Evans and Reed and Parrish properly relegated to their 3rd and 4th receiver roles, the Bills would have had a very nice arsenal. Oh well.

 

Like most of us I'm high on Steve Johnson but he's not yet a proven commodity and I'd just as soon get a veteran in here, a known quantity.

 

T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Antonio Bryant are the most attractive unrestricted guys out there. The rest are serviceable but flawed in some way (Amani Toomer, Devery Henderson, Ashley Lelie) or just solid (Shaun McDonald, Bryant Johnson, Justin McCareins).

 

I'd love to see the Bills dish it out for T.J. Housh or Antonio Bryant. We'd instantly have an above average receiving corp with some young talent in the wings.

 

Agreed about those specific FAs. The Bills though have been penny-wise and pound foolish though in their non-pursuit of these FAs and other opportunities like a trade for Gonzales or even going after Brett Favre (whom actually it was quite sensible that they did not go after at the time as we had both Edwards and Losman, it was unclear what he had left and it is doubtful he would have come here anyway to face that competition).

 

However, though Favre proved not capable of getting the job done for NYJ, it is still the fact that neither Losman or Edwards got the job done even worse here. As Losman is almost certainly gone, Edwards is very good but injury prone in my book (which I define as losing PT to three separate and different types of injuries in two seasons) and this team clearly suffered from a lack of vet leadership and men who were players or had been to the SB before (Mitchell fills this description but the young Bills seem to need a couple of these types of players in order to be a real TEAM. This team probably would have missed the playoffs with Favre also, but we did miss them and might have made it with some more refuse to lose vet leadership.

 

In the end, Ralph needs to take some risks and buy some players who even if the suck, retire, and leave MIGHT also have proved to make this team better or at least provided the players we did have with some competition and make them better.

[Pirate Angel]

Hate to spoil the fun, it was amusing.

 

The serious answer is that the Bills run a form of the West Coast Offense. The meaning of this catch phrase has become diluted and there are many hybrid systems being run these days.

 

The reasons the Bills' offense is considered a West Coast Offense are twofold. The first is based on genealogy.

 

The Bills' present offensive coordinator Turk Schonert was the quarterback at Stanford. While at Stanford, Schonert played two of his years with Bill Walsh as his head coach before Walsh left for the 49ers. In addition, he was a longtime backup in Cincinnati where he was tutored by Sam Wyche. Wyche (who we're familiar with) is a Walsh disciple having been his Passing Game Coordinator for four years in San Francisco before taking the Cincinnati Head Coaching job. So the two most important influences in Schonert's career are Bill Walsh and Sam Wyche whose names are synonymous with West Coast Offense.

 

The second reason is the personnel groups used by the Bills. They use a two back offense with a true fullback and tight end in their base offense. In addition they use a short, control passing game and throw to their running backs frequently. These are characteristics of the West Coast Offense. The system the Bills run is however a hybrid. For instance, strictly speaking, West Coast Offenses don't employ the shotgun formation. Like most teams in obvious passing situations they go shotgun and spread the field with four wideouts. This is more of a Run and Shoot influence in today's game.

 

So in short, the Bills use a modified West Coast Offense.

I disagree with the second reason you state that the Bills use a true fullback and a tight end. The west coast philosophy may employ a true fullback and a tightend. The Bills do not use or have a tight end or a fullback that is true to anything but being bad.

[DazedandConfused]

I disagree with the second reason you state that the Bills use a true fullback and a tight end. The west coast philosophy may employ a true fullback and a tightend. The Bills do not use or have a tight end or a fullback that is true to anything but being bad.

This view has some truth to it IMHO, because the Bills are inadequate in what the produce from their TE and their FB. However, it heads off into non-reality in my point of view (as our internet rambles often do) because it really overstates the situation by simply declaring the Bills BAD at TE and FB.

 

One can most reasonably make this case at FB where like it or not McIntyre is an NFL journeyman with stops in Philly, NO, Cleveland at least before settling in Buffalo. Make no mistake, he is an NFL quality player who actually has been notable for his ST play during some of his stops. The fact he has be signed by so many teams is a good indicator that he is really an impressive player who numerous GMs have been impressed enough with that they have signed him and tried to develop him on their PS and even a stint in NFL Europe.

 

However, also make no mistake that he has not shown enough production to avoid having the Turk visit him at each stop and have the team wish him well but cut him lose. The fact he has stuck with the Bills does speak to some positive production from him as Lynch for the second time went over 1,000 yds for the season and earned a Pro Bowl nod as an alternate. Hid back-up Jackson was also quite productive at RB. The FB the way the Bills use him is a lead blocker for the RB and it shows a lack of football knowledge to simply declare McIntyre a bad player.

 

However, as the stats also clearly indicate, just cause he ain't bad does not mean that he is good or even adequate. McIntyre failed to prove himself as a reliable short yardage FB hauling the rock or as anything of a receiving threat (we have seen good play receiving the ball in recent years at FB and no watcher would mistake McIntyre as a receiving threat.

 

He ain't a bad player (as shown by his past productivity on ST that even led to him being awarded the ST captaincy in one of his journeyman stops) but his lack of production as a checkdown receiver and as a short yardage FB shows that he is not a good player either.

 

The fact he was utilized much in either role by the OC us almost certainly testimony to him not being good enough to demand the rock and Schonert not being good enough to be able to demand adequate play from the FB or even to have a reliable back-up FB on the roster.

 

Royal actually gets a bad wrap from many on TSW who want to simply label him as a bad player. Again, an intelligent Bills observer recognizes that an important part of the truly outstanding pass protection we delivered in the 07 season and the sporadically good and sporadically bad pass coverage of 08 and also the effective RB work produced in 08 and the pretty good though not great running work in 07 was in part because we used the TE as more of a 6th OL player than as a downfield receiving threat.

 

Royal is a pretty good blocker and this is why he never was a journeyman and stuck with the DeadSkins after they drafted him and why he received some offers as a UFA when he hit the market. Royal in fact has produced career years as a receiver in 07 and again in 08 as Schonert and Fairchild tried to use more of his game as a receiver. He has demonstrated some nice toe-tapping ability and good field awareness on a couple of his TDs for the Bills.

 

However, despite recognition of this events and achievements, Royal is OK at best as a receiver and is not a real threat downfield that any opposing DC needs to worry about and can take care of by simply assigning the LB or whoever has underneath coverage to take Royal out of the game as more than a short yardage threat.

 

He is a pretty good blocker but as a receiver is little more than adequate.

 

Even worse Schonert and Fairchild have never proven able to use him to be more than adequate. They have tried to use both Schoman and Fine as the back-ups and even despite some positive signs as a receiver from Fine once he overcame early injuries, there was no sign of our O using the TE position as a real offensive threat.

 

Royal does not get off the hook for not producing as Turk has shown no indications of using the TE productively. Royal has produced well for the talent he has but his production has not been adequate to the Bills needs and on the question of whether this is Royal or Turks fault the answer is almost certainly both.

 

One only has to look at the game by game stats of last year and see the number of receptions by Royal drop to one or none each game and it becomes clear that for whichever reason the production ain't there.

 

This being said and understood though, it does not strike me as accurate to simply declare Royal and McIntyre bad and to hope that we simply acquire better players and the same O will work.

 

Not likely.

 

Schonert, since he has survived (the lack of O production demonstrated under both Fairchild and Turk really calls into question Jauron's ability to oversre productive OC work as even in his one great 13-3 season with the Bears his offenses were adequate at best and often inadequate) simply needs to run a better O.

 

This uneducated fans prescription would be:

 

A. Stick with a modified WCO as this plays to Edwards strengths at reading Ds and making a quick release

 

B. However, one modification is to make it work with a one RB set and a spread offense to open up the passing attack and give Lynch and Jackson more room and less traffic to run in. it has proven difficult for opponents to bring Lynch down with the first hit and a wider D mandated by a spread offense is going to lessen the ability of the opponent to gang tackle and still allow Lynch/Jackson to operate as checkdown and Marshall Faulk type (and I do mean type as Lynch is a good receiver though he should not be burdened with comparisons to Faulk he cannot match even if he is good).

 

C. The OL is well paid and IMHO has some talented players. I would sacrifice the TE to go with more 3 WR sets and dictate to the D they play a wider D rather than clog the middle which thankfully Lynch showed the escapability and Jackson showed the speed to deal with the clogged middle to perform well. A 3 WR set actually will dictate the opposing D that they play wide to deal with the speed of Parrish as the 3rd WR. If Hardy steps up or more likely if we spend a few dimes and our ample cap room on a vet possession WR, the need to dt Evans and a good #2 forces opponents to play a zone rather than condemn their #4 CB or a safety to covering Parrish head up. In an empty backfield set with Reed in he has shown production already as #3 with two good WRs and in the empty backfield he would get to pick apart zones or run past plodding big LBs.

 

We could even run a D where Reed may line-up initially as a 5th WR but can shift to a more traditional RB spot which now is running the power game against a zone.

 

This would basically be my O with our personnel (augmented by an FA #2 WR) and it would develop a personality as a high-flying Rams east unit which has the general desire to use Edwards skills with the tight passing game, but in the bad weather of the late season no dome Ralph can smoothly shift to the running game out of the 1 RB set (and even the 2 RB set using Oman from time to time.

[Pirate Angel]

This view has some truth to it IMHO, because the Bills are inadequate in what the produce from their TE and their FB. However, it heads off into non-reality in my point of view (as our internet rambles often do) because it really overstates the situation by simply declaring the Bills BAD at TE and FB.

 

One can most reasonably make this case at FB where like it or not McIntyre is an NFL journeyman with stops in Philly, NO, Cleveland at least before settling in Buffalo. Make no mistake, he is an NFL quality player who actually has been notable for his ST play during some of his stops. The fact he has be signed by so many teams is a good indicator that he is really an impressive player who numerous GMs have been impressed enough with that they have signed him and tried to develop him on their PS and even a stint in NFL Europe.

 

However, also make no mistake that he has not shown enough production to avoid having the Turk visit him at each stop and have the team wish him well but cut him lose. The fact he has stuck with the Bills does speak to some positive production from him as Lynch for the second time went over 1,000 yds for the season and earned a Pro Bowl nod as an alternate. Hid back-up Jackson was also quite productive at RB. The FB the way the Bills use him is a lead blocker for the RB and it shows a lack of football knowledge to simply declare McIntyre a bad player.

 

However, as the stats also clearly indicate, just cause he ain't bad does not mean that he is good or even adequate. McIntyre failed to prove himself as a reliable short yardage FB hauling the rock or as anything of a receiving threat (we have seen good play receiving the ball in recent years at FB and no watcher would mistake McIntyre as a receiving threat.

 

He ain't a bad player (as shown by his past productivity on ST that even led to him being awarded the ST captaincy in one of his journeyman stops) but his lack of production as a checkdown receiver and as a short yardage FB shows that he is not a good player either.

 

The fact he was utilized much in either role by the OC us almost certainly testimony to him not being good enough to demand the rock and Schonert not being good enough to be able to demand adequate play from the FB or even to have a reliable back-up FB on the roster.

 

Royal actually gets a bad wrap from many on TSW who want to simply label him as a bad player. Again, an intelligent Bills observer recognizes that an important part of the truly outstanding pass protection we delivered in the 07 season and the sporadically good and sporadically bad pass coverage of 08 and also the effective RB work produced in 08 and the pretty good though not great running work in 07 was in part because we used the TE as more of a 6th OL player than as a downfield receiving threat.

 

Royal is a pretty good blocker and this is why he never was a journeyman and stuck with the DeadSkins after they drafted him and why he received some offers as a UFA when he hit the market. Royal in fact has produced career years as a receiver in 07 and again in 08 as Schonert and Fairchild tried to use more of his game as a receiver. He has demonstrated some nice toe-tapping ability and good field awareness on a couple of his TDs for the Bills.

 

However, despite recognition of this events and achievements, Royal is OK at best as a receiver and is not a real threat downfield that any opposing DC needs to worry about and can take care of by simply assigning the LB or whoever has underneath coverage to take Royal out of the game as more than a short yardage threat.

 

He is a pretty good blocker but as a receiver is little more than adequate.

 

Even worse Schonert and Fairchild have never proven able to use him to be more than adequate. They have tried to use both Schoman and Fine as the back-ups and even despite some positive signs as a receiver from Fine once he overcame early injuries, there was no sign of our O using the TE position as a real offensive threat.

 

Royal does not get off the hook for not producing as Turk has shown no indications of using the TE productively. Royal has produced well for the talent he has but his production has not been adequate to the Bills needs and on the question of whether this is Royal or Turks fault the answer is almost certainly both.

 

One only has to look at the game by game stats of last year and see the number of receptions by Royal drop to one or none each game and it becomes clear that for whichever reason the production ain't there.

 

This being said and understood though, it does not strike me as accurate to simply declare Royal and McIntyre bad and to hope that we simply acquire better players and the same O will work.

 

Not likely.

 

Schonert, since he has survived (the lack of O production demonstrated under both Fairchild and Turk really calls into question Jauron's ability to oversre productive OC work as even in his one great 13-3 season with the Bears his offenses were adequate at best and often inadequate) simply needs to run a better O.

 

This uneducated fans prescription would be:

 

A. Stick with a modified WCO as this plays to Edwards strengths at reading Ds and making a quick release

 

B. However, one modification is to make it work with a one RB set and a spread offense to open up the passing attack and give Lynch and Jackson more room and less traffic to run in. it has proven difficult for opponents to bring Lynch down with the first hit and a wider D mandated by a spread offense is going to lessen the ability of the opponent to gang tackle and still allow Lynch/Jackson to operate as checkdown and Marshall Faulk type (and I do mean type as Lynch is a good receiver though he should not be burdened with comparisons to Faulk he cannot match even if he is good).

 

C. The OL is well paid and IMHO has some talented players. I would sacrifice the TE to go with more 3 WR sets and dictate to the D they play a wider D rather than clog the middle which thankfully Lynch showed the escapability and Jackson showed the speed to deal with the clogged middle to perform well. A 3 WR set actually will dictate the opposing D that they play wide to deal with the speed of Parrish as the 3rd WR. If Hardy steps up or more likely if we spend a few dimes and our ample cap room on a vet possession WR, the need to dt Evans and a good #2 forces opponents to play a zone rather than condemn their #4 CB or a safety to covering Parrish head up. In an empty backfield set with Reed in he has shown production already as #3 with two good WRs and in the empty backfield he would get to pick apart zones or run past plodding big LBs.

 

We could even run a D where Reed may line-up initially as a 5th WR but can shift to a more traditional RB spot which now is running the power game against a zone.

 

This would basically be my O with our personnel (augmented by an FA #2 WR) and it would develop a personality as a high-flying Rams east unit which has the general desire to use Edwards skills with the tight passing game, but in the bad weather of the late season no dome Ralph can smoothly shift to the running game out of the 1 RB set (and even the 2 RB set using Oman from time to time.

An Intelligent Bills Observer would recognoze that youre a putz, we all know Robert Royal is a halfway decent Blocker but overall as an NFL tight end he is average he'd be ok as a #2. It shows a lack of football knowledge to look at stats to indicate a players success especially if you watch the games and see that Marshawn and Freddy rarely have sizable holes if any to run through. Maybe instead of trying to act like youre some kind of football professor you should realize that average talent doesnt mean jack in the NFL. 7-9 is bad, not making the playoffs for 10+ years is bad. Mediocracy is bad.

[DazedandConfused]

An Intelligent Bills Observer would recognoze that youre a putz, we all know Robert Royal is a halfway decent Blocker but overall as an NFL tight end he is average he'd be ok as a #2. It shows a lack of football knowledge to look at stats to indicate a players success especially if you watch the games and see that Marshawn and Freddy rarely have sizable holes if any to run through. Maybe instead of trying to act like youre some kind of football professor you should realize that average talent doesnt mean jack in the NFL. 7-9 is bad, not making the playoffs for 10+ years is bad. Mediocracy is bad.

I draw the same conclusions as you do and clearly say so in deeming their mediocrity as inadequate. I have no problem classifying my views as those of a putz, but recognize that your views draw the same conclusion as the views of a putz.

[Beerball]

I'm confused.

Finally, the correct answer. You should give Schonert credit for that quote though.

[lacoy38]

Back to seriousness for a second, I agree with the post above that describes the Bills O as in essence a modified WCO based on the geneaology that led to Turk's O. I think an analysis which tries to figure out why it has problems comes down to questions of personnel.

 

The modified hybrid the Bills use seems to vary from the classic WCO in a couple of ways that this watched a lot of football but really un formally educated observer sees it:

 

1. The Bills realized that their OL did not cut it and tried to improve it by paying a high price for players they judged to be talented like Dockery and Walker but also have gone with a system that used the TE as 6th blocker primarily rather than as a pass receiving threat. This made sense in that the former OC (whats his name who now HCs in college) was given his final schooling in the St. Louis version of an offense which did not use the TE as a receiving threat but compensated for this with a ton of WR talent and Marshall Faulk.

 

The Bills acquired Royal seemingly with the idea that he was a very good blocker who could help the OL a lot and had more skills as a receiver than had been used in DC.

 

While this proved true to an extent and Royal did set career records in receptions and showed some nice toe-tapping skills sometimes, he really has never proved to be a consistent receiving threat. The Bills OL did block well with him as Lynch up over a 1000 and last year before things got disrupted by the Peters hold out, the year before was very good at pass protection (helped a lot by the quick release of Edwards and mobility of Losman.

 

Still overall the Bills hybrid which tries to make greater use of the TE as a receiver has left the Bills with inconsistent receiving help from Royal, the injured Fine and other back-ups. They either need much more talent at TE to make our current style work OR get more quality at TE and adopt a new style that makes things work with this player and his back-up.

 

FB- The Bills simply have lacked a good enough FB to make virtually any O that makes use of the FB work, They really should shift to a one back set or get a couple of better FBs.

 

2nd WR- they never have established a productive identity for the #2 WR. Hardy showed an initial flash of competence on an early TD pass on a fade throw, but though it is way too early to give up on him they never established how they were going to utilize him and he did not play well enough to demand the ball be thrown to him. Reed can be a very good #3 but really never established himself as a consistent #2. Parrish is also a very good #3 whose speed forces opponents to account for him and he has shown some great pluck over the middle than his size would indicate.

 

This team needs a difference maker at #2 WR.

reed is a good #2, just a different kind. he's like a bobby engram possession type receiver that people typically associate with slot receivers who are typically thought of as #3s. Reed however, produces like a #2, he had 56 catches and missed 4 games, if he had played he would have had like 70 catches and been our leading receiver; and we all know how trent plays when Reed is out. It was no coincidence that Reed's injury and Trent's slide into medioccrity or worse happeneedd at exactly the same time.

I'm not saying i'd be averse to WR help, especially a tall WR on the outside to be a red zone threat (what we thought Hardy was) to help out the offense but Reed is integral and needs to be on the field more often than not. Another dumb stat i came up with, and i know its pretty meaningless, but . . . our record when Reed and Trent our on the field together in the 4th quarter: 7-1 (the 1 was the last game of the year), without Trent/Reed 0-8. telling kind of.

[Robert Paulson]

 

I am not an O-coordinator, or an offensive genius, I try to play more of an arm-chair GM, however what is

Buffalo's offensive system or scheme?

 

Doesn't seem to get mentioned much, even during the broadcasts on game day.

 

They don't rely on the run, OR the pass, except maybe a very short pass West Coast kind of I guess?

 

What is the philosophy, what is it they want to do?

 

R2P2

 

Run

Run

Pass

Punt

[Sisyphean Bills]

Finally, the correct answer. You should give Schonert credit for that quote though.

Yes, it sort of applies universally here. The offense. The coaches. This thread. Posters. The topic of this thread. It's all confused and confusing.