berndogg Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I'm trying to think about the best way to utilize him in our offensive system. Wide reciever screens? Can you run a draw play/wide reciver reverse? If we put him at tailback would it be too obvious that the draw or screen is going to him? Will he block on field goal attempts? Can he make tackles on punt team? I really just don't see it. Steve fairchild and turk schonert have spent years getting our young players comfortable with the draw/screen punt/fg offense. Now you bring in a guy who has made his living catching passes down field and scoring touchdowns. It's just not a good fit. If the bills want to utilize T.O. they will have to implement an entirely new offensive system, one that includes downfield passes and touchdowns. We all know that having to learn a new offensive system every year is the one and only thing that has kept J.P. Losman from a hall of fame career . So why do we want to do the same thing to Edwards? I really dont like this signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 slant patterns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I'm trying to think about the best way to utilize him in our offensive system. Wide reciever screens? Can you run a draw play/wide reciver reverse? If we put him at tailback would it be too obvious that the draw or screen is going to him? Will he block on field goal attempts? Can he make tackles on punt team? I really just don't see it. Steve fairchild and turk schonert have spent years getting our young players comfortable with the draw/screen punt/fg offense. Now you bring in a guy who has made his living catching passes down field and scoring touchdowns. It's just not a good fit. If the bills want to utilize T.O. they will have to implement an entirely new offensive system, one that includes downfield passes and touchdowns. We all know that having to learn a new offensive system every year is the one and only thing that has kept J.P. Losman from a hall of fame career . So why do we want to do the same thing to Edwards? I really dont like this signing. I haven't seen us do one wide receiver screen over the past couple of years, not one, and last season we actually threw downfield quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathcliff Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Thanks for the good laugh berndogg. Unfortunately and sadly it is a very valid point................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berndogg Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 I haven't seen us do one wide receiver screen over the past couple of years, Exactly my point, if we did more wide receiver screens, I could see a place for him in our system. However, since we don't, he really doesn't fit into the buffalo version of the draw/screen offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 It's just not a good fit. If the bills want to utilize T.O. they will have to implement an entirely new offensive system, one that includes downfield passes and touchdowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonInBuffalo Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 First of all, even if there are no changes to the offensive scheme, TO helps because teams won't be able to defend the Bills the same ways they did last season. They won't be able to double Evans as much and they won't be able to put 8 in the box as often. Adding TO allows the Bills to line up Reed and Parrish more often as slot WRs. Neither of them really fits the prototype for "starting WR". TO is probably the best blocking WR on the roster now, which can't hurt the running game. He's a big target who will be on the field presumably almost every down on offense, which should help the move the chains. (unless he has problems with drops) As a previous poster mentioned, slants and YAC are both a trademark of Owens. (not literally, of course) All good coordinators adapt their schemes to the talent they have available. (I'm not necessarily saying that Schonert deserves to be put in the "good" category) In addition to a heavy dose of the previously mentioned slant routes, I expect we'll see a good dose of 4 WR sets, as putting Evans, Owens, Reed, Parrish, and Lynch on the field all at the same time could create all sorts of matchup problems for the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berndogg Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 He's a big target who will be on the field presumably almost every down on offense, which should help the move the chains. Moving the chains is extremely detremental to a fg/punt oriented scoring attack. Attempting to move the chains represents an entirely new offensive philosophy. I'm worried that this change in philosophy will halt the progreesion of our young offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R!P REVOLUTIONARIES Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 We run an offense that if I'm correct is very close to the westcoast offense. T.O. has thrived throughout his career in the west coast offense (San Fransico, Eagles). The only reason it seems as though he is only a deep threat is because those are his most memorable plays & he has the abilty & height to be a successful down field threat. But he is also known for his slants routes towards the middle of the field. Trust me, they won't have trouble working it out & it will free up Evans down field. Evans is more of a down field threat than even T.O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I'm trying to think about the best way to utilize him in our offensive system. Wide reciever screens? Can you run a draw play/wide reciver reverse? If we put him at tailback would it be too obvious that the draw or screen is going to him? Will he block on field goal attempts? Can he make tackles on punt team? I really just don't see it. Steve fairchild and turk schonert have spent years getting our young players comfortable with the draw/screen punt/fg offense. Now you bring in a guy who has made his living catching passes down field and scoring touchdowns. It's just not a good fit. If the bills want to utilize T.O. they will have to implement an entirely new offensive system, one that includes downfield passes and touchdowns. We all know that having to learn a new offensive system every year is the one and only thing that has kept J.P. Losman from a hall of fame career . So why do we want to do the same thing to Edwards? I really dont like this signing. Some of us only wish that the arrival of Owens will force Turk to install a whole new offensive system since the system we use and have taught to all the youngsters flat out has not been productive. This is the starting point and if you do not agree with this assessment then there is a much more fundamental discussion we should have. As far as changing our approach to utilize a little but significantly to best utilize TO without redoing the whole thing, I think there are a number of things we can do. 1. Run the standard set- One of the problems the Bills have had is that #2 WRs from Peerless to Reed to Hardy have simply not been productive enough to stop other teams from rolling the coverage toward Evans or simply dt'ing him with a cover guy underneath and a fast guy over the top. The cover guy makes the short route difficult for Evans and the fast guy picks him up on fly patterns and closes quickly if Evans beats the short coverage guy. To Evans credit even with dt's he has been able to get some good yardage and be one of the NFL leaders in long TDs the past few years. Owens simply improves the Bills O by forcing the opposing DC to strongly consider rolling the coverage TOs way and/or dedicating his best cover guy to mark TO tightly since a lot of his game is actually turning the short catch into as big gainer or TD with his demonstrated good RAC ability, Even with the standard set TO should give Evans more single coverage and a bit more room to work underneath as the cover guy will not be able to rely as much on deep help if Evans gets away. You do see the simple difference that having a guy who produced 1000 yards+ and at least 10 TDs+ the last three seasons can make for covering Evans don't you. 2. Use our 3 wide and 4 wide sets more- Part of the current Bills playbook is using 3 wide sets (when Parrish is in the slot this is often a 3 wide set) and empty backfield 4 wide sets (we used these more when JP was in but Edwards turned out to be a nifty enough runner that on 3rd and long he also would go with an empty backfield. My sense of the real opportunity for our O to dictate the coverage of the opposing D is for us to use Lynch more as the sole RB (a formation he apparently did well with in college) and for us to get the freakishly speedy Parrish in the slot (I was quite surprised particularly after he got hurt in his first season that Parrish has demonstrated in his brief career that he does not fear going into the middle and can do this some though I would be reluctant due to injury fear to rely on this as our base set with Parrish in the slot). This set-up basically forces the opposing D to nickel and dime up as if oth Evans and TO are commanding a dt, then Parrish gets to go one on one with the opposing teams #5 DB or to the extent they put their nickel guy on Parrish in the slot this means that either Evans or TO gets to pick on a lesser DB who is now dt'ing him. Reed actually stands to benefit most from the pressure Evans and TO put on the opposing D as if he comes in as the #4 WR in an empty backfield set he will get to relive his rookie year when the wideouts were Moulds hitting the century mark in receptions and Price hauling in 94. With this compliment, Reed did quite well as a rookie picking on lesser DBs and even LBs who had to cover him when Moulds' athleticism and Price speed demanded two dts. Reed can not only be used in 4 WR situations to use his good route running to rip them a new one, but he also can compete with Parrish to be the #3 WR using his RB trained talents to break tackles and to be a possession receiver and not be miscast as a speed threat. 3. The other thing that TO brings in a standard set and certainly in use of our 3 wide set is that he spreads the field and gives Lynch more room to run. The 8 in the box days for the D even against a 2 RB set are likely over with the trade up from Price, Hardy, or Reed as the #2. So you are right that going to an end around or some other french pastry to get TO into the game would be stupid. The good news is that even with the standard set and formations we often use today, TO can add a lot to the O. The major issue is the question of what to do IF TO has the meltdowns which have been typical of him. In fact, I think they have been so typical of the question really is WHEN and not if. The good news here is that it is doubtful that he will be able to build the friendships with his teammates and relationship with the fan base to pull this crap in one year. Further, TO has made great advantage of being so good that folks would accept his crap. No more. He is at the end of his career and in decline. He has burned the candle at 3 stops and despite the sales job Rosenhaus did for him he ended up taking a Bills contract with a huge 1 year salary and no bonus which would count against our cap if we cut or traded him. The sad thing for us is that even a TO in decline has put up substantially better numbers than any of our WRs. He helps our O by simply being there to force opposing DCs to give up something to cover him. If he is a jerk then we cut him and we are in the same situation we are in right now. If he actually acts good for a year we are ahead of the game and we can deal with reality when it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Just having TO out there will change the way teams play us. No longer will they be able to double up on Evans and single everyone else. Turk was trying to put in a pass offense last year. Plus TO is good at catching short passes an running with them. And he's a good downfield run blocker. The reason it didn't work so well was because the QB play. If Trent can start getting the ball to WRs like he did early in the year, this could work out very well. It rests more on Trent's shoulders to make this work than anyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 We run an offense that if I'm correct is very close to the west coast offense. T.O. has thrived throughout his career in the west coast offense (San Fransico, Eagles). The only reason it seems as though he is only a deep threat is because those are his most memorable plays & he has the abilty & height to be a successful down field threat. But he is also known for his slants routes towards the middle of the field. Trust me, they won't have trouble working it out & it will free up Evans down field. Evans is more of a down field threat than even T.O. Yes. Perhaps T.O.'s greatest "core competency" is yards after the catch. With no numbers to back it up I'd still bet that a very large percentage of his career yards are the slants and quick patterns where he beats the initial defender and then runs free through the secondary. And yes he's an excellent blocker although that has little or nothing to do with why he's here. Of all the criticisms we've seen (and there have been many) this original post is the first I've seen questioning whether he is a good fit or not in this offense. I don't see fit as any sort of issue at all. I'm hoping/guessing that the original post is provocative silliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berndogg Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 I'm hoping/guessing that the original post is provocative silliness. I really am shocked at the amount of serious responses here, extremely disappointing. I'm not saying the original post was THAT funny, but I thought it was something to build on, I guess not, admins please close this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 If we don't fix the offensive line? He'll be running real fast, turn and ...look at Trent Edwards lying on his ass. Hell..I could be a Buffalo Bills wide receiver for what that's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
getyourwingsready Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Just let him do what he does best. Switch up him and evans going deep on every play the other runs a slant or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Just having TO out there will change the way teams play us. No longer will they be able to double up on Evans and single everyone else. Turk was trying to put in a pass offense last year. Plus TO is good at catching short passes an running with them. And he's a good downfield run blocker. The reason it didn't work so well was because the QB play. If Trent can start getting the ball to WRs like he did early in the year, this could work out very well. It rests more on Trent's shoulders to make this work than anyone else's. This is a valid point. It's not so much what kind of offense you run. That's a HUGE misnomer in football. For defenses it's what kind of offense you CAN'T run. In other words teams know what we can/can't do on offense. And that makes it VERY EASY, for good defenses especially, to limit your options. In our case it's take away Evans deep (very easy to do) and crowd the LOS to stop our run. Like you said, assuming he's got something left in the tank, it HAS to change the way defenses approach us. That alone will dictate the kind of offense we run. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I really am shocked at the amount of serious responses here, extremely disappointing. I'm not saying the original post was THAT funny, but I thought it was something to build on, I guess not, admins please close this thread. Oh, you were joking! I got it. In that case, move Peters inside to LG and put TO at LT, make him get used to reporting to the official, and get ready to watch a lot more tackle-eligible pass patterns. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonramz Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 slants, drags, posts, the deep in pattern that Josh Reed always caught for 1st downs can now be broken open for big plays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I really am shocked at the amount of serious responses here, extremely disappointing. I'm not saying the original post was THAT funny, but I thought it was something to build on, I guess not, admins please close this thread. No need to close the thread because the original post was not very well presented or thought out (more reverses as a mainstay of the offense? overuse of reverses is one of the reasons the current offense needs to be retooled). Some of us see the advent of TO as a good excuse for us to make the offense more potent and since the stats (Bills ranking well in the lower third of the league consistently in many offensive categories whether under Fairchild or Schoenert) indicate a retooling is essential any excuse will do. The Bills problems are not simply poor schemes (as I said given a far more productive #2 WR even the current schemes we use should work better) but the specific ways the Bills choose to run routes does not seem to get them the separation that one would expect given the blazing speed of players like Evans and Parrish or to produce more from RBs as receivers when the RBs are more productive receivers elsewhere (Lynch in college and even Willis was a more productive pass catcher in Balt than he was here). If the coming of TO gets the Bills to run more slant plays, make more use of pics (I'd rather we get s few more penalties in exchange for a few more touchdowns, and more uses of crossing patterns, this would be a good thing. The primary fallacy of the initial post is that it seems to maintain that because we do not want to force the youngsters to learn something new, we should keep right on doing something that has not been effective in producing receptions, yardage, or TDs. I think you raise a good point in that the question is: Don't you want the O to change? I think most Bills fans do and if TO is the excuse for doing this then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Moving the chains is extremely detremental to a fg/punt oriented scoring attack. Attempting to move the chains represents an entirely new offensive philosophy. I'm worried that this change in philosophy will halt the progreesion of our young offense. Dick won't change his winning formula for T.O.. according to Matt Bowens. Maybe they can line him up at FB and toss him the ball on a roll out in a short yardage situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts