The Pack game-planned this one

[Simon]

All this may be true Simon but coming out listless and lifeless and appearing to be the only Team on the Field who did not Game Plan is not exactly a new phenomenon where the Jauron led Bills are concerned...It's always something...

 

For Me it's not so much about last night as it is about "Here we go again!"

 

I think there's about zero chance this team Wins more than 7 Games any Year under Jauron...It all looks the same to Me...And I think without TO it would be 5 at best...And GOD how I hope I'm wrong...

 

We'll see though...We'll see...

 

No arguments with any of that.

[ans4e64]

You watch what the Pack offense is doing and it becomes obvious that their staff went into this scrimmage with a specific plan to attack the weak points of the Bills defense. Seeing them repeatedly go after same spots in the Buffalo defense over and over again is not a co-incidence.

 

I think it is co-incidence. If you line up without a gameplan, and run certain plays, aren't the weakest people on the defense going to be exposed? I mean, they are weak players because they suck, so sucking on more than one play is typical. If you're running a passing play, while not purposely attacking a weak area of the defense, won't that area be exposed anyway? For instance, if Rogers drops back to pass, and the TE who is being covered by Ellison (who played well last night btw) is 2 steps ahead of his man, Rogers is going to throw it to him. And if they run another basic passing play, the same thing is likely going to happen again. Just because our weak players and weak areas of the defense were being picked on, it doesn't necessarily mean they were purposely being targeted. They could have just been running any basic play.

 

 

Offensively the Bills look a bit indecisive and at times even a little disinterested. Unfortunately they are going against a very good unit that is not going through the typical preseason motions. The Pack defense is frequently blitzing, stunting and running zonedawgs all over the place.

 

The problem I've seen on this board is the misconception that the Packers defense is good, and so we shouldn't feel so bad. The fact is they aren't good. This is a defense that has sucked perennially for about the last 5 years. Now all those sucky players are out of position, as they re-vamped their entire defense from a 4-3 to a 3-4, and this is only their 2nd time using it in a game. This is a starting defense that rolled out players like Brandon Chillar, Brady Poppinga, Johnny Jolly (who hasn't even played in training camp due to injury) and still managed to dominate us. They are inexperienced and out of position.

[Guest dog14787]

I think it is co-incidence. If you line up without a gameplan, and run certain plays, aren't the weakest people on the defense going to be exposed? I mean, they are weak players because they suck, so sucking on more than one play is typical. If you're running a passing play, while not purposely attacking a weak area of the defense, won't that area be exposed anyway? For instance, if Rogers drops back to pass, and the TE who is being covered by Ellison (who played well last night btw) is 2 steps ahead of his man, Rogers is going to throw it to him. And if they run another basic passing play, the same thing is likely going to happen again. Just because our weak players and weak areas of the defense were being picked on, it doesn't necessarily mean they were purposely being targeted. They could have just been running any basic play.

 

 

 

 

The problem I've seen on this board is the misconception that the Packers defense is good, and so we shouldn't feel so bad. The fact is they aren't good. This is a defense that has sucked perennially for about the last 5 years. Now all those sucky players are out of position, as they re-vamped their entire defense from a 4-3 to a 3-4, and this is only their 2nd time using it in a game. This is a starting defense that rolled out players like Brandon Chillar, Brady Poppinga, Johnny Jolly (who hasn't even played in training camp due to injury) and still managed to dominate us. They are inexperienced and out of position.

 

 

Thats odd, I thought their defensive backfield was filled with pro bowlers which is really what caused the biggest problems, no where to throw the ball. This is a playoff, possibly SB caliber team we played in my opinion, especially the way their D is looking. We all know what the packers offense is capable of, very explosive.

 

The Packers are a good football team.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Not sure what Jim kelly and Co. going down the field and punching the ball in has to do with anything, sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't, it had no bearing on what Marv levy was trying to accomplish during preseason which was evaluate players. No game planning or learning how to win football games by blitzing and throwing everything at your opponent except the kitchen sink...

 

Marv Levy could care less at what the scoreboard showed during preseason, but times are changing that much is for sure, at least with some teams it is.

At least you understand that drawing conclusions based on comparisons between this Bills team and the Bills of the early 90s is ridiculous.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I think it is co-incidence. If you line up without a gameplan, and run certain plays, aren't the weakest people on the defense going to be exposed? I mean, they are weak players because they suck, so sucking on more than one play is typical. If you're running a passing play, while not purposely attacking a weak area of the defense, won't that area be exposed anyway? For instance, if Rogers drops back to pass, and the TE who is being covered by Ellison (who played well last night btw) is 2 steps ahead of his man, Rogers is going to throw it to him. And if they run another basic passing play, the same thing is likely going to happen again. Just because our weak players and weak areas of the defense were being picked on, it doesn't necessarily mean they were purposely being targeted. They could have just been running any basic play.

Actually, we've done things like this in mundane practices at times. We notice our defense isn't defending a play correctly or very well and we just run the same play at them over and over again. They either figure out how to make the play or not. It's not bad to practice the things you "suck" at.

[ans4e64]

Thats odd, I thought their defensive backfield was filled with pro bowlers, which is really what caused the biggest problems. No where to throw the ball. This is a playoff, possibly SB caliber team we played in my opinion, especially the way their D is looking. We all know what the packers offense is capable of, very explosive, its a good football team, no doubt about it.

 

You're right. I'm sure that's the reason we constantly got blown up in the run game and Marshawn had something like 6 yards on 6 carries. Must have been those pro bowl corners.

[Guest dog14787]

You're right. I'm sure that's the reason we constantly got blown up in the run game and Marshawn had something like 6 yards on 6 carries. Must have been those pro bowl corners.

 

Or Marshawn superb running skills and ability to find the holes.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think it is co-incidence. If you line up without a gameplan, and run certain plays, aren't the weakest people on the defense going to be exposed? I mean, they are weak players because they suck, so sucking on more than one play is typical. If you're running a passing play, while not purposely attacking a weak area of the defense, won't that area be exposed anyway? For instance, if Rogers drops back to pass, and the TE who is being covered by Ellison (who played well last night btw) is 2 steps ahead of his man, Rogers is going to throw it to him. And if they run another basic passing play, the same thing is likely going to happen again. Just because our weak players and weak areas of the defense were being picked on, it doesn't necessarily mean they were purposely being targeted. They could have just been running any basic play.

 

 

 

 

The problem I've seen on this board is the misconception that the Packers defense is good, and so we shouldn't feel so bad. The fact is they aren't good. This is a defense that has sucked perennially for about the last 5 years. Now all those sucky players are out of position, as they re-vamped their entire defense from a 4-3 to a 3-4, and this is only their 2nd time using it in a game. This is a starting defense that rolled out players like Brandon Chillar, Brady Poppinga, Johnny Jolly (who hasn't even played in training camp due to injury) and still managed to dominate us. They are inexperienced and out of position.

You mean the team that pitched a shutout in its first game?

[ans4e64]

You mean the team that pitched a shutout in its first game?

 

Yes.

 

Against the Cleveland Browns, with no offensive weapons on it, and a 30-something year old running back.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yes.

 

Against the Cleveland Browns, with no offensive weapons on it, and a 30-something year old running back.

It's hard to shutout any team in the NFL and you very rarely see them in pre-season. The fact remains that the Packers are a veteran team, with a lot of good players, playing well immediately this year, at home, against a Bills team with a completely revamped line, two rookies with only a few weeks under their belt, in a new no-huddle offense, playing against a 3-4 defense they haven't practiced much against if at all. It's no real stretch to think that the Packers were going to look a helluva lot better. Not to mention that when it's pre-season and you just run a vanilla offense without game-planning, and without your new star player, it's not necessarily a good indication of how you are going to play when the real bullets fly.

 

If the Bills come out next week and look completely different and move the ball and score a TD or two with the first team, which they likely will, are you going to come here and announce that they are all fixed and ready to go?

 

No. Because they won't be then either. That's why it's called prefriggingseason.

[Coach Tuesday]

This is a good thread, better than the game.

 

I for one don't mind that they're getting their asses handed to them in preseason games. I want this team terrified, or at least on edge, coming into the season. The worst thing that could happen to this squad is complacency. See: last year's 5-1 start. See: last year's Detroit Lions' perfect preseason. Let them get beat up, embarassed, utterly humiliated. Whether this is by design or by this coaching staff's complete incompetence, I don't care. I want this team to have its nose rubbed into the dirt, to be broken, to be written off, so that they start the season cornered, angry, and hungry. In other words, this is good.

[Simon]

I think it is co-incidence. If you line up without a gameplan, and run certain plays, aren't the weakest people on the defense going to be exposed? I mean, they are weak players because they suck, so sucking on more than one play is typical. If you're running a passing play, while not purposely attacking a weak area of the defense, won't that area be exposed anyway? For instance, if Rogers drops back to pass, and the TE who is being covered by Ellison (who played well last night btw) is 2 steps ahead of his man, Rogers is going to throw it to him. And if they run another basic passing play, the same thing is likely going to happen again. Just because our weak players and weak areas of the defense were being picked on, it doesn't necessarily mean they were purposely being targeted. They could have just been running any basic play.

 

The fact that the first team offense ran the ball at Kelsay/Ellison almost exclusively is not a co-incidence. They only bothered trying to go at Schobel/Mitchell/Whitner two times and both ended up being tackles for losses.

And when you run multiple plays where Rodgers' very first look is at the TE being covered by Scott, that's not a co-incidence either.

And when you throw everything underneath to take advantage of the Bills corners' big cushions, that's probably not a co-incidence either.

When you look at the other side of the ball and see the wide variety of games they were running on the Bills offense, that's not a co-incidence either.

It just doesn't pass the smell test for a vanilla gameplan for either unit.

 

 

The problem I've seen on this board is the misconception that the Packers defense is good, and so we shouldn't feel so bad. The fact is they aren't good. This is a defense that has sucked perennially for about the last 5 years. Now all those sucky players are out of position, as they re-vamped their entire defense from a 4-3 to a 3-4, and this is only their 2nd time using it in a game. This is a starting defense that rolled out players like Brandon Chillar, Brady Poppinga, Johnny Jolly (who hasn't even played in training camp due to injury) and still managed to dominate us. They are inexperienced and out of position.

I don't think that's true at all. Aside from a step backwards last year the Pack defense has been very solid over the last several seasons. That step backwards last year is probably what engendered the change, but I think they're already better off for it. You mention some guys as weaknesses but both Poppinga and Jolley are legitimate players. Then when you add in guys Kampmann, Pickett, Barnett, Woodson, Raji, Al Harris and Nick Collins, this unit should be real good real quick.

[ans4e64]

If the Bills come out next week and look completely different and move the ball and score a TD or two with the first team, which they likely will, are you going to come here and announce that they are all fixed and ready to go?

 

No. Because they won't be then either. That's why it's called prefriggingseason.

 

 

... So wait, you are saying it is likely the Bills starting offense, which hasn't scored a touchdown at all this preseason, is LIKELY to come out against the PITTSBURGH STEELERS and score immediately? What makes that likely?

 

Can they? Sure. But I'd like to know how it is so "likely" they'll score "a touchdown or two" against a super bowl defense when they haven't against mediocre ones.

 

And why would I say that if they scored, we'd be all set to go?

[ans4e64]

The fact that the first team offense ran the ball at Kelsay/Ellison almost exclusively is not a co-incidence. They only bothered trying to go at Schobel/Mitchell/Whitner two times and both ended up being tackles for losses.

And when you run multiple plays where Rodgers' very first look is at the TE being covered by Scott, that's not a co-incidence either.

And when you throw everything underneath to take advantage of the Bills corners' big cushions, that's probably not a co-incidence either.

When you look at the other side of the ball and see the wide variety of games they were running on the Bills offense, that's not a co-incidence either.

It just doesn't pass the smell test for a vanilla gameplan for either unit.

 

 

 

I don't think that's true at all. Aside from a step backwards last year the Pack defense has been very solid over the last several seasons. That step backwards last year is probably what engendered the change, but I think they're already better off for it. You mention some guys as weaknesses but both Poppinga and Jolley are legitimate players. Then when you add in guys Kampmann, Pickett, Barnett, Woodson, Raji, Al Harris and Nick Collins, this unit should be real good real quick.

 

I think they'll be very good too, just saying they aren't there yet in the 2nd preseason game of the 1st season running with the new D.

[Robert Paulson]

You watch what the Pack offense is doing and it becomes obvious that their staff went into this scrimmage with a specific plan to attack the weak points of the Bills defense. Seeing them repeatedly go after same spots in the Buffalo defense over and over again is not a co-incidence.

Offensively the Bills look a bit indecisive and at times even a little disinterested. Unfortunately they are going against a very good unit that is not going through the typical preseason motions. The Pack defense is frequently blitzing, stunting and running zone dawgs all over the place.

The sky is falling crowd that has ruled the roost for the last 20 hours is embarrassing itself.

 

 

the pack are in their 2nd game of switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4

 

they don't have the right type of players to run the defense correctly yet (it's in all the local papers here)

 

based on that you would expect missed assignments or a blown coverage from the Packers that Trent and the Bills could exploit

 

NOPE- they still made us look like a JV team

 

NO TDs FROM THE STARTING OFFENSE YET

[Kelly the Dog]

... So wait, you are saying it is likely the Bills starting offense, which hasn't scored a touchdown at all this preseason, is LIKELY to come out against the PITTSBURGH STEELERS and score immediately? What makes that likely?

 

Can they? Sure. But I'd like to know how it is so "likely" they'll score "a touchdown or two" against a super bowl defense when they haven't against mediocre ones.

 

And why would I say that if they scored, we'd be all set to go?

Because they have been doing this for a few years now. Just about every other game in pre-season they look terrible or they look pretty good. Like last year when their first two drives against the Steelers in the pre-season were long ones for touchdowns.

 

So if you think they are not ready to go when they look like they did last week, and you will say they are not ready to go if they go up and down the field and score next week against the Steelers you are saying, what, that no matter what they do you will say they suck and they're not ready?

[BuffaloBill]

The fact that the first team offense ran the ball at Kelsay/Ellison almost exclusively is not a co-incidence. They only bothered trying to go at Schobel/Mitchell/Whitner two times and both ended up being tackles for losses.

And when you run multiple plays where Rodgers' very first look is at the TE being covered by Scott, that's not a co-incidence either.

And when you throw everything underneath to take advantage of the Bills corners' big cushions, that's probably not a co-incidence either.

When you look at the other side of the ball and see the wide variety of games they were running on the Bills offense, that's not a co-incidence either.

It just doesn't pass the smell test for a vanilla gameplan for either unit.

 

If you think the three minutes it took to figure out that Kelsay and Ellison are weak is gameplanning then so be it. As I have said in other responses there were also many examples of other players making mental mistakes and being physically beaten. What is upsetting to me about all of this is that it continues a pattern that the Bills displayed last year.

 

I understand that the world is not coming to an end.... however, it would be nice to think that we have a chance for a season that brings different results than the last nine.

[Simon]

If you think the three minutes it took to figure out that Kelsay and Ellison are weak is gameplanning then so be it.

 

No but running it at them to the exclusion of almost everything else is.

 

it would be nice to think that we have a chance for a season that brings different results than the last nine.

Sure would. But I don't know anybody crazy enough to think that.

[BillnutinHouston]

You watch what the Pack offense is doing and it becomes obvious that their staff went into this scrimmage with a specific plan to attack the weak points of the Bills defense. Seeing them repeatedly go after same spots in the Buffalo defense over and over again is not a co-incidence.

 

So are you saying that the Packers staff identified the Bills' defensive weaknesses from study of film from the last two preseason games, or study of film from last year's regular season?

 

If its the first, that seems a bit pointless - who thinks they can reliably pick up tendencies and weaknesses from preseason film? And if its the latter, then we are really in trouble because we haven't fixed anything from last year, apparently.

[Simon]

So are you saying that the Packers staff identified the Bills' defensive weaknesses from study of film from the last two preseason games, or from last year's regular season?

 

If its the first, that seems a bit pointless - who picks up tendencies and weaknesses from preseason film? And if its the latter, then we are really in trouble because we haven't fixed anything from last year, apparently.

I'd guess it was primarily last year.

It doesn't take long to figure out that we can be run on over Kelsay and Ellison.

Or to figure out that BScott is a tough-nosed player but can't cover TE's.

 

I think we've made some improvements and could still make others:

 

- The emergence of Reggie Corner may have solidified the nickel position where we've had some troubles the last few years.

- Plugging in Nic Harris could be a positive step forward in shoring up that part of the Front7.

- Moving Whitner to the Free means teams will probably not be able to attack that position freely like they have been seemingly forever (although it's created a potential mismatch at the Strong now)