Offense: Unstable foundation forced simplification?

[Robert Paulson]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Formations are not the same as packages. And, you are right that the limited number of plays, packages, and formations that we used telegraphed the offense's intent to the defense to the point that fans knew what was coming. Why is that "good" though?

 

People are jumping to the conclusion here that Schonert ran a complex offense with all sorts of wrinkles and razzle dazzle, but did anyone actually see this offense on the field? Schonert may have coached a ridiculously complex offense, but on the field in the games, his play calling was simple enough that drunk fans were calling the plays before the snap. So, which one was it?

 

I don't disagree with your last statement, btw. The classic West Coast offense was designed so that all the plays could be run out of the same personnel set and formation. That seemed to work OK.

 

 

last year we would bring in player group A in formation 1 which would be a certain play

 

we would then have player group B in formation 2 which would be a different play

etc. etc.

 

examples of player groups could be Roscoe is in and it's formation 1 - i knew it would be play x

 

when we had the K gun we could run any play using the same folks and did not have to bring in groups and run those groups plays

 

limiting formations in and itself is not necessarily a good thing but being able to keep one personnel group in and being able to run sevral different plays out of the same formation is a good thing

[GrudginglyOptimistic]

Who said I don't like Dick Jauron?

 

I base my opinion on several things. The going conservative offense started at the same time as the defensive stopped their aggressive blitzing style and went back to the keep everything in front of you bend but don't break defense. Remember the blitz on Phillip Rivers resulting in the K. Mitcell pick sealing the win in Dan Diego? Again, my speculation is that Dick called off the dogs. We're way ahead in the division, we need to play it safe. Team that makes the fewest mistakes wins. Both offense and defense changed style around week 8.

 

As far as the Seattle game, that was only one example. There was also a long pass to Lee on the sidelines gaining 40 yards or so. I still maintain that throwing the 30 yard pass into the EZ on 1st down is an aggressive side we didn't see at all in the second half of the season even though we had similar opportunities.

 

Turk has responsibility for the O's demise, but Dick has more. He is the HC after all.

 

I think it is a mistake to draw the conclusion that the offense is becoming more conservative because DJ was on Schonert's back all the time because there were too many formations. A contrary explanation which would fit the facts as we understand them is seen in a team going to the no huddle. This was not a conservative offense at all as it was run at an extremely high pace and when it worked produced a highly productive and aggressive offense.

 

However, this was an offense which actually had very few plays that it ran (I have heard numbers as low as six) and really only one formation (with slight variations with a man in motion to hide the simplicity and WRs flopping sides from time to time). It actually was the fact that the Bills could run several plays (some run/some long pass/some short pass) from the same formation and using the same set of players that made this offense so deceptive and difficult to stop.

 

The Turk had multiple formations and rotated many players that the smart opposing coach and players would know exactly which play the Bills were gonna run given a certain down and distance and which formation they chose to use and which player package they had go out.

 

Jauron easily could have been on Turk to reduce the number of formations he used in order to make the Bills less easy to predict what they were gonna do.

 

One of the other advantages of the no huddle is that when you got it going well it actually simplifies things a lot for your young inexperienced guards. Opposing Ds do not have a chance to huddle up and decide upon exotic stunts and blitzes to use and since substitutions are limited the opposing DC does not have the ability to send in exotic blitz packages and also your young guards are blocking the same player play after play.

 

If the Bills simplify correctly rather than be more conservative they can instead set things up to run an aggressive pass game.

[GrudginglyOptimistic]

You are asking this after what happened last Friday and Saturday? The answer is what I've been saying for 3+ years: leadership. Whether you think the firing of Schonert was 100% Wilson's idea or not, the timing of the move is pure panic and shows a lack of sound and decisive leadership any way one slices it. Jauron either caved to management pressure rather than fight for his guy and something he was committed to implementing; or, he failed in spades to identify the right OC and protracted a lousy working relationship all the way to the brink of the start of the season even after the dismal proof of last season that it was failing to produce, which gives him and the team no time and no way to rethink the approach or hire someone with any experience. This is an epic leadership failure, and a very public display that the Bills are in disarray.

 

"If the head [coach] is not in charge, then you have nothing but chaos and nothing good can come out of a situation like that," Marty Schottenheimer.

 

 

 

Turk said very clearly that Jauron would not let him run the offense he wanted to run. "He limited the formations. He limited the plays." The same course was taken by Fairchild's offense, starting out as one thing and then it all went into a shell complete with training wheels and couldn't get defenses out of the box.

 

I completely agree that poor leadership is the problem. A very bad leader fired Polian, developed a toxic relationship with Butler who ran out of town leaving us twisting, was forced to hire TD to fill the Butler void and then managed TD poorly so that he hired the not ready for prime time GW and Mularkey. Further he then was forced to fir TD when his moves got so bad and had to turn to the too old to GM Levy and the signed off on and then extended Jauron.

 

It just seems foolishly shortsighted to think that it is gonna make a big difference to can Jauron when Mr. Wilson demonstrated just last year that while you were building up a 3+ year rant of Jauron, Mister Wilson was looking at the same data and deciding to extend him for several years.

 

Wilson's poor leadership is clearly the key reason that explains this all. Blaming 10 years of missed playoffs on Jauron is simply silly. Expecting that cashiering him and Mr. Wilson picking a new body to develop the same losing toxic relationship he has had with Polian/Butler/Donahue/Phillips/Williams (who he let go)/Mularkey/Schonert and even Levy (whom he did fire once).

 

Jauron is a problem but is far more a symptom than the cause of this disease.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Blaming 10 years of missed playoffs on Jauron is simply silly.

 

You are the only one that is trying to conflate Dick Jauron with the history of the Buffalo Bills. Why stop at 10 years, though? Why not try to conflate the entire 50 year mostly losing history of the Bills and make up a fiction that the people that knew of Jauron's weaknesses are trying to pin all 50 of them on him?

 

It's really very, very simple. Sticking with something that is broken and a group that is not working longer is just procrastination and delaying the inevitable moves to fix that problem unless fixing the problems are not really part of the plan at all. There is really no number of straw-men that you can come up with that is going to convince me or many others that sticking with Dick Jauron over 6 other head coaches that have won NFL titles was a profound, inspired, and shrewd football decision.