THE ROCKPILE REVIEW - Huge Loss

[Core Four]

34 minutes ago, Figster said:

I bend more towards the Bills GM Beane being young.  Its hard to strike a good balance across the roster. Injuries, key players missing from the lineup. Stars a great example. Brandon Beane has done some really good things. Allen and Diggs is a match made in football heaven IMO.  

 

Yes, both McD and Beane had to go through a learning curve being rookie HC and GM.  I do know that McD has definite input as to which positions, as well as particular player, he wants Beane to get.  Just as Beane has input as to a player(s) he would like to see in the active 53; Beane mentioned as much in an article last summer.  Nothing happens between these two in a vacuum.  I do believe there is a real stubborn streak with them regarding personnel and coordinators/coaches and players; this goes beyond learning curve.  I wouldn't say they are new to their jobs as both have been here for 4+ years, so what's going on now is a little concerning.  They need to get it in gear, and quick.

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Figster said:

 

Super Bowl Bills had good lineman...

revisionist history

 

Bills OL was an average group that benefitted heavily from the no-huddle.

To their credit, they were much better conditioned than their opponents, which made up for their lack of talent.

The offense struggled mightily when not in no-huddle mode.

 

Thurman Thomas also made them look good  

[RochesterRob]

23 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

revisionist history

 

Bills OL was an average group that benefitted heavily from the no-huddle.

To their credit, they were much better conditioned than their opponents, which made up for their lack of talent.

The offense struggled mightily when not in no-huddle mode.

 

Thurman Thomas also made them look good  

  Disagree.  Wolford. Ritcher. Hull, Davis. Ballard.  The playoff era started off quite well in terms of the OL.  It dropped somewhat in the heat of the SB period but still was effective.  Losing Wolford and replacing with Fina was not our best move.  I don't know that Reuben Brown lived up to the hype but was at least average.  

[Arm of Harm]

38 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Disagree.  Wolford. Ritcher. Hull, Davis. Ballard.  The playoff era started off quite well in terms of the OL.  It dropped somewhat in the heat of the SB period but still was effective.  Losing Wolford and replacing with Fina was not our best move.  I don't know that Reuben Brown lived up to the hype but was at least average.  

Back when the Bills had the Wolford/Ballard line you describe, Kelly had all kinds of time to throw. Losing Wolford, and later Ballard, was a real blow to the line. Fins was a bottom 10 LT. Ruben Brown wasn’t drafted until after the Super Bowl era had ended. 

[Arm of Harm]

2 hours ago, Core Four said:

 

Those Bills teams had a very good OLine and a difference maker in Bruce Smith coupled with Bennet and Talley.

 

This Bills team has a terrible OLine and no real difference maker on the DLine or LB corps.  Just not built to win the SB and Beane and McD deserve to be questioned regarding how they decided to build the team. 

 

IMO, the Bills could get there in a year or two, but that will take a philosophy change with Beane and McD, as well as being active in FA with better decisions in player acquisitions in both FA and the draft.  Beane, I think, has more of an open mind than McD, who appears to be very stubborn.

I know it will never happen but I’d love to see this Bills team adopt a Wade Phillips 3-4. Guys like Ed Oliver and Roussseau could be DE’s. You’d need a couple NTs. Guys much bigger than Star. Adjustments would be needed at LB, but maybe some of our existing LBs could bulk up to give you the more physical LBs required by a 3-4.

 

Wade Phillips gave the Bills their best defense I can remember. With the Broncos their defense led them to a Super Bowl win. When he was with the Los Angeles Rams, the Rams made it to the Super Bowl. Then Wade’s defense held Brady and the Patriots to 13 points. Unfortunately the Rams still lost but that loss was not the fault of their defense. 

[Core Four]

38 minutes ago, Arm of Harm said:

I know it will never happen but I’d love to see this Bills team adopt a Wade Phillips 3-4. Guys like Ed Oliver and Roussseau could be DE’s. You’d need a couple NTs. Guys much bigger than Star. Adjustments would be needed at LB, but maybe some of our existing LBs could bulk up to give you the more physical LBs required by a 3-4.

 

Wade Phillips gave the Bills their best defense I can remember. With the Broncos their defense led them to a Super Bowl win. When he was with the Los Angeles Rams, the Rams made it to the Super Bowl. Then Wade’s defense held Brady and the Patriots to 13 points. Unfortunately the Rams still lost but that loss was not the fault of their defense. 

 

I don't know if 4-3 vs 3-4 matters, you can win with both.  You need the right personnel and good coaching and scheme to be a SB contender.  We're not there yet, but I don't think we're necessarily far away, at least personnel-wise.  I would think coaching and philosophy is the biggest issues holding us back.

  

I'm not sure the Bills switching from 4-3 to 3-4 will necessarily solve anything, it may even prolong the pain because you need a different player skillset.  I do agree that we need more size and strength at the 1TDT position, OLine, a more physical MLB, and get Oliver, AJE, Rousseau, and Basham to bulk up a little more.  Frazier/McD small, fast, and finesse (on the lines and MLB) makes no sense and isn't yielding fruit.

[Arm of Harm]

On 11/24/2021 at 2:56 PM, Core Four said:

 

I don't know if 4-3 vs 3-4 matters, you can win with both.  You need the right personnel and good coaching and scheme to be a SB contender.  We're not there yet, but I don't think we're necessarily far away, at least personnel-wise.  I would think coaching and philosophy is the biggest issues holding us back.

  

I'm not sure the Bills switching from 4-3 to 3-4 will necessarily solve anything, it may even prolong the pain because you need a different player skillset.  I do agree that we need more size and strength at the 1TDT position, OLine, a more physical MLB, and get Oliver, AJE, Rousseau, and Basham to bulk up a little more.  Frazier/McD small, fast, and finesse (on the lines and MLB) makes no sense and isn't yielding fruit.

 

I think the defensive scheme matters because it affects the type of player you seek out and how you use that player once you get him. Take the Wade Phillips 3-4. Back when he was here, that defense all started with Ted Washington, NT. I think Washington weighed around 350 pounds. He was the type of player who'd command a double team, and yet who'd make a good share of plays. It became very, very difficult for other teams to run the ball up the middle with him in there. When he needed a breather you'd put Pat Williams in his place. Williams was also an outstanding football player.

 

Then at RDE you had an aging but still effective Bruce Smith. Smith also commanded double teams, and was good not just as a pass rusher but also as a run stopper. Over at LDE you had Phil Hansen: strong, stout against the run, and with reasonably good pass rushing ability.

 

You had four starting linebackers, and there were definitely good players among them. Sam Cowart's name comes to mind. You had Bryce Paup as your pass rushing linebacker. In his best year he had 17.5 sacks. But he was far more than just a sack artist. He was a very good overall football player, whether he was stopping the run, or dropping back into pass coverage, or rushing the passer. On a passing down you'd very often rush the passer with all three linemen + 1 of your four LBs. Most often that LB was Paup, but it could be any of the four. This way you're creating unpredictability--the offense doesn't know who your fourth rusher will be--without having to send more than four rushers.

 

The most notable member of the defensive secondary was Antoine Winfield, CB. Winfield was good enough you could put him on an island against the other team's #1 WR, and you'd be okay. He was also a good hitter and tackler against the run. If there was a knock on him, it was that he wasn't good at intercepting passes. But like the announcers say, if they could catch they'd be wide receivers. Winfield's presence on the roster gave Wade more flexibility, because it meant he didn't have to double the other team's #1 WR if he didn't want to.

 

That 3-4 proved very effective against the run. Between Washington shutting down the middle of the field for running plays, plus the good run stopping of the DEs, plus the fact that the LBs are larger and stronger than you'd encounter in a 4-3, just made it very difficult for other teams to run the ball against us. The defense also proved very effective against the pass. The one year the Wade Phillips Bills defense led the league with 47 sacks. But it wasn't just the pass rush. It was also the fact that all those LBs milling about made it more difficult for offenses to complete shorter passes. The Rams' version of that defense held Brady and the Patriots to 13 points in the Super Bowl. So, it was good enough against short passes even to stymie a master like him. 

 

With this type of defense you're looking for a larger, stronger NT than any 4-3 team is looking for. Your DEs are like other teams' DTs. Your LBs are larger and stronger (but also a little slower) than a 4-3 team's LBs. If too many teams go 3-4, that can drive up the price of the unique type of player you're looking for. That problem had existed several years ago, but I don't think it's an issue right now. I know McDermott will never adopt a 3-4, because his expertise is in the Panthers style defense. But a man can dream!

[Core Four]

8 minutes ago, Arm of Harm said:

 

I think the defensive scheme matters because it affects the type of player you seek out and how you use that player once you get him. Take the Wade Phillips 3-4. Back when he was here, that defense all started with Ted Washington, NT. I think Washington weighed around 350 pounds. He was the type of player who'd command a double team, and yet who'd make a good share of plays. It became very, very difficult for other teams to run the ball up the middle with him in there. When he needed a breather you'd put Pat Williams in his place. Williams was also an outstanding football player.

 

Then at RDE you had an aging but still effective Bruce Smith. Smith also commanded double teams, and was good not just as a pass rusher but also as a run stopper. Over at LDE you had Phil Hansen: strong, stout against the run, and with reasonably good pass rushing ability.

 

You had four starting linebackers, and there were definitely good players among them. Sam Cowart's name comes to mind. You had Bryce Paup as your pass rushing linebacker. In his best year he had 17.5 sacks. But he was far more than just a sack artist. He was a very good overall football player, whether he was stopping the run, or dropping back into pass coverage, or rushing the passer. On a passing down you'd very often rush the passer with all three linemen + 1 of your four LBs. Most often that LB was Paup, but it could be any of the four. This way you're creating unpredictability--the offense doesn't know who your fourth rusher will be--without having to send more than four rushers.

 

The most notable member of the defensive secondary was Antoine Winfield, CB. Winfield was good enough you could put him on an island against the other team's #1 WR, and you'd be okay. He was also a good hitter and tackler against the run. If there was a knock on him, it was that he wasn't good at intercepting passes. But like the announcers say, if they could catch they'd be wide receivers. Winfield's presence on the roster gave Wade more flexibility, because it meant he didn't have to double the other team's #1 WR if he didn't want to.

 

That 3-4 proved very effective against the run. Between Washington shutting down the middle of the field for running plays, plus the good run stopping of the DEs, plus the fact that the LBs are larger and stronger than you'd encounter in a 4-3, just made it very difficult for other teams to run the ball against us. The defense also proved very effective against the pass. The one year the Wade Phillips Bills defense led the league with 47 sacks. But it wasn't just the pass rush. It was also the fact that all those LBs milling about made it more difficult for offenses to complete shorter passes. The Rams' version of that defense held Brady and the Patriots to 13 points in the Super Bowl. So, it was good enough against short passes even to stymie a master like him. 

 

With this type of defense you're looking for a larger, stronger NT than any 4-3 team is looking for. Your DEs are like other teams' DTs. Your LBs are larger and stronger (but also a little slower) than a 4-3 team's LBs. If too many teams go 3-4, that can drive up the price of the unique type of player you're looking for. That problem had existed several years ago, but I don't think it's an issue right now. I know McDermott will never adopt a 3-4, because his expertise is in the Panthers style defense. But a man can dream!

To this day I still don't understand why we let Winfield and Ted Washington go.  Just terrible decisions.

 

Some good thoughts in your post and you make a case for the 3-4.  I think that if we can get a Ted Washington or Pat Williams 1TDT, that should suffice.  Get Ed O to bulk up a little, same with the DEs.  I don't understand the Dick Jauron/Leslie Frazier/Sean McDermott philosophy of going smaller on the DLine, yet expect the DLinemen to push the C/G/T back to set the edge and collapse the pocket.

 

I get your point of keeping the opposing offense guessing as to which LB rushes/blitzes the passer in a 3-4, and that makes a lot of sense.  I just don't think that advantage is worth the personnel transition.  Frazier could be more creative in how he uses the LBs, such as blitzing up the middle or off the edge, rather than using them as essentially big safeties.  I really think our biggest problem is one of philosophy and scheme.  Look at what Jim Schwartz did when he was the DC.  That was a good defense pass rush wise, just had some issues stopping the run if I recall correctly.  But we still have that intermittent problem now, only we don't really get to the QB.

 

In the end, I agree that the scheme most likely will not change.  They are stubborn and married to it.  I bet they go nickel against the Pats because Frazier thinks Taron Johnson has been doing well in run support.  

[Arm of Harm]

8 minutes ago, Core Four said:

To this day I still don't understand why we let Winfield and Ted Washington go.  Just terrible decisions.

 

Some good thoughts in your post and you make a case for the 3-4.  I think that if we can get a Ted Washington or Pat Williams 1TDT, that should suffice.  Get Ed O to bulk up a little, same with the DEs.  I don't understand the Dick Jauron/Leslie Frazier/Sean McDermott philosophy of going smaller on the DLine, yet expect the DLinemen to push the C/G/T back to set the edge and collapse the pocket.

 

I get your point of keeping the opposing offense guessing as to which LB rushes/blitzes the passer in a 3-4, and that makes a lot of sense.  I just don't think that advantage is worth the personnel transition.  Frazier could be more creative in how he uses the LBs, such as blitzing up the middle or off the edge, rather than using them as essentially big safeties.  I really think our biggest problem is one of philosophy and scheme.  Look at what Jim Schwartz did when he was the DC.  That was a good defense pass rush wise, just had some issues stopping the run if I recall correctly.  But we still have that intermittent problem now, only we don't really get to the QB.

 

In the end, I agree that the scheme most likely will not change.  They are stubborn and married to it.  I bet they go nickel against the Pats because Frazier thinks Taron Johnson has been doing well in run support.  

 

I was very frustrated when we let Winfield go. The Patriots had just released Lawyer Milloy. Belichick had concluded Milloy was overpaid, and Milloy had refused to take a pay cut. Tom Donahoe saw that situation as an opportunity to sign Milloy, which he did at the original salary Belichick had thought was too high. In signing Milloy and an aging Troy Vincent, Donahoe used up the salary cap space originally set aside for Winfield. Winfield went on to contribute far, far more to the Vikings than Milloy + Vincent contributed to the Bills.

 

You make the point that if you could add a Ted Washington or a Pat Williams to the 1 tech DT spot, it would significantly improve the defense. I'd agree with that, but I don't think that alone would give you the kind of elite defense with which Wade Phillips has generally been associated.

 

The Pettine defense was very good against the pass but bad against the run. Pettine left to take a head coaching position elsewhere, and was replaced by Schwartz. The Schwartz defense was also very good against the pass and significantly upgraded against the run. I admit I like the Wade Phillips defense even more--it was objectively better--but the Schwartz defense was definitely very good.

 

I think a big part of the reason McDermott and Frazier will stick with the defensive philosophy they have is because people tend to associate the known with safety and the unknown with risk. They know the scheme they have. Whereas, a guy like Bill Belichick can be more flexible in his thinking, and is quite capable of going back and forth between a 3-4 and a 4-3 depending on the players he has and the opponent he's facing. A guy like him gives you more breadth of defensive football knowledge than McDermott or Frazier. Of course, the only way for McDermott and Frazier to truly grow in their breadth of knowledge is to experiment beyond the limits of the scheme they have. That requires risk, and thus far they've mostly chosen not to embrace that particular risk.