Out of Fletchers 138 tackles

[THATHURMANATOR]

Only 4 were for losses.....

[Pride]

LOL

That about sums it up!

I've said for 2 years this guy was all stats and no factor!

[LtBillsFan66]

Who many does Al Wilson have? Or the other tackle leaders?

[madness]

How does that compare to the rest of the top 5 in tackles?

[Willis-McGahee21]

In a 4-3 scheme, linebackers rarely get tackles for losses, their job is too make sure the back doesen't get to the second level, which means gap control, its not as simple as find the ball carrier (which is tough to do, hard to understand if you've never played real football before) and then chase him around the field.

[mchurchfie]

In a 4-3 scheme, linebackers rarely get tackles for losses, their job is too make sure the back doesen't get to the second level,
All of the opposing running backs that have played us have resided in our second level so much they know each other on a first name basis. The LBs must be doing a ****ty job....especially Fletcher. I've seen quite a bit of tackles for losses by LBs in 4-3 schemes this year and previous years. 4 out of 138 is pitiful.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

The stat that would interest me would be how many of his tackles were within 3 yards of the line of scrimmage and how many were further downfield.

You want to know if he is maintaining gap control and meeting the runner in the hole or if he is out of position or arriving late and not getting leverage on the tackles.

For the last three years I have been hearing Bills' defensive players talk about "not being in their fits" or, before that, "it was just one guy being out of position" after giving up big plays or being pounded into the ground. The defensive systems and terminology are different, but the problem and the results are the same--which tells me that it is a personnel issue. Either the players don't know where they are supposed to be, or the players know where they are supposed to be and can't get there, or the players know where they are supposed to be and are able to get there, but are not there because they lack discipline or are free-lancing instead of doing what they are supposed to do.

If the players don't know where they are supposed to be, that is a coaching issue: someone is either not teaching or not learning. If the players know enough to be able to say to the press that "one guy was out of position" or "we weren't in our fits", that tells me that they know where they are supposed to be and are able to recognize when someone is not where he is supposed to be.

If the players know where they are supposed to be, but can't get there, that is a talent issue. Either the players don't have the ability to get where they are supposed to be or the other guys are better than them and are able to consistently prevent them from getting where they are supposed to be. Now, we're talking about the NFL where the difference in talent level from top to bottom is in the 2% range--which can be significant, but where physical talent alone does always determine whether a player can get the job done at a given position (there have been plenty of players who were less physically talented than some of their counterparts who became HOF or PB players-J.Montana, Z.Thomas, F.Bilentnikoff, etc.). If it is a talent issue, due to age, injury or for any reason, the obvious solution is to replace the players with players who can get to the spots that they are supposed to be in.

If the players know where they are supposed to be and are able to get there, but consistently are not there when they should be, then it is a character, coaching and motivation issue. The coach has to find a way to get through to the player and motivate him to do what he is supposed to do and, if the coach can't do that, either the coach or the player has to be replaced. While it is easier to replace a coach than it is to replace a group of players, if replacing the coach once or twice doesn't eliminate the problem, it is time to start replacing the players. Football is a team sport and it doesn't matter how talented the players are if they won't consistently play as a team and do what they are supposed to do--there is no more obvious case in point than Terrell Owens, although his case is most extreme.

Now I do not know which of these three issues lies at the core of the problems that we have seen the Bills defense have over the last couple of seasons, but it is a problem that needs to be solved. Considering that it is a problem that has occured under two different coaching staffs using two different defensive systems, it would appear that it is not simply a coaching problem. To me, that would indicate that the easiest solution to the problem would be to find players who can get the job done and will respond to the coaching that they get.

Since I'm not looking at tape and able to see which players are "out of position" or "not in our fits", I can't say, with any degree of certainty or fairness, which players aren't consistently getting where they are supposed to be or why they are not doing so, but the Bills' coaching staff and front office should have a pretty good idea of who those players are. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter who they are, what kind of reputation they have, or what kind of stats they have accumulated--those players who are not getting the job done because they are "not in our fits" or "out of position" consistently, for whatever reason, should be replaced at this point. And, if Fletcher-Baker is one of those players, so be it.

I must admit that I am of two minds about Fletcher-Baker: I like him and I think he has been a good player for the Bills, but, after watching the Bills get trampled on the last couple of seasons and seeing opposing RBs running free through creases up the middle of the Bills' defense, it seems to me that it is not just their DTs who are not getting the job done consistently, but their LBs as well. And, since Fletcher-Baker is really the only constant that they have had a LB, I am beginning to come to the conclusion that he may be part of the problem and not part of the solution--that when the Bills defenders talk about someone "being out of position" or "not in our fits", more often than should be the case, they are referring to Fletcher-Baker. So, maybe it's time to let him go and try to find someone younger and more coachable or athletic at this stage who can be taught to know where to be, is able to get there and make sure that he gets where he is supposed to be when he is supposed to be there. That's not a knock on F-B, but just an acknowledgement that maybe the Bills need someone different, younger and faster, etc. to fill that position if they are going to develop a defense that is capable of winning a Super Bowl.

[mchurchfie]

:bf1: Perfectly said. The one common denominator with our mostly bad defenses over the past five years has been him. He has perhaps the most important position on the field and the cream position where you can make the most impact plays from. He's not getting it done. I like the guy and his hard work ethic, I just think it is time for change there. People on this board get all in a tizzy when you dare to criticize him at all. He is hurting us much more than he is helping us. If you have a MLB who sniffs out the plays a little better and takes the initiative to shoot the gaps and make the plays before they get started perhaps our DL might start looking a lot better.

[shelby]

i love Fletch.:mad:

Who would y'all replace him with?

[mchurchfie]

i love Fletch.:mad:

This is the exact problem I'm talking about...everyone loves him and it is clouding their judgment of him. To each his own I guess.




Who would y'all replace him with?Coy Wire.;):D:

[shelby]

Oh you are a very bad man.:box:

Like your new title?:snicker:

[mchurchfie]

Oh you are a very bad man.:box:

Like your new title?:snicker:
:rofl:Me too!:D: Thanxs!:buddies:

[Ickybaluky]

Of those 138, 99 were solo tackles.

So, if he doesn't make the tackle, how many more yards do you think the other team gains?

Just because they aren't behind the LOS, doesn't mean they aren't valuable.

[Philagape]

Whether he's been an asset or a liability, he's getting older and will lose speed, which is needed in our defense. He'll probably use his tackling stats to ask for a big contract, so I don't want to open the vault for an aging LB regardless of who's to blame for our run D.

[Nighthawk]

Only 4 were for losses.....

Fletcher is a good player, but he can be replaced. He's good, not great. I wouldn't pay him top dollar to stay, plus he is 32 years old.

[HHURRICANE]

Only 4 were for losses.....

GREAT FRICKIN POST.

As I have been saying for 2 years now he's the best tackler after the guy gets the first down!! See-ya!!!

We had the experience of watching Milloy here but when Atlanta signed him you would have thought that he had come off of a Pro-Bowl season. Fletcher is going to get a contract he doesn't deserve so i would rather it not be us!!