Anyone think were converting back to the D in early 2000

[Mitchell55]

We got our Pat Williams and Sam Adams in Stroud and McCargo. Our Fletcher and Spikes in all 3 of our LBs now. Our speedy CB and our bump and run (actually both are a mix). Also our Milloy in Whitner. I like our D this year. Actually I think our whole team should be way better than that team.

Edwards over Bledsoe
Lynch over Henry
Hardy over Price
Moulds and Evans even for the time being
Defintley our OL now other than then
Stroud = to Pat
Crowell = Spikes- my opinion
Fletcher over Pos- lets see what happens. Pos is the same type of player as fletcher
Mitchell over over over Posey
Our D-Backs are to young to tell.

[W1DER1GHT]

Re: Anyone think were converting back to the D in early 2000

We're on the right track, that's for sure. I feel pretty good about our D on paper, I just hope it looks as good on the field.

[Mitchell55]

Re: Anyone think were converting back to the D in early 2000

We're on the right track, that's for sure. I feel pretty good about our D on paper, I just hope it looks as good on the field.

Edited it to bring up another point.

[more cowbell]

Re: Anyone think were converting back to the D in early 2000

We got our Pat Williams and Sam Adams in Stroud and McCargo. Our Fletcher and Spikes in all 3 of our LBs now. Our speedy CB and our bump and run (actually both are a mix). Also our Milloy in Whitner. I like our D this year. Actually I think our whole team should be way better than that team.

Edwards over Bledsoe
Lynch over Henry
Hardy over Price
Moulds and Evans even for the time being
Defintley our OL now other than then
Stroud = to Pat
Crowell = Spikes- my opinion
Fletcher over Pos- lets see what happens. Pos is the same type of player as fletcher
Mitchell over over over Posey
Our D-Backs are to young to tell.

While i am probally one of McCargo's biggest fans on this board...I don't think he's done anything to warrant either one of those defensive tackles you mencioned above (Adams, Williams).

What I personally like about this roster on paper compared to 2003/2004 is rather than signing a bunch of big named free agents with all of our cap room, we have been filling holes in our team with young "less big named" free agents as opposed to veterans like Spikes, Jeff Posey, Sam Adams. Everyone knows you cannot build a team through signing big named free agents (see the Redskins the last decade compared to a team like the Steelers)

Instead of shelling out top dollar for players who more times than not are past their prime this team is building through the draft and creating our own stars and role players that are valuable to the team (Crowell or McGee is a good example)

[casdhf]

Re: Anyone think were converting back to the D in early 2000

The two defenses aren't even close to being similar.

[TigerJ]

Re: Anyone think were converting back to the D in early 2000

Buffalo has improved their personnel to be sure. I expect that they will add some more variations to the system they've been running, but I think Perry Fewell is not going to depart from the Tampa 2 as his base system. If Buffalo were going to a brand new system, they would have fired Fewell and hired someone who was more comfortable with a different base system.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Re: Anyone think were converting back to the D in early 2000

Buffalo has improved their personnel to be sure. I expect that they will add some more variations to the system they've been running, but I think Perry Fewell is not going to depart from the Tampa 2 as his base system. If Buffalo were going to a brand new system, they would have fired Fewell and hired someone who was more comfortable with a different base system.

I agree.

I think that the model that they are using to build this defense isn't G.Williams' Titans' 46 defensive scheme, but a hybrid of the Tampa 2 that D.Jauron ran with the Chicago Bears and the version of that defense that L.Smith ran when Fewell worked under him.

I think that, with Mitchell and Posluzny, Fewell will feel that he can add more blitzes to his base defensive package, which he admitted that he was reluctant to do the first year because the players still weren't familiar with the base defense and last year because of the injuries. The Bears actually blitzed more out of the version of the T-2 that they ran under Jauron--if you recall, that was when Urlacher was getting big sack totals--than they have since L.Smith took over.

I also think that the last two seasons may have convinced P.Fewell that you need to have a CB who can play well man-to-man in order to deal with the increasing number of 3- and 4-WR sets--that you can't just sit back in a T-2 zone and expect your pass rush to keep you from being picked apart by a good NFL QB. Say what you want about N.Clements (and I do NOT believe that he was worth what he got from SF), but Fewell got to see what having a CB who could make a big play in man-to-man coverage could do for his defense in certain situations and what it was like not to have a man who could make those kinds of plays as often (although Greer certainly tried and came up big in some situations last year).

With offenses adapting to more successfully attack the Tampa 2 defense, I agree with Tiger J, that the Bills are not going to get away from their base Tampa-2 defensive scheme, but are trying to add personnel that will allow them to run more variations off of it.

Funny enough, while the NY Giants adopted more of an attacking style of defense, similar to that of the Philadelphia Eagles, last year, their defense the last two years has not been that much different or different from that which the Bills have been trying to run. The difference between the defense that won a SB and the others has been more in the degree of aggressiveness and that is really is more a product of the play-calling of the DC than anything else.

It's not just that the Giants have Strahan, Umeniyoura and Tuck to rush the passer. But, with A.Pierce, G.Wilson and K.Mitchell (name the Giants # 3 starting LB!) and the emergence of Barry Cofield at DT to limit the running game and the development of A.Ross at CB, the Giants could turn their DEs loose to rush the passer without being that concerned about the run and could switch up their coverages and blitz more (which confused and hurried opposing QBs) in pass defense.

IMHO it seems as if the Bills are trying to making an effort to give P.Fewell the tools to control the opponent's rushing game and more options that he can use to attack the passing game. The two questions that I have about what they have done are: 1.) how long will it take for all of the new additions to the defense (and I consider Poz, Ko and McCargo just as much new additions as Stroud, Mitchell and the rookies) to gell--I'm not sure that we will see the best of what they are capable of until the second half of the season; and 2.) how aggressive will P.Fewell be in his play-calling and in mixing up his defensive calls--Fewell has shown that he tends to be quite conservative in his play-calling and in mixing up his calls and that it takes him time to have the confidence in new players to be aggressive with his play-calling.

I'm very curious about what the answers to these two questions will be and am very interested in seeing how they are answered. On paper this defense has a lot of potential, but they are going to need to have guys step up and make big plays--something that they haven't gotten a lot of--consistently and Fewell is going to have to put his players in a position to do that more as well. So, we;ll just have to see what happens as the season unfolds.

[djjimkelly]

Re: Anyone think were converting back to the D in early 2000

we are not converting back to that D

we can only dream

i can only fantasize about the other DICK lol lebeau that is