As I feared that a new scheme is going to take time to develop, in general. Starting from game 4, teams are really looking into exploring the Bills D, and we are struggling to find an answer.
Overall, I put this on Gailey. He wanted to go 3-4, but the draft of Dareus and availability of Wannstedt made him chaning his mind. guess what, changing mind usually means a step backward - I don't care what talent you have.
I do feel strongly that a big change of scheme during the bye week is a big mistake.
http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2012/10/22/3536512/titans-35-bills-34-chan-gailey-dave-wannstedt
Buffalo's defense is back to looking like it did under Jauron, when the Bills ran the Tampa 2. It took me seven weeks to understand what's causing the defensive breakdowns. It certainly can't be talent, and youth accounts for only so many mistakes. After watching Buffalo's defense today, I'm certain of what I'm seeing. Buffalo's scheme is a one-gap defensive front four, backed by fast-flowing linebackers, with mostly zone coverages, which is very similar to a Tampa 2 scheme.
The results are the same as in the Jauron era - good pass defense and run defense outside of a few big plays. Buffalo gave up 193 yards passing, and Matt Hasselbeck was held to 6.2 yards per pass, both good statistics. The Titans did gain 197 yards rushing - outpacing their passing yardage, something reminiscent of the Jauron days - but gained the majority of their yardage on four runs. Chris Johnson had the Titans' only four runs longer than 10 yards, breaking runs of 16, 83, 25 and 27 yards. That's 151 of 197 rushing yards on four plays, with the other 46 yards coming on 23 runs. Ergo, Buffalo's defense is working most of the time. What's the problem?
The problem is the scheme. Penetrating, one-gap 4-3 defenses that play zone, like the Tampa 2 and Dave Wannstedt's defense, all have the same weaknesses.
First, if the defense plays two-deep zone (they do a lot), the defense runs the risk of having insufficient personnel to cover every gap assignment. In a standard set with two receivers, two backs, and a tight end, the defense works well. As soon as the offense goes to one back and adds a tight end or an H-back, the defense has too many gaps to cover. Second, these types of defenses attack the line of scrimmage. If one defender misses a gap assignment, no front seven defenders are positioned to stop the runner if he hits the gap where the assignment was missed. What you get is a defense that plays the run well most of the time, but when is misses, the runner gains yardage until the safeties tackle him. We saw that during the Jauron era, and we saw that Sunday.
Overall, I put this on Gailey. He wanted to go 3-4, but the draft of Dareus and availability of Wannstedt made him chaning his mind. guess what, changing mind usually means a step backward - I don't care what talent you have.
I do feel strongly that a big change of scheme during the bye week is a big mistake.
http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2012/10/22/3536512/titans-35-bills-34-chan-gailey-dave-wannstedt
Buffalo's defense is back to looking like it did under Jauron, when the Bills ran the Tampa 2. It took me seven weeks to understand what's causing the defensive breakdowns. It certainly can't be talent, and youth accounts for only so many mistakes. After watching Buffalo's defense today, I'm certain of what I'm seeing. Buffalo's scheme is a one-gap defensive front four, backed by fast-flowing linebackers, with mostly zone coverages, which is very similar to a Tampa 2 scheme.
The results are the same as in the Jauron era - good pass defense and run defense outside of a few big plays. Buffalo gave up 193 yards passing, and Matt Hasselbeck was held to 6.2 yards per pass, both good statistics. The Titans did gain 197 yards rushing - outpacing their passing yardage, something reminiscent of the Jauron days - but gained the majority of their yardage on four runs. Chris Johnson had the Titans' only four runs longer than 10 yards, breaking runs of 16, 83, 25 and 27 yards. That's 151 of 197 rushing yards on four plays, with the other 46 yards coming on 23 runs. Ergo, Buffalo's defense is working most of the time. What's the problem?
The problem is the scheme. Penetrating, one-gap 4-3 defenses that play zone, like the Tampa 2 and Dave Wannstedt's defense, all have the same weaknesses.
First, if the defense plays two-deep zone (they do a lot), the defense runs the risk of having insufficient personnel to cover every gap assignment. In a standard set with two receivers, two backs, and a tight end, the defense works well. As soon as the offense goes to one back and adds a tight end or an H-back, the defense has too many gaps to cover. Second, these types of defenses attack the line of scrimmage. If one defender misses a gap assignment, no front seven defenders are positioned to stop the runner if he hits the gap where the assignment was missed. What you get is a defense that plays the run well most of the time, but when is misses, the runner gains yardage until the safeties tackle him. We saw that during the Jauron era, and we saw that Sunday.
Comment