What is to be done with the D?

[Ingtar33]

I know that when you are looking at a small number of events (read: games) that irregularities can give a mistaken impression about the whole... example... a D gives up 80 yards rushing on 30 carries, then in garbage time the O runs a desperation draw against a prevent D, which goes for 80 and a TD. When you look at the end of game stats you might conclude that one team (which ran for 160yards on 31 carries) was quite successful on the ground... when in reality they were rather anemic. As a result I tend to give the numbers a rest until around week 5 or 6, because trends begin to develop at that time.

So now I must raise some D stats for us all to digest.
------rushing--passing--total---y/play--Turnovers---*Points--O-Rank
Jets:----73y-----193y----266y---5.7-------1(fum)--------24------28
Vikes:--213y----236y----449y---5.0-------3(fum)--------39------7
Den:---163y----179y----342y---5.1-------0---------------21------11
Bears:-52y------188y----240y---4.2-------0--------------20-------23
Oak:---142y----353y----495y---7.5--------0--------------42------1

AVG----129y-----230y---359y----5.5-------.8------------29.2-----14

*these are points the D gives up (not including special teams or Defensive TDs)

Allowing 359 yards per game is forgivable only if your team is either a) making plays or b) playing powerful offenses; however you can see that the avg NFL Offense rank the Bills have played is only 14th. Sure... that is upper half, but it is an inexcusably weak D which allows 5.5 yards per play. To put the Bills defensive performance into context, the avg O in the NFL will gain 110y rushing, 216y passing and 326y per game... the Bills opponents have avg 118y rushing, 231y passing and 351y per game for the season.

Dear god, look at all those numbers! What do they tell you? They tell me we have a D which aspires to mediocrity; one which makes far too few plays, and one which opposing Os can expect to do better than normal against. The telling stat is the 5.5y/play avg. Any y/play avg over 5 is a watershed number, and is usually indicative of very poor D, and is also an indicator of either poor tackling or poor D coaching.

So the question remains, what are the Bills to do. Thus far, they have shown no ability to even slow down a determined opponent. Until that changes, the O will be in dogfights with nearly every team we play. Personally, I think it is time for a major overhaul. The D would have to try to play any worst than it is now. It is time for Grey to stand tall, and figure out something new to try to give the players a chance to make plays. I'd hate to see our season go down as a failure due to a lack of any adjustments away from what isn't working.

[Buffarama]

What to be done with the D starts with one concpet. Don't settle for mediocrity. Granted we could not adress all personell problems in year. Nontheless, I am still after 20 games with this regime, waiting for the defense to win ONE football game.

[LtBillsFan66]

Blitz. Put pressure on the opposing QB. Take chances. What's worse, giving up a big play here and there (while potentially creating big mistakes/turnovers) or playing conservative and allowing team after team to drive right over you (while not allowing the "big" play - which we have given up a few anyway)?

[Rebecky]

BillsFanOne -- don't we blitz a lot anyway, but without getting any pressure on the QB? Serious question -- since I don't see the games, I have to go by you guys' reports.

[LtBillsFan66]

Not what I'm seeing...

I don't have stats or numbers. I just going on what I see on TV.

[TypicalBill]

i say get rid of the 46, it didn't work last year and its not working so far this year. Why stick to something you're not good at?

[colin]

We do good work stopping the short dink and dunk stuff, and we blow up some decent plays sometimes (we stopped the Raiders cold several times). The problem is that we get smoked on big plays. Denver did a good thing against us going little play after little play in the 4th, but they needed penalties and a 4th down conversion to get it. I am fine with the way we play the underneath, the quick outs, and even the run. We just suck on BIG plays, we give them up and we don't make them. I could take the big plays if we also got turnovers, but we don't. Turnovers would solve all of our D problems. If Grey can't make some changes we need to get a real DC.

[ublinkwescore]

Isn't that what the 85 bears went with - the 4-6?

I think it's an outdated scheme if it was what they went with.

[Kelly The Dog]

One of the major problems, and it's a major one but IMO will be over in the near if not relative near future is Coy Wire. I think almost all Bills fans think he is going to be a stud. I'm sure that JG and GW and TD do. They decided to throw him to the dogs immediately, before he was ready, knowing full well he was going to suffer a bit. He has. He blew the angle on Garner's TD run and he blew the coverage on Porter's 29 yard TD catch by biting inside and he blew a few other plays. We're just going to have to live with it for awhile. Prioleau, too. These guys IMO ae going to be fine if not fantastic players in this defense but they are babies in it playing a man's game. By the end of the season I would expect them to stop making these mistakes. But without them on the field playing they are not going to get the experience needed. And the position is not called safety for nothing. If the safety blows it, it's going to be a long play or TD. There were at LEAST three of them blown yesterday.

[Earthquake Enyart]

The problem is that the GW scheme puts the young safetys too close to the line of scrimmage. If they played a little softer, allowing them to play back more, they might make a few plays. But, they have to play up since we are at least one DE and DT away from having a decent line.

[Kelly The Dog]

Dont think so, Earthquake, we may have to start calling you "tremor" like Bills fans did when the real Earthquake started to suck. The plays that Wire are Prioleau blew they WERE playing back. Both long Garner TDs (the run and pass) and Jerry Porter's TD were blown plays by those three and they were way back in coverage.

[Cntrygal]

Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
The problem is that the GW scheme puts the young safetys too close to the line of scrimmage. If they played a little softer, allowing them to play back more, they might make a few plays. But, they have to play up since we are at least one DE and DT away from having a decent line.

and last week people were slamming Watson for playing too far back...

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Cntrygal
and last week people were slamming Watson for playing too far back...

It's really a matter of timing...this teams needs to intensify the pass rush...expecting ANY NFL CB to cover a receiver for 5 or more seconds is rediculous. Not being a homer but I think we have 2 of the best CBs in the league and even they look bad when they have to cover for 6 or 7 seconds...Improve the pass rush and even Watson will look better.