Thoughts on the D

[Gunzlingr]

Is it just me, or does it seem like we need to do something different defensively? I mean we have 2 great corners, London Fletcher at MLB, yet we aren't getting the really big plays. Granted it is tough for me to judge, seeing as how I have only been able to watch 1 game, but the 4-6 just seems to be giving up too many points. Just my opinion tho.

[Rebecky]

Your opinion is shared by ESPN's TMQ -- Greg (?) Easterbrook has a scathing article over there about GW's insistence on staying with this 46 defensive scheme. Very informative -- worth a read.

[RedEyE]

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/tmq/021008.html <~~ the link

The Article (courtesy of ESPN):

The "46" creates big plays, all right, but they are big plays for ... Returns are not the only Western New York problem. Despite playing the reckless "46" defense that gives up big plays but is supposed to compensate by getting multiple sacks and monster turnovers, in five games Buffalo has yet to record an interception -- the only team in the league without a pick -- and is tied with Cincinnati for last in the NFL in takeaways. Subtracting for return scores, the Buffalo defense is surrendering 29 points per game and stands 26th statistically; before tastefully named coach Gregg Williams tossed out the Bills' old conservative defensive scheme and installed the "46" promising huge turnover totals, Buffalo had finished first overall on defense (1999) and third overall (2000). Williams will brook no comment that just because his defensive philosophy has consistently been a fiasco, this means there's something wrong. He seems to think that on the rare occasion his defense registers a big play, he should be lauded as a defensive genius, but when the norm is that the defense gives up big play after big play as it did against the Raiders, that's because the players are not executing properly.
Against the Raiders, the Bills defense engaged in wild shoot-the-gap gambles on almost every down; the net was one sack and no takeaways, while Oakland completed 10 gains of 20 or more yards. Raiders gentlemen repeatedly looped past defenders who were making reckless gambles rather than keeping their men in front of them. From the JV level on, defenders are taught, "Keep your man in front of you." If Williams somehow thinks this law of football does not apply to him, he might watch a few seconds of his own team's game film.

Tennessee, which finished first overall defensively in 2000 playing the "46," continues to show that year's performance was blind luck. Last season the Flaming Thumbtacks were 25th overall in defense, and this year they are 27th, plus surrendering 32 points per game. On Sunday, Flaming Thumbtacks defenders repeatedly took reckless gambles for big plays they never made, while no Titan was anywhere near Kevin Lockett when he caught a touchdown pass, and no Titan anywhere near Stephan Davis when Lockett threw him a touchdown pass. Aye carumba.

The "46" is a gambling-based system, and gamblers occasionally benefit from good fortune, as Tennessee did in 2000. Most of the time when you gamble, the house wins. All NFL defensive coordinators know the theory of the "46." There is a reason hardly anybody plays this instant-fiasco scheme.

[RedEyE]

This is a problem folks!

[The Spin Rx]

Hey Rebecky.........Just posted my same drivel in the welcome from Houston thread. Vinny here. :ladysman:

You guys and the Flaming Meatballs are in the same boat. A defensive scheme that is no good unless you have the 85 Bears talent, or the Buddy Ryan Eagle Defensive talent of the late 80's or the Pro Bowlers that the Oilers had when Buddy Ryan was there......... Heck, any scheme would have worked with the talent THEY had.

http://hjs.geol.uib.no/Animgifs/anim_2_bullredsymbol.gif Mess with the Bull, you get the HORNS!!!

[Romes]

Agreed RedEye, If I were TD I would not evaluate GW's season based on wins but more on how much the defense improves. Afterall he was supposed to be a defensive guru.

[Kelly The Dog]

That would be a great article except I dont think Easteregghunt was watching the Bills game. The Bills didnt seem to gamble all that much at all. The blitzed less to me than they have before, and all of the big plays against them were not the result of blitzing or gambling at all but were misreads and blown coverages and tackles by guys in perfect position to make the plays.

[Rebecky]

ExpansionBluesVinny --

OT: As a TN resident, I want to thank you SO MUCH for dumping Bud "PT Barnum" Adams on us. Did he always regard a city's municipal budget as his personal checking account?

?? At WHAT Houston college did Buff's new HC, Gregg Wms, get his experience as an assistant coach ?? Is there a U of Houston??

[The Spin Rx]

I am a longtime Houston resident, but I lived in Nashville for 2 years also..................

There are only JUST so many marquee owners in the NFL. Bud, Irsay, Modell, and Bidwell............... http://texastwister.net/loser.gif

(mis) Quoting Bum :cowboy: Phillips, "If they aren't in a class by themselves, It doesn't take long to call roll"..................


http://hjs.geol.uib.no/Animgifs/anim_2_bullredsymbol.gif Mess with the Bull, you get the HORNS!!!

[Earthquake Enyart]

Houston Barber College.

[Rebecky]

Houston Barber College? LOL -- that's a good one.

[WG]

Kelly,

You could take a bag of sh%# and would try to turn it into a 4-course meal. :D

I'm just screwin' w/ ya man!! LOL

I disagree w/ ya however. I've seen every game this year, this past one on tape which was very interesting being able to rewind. That's how I caught those two plays where Henry completely missed a HUGE hole. I'll be happy to make a copy for anyone who's skeptical at the size of the hole that he missed. Just the cost of the tape and shipping costs. I'll even rewind it to the largest of those two blunders.

In any event, this is not about Henry, but about the D. Some nice posts here. I have to agree. I also am one who thinks that some of the coaches' jobs are on the line now. I started another thread which showed how we've largely fallen drastically in most defensive categories, which definitely begs the question why.

To run the 46 you need some beef and talent up front. We really don't have it. I'd rather see a standard 4-3 at this point. In any case, last year was Greg's "transition year" and this one counts. Many of us knew we were remiss in not picking up a solid DT to start opposite PW. Nevertheless, GW assured us.

Bottom line: the D isn't working out well. It's drastically worse than it was last year. But what I saw on tape was very loose coverage, poor man-to-man usually. Mostly by Watson but by Winfield as well. Winfield gave up that long TD to Smith in the Denver game too b/c he got burned.

Where I disagree w/ Kelly is that we were not in position to make the plays. At least not on a regular basis. We were in some sort of zone or whatever it was, and the Raiders had no trouble finding the open spots. Sure, on some flies we got beat b/c we couldn't cover. But for the most part, where the ball was, is not where we were. When you have to make up 5 or 10 yards to get there, you are virtually assured of a big play going against you.

I think the most telling part of our "legendary 46 D" however, is that we have hardly and TOs for us. No INTs at all. Few FRs. So apparently it isn't really working.

The obvious question is why not? It can only be a handful of things. It's not talent. We've fallen since last year, but have at least the same level of talent. Our secondary has improved. The LBs have stayed the same or improved nominally, bringing in one player who's played the 46 under Williams. Our DL is virtually unchanged except for the rookies.

The only other explanations are coaching/shemes/play-calling. In any event, those all fall on the coaching. The talent isn't great to be sure. But it's no worse than last season, somewhat better on the whole IMO.

I think Gray's job may be on the line here. If it isn't, and unless there's some very drastic improvement over the last half of the season, there certainly should be some pressure on the coaches. Perhaps the RBs coach too.

[The Spin Rx]

What defense has J Gray ever run well? He is a newbie coach!! :shout: The big problem with your defense is ONE step. In this defense you can NOT afford to miss a tackle, OR let a back get ONE step on you. You have NOTHING as a saftey net. Your safteys are playing a hybrid linbacker.......... If there is no one over the top, it just takes ONE step to give up points. The most telling stat I saw last week before you gave up 50 points to Croakland, was the fact that you were giving up basicly the same amount of yards as us, but you were giving up a whopping 10 points MORE a game. This means you are taking WAY too much risk, and paying for it. :hitself: DEARLY................

http://hjs.geol.uib.no/Animgifs/anim_2_bullredsymbol.gif Mess with the Bull, you get the HORNS!!!

[Kelly The Dog]

The safeties are usually the ones making the mistakes though. On any team if your safeties make the mistakes and miss the coverage or tackle it is a TD. That's why they're called safeties. I watched the tape of the raider game twice after watching it as it happened (I wasn't at the game). On all of the TD plays they werent gambles by the defense. Watch them yourself. The guys just blew the play.

After week one many here and elsewhere were clamoring for Danny Smith's head on special teams. I and others argued fiercely that it wasn't bad or stupid schemes it was players with little or no experience or talent being in position to make plays that just flat blew them.

Four weeks later, in the same schemes, with a few starters in there we have had very very good special teams play. The same schemes, the guys are just making the plays.

I contend this is the exact same situation as the defense. Our defenders are in a scheme that allows them to make plays, they are just simply young and blowing assignments and reads and tackles repeatedly. The difference may very well be that we don't have the horses (in this example "starters" to re-insert and cover for the young guys) to fix the problem like we did the punt and KO teams. But being the optimist, I dont believe that for two reasons. One, I think the players we have on defense right now have the talent to be a MIDDLE OF THE ROAD to fairly good defense. They just need experience in it and experience playing together, and a few plays by our playmakers and a few breaks and a little confidence from those plays and breaks. With our offense, middle of the road would serve us well until next year when we work on fixing our holes on defense. The second reason that IMO the analogy holds true is that the guys on the special teams making the tackles the last few weeks are not the starters we put in there to fix it like winfield and clements-- except for Wire, they are the reserves and/or the same guys we had in there before Bostic, Watson, Denman, Charles Johnson, Morris that were blowing the blocks and tackles but are now making them.

[THATHURMANATOR]

THEY STINK

[Rebecky]

Geez, I wish I could see these games . . . . Nope, can't afford the DTV package this year . . . . Got to fix the septic tank . . . .

Seems to me, from what I read, we really do need two safeties playing deep. If the WR or RB (or TE) gets away from the CB or LB, maybe one of the deep safeties would miss the tackle -- but BOTH of them miss? What are the odds?

[Kelly The Dog]

Rebecky there must be sports bars near your house with the Sunday Ticket that show all the games and don't charge any admission. They are popping up everywhere. You could see the games.