I’ll start the conversations off – philosophically and schematically, I don’t think Buffalo is moving away from this type of defense. This defense IS Dick Jauron – conservative, yet based on controlled aggression and speed. Buffalo still has a lot of speed defensively, and they will still run to the football, concentrate on penetration from the front four (rather than occupying blockers solely), and predominantly play zone in coverage.

What I think we’re seeing here is a northeast tweak. This system is based on speed, and when you add defensive speed, it usually has to come in the form of small players. Clearly, that hasn’t been a priority this off-season – we’re looking to get bigger and physical in every defensive aspect. This team plays in cold, poor weather conditions for nearly 40% of their season – that’s 40% of the time that these small players are getting pushed around by power rushing teams.

I think we’re about to transition to sort of a hybrid between a traditional 4-3 and a Tampa 2. We’ll still be speed-based, penetration-based, and play predominantly zone coverage. But we’ll tweak the systetm with big players, sacrificing some speed to play better defense in the winter.

i have a lot to say about all of this but unfortunately I have a Corporations exam on monday that requires all my attention this weekend. I will post my thoughts when I have time, but boy to I hope the ARE moving away from a cover-2 D. It’s a great defense, but only when not used as your base defense. Also, you can play zone-defenses, without it being a cover-2 Defense (See Penn State). Like I said, lots to say, but I’ll get to it when I can.

Greate write-up/find Zumone!

I enjoyed your article a great deal- very Zimmerman-esque, which is the highest compliment for football analysis I give out. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s very hard to learn anything about strategies and maneuvering by simply watching the network coverage and listening to the the fluff that’s put out there by the talking heads who cover the NFL. That medium is great if you’re interested in the Patriots and their “place in history”, but for fans like me, it’s a real chore to listen to those guys. Again, your full article is a must read for all Bills fans like me, who constantly mangle the Bills defense under Jauron when trying to express my disenchantment and frustration with it. If Buffalo truly is moving away from the Tampa 2 by adding Stroud, Mitchell, and McKelvin, it’s long overdue. I personally would love to see the Bills drop everything that Jauron represents as far as his philosophies about life, football, and competition in general, but shifting away from the Tampa 2 and its penchant for getting run over by power running teams at the opposition’s will would be a start for 2008. Again, thanks, and good luck stomaching your ESPN game against New England this year- I’ll be feeling for your fans that night when you’re listening to those three clowns treating your team as mere wallpaper for their Patriots coverage. I know that drives me nuts.

last year was still a Cover 2, I suppose. But as was mentioned in article you can’t run a Cover 2 without 2 high safeties (due to our poor run defense). So, instead the Bills seemed to run A LOT more cover 3 calls last season, hence our cornerbacks lined up 8-12 yards off the LOS. As we all saw, our defense is MUCH less effective when we have to crowd the box. So I’m guessing the new additions to our defense mean we are hopefully going to be running our scheme the way it was meant to be run or we are leaning toward a more basic 4-3 scheme. DJ and Perry Fewell are BOTH Cover 2 guys, so my guess is we will not see a philosophy change.

If the Bills are going to run it successfully, it all starts with the front 7 being able to stop the run without safety help. I presume we’ll be MUCH better at that now. If we’re more effective against the run, then our D will see more 3rd and longs which is the strength of the scheme… and we’ll get to see Schobel and Ellis flying off the LOS forcing early throws and INTs….. hopefully.

The Vikings changed the game when it comes to Tampa 2 by putting a couple of run stuffers at DT. They may not get much pressure on passing downs but they tend to send runs wide—which plays into the strength of the LBs.

All in all, I hope the team will adopt a standard 4-3 as their base defensive package. The Patriots were beaten because all of the Giants linemen were good against the run and able to get pressure. The Pats’ offensive line couldn’t slide to help against one guy without another wreaking havoc.

Buffalo is a long way from that point. Stroud won’t generate much pressure but is good (assuming he’s 100%) against the run. Schobel can generate pressure but isn’t exactly stout against the run. Kelsay and Denney don’t seem to excel in either area. McCargo showed signs of coming along both against the run and in getting pressure.

It sure would be nice to no longer see the CBs eight yards off the ball on 3rd and 2….

And I don’t know if that’s good. Our D doesn’t seem to have an identity. Rather, we seem to be taking various aspects of multiple Defenses and rolling them into ours.

We tried the attacking DT’s and smaller/(supposedly) quicker LB’s, but that was terrible for the rush. Now we’ve brought in a bigger DT and LB’s, so we’ll see how this goes. We’ve added talent to CB instead of DE, so we aren’t in the same boat as our C2/T2 teams, IMO. We can’t run the traditionall C2/T2 without a top pass rush.

To me it seems we WANT to be a C2/T2 team, but just haven’t done enough to put the proper pass rush in place. We’ve got “run stuffing” DE’s for the most part (Kelsay, Denney and Schobel to a point), though they pretty much stink in that regard, but don’t have the true speed rusher that other successful C2 teams have. That’s probably why it seems we are transitioning away from a C2/T2 towards running a more traditional 4-3 at times.

a defensive scheme similar to what Ted Cottrell ran while he was here. I liked the way he would mix in the zone and blitz calls. Doesn’t have to be 3-4 either, we could still have a 4-3 type of base scheme.