Been searching for some stimulation of late, struggling to find material that helps me develop an angle on the Buffalo Bills 2012 prospects. Of course, being a believer in Fitz and Chix, I am always on the look out for signs of strategic genius, or at least competence. Below, I discuss a recent quote from ESPN's John Clayton's mailbag.
"Q: Are the Bills the real deal?..."
Clayton: "...For years, the Bills were hopeless in a division that was loaded with 3-4 defenses. Chan Gailey installed an offense that caused opposing defenses to get out of the 3-4...".
Now, is Clayton saying that Gailey installed the offense to make teams get out of the 3-4, or struggle using the 3-4 against his offense? Or is Clayton saying the decision to install the offense had the unintended effect of forcing teams to get out of the 3-4.
My sense is Gailey designed the offense with the idea of attacking the dominant 3-4 defenses in the division, and being relatively successful, at least according to Clayton, Gailey has forced teams in the division to get out of the 3-4.
Obviously, there is a lot of room for discussion and debate, including the old chicken and egg run around. Which came first, the chicken or the egg. Which came first, the idea of the Gailey offense or the need to develop an offense specifically designed to attack the 3-4 defense in the AFC East division?
In close, I am impressed with the idea that Gailey has successfully forced teams to abandon the 3-4. I am not sure if Gailey deserves all the credit. But it would appear as if Clayton thinks Gailey has forced defenses in the division to change their way of playing defense because of the Bills new offense under Gailey.
As for Fitz, well, he is a very smart guy, and perhaps he deserves some credit for helping Gailey force teams to get out of the defense they wanted to play.
Wish I had more to offer, but for now, that's it. I am curious what others think of the Clayton comment.