Jump to content


Offense. Week 1. Snap 1


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 peterlaw

peterlaw

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:18 AM

Interesting recent interview with Nat Hackett (with Chris Brown on the official site).  Emphasis on getting your best 5 players out in the formation.  For me it is not yet clear what our preferred base offensive package will look like, other than it will featured a heavy dose of CJ.

Our best 5 would seem to be CJ, Freddie, Stevie, Woods & Chandler.  But this means a 2 back, 2 WR set with the implication that Freddie is better than TJ Graham or Goodwin.

But would the Offense be better served with a one back formation and either TJ or Goodwin stretching the field and creating space underneath.  Or would they look to put Freddie in motion in an attempt to confuse the D?

Any thoughts on our best Offensive formation / personnel grouping to put points on the board?

#2 eball

eball

    Omar Sly

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,781 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:52 AM

Good topic -- I'm not sure even Hackett knows who his best five are yet.  So many things to be decided in camp.  If Freddie is healthy, then I agree he belongs in that discussion.  CJ and Stevie are a given.  Chandler?  Perhaps, but I'm very intrigued by Gragg.  Woods seems so polished and ready, Graham has reportedly had a terrific offseason, and then you're looking at Goodwin, Rogers, Brad Smith.

I realize this is wishy-washy, but I have no idea what to expect.

#3 ganesh

ganesh

    You can do things on a football field that are severely illegal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,917 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:18 AM

View Posteball, on 24 June 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Good topic -- I'm not sure even Hackett knows who his best five are yet.  So many things to be decided in camp.  If Freddie is healthy, then I agree he belongs in that discussion.  CJ and Stevie are a given.  Chandler?  Perhaps, but I'm very intrigued by Gragg.  Woods seems so polished and ready, Graham has reportedly had a terrific offseason, and then you're looking at Goodwin, Rogers, Brad Smith.

I realize this is wishy-washy, but I have no idea what to expect.
And there will be injuries in camp.  WRs are prone to pulling their groins or hamstrings....

#4 playman

playman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:29 AM

i think we will need to see at least wk3 of preseason to really know, but i can imagine an empty set with cj and gragg to go with stevie, woods and rogers

#5 first_and_ten

first_and_ten

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:35 AM

I would not expect alot from Goodwin too early. He needs time to develope

#6 peterlaw

peterlaw

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:39 AM

View Postplayman, on 24 June 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

i think we will need to see at least wk3 of preseason to really know, but i can imagine an empty set with cj and gragg to go with stevie, woods and rogers

I like the sound of that line up.  But maybe a bit too ambitious for the Bills against the Pats in week 1.  Although Marrone/Hackett may want to throw down the challenge to Bellicheat first up.

#7 playman

playman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:12 AM

View Postpeterlaw, on 24 June 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

I like the sound of that line up.  But maybe a bit too ambitious for the Bills against the Pats in week 1.  Although Marrone/Hackett may want to throw down the challenge to Bellicheat first up.

that´s what i thought. come out swinging :D

#8 mitchmurraydowntown

mitchmurraydowntown

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:27 AM

CJ needs to rest because he's young & gets tired, oh wait that was last season's excuse. Carry-on.

#9 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:36 AM

View Postganesh, on 24 June 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

WRs are prone to pulling their groins....

So are many posters here.

#10 Chandler#81

Chandler#81

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,277 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:18 AM

View Postplayman, on 24 June 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

i think we will need to see at least wk3 of preseason to really know, but i can imagine an empty set with cj and gragg to go with stevie, woods and rogers

CJ Gragg?? Wasn't she the Press Secretary and later White House COS in the Bartlett Administration??



#11 Ralph W.

Ralph W.

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 472 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:25 AM

So 5 WRs are going to be kept on the roster.
Stevie
Woods
Graham
Goodwin
Da'Rick

Brad Smith won't be in this team and that will clear up even more cap space.

#12 Gugny

Gugny

    Garth Brooks Sucks. Period.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,930 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:43 AM

View PostSan Jose Bills Fan, on 24 June 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

So are many posters here.
:thumbsup:

#13 peterlaw

peterlaw

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:43 AM

View PostRalph W., on 24 June 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

So 5 WRs are going to be kept on the roster.
Stevie
Woods
Graham
Goodwin
Da'Rick

Brad Smith won't be in this team and that will clear up even more cap space.

It depends on how many multiple Wide sets they intend to run.  And the potential impact a junior WR may have on Special Teams.  I wouldn't be surprised to end up with 6 WRs.

#14 KeisterHollow

KeisterHollow

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:45 AM

I think it'd have to be a 3 WR set, with a TE and a RB - Johnson, Rogers, Woods, Chandler, and Spiller.  That would be a nice group, I'd think.

#15 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,552 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:06 AM

View Postfirst_and_ten, on 24 June 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

I would not expect alot from Goodwin too early. He needs time to develope
he probably needs to develop too.


#16 eball

eball

    Omar Sly

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,781 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:27 AM

Those of you wanting to jettison Brad Smith should realize he was a very big part of ST last season, particularly on kick coverage.  That, plus the fact he has been a decent receiver, likely keep him around this season.  Call him this year's Ruvell Martin with some actual offensive skill.  Is he overpaid?  Probably, but not by so much it makes sense to cut him.

#17 Johnny Hammersticks

Johnny Hammersticks

    You want a beer? How about some ether?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:53 AM

View Posteball, on 24 June 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Those of you wanting to jettison Brad Smith should realize he was a very big part of ST last season, particularly on kick coverage.  That, plus the fact he has been a decent receiver, likely keep him around this season.  Call him this year's Ruvell Martin with some actual offensive skill.  Is he overpaid?  Probably, but not by so much it makes sense to cut him.

The only reason I agree with you is because he hasn't been released yet.  In no way did has he produced enough on the field over the past 2 seasons to justify his 3.7 million dollar salary.  IMO...there are plenty of players who could aptly fill his role on kick coverage for a lot less money, and we have a wealth of riches at the KR and PR positions.  Something tells me, however, that if he was going to be released for $ issues, he'd be gone by now.

#18 Gugny

Gugny

    Garth Brooks Sucks. Period.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,930 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:57 AM

View PostJohnny Hammersticks, on 24 June 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

The only reason I agree with you is because he hasn't been released yet.  In no way did has he produced enough on the field over the past 2 seasons to justify his 3.7 million dollar salary.  IMO...there are plenty of players who could aptly fill his role on kick coverage for a lot less money, and we have a wealth of riches at the KR and PR positions.  Something tells me, however, that if he was going to be released for $ issues, he'd be gone by now.
I respectfully disagree.  Every time Smith touches the ball, it ends up in positive yardage and usually results in a first down.

He's smart enough and prepared enough to be an emergency long-term WR back-up.
He's been more durable than any other WR on the team.

Having that depth, as well as ST help, is worth his salary.  He's done nothing but good things whenever he takes the field.

EDIT:  Adding contract details ...

7/28/2011: Signed a four-year, $15 million contract
The deal included a $2 million signing bonus.
2013: $2.75 million (+ $500,000 roster bonus)
2014: $3 million (+ $500,000 roster bonus)
2015: Free Agent

Edited by Fig Newtons, 24 June 2013 - 10:00 AM.


#19 Bags

Bags

    Probation

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 29 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:03 AM

I'd love occasionally to see a double TE package like the Pats and 49ers (Davis & Walker) have used in the past, just to give the opposition's LBs & safeties something more to worry about, but I don't have alot of confidence that a 2nd viable TE (after Chandler) is on the current roster.  Smith or Caussin?  Dickerson or Gragg?  Hey, Dallas Clark is still out there......  Get 'er done, Dougie!

#20 hondo in seattle

hondo in seattle

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:10 AM

View Postpeterlaw, on 24 June 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

Interesting recent interview with Nat Hackett (with Chris Brown on the official site).  Emphasis on getting your best 5 players out in the formation.  For me it is not yet clear what our preferred base offensive package will look like, other than it will featured a heavy dose of CJ.

Our best 5 would seem to be CJ, Freddie, Stevie, Woods & Chandler.  But this means a 2 back, 2 WR set with the implication that Freddie is better than TJ Graham or Goodwin.

But would the Offense be better served with a one back formation and either TJ or Goodwin stretching the field and creating space underneath.  Or would they look to put Freddie in motion in an attempt to confuse the D?

Any thoughts on our best Offensive formation / personnel grouping to put points on the board?

Despite the philosophy that the best 5 players need to be on the field, I doubt if Hackett plans to use a 2 back set as his base offense.  I just think Hackett is saying he needs to get his 5 best players on the field as much as possible.  Two backs in the backfield is one option.  Lining up CJ or Freddy (probably CJ) as a WR sometimes is another option.  And sometimes only one RB will be on the field because a particular grouping will be better for the play call than having both Freddy and CJ out there.

I expect Hackett to be creative with his formations and personnel groupings just like I expect Pettine to be creative with defensive formations.

Edited by hondo in seattle, 24 June 2013 - 10:16 AM.