Jump to content


Photo

Benoit's tweet about Hyde and how it relates to 2017 Bills D


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Logic

Logic

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:58 PM

So today Andy Benoit tweeted the following. Forgive me, but I have no idea how to embed Tweets.

https://twitter.com/Andy_Benoit

Micah Hyde will be missed. He was big reason #Packers were comfortable playing so much nickel and dime packages on 1st+2nd down.

Interesting comment in and of itself. Hyde, I think, was a lot more important a signing than many realized, and NOT as a traditional every down safety.

How is this relevant to the Bills? Well, take the following article:



http://www.heraldonl...le12310142.html


"Carolina being in nickel for nearly 94 percent of its defensive snaps last week was by far the most the Panthers have done this season. In wins against Tampa Bay and Detroit, Carolina was in nickel for 71 percent and 77 percent of the snaps, respectively."


Obviously, the percentage of time that teams are in nickel defense is up across the league and climbing every year. McDermott's Panthers defenses in particular, though, seemed to employ this tactic to great effect the last couple of seasons.

This tells me that OLB is perhaps slightly less of a need than CB and S at this point. CB because we still need bodies there and S because Hyde won't be a full time safety. We still NEED an OLB, of course, but to the extent that the Bills will likely spend so much time in a nickel and thus, will only have two LBs on the field, I can't help but wonder if they feel pretty good about Preston and Reggie and feel the more pressing needs lie in the secondary.

Anyway...excited to see what Hyde brings to this defense!

 



#2 CNY315

CNY315

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:05 AM

Good stuff. Btw you can't embed tweets on here



#3 TheTruthHurts

TheTruthHurts

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,821 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:08 AM

I do have a feeling the Bills are really high on Seymour. The new coaches not only looked at game film but hours of practice film. Seymour shined in practice.

I think Seymour could already be penciled in as #2 CB.

Edited by TheTruthHurts, 20 March 2017 - 12:09 AM.


#4 billspro

billspro

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:12 AM

So really we are going to be a nickel based defence rather than a 4-3. We need more corners and more hybrids.  Seems like this system is built on versatile players. Hyde can play S, hybrid S/LB, and nickel. 

 

Peppers fits a similar type of mold in the draft. The next most versatile defender in the draft would be Reddick. It will be interesting if that trend continues. 



#5 Rise Up Lights

Rise Up Lights

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 962 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:57 AM

That's why I could see Peppers on this team. Not saying I'd be a huge fan of the pick, but I could see that happening.



#6 jr1

jr1

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,729 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 01:01 AM

just take Peppers. If it doesn't work out on D he can play O



#7 ajmac

ajmac

    UDFA

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 77 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:32 AM

That may Ben the thinking at OBD and r a son behind notmgoing hard after Zach. Peppers, Reddick, Tabor, all good options. Don't you think Ihedigbo would fit that profile? I think his skills as a hybrid-zone scheme player are really above average. Man cover, not so much...might we bring him back?

Interesting to say the least. Thanks OP. Nice post.

#8 WhitewalkerInPhilly

WhitewalkerInPhilly

    Professional Kool-Aid Drinker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:26 AM

I know I've mentioned it before, but I honestly wouldn't be shocked if we are building a base Big Nickel, and I think that our FA targets, or more specifically who and what we haven't targeted, seem to reflect that. 

 

Right now, we only have two established starters at Linebacker: Brown and Ragland. Yes, we have Lawson, but last year he was used more like how Hughes and Lawson are set to be this year as outside rushers.

 

Neither Brown nor Ragland are amazing in coverage (Brown is ok, Ragland we didn't get to see but is more projected as a thumper). Rather than really getting on the bandwagon for Zach, we feel ok letting him shop the market for a long period of time, so he doesn't seem like a huge priority.

 

But we've already heard that McDermott likes to play a safety in the box, so what if we are planning to drop Hyde into the box and run with two other safeties? 

 

Here's a writeup on the formation: 

http://www.nfl.com/n...defensive-trend

http://www.nfl.com/n...defensive-trend



#9 PaattMaann

PaattMaann

    Life Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,195 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:53 AM

Makes sense...the NFL is obviously now the Passing League (except our Bills), so your defense should reflect that. This is not new, even Fat Rex said when he was hired that the base defense isnt a big deal (it obviously was, dumbass) because you spend the majority of your time on defense in your nickel and dime packages...

 

I could see a situation where Hyde is used as a hybrid LB/coverage guy, being on the field at the same time as two other safeties often.

 

I just want coach McD to put the best 11 defenders on the field at the same time 



#10 rowisu80

rowisu80

    Probation

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:56 AM

I know I've mentioned it before, but I honestly wouldn't be shocked if we are building a base Big Nickel, and I think that our FA targets, or more specifically who and what we haven't targeted, seem to reflect that. 

 

Right now, we only have two established starters at Linebacker: Brown and Ragland. Yes, we have Lawson, but last year he was used more like how Hughes and Lawson are set to be this year as outside rushers.

 

Neither Brown nor Ragland are amazing in coverage (Brown is ok, Ragland we didn't get to see but is more projected as a thumper). Rather than really getting on the bandwagon for Zach, we feel ok letting him shop the market for a long period of time, so he doesn't seem like a huge priority.

 

But we've already heard that McDermott likes to play a safety in the box, so what if we are planning to drop Hyde into the box and run with two other safeties? 

 

Here's a writeup on the formation: 

http://www.nfl.com/n...defensive-trend

http://www.nfl.com/n...defensive-trend

awesome stuff. 

almost seems like the stuff that Juaron tried ..unsuccessfully, with guys like Coy Wire and others



#11 Maynard

Maynard

    Probation

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:59 AM

I thought the Hyde pickup was amazing. I remembered watching GB on a few occasions last year and all I'd hear by the announcer was "Micah Hyde" repeated over and and over again. At that time I thought who the heck is this guy, he was everywhere!!

#12 Johnny Hammersticks

Johnny Hammersticks

    No, this is not a good town for psychedelic drugs.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,540 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:06 AM

just take Peppers. If it doesn't work out on D he can play O


That's like saying, "Just buy that Ford Focus for $35,000. If it turns out to be a piece of crap vehicle, then we can always park it in the back yard and plant flowers in it!"

#13 rowisu80

rowisu80

    Probation

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:09 AM

That's like saying, "Just buy that Ford Focus for $35,000. If it turns out to be a piece of crap vehicle, then we can always park it in the back yard and plant flowers in it!"

hahahaha...best analogy I've read in a while 



#14 Teeflebees

Teeflebees

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,034 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:18 AM

just take Peppers. If it doesn't work out on D he can play O


Is this serious?

#15 JohnBonhamRocks

JohnBonhamRocks

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:48 AM

That's why I could see Peppers on this team. Not saying I'd be a huge fan of the pick, but I could see that happening.

 

+1. He's similar to Shaq Thompson. 



#16 Chilly

Chilly

    Formerly Known as BlueFire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,190 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:44 AM

McDermott may only use two LBs but they need to have great coverage skills while the CBs are playing zone.

IMO LB is a much bigger need than CB because none of our LBs are great at coverage right now. Really hope we get Zach back.

#17 BillsFan17

BillsFan17

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:59 AM

And like Shaq Thompson who surprised people by being a fist rounder... peppers has no business being a first rounder.

#18 JohnBonhamRocks

JohnBonhamRocks

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:14 AM

And like Shaq Thompson who surprised people by being a fist rounder... peppers has no business being a first rounder.

 

Your logic = Shaq Thompson has no business being a first rounder

 

I disagree.



#19 TheTruthHurts

TheTruthHurts

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,821 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:30 AM

That's why I could see Peppers on this team. Not saying I'd be a huge fan of the pick, but I could see that happening.

Looking at the last 2 years, Shaq Thompson only played 49% of the snaps last year and 33% as a rookie. You dont take a player to play that few snaps in the top 10 unless you're Buddy Nix and drafting CJ Spiller. The LBs that played the most were Keuchly and Davis. Davis I believe is also a converted safety but bigger.

 

But lets remember McD is head coach and letting Frazier run the D. Frazier has used slower LB's in the past.


Edited by TheTruthHurts, 20 March 2017 - 09:32 AM.


#20 matter2003

matter2003

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,971 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:33 AM

Teams are in the nickel far more then people realize...greater than 50% of the time, across the NFL.  

 

It's why the discussion of 4-3 vs 3-4 is largely irrelevant these days.


Edited by matter2003, 20 March 2017 - 09:33 AM.