Hapless Bills Fan

Wonder if they will have shots available on-site for anyone who wants to enter? I'm actually kind of iffy on that notion because I've heard of a couple folks who had a rough road with the vaccine when they took it the morning after a King-Size drinking binge, but it would beat getting to the gate and not getting in.

I want a pony. And a 14 day stay in Belize

No worries, it's a good topic, lot of discussion of this point in that thread

The caveat I'll make here is that Wallace doesn't have the speed to play man against a top WR. He has the mental aspect but he lacks the elite speed and shiftiness.

Well... that is pretty much what they did in the first NE game last year and close to what they did against the Chargers. But in general I agree that in-game adjustments seem lacking and that Daboll seems to lack a strategic perspective on the game, by which I mean "if blocking and misleading the front 7 are big issues all game, maybe don't run a trick play that critically depends on blocking and misleading the front 7"

I see the initial logic and have no not too much problem with the gameplan going into the game, especially given that Tuitt was out of the picture and HIghsmith was battling an injury. Once it became evident that they were able to get pressure with 4 or even 3 and that Cam Heyworth was terrorizing this year's OL as much as last year and the secondary was "holding" long enough for the pressure to get there, I have a problem with not adjusting to a different plan. It's a valid point that a 4 wide and 5 wide set is a plan that yields returns only if your base OL or OL/+1 can protect long enough to allow the receivers to spread out and run routes of different depths. Once it became clear that wasn't happening, change the plan. The snap counts are out there and without fielding any PR or KOR, Breida played 33% of the ST snaps. I'm not sure what he was doing - anyone? I'm worried for Moss seeing the field now, because once a guy starts playing 1/3 of the ST snaps it seems Farwell can't live without him and the gameday decisions go his way. I fear we're going to be keeping 2 so-called RBs on the field due to ST and having only 1 actual RB who can genuinely be an RB active.

No, not at all, why do you ask? Seriously. I'm frustrated with what I heard in Daboll's presser, but I acknowledge that 1) I don't have all the info about the game yet and 2) Daboll is under no obligation to share his plans and self-scouting with the press. The part about the Microsoft surface is a riff on a Daboll story Allen told about a training camp play his rookie season where he was supposed to check down to the RB in the flat, but he threw to the corner of the EZ instead and "it didn't go too well". He said Daboll immediately started screaming in his helmet and you can't control the volume and it hurts. Said he jogged to the sideline and took off his helmet and there was Daboll, red in the face and still yelling. Said after about 5 minutes Daboll wound down and walked away, then he thought about it some more and came back and started yelling again. The interviewer asked "what did you say?" and Allen said "nothing to say. Just take the checkdown next time". I have the impression that Josh can be hard-headed sometimes and has a definite "go for the gusto" "no risk it, no bisquit" "mama didn't raise no B word" mentality and needs a lot to get through to him. Sort of like the joke about the especially-reliable mule who was trained with loving kindness.

We weren't "terrible for 4 quarters". We had some damn fine defensive play in the 1st half and some good defensive play nullified by ?? penalties in the 2nd half. We had 1 turnover the whole game, that's a mistake, but strip sacks are going to occur with a QB who fights as hard as Josh does to extend the play. We had a bad mistake on ST Essentially when you can point to a handful of plays that swung the game, I don't think you can say "essentially terrible". We had some good play, we had a handful of bad plays and questionable choices and calls. The Tennessee game last season would be an example of "essentially terrible on all 3 phases" to me.

I "get it" that the coaches have no obligation to share their innermost thoughts and plans with the press - and in fact shouldn't. But there were some aspects of this interview that really troubled me. The first was when he was asked if the trick plays were something he had to resort to because of how Pitt's D was playing them. He said "no, we've been working on them since training camp and we thought that was the right call". Especially for the backward pass, when the O has been failing to "sell" misdirection plays all game and failing to win and sustain blocks - WTF Daboll, why did you think that? It seems like a serious judgement gap. The second was when he was asked if he saw Allen finish the game with 51 passing attempts, does he think the offense needs to be more balanced? and he said "we try to do whatever we can do". Again, he's under no obligation to share his self-criticism with the press, but I get the feeling that he honestly doesn't feel the need to re-consider his approach at all. It seems like he's pass doesn't work, pass pass pass. Rush gets 1 yd whups run game not working, Give Up. At 9:45, Daboll was asked by Sal Capaccio about the 1 for 4 skunking in the RZ and why no shots to the endzone. He said "at that point, we weren't interested in holding the ball too long. We were trying to get it out of our hands and get it into their hands so they could catch and run. The longer you have to let a play develop and let a receiver get downfield, the more the pass rush is coming so we were trying to balance that". I need to look at the sets they were using in or near the RZ, but to @BADOLBILZ point, this is a total head-scratcher on why Daboll would feel he should persist with the 4 and 5 WR sets instead of swapping to a (1,1) or (0,2) set and having extra blockers in there to give plays time to develop. The most troubling to me was 4:25 where he was asked about the Steelers being able to bring pressure with 3 or 4 and he said "give credit to the Steelers, the last couple years have kind of been like that against this team, give credit to the Steelers, give credit to Coach Butler and to the players that they've got, they're hard to deal with". It basically sounded as though he was conceding that we just don't have either the personnel OR the plan to deal with a team that can pressure with 3 or 4 guys, which is a terrible thing to feel. Now, that said - maybe I will watch the All-22 and feel that there was a plan that was better than it looked, and Josh wasn't making the right reads or choices. Maybe that's what Josh meant post-game when he said he needed to take the short stuff early and maybe things would have been different. In which case maybe Daboll needs to be down on the sidelines where he can thump Josh over the head with a Microsoft Surface when he comes off the field and yell "take the mother*****ing checkdown you mother*****ing idiot" if that's what it takes. And also, dealing with effectively a new team each season, I suppose there is going to be an adjustment period where the coaches think the Jimmies and Joes can handle plan X and it turns out they can't - but why not adjust then?

Were there any parameters on the "down by 10+ points" eg at any point in the game? I had a quick look at last season. In the regular season, we were down by 10 points at any point in the game in 3 games - Tenn, Chiefs, and Jets. 2 L, 1 W There might be a point that Josh needs experience in the NFL of coming from behind in a 2 score game. Obviously one needs to press a bit in those circs but there's an art to not pressing too hard/avoiding mistakes.

What Took You So Long(tm)? Agreed, and kudos for the use of the word "purblind"

I think we're taking McDermott's remarks a bit out of context. He said "I thought the defense gave us a chance" (which is true) and "Obviously, when the QB can stand in on 3rd down and convert, it's not good enough". Pitts converted on 4 of 12 3rd downs - they were all in the 2nd half. I'm gonna duck out after this because why beat the hoss, but the original post I was responding to that started all this said: My points are 1) if you're talking statistical expectation to win, it rolls on total points. Any time you hold the other team to, I think it's less than 20 points, the statistical expectation is in your favor, but that's total points, not "points given up by defense" 2) I'm sorry, but in terms of total performance, not forcing a single COP without a score in the second half is not "plenty to win this game". Football is 60 minutes, and a shutout for the first half of the game then giving up a score on every possession in the second half is not "plenty to win" I can say the defense didn't play well enough in the second half when the opponent scored on every single possession. I woudn't say they played poorly, but I will say they didn't do "plenty to win". I mean, c'mon guys - if the offense failed to score on every single drive of the second half of football while meanwhile the opponent nibbled down the lead and scored on a ST play, would you be saying they did "plenty to win" because they built up a lead in the first half? Really? As far as numbers, see above. As far as blaming the defense, I probably need to reiterate - Clearly the ST and offense have the larger portion of blame for the loss. But neither am I saying the defense did enough that we should "expect to win" or that the defense did "plenty to win this game". To me, you can't purely look at points given up. You have to look at the drives, as well. if the defense had held on 2 drives in the 2nd half, that would be "the defense did plenty to win this game" in my book (NFL average is ~ 2 punts per half). If they had held on one drive, the Pitts drive after the blocked punt and our field goal, I would also say they did their part.

Fair. What I'm seeing/reacting to is basically: -The defense only gave up 16 points, that's low enough we should expect to win My response is for win expectation (which comes back to statistics), you look at TOTAL POINTS. Hypothetically, if the defense has a splendid day and gives up 0 points but ST gives up 23 points on blocked punts and KO/punt returns - you don't expect to win. Then this: I would agree that the offense and ST contributed that most to the loss. That said, no, the defense did not do "their part". They played very very well in the first half. In the second half, as you allude to with your comments on lack of adjustments, they didn't force a single punt. The Steelers scored on every single drive. That's not good enough second half defense. Especially after the Bills scored a field goal, "their part" was to get a stop so the Steelers had to give us the ball back. A defense that can't do that is not doing their part. And that was the story of our early-season and at times rest of season D last year. Superior bordering on elite in the first half, unable to get stops in the 2nd half. Flip it around - if the offense fails to score on every single drive in one half of football, but then scores 23 points in the second half and we lose 30-23 do think people would be saying "the Offense did their part, they played well enough, when we score 23 points we should expect to win? I Think Not.

I thought John Brown “asked for his release”. Though maybe that’s a way to save face by running out the door ahead of the Turk

Right you are, my bad - 9 different games. And yes, there are situations like a fumbled Center-QB exchange where close examination says it's on Morse but Allen gets credited with it, or with Zach Moss where it's on Zach but Allen gets credited with it. It's an issue that Allen carries the ball like a loaf of bread when he runs, instead of properly cradled against his body. Even if he gets away with it most times, it's still a problem, and it should be corrected because unlike connecting on a deep ball which depend on a whole crew (OL, WR etc), it's something Allen can 100% control. Control what you can Control. But he's still gonna fumble on sacks and sometimes at the "mesh point" where he's making the decision to transition from passer to runner Just for reference, Lamar Jackson (who I haven't heard of as having a fumbling problem) fumbled 11 times last year in 17 games. Kyler Murray fumbled 9 times in 16 games. Deshaun Watson fumbled 8 times last season in 16 games, 11 times in 17 games in 2019. Russ Wilson fumbled 7 times last season in 17 games, but earlier in his career he had seasons where he fumbled 12, 13, 14 times per season! I pick these guys as examples because they are all dual-threat QBs and Wilson, like Allen, tends to hang on to the ball a long time and scramble around looking for plays. Again, I'm not saying it's good, but an apples-to-apples comparison to other dual threat QBs may give perspective.

Someone who was at the game said in the postgame thread that it was very windy and you could tell it was affecting both QBs

He reformed and started carrying it properly midway through 2019. He backslid last season. I feel certain our coaches will give him a "gentle reminder" Logic The Bills played 19 games last season Josh Allen fumbled 11 times in 10 different games last season Therefore he does not fumble in every game

Let's put some context around it, shall we? https://www.nfl.com/stats/player-stats/ QB with lower passing yards this week include Daniel Jones, Joe Burrow, Russ Wilson, Lamar Jackson, Ryan Tannehill, Ben Roethlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers. QB with lower completion percentage this week include Ben Roethlisberger, Trevor Lawrence, and Aaron Rodgers QB with more INT this week include Trevor Lawrence, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Ryan Tannehill, Baker Mayfield, and Derek Carr QB with more fumbles this week include Lamar Jackson No football knowledgeable person questions the quality of most of those QB It's One Week

Sorry, leaving a defender unblocked is not "all on the punter" I'll grant that he was shallow and that contributed, though we don't know if it was by design or a mistake on his part. He always takes 3 steps and our ST have to be able to deal with that Does anyone know where Sal is getting these marvelous little moving diagrams from?

Sanders booboo foot limiting participation in training camp and limited practice last week = minimal chance for Allen and Sanders to work on their timing

And on that note, I think it's time to return this Zombie Thread to its grave....

It's exciting to the Raiders because it's way better Y/G than he's had since being traded there....under 15 ypg in 2019 and under 10 ypg in 2020

There's probably a Ravens board somewhere with at least a couple such threads. But the Ravens won the Superbowl in the first year of the Bills playoff drought 2000 and have been to playoffs 12 times since then, including another SB win and 2 conference game appearances. Their idea of a horrible drought is 3 years from 2015 to 2018 when Flacco was fading and they actually had a year with a losing record. They are confident that they can have nice things, and that their nice things will remain nice things and their Princes not turn into Frogs. The BBFS is still strong with us, and we lack that confidence.

Well, one justification for Gilleslee being dressed was that in preseason, he was used in a short yardage fullback role. So there's that. I wasn't trying to pick a nit with you, just reacting to your comment "I don't think it schematically was any different". The problem with those kind of plays is that if you tamper with the details (eg small WR vs TE, moving in to the L vs moving across the formation to the R) you may tamper with features that sell the play and make it work.

So you've just called out one way it was schematically different - it looks like a TE motioning into the 'pile o' blockers' in the 2004 version, adding credibility to the idea it's a QB sneak. No one is worried about McKenzie adding to the pile, and the jet sweep stuff hadn't faked the Stillers out earlier in the game. Then the other point is that we were failing to properly block Ingram All. Freakin'. Game. Dawkins got spun like a prayer wheel. So, now in a critical play on the game, we're going to go all gimmicky and put our success on the shoulders of a raw rookie OLman to do what our "franchise" LT has been failing at, all game? Sometimes I feel Daboll gets too entrenched in his Ivory tower thinking about the X's and O's and gets totally divorced from the Jimmies and the Joes who have to make it work. He also gets too cute thinking about "well if we do this then the defense will do that" and doesn't talk to Frazier or McDermott or Hughes or Milano or whoever to get a reality check "ah, OK, coach, if I saw this, I'd actually think...." I saw that a lot in 2018 and a bit in 2019 and I thought experience had drawn it out of him, like a poultice draws an infection, but it turns out it was only festering under the skin and waiting to erupt.