Sisyphean Bills

"Duck now!" Even Hall-of-Famers throw a bad ball once in a while.

Just so you know, I am fully aware that putting headphones on a revolving door and calling it the coaching staff hasn't worked. Regardless, I do think the very inexperienced Nate Hackett is getting his lunch eaten by defensive staffs around the NFL.

I don't want to argue about this with you, John, but I wanted to suggest that this may be too sides of the same coin. Let's start with the situation. Buffalo was down and it was late in the 4th quarter. Everyone on the planet knew that they needed to push the ball down the field. Absolutely no mysteries as to what the Bills had to do. Hackett spreads the field and puts the QB in the shotgun. Again, there is no doubt what the Bills are trying to do here. So what is the play design? The WRs all run vertical techniques down the field. Every single one of them. The read is man-coverage. One of the slot receivers dips his hips and sprints past the press coverage and is immediately open, the DB is beaten as the WR has taken his inside hip. The WRs eyes are on the goal post and he's pulling away like he wants to be Usain Bolt. Rewind and watch the snap again. The defense is in an overload blitz. Hence the clear man-coverage. The Bills by formation have zero chance of picking up the free runners at the QB. Nobody is there to block. It cannot be blocked. The defense wins 100 out of 100 times. At the snap, an absurd attempt to slide the protection may be on (I assume) but it means the interior of the line whiffs on the pressure up the gut too. (The C and G look like they are standing in a swimming pool and react glacially to the guys flying past them.) The QB has just enough time to get rid of it. Usain Bolt hits full stride. Two defenders are about to pile drive the QB. He gets the pass off to a spot. The WR runs through that spot and keeps on flying. He's wide open, but it's completely irrelevant. He'll be 8 yards further down field when the ball hits the turf. Does that sound bad? Familiar? Now imagine watching variations on that exact same play called on four straight downs. The ball gets turned over on downs and the other team just takes a knee. Enter the blame game. Is it the QBs fault the chuck and duck pass isn't anywhere close to a completion? Sure. He didn't throw to the right spot. Is it the OL's fault that their block like a sieve? Sure. They whiffed and looked like garbage. But they never had a chance in the first place. More were coming than blocking. Was it the WR's fault? Maybe. Whatever happened the WR and QB were not on the same page. Running a 15 or 20 yard route before getting his head around was simply NEVER going to happen. In my opinion, the coaching cannot be seriously defended here. No coach is going to call the perfect play every time. But few play callers are going to simply refuse to adjust and continue to call plays right into the strength of the defense. The defense dared the Bills to use the flats or the middle of the field and the Bills simply refused to take it. Perhaps one could say Hackett didn't expect them to keep on blitzing and thought they might get that 4 or 5 seconds to attack down the field. But that's sort of like refusing to water your crops because you've decided the drought can't go on much longer. If you want to call it a plan, you have to admit it is a bad plan.

I wonder how he'd look if he actually trained like Tom Brady or one of the other top QBs.

He still needs his 10,000 reps on each of them though.

I like the kid and hope you are right. It's a tough business though, and sometimes the good guys get thrown to the wolves.

You mean the top teams in the NFL don't need the qualifier that they have to play other good teams?

A bullet for the anti-Whaley guns.

Great quote. Breaking it down, the "improvement" cannot possibly be in game action since he is away from it. That begs the question of what improvements Hackett is referring to? From the quote, zero information about what is improved is provided. It is left as an exercise for the reader's imagination. Improvement in: running the scout team? holding a clipboard? tying his shoes? pushing the Swifter around his apartment? The sun is shining. Somewhere.

I agree with the idea that the line has regressed. They played better under Chan Gailey than they do now.

One might look at the Geno Smith example for another two-season struggling QB who was benched and then brought back. Before he got benched he was averaging about 36 passing plays per complete game. After being brought back, he's involved in half that: 18 passing plays per game. [*] It's very clear that his role in the offense has been reduced. Who is gaining confidence in Geno Smith or seeing if his little light bulb went on? Would this approach be applied to EJM and if so how would it help him or showcase his talent for the future? [*] The exactness of these numbers is not the central point being made.

Maybe they are talking to football people on the Marketing Talk Radio station,

Could you kindly explain why a guy that doesn't have or want anything to do with the "football side" of a football organization is talking on a Sports Radio station?

That is one sad statement. Just saying.

I think all the injuries have taken a physical toll. I've also read that the coaches have tried to ram-force him into becoming a conventional NFL pocket passer. These two things go together, most likely. Huge investment, the brass wants it protected. The bottom drops out though because they couldn't get the player to buy into it and transform himself into a Tom Brady-like QB. Turns into a vicious circle as desperation sets in, panic induces more pressure, and pipes start exploding organizationally.

Aren't the questions about RG3 really about his ego, etc.? I don't think I've read any articles by credible sources that say he has no athletic talent. Mariota's draft stock may be impacted by the RG3 spectacular flame out. (I have no idea at this point.) If you want a QB that ran a similar offense and had the ego thing, I'd pick Johnny Football. Mariota? Sorry, I'd just laugh.

Still, putting a pair of headphones on a revolving door hasn't been much of a culture changer.

It's given us something to argue about.

Not completely on you, Chris. I had to read it twice because the article, even though it says "in the game plan" goes trucking along like there was something wrong with the game plan. It's befuddling. Perhaps intentionally so.

Here is the paragraph from Sully's article. Reads to me that Woods said it was in the game plan.

I remember discussions here about whether Levi Brown would beat out Trent Edwards for the starting job. Probably hinged on the incredulity that a team with suspect QBing and a new GM and HC would choose to pass over the most important position on the field as the first step in setting their legacy.

Kiper nailed that one. Absolutely nailed it.

Odell Beckham looks scary good and is only a rookie too. The point is the Bills would have upgraded the WR position with Beckham, could have traded down to do it, and come out ahead in the exchange. My example was not about Watkins because no one has any idea what his future will turn out to be in fact. Instead it is a cautionary tale. RG3 looked like a superstar at one time too and his failure, given what it cost the Redskins, means that franchise swings even more to the negative pole of this zero-sum game (3-10 is very bad and the trade will continue to affect people in the business in the future).