hondo in seattle

This is a hard one but I'm going... Offense: Diggs Defense: Floyd And I'm calling a Bills win. Their respective W-L records make the Eagles look like a significantly better team. But the Bills have a higher offensive, defensive, and total DVOA. The Bills also have a much higher point differential. And Brady has upgraded the offense. And the Bills just need the game more than Philly. Furthermore, Philly beat their SB nemesis last week. That was their big, emotional regular season game. They won't be as high for the Bills.

I get why you feel that way. But Belichick and other defensive-minded HC's have run good offenses. McD needs to find the right OC. And Beane needs to build a better OL and find us some speed on the outside.

Imagine you're a young man at a dance a hundred years ago. At the dance, you notice a beautiful young lady. You watch her, long for her - but so do dozens of other bucks. Out of all the guys courting her, she chooses only a dozen or so to dance with. Maybe it was your charm, good looks, or dancing skills - whatever the reason, you are thrilled to be in that elite and fortunate group. She only accepts a second dance with a few of the young stalwarts and again you are overjoyed to be among the chosen. But you are crestfallen at the end of the evening when she chooses a rival less worthy than you to be her beau. Lady Luck is fickle. McD normally gets us a dance. If you dance with Lady Luck, things might turn out. They might not. You can slant the odds in your favor by doing the right things, but you can never control the outcome. McD has made us competitive. Give him enough passes, and he'll get us a ring. Unless Andy Reid becomes available, I stay with McD.

Warner said our mesh concept was pure man-beater which he saw as a problem.

Watching part of the Dallas game yesterday, I thought of this thread. If Josh was in an offense like that - with superior pass pro and receivers running open all over the field - we'd see Josh at his ceiling.

I only watched part of the game but what I did watch filled me with envy. I wish Josh had protection like that and that and worked in a scheme that got receivers wide-open like that.

Are there are any X-and-O analysts that you can recommend as informed and insightful? When I watch a Bills game, I watch as a fan. I'll be dimly aware of formations, schemes, etc. Mostly, I'm just following the ball and either cheering or groaning. But when the game's over, I like to watch an analyst break down the offense so I better understand what happened and why.

Thanks for the homework. Impressive research! Your work has made me doubt Orlovsky's credibility as an informed, impartial football guru. I wonder why he said we only ran two run concepts?

No. I think to see Josh at his very best... (1) Get him an OC that can make optimal use of his unique skill set while at the same time correcting/covering up his flaws. Dorsey wasn't that guy. (2) Get him an OL. This year's OL is probably his best yet. But I'd love to watch Josh with time to operate behind an elite line. A dominant OL would also force defenders to respect the run game instead of sitting back in two-high zones. (3) Get him a better receiving corps. In fact, I'd be thrilled with just one change: replace Gabe with a speedster with hands. Do these three things and Josh will start winning MVP awards and setting even more records.

The long pass to Hooks before the Hail Mary was equally impressive. 35 seconds. 73 yards. No time outs. It wasn't one miracle play. It was a miraculous drive. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu4fxr7kxM0&t=10s

When someone starts proclaiming that they have "The Truth," I usually expect a disappointing case of hubris. But HH has done his homework (thank you!). But let me ask something... I've heard Orlovsky and others say that the Bills under Dorsey mostly just used two different run concepts. Is there some core of truth to this?

Let's fantasize a bit. Let's say we outgain Philly 400 to 240 yards and win 33 - 17. Obviously, getting that win improves our odds. But it would also tell a compelling story that our offense is back on track with Joe as the OC and our defense, banged up as it is, can handle good offenses. If we beat the Eagles convincingly, my optimism will double. But if we lose, I'll cry tears of hopelessness in my plate of Buffalo wings.

Agreed. When I see a team winning, or losing, a lot of one-score games, I wonder how much luck is involved and assume it's at least part of the explanation. I read somewhere that the yards earned by an offense or allowed by a defense are fairly stable from year to year. Obviously, there are some fluctuations as you'd expect due to coaching and roster changes, injuries, and so on. Still, the teams that do well statistically one year tend to do well the next year. The teams that performly poorly tend to do so again the following year. Fumbles - particularly fumbles lost - are an exception. They seem to be a matter of fluctuating luck. And sometimes they decide the outcomes of games. You can put injuries in that category, too. Sure, conditioning is a part of the story. But many/most injuries are just bad luck - and they impact the games, too.

Sure, the coaching staff deserves credit/blame. But I did say, "oversimplification." We would have overcome a lot of mistakes and bad decisions if (1) the D was healthy, and (2) we had a better OC since the beginning of the season. Those two stand out to me as the biggest, most fundamental problems. I mentioned this in another thread... Back in 2016, during that stretch (games 3 to 15 as I recall) when ALynn was the OC and Tyrod was the QB, we averaged 27 points per game. We averaged 26 points per game (with a downward trend) this season with Dorsey and Josh. It's shameful that a TT-led offense was more productive than a Josh-led offense. With all our losses being decided by one score, we could have conceivably been undefeated with an elite OC. I doubt if Brady will emerge as an elite coordinator but I am hoping he proves himself to be better than Dorsey.

As I recall, we've never been "favorites." At the beginning of the last few seasons, the pundits, casinos, and analytical sites mostly had KC - and sometimes other teams - ahead of us in terms of probability. But I don't really care about any of that. I care about reality as best as I can see it. And from my vantage point, we've never had the league's best roster. Or even the AFC's best roster. So, a Super Bowl has never been very likely. Sometimes, I think about it like this: There are a few good teams in each conference each year each with a roughly 10% chance of winning the SB, plus or minus a few points. For the past few years, we've been one of those teams. In other words, the odds were always against us. They're just not as long as they are for a crap team like the Pats. I'm grateful that Beane and McD have gotten us into the hunt. But to improve our chances, the roster needs to get better.

I disagree. McD is a good leader. But he's up against other talented football leaders, some of whom have better & healthier rosters.

In my opinion, the best pure running back to play the game was OJ. OJ's moves were a little more subtle than Barry's but just as effective. And OJ was bigger, faster, and stronger. OJ wasn't the best blocker. He was underutilized as a receiver. But as a runner, he was a man playing with boys. I don't have the stats but I'll guess Barry had more negative plays than OJ. The highlights don't show that. If OJ wasn't murderous scum, the NFL and its fans would remember him differently. I think the top tier of running backs consists of two players: Jim Brown and OJ. I think Barry is in the next tier with Walter Payton and some others. But most people don't rank RBs that way - with OJ in the top two - because of the ick factor of OJ's post-career crimes rightfully tainting his reputation. If OJ had died in a car accident when he was traded to the 49ers, the Jimi Hendrix effect would be working in his favor and he'd be remembered as a legend.

Beane has built a good team. There's a reason why we've been AFCE champs. But it is not - and has not been - a Super Bowl-quality roster. There's a reason why we don't have Lombardi (yet).

As I recall, Dorsey had three shots against the Jets and never scored more than 20 points. It seemed like Saleh and the Jets had Josh’s (and Dorsey’s) number. Brady, with the same guys, put up 32.

McD is the Head Coach. The way I look at it, he’s responsible for ALL the losses we’ve had since his hiring. And all the wins.

McD has underperformed this year. But looking at that list - he over performed last season.

I think all the receivers - including the backs - not named Diggs will benefit from the OC change. I expect Kincaid to do well over the final stretch.

I disagree too. But why be mean about it? We’re all long suffering Bills fans. The Bills mafia is a ‘band of brothers’ (and sisters!).

It doesn't matter if anyone on this board can describe or predict Dorsey's play calling. Professionals could. We've heard it from opponents after games - that they knew what we were doing. Dan Orlovsky, after 12 years in the NFL, watched game tape and found Dorsey's play-calling "wildly predictable." Whether you or I could predict a call is beside the point. Our opponents could. It's just one game from Brady but it is a good start. He got the RBs more involved. He called plays that didn't rely on heroics from Josh. He managed to put up 32 points against a defense that had stymied Dorsey three consecutive times. And he did it without much contribution from Diggs. Josh played smarter, safer ball and I'm prone to give the credit to Brady for coaching that. Yesterday, Josh only completed one hard throw as I recall (the Shakir TD). The rest were mostly high-percentage throws called by Brady. It's also worth noting how many YAC we got yesterday. Dorsey depended on air yards. Yes, Josh's picks are his fault. But it's not hard to imagine Dorsey is involved as well by (1) calling plays that take too long to develop forcing Josh to scramble and throw off balance, (2) calling predictable plays that don't create much separation, (3) not consistently calling easy throws - like the two TD throws to the backs yesterday, (4) not coaching Josh harder about taking what's given, (5) not coaching Josh harder about getting the ball out on schedule, (6) not calling more/better running plays so defense won't comfortably sit back in a two-high zone.

Mostly agree. Dorsey seemed to call plays as if Allen was Superman and Diggs was our only other weapon. It turns out we do have other talented players on the roster. Yesterday, none of our TDs were scored by Allen or Diggs. And it was great to see that our RBs contributed something like 130 yards yesterday - passing and receiving. And Cook was the star of the bunch. Personally, I wouldn't say Cook is "great" on the outside. OJ was great running to the outside. Barry Sanders was, too. Cook isn't in that league. But, yeah, Cook has some burst and elusiveness that Dorsey didn't make enough use of. But Allen is still our most talented player and should be the focal point of the offense, not Cook.