ctk232

LAWD if I hear another block in the back, holding, or out of bounds...

I know right? Division game only makes it better too. But I'll enjoy his 5-10 flags as entertaining to watch at the very least, so I wouldn't say it's a considerable worry. More so the penalties committed by the offense...

I can't wait to see this guy go ham on Sunday. Been eyeing it on the schedule since he came in for the TEN game and made a statement. I only worry about the penalties that will come and maybe unnecessarily firing up the phish with those comments, but I can't wait to see him get let loose.

These are the only two WR worth pursuing in FA in all honesty. And Funchess may be the only one worth the money we would end up having to pay. Tyrell hasn't performed to the level of what he will sign for in FA and what we would likely have to pay to get either here. Both are upgrades over KB this season, but our best options lie within the draft: Brown, Harry, Arcega, Johnson etc. OBJ wouldn't fit the culture here, and not just for the tantrums. Green is a great WR but he's aging and becoming more injury prone and likely wouldn't be worth the investment for the short time we'd have him. That's not to say both would be an immediate upgrade to the corps and give Allen a better throwing option. They would also likely command more double coverage giving Zay and the others the lionshare of targets. Even so, I'd rather spend a first on our own OBJ or AJ rather than trade than just that away to get them directly. Ideally, we'd want to end up with a situation similar to the Steelers with Brown and JuJu - while Brown commands the double team priority, defenses still have to scheme for JuJu almost equally, which provides incredible matchup advantages not just in the passing game, but with the run as well. Defenses will have to package personnel to combat two top WR threats on every play, yet field enough in the box to stop the run. Same luxury was felt in Denver with Thomas/Sanders up until two years ago. Imagine what we'd do with two top receivers instead of just a WR1 and a rotating corps. Obviously, we need a WR1 before we can even have two, so not trying to put the cart before the horse here.

He might fill a Lorax role in a 4-3 but wouldn't spend enough time on the field to justify his contract though. We run Nickel packages most of the time with two true LBs and Lorax filling the rush LB role along the line. I like Barr but the fit and role he would fill in this defense doesn't necessarily align with what we'd likely have to pay him. Especially when it comes time to extend Tre, Edmunds, and Milano. I am tempted though, as Lorax won't be around much longer, but I feel his position replacement is more cheaply and efficiently addressed through this draft, even future drafts if Lorax sticks around another year or two. Given Barr's development thus far, it's more likely a good draft pick yields more upside for the contract if addressed properly.

Gotta look into him - though I'd much rather fill Center with an FA like Paradis who knows the league and can anchor the line from Day 1. Any rookie center will need time to develop - OL development is always a bit of a outlier in terms of league development schedules/progressions.

I don't disagree but my one thought is if both Williams and Little are off the board by the time we pick, I haven't seen many other OT's in this class likely worth the value at that pick no matter how great the need for us is there. Unless we go BPA which will likely be defensive given the class, or trade down, I'm not sure what other value pick might be there at 15-18 that equates need?

If we play ourselves into the middle picks of the first - I'd rather we just spend the pick on the top WR available (Brown, Harry, etc.) and hope we addressed/address Center and RG or RT in FA. I'd entertain a trade down scenario but likely won't get much for a mid-round pick versus a top 5 pick.

Pretty solid summary of the adjustments made and the impact. For @WideNine too if interested. The All-22 thread by @26CornerBlitz is usually a saving grace for those sort of questions and helps bridge the gap of the haves and have nots.

I do remember seeing them shift Star more, and the under front with Phillips - I posted elsewhere that I was curious exactly how much of the second half success in stopping the run was due to the Fournette ejection and Norwell injury/OL problems, but I'm pleased to see that at least the initial success in the third quarter was due to schematic adjustments. Bodes well for when we face actually well-balanced offenses as we will need to adjust to more than one issue in all likelihood.

This gave me the warm fuzzy feels - finally...we 1. made adjustments at halftime. period. like actual adjustments. 2. realized we were getting gouged in the run game, and schemed an adjustment THAT WORKED - while it makes sense this would happen on the defensive side of the ball, I'm thrilled to see us actually making pertinent and successful mid-game adjustments. Says a lot about the coaching staff we have and quite the departure from our previous attempts. Once Allen develops with more consistency and confidence, I'd like to see this happen on offense as well - not exactly needed in Sunday's game with the offense actually moving.

It's equally both their fault - both positions need to be upgraded in the offseason. Miller has considerably regressed since his first two years and I always question why Castillo is still here...Bodine has been a serviceable Center over Groy, but again there isn't much else there to get out of them. Miller potentially still has room to develop whereas Bodine has hit his ceiling - but while Castillo is still there, might as well offload Miller. If we send Castillo packing, keep Miller for line depth and have him earn the job back if he can. Allen certainly misses reads and holds on to the ball for too long occasionally, but for this specific play look no further than the right side of the line. Mills wasn't great Sunday either.

Eh, they play average depth for LBs per the scheme this season, ~5 yards from the LOS. You see shallower depth when we threaten blitzes, but even on clear running downs the backers maintain their 5 yard depth. Now what you may be onto here is how the LBs read the play. One of Edmunds criticisms in scouting was that he committed too early to certain gaps and lanes where if he had just waiting an extra couple of seconds he could have read the back/QB and made a more effective play on the ball. It's hard to evaluate this without knowing the assignments of the defensive playcalling, but in general that's typically where the issues would lie. Very few LBs play more than 5 yards back from the LOS (unless they are in coverage) due to the fact that they need their point of initial contact to be as close to the LOS as possible. If you're getting initial contact 2/3 yards past the LOS you'll get gouged by the run all day. LBs that do sit further back on occassion have top speed to be able to get to the line and make contact, but much of the gap issues are typically due to lack of patience and reads, or in the case of Sunday, more so the DL not creating effective pressure in closing off certain lanes. There were a good many holding calls missed as well that exacerbated this fact.

1. I can't really speak to Daboll's college success or lack thereof, since I barely follow two NCAA conferences outside of what gets national attention, but I'm not sure the points per starter reflects on the OC as much as it does the issues with the Bills roster. I fault McD more than Daboll since McD at least has personnel authority to influence signings and releases - Daboll was more or less handed a stable of QBs that were anything but proven, a hobbled together WR corps, and porous OL, and was asked to implement his offense in it's first year. Like I said, I can't excuse Daboll entirely, but the points per game per starter seems to reflect to me more so the talent of the QB and the receivers/protection around him. It's been said that Daboll's book has been limited by his QB's - Peterman couldn't throw outside the numbers or consistently read defenses, so he could only scheme short quick throws, Anderson should never have been on the field had things gone correctly, but what are you going to do for a guy who just came out of retirement two weeks ago? Daboll had to simplify the book so much that Pryor was able to play 75 of 80 something snaps after only four days with the Bills - that's absurd for any receiver just joining a team. And Allen, up until last week, could only scheme play action and run plays, which is still the majority of his looks (Daboll schemeing to his QB). Barkley was a trial balloon after we started to bring on more speed to combat our lack of separation issue in the corps and you saw the playbook start to expand again. I can see why it's attributable, but to the best of my informed knowledge the performances seen thus far have been more the reflection of a talentless offense and barely serviceable/development QBs handicapping Daboll, who is in his first year trying to establish an entire offense. 2. Credit to however much of that success with a true freshman was due to KK. But a true freshmen succeeding likely has a lot more to do with either his own talent level and/or the talent level of the players around him. Yes, he would obviously need an offense to thrive within, which was arguably provided. To note, they averaged 33.7 points per game in 2013 in KK's first year, Mahomes didn't start until the year after averaging 29.5 ppg, if you mean under Webb then sure. In all honesty, ~30 ppg in college isn't all that spectacular considering almost over 50 teams every year average that or more, and the defensive talent and schemes have much larger disparity than the offensive talents offsetting a lot of what you see. Again, not saying KK wouldn't be a good NFL OC, I couldn't guarantee that one way or the other, but I have a hard time relying solely on these stats to say so without any context as to what else may have contributed to these numbers (i.e. roster talent, difficulty of competition, assistant coaches/coordinators, booster support, etc.). I don't discredit his success, just skeptical to take numbers at face value and pass judgment accordingly. 3. No one could say what would be the more likely outcome. KK doesn't have any NFL experience whatsoever, and could just as easily drown in his first year. He could end up like Saban, always the ncaa guru but never the nfl success - or he could be McVay, there's literally nothing to guarantee it one way or the other. It's just as likely that Daboll doesn't field a bottom five offense next year as he doesn't have Peterman/Anderson starting six of his games, and will have a different offensive roster. Again, not confirming any absolutes, Daboll could just as well flop next year. But it would be more prudent to have someone like KK on staff as a QB coach to familiarize himself first with the NFL, then the offensive roster, and then have the ability to step in at any time should Daboll not be able to do the job. How likely is KK to take a QB coach position? Not sure - can bet he'll want to either vie for an HC position or go offensive coach on a team like KC or LA. The ideal situation for me is bring someone like him in for QB coach, let him get rapport with Allen and grasp the scope of the project he'd be undertaking. Continue with Daboll for consistency and measure the success - if it continues favorably, great, if not, at least we have an interim to potentially longterm solution able to step right in without missing much of a beat. He'd even be able to institute some of his own playbook pieces at a time if he were to enter mid-season, and fully convert in the off-season. Thing is, it's Allen - kid needs to show more than just play action and jet sweep consistently for any OC to work. Reason why you're seeing what you're seeing in LA and KC is the scheme fits the QB, can't force a scheme on an offense that can't run it effectively. Consistency is what Allen needs for now, but bringing in someone to the staff as a contingency doesn't make any resulting transition a difficult one to see through. If it's the more logical route, why not?

I do see the difference and acknowledged his track record, but both arguments rely upon the premise of past experience regardless of how extensive, and ignore the present. KK could very well be a better OC than Daboll, I'm not arguing that, I'm simply saying Daboll has done enough with arguably the least amount of talent on an NFL offense this year to see where we are at next season. The other issue is if Allen does continue to progress, if Daboll is at all responsible or if Allen is acclimatizing to the playbook, moving on from Daboll this year could negatively impact Allen and require another year or two to have him brought up on a new scheme. I also find it difficult to be so high on KK given his own track record. 40 pt per game in 2015 and 2016 (2013-2018 being his full tenure), 29 the year before and regressed in 17 and 18 if we're going solely on that metric. But he also went 35-40 and was fired after 5 years so I'm not sure his track record speaks for itself either. And yet, maybe he has learned and is doing more now as with any case study of past experience v. the present. In my mind you can't value one over the other but do need to take both into account. You also assume he was solely responsible for Mahomes development, and while my own guess would be he definitely had an influence, Mahomes greatest success has been under Reid in KC and believe much of what you're seeing is the result of Reid translating what Mahomes did in college effectively, not so much KK being the next guru. Lastly, you believe the ppg this year for us are due to only Daboll? 14 point offense with Nate Peterman and Derek Anderson? Allen is certainly raw, like you say, so expecting anything more is a bit much. Not to mention our OL and WR woes. I don't excuse Daboll from the entirety of the blame, it is his offense to coordinate, but I'm hard pressed to believe what we are seeing this year is primarily the result of his incompetency as an OC. No one is saying we should be happy with the offense we have now, just that we need a full offensive roster before we put forth any absolutes one way or the other.

My points still stand? I get he hasn't had a great track record thus far, but that doesn't exactly speak to the present. You could say the same about Kingsbury's failed HC tenure. I'm not saying Daboll is our long lost OC we've been waiting for, but I am saying it's too early for any action to be taken to move on from him. I think we can make a move to bring in guys for QB coach with expectation they can take over should Daboll not work out. Even though I'm all for failed HCs as coordinators...

Right? Beyond why he should be hired, why would he be considered for an OC position? Daboll hasn't had a QB all season worthy of anyone effectively evaluating his offensive scheme. The only serviceable option was Allen, who up until this past week required half-field reads. Even with this past week, Daboll's play book has been exclusively condensed to the jet sweep and play action due to the offensive roster. Once Barkley stepped in and we addressed the need for speed in the WR corps you started to see a bit more of Daboll's playbook - which has concepts OP mentions they would like to see (i.e. hank and mesh, spread, play action, etc.). I'll give Daboll an offensive roster before saying it's time to move on. That being said, I do think we need more faculty in the way of qb coach, and while it's hard to gauge who has contributed the most, Culley seems to be the expendable piece of this puzzle. I know Jordan Palmer was talked about, but I'd even be crazy enough to offer Tony Romo a spot developing this kid. Who knows, if Daboll doesn't pan out we can have him step in as the interim OC and see where that goes. If bringing anyone in at all, we should bring in a QB coach capable of developing Allen with the added benefit of being able to step in at OC should Daboll not work out long term.

Definitely fired the wrong guy - he and Hackett were tied at the hip it seemed, but anything to save your second HC tenure I guess? I don't know what an OC can do with Bortles under center, but without Fournette they don't have an offense. You know, the people who believed Bortles was a starting QB in the NFL got fooled by his previous play and should be the ones fired for this dumpsterfire of a QB situation in a year when the jags were all in to win the SB...oh wait, weird deja vu there

Not sure if you mean "we" specific to me or anyone here, but for a 5th round rookie lineman to start in his first year is very surprising no matter what. And reserving judgment on Teller's longterm potential until another year or two certainly doesn't detract from his enormous upside given that he was a 5th round pick... That being said, for a 5th round rookie, he did handle one of the top d-lines in the league very well. He certainly had mistakes as well, and a few poor technique plays leading to broken pockets, but I'm thrilled to see him continuing to perform and not drowning in his early experience. I'm wary of how next year may go as you see OL players regress all the time for various reasons after strong rookie and sophomore performances. But to your point, I don't know that this necessarily changes how we approach rebuilding the line. I like both the scenarios you provided and I'm certainly all for Little/Jonah first to shore up some help. I would like to see us address C and either RG or RT in free agency, but given the names available, I'm okay paying Paradis and Saffold to fill the C/RG slots respectively. Dawkins has done well at Tackle, but I am curious what he could do as a pulling guard. Teller certainly can fill that role as he has demonstrated, but I'm also curious what a line like Jonah/Dawkins/Center (Paradis hopefully)/Teller/RG (Saffold hopefully)/RT (hole, but potentially Dawkins if we get extra guard help as well). Better yet, draft a tackle and keep Dawkins at LT while the rookie plays their first year at RT to see the game and develop accordingly. Both Dawkins and Teller have great tangibles for a mobile/physical pulling guard like Richie was for us. Neither is redundant in terms of what they bring to the line, but having options is never a bad thing.

Great assessment - and it's always been true that the progression of ol players is vastly different than that of the skill positions. A lot of OL play has to do with the guys next to them on the line as much as it does scheme, QB/RB, and their own individual talent/capability. Teller has shown amazing flashes given his pick level and immediate ROI in his first year by starting. That's unheard of. But it's clear the kid has much to work on, and he will. You can start calling guys long term solutions when they've continued their play from their second year of starting into their third. But just like some DB's are better in zone coverage than man to man, some OL players are better in run blocking versus pass pro - the issue will be how he commands his overall game through these next years corresponding to the requisite needs of our offensive scheme. Right now our entire offense outside of the run game is play action and jet sweep (which I know is a run package). But in pass pro play action, you're asking your OL to create an effective pocket for 3+ seconds at least, and for Teller, this could be his biggest obstacle once teams have enough tape on his mechanics and technique.

Isn't that on the coordinator or assistants to tell him that though? Obviously no one here can speak from NFL sideline experience, but the ST Coordinator is there to coordinate ST personnel, or at least have assistant coaches to do so. To me, if that was the case, was Crossman seen yelling at Yarbrough to get back off the field? Or any assistants? I honestly didn't see, and haven't been able to find a replay, but if not it's quite the head-scratcher. Obviously communication breaks down at times, but even so they are entirely preventable situations with good coordination and communication. Not sure how much the medical tent had to do with it either, but I can see both sides. Bottom line is though, Crossman is the ST Coordinator and needed to coordinate that exchange more effectively.

^this...this a thousand times over. For anyone still wanting to fire this regime for "passing on Mahomes/Watson" - I'd take Allen over Bortles and there are many more teams that passed them up that are arguably now in a worse place than us.

Great post as always! To me, I loved what I saw yesterday, but I know that I'll always be yearning for those "convincing" victories where you aren't left wondering certain pieces. One of those for me was Fournette. While his first half success was equally due to the OL, the entire first half of the game we asked our safeties to make the tackles on Fournette who consistently getting to the second level at that point, with momentum, or was given the ball in the flat and consistently gouged us for gains. We turned it around more in the second half, but there was a noticeable difference in Jax's running attack when he left the game. It makes me wonder what might have happened had he stayed in the game. Not trying to discount our W here, but in terms of seeing a "convincing victory" it's a big unknown to me and wish I had seen what our top defense is capable of in a close game where they really need to step up and prevent them from scoring. They stepped up in the circumstances provided and certainly got help from penalties there, as did they on us. But for a supposedly top defense in the league, I wanted to see them be tested more in a close game that we haven't been in all season outside of Tennessee and Houston. That to me is a greater marker of evaluation than any other game. As to Allen, couldn't agree more. The one piece keeping me on the optimistic side of how he may pan out is exactly that - his ability to lead and rally a team behind him. Watching this game I saw more of a confident passer on certain downs, and was thrilled to see those flashes. What I couldn't help but think watching him yesterday was if this could be Allen's '89 Dolphins game. While Allen didn't have to lead us through a comeback against a dan marino squad, and certainly isn't the same prospect Kelly was at that point, I was hoping this would be his version of the '89 game that would help make everyone rally behind him. Firstly, with the offense and team, but also the fans - giving them enough to say "he's our guy." His rushing TD was very reminiscent of those circumstances as well. But while the victory yesterday wasn't a carry Allen off the field moment, I do think it was a huge step in the right direction for the kid, to a similar effect like that of the '89 phish game for Kelly. The biggest thing that we need to see from Allen now though? Consistency...

So I get the obvious: McD is a defensive minded HC, and we have a vastly more talented and better performing defense than we do an offense. While this all would certainly make sense to coin this team a "defense first team" in the immediate moment, I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. Clearly with McD's experience, it was always likely that the defense would begin to take shape before the offense would. But considering we are no where near the end of this rebuild/process, and the offense is to supposedly be addressed this offseason, why put a label on what this team is now versus what it may be in two years? Given that amount of time Allen could potentially develop into a top passer, we could have a whole new OL and WR corps, Shady will be gone not too long from now and hopefully we have a sustainable replacement for him at RB, but we could just as likely have one pass heavy offense once all is said and done. The skeptics in us all have reasonable doubt for why this may not happen - but it seems odd to say that this is exactly what is the long term plan, and not just the short term strategy while they attempt to build out the offense. In a nutshell, if the plan was to rebuild both sides of the ball, and our defense was simply in a better position to be addressed roster/talent wise than the offense was (lacking a QB) long term, and we had just drafted our first round rookie QB that needs to be developed, I might also adopt a defense first strategy for the first year or two while he develops and they can fully build an offense around him. If we still see that philosophy then, that might be justification for these kinds of articles.

I don't know that this one bothers me as much as the other endzone rules, but to be fair you can also equally ask, "Did the offense do anything to deserve to keep the ball if they truly fumble out the back of the end zone?" You could argue that from either perspective. Simple matter of fact is that the goal line has always been a plane and all that has needed to establish a score is the ball breaking the plane in possession of an offensive player. Once that occurs the entire play stops. It's how the game was established but that doesn't necessarily make it right - for the same reasons a receiver needs to complete the catch and survive the ground, it's odd that runners don't have to "survive the reach" on the goal line extensions like they do on first downs - or they need to draw the line where forward progress starts and stops.