GunnerBill

It was one of the quicker Bills games overall this season I think, so I do believe the commercial free 4th helped a bit.

I haven't sought to argue that McDermott has been perfect this year. In fact I have criticised him plenty and particularly for those two losses to New England and Denver. I don't think it has been his best year as HC and while there have been signs post bye that maybe he has smoothed some of it out I think he struggled earlier in the year marrying his two jobs together. I just don't think this team was a slam dunk should be winning 13 games type team against this schedule. That would have been nice. And it wasn't impossible. But I always thought it was probably at the optimistic end. You are right that what people here say or think will have zero impact. Barring a 13 second style meltdown (which I do think could prompt a re-think if it is on that level of egrigous) McDermott is absolutely safe, playoff or no playoff. The Joe B piece in the Athletic was pretty clear. Within the organisation he is safe as houses. The Pegulas have no desire to make a change.

I never said the bolded. That is a lie. My point was always it is a very specific role. And it is about putting defenses in a bind and forcing them into advantageous positions for the Bills. It was not something they did week to week and I never claimed it happened a bunch. They have used Gilliam much less on offense this season. Dallas is the only game where I'd say he had an impact off the top of my head. They did run some conventional 2 back stuff that day. It isn't something they have done much of. Withour checking the numbers I reckon his snap count is way down on offense. That certainly makes it easier to question whether they got the value out of him.

I would give the Eagles the edge on us on paper. Yes. I think they are better on both lines and have better receivers. And on the day their talent made more plays. I think the Cowboys actually player for player have more talent on paper too (the Bills significantly outcoached Dallas fwiw). Then I think Miami, Jacksonville, Kansas City, the Chargers and the Bengals all on paper are very closely matched. So before the season that was 8 games where I'd have said at least that the Bills don't have a significant talent advantage. So my thinking was let's say you split those 8 games 4-4. You will probably lose one you shouldn't somewhere because it is the NFL, the parity is closer than most imagine and it happens most years even to the best teams. That gets you to 5 losses. 12-5. That was basically my basis for where I expected they would be pre-season.

You didn't disprove it. The numbers proved me right. You just didn't accept it. I did say I'd do the same detail breakdown of the other KC game (I can't recall if I did 2021 or 2022 now) but I didn't ever get around to it. Still. I proved you wrong. As I do time and time again when you try and hammer your false narratives.

I think the Bills and Eagles are pretty closely matched teams. On the day their talent just made one or two more plays. If we want to really break it down simply.... Tyler Bass missed two FGs from 34 and 48 and their kicker nailed a 59 yarder in a squal. It probably came down to that as much as anything else.

We lost the Jets game because of Josh Allen. Anyone who still refuses to accept that needs to come into the real world. We lost the Eagles game to a better team on the day who just made one or two more plays than we did. I am saying the same now as I said then. He did make an impact but not week in week out. His role was very gameplan specific. But in those games the result of his usage was very clear and backed up by the numbers.

I think he has been a bit more creative and a bit more innovative. He has actually simplified some of what Josh is looking at by using motion, shifts and more in breaking routes to gain a leverage advantage and put a single defender in a bind. That said (and I said this after the Dallas game too) the fundamental issues that have plagued the offense all year have not gone away. They are still there. Not enough separation from receivers vs man. Too many drops. Untimely OL penalties. And the odd inexplicable decision by the QB. Je might have reduced the latter but they are still there.

The Bills will draft a receiver in the first two days of the draft for the first time under this regime.

We have lots of good players. But on a schedule with 5 games against double digit win teams (likely 6 by the end of the season cos the Jags will beat the Titans) and playing Cincy while Burrow was healthy and generally having one of the tougher schedules in the league this year you need those good players to be pretty consistently at their best to get to the bigger win totals. And the difference between good players (which we have lots of) and elite players (which we have fewer of) is the ability to repeat it week in week out, game in game out. We have lost two games this year that I put squarely on coaching. Patriots and Broncos. To argue all 6 of our losses are on coaching is ridiculous.

It can win 14. It can win 17. It can win 7. 11 or 12 is par for this roster agains this schedule. 13 or 14 wasn't impossible but I do think would have been an overachivement. 9 or 10 would be an underachievement. They were provided. You just didn't like what it proved so disregarded them. Stick with your narratives. They are safer for you. I have given my reasons earlier in this thread.

Nope. I never said he did it all last season. That is an outright lie which is the other thing you do. I said he had a specific role on the offense that in certain games they use and has an impact on the defense. I broke down a KC game in great detail gave you the numbers and the succes rates with him on the field bs without him. Explained why that was. You just didn't like the answer. You don't like answers that unpick the narratives you make up in your head.

Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't. But when it executed like it did I think the result absolutely justified the call. The 5 yards in that scenario (very unlikely to get the ball back) mattered more than the timeout.

I gave you examples there too. You didn't like them. You only consider someone has answered the question if you agree with their response. You are incapable of meaningful discussion. And I think you are overestimating it.

On that timeout on Sunday I mean given where the clock was (we weren't going to use it, punting with 1:16 left in the half) the 5 yards for the punt mattered more. My first reaction was also "take the delay" but actually Martin pinned them with the punt and they knelt. Had the punt resulted in a touchback or a return maybe the Pats try a screen or something safe at least. I think on reflection it was a pretty good decision because the punter executed.

No I answered your question. Very directly. When someone gives an answer you don't like you accuse them of not answering.

Yes. But do you really look at this roster and think that is where they should be? If they'd won every game they'd be overachieving. If they end up 10-7 they will have underachieved. Vegas had the over/under at 10.5 and the formula Pro Football Reference uses had us at 11.3 wins.

He should fire Smiley. I never liked that hire. Whatever went on with Farwell after 13 seconds I don't think there was a plan in place and it was a "just promote the assistant" type move. I still remember his opening presser. He looked and sounded like a guy who had won a competition on the back of a box of Flutie Flakes. I don't. But the talent was what lost us the Jets game. Our biggest talent. It wasn't bad coaching that lost us that game. Our biggest talent sucked to high heaven. The Pats loss and the Broncos loss were on coaching. But again it isn't looking just at the games we lost. It is about stepping back before a ball was kicked in anger and saying this talent, that schedule, where should they be. And 11 / 12 wins always felt right to me. Maybe you'd have picked the 11 or 12 wins in a different combination than they might end up coming. But that is true most years.

It does. I fundamentally disagree because I don't think the talent on this roster is 13 or 14 win type talent on this schedule. We still lack sufficient elite level talents to put up those sorts of win numbers in a year where there are 9 teams with double digit wins after 16 games. One of them is Buffalo and we will play 5 of our games against the other 8. Particularly on offense we lack elite game breakers who can do it game in game out. That is why I fundamentally disgaree.

Agree totally with this.

We didn't lose to the Jets because of coaching. We lost to them because our biggest talent absolutely sucked. I don't think this was a 14-3 type roster on this schedule. I think our talent level is much more 11 or 12 wins. We lost some games we shouldn't have where coaching cost us - primarily New England and Denver. We won some where coaching was a big part. Including the last two where the Bills coaches have out performed the Bills players. But I didn't think this was a 13 or 14 win roster vs this schedule at the start. I still don't.

But he didn't call plays. And the idea that he was somehow still the secret sauce in the recipe with Wentz which was kind of floated around the time the Pederson - Wentz thing imploded rather saw its credibility trashed by Wentz's performance in Frank's offense with Frank's playcalling in Indy.

With a Quarterback playing as Allen did against the Jets - yes. That game was on 17. The Patriots and Broncos games I completely agree coaching was the major fallibility and said so at the time and ever since. But even give us those two wins and have us 12-4 now we don't have the division wrapped up going into week 18, let alone by week 15. The Dolphins have won 11 games. The playoffs would be sealed and the #1 seed would still be in play but the division wouldn't be sealed.

I have zero college football affiliation and I wouldn't hire Lane Kiffin. I just don't think he has the character to be an NFL Head Coach. I think he understands the Xs and Os well enough. I don't think he understands people well enough.

Based on what?