PlayoffsPlease

Except he didn't The Clemson oline outplayed the Bama oline by quite a bit. So lets not have Shady for GM any time soon Given his position with the team, he clearly is insulting the oline. Some RBs buy their online cars in the off-season. Shady seeks out their replacement. I am not saying he is wrong, because all five should be replaced, but it is absurd to say he isn't directly insulting them.

You can make book on all of these predictions. I am never wrong.

By 2021, I fully expect Josh Allen to have locked down the spot as the premier AFC QB, surpassing a by then aging Andrew Luck and pretenders to the throne like Baker Mayfield and Deshaun Watson and Patrick Mahomes. By then ESPN's new junior host Josh Rosen will be referring to rookie Trevor Lawrence (drafted by the Jets to replace the failed turnover machine known as Sam Darnold) as a "poor man's Josh Allen" . The Jets new 2021 head coach will quoted as saying "If Trevor can be 75% the QB Josh Allen is, we consider the pick a huge home run"

Exactly, it makes more sense for him to run than to throw into tight windows.

If there is no playoff win, the season is a failure.

One of the most important philosophical questions of the age.

The analysis is true if you substitute QB for coach. The point being that are lots and lots of decent head coaches. And a handful of consistent winning coaches, Payton, Tomlin, Andy Reid Bellicheck john harbaugh . The difference in win/loss impact among the Gases, Gaileys Marrones, Garrets Ryans and Bowles has demonstrably been negligible over time. This is why owners turn over coaches relatively quickly. Doug Pedersen seems to have shown a spark. Frank Reich is defying expectations. Maybe they are part of a new wave consistently winning coaches. If winning championships is the goal, then hanging on to a Marvin Lewis for fear of getting a Hue Jackson, doesn't seem to pan out. Lots and lots of mediocre guys available all the time.

There is a major fan fallacy when analyzing wins and losses correlation in the NFL. This fallacy is based on not fully appreciating the impact of losing teams playing other losing teams. For example, lets assume that there are eight coaches in the NFL who year in and year out deliver better than 8-8 records. Lets say this set of 8 coaches averages 11 wins per season. Ignoring ties, 16 teams win each week. At years end that means there are 256 wins in the regular season (16 x 16). Our assumed superior coaches generate 88 (8 x 11) wins. That leaves 168 wins for the other 24 teams. If all other coaches were exactly even, and the talent distribution and other factors were exactly equal (of course they are not) , then each other team has expected win total of 7. (168 divided by 24). The distribution of these 168 wins is a fairly normal distributed bell curve with 7 at the center. There are a few outliers, Hue Jackson at 0 for example (extraordinarily bad coach). The Bills have had competent coaches for the most part this sentry. They have not found a break through coach yet. This contributes to the 7-9 forever. Where the fan confusion comes in is when they see "progress" going from 5 wins to 7 wins to 8 wins. Or a step back from 9 wins to 6 wins. In all likelihood, this is just the expected results of what average coaches do, because they mostly play other average coaches.

Its one year at a time. If the Bills are 6-10 next year, ownership's concern will be raised.

Only Eight NFL coaches have been with their current team for five seasons or more. Except for Jason Garret. All are highly accomplished coaches. NFL owners make it clear by their actions that there is not a premium on patience or continuity. Continuity comes from success. Not vice versa.

I watch the guy regularly, my opinion is that he lacks self-awareness, not that he is shy.

You are wrong on every point.

He gives press conferences regularly, where he criticizes others mistakes. Never once saying he made a mistake. Pay attention.

Pros: He is clearly not an outright bust. 15-17 over two years with a playoff loss makes him wall of fame worthy by the standards of the Bills 21st century. Cons: Slow to recognize errors. Sticking with Peterman is as bad of a piece of coaching as I have ever witnessed. We are praising him for firing Castilo and Crossman now which is a year late. His management of the wide receivers is eerily similar to his blind spot on Peterman. No track record of solid coaching hires. Firing coaches you hired is only acknowledging past failure. It is not an indication things are going "in the right direction" A lack of adaptabiity. He seems like the type of coach who can not figure out how to optimize the talent he has, but is always searching for guys who "get his process" Lack of personal accountability. He holds others accountable. Never acknowledges his own lack of judgment. I don't think it is because he is not willing to. I don't think he recognizes his own errors. At this point, it seems to me that McDermott is a decent football coach who "learning on the job" as far as being a decent head coach goes. The practical question is should McDermott be back next season. The answer to that is yes. 2020 and beyond is still undecided.

Defense matters, offense matters, special teams matter. It is the least insightful observation possible, that teams that play better win a particular game. Its a very silly straw man argument to suggest any thinks "defense doesn't matter" . However, its an indisputable fact that first MAKING the playoffs, then WINNING Championships correlates with top offensive teams more than top offensive teams. The main thing that seems to change in the playoffs is the level of intensity and watching teams playing with "win or go home" desperation. This is why it is impossible to judge players or coaches fully until the have a body of playoff experience. Playoff football has the same rules, but it is a different game.

It would be great to have the word "mentor" added to the bad word filter. it would eliminate a lot of nonsensical posts.

I want you to be right. I am still a bit skeptical. In my opinion, staff coaching failures are also head coaching failures. Castillo, Robiske, and Crossman were all bad staffing decisions by McDermott. (Based on McDermotts decision to fire them all). I am not sure how many times you get to fire coaches, before someone says "does this guy know how to hire good coaches?" I am certain McDermott is not a bust at the Kay Stephenson level. But it is not clear what his ceiling is. The NFL landscape is filled with decent coaches. Someone has to win the games coached between McDermott and Gace or McDermott and Bowles.

1. Crossman had a considerable body of work. McDermott was in a position to decide to retain him or not based on that body of work. He chose to retain him. That turns out to have been a bad decision. 2. McDermott has not assembled a stable staff yet. Good NFL coaching turnover is when other teams poach your coaches for promotion. Bad turnover is having to fire guys for failing. Staffing failures are also head coaching failures.

Its very cool that this discussion can be seriously had.

Maybe Don Shula had better coaching in place than Allen had this year too.

Your answer makes no sense. You say yes. But then in the next clause say that there is no Daboll system. That we need different minds.

Another take on this, is how terrible was the Bills coaching to create such a mess for Allen.

The Bills had historically bad WR and Oline units this season. Truly very terrible. Maybe it is a complete lack of talent. But these guys are being punished for the failure. Do people really think that Daboll has online and WR coaching systems, these guys just could not execute for him , but a new guy will?

There almost certainly better ways to spend the 8 million of cap space. Its absurd to think the decision is between keeping McCoy and not using the cap space.

How many Super Bowl favorites this year have an RB making as much as McCoy? Now ask yourself how many have lineman making as much as Kyle. If you can process this information correctly, you will understand how stupid your post is.