Rochesterfan

So you really believe no one wanted Allen from pre draft evaluations? Even though there was much talk of him going #1 to Cleveland and that pick being between Mayfield and Allen. The Jets wanted Darnold all along, but then both Buffalo and Arizona were higher on Allen than Rosen. The scouts around the league had Allen ranked pretty high and the guys that hated him were the pure analytic guys that could not justify the draft position with the numbers. Allen just blew all of their analytical work up by being successful as a rookie and showing talent and athleticism they could not quantify. The other things that the analytical guys missed was leadership and heart - Allen has shown an abundance of both, but they struggle to quantify that with things like completion percentage. Yes some fans hated the pick - just as some fans are down on McDermott and call him conservative without recognizing the changes he made through the season as Allen grew. Just like most other things people build a judgement and then continue to argue a false narrative to justify their position in the face of alternative facts to what they are seeing. For example people argue argue that all they do is bring in ex-Carolina players and that they refuse to go get talent - when by the end of the season there was 1 ex-Carolina player on the entire active roster and 1 in Anderson sitting on the bench, but the narrative continues. Another is that McDermott is super conservative- when in reality the Bills were upper 1/3 of the league in 4th down attempts and as Allen progressed and showed athleticism they went for more and more late in the season. He was more conservative early on because the defense was the better part of the team both this year and last and a defensive coach with a better defense should be more conservative. As the offense got better you saw him make changes to allow more aggression and we will see but it appears to me he is right in the middle - not super aggressive and not super conservative.

You don’t think they have a plan in place? My guess based solely on how organized and detailed they are - they already have an idea of what they are looking for and then based upon the now fired HCs have a list of candidates. I do not think anything done right now is not planned out as much as you can. You do not always get the exact result you want - as happened with the Dennison decision as he had another guy in mind that chose another position instead, but you plan for as many contingencies as possible.

Why does the order matter at all. Maybe they sat with the offensive staff first and reviewed each position. The nice thing is they are reviewing and going over every aspect of the team and are trying to improve.

Nope - practice time is the biggest issue. Better to have a specific LS and then them practice and just use someone as an emergency- so you don’t waste limited practice time.

I believe this was discussed in an earlier thread on punters, but it really started as the new CBA kicked in limiting practice time. Prior to that after the main practice was complete the back-up QB, kicker, and special teams unit would work on kicks and punts. As the time was reduced - it was much more effective to allow the long snapper, punter, and kicker to go and work by themselves for 90% of practice getting in more kicks and then only bringing the entire units together for limited plays. I believe this has led to much sloppier special teams in general around the league. Therefore you now keep the back-up QB with the team doing regular drills and the punters and kickers can get in their work. Most teams still have an emergency holder (either back-up QB or WR) in case of injury, but they get very limited snaps. I do believe the change in punter had a major impact on his kicking, along with the injury, and the number of practice kicks to get the new punters ready to go. It also seemed there were some very difficult wind conditions- for example at home against Miami the last week - one way the kick offs for both teams going into the wind were coming up at the 15-25 yard line. Going the other way the ball was getting into the end zone. Punts and the FG were also coming up short that way, while punts the other way were much better. There were other games like this where he seemed to come up short kicking into the wind.

Agreed - I voted indifferent because it does not overly bother me or make me excited. I do prefer the older make some noise methods. I also agree that they overuse it and that does make it worse.

You seem to be arguing against yourself. Read through everything I have written. I would not pay the 5th year option - I have repeatedly said that. If you can lock him up at 5 million per season - you are not getting much better for a rotational DE. Heck looking at Spotrac and guys stats - he is not a bad rotational player. His stats compare favorably to Quinn, Wake, and Branch in Miami and they all are close or above 10 million a season. Go To the Rams and guys like Fowler and Brockers have fewer sacks and passes defended again at way more money and with Donald and Suh as DTs. Try Dallas with Crawford with less tackles, sacks, passes defended and forced fumbles, but making 3 times as much money. Even some peers like Leonard Williams In NY - started 16 games and is a full time player and his numbers are on par with Lawson’s and Lawson plays less snaps. Williams has 42 tackles, 5 sacks, 2 passes defended and no forced fumbles - 16 games started and played. Lawson has 30 tackles, 4 sacks, 6 passes defended, and 2 forced fumbles in 2 less games and several games where he was the rotational guy just filling in. So again if you can get him to sign off on a longer term extension right now I would do it. I would not exercise the 5th year option unless I have to because that exceeds his value as a rotational DE.

He is a depth DE that can give you starts if needed. What exactly are you looking for out of him? If you are looking for JJ Watt type numbers then yes you will be disappointed, but if you are looking for a player that can give you some nice early down plays both against the run game and the pass game then there is nothing wrong with him. In 14 games - 30 tackles, 4 sacks, 6 passes knocked down, and 2 forced fumbles for a rotation DE. If you lock him up at 5 million a season or so and expect similar numbers you are not embracing suck - you are maintaining depth at a valuable position. If you sign him to a 10-12 million contract and expect him to start and be your primary DE and put up bigger numbers - then you may have an argument, but that is not what they have expected in his 2 years under McDermott - he is a hard working complimentary piece.

Can he be upgraded - yes, but you need depth on your team. Would I pay him 10-15 million a season - nope, but there is no reason to get rid of him. He is good enough to have a long term role and be an important part of this team for many years.

I would prefer to see the Bills try to work out an extension and not use the 5th year tag. I like the team better with Lawson on it and he is a good enough player to remain on the team, but the 5th year option is typically a bit more pricey than he deserves for his play. Either way - they have the room and I would rather see them retain Lawson than let him go - so my preference is extension first, then option if needed.

My guess is they will not open needs for the team - so if someone becomes available at the right price if FA or if a guys drops in the draft - they will add to the stable. If they do do not find the value - they can roll with what we have. In either case - I imagine by the time training camp rolls around there will be 2-3 more RBs on the roster to supplement those 4 and where they come from will depend on value, but I do not believe they are unhappy with the guys they have.

First I do not disagree with what Nate had to say overall, but I think the timing was not good for the correct discussion needed. The fact that 5 African American Head Coaches were just fired meant that in the last several years - African Americans have been hired at that top level in unprecedented levels compared to the past. The discussion should be about how to continue that type of opportunity for deserving canidates so that the levels continue to grow. The issue is is that change is very slow - especially at upper management levels because no matter what we want to believe that type of promotion is about who you know and have worked with. That is true in most businesses because at that level (say GM to HC) you must have the ability to have frank and open discussions about many topics and therefore you are looking for someone familiar and of a similar mindset. You are seeing over the years - more GMs and assistant GMs of color and more Head Coaches and coordinators also. The NFL is also sponsoring more and more opportunities for former players (both black and white) and non players (men and women) to get internship coaching roles that will start building these contacts and help drive some future coaches. The biggest issue that I see - is that in the past the players made good money, but they knew when their career was done they were going to need jobs - so coaching became a logical next step. Many past great coaches were former players that knew coaching was a great way to continue in the game they love, but their talent and body no longer allowed them to play. That is no longer the case - many players can walk away and have enough money to never have to worry again - so the pool is lessened. The former players that get into coaching now are mostly career journeyman types. Therefore you are seeing more and more coaches with little to no playing experience reaching higher levels which begins to make the breakdown of player race less relevant because that is not the sole pool for future coaches any longer. In in the case of Wilkes - First year coaches that are let go are always a bad look, but it has happened numerous times over the years to coaches of both races - so Wilkes is not unique in any way. I believe Arizona hired Wilkes with a specific plan in place. The plan was to bring in a Veteran QB (ended up as Bradford) and that with the talent and a better defensive scheme they were supposed to compete in Fitzgerald’s last years. I do not think that the FO though before the draft they had a real opportunity at one of the top 4 QBs and I think they were truly just looking to keep the team competitive and find ways to win with the talent they have where in their division they have been one of the top 2 teams for the last several years. Rosen falling to them changed everything - now you have a young QB that got playing time and you want to develop- that changes the FO thinking and my guess is they want (like so many other teams) the young offensive mind to develop Rosen. Wilkes was not hired to groom Rosen - Rosen came after the hire and I believe that is the sole reason Wilkes is gone - if the FO had believed they could have gotten a guy earlier - the entire plan for the offseason may have been different and an offensive coach hired and the team blown up to grow around the rookie. Now I agree that is not fair to Wilkes, but I think it has to do with background (DC) not skin color. I also believe that yes he did not have the talent to work with and maybe the GM should go also, but if you think the Rosen pick is right and the GM made the pick - maybe you let him see that through. What we do not have any information on is exactly what the discussions and plan were between GM and Owner prior to the hiring of Wilkes, after they picked up Bradford, after they drafted Rosen, and after Rosen became the starter. That all impacts the discussion and is the real reason why Wilkes is no longer the Head Coach and I do not think race had anything to do with it.

How many staffs are being hired between now and Wednesday or Thursday?

Love your optimism, but I am not sure I believe he makes the Browns better. I think Mayfield with his accuracy was a perfect fit for what they wanted to do. Allen’s numbers would be better, but I do not think he improves the Browns. The battle between Darnold and Allen is interesting to me - I think Darnold will continue to have some better numbers, but will make more critical mistakes (both fumbles and Ints). In either case they got their guys and the Bills did not have the chance at either - so I really look at the guys we could of had Rosen or Jacksonand think we made the right choice.

I agree - we will not agree on this, but looking at the team last year and early part of this year which side of the ball was stronger offense or defense? The defense may be a mirage based on everything you said, but it was still by far the better side of the ball and therefore McDermott played to that strength being more conservative. Once Josh got more comfortable and they became more familiar with his athleticism- McDermott became more aggressive by going for it more on 4th and short. As I said before - to me McDermott is not super aggressive and he is not super conservative. He will make some aggressive calls on 3rd and 4th downs and sometimes he will make the less aggressive calls, but if people can not see how much his choices have changed as the offense has come around then that is all on them.

Risk Aversion is another way to look at it - I agree, but situationally there were many times he needed to do something different with the ball and his risk aversion prevented it. I believe even TT’s lack of getting to the line late in games and speeding up play calls falls into this problem- he just did not seem to understand the entire situation around him - everything was that one play at that time. I agree that NE game was one that he opened it up, but I believe that was also early and one of his 3 ints games that lead to the more “risk averse” TT you see later on.

He did that, but how many times did TT run all over in the backfield and then step out of bounds and take a 2-3 yard sack rather than throw the ball away. TT also would check down on 3rd down way to much and punt to see another day rather than try to get the first down. The final thing is TT was terrible at pushing the ball late in games when we needed scores. All of these were lack of situational awareness to me and things a rookie picked up in 6 or 7 games and made a difference. The rookie tried to make a play - yes even if it only had a 5% chance of success versus the check down with 0% chance (but it increased TT completion percentage and yards at a useless time).

I am not to concerned - I think these guys are a prepared for most scenarios.

I don’t think he will ever be a HC again. I think he is done. The only thing I will say is that he did seem to get something out of that team for many years including a few playoffs runs. He never accomplished a win in those games, but he did get them there. It was time to move on though - maybe even 2-3 years to late, but right now this is a bad opening to me and they are going to end up with a failed retread.

Agreed and I think one of the hardest divisions in football. My wife and I were talking and I think this is at least 5 years before they become relevant again. Would not touch this job with a 40 foot pole.

If true this is a MEH hire to me. If they get a young innovative OC and McCarthy leaves him alone then great, but McCarthy as HC and OC for the last several years in GB has not been good and his relationship with the QB has been bad. The biggest difference is Aaron is more quiet and laid back - I can see Mayfield going off on him if things don’t go well. So much will depend upon the what the rest of the make-up of the staff becomes, but I think with that division and McCarthy’s game management skills they are looking at some middling years when they have elite talent.

Why - did they need the points? Did you need to take a chance on a blocked kick or a kick-off rather than just kneeling down? The Goal was to get the defense out and have them a long distance away and to give Kyle on last hurrah. The kneel down was just fine.

So let’s challenge this a bit - all drives starting in the first quarter - so close game and lots of time left. On first down the Bills ran the ball 2 times - once for a 9 yard gain on the first play and once for a 1 yard TD by Allen (QB sneak). They passed the ball on first down 6 times (one was a sack) and got a passing TD to Jones. At that point they built a 14 point lead. Then I agree they get an itch and try to run more in the second quarter with the lead - 3 first downs - 3 runs and the half ends tied. 3rd quarter they rebuilt the lead there were 3 first down runs and 4 first down passes with one of those pass attempts ending up as an Allen scramble. They rebuilt the lead to 11 points by the end of the 3 quarter. The 4th quarter - especially early saw the same aggression with 4 out of 5 first down plays as drop backs with one Allen scramble for his 30 yard TD. At that point they were up big and running the clock and ran the ball on 2 of their last 3 first downs. For the game they ran the ball 11 times on first down including a QB sneak for a TD. They dropped back to pass the ball 15 times on first down with one of them being a sack and 2 ending up as Allen scrambles. The passing on first down continued even when they were up 35 to 17 and then the Kyle Williams pass at 42 to 17. I do agree they get conservative at times, but I think they understand the best way to protect a QB is to try and keep them in manageable downs and distances.

It was not just the last game, but keep believing that if it makes you feel better. They have gone for 4th downs over 18 times this year - top half of the league. That number has increased as the offense and Allen has settled in. He has also had (like this week) a few 4th down attempts negated by penalty- like yesterday’s false start or we would be in the upper 3rd of the league. I do not think he is conservative and I do not think he is aggressive- I think he was playing very much into the strength of his team last year and earlier this year - his defense. Once Allen got got his feet wet and showed what he could do (about the last 4 weeks) and they started working things - he has switched focus and been more aggressive. I would never call him Jauron 2.0 because that is just plain wrong.

Guess I would really like a better understanding of the conservative game planning. We go go for it on 4th down - numerous times around the field - yes he has occasionally punted on 4th down around mid-field, but he also goes for it at several places. Once again before the half - he allowed a young rookie QB to throw to try and get points and it cost him a pick, but he still let him throw. What I see is a defensive coach that has some gambler in him, but has a very young and very untalented team and that seems to drive some decisions. Late in the half he likes to run on first down to see what the opponent is going to do. He want to eat some clock and try to ensure that he gets the ball last. I thought this year as the team got experience he has opened things up and taken more risks, but there are some people that have already labeled him a bust and ultra conservative when he has had a very bad team and has made the playoffs once already. Gotta Love it ?