Shaw66

This is an interesting discussion you two are having, because it's a microcosm of McDermott decision making. McDermott seems always to go with the steady, consistent play over playmakers who are inconsistent. He tends to value no mental mistakes over physical superiority. Part of that philosophy is driven by McDermott's insistence on team success, not individual success. On defense, a guy like Klein is more or less always going to go where he's supposed to go, which means that his teammates all can do their own jobs, knowing that some guy or some space is covered. It may not be covered very well, because of his physical limitations, but it's covered. And if Klein's more-talented teammates on the field can stretch themselves a little bit, at least sometimes they'll cover for Klein's shortcomings. In other words, Klein is never a hole in the defense that can be attacked, just an opportunity for a relatively easy play for some yards, and occasionally Klein or is teammates will stop that play. The physically more talented but less consistent player creates problems that his teammates on defense can't cover up. Every once in a while, he creates a hole, because he simply doesn't go where he's supposed to go. When that happens, he can't be saved by his teammates, because some offensive player is essentially running free. That more talented guy will make some plays for the team that Klein won't make, but on average (in McDermott's mind) the occasional great play that Klein wouldn't have made can't make up for the damage done by missed assignments. McDermott's entire philosophy is premised on this. A defense playing together, with 11 guys all doing what they're supposed to do, is better than 10 guys doing what they're supposed to do and one guy, no matter how talented, running around and making some big plays. McDermott and Jerry Hughes is a good example. In his early years in Buffalo, Hughes would make some great plays and be out of position and hurt the team sometimes. When McDermott arrived, he told Hughes that he couldn't play like that any more. Hughes became less of a flashy playmaker, but more of an effective team player. He was challenged to make plays within the system, and he did it. One other benefit of McDermott's approach is that when you're playing the guy who is less spectacular physically but who executes regularly, when that guy gets injured, you can replace him with another guy who executes, and the drop off in team play isn't so bad. If your defense is based on having Deion Sanders at corner, shutting down whoever is over there, when Deion gets hurt, the design of your defense is a problem. I think we see the benefit of the McDermott approach in the wide receiver group this season. It certainly looks like that if one receiver goes down, any one, next-man-up will result in no significant drop-off in performance, because it looks like there's a group of about eight or ten receivers who can make plays. Sure, some guys may be more important than others, but not like the past few years when I was always troubled about ho would or could make a play when Diggs was out. I'm not sure McDermott's approach is correct. I think it is, but I'm not sure. The opposite philosophy is captured in the phrase, "You can't coach speed." McDermott's view is, "Absolutely, give me speed, but that speed has to play in the system or I don't want it." Pretty clearly, Dorian Williams challenge is that notwithstanding his physical gifts, he won't play unless he executes his assignments. I agree with what you say here. It's all about the big kick. Before last season, we trusted Bass with it, and before that we trusted Hauschka. Now, the trust isn't there and it will come back only if he makes all his big kicks this season, and makes them relatively cleanly. That is, as you say, playing with fire. Why do you so it is so unnecessary. What opportunity did the Bills have to reduce the risk of that uncertainty?

Exactly. I was in a discussion here a few months about about Purdy, Burrow, and Allen. Purdy and Burrow both are elite decision makers. When the play is on-script, that is, when the play is working as designed, Purdy and Burrow have an extremely high percentage of good decisions, and they both are accurate throwers. Allen is pretty good, but not great. Allen makes up the difference when the play goes off-script, which probably is around 20-30% of the plays. Then, Allen's scrambling ability, his running ability, and his other-worldly arm give him a big edge over the other two. So big an edge that overall, Allen is better than the other two. What's been going on with Allen is that he's been learning to elevate his mental game, so that he can be elite in the decision-making area. I think the change in philosophy on the passing offense will help. I expect that this group, running well-designed patterns, is going to create more quality on-script throwing opportunities, and I think that will help Allen. It's the the philosophy the 49ers run, and it clearly helps Purdy. He drops back, and it's as though his brain is saying, "Where is the guy supposed to be? Over there. Oh, there he is. Throw it." Over and over. I'm hoping we're going to see a lot more of that from Allen this season. His completion percentage should go up, his INTs should go down, and the rest of the league will be scratching their heads wondering what they're going to do to stop the guy

Brock Purdy has completely average NFL quarterbacking skills, except for his accuracy and his ability to spread the ball around in the way that the offense dictates. Josh Allen is a better quarterback than Purdy in every imaginable way, except those two. He's accuracy is good enough, and this is the year when he will be asked to find the open receiver, because the Bills intend to have one open on every play.

Flat out exciting to hear this. If we're going to see a BETTER Josh Allen this season, well it is hard to understand what that will look like. 80% completion percentage?

Yeah, I won't argue with that. I just think his ceilong may have Gino Smith. I agree that even that may have been unobtainable.

I love players like Klein. He gives you 100% of everything that he has and you can count on it. Everything that he has may not be quite enough, but you know you're getting it, every day.

Thanks. It shows how difficult it is to make judgments based on one video. It just reinforces the fact that Coleman is having an outstanding camp.

It demonstrates the power of video. Out impressions of a player are shaped a lot by video, and this video of what probably isn't a touchdown changes the impression we get. However, the totality of the camp reports we are seeing and hearing is that the guy is doing great.

Oh, I just saw this. It's really good. I get your point. I like it. But I still don't buy it. Would Josh have failed in Cleveland? I don't think so. I think you look at Mayfield and Manziel and others who have been there - they all were flawed QBs, and they were seen to be when they moved to other places. Mayfield would have been better in a better situation, but he still would have been a weak-armed guy who is a great competitor. Would it have been harder for Josh in Cleveland? Yes. But Buffalo wasn't all that great. McDermott didn't want to play Josh as a rookie, and couldn't even get through one game game before he needed him. McDermott's whole plan for nurturing him went out the window before October. Absolutely. I agree. The whole point, that I think you and I agree on, is that there would have been pretty much NO circumstances where Allen wouldn't have succeeded. He's too good, physically, mentally, character-wise, any other way you want to look at it, not to have made it. He is, as I said, transcendent. And, miraculously, after 60 years of being a fan of this team, this transcendent QB is a Buffalo Bill. How great is that?

Thanks. Great response. I absolutely agree that coaching is important, and I don't doubt that Josh has been helped along the way by the coaches he's had with the Bills. I just think there's a limit, and I think when you're talking about a transcendent talent, which is what Josh is, coaching can't ruin him. It may limit his success, but it can't ruin him. Josh was going to be a successful QB in the NFL, regardless of which team drafted him, because he simply is too talented and too smart and too well grounded to have been a bust.

If he played like Manuel played, the Bills wouldn't have exercised the 5th year option and they certainly wouldn't have tagged him. He would have been gone after 4 years and somebody with some brains would have hired him and allowed him to be the player that he is.

Or he would have left the hell-hole that somehow couldn't figure out what to do with him. That is, if for some mysterious reason he didn't become a star on his first team, he would have starred on his second team. OJ is the non-QB example. He languished in Buffalo for three seasons before Ralph figured out that he must have idiots for coaches. He brought Saban back, and VOILA! Hall of Famer. If Ralph hadn't made the move, OJ would have been on another team, and he would have blossomed. It simply isn't possible to coach that kind of talent OUT of a player.

Oh, wow, I don't agree. Yes, no amount of coaching would have made EJ into Josh, but I think in a different environment, EJ could have developed into a journeyman backup and even passable NFL starter. EJ could have been Gino Smith in a better environment. But I don't think for a minute that Josh could have been EJ. I think there are very few circumstances under which Josh would have been a feared QB. He is naturally a better thrower than all but maybe a dozen QBs in the history of the league, and he is naturally a better runner than all but maybe a half dozen QBs since the 80s, when passing became more important. No matter how badly his rookie season might have gone, some serious coach would have gotten a hold of him. There was no denying, from the very beginning, that Josh made plays. You want an example? Steve Young. In his second of two seasons at Tampa, the only season he was the full-time starter, his passer rating was 65.5. The 49ers traded for him, even though they had Montana. In part time duty for the next several years, he had passer ratings of 120, 72, 120, and 92. Then they unloaded Montana, and as a starter Young's passer rating was over 100 in six of the next eight seasons. The 49ers, and probably most of the rest league, knew that Young was better than he showed in Tampa. (The Packers trading for Favre is another example.) If Josh had statistical performances for two seasons like Manuel, but if he did the things he can do - running and passing, teams would have been beating down the Bills door to trade for him. Josh was always going to be Josh, even though most people didn't recognize it when he was coming out of college. No coaches in the NFL could have done so poorly with Josh that the rest of the league would have given up on him.

Frankly, I think this idea that players' futures are determined by the quality of their coaching is way overblown. Wherever Allen went, his exceptional talent would have been recognized. Either his coaches would have recognized it, or he would have moved on to different coaches through free agency. I mean, we all could see that he was special in preseason games his rookie year. He made throws in preseason that you just don't see the average NFL QB make. Great coaching can help average guys become really good, and those kind of guys might have their careers saved by coaching. Allen was going to be a star, either immediately or soon. Many people didn't see it when he was in college, and I don't fault them for that. But anyone who didn't see it in his rookie season has a problem with his football judgment.

And that, my friend, is why this season is all on McDermott and Brady.

One way or another, that's been the discussion about the receivers since the day Diggs left. Think about it: Cook isn't McCaffrey, but he's similar - dual-threat guy. The Samuel twins - Deebo and Curtis. Line him wide, put him the slot, run him out of the backfield. Throw the ball all over the field, to many different receivers. Why wouldn't the Bills want to play like the 49ers? If they can spread the ball around effectively, they can pass as well as the Niners, and they have a big, big edge at quarterback. Purdy is like Burrow - outstanding on script, with good decisions and pinpoint throws. Off-script, however, Josh is a monster advantage.

It's highlights, so we don't his drops or missed assignments, but Hollins has made some pretty nice contested catches. And his size is impressive. He looks like a better version of Gabriel Davis. What I liked best about this video, however, is how obvious Tua's limitations are. Watch how he has to wind up to get any zip on the ball, which translates into a slow delivery and the inability to attack tight windows. As soon as the highlights switch from the Dolphins to the Raiders and Carr is throwing, you can see what a real NFL quarterback looks like. Quick release, plenty of pace on the ball.

Yes, because of depth, but that's not what had everyone concerned in the summer. In the summer, people were frantic about having even a decent starter, and that's what some folks are sounding like here. Last year, despite the fans' concerns, the Bills had one of the best pairs of linebackers in the league. Bernard even was able to carry the Bills once Milano went down. Fans completely misperceived the situation in the summer.

This sounds like the same sort of fretting that dominated discussion here all last summer, but the subject was linebacker, not safety. People were frantic. The tenor of the comments was that the Bills didn't have anyone who could play MLB, and why hadn't Beane done anything about it all spring. Finally, I asked whether it occurred to anyone that Beane and McDermott, who sere seeing a lot more of the guys on the roster than we were, might know something we don't. People kept right on complaining. Then Bernard started the season, and everyone quieted down. I'd suggest that maybe McBeane have a pretty good idea what's happening at safety. They apparently could have Hyde if they wanted him, but apparently they don't think it's necessary.

Yeah, I don't see Benford losing the job to anyone.

Wow. I'm wrong. In my mind, they played bigger than that. All the more to the point. Bills need at least one of Rapp, Hamlin, Bishop, (and possibly Edwards) to step up. One can carry a weaker one to some extent, as we've seen over a few years when one of Poyer and Hyde was out. Two stepping up replicates Hyde and Poyer, and that's not improbable.

They don't have classic deep speed in the competition, and they're running against a defense that is designed never to give up a deep ball. Makes some sense. I think the Bills have the speed necessary to take advantage of defensive weakness in formation or assignment, but not speed that dictates defensive posture whenever that speed is on the field.

What? Bills list Bishop at 207. I doubt he's 10 pounds heavier than Poyer and Hyde.

Let me say a couple things. First, there's an interesting discussion of the safeties going on here. Thanks to everyone. I'm looking at it optimistically. I'm counting on McDermott - in fact the safeties this season is a good way to see if McDermott is a master. This is what Belichick did in his defense throughout the Patriots' success - get really solid but not superstar athletes and coach them to execute the coaches' plan. I think that's who Hyde and Poyer were - excellent football players but not stars, and McDermott valued them because they really invested in the plan - all of the details of execution of a complicated scheme. In terms of talent, I'd guess Rapp and Bishop compare favorably. Strictly physically, which pair would you prefer? I'd give the nod to Poyer and Hyde, because I think they physically a little tougher, but I'm okay with the swap. And I wouldn't be writing off Rapp for lack of discipline or whatever, or Hamlin off for lack of size. I think you have to be around McDermott for a while, experience how his defense is working. It takes time. So, I'm expecting more from Rapp this season, because now he has a full season under his belt. And I haven't been counting on Hamlin, but this discussion changed my mind about him. Give him some time. 2022 was essentially his first season, and I thought he struggled. And I don't count 2023 at all. I think 2023 was like an extended training camp for Hamlin, because that's what he needed to recover - it was in some ways like he was going through his rookie season all over again. In other words, I don't think we can assume much of anything from Hamlin based on 2022. He could very well be better than any of us think. It certainly is possible, of course, that Rapp doesn't drink the Kool-Aid or whatever, that Hamlin simply just isn't big enough or good enough to do it, that Bishop is slow to develop, that Edwards - whose out now - doesn't rise to the level necessary to be an answer. Any or all of those could happen. Still, I think the chances are pretty good that there's one good (good like Hyde and Poyer) safety in that group, and the chances are okay that there are two.

Give him time. His strength is his brain. If he had been physically dominant in college he would have been drafyed by day 2. He has to learn to compete phyaically at this level.