Shaw66

Nice analysis. I agree. But I think the point is that the Bills went to all that trouble to complete a pass five yards behind the line of scrimmage. Taylor is standing all alone with a good deal of time to look downfield. Seven defenders are clustered in this picture. In other words, the Bills did a great job designing a play to get the defense out of position, and then threw the ball into the teeth of the defense. That play should have been designed to go down field. But these guys - Dennison and McDermott, are so run-oriented that even when they create motion that gives the wideouts a lot of open field to run in, they still want to throw the ball to the running back. More so than any other play (except maybe the 3rd and 6 run), this play demonstrates for me how run-oriented, ridiculously run-oriented, these coaches are. Think about it - this play design is to pull offensive linemen to the right, start McCoy to the right, intending to draw defenders. (And remember, these are defenders who've been prepared all week to go where Shady goes.) Then, when you've succeeded in getting three quarters of the defense to over-shift to the offensive right, you throw the ball there. Yes, maybe if that one defender isn't on top of the play you get Shady to the edge and up the sideline with a convoy. Yes, it's just a play that didn't work. But it's one of the more creative plays the Bills ran, and it's a play designed to complete a pass five yards behind the line of scrimmage. Well, in Lawson's defense on this play (not in general), if that's Tyreek Hill with ball, and I think it is, the play likely was designed to take advantage of Hill's speed more that Lawson's lack of it. The Chiefs didn't block him because they didn't have to. Practically no defensive end in that position has the lateral quickness and/or forward burst to hold the edge against Hill at full speed. NFL play design is all about getting mismatches at the point of attack, and the Chiefs got one here. One technique that seems to be used with increasing frequency is relying on tendencies and leaving guys unblocked. Lawson certainly isn't lighting it up, but I don't think this play demonstrates the problem.

They're juvenile. Self-absorbed. I thought the NFL ban was stupid, so bringing them back is a good thing. But these skits are stupid. Develop a simple, signature move, do it, and get off the field. Frankly, that's what I like about Gronk.

You properly separate two separate thoughts: 1. Conservative offense. 2. Bad offense. I put them together. I think McDermott is conservative. So is Dennison. But the offense still has to have plays that work, and they have to get called. That, as you say, is on Dennison.

The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66 Back on Track The Bills beat the Chiefs in Kansas City on Sunday. A win is a win, and there’s no need to complain about any win, but the big news wasn’t the win. The big news was the Bills returned to the NFL, at least for a week. The Bills had been totally uncompetitive against the Jets, the Saints and the Chargers, being essentially unable to do anything offensively and unable to stop more or less anything on defense. The Bills needed to prove, to their fans and most of all to themselves, that they actually deserved to be in the NFL at all. And prove it they did. For the previous three weeks, the Bills may have been the worst team in the league. For all we know, the Browns may have petitioned the league for a schedule change. Everyone wanted a piece of the Bills. Curiously, the Chiefs have suffered their own collapse, so the Bills had competition for the worst-team-in-the-league title. So a game that six weeks ago looked like a crucial matchup between two of the AFC’s best became each team’s best chance to stop a desperate slide out of the playoffs. The Chiefs were big favorites, in part because they were at home, in part because their losing streak was shorter and in part because the Chiefs’ early-season success looked to be sustainable, while the Bills’ success smelled and looked more like smoke and mirrors. Well, the Bills aren’t the worst team in the league. We still don’t know if the Chiefs are. The really good news is that the Bills’ defense showed up. The Chiefs’ vaunted running game has stalled over the past month, so the Bills stopping the Chiefs on the ground isn’t making any NFL headlines. Still, the Bills were stout up front. They weren’t getting pushed off the ball, they weren’t allowing backs a free pass to the second level. Linebackers ran to the ball and made sure tackles. The Bills forced the Chiefs to throw. Against the pass, the Bills didn’t break down. The pass rush certainly wasn’t devastating, but it often created pressure an Smith and got to him occasionally. More importantly, the defensive front generally contained Smith, making it tough for Smith to hurt the Bills with his legs. He had some nice runs, generally off scrambles, but as Bills fans know, when your QB running is your best offensive weapon, your offense is in trouble. Smith WAS their best weapon, and he didn’t have enough to win the game. On the opposite side of the ball, the Bills’ offense is maddening. It is hopelessly conservative. Maybe McDermott has no confidence in Taylor, which would be consistent with the Peterman debacle. Maybe he has no confidence in his offense generally. Maybe it’s just that his philosophy is that defense is more important, and he believes that in crunch time you put the game in the hands of your defense. A few maddening sequences: Second possession of the game. McCoy for minus 1, pass to Zay for 5, Cadet runs for 4. Punt. Really? Who runs on 3rd and 6? Well, it does happen once in a while, but it’s almost predictable with the Bills. Bills razzle-dazzle. Once, the Bills faked to McCoy going right, then faked the flanker reverse, leaving Taylor with the ball ten yards behind the line of scrimmage with no pass rushers in sight. What’s the play? Throw it BEHIND THE LINE, five yards behind the line. Think about it – they actually designed a play hoping defenders would bite on the fake to McCoy and then threw to him, surrounded by all the defenders who bit. The defense clearly reacted to the fake to McCoy and probably also to the flanker reverse. The whole point of a play like that is to throw the ball downfield. Not the Bills. Their idea of a big play is a screen pass. With a lead, the Bills were content to play for field goals. Up by 6 with 12 minutes left in the game, they were content to run the ball, wind the clock, and punt. Other than the completion to O’Leary, the wouldn’t throw the ball downfield. They punted and left it to the defense to win the game. Did the defense do it, or are the Chiefs helpless on offense? When the Bills next got the ball, still up 6, everyone knew they’d run twice and then let Taylor run. Three and out to give the Chiefs ANOTHER chance to win and to ask the defense ONCE AGAIN to win the game. Anyone watch the Rams beat the Saints today? Nursing a 10-point lead against an explosive offense, Goff was throwing the ball all over the field. Not the Bills. The hopelessly conservative offense, and consequently the hopelessly predictable offense, runs when it should run and runs when it should pass. When it passes, it passes to running backs. Taylor had another nice game. Not great, but enough to win. The Bills put him on the move more than in recent weeks, and as a consequence he wasn’t getting trapped in the pocket. He threw well, often with nice touch. He wasn’t as accurate as he should be; the poor throw to O’Leary cost the Bills a critical first down late in the game, and he missed some other throws over the middle. But as usual, his completion percentage was in the mid-60s, as usual he threw for under 200 yards and as usual, he had no giveaways. Can Taylor do more? I don’t know. The Bills don’t ask him to do more. Fun fact: Nick O’Leary uses the same hair gel worn by Johnny Miller. A few quick hitters: 1. Milano always seems to make a standout play. 2. The Bills linebackers struggle in pass defense. They held their own Sunday, barely. To their credit, and the coaches, Kelce didn’t kill them. 3. Zay Jones looks to be playing himself into the league. I like how he looks. 4. Colton Schmidt did a nice job. 5. Hauschka, too. Too bad his streak ended. 6. I thought White would fumble on his interception return. Gotta get down the minute someone gets close. 7. Shady does some amazing little thing every game. Or two, or three. Not necessarily spectacular, but amazing. 8. Anyone think Peterman gives the Bills the best chance to beat the Pats? 9. Bills could use Benjamin and Glenn in the lineup, but the Bills have nothing to complain about on the injury front. They’ve been remarkably injury-free. 10. Playoffs? Through week 12, the Bills are in. Beat Miami twice and Indianapolis once and they have a chance. Throw in a win over the Pats and they’re in. That would mean closing the season 5-1 after three totally embarrassing losses. Don’t bet the ranch. So, are the Bills back, the October Bills? Or are the Chiefs just that bad? Tune in when the Pats visit Orchard Park next week. Ball game or blowout? GO BILLS!!! The Rockpile Review is written to share the passion we have for the Buffalo Bills. That passion was born in the Rockpile; its parents were everyday people of western New York who translated their dedication to a full day’s hard work and simple pleasures into love for a pro football team.

One decision caused me to change my view of what was going on. Benching Taylor means they've decided there's no hope for Taylor. It means they have to trade up in the draft to get a really good QB. I have two problems with that. One, I think it's foolish to give up on Taylor. I may be wrong. Two, it means it was really stupid to trade for Benjamin. If they're trading up for a qb, that pick they gave up is very valuable. Since those two moves are inconsistent with each other, it suggests to me that no one is actually thinking about the consequences of their decisions. Bottom line, if you've given up on Taylor, you don't trade your second round pick. If you haven't given up on Taylor, you don't bench him. I really think these people don't know what they're doing. And THAT's what made me pessimistic. I can't reconcile two important decisions they made about the QB position. And then you add to that the point that others have made here, that McD haas had no answer over the past three weeks for a totally failing offense and defense. The team has been completely uncompetitive, and McDermott apparently has no answer.

You're missing my point. It isn't about Peterman. It's about Taylor. I think you're absolutely wrong about Taylor. I think it's a 90% certainty that Taylor will not be a Bill in 2019, because all he's gotten since McDermott and Dennison arrived are votes of no-confidence. His head coach actually thought that Peterman was better than Taylor. I think Taylor is leaving as soon as he can. So your scenario where Taylor lights it up is a nonstarter. It doesn't matter if they reconsider; Taylor won't. So if Taylor lights it up the rest of this season and next, Taylor will get a five-year $125 million somewhere, and it won't be with the Bills. Why would he stay with the Bills? He can get the same money from some other team, and playing for another coach means he no longer have to worry about who McD thinks gives the Bills the "best chance to win." The problem here isn't how they handled Peterman. If Peterman is going to make it in the league, he'll make it. The problem is that they mishandled Taylor. Yeah, I know he's under contract. I'm guessing his agent asks for a trade, maybe already asked. If the Bills say no, they want to keep Taylor, he asks for along-term deal. They'll say no to that, too. So Taylor will play 2018 and exercise his option to get out. I just don't see him swallowing his pride after McD has made it so abundantly clear that he has no confidence in Taylor.

Two points. One is as Hapless says, what kind of evaluator is McD if he couldn't see Peterman wasn't ready and he couldn't see his defense was in trouble? The other is something that I haven't seen anyone talk about. When McD announced that Peterman was starting, someone in the press asked if the offense would be simplified for him, being a rookie and all. He said, admirably in one sense, that Peterman is a football player and the Bills are asking him to play the position as designed, not some subset. Do your job. Well, that's the same message as the Bills won't redesign the offense to Taylor's strengths. "We know what we want the players to do, and they have to do it." If you don't have players who can do what you want, doesn't it make sense to modify your approach?

Exactly. I've gone from very positive to very negative about this team in three weeks. The only hope is that McDermott has what it takes, learns from his mistakes, and rights the ship. Based on these things we've been discussing, I have serious doubts.

If that's their plan, okay, I get it. But if that's their plan, then you pick a point in time and start him every game and live with the consequences. You don't start him for a half and then go back to the other guy. McDermott was very clear. He said he played Peterman not because he's the future but because he gave the team the best chance to win. In other words, he wanted to win now. And that's consistent with what McD has done now. He put Taylor back in in the second half, and he's starting Taylor this week. What that suggests is that he no longer believes Peterman gives them the best chance to win, Taylor does. That suggests that your view is wrong - that they haven't decided to go with Peterman next year. My point is not about Peterman. It's about Taylor. He's your best QB right now, so he's the best option for winning. I think it's foolish to go away from him until you have someone better. Or, if you're following your plan, which is to cut bait and go with Peterman and draft another guy, then you don't make the Benjamin trade. You've got a good second pick, one that is getting better every week the Bills lose, and you're going to need that pick to move up in the draft. The Benjamin trade is much more consistent with trying to win now, and trying to win now means they play Taylor, not Peterman. So I think your plan is NOT the plan. And if it isn't the plan, then keeping Taylor as a viable option is what the Bills needed. This decision effectively takes Taylor out of the mix.

I am, reluctantly, in the same place.

Some decisions are bigger than other decisions, and some have more far reaching consequences than others. I think starting Peterman had significant long-term consequences. It was more than let's play the guy for a game and see what happens. It was more because it's the most important position. It sent a message to Taylor. It sent messages to all the other guys on the team. What does he do now? Stand in front of the team and say "I made a bad decision. It's clear now, and should have been clear then, that Peterman isn't ready"? Can't really say that without dissing Peterman in front of the team, which is a coaching no-no. "I made a mistake, and I'm telling you now Tyrod is my guy"? Can't say that because you've said it before, and you obviously didn't mean it before. Start the wrong guy at safety, fine, you just move on. Start the wrong guy at QB, it has consequences.

I'm often wrong, so this won't be the first time. And frankly, I've been thinking as I write that I maybe making too big a deal about it. But I don't think so. Two things I could be wrong about. One is that maybe he hasn't burned the bridge to Tyrod staying in Buffalo beyond his contract. Maybe Tyrod will be a really big man and say it's okay, let's see how it goes. I doubt it. He's been dumped on repeatedly since McDermott took over, and he doesn't have much reason to believe it will change. The other is that maybe McDermott and Beane have decided to move on from Tyrod, they knew that benching him would mark the beginning of the end of Tyrod in Buffalo, and they're okay with that. If they thought that, then I disagree with the decision but at least they understood the consequences. I disagree because I think you don't get rid of your best quarterback until you have a better one on board, and the Bills are very far from having a better QB on board. Tyrod is the best QB the Bills have had since Bledsoe, maybe since Kelly. I think this decision forces the Bills to bet the ranch on a franchise QB rookie in the upcoming draft. Last time the Bills were forced to take a QB because they had no one they got Manuel. It's much better to be shopping for something when you don't absolutely need the thing.

Yeah that's a fair characterization of what I do, except when I disagree with my client I say so. What you say about Peterman is a fair plan not in consistent with what I said. Go with Taylor and look for your replacement. I thought they were riding in a motor boat looking for a speed boat. Peterman might have been the speed boat or some player to be named later. What McDermot just did is Jump Out of the motor boat with no other boat in sight. I can't defend that.

You're right. And I've been waiting for someone to say this for the past several weeks: Anyone know who's leading the league in tackles? Right. Zach Brown. Brown. Dareus. Darby. Gilmore. No one shoukdntell usnthat it isn't McD's fault he has no talent. I'm agreeing with you. It's brutal to look at those numbers. Its what made me post that the Bills could be the worst tsam in the league.

God, that's a brutal recitation. The Bills may be the worst team in the league, and may not even be close.

I don't see.that there's much different between that and what he's said. He's said "that's not the way we want to play." You said "We played bad." What's the diff? He hasn't pretended everything is okay. He's said they have a lot to fix.

I think you and others misunderstand me. Yes, it's true I tend to put a lot of confidence in coaching and management, because I've learned over the years that people with experience generally are better in their field than people without experience. Like Clinton, Obama and Trump, all amateurs who stumbled along in the White House, trying to figure it out. So what I generally try to do is try to figure out why a rational person with a lot of experience as a head football coach would decide to do what he did. In most cases I come up with a theory that I'm comfortable explains why he did it. That doesn't mean what the coach did was right; it just means I have some insight into why he did it. As we've talked about the Peterman start, the awful three-game performance and the Dareus and Benjamin trades, I've concluded there simply isn't a rational explanation for all of that other than horribly bad judgment. I'll repeat what I've been saying: It looked to me that what Beane and McDermott were doing was following a plan that went like this: Teach guys the system this year, while they're weeding out some guys who don't fit. In the process of weeding, pick up some draft picks. Next May, use the picks to fill several holes. Along the way, pick up a QB prospect, but plan to play Taylor in 2018 and, if all goes well, in 2019 and 2020. When they conclude Taylor has hit his ceiling, decide whether to move on or not. Their hope and expectation was to build from 7-9 or so into a playoff team. If they got there this year, great, but if it took another year, that's fine. I know there are plenty of people who didn't like that plan, because they want Taylor gone. But that was the only rational plan I could see short of blowing things up, and it seemed to be McD and Bean were on that path. What they've done, I think, is burn the live-with-Tyrod bridge, which means they need a QB now, which means they don't get to fill the holes because they have to seriously consider moving up in the draft next May. If they do that, they don't have the capital to fill the holes. That seems to me to be a much worse plan. In short, until they benched Tyrod, they had left themselves the option of moving forward with Taylor. It's always better to have options.

I think the Bills are hopeless, but think about it for a minute. He's a coach. He's supposed to be leading 53 men and getting them to perform their best. He MUST tell his team they're in the hunt. He can't stand in front of them and say "We suck. We're just trying to figure out how not to embarrass ourselves again." Can't say that. So if he can't say it to his team, he can't say it in public. Until they're mathematically eliminated, he has to say this stuff. I'm really scared. There's a good chance that KC will roll over the Bills on Sunday. They're home, they're desperate, they have better talent and they're better coached. It's a real good bet that the Pats will roll over the Bills, too. It's quite possible that the Bills put together the ugliest five-game stretch in the history of the league. It's possible they'll give up 200 points in five games. Let's see what McDermott has to say when THAT happens.

Wouldn't you prefer if the Bills were 7-3 and we all were happy? Next week I drive 6 and half hours to see the Patriots. What a joy.

I like it! We can start it right here. From now it's the Pit of Misery for me!

Look at the post I was responding to. His post was about next year's draft.

They need 3/4 of a defensive line, three linebackers and three or four offensive linemen. Plus a quarterback. There aren't enough draft picks to fill all those holes. And I don't what free agents will be interested in a team that collapsed under its rookie head coach. I think the future for the next couple of years is bleak. Happy to be convinced otherwise, but the only convincing I'm buying is on the field. First test is whether McDermott can turn this season around. KC is reeling, and they'll probably beat the Bills. How early inthe first half do you think the Pats game will be over? Is there any question that it's over by halftime?

My thinking was similar, except that the scenario a few weeks ago left room for the continuing improvement of Taylor, so that there'd be a QB controversy in 2019 or 2020 - Taylor or the new guy (like Alex Smith and Mahomes). That's a much better place to be than betting the ranch on the new guy. Plus, now they have to go up to get a new guy who looks like a starter now, instead of taking a guy later in the first or second and developing him.

You may be right, but I don't think he's coaching for his job. I wrote this somewhere: I think the Pegulas knew when they hired a young coach and Gm that there were going to be mistakes and they'd have to be patient. All head coaches say they learned a lot in their first season. I think you have to give these guys three years, minimum, unless the Bills defense is getting blown off the field most every game between now and midseason 2018.

I agree. I didn't go there because I'm shooting my mouth off too much any way, and there's a contrary argument that Matthews and Benjamin might be better for Taylor, given that they're two really good receivers to throw to when they're covered. Still, I agree with you. Remember, McCoy called Watkins the "Ferrari" for a reason, and every time the Ferrari was on the field, Taylor showed he knew what to do with him. It'll take a miracle for Taylor to stay. Now, some people will say "fine, he should have been gone by now anyway and Prescott or Watson should have been the starter." I get that. But given where the Bills were two weeks ago, the best future for the Bills over the next three years was to build a team around Taylor. That option is now gone.