Shaw66

This time of year, many of us, myself included are trying to convince ourselves that next season will be better. Last year at this time, I was saying the season would depend on whether Dorsey emerged as a quality, creative coordinator. We know how that went. Well, it's a year later, and to a great extent the 2024 season will depend on whether Brady emerges as a quality, creative coordinator. And whether the defense gets better.

Well, Carson Wentz hadn't failed yet. Lots of people were comparing the Allen pick to Wentz. Wentz had had more college success - more wins, but when he came out there were a lot of questions about whether he could do it. Wentz went #2. On the other hand, there was JaMarcus Russell. And I think Darnold was the second best guy of the four. I think Darnold might very well have succeeded in the McDermott environment. I think the Jets quickly started asking Darnold to be the savior, while the Bills were pleading with Allen to STOP thinking of himself as the savior.

Thanks. That is really good. And, in fact, when Beane tells the story of the decision to go after Allen, it clearly was an example of what you say. They spent a lot of time on projectability. Allen had had college success, in the sense that he had succeeded at a lot of things that are important, like leadership and playmaking ability. But where they really succeeded, and the Browns, Jets, Broncos, and Giants all failed, was in evaluating his projectability. They learned about the guy, who he was, how competitive he was, how much his teammates liked him, etc. They decided he had all the attributes he needed, which meant that he projected as a star. It was great scouting and drafting. The Jets had more trade capital and traded up to a spot that was more or less impossible for the Bills to reach, and they took the wrong guy.

That's really good. It explains why the Bills always seem to leave the flats exposed. It's what you give up when you play these complex pass defenses. Interesting that he says one solution is to get your QB under center. People here have talked about that a lot this season. I've been interested in a comment or two that I saw somewhere recently that said that the Chiefs and the Niners seem to have the personnel for attacking these schemes. Neither has the classic stud #1 - in fact, the Chiefs unloaded theirs. Instead, they come at you with a really good tight end and with three wideouts with decent size, decent speed, good hands, and brains. Why does that work? Because unlike in previous eras, when the pass defenses left particular areas exposed for the whole play, these defenses are reacting and adjusting. The result is that instantaneous openings to attack appear, but then the defenders react and adjust, to close those openings. The openings are still there, they just aren't there long. So, you need receivers who can see, actually anticipate, the openings and who have the ability to take advantage. And that's why you need to put the QB under center, because it's easier to get the ball out quickly to good players on the run. And that's why Kelce is such a good weapon. He has size and hands, but his real value is how well he sees the defense and adjusts, and he has a great quarterback who's thinking along with him. Bills have Diggs, who until this season seemed great at playing that game. I don't know if he's lost it or he was injured (I'm thinking the latter). We all were excited this season watching Shakir, and I think it's for exactly this reason. He has the smarts and the skills to take advantage of instantaneous openings, and Josh clearly was thinking along with him. Put another way, winning football for the next few years may not depend on getting a Chase or a Lamb or a Jefferson. It may depend more on getting one or two receivers like an Ayuk or and guys like him. Why not the real stud receivers? Because the whole reason these pass defenses were developed was to stop those guys from going for 150 yards on five receptions. And those defenses are working.

I so hate this take. There was nothing one-in-a-million about Josh. Mechanically, some things were tweaked in him, but anyone with half a brain could look at Josh Allen throwing a football in college and tell that he was fundamentally a great thrower. Stand him on the fifty and ask him to throw footballs at targets 10, 15, 30, and 40 yards downfield, and he'd hit those targets over and over. A guy with bad mechanics can't do that, but Allen could, because his fundamental throwing motion was really sweet, better than Mayfield, Darnold, Rosen, or Jackson. It was pretty clear that Josh's "accuracy" problem wasn't that he was fundamentally inaccurate. His problem was that he didn't have the athletic discipline that comes from years of quality coaching. He wasn't going to the best QB clinics in high school. He played at a podunk high school, a podunk junior college, and a podunk college. Rosen, on the other hand, had the benefit of all the coaching that was available to a rich kid from LA, which is what he was. That meant what you saw was what you were going to get - no one was going to make Rosen into a better thrower than he was. Allen's a one-in-a-million talent, but he wasn't some kind of athletic miracle who transformed himself from a substandard college thrower, mechanically, to a great thrower. He was always a great thrower, just undisciplined.

First - LOL funny! Thanks. I'm on my first cup of coffee and needed an extra jolt! Second - that thread really is something. Third - I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that the posts in any popular thread reflect the opinion of all Bills fans, or even all people who post here. Two months ago it was 80-20 here to fire McDermott. I never believed 80% of Bills fans wanted him gone. It was just that a lot posters decided they didn't want to waste time responding to the hysterical cries of some fans. There's a great story about an old scout who was, I think, the head scout for the Astros. He had been sending reports to the team for two or three years telling them that this shortstop was the greatest prospect he had seen in his entire career. Best player ever, can't miss. Astros had the first pick and went another way. Yankees had the second pick and took Jeter. The scout quit.

Wow! Who would have read all of that and then traded UP to draft the guy. By every statistical measure, he was a mess. Beane maybe deserves to be in the Hall of Fame for how he traded up and up to take Allen. It might have been the pick of the century, (if the Chiefs hadn't trade way up the year before to take Mahomes).

There wasn't universal unhappiness or universal happiness. The situation was this: The Bills hadn't had a good quarterback since Kelly retired - 20 years. The one year they had a top 10 pick, the only guys arguably good enough to go in the first round were EJ Manuel and Geno Smith. Bills took Manuel, and the pain continued. So, finally, by virtue of a lousy finish and a trade up, the Bills had, I think, the 12th pick in a draft that had four guys deemed to be true first-round talent, plus Lamar Jackson, who was intriguing but not rated that highly. So, Bills fans had a lot invested in who the team would draft. The question really was, who would be left at 12? As the draft approached, it seemed the Browns were going to take Mayfield, the Giants were going to go running back, the Jets would take Darnold, and probably one of the two Joshes would fall to the Bills at 12. Everyone had a favorite between those two, and of course everyone hoped that some miracle would happen and Mayfield or Darnold would fall. It was the most important draft for the Bills in 20 years. (Well, if the Bills hadn't traded up for JP Losman and just sat tight, the next year Aaron Rodgers would have fallen in their laps, so that was a pretty important draft decision.) And then Beane traded up to get to #7. Mayfield and Darnold were gone, but now Beane had his pick between Allen and Rosen. The suspense for a few minutes was agonizing. Who would it be? Going into the draft, if I had to choose, I'd always said I'd take Rosen. Then, literally as the Commish walked to the podium, I thought, "Allen. Allen! ALLEN!!!" I wanted the body and the arm over Rosen's supposed brain. So, I was smiling that night.

Thanks for all of this. It's interesting. I guess my reaction is that I wasn't talking so much about the number of penalties as I was talking about the quality of the penalties. I didn't see many flags on plays where I thought there should have been no calls. Houston's five false starts and delay of game, for example, penalties are all flags that should have been and were thrown. Baltimore's roughness penalties all should have been called. What I liked was that all those defensive holding calls on plays that didn't really affect the outcome were gone. The ineligible receiver downfield pretty much disappeared. If pass interference was called, it was pretty much always on a play where the receiver had a legitimate chance to make the play; that is, the offense wasn't getting bailed out on cheap penalties. My point was only that when the officials stop calling penalties as closely as during the regular season, it tends to help the defense. I think we saw that on Sunday. And I just took a quick look back at the last six playoff games. During the regular season there were about 11 penalties per game. In the last two weekends, there was I think one game over 11, one game at 11, and four at 8 or below. So, even just on total penalties, it was lower. And, for sure, I'm not defending the officiating, except to say that the game flows better when there are fewer calls, and we tend to see fewer calls in the playoffs.

I traffic it somewhere. It may not be accurate.

I'm afraid so. It is true that the soccer leagues in England and/or elsewhere do something similar, by having teams move up and down from the majors and minors. It is true that things could be done differently, but why? You'd lose rivalries. You'd lose some compelling stories, like Allen and Mahomes playing against each other. The NFL is wildly popular. In 2022, I think the stat was 37 of the 38 most watched TV shows were NFL games. Someone sent me something that said the more people watched the Bills-Chiefs last week than watch all five 2023 World Series game COMBINED. If I have a business that is THAT successful, I'm not going tinkering with it to make it easier for a few teams who think they have tough competition. Plus, which NFC team, especially one without a quarterback, wants to be transferred in the AFC? I suppose you could have a league with no divisions, and at the end of the season you could have a tournament, seeding every team based on its record. Seedings might make the tournament a bit easier for good teams (seeded brackets would mean that a good team would have less chance of facing the Chiefs early), but who really cares about that. Every team, every player will tell you that to be the best, you have to beat the best.

I agree with your first paragraph. That's what my essay said - the Bills playoff defense hasn't been enough. Yes, it's literally true that Von didn't work, but only because he hasn't had a chance. Last year he wasn't in the playoffs, this year he wasn't recovered from his injury. There is no reason - zero - to think that Ben Johnson would have a better defense than Sean McDermott. You can repeat the Schottenheimer/Lewis mantra over and over. As a pure statistical matter, of course there are going to be a few long-tenured coaches who don't win, but that doesn't have anything to do with McDermott. There are also some long-tenured coaches that eventually won. Why is McDermott any more likely to have a Lewis moment than a Reid moment? History is not a thing that affects the outcome of football games. Lindbergh had "history going against him." History isn't a head wind.

7th best career passer rating 11th best completion percentage 24th best yards 18th TDs Tom Brady is first in career INTs at 40; Josh Allen is under 10.

Again, you're focused on offense. I'm not. If I know today that McDermott will not figure out Patrick (and Reid), then I'm moving on from McDermott. The way to beat the Chiefs is with defense, not more offense. Chiefs gave up 290 yards and just over 17 points a game this season, and the Bills put up 368 and 24 against them in Division round. That's excellent offensive performance against a top-notch defense. Expecting a lot more isn't reasonable. It's the other side of the ball that matters. Bills D was almost as good as KC's during the regular season, but they were in serious trouble against the Chiefs. Defense is what needs to improve. I think the Bills could have beaten the Ravens, but they'd be in trouble against the 49ers, for the same reason they can't get past KC - the Bills defense can't stop a top-of-the-league diverse offense.

Well, obviously we disagree about whether the way to success is offense or defense. I think it's clear that you rarely can win at this level without great defense. So, I won't talk about that more. The thought you end with is really a very important question. I'm not sure it's naive to think McDermott can do it. After all, if you could dial the clock back to Reid coaching Donovan McNabb, you'd find all sorts of Eagle fans saying Reid never will win. These guys learn and grow and develop, so, no it's not naive. However, just because Reid did it doesn't mean McDermott will do. His mantra always has been get pressure with four, but he seemed to blitz more this season. Will he stick with rushing four? Will he stick with the rotation? In general, is he wed to his philosophy in such a way that he'll never on? I don't know. If he sticks with his philosophy, will it always collapse in the playoffs, or will it succeed. Will Beane draft a surprise d lineman who is just so good that MUST get more than 60% of the snaps, a guy who has to play every snap in the fourth quarter? I don't agree that the Bills should move on from McDermott. I believe in his growth mindset approach will win - he's not going to get stuck in some football dogma he believes in. Instead, he's going to study the game, what teams are doing, he will understand what needs to change, and he will make changes. He'll do it with Beane by coming to agreement about what kind of players they need on the roster, and that agreement will affect choices that Beane makes in the draft and free agency. Coaches will be tasked with developing different plays, different skill sets, etc. The whole organization will be invested in doing their jobs better to achieve specified objectives. Sean McDermott will be different coach in five years, a better coach, because that's his personal objective. The team will be a different team. Given that's who he is and what he's doing, I think it would be a mistake move on from a coach who already has been very successful and will be better in the future. There's always a better coach out there, but there are a lot more who are worse. Chances are the team will be worse in five years with McDermott's replacement than with McDermott.

C'mon, Gunner. I'm not ready yet!

The Bills didn’t make it to the conference championship game this season – fell short by a field goal on the scoreboard, by a little more in the actual game. Having watched the Chiefs beat the Ravens and the 49ers beat the Lions, I have a few thoughts about why the Bills weren’t quite good enough. Defense wins championships. It’s an old adage, but it’s repeated every season because it’s true. Explosive, high scoring offenses thrive in September, but in January it’s about the defense. There are several reasons for this phenomenon. One is that everything’s new in September, so the defenses are at a disadvantage when the Dolphins come at you with two flashy wideouts and fancy new schemes. Everyone’s healthy. The high-flying offenses have an edge. When the end of the season rolls around, defensive coaches have had three months to figure out how the big-time offenses work and how to stop them. Plus, offenses usually have lost a skill player or two to injury, and everyone’s banged up. They just aren’t quite as fast as they were in September. The offensive edge has been dulled, if not neutralized altogether. In January, the officials let everyone play. Less offensive holding is called, it’s true, but what’s more important is that less defensive holding and pass interference is called. Receivers are getting held up and, yes, held at the line of scrimmage. Cover guys are hanging all over receivers, but the flags don’t come out of the pockets. It’s better that way, there’s more flow to the game, but it’s an advantage to the defense. Receivers have to make plays, instead of just catching cupcakes. What did we see from defenses late this season? The Bills defense shut down the Dolphins in what was essentially a playoff game. The Chiefs did it again the following weekend. Then in the conference championship games, the two high-flying offenses, the Lions and the Ravens, lost to the two methodical offenses. The Lions looked great early against the 49ers, but in the second half, they went nowhere. In the meantime, the slow but steady 49er offense took control. The Chiefs, who have an outstanding defense, the defense that slowed the Bills down just enough the week before, locked down the Ravens. The speed and quickness of the Ravens that absolutely blitzed teams all season suddenly stumbled as running lanes shrunk and receivers had defenders hanging on them. On offense, be good at everything. The way to counter great playoff defense is to be able to do everything, because great defenses are not going to let the offense do what it wants to do. When the defense takes away what you do best, and what you do second best, and even what you do third best, you have to have a fourth and a fifth option. Mahomes’ fourth down conversion with a miracle catch by Kelce was not one of their go-to plays. The 49ers are the quintessential we-can-do-everything team. They can attack every part of the field with quality playmakers, and their offense is designed to do it. The Chiefs don’t have the same quality playmakers, but they play the same style. Both offenses succeed because they are prepared to attack anywhere downfield where the defense is thin. And, by the way, both have genius-level offensive coaching. The Lions have that kind of offense, too, and as their defense improves they will be a force. For this season, however, I think the moment got a little too big for them. Going for it on fourth down in the third quarter probably was a mistake – take the points and force the 49ers to play with a long field. The offense needed to deliver in a high-pressure situation, and it didn’t. Giving the 49ers the short field put the defense under even more pressure, unlike anything they’d faced before – the price of failure wasn’t just a game, it was a trip to the Super Bowl. The Ravens had, and have, a different problem, the same problem they’ve always had – Lamar Jackson. The problem with Lamar Jackson is that his talent is so special that the only way to take advantage of it is to shape the offense around his skills. When he dictates the shape of the offense, by definition it is not a do-everything offense. It can’t be. The Ravens did a great job of upgrading their pass-receiving threats, coming at their opponents with amazing speed and elusiveness, but it didn’t matter. In the end, they were the same old Ravens: neutralize Jackson and force him to run a multi-faceted offense and they’re in trouble. When the time came to deliver the touchdown they needed, Jackson threw the game-ending interception into triple coverage because the Ravens and Jackson don’t know how to take what the defense gives them. They can’t be a multi-faceted offense because the team is focused on one style – lightning speed from everyone, including the quarterback. The truth is that Jackson is not the most valuable player; he’s the most exciting player, the most entertaining player. Lamar is Michael before Phil Jackson figured out how to deploy that extraordinary talent in a team offense. What does that say about the Bills? Well, obviously, the Bills didn’t have a defense good enough to win a championship this season. We never will know if losing Milano and Bernard is explanation enough. It’s almost certainly true that the Bills wouldn’t have been gashed by so many explosive plays by the Chiefs with Milano and Bernard playing. Would it have been enough to make a difference? Hard to say. One problem with the Bills defense is that they work so hard to have eight, or even nine, defensive linemen who can support their rotation that they neglect having the true difference maker on the defensive line. Greg Rousseau isn’t a Bosa or a Watt or a Hutchinson. Von Miller is more of a specialist, a difference maker of sorts, and he might have made a difference had he been able to return to form this season. For me, the quintessential difference maker is Chris Jones – he was there on the critical play against the Bills, he was present against the Ravens, he just always seems make plays. Does Ed Oliver have still another gear? Offensively, the Bills can be good at anything. They need to be a little better at everything, but they’re on the right track. They could use a better #2 running back. They will need to improve at wideout – they weren’t bad last season, but Davis likely will be gone, and they’ll need some talent upgrade. It’s interesting to look at the receivers the Chiefs and 49ers deploy – neither team has a stud #1 wideout, but they always have one or two good tight ends and two or three talented wideouts on the field – weapons who don’t necessarily demand double teams but who will hurt you often enough when they’re left one on one. (Samuels is great, of course, but not because he's a classic #1 like Hill or Chase or Jefferson, but because of his run-after-catch skills.) Diggs is a #1.5, but he needs a guy like an Ayuk, a guy who just hurts the defense from time to time because he’s like Diggs – good speed, good route running, reliable hands. Allen showed this year that he is NOT Lamar Jackson. The offense doesn’t have to be built around him; he is very good at running a varied, multi-faceted offense. He knows how to make the decisions, he can make all the throws (another Jackson liability), and he plays within himself. His running is a special added feature to the offense, but not a feature that must be the focus of the offense. What the Bills lack in January is the thing that McDermott has preached from day one but hasn’t been able to deliver: the mental toughness throughout the roster to win. The Chiefs have it, and that’s why they’ve beaten the Bills regularly in the playoffs. The Lions don’t have it, but that was to be expected, because this was their first rodeo. The Bills improved in that regard this season – the winning streak at the end of the season showed that McDermott is doing something right, but they didn’t get all the way there. Dawkins gave Jones one step too many, Bass wasn’t ready for the bright lights, Diggs and Cook had big drops (compare to Kelce’s miracle catch), and not enough guys stepped up on defense. The Bills were tough, and they went about as far as they should have gone, but they need to take another step. 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 every-day 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.

Which means that 31 fan bases think their teams are worse than they actually are, and one fan base thinks its team is better than it actually is.

Absolutely. But what's interesting is that the position is named for the place where the guy lined up, not the body type or style of play. As the game evolved, guys with the fullback body type stopped being "full" backs. The "running back" lines up in the fullback's traditional position, and the fullback lines up in the traditional halfbacks position. It's just odd that the nomenclature didn't change.

I wanted to come back to this post. I don't remember talking to anyone who saw the old Bills. In 1959, when the current Bills came to town, my father and grandfather told me about the AAFC and the Bills. I was 12, and it sounded like ancient history, like those guys must have been running the single wing or something. In fact, it hadn't been all that long ago. If I recall correctly, I was told the Bills were the best team in the conference that didn't get invited to join the NFL. Typical. Anyway, you're one of the privileged few to remember the real beginnings of pro football in Buffalo.

Yeah, it's funny. It's just the evolution of football and it's language. The guy we call a 1-tech defensive tackle, is a nose tackle in the 3-4. I think when the 3-4 first came into existence, the nose tackle was just the tackle. And 80 years ago, when teams played 5-man lines, you had two ends, two tackles, and a nose guard. The 1-tech, the nose tackle, and the nose guard all were the same body type with more or less the same role. The 4-3 DE is sometimes a guy we used to call an outside linebacker and sometimes a guy we used to call a defensive end. Now, regardless of the formation, we call them an edge. We used to have split ends and flanker backs. Finally everyone gave up agreed that they're all wideouts, regardless of where they line up. Free safeties and strong safeties used to have significantly different roles, not so much any more. Fullback is one situation where the name followed the body type and role, regardless of where he lined up.

As I said, I agree, and I'm sure he agrees too. Brady was principally an outsider. Boras is outside. Butler is outside. Danna is outside. Adam Henry. Kromer. There are a lot of coaches who have cut their teeth substantially outside the McDermott sphere of influence. As you talk about the more senior positions, it's true that they're more likely to come from within, but that's where culture and continuity become more important in the operation of the team, so it's natural that you'd hire more within. So, for example, if McDermott thought the fundamentals of what Daboll was running were the wrong fundamentals, then he'd replace Daboll. The Bills are running the kind of offense McDermott wants to have; otherwise, it would have changed. Since he likes the basics of that offense, then he isn't going to go outside to bring in substantially different ideas. That's how you get continuity. So where is the impetus for change, you ask? From all those guys I've named above who have substantial coaching experience in all sorts of different environments. Some college, all of them with multiple different NFL teams. They're all watching film, evaluating, creating, relying on knowledge they've accumulated in Buffalo and with other teams.

For sure, and McDermott will endorse that. We've seen multiple free agent signings, for example, that acknowledge the benefit of bringing outside ideas and styles. The decision to go outside or promote from within is made on a case-by-case basis. It's just that the inside has a leg up in terms of cultural growth and development.

Yes, he is, and it's part of his philosophy. It's his continuous improvement, life-long learner, growth-mindset philosophy. It makes a lot of sense. Under his approach, he believes everyone will get better at their job every year. When you bring in someone from the outside, you have get him to speed on all the institutional knowledge the team has. When you promote guys, you don't have to do that - they're already up to speed. And who are the guys getting promoted? They're guys who do their jobs with that philosophy. McDermott believes the institutional knowledge continues to accumulate and grow so long as you have a lot of people who learn it and live it. McDermott believes that when you have a healthy system like that, the team actually does get better every year, even though the personnel changes. I've never really thought about it, but I think that's what Reid has going KC. It's the thing that makes KC always seem like they're a step ahead of everyone. Belichick did it, too. Next man up, from within if possible. So, yeah, he is obsessed with it. It's core principle in his organization.

That's an interesting question. I can't tell from what you wrote whether you're joking or not. So, if you know this and you were making a joke, I like it. If you don't know this, then you'll be happy to know there was a day when quarter, half, and full did delineate their relative positions in the formation, with the fullback deepest in the backfield and the half backs a step ahead of the fullback. At least variations of the T formation did that. Out of those formations, the fullback was the power back and the halfbacks were valued more for their speed and elusiveness than their power. McCaffrey lined up in the slot is something you might see from a halfback like Frank Gifford 60 years ago, but never a fullback. As the game evolved, power, speed, and elusiveness began appearing in various combinations, so you had Jim Brown's combination, Gale Sayers combination, and ultimately Thurman's and Emmit Smith's combinations. The feature back began lining up all over the place. The power back, the short-yardage, between-the-tackles back was not as useful, and the power back evolved into more of blocking back and change-of-pace runner. The position still was called fullback, even though the feature back began lining up deepest in the backfield and the "fullback" was lining up more like a halfback used to. So, yeah, the fullback literally is usually not the "full" back.