PBF81

IDK, I suppose that depends upon how one defines elite. Otherwise, Cook & Davis are the only two that have made a significant impact in the passing/receiving game and it hasn't been all that consistent. Together they've logged 29 catches for 319 yards and a pair of TDs. Cook's single biggest contribution was in a blowout win over the hapless Jags. Davis' only notable catches have been the 62-yarder in this past game and the 43-yarder vs. the Jets, both exceptional catches, but he's got 8 grabs for 44 yards and no scores otherwise. That's not really elite pending the definition. For elite in terms of receiving RBs I think a RB that logs 600+ receiving yards and historically I think of the Faulk, Centers, Byars, Roger Craig types. Last season the top-three RBs for receiving yards were Breece Hall with 591 yards and 4 TDs; McCaffrey with 564 and 7 TDs; and Rashaad White with 549 and 3 TDs. Our two combined are on pace for 602 and 4 TDs between them. That doesn't seem like it registers as elite for either. Also, greater consistency is required for elite status. 3 catches in three games for both TDs and about half the yards with fairly pedestrian performance otherwise doesn't qualify as elite either. Just sayin'.

Particularly considering that no one has done worse than we have against Baltimore and only Chicago did worse against Houston. We're at our best when Allen goes off of the complimentary football script, our core philosophy.

Agreed He's made their offense better At 32 it's risky. Could also be the way he's used there, vs. the way he'd be used here.

Depends upon how they're used. We aren't exactly known for bringing in free-agent WRs and receiving RBs and turning them into much in the passing game since Diggs or Beasley several seasons ago. Hines, Sherfield, Harty, Samuel, Hollins, MVS (injury notwithstanding) Otherwise, always go for youth once you hit that 30 year-old mark. Not sure that Cooper fits into our ideology very well, we're a short passing and running team now, when it works, and we have a plethora of short yardage receivers. maybe our offensive philosophy changes, we'll see. When it doesn't work is when Allen goes off script and excels. What's interesting is that we preach an "everybody eats" philosophy regarding our passing game, but then operate off of a philsophy where Allen's passing attempts diminish by nearly 20% on the season. Obviously we'll see how it shakes out.

I thought we agreed to terminate this.

OK Yes, consider it terminated.

Well, this much is obvious, that McD insists on making the running game and defense the focus of his approach. That's how he defines complimentary football. But it's certainly not unreasonable to ask whether, or perhaps why, making the running game and D the focal point for the overall strategical approach for our offense is wise or makes the most sense. Apologists will cite Allen's stats and lack of INTs. But critics will point out that against any team worth a crap Allen was flat out awful going 25 of 59 for an average of 155 yards with 1 TD combined in both games en route to losses to the only two likely playoff teams we've play thus far, and both with flaws. We averaged 15 PPG in those two games. For many, the cloud of the overall season overshadows the ability of our team to win the chip as you put it, which is not good and for which he is obviously an impediment. So holding out hope that he won't be an impediment come January for three, possibly four straight games, becomes an unlikely hope. Performing so well during the regular seasons but forever failing to advance past the divisional round, and then only once, makes quite a statement when you have Josh Allen as your QB.

I'd really like to see where I said that. My take has always been that their D has sucked until recently and that they've done it all via offense. When they had Hill they were great offensively, still, bereft of a decent RB. Then came Pacheco, who's good but far from elite, but Hill vanished and Kelce has diminished. Again, I'd love to see my own quote on that, it's not my take nor has been. I've always thought that on the whole, given the talent, the two teams have been comparable. Apparently you missed the lights out ball that Allen & Davis played, ... having nothing to do with McD. Rewatch the game and let's reconvene. McD didn't "develop Allen." Since you actually believe that, let's terminate this discussion. Frankly, how is it even possible for someone admittedly bereft of any knowledge of offense to develop a QB to that level? Don't take away Allen's individual achievements, he deserves those! As to your leadership question, who's the better leader, Allen or McD?

Richardson being a bust was one of the easiest predictions in NFL history. Having said that, and regarding this game, Taylor hasn't posted a relevant game against any good rushing D this season, but since we're not a good rushing D, who knows what he'll do. He had 110 rushing against Chicago whose rushing D is about as good as ours is statistically, that was his best game. He's averaging 83 ypg. But their receivers aren't what they've been in past recent years and Pittman is struggling and rumored to be traded prior to the game. Their D has been good at home, but not their rushing D, which ranks 31st in YPG allowed with 150 R yards allowed. Only 133 at home. But McD loves to run the ball so this should work. Flacco at 39 shouldn't be a concern.

Where did I say that? The teams were comparable all things considered. Back then they had better WRs/TE, QBs were different but comparable. Our D was clearly better. At the time we had a better running game and a better RB. You're putting words in my mouth. We lost. Why, because of that gaff, no? Whose fault was that?

Well, consider, McD admittedly knows nothing about offense. So how would it be "blowing things up" if Pegula were to bring on someone that does know a lot about offense to turn the only elite player that this team has into the focal point of the team instead of components not fueled by anyone even close to elite? (Aka the running game and D) Isn't it possible yea even likely that our offense would improve? What's your theory on that? Against the only two playoff teams that we've faced we averaged a pathetic 15 PPG, 14 1st-Downs, and 256 total yards with Allen bring a combined 25 of 59 for 311 yards and 1 TD in those two games. No room for improvement? Those were two of his worst games ever. Why? Because we were trying to force "complimentary football.". The dots are there, just gotta connect 'em. Let's reconvene after the KC, SF, and Detroit games. Beating up on the dregs is fine, and if that's all that your schedule features then that's the way it is, and some fans are admittedly satisfied with that and winning the division. I'm not one of them. This team is fully capable of winning it all with Allen under center, but not under the philosophy with which they're approaching the game now. Worse overall teams with worse QBs have won Super Bowls. That's fine against the stiffs in the league, but come playoff time or has terminal limitations.

Mostert & Achane averaged 5.4 ypc with a long run of only 16. Tua played one of his best games ever and was nearly 90% complete on his passing. Both playoff-bound teams we've faced we were awful, and both had significant flaws. Or offense averaged 15 points, 14 1st-Downs, and 256 yards in those two games. Our D allowed an average of 426 yards, 182 rushing yards, and 29 points. Not sure about Indy, they're nothing special, but our games against KC, SF, and Detroit will be our defining games. The rest of our schedule is below average and bottom feeders.

Great, then you should easily understand that he wouldn't even be close to where he is without Allen.

BTW, the implication is that he'd be doing this without Allen. If he had the QBs of the drought era, do you think he would be?

Except neither of Schottie's QBs or Defenses were as good as McD's.