PBF81

What's interesting about all of this Brady love is that on one hand it's all his doing that we finished 6-1. On the other hand, despite the lack and diminishment in offensive performance metrics and general scoring apart from two games, he was still running Dorsey's offense for the most part. As to McD, come on now, if you don't see that then you're not looking, or rather, turning the other way. As to your last statement, agreed, that's precisely what I was referring to. If it doesn't change, then we're in trouble. But even with the change, we've heard McD & Co. say that they want to run more. Part of stripping away the BS is tearing down false narratives. Such as ... - Cook finished strong. No he didn't, he finished incredibly weak, bottom-dwelling in fact apart from a single game of his against a worn out team from their week prior and with us coming into the game as if it was our Super Bowl. - The offense was better under Brady. Simply false, particularly considering the trend over the last few games where we averaged 19.3 PPG and against defenses that were far from good, all below-average, two well below average. - Diggs lost a step. Also nonsense. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. But he was used to run ridiculous patterns often, like bubble screen type stuff and crossing patterns at the LoS, of course his YPR is going to suffer. But any thinking person would clearly see that that was clearly related to the issues between him and McD/Brady. Otherwise, no player loses a step from one game to the next. That narrative is built for fools. This season will reveal more. There are others, but those are the bigger ones. And when we factor in the whole complimentary football thing, which is McD's thing, it shouldn't be that difficult to connect the dots. Not to mention, all of these things collectively not playing to Allen's core strengths. No matter how it's sliced, Allen's completion % dropped by 10 points and his rating dropped by over 10 points under Brady. People can spin it any way that they want to, but there's absolutely no good angle there. Until further notice, but we're not dealing with Bill Walsh or Don Coryell here, we're dealing with an OC in his first season, one that produced low-end production otherwise and who was fired mid-season in his second season in Carolina, and that Carolina association is also not insignificant. Also one that's having to fit whatever his plans are under McD's complimentary football umbrella. It bodes poorly.

What we're going to find out this season is that "the 2nd half version of Diggs" was entirely due to Brady's use of him, not because of Diggs himself. Just as these progressive revelations have revealed, there's more to the Diggs drama than is now out publicly. Just remember, last year at this time, any notion of any Diggs drama was a "nothing burger," which clearly wasn't true. Allen's completion % and rating under Brady didn't plummet into the realm of the bottom-dwelling because of Diggs. Season long under Brady if it held for a full season, Allen would have finished ranked 30th & 23rd respectively, and ahead of absolutely no one significant. If that doesn't change, drastically, them were in trouble this season. When the last time a 21-year old WR did anything in the NFL? IDK, I'm sincerely asking, but it's tough to envision that it happened to any significant extent. ... Just looked. Jefferson, Keenan Allen, Chase, Moss, Cooper and Evans. Coleman's not even close to being in their company.

That's going to depend upon Brady's offense. I can envision Shakir being a top-10 WR though depending upon the scheming. A good OC uninhibited by his HC should be able to get that out of him. Samuel had 92 & 91 targets the past two years. Not sure why that changes much, particularly in a run first offense. His YPR likely won't be much more than his career 10.7-ish. Brady's approach with McD breathing down his neck is troubling. If Allen's completion % and rating under Brady don't improve from the 60.7% and 85.5 that it was, it will be problematic regardless of who's playing WR.

Yeah, but being sheltered from the wind is huge.

I don't think he's going to last all that long simply because he's not even proven himself to be average. It's like Brady and Belichick. This notion that he would have done anything but what he did in Carolina, where he was fired midway through his second season there, and which was bottom quartile offense ranking, without Allen is ludicrous. Nobody wants to hire Belichick because apart from being old, he's never done a damn thing w/o Brady and he's not bringing Brady with him. In 11 seasons w/o Brady as his starting QB he's been to the playoffs twice, and is 1-2 in the playoffs. Miserable. Ironically that single win was over Bledsoe's Pats. LOL Bledsoe's one of the worst playoff QBs in NFL history. Lamar Jackson's not good either but he's somewhat better than Bledsoe was. Anyway, I digress, Daboll wasn't accomplished as an OC either and his only two above miserable seasons as an OC or HC offensively were also with Allen. Could be Brady and Allen, not their coaches. Just sayin'. HINT: It is. That's not to say that a see the forest for the trees type of OC wouldn't make our offense prolific, I believe one would. We'll never see one here under McD however. On top of what you said, also going against Brady is the false narrative that Cook was something under him when he wasn't. I wouldn't want to be relying on Cook given how he played under Brady last season. And what, Davis? He's a Moss clone at best, not even a Singletary clone. He brings less to the NFL from college than either of them did. As to Coleman, it'd be wise to assume that his trajectory is going to be what Samuel's has been the past two seasons except with a lower catch%. I have no idea why anyone thinks that he's going to a reliable and consistent WR when he wasn't in college.

That's a great point. Your right, it's going to be very comfortable up there and the view killer. Barring one of those odd record cold games, get rid of the wind and it's comfortable. It's not as if WNY-ers don't know how to dress for cold.

Our offense should be several things that it hasn't been and doesn't seem to be shaping up to be this season either.

I'm not either nor have been, but we got what he was billed as coming into the league. But to the point, the guys in the video said that he got stronger as the season wore on, which is false narrative, not fact. He got weaker as the season wore on. I'm still trying to envision WTF we're doing on offense, it changes every season and last season it changed mid-season. We need to run Allen less, then we need to run him more, etc. It seems that when their offense doesn't put up they simply turn to Allen to do it all. That's not a plan, that's McDesperation, and it's damn good for McD that Allen's up to the task. Imagine that with our past QBs ... SMH As to Cook, he's not a three down RB and he's never been proven to carry more than a very average number of times on a season with any great results. He is what he is, but they knew that when they drafted him. ... or should have known. The problem with our offense is that we have no one in charge that is capable of seeing the forest, not simply the trees. We defer to whom Allen likes rather than someone knowledgeable and with the experience to make an offense be the best that it can be and to get the most out of Allen coupled with the least risk. This season McD apparently wants to, in the interests of "complimentary football," run more and focus more on a shorter passing game. That's the exact opposite of what Allen's strengths are. It's also complete reversal of what's made us most successful offensively. And this nonsense that slowing the offense down helps the D [blah blah blah] ... I mean SMFH ... Given Allen, and all that he's capable of doing, one would think that we could keep Ds guessing while opening up huge plays regularly. We do to an extent, but it's not because of scheming more often than not. It's difficult to envision that changing as long as McD is here. Hiring someone like that would threaten his tenure given our repeated defensive failures in the playoffs, and well, ... LOL ..., we all know that he's not going to do that.

Also depends upon when you buy your tix. I've purchased them in the lots before. The prices often come down. I live too far away now to go to more than a game or two per season.

Thanks! What's interesting about your experience is that the pricing is notably more than what it said in the survey that they sent out what, two years ago or so now. I'm in a similar situation. Of my three kids, only one, my youngest daughter, is interested in going to games and interested in sports pretty much at all outside of rec participation. But we live 6 hours away. We're planning on going to the Ravens game and even overpaying several hundred bucks per ticket, it puts the new stadium costs in perspective. I've sat in the clubs before and it's fine, but I would never watch the game from the inside, and IMO the clubs are overrated except for weather games, which don't always happen in Nov/Dec, many are nice. ... at least by WNY standards. LOL I only go to the weather games if they're big games anyway. I don't need to see us crush Carolina in the driving cold rain. TV's fine for that. So I'm with ya on the country club-ish nature of them. The whole mention of sushi for example, I mean LOL. WNY is a Wings/Hotdogs/Blue kinda place. Upgrades from bleachers in the endzones would be nice, but that's automatic and cheap and otherwise I enjoy moving around and seeing the games from different angles when I go, whether home or away. For me it's as much fun in the lots tailgating as the game is. I can do without being pampered for three hours during the game. LOL Either way, that pampering isn't worth a lot of money to me. IDK, ya think? It seems that for the people having purchased those that money's not a big issue. Otherwise I would think so too. I do think that there's going to be some wailing and moaning as the lower priced structure is revealed in the same manner. There's something severely off about not letting loyal Bills fan WNY-ers know what's going to be available and for how much. It's disingenuous.

Did they exchange a Go Bills at the semi-circle sink where they were taking a leak? 😁 Aren't we all semi deranged. 🥸

That shouldn't be shocking despite the rhetoric to the contrary. You buying them?

Cook posted the following rushing lines in 6 games under Brady other than for the Dallas game: 17 for 73, 4.3 ypc 16 for 43, 2.7 ypc 10 for 58, 5.8 ypc 20 for 70, 3.5 ypc 16 for 48, 3.0 ypc 13 for 36, 2.8 ypc Playoffs: 18 for 79, 4.4 ypc 18 for 61, 3.4 ypc Total in those 8 games, 128 for 468, 3.7 ypc He had one rushing TD in our early season blowout of Miami and another in our blowout vs. Dallas. That's it on the season. If Cook is going to be the #1 then he'll have to do much better than that rushing.

"Looked" is very subjective. IMO this is the season where the wheels finally come off of the wagon and McD starts taking heat for lack of being able to deflect it any longer. We'll see. You didn't answer the question though. Was there a reason why not?

I did watch the video. I was going to run through it again, although not sure if I want to invest the time. They contradicted themselves a couple of times and were inaccurate on a few things, more the narrative-driven stuff. For instance, they said that Cook got stronger as the season wore on, which is flat out the opposite of what happened. They also essentially ignore the fact that it was Allen's rushing, not Cook or the other RBs, that accounted for the increase in our rushing yardage and 1st-Downs. Cook actually got fewer 1st-Downs under Brady on average. In fact, of Cook's 7 games under Brady, 6 of 9 were his lowest 1st-Down producing games on the season. His yards-per-carry average plummeted to 3.5 his last five games including the playoffs, to bottom-dwelling territory. He was not good to finish the season. If he does that this season all season he'll end up not being here next season. The only exception for Cook was that Dallas game where Dallas came in completely off and worn out from the Philly game Sunday night prior to playing us. That was their biggest game of the season. I'm not a fan of either Dorsey or Brady, but if we're going to be honest, Brady's offense was not significantly better than Dorsey's if better at all. They were fitting their points to the narratives. Keep in mind that our offense averaged 19.3 PPG against three pretty crappy defenses to end the season. After our bye week it averaged 21.9 PPG, which is 4.6 PPG fewer than our season average, in those five games. In the playoffs not one player stepped up to much more than average, if even that, besides Allen. What they largely ignored when talking about "Brady's offense" is how our D played significantly better allowing 18.1 PPG with Brady as the OC and under Dorsey it averaged 18.4. The statistical distributions of the games under Brady v. Dorsey were essentially the same otherwise. I have a question(s) though, for anyone, but since you and I are engaging, for you now. What is the identity that the team is creating on offense? Effectively, not on paper. Keep in mind, it started with the switch from Dorsey to Brady, on paper/narrative anyway. Has that identity been consistent over the past few seasons?

That's interesting, most people blindly accept the false contested catch(es) narrative. I get an Alec Pierce/N'Keal Harry vibe from Coleman except with a lesser YPR. Not quite James Hardy, but closer to Hardy than to Watkins. The other nonsense about Coleman is this two-sport athlete gibberish. The narrative is akin to making him out to be a successful basketball player. He played a single season, was among the players that never played. He logged 10 minutes of playing time and scored 5 points in six games all season. He had one game with 5 minutes played, another with 2, and three with 1 each. It's not even relevant. Not to make a mountain out of it, but those on the pro side are making a whole lot more out of it than is actually there. On the age thing, I also don't get why McBeane like these "youngest player in the draft" types, we've been burned in the early years of at least two now and it's common sense that it will take longer for them to develop, particularly in Coleman's case and players like him, whereby against NFL talent in college he did not fare well at all.

How do you think he'll perform for us?

Did Ken Dorsey have a lot of apologists & defenders? Seems that he had a lot more let's wait and see types. Seems that his biggest defenders when he took over are the same people defending Brady now for similar reasons, aka McD knows what he's doing, trust him. That and because Allen wanted him. Just sayin'.

It really was. Nathan Lane did a great job. Hank Azaria was also great in it. Robin Williams too, but that goes w/o saying.

Reminds me of this clip from The Birdcage. I can't figure out how to put the video in. https://memes.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d9944ff1-f3d1-470b-b857-7f2214ac0e5e

Just ssnap the ball ssilly!

Here's the thing, we can say that everything worked in perfect unison during the second half, after Brady took over, but not the offense, and, moreover, under very favorable circumstances. For instance, in our 6-1 stretch, we lost to Philly because of crap defense. They were good but not that good. They went on a 1-6 skid after they played us and as everyone said, they were overrated. We beat the Chiefs, which we can't do in the playoffs, after having had a bye week and after the Chiefs came off of a road loss to the Packers while having issues of their own, like Pacheco out. We played Dallas which came into Buffalo completely worn down from their biggest game of the season vs. Philly the week prior, a Sunday Night game no less. Then we barely beat the Chargers who were w/o Herbert, Allen, and Bosa; the Pats and Mac Jones; and Miami whom we own. We easily could have lost any one of those three games and needed D and STs TDs to win two of them. Our offense averaged 19.3 points-per-game in those three games, which needless to say is pathetic, particularly against those Ds. That's hardly things going perfectly unless you mean luck & circumstances. What you first said is what I envision occurring. The question is, at what point will McD begin taking any heat for any of this stuff. To date the culpability rolls off of him like no coach I've ever seen. Either way, Coleman as the X-Receiver is a disaster waiting to happen. If Brady can't see that ... In fairness to him, it seems that his hand is being forced. But hey, dance with the devil, ...

If the trend of Allen having a 60% completion % and a rating of about 85, along with what would be 24 passing TDs on the season under Brady in the regular season continues, or even close, there are going to be a whole lot of unhappy people and a mountain of criticism. And the misfit of the decade is Coleman as an X Receiver. Brady's got his work cut out for himself. We'll never know how much McD is breathing down his neck. This is an incredibly curious season offensively. You sure it was Brady's that wanted that?

For me the value of a GM is predominantly in how he drafts. Free agents are known quantities and their costs are their costs precisely because they’re known quantities. There’s no mystery or big analysis involved. The biggest issue when signing a lot of free agents is cap management. So signing a top player at his position for top-dollar really shouldn’t be a feather in anyone’s cap in terms of “spotting talent.” College players soon to be rookies require significantly more knowledge and analysis in determining how they’ll translate to the NFL. That’s where GMs set themselves apart. Rookie contracts for starting players are what enable a team to avoid cap issues. When it comes time to extend them you can often get a home-team discount by doing it a year earlier in a little bit of a trade-off. Free agents are entirely known quantities and far more no-brainers. Most fans can figure it out. Take Diggs for example, it’s not as if everyone didn’t know that he’d put up big numbers with Allen at QB. The other thing is figuring out what your strengths are and then capitalizing on those. In our case it’s Allen, so we should be capitalizing on ensuring that he has everything that he needs to be all that he can possibly be. Regardless of who he’s drafted, has Beane done that? In last year’s draft he did with Kincaid and O’Torrence, but otherwise not so much. He also whiffed on Ford. Brown took a few seasons to catch on, and Cook is limited as a ball carrier and appears to have a season-long utility of about 180 carries, or about 10/game on average, after which he’s worn out and produces low-end rushing performance. He's done nothing worthy of note in the playoffs with 1 total TD in four playoff games and an average 13 carries for 48 yards on 3.6 yards-per-carry. From the time that Allen was drafted until before this past season, his OL has been average at best, but we also had historical fortune with injuries along the OL this past season with zero injuries. Other than for Diggs, and possibly Beasley for a season, his WRs have been average at best as well, and Diggs was bought, not drafted. We haven’t had a RB that has even approached being the type of all-around RBs that McCoy, Jackson, or Thurman were. He could have done more to build around Allen. Instead, the approach was to appease McD is his singular minded coaching approach of having the top defense in the league perennially, regardless of the costs to the other parts of the team. The extent to which McD influenced him can be argued, but if we’re laying the building of the team at his feet, then it would befall him. Where that ranks him who’s to say, but it’s a tough call to give him an A when he’s produced not a single elite player in six drafts apart from Allen. But also, when you have Allen, it’s a fool’s game not to do everything that you can to produce the high-scoring offense that he’s capable of leading. Has Beane done that? Many, including myself, would argue that he has not done that.

Beane yes, McD no.