PBF81

Yeah, not sure about the Jets and Fins. Miami's taken 5 of the last 6 with their only loss having been last season when Skylar Thompson was playing in his first game, @ Jets. Those two teams seem to consider the other the primary rivalry in the East. It was Bills v. Miami years ago when it was Kelly/Marino. Also, it could be that the people you cite seem to think that McD's not as good a coach like so many in Mafia land seem to believe as part of their assessment. As for us, no reason to be concerned about the Fins, which Allen owns, and if we lose to the Pats it'll be our own fault. But while we've beaten the Jets in 5 of our last 6 matchups over the past three seasons, last season they were our two worst games offensiveyl speaking, and we averaged only 18.5 PPG to their 16. We averaged 29 PPG against them under Daboll scoring 27, 27, and 45 in three of those games in the two seasons prior. We'll see what Dorsey has planned. Either way, IMO that first @ Jets game may end up being a lot more significant than many realize, per our exchange.

Right, just like we know who was ultimately responsible for "13 Seconds." LOL Season's right around the corner, cuts on Tuesday. The day approacheth.

But you expect me to break things down in avid detail at times. Sure. I also didn't realize that to break down in a sentence or two how you define "defense stinks" as being some arduous time-consuming task. ... given how much you post otherwise. Just sayin'.

It's definitely going to be an interesting season from the perspective of the division. This is the first time in a couple of decades that there's been some relatively stiff competition among the four teams. It's exciting, and whoever comes out on top will be more prepared for the playoffs. I can see all four teams finishing with winning records and within 3 games of one another. It's gonna be a cool season.

Well, OK, but it would help to define "the defense stinks," and "a very bad season." Those are subjective measures. It almost sounds as if you're saying that if the unimaginable occurs, then he could be fired. I suppose, but that's extreme. Also, define "stinks"? What, ranked out of the top-10? Worse? What ranking would it take for that to occur in your mind? Also define "very bad season"? To me a "very bad season," given that we have Allen, would be fewer than 10 wins, going less than 4-2 in the division. Barring an injury to Allen, I find it all but impossible that we don't make the playoffs, even if only as a 6th or 7th seed. I don't envision that most coaches with Allen, Diggs, Davis, Knox, Kincaid, Cook, Harris would miss the playoffs entirely, on any team otherwise, even with a 20th ranked D. But yeah, I'll take the opposite tack. I don't think that our D is going to be very good at all. Average-ish as I've often suggested. IMO ranked somewhere in the teens. But it's sucked in the playoffs anyway, low-end there as I've statistically laid out before, and if there's one thing we've learned it's that offense is what wins championships more often than not these days. The Chiefs won last season with the 1st-ranked offense but the 16th ranked D. The year before the Rams won with the 7th ranked offense and the 15th ranked D. The year prior to that the Bucs won it on offense also, scoring a perfect 31 in three games and 30 in their other playoff game with Brady, they had the 8th ranked D. D isn't necessary for a championship, why the team is so much more focused on the D, while being another issue, is problematic given that until this past offseason they've all but ignored the offense, and the OL in particular. After the heavy draft investment in offense, people are going to be looking for a commensurate improvement there. If that happens, I see no reason as to why we can't still be 13-4, or let's simply say have 11+ wins, even with a very average D. As you've no doubt read, I'm of the opinion that this offense is going to set records this season, franchise if not league. Even if we don't do that but end up with the #1 Offense, and the 18th ranked Defense, I'd view that as bery successful and IMO it would take us to another division win and the best chances for playoff success since our D goes flat and doesn't cut it in the playoffs far more often than not. Pegula would look like a jacka$$ if he fired either McD or Beane, under pretty much any circumstances after giving them both extensions months ago when their contracts had one more season beyond this one as it was. One of the largely held opinions by many in both fandom and media was why he gave them that extension with another year after this one remaining. I also envision him giving those guys at least one mulligan. OTOH, the one thing that could derail the train as it were, IMO, is if we go say 2-4 in the division with Belichick, McDaniel, or Saleh outcoaching McD to the extent that the national media notices, and how would they not, and we finish say 3rd in the division, even if we get a 7th seed, I can see the fans and media forcing Pegula's hand. But I see absolutely no circumstances under which Pegula would fire either after this season w/o being forced by public/media/fan pressure/opinion. It does seem that whatever happens, McD/Beane are here, or not, as a tandem, going to share the same fate if it comes to that.

Sure, and you'd know who was coaching well and who wasn't. Let's stay in context however. Citing playoff seeding as an end-all-to-be-all indicator as to how good a coach is, is taking some liberties. Especially when the team is in a division with three other teams that aren't good, and that otherwise hasn't had schedules of any worse than average difficulty.

He's got is for 3 straight home loses in October. Wow! I can see all four teams finishing within say three games of one another though.

Not sure whether it's been mentioned or not yet, but apparently Miami is the current likely landing spot for Taylor.

Yeah, I would have to think that's exactly the case. Even if we missed the playoffs, depending upon the reason I'm still not sure I see it happening. (Allen injured e.g.) It would be a bad look for Pegula if he fired one or both when they were originally signed only for one more season after this one. I also see very little chance of us missing the playoffs as long as Allen remains in one piece. I can see us getting a wild-card however. The divisional games will be key. We're 5-1 in the regular season against all three other teams in it over the past three seasons. I would suspect that whichever team has the best divisional record will win the division. I'm actually pretty jacked, I enjoy it when the division is tough. It sucks when there's only one good team. I hearken back to the days of the Kelly v. Marino years for instance, what a great rivalry. Yeah, I've gotta say. Also, he leads more by his play than most as well.

Yes, my bad. Even more to the point then. But yes, the '21 divisional game. The point remains the same. Thanks for catching that!!

You don't really believe that there's a chance that Pegula would fire McD, do you? I can't imagine that Beane would, ever. Pegs just extended both of 'em. If he even remotely thought that there's a chance he'd fire one or the other after the season, why would he have extended them when they were signed through '24? I don't even see that as a possibility. I do thnk that the wheels come off defensively speaking, and we could be in trouble on offense if our OL isn't good or we get significant injuries there. BTW, keep an eye on Press Taylor. IMO he's going to be a hot commodity for a head coach following this season. More so than Ben Johnson.

LOL I'm sure it is. Especially when they disprove your agenda.

LOL Man, this place is a great case-study for human behavior. OK, to start, let's back up and put this back into the context from whence it came. You originally said this in response to one of my posts; To start, you are the one suggesting that it was a "no-brainer," I did not say that. If I had wanted to say it, I would have. I did not. Next, your entire argument, witness your above statement, was limited to our playoff seeding. All I was doing was adding the context of our playoff performances, AND, the fact that winning the AFCE in '20-'22 for us, and from '01-'19 for the Pats, has been a relatively simple task as other than for those two teams, them from '01-'19, and us from '20-'22, our division has [verifiably] been the easiest in the league during that time frame. That should change this season, but that's a sidenote. I then explained that of our 7 playoff games over the past three seasons, few of them were impressive from a coaching perspective and explained why, and I deliberately left the Ravens game out of that analysis. So why you're on my leg about this is a mystery. "Say it was a good defensive performance?" I never said anything about purely defense in my discussion. But what's going on here, is that you've ignored the points about 6 other playoff games, have stripped off the offense from this game, and are attempting to use a defensive performance, next to a putrid offensive peformance, as a singular reason as to why McD, implicitly, is a good coach. I would be remiss if I let you get away with that polemically speaking. BUT, for the sake of argument, sure, it was the best defensive performance in the history of the franchise. (Editorial note: I don't really believe that, but I'll acquiesce to it to keep you happy) Offensively it was clearly bad, one of our worst on that season. Defensively, I'm not sure, how amidst that acquiescence, allowing 150 rushing yards on nearly 5 ypc and 35 minutes in ToP aren't problematic. That was also in a game where Jackson, not the most noted passer in the game, had to come out and Huntley replaced him. Yes, it was a good but hardly perfect defensive performance. But the O sucked. At last check, offense is also part of coaching, and you want to ignore that completely. So sure, best defensive performance in the history of the franchise. Given. But the offensive performance was on the other end of the scale. If that equals a game to look at from a great coaching perspective, yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think we're finished here. I cannot contribute to your agenda.

Where did I say that it wasn't a good defensive performance? I think you're reading into things there. I'd kindly ask you not to put words in my mouth. Thanks I also think you missed a whole lot of context. To start, you are using that game as an example of a well-coached game, which is the context of our conversation. I don't recall the discussion being only about D, and since McD's the head coach, I'll include him in on the entire discussion, including the offense if you don't mind. He has a phenominal QB like Allen, and the best we can do is 220 total yards? By implication that's good in your view. For a little perspective, that was our 2nd-worst offensive performance all season and our least amount of 1st-Downs, by 3, which is a lot in that context. 17, which is piss poor. We were 3 of 14 on 3rds, which again, by implication you appear to think is good. We averaged 2.0 yards-per-carry on the ground, which is also piss poor. Again, the implication must be that you think it's good. Looking at it from Baltimore's side, only the Titans and Bengals (twice) played worse than us offensively. The Bengals absolutely sucked that season. Baltimore had a 35:33 to 24:27 Time-of-Possession advantage. Some of that revolves around the D, which allowed 150 rushing yards. You seem to think that's decent. Not sure what to say, but at least please keep my comments in context.

I would have more faith in Beane and picking Allen, if a lot of his other day 1 & 2 (rounds 1-3) picks were even remotely as good, but they're not. So suggesting that Beane's some kind of astute genius for picking Allen, when most of his other picks don't match the same level of scrutiny, seems to fall short in the grand analysis. Let's face it, there was definitely some good fortune (call it luck if you will) re: Allen. And insofar as McD goes in the equation, let's not forget that he saw a lot of positives in Peterman, positives that absolutely no one else saw. So yeah, it's quite possible that Allen's carrying McD and Beane's water. Again, this season will reveal much. If we end up touting the #1 offense, and once again get ousted in the divisonal round or lose, particularly as the #1 or #2 seed, in the CC round, well, IMO that would say quite a bit. Again, let's let the season play out. No need to discuss hypotheticals like that until they unfold, or conversely, do not unfold.

This season is going to be a referendum on McBeane vs. McBeane. LOL It will define itself after 7 seasons by season's end. No amount of chatter here is going to alter any of it.

The Niners in the AFC East over the past three years? Well, they'd have had an easier schedule in '20 and '21, when they had the fourth toughest schedule in the league in '20. It stands to reason that in those two seasons they'd have posted a better record. Last season they beat almost no good teams during the regular season, but come playoff time they played better than we typically do in them by most measures in the first two games. Tough to fault them for getting shellacked by the Eagles as Purdy got hurt early and an absolutely atrocious nothing QB came in to replace him, leading to a 15 minute time-of-possession (and other) advantages for the Eagles. The Bills over there in the West, I don't envision our record having been much different over there, but come playoff time, and given our playoff history, we likely would have gotten by Seattle, even if not by as much as they did, but Dallas, whose offense was better than either Cincy's or Miami's, we may have lost that game. I don't see how that's germane to my point however. As I said, this season will reveal much. I expect that by season's end, peoples' viewpoing of McD and the D is going to be somewhat different. I'm sure that more excuses will be levied in his favor, but nonetheless. Let's see how it shakes out as that is simply MO. I'm also not defending Shanahan BTW, I don't care for the guy myself. My point is that having Allen allows for McD to be over-rated. Culture and being a players coach are one thing, routinely getting your a$$ handed to you in the playoffs once you hit the divisional round is altogether another while your defense entirely underachieves its regular season performance. Simply because you say it doesn't make it true. If you want to talk about playing both sides, how about ignoring 6 games in favor of a single game. I'll let readers decide after that. LOL Honestly, ... seriously? .. and honestly, what's with the big focus on "being right?" You wanna be right? OK, I agree with you, entirely. LOL I'll enjoy the season, things are going to play out as they play out. Don't like my takes and opinions, fine. I'll acquiesce to yours for your sake. LOL

So you're using a single playoff game to contrast with several unimpressive wins and critical losses then. OK, I'll agree. BTW, here's some more info on that game that you're using to attempt to argue contrary. The Ravens had ... More passing yards More total yards 340 v. 220 More 1st-Downs Better 3rd-down-conversions, we were poor Over 10 minutes in time-of-possession advantage They also had 150 yards rushing to our 32 (2.0 YPC) It was their penalties and poor kicking that was primarily responsible for our win. Did we play a great defensive game in allowing 150 rushing yards? That sounds like pure opinion. Either way, and again, if that's the only bright spot in an argument supporting McD overachieving come playoff time, it's problematic. Just sayin'.

Less with more: Last three seasons ... 3-0 in the Wild Card Round (2 of those wins against QBs Thompson and Jones) 1-2 in the Divisional Round 0-1 in the Conference Championship Game with the person we're talking about walking the Loss over to Reid on a silver platter at the end of the game. A supposed defensive expert allowing an average of 28 PPG, over 31 if we don't count the offensively bereft Pats, in our last four playoff games. Beating the Colts w/ Rivers despite being outplayed in that game. 4-3 overall with two of those wins against marginal playoff teams and both with low-end QBs, and another win while being outplayed by a team with the 9th ranked scoring offense and 10th ranked scoring defense and a 39-year old washed up QB in his last-hurrah season. Winning a division with QBs like Jones, Fitzpatrick, Tagovailoa whose in and out with injuries like most people go out for wings, Skylar Thompson, Mike White, Zach Wilson, and Sam Darnold is hardly impressive. It would have been along the lines of tragic had we not been able to do that, which fed directly into those seedings. Let's see how he does this season, over/under achieves, now that there's finally some competition in the division for the first time in over 20 years. Brady & Belichick had it easy in that regard too.

Yeah, no kidding. They should be fine with Purdy, who seems to be more in the Burrow mold, but if he maintains his level of play and improves after his rookie season, they'll have their franchise QB too. It's nice to have that piece, because then you can focus on building the rest of the team. That's what many Bills fans and a lot of media have problems with, what we've done apart from Allen. ... and Diggs. Hopefully this year is a turning point with Kincaid & Torrence. You lay that out as if it's trivial to acquire one. We tried for what, over 20 years, with varying people in charge, and got nothing after Kelly. It's not that easy and also requires quite a bit of good fortune.

For the pick. In a lot of peoples' opinions McD is doing less with more in that regard. Also, Possibly, I'm hardly a Shanahan apologist. I wouldn't want him coaching my team. Why not put all their good guys on our team and "see." LOL I'll tell ya what, switch Allen for Bosa and we're a .500 team regardless. D doesn't win in the modern NFL.

Indeed, kinda like how we could have had Mahomes, which almost everyone claims is better? Either way, in essence then, you're saying that McD's success is entirely due to Beane's having selected Allen. I'll buy that.

Now, put Allen on the Niners and their QBs on the Bills, and then what do you see?

Andysplaylist's thought is interesting, but here's the issue that I have with it. If that's true, it's suggesting that distractions will bring out competence, which is a stretch. LOL The other part of it is that McD has never come out and taken credit for it. Quite the opposite in fact, it's been implied, at least as I see it, based on veiled statements and press comments, that it was not his fault. Either way, we don't really know who made those decisions. The other thing I have an issue with is comparing McD to Reid, and more specifically when you said "relatively competent defensive mind." I'd ask for a definition of that before I comment further, but there's been a very inaccurate narrative since McD was hired, that somehow he was ever anything but a very average DC, which the data strongly suggests is the case. I recently made a post detailing that, I forget which thread I posted it in, but I'm happy to post it again. It paints the opposite picture, which I've maintained all along. There was never anything special about Carolina's D, and the talent he had there is comparable to what he's got to work with here, perhaps even a little better there. I mean when you have Kuechly anchoring your D ... IMO we're headed for a similar very average D ranked season here. I am expecting the offense to be the best Bills offense ever however, and IMO that's far more important in today's NFL. If this were the '80s or '90s I'd disagree, but in today's pass-happy offensively skewed league, much better to have a top-ranked O and an average D than the other way around.

Well, I wouldn't say "obviously" in every instance. It's amazing how quite often a majority opinion overlooks quite a few things. I guess I should have clarified a little better, but IMO it's going to be glaringly obvious. LOL Without assuming what you're viewing as the 'positives', I'll ask directly, what do you see as "positives" in our MLB situation? Asking for a friend. Frankly I'm not sure I see any. I've been told by some here that the MLB position is going away in the NFL, and not knowing the depth charts of the 31 other teams, I went and looked, and on paper at least, all have either a MLB or ILBs in a 3-4. So it does not appear to be the case that the position is disappearing. I also think that that proposition is ridiculous since teams still run the ball, and if the position were to be "going away" in favor of smaller LBs that can cover better than they can play the run, then I'd fully expect teams to run the ball UTM more, which only makes sense at that point. I've been bringing this up since last season assuming that would not keep Edmunds, which we haven't, and how we'd better get on the stick in terms of planning a replacement after his departure. That obviously hasn't happened.