PBF81

Thanks for taking the time there! I won't add to that with a couple of exceptions, but again, please keep in mind that my point has been that coaching has not been the difference in our wins, but has cost us in our losses, in the playoffs and generally speaking. I don't see anything above that you wrote that significantly challenges that. I also disagree that one has to go thru play-by-play to figure that out either. Giving up nearly 500 yards in regulation, almost more than they allowed all season, with a #1 D, I don't care what the strategy, is a glaring coaching failure. We could go back and look at the game-day-thread for some clarity from people here, I'm pretty sure that would shed quite a bit of interesting light. I will add that that bend-don't-break D nearly cost us the game prior to the "13 Seconds," with the Mahomes putting up 327 in regulation with 3 TDs, and more importantly, and I'll contrast this in a second, with 115 yards from relatively low-end RBs on 6 ypc. There's nothing you can say to suggest that some bend-don't-break D was wise or good coaching there defensively while allowing that many yards, and against our big bad #1 D. Now, I'll contrast that with Reid and KC. KC had the 21st ranked rushing D, we had the 13th ranked rushing D. KC ranked 31st in YPC avg. rushing D, we ranked 10th there. They ran the ball (non-Mahomes) 19 times, we ran the ball (non-Allen) 13 times. Why so few? ... against a much worse rushing D? Why couldn't they figure out how to run the ball better for balance? ... against a team ranking at the bottom for YPC allowed? We know that the play-selection (coaching) had a lot to do with that. We were all banging our heads against the wall over that. Nine teams that they played rushed for more yardage than we did, nine, including Allen's contribution. Without Allen's contribution every single one of their opponents rushed for more yards. That lack of balance is entirely coaching, there's no way to escape that. The players do not call the plays and we've known that play-calling and the imbalance as a direct result, especially considering our DFL status or right around there w/o Allen running the ball has been an issue. Without Davis going off in that game we get killed just like we did in 2020. Not one other WR did anything notable except for Beasley who posted a solid support effort. Diggs did nothing. In short, Reid did a better job with scrub RBs against a much higher ranked rushing D than we did. There's no reason for that. It was not a well-coached game at all, so we definitely disagree on the extent that coaching was at fault there. McD should consider himself fortunate that that's the game that Davis decided to pull a zinger, and for all the heat that Davis takes. The irony there. The other, this past postseason. Skylar Thompson should be all we need to hear there. The things you mention are directly related to coaches having the team prepped. Either way, the point being there as well, McD did nothing to help the team win either. This hasn't been a referendum on the players, my point has been specifically related to McD and his positive contributions, or lack thereof, regardless of the non-coaching aspects of the team, such as pointed out in offensive balance for example. Good coaches find ways to win. McD only wins when either Allen posts a huge game, we play some crappy team, or the D has one of its less often than so solid defensive outings against a good offensive opponent, which happens what, two, three times a season maybe. BTW, I couldn't help but notice that you glossed over that 19 2nd-half points by Houston, and the 279 yards that their offense, not Watt or Mecilis, put up, or the 99 2nd-half rushing yards that they put up, with a sluggish stiff like Hyde and a nothing journeyman type like Duke Johnson contributing most of that against our illustrious #2 defense. It was inexcusable. Even subtracting Hopkins 90 yards, that's still nearly 200 yards in a single half. With Hopkins' contribution it's a joke. If you're reinclined I'd love to see your player ratings. Let me know. Otherwise, we've beaten the hell out of this. Again, as I see it, the big difference between our takes, apart from what we ascribe to coaching, is that I'm basing my viewpoint off of the fact that there is absolutely no pattern or trend whatsoever towards any improvement on McD's part in the way of coaching, particularly in the playoffs. You're more patient for other reasons. We'll see. I'm looking forward to reviewing this with you as the season plays on. Despite the lack of a trend/pattern towards improvement in that way, I'll be as happy as everyone else should we win it all this season. I have a feeling however that the mood is going to change significantly between now and the end of the season. On one hand I can see the best offense that we've ever had. On the other, I can still see us not running the ball much, Kincaid not making the difference as a rookie that's needed, our defense regressing significantly which I definitely see, particularly given the void at LB, and still some very questionable offensive play-calling w/o McD reeling in Dorsey and setting him straight, . Anyway, thanks!

OK, but in fairness my point wasn't how Hodgkins or Teller left, it was sloppy, but also irrelevant. IMO a good coach would have seen that talent and developed it, particularly amidst a morass of talent otherwise. The fact that Hodgkins was waived and not traded adds, not subtracts, to what my point was. I will thank you for pointing that out. As to Teller, the entire scenario would make much more sense if we hadn't had a revolving door of OL-men coming and going as if it were a brothel on a Saturday night at Mardi Gras. Ducasse, Miller, Bodine, Mills, Groy, Sirles, Boettger, Spain, Feliciano, Long, Nsecke, Winters, Williams, Bates, Saffold, Hart, Murray, Van Rotten, Quessenberry to name most of 'em. A bunch of those were brought in to start, and most did start some games, primarily because we didn't have anyone better. Either way, it's far from anything even beginning to approach impressive. We can't even find a few players that it's impressive for. And if Teller didn't fit the system, then why'd we draft him? The system(s) they played in are always known prior to drafting them. But shhhh, we're not allowed to talk about that or how it's related to Beane. LOL

Thanks for that. You can add the 2021 loss to KC and put it on McD. Again, 36 points in regulation as I pointed out, and a massive underperformance by our D cannot be ignored. In 2019, perhaps, but Houston had the 19th ranked D, we had the 2nd ranked D. With more given is more expected. The only standout player on that O, unless you count Watson who posted a good but far from great season, was Hopkins. Either way, allowing 19 second half points while leading 13-0 at the half, certainly indicates that coaching had a big role, on both sides, in a 22-19 OT outcome. So I disagree there that Houston was significantly better. That's the kind of game that if you coach well you win. It's not even as if Houston had a top-10 offense, they were ranked 14th. But I'll tell you what, go through game-by-game in the playoffs and say what your take on coaching was given our team and its rankings and the opponents likewise. I've done that and I'm not seeing anything, and for sure no pattern towards improvement, to the contrary in fact, that McD has improved in that way. That's the crux of our disagreement on this. If McD had been improving all along I'd be the first one calling for patience. It's not there however. I agree with your statement earlier, as I've said, that's all I'm suggesting, that if things don't improve this season, and you gave it another season or two, then we need to consider why it hasn't improved. I'm not even sure I'd say that Cincy was better than us last season, or even KC the year prior in '21 either. Our D was notably better and IMO their offense wasn't that much better than ours as our D was better than their D, if even their 4th ranked offense were better than our 3rd ranked offense that season. But in comparing in that way, we've barely beaten some teams in the playoffs that we were notably better than. At some point coaching has to take the fall. The team's lack of preparedness or readiness and poor play on the field, for whatever reasons, factors into that. We haven't even really discussed the losses that much. Anyway, if you want, let's go thru game by game for the 9 playoff games we've been in and try to figure out whether coaching, or lack thereof, played a role. Let me know.

If you read the contexts of the conversations that I've had with the people that I'm interacting with, you should easily be able to note that the context has always been "with Allen." It would be disingenuous for me to compare a HC that has a below-average QB with others that have a phenom. Which, if you've read what I've wrote, is why I compare McD to some of our other coaches that also finished in the 7-9 to 9-7 range, just without McD's luck of 2017, and also with average at best QBs. Likewise, it's also disingenuous for anyone else to do the same. Furthermore, if Allen hadn't been here, I'm pretty sure we'd be discussing another HC and GM already. BTW, on the coaching note, you've stated a number of times now that the reason for some of our key losses, most notably in the playoffs, has been because of a lack of performance of the team. But isn't that the primary responsibility of a coach, to have their team fully prepared and functioning on all cylinders as a team, a coordinated unit. To then relegate the lack thereof out of the realm of coaching responsibility doesn't seem to be viable. IOW, if the players aren't prepared or focused, shouldn't that befall the coach. As well, it's also difficult to explain when one routinely ignores the play of entire units, like our Rushing offense.

You do realize that we needed the unlikeliest of plays provided by another team to make the playoffs, right? Did you realize that 7 of our 9 wins that season were against teams that finished with 4, 5, or 6 wins? And I'd love to hear your defense of McD in that rough playoff game against the Jags, let by Blake Bortles, in a 10-3 loss. His "Tyrod freaking Taylor led team" posted 17 for 34, for 134 Yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT, and a rating of 44.2. It was one of his few worst games ever. Two of his three worst starts were also under McD. It was also Taylor's worst season in Buffalo. I'll put it another way, Ryan got more out of him against tougher schedules. With similar luck in week 17 Ryan's Bills could have made the playoffs too having had the scheduling fortunes that McD had. I mean if that's what your citing in McD's defense and a justification for your statement, I'm not quite sure what to say. What's the next argument? Oh, sorry, I forgot to address this, but it's also not the reason for our success, which is my point. Look, if I were content with winning an easy QB-less division and getting ousted every Wild-Card or Divisional Round, I'd think similarly. But I'm not, and there are no positive trends here, which is my primary contention.

Actually, you're evading here, not me. This ridiculous insinuation or implication that Reid with Alex Smith, one of the most marginal QBs in the game, ever, contrasted with Reid/Mahomes or McD/Allen, quite frankly, is absurd.

Alright, allow me to take your post in pieces here. I don't care at all if anyone disagrees, all I ask for is a basis for that disagreement. To wit, I've never said that the sole reason why we lost the Bengals game was coaching/McD. You're putting those words in my mouth. But on the other hand, yes, you disagree, but don't counter, what I said, with anything concrete other than to say that it "wasn't the sole reason," which has nothing to to do with my point, A, and B, is not a pro-coaching/McD argument in response. My point is that it was a poorly coached game, regardless of what the players did. He also didn't have the team properly prepared, and now we even know from an equipment (cleats) standpoint, when his counterpart was to add insult to injury for him. That's all. Don't overstate what I did say. Otherwise, as I've offered before, find a well-coached game of his in the playoffs? You may find one or two as exceptions, but generally speaking there aren't any games in which we could say, Wow, what a wonderfully coached game. We've gone back-n-forth on the "13 Seconds" thing, which was as I said, worse than a rookie error, but let's look at the rest of the game. We won because Allen & Davis went off, and for no other reason. No offensive player otherwise put in anything more than a low-end performance, including money-man Diggs who had 3 catches for 7 yards on 6 targets. The Defense, our #1 ranked Defense, got balled. The reason, aka excuse, is that it was the Chiefs' high-powered offense. But let's look at that. Our #1 Defense allowed the Chiefs to log their 4th most total yards in regulation all season, including two other playoff games vs. the 17th and 20th ranked defenses. We allowed their 8th most 1st-Downs in regulation all season as well. In OT they averaged 8.0 YPP, which is abysmal defensively, DFL type of abysmal, on 8 plays featuring 6 different players, three of which are low-end players, one currently not even on an NFL roster, and with the fourth being Edwards-Helaire, hardly Derrick Henry or Josh Jacobs. In your mind, and "13 Seconds" aside, was that, or conversely, was that a good coaching effort on the defensive side of the ball? And what does it say when we need Allen and Davis to go off like that to be in a game? You cite the failure of the players to execute, but let's be honest here, those plays between Allen & Davis, and at least one in particular, were not coaching, they were the individual play of those two that simply took it to another level. You excuse McD when the players fail, even though the reasons for the team not performing also had something to do with him otherwise, but are you consistent in saying that Allen/Davis made McD look better than he actually is in that game too? What's good for the goose ... right? Otherwise, as to coaching negligence, I would quickly point to the lack of use of our running game, particularly when it's clicking. The comments in the game-day threads corroborate that perfectly. But to add some perspective, take away Allen's rushing and we were by far and away DFL in the NFL for rushing carries and very near DFL for rushing yards. Why? Because as a tandem, Singletary and Cook averaged 5.0 YPC, which would be good for 3rd in the League behind rushing powerhouse Chicago (5.4) and Baltimore. (5.2) Did Singletary and Cook decide when they were running the ball? How many carries they'd get? Isn't that on coaching? And before you blame Dorsey, not McD, doesn't McD have some say, isn't he bright enough and a good enough coach, to challenge Dorsey when the run is working great as to why they stopped? What, how much "football intelligence" does someone need to be able to piece those two dots together. Would love to see it an offer my perspective. I'll read it if you link it. I've found that the Draft analyses here are defensive in nature however, but don't explain why so few or our draft picks become above-average players much less impact players. Apart from Allen Beane's drafts have produced next to nothing in that regard. It's one thing to produce "starters," but that is meaningless when those starters aren't getting it done. I mean think about it, how many draft "starters" do crappy 4-12 teams have? I'm sure plenty. And then trading away players like Hodgins and Teller ... that merely adds insult to injury. This is going to be an interesting season. We've generally had easy schedules the past three seasons. This year's is, at least at this point in time, not easy. Per our prior couple of posts, IMO if McD cannot advance at least to the CCG this season, and win the division, then on top of my thinking that it'll be time for a change, I think that there's going to be a whole lot of media and fan opinions supporting that notion as well. It's one thing to slide through a greased-up schedule, win a division filled with QB-less teams for the most part, win an occasional Wild-Card game, but it'll be completely another to prove coaching prowess given this season's schedule.

It was the coaches that put us in those ridiculous defensive alignments that caught national media attention. You're evading here, understandable given your take, but you're evading. As to people "being happy with making the playoffs," they've stated it themselves, no sense in telling me that. That's their angle, not mine. I certainly don't see a lot of people arguing as you just did when the topic is raised by myself. To the contrary in fact. Who cares though. On your last point(s), I think that's fair on the outside. I've never stated that I'd have fired McD already, my point however has been that he really needs to do something besides getting ousted in the Wild-Card or Divisional round this season. IMO 8 seasons is more than enough to prove, with a talent like Allen, that you're capable of doing more. Particularly when the coaching "glitches" he's demonstrated exist. That's OJT territory, worse than rookie mistakes. As to them being good at their jobs, I've also never argued that they suck, they are "good," but we need to define "good." They clearly haven't been good enough, and they've clearly made coaching errors and otherwise haven't coached to the same positive levels that their playoff counterparts have. My position is simply that he (McD) has reached a ceiling in coaching. I don't see any evidence that he's going to get any better. There definitely isn't any positive trend in that direction, if anything the opposite is true. As to Beane, a simple review of his Drafts will tell you that if he is "good," then that's also relative, but saying "he's good" but then trying to reveal the piece parts from his Drafts, besides Allen five years ago, is a different exercise altogether. I would suggest however that if McD doesn't end up cutting it, and if as you imply you'd like to see, house is cleaned, that the image and perceptions of them will drop significantly after that, .... as they always do.

That also wasn't my assertion. You're taking the entire thing out of context. If Reid had Allen playing the way he's played here, and all that Reid could do was lose Wild Card and Divisional Round games with Hunt playing at insane levels, Hill, and Kelce, then yes, absolutely, I'd have said let's move on. There obviously would have been some kind of disconnect there between the level of talent and coaching. Particularly given that the Chiefs were in a division full of slop otherwise during those seasons, similar to the Brady/Belichick Pats years. But taking that tack, you've moved the argument from comparing Allen to Alex Smith, which is as you realize, is absurd. I'm also guessing that Reid wouldn't be around now had he continued to lose in early rounds of the playoffs once Mahomes got there and had been playing to that level that he has. For sure he'd be taking heat from around the league at an absolutely minimum, particularly after his performance in Philly. It'd be naive to think otherwise. As to that comparison, comparing it to the Taylor or Fitzpatrick years would be a better comparison. So on that note, do you think that McD would be doing anywhere close to what Reid did with Alex Smith had he coached our team from 2009 - 2017?

Yes they do. You seem to have interpreted and implied that when I said "other," I meant "all," but I simply meant that, other, as in some other teams. KC's done it. NE's done a superb job over the years for an extended period of time, even if not to the same extent recently. Cincy seems to be in the process of doing it. If you want to discuss this, then we need to look at the particulars, which you probably aren't interested in doing. But I'll sum it up, and I'm happy to put the data behind it if you really want to discuss it, it's simply and quick to look up. But our OL besides Dawkins and Morse, has largely been a commutative exercise driven by a series of largely 1-year signees on the OL with an occasional 2-year signee, typically on the cheap. McGovern has been an exception, not the rule. The problem with such an approach, which neither Cincy, KC, nor Philly have used by the way, is that you're never going to draw the type of talent that's going to provide the kind of OL that they and teams with better OLs do. Getting back to the "chemistry" angle, you're working against yourself if you build an OL that way in relation to chemistry. That's simply common sense. Since it's verboten to criticize Beane, no sense in discussing our approach to the OL via the Drafts.

Look, this isn't complicated. At the end of the day McD can either cut it during the playoffs or he can't. He's not going to be coaching for 100 years. Allen's also not going to be here forever. What we have is trends and patterns. That's what we can base predictions upon. As of now, there is no positive trend or pattern upwards in terms of McD's ability to coach. In fact, this past playoffs was really really bad, so if there is a trend or an established pattern otherwise, it's simply that, downward, and that he otherwise chokes in the bigger games and if anything. Most people fail to see how that's disputable. The question is, after 7 seasons of coaching, with nothing to indicate any trajectory towards the positive, how much longer are we willing to wait to find out. It's a question that obviously has no objective answer. Allen wants a Championship, as do I and many other fans. Some fans, as stated, are perfectly content with winning seasons and simply "making the playoffs," which generally speaking is not the party-line standard. So the bottom-line question is how much longer do we wait to find out? Allen's tenure? One more season? Five? 10? 20? It's not complicated.

So the Defensive strategy in the Cincy game was sound then. Roger. Noted OK, at least that clears up our differences. 🙂 As a Chiefs fan I would have wanted him gone if he had underachieved with Mahomes.

Just pointing out that it's difficult to do what you said when ..., we'll, you don't do it. Not bashing anyone, but it's a fact that the reason why we ar not where yousaidwe need to be, A, has nothing to do with me, and B, does have to do with a methodology that's been negligent in that way. Who do you assess with the reason why we're not where you said we need to be? Safeties coach too? So IYO, Cincy & KC don't have better OLs than we do. We'll, OK. Because that's what you're saying by disagreeing. I could not disagree more on that note.

My short answer to that is that other teams do it routinely, at least a bunch and our biggest competitors. Beane would enter the conversation here. Secondly, it's tough to hit for OL-men in the Draft when you rarely select them. Again, Beane enters the conversation in this regard, which is unpopular here.

In pure honesty I don't give a crap about being right. I would love to win a Super Bowl however. But the forums, at least to me, are for discussion. Too many people care about being right. I hope I'm 200% wrong honestly and we win the SB this season. I simply don't see it lining up that way for the reasons stated. The claims aren't baseless, and you haven't refuted them, all you've done is disagree, like in the Monty Python Argument skit. I mean will you honestly say that our playoff game vs. Minnesota, Houston, Jax, or Miami, our playoff wins, were well coached games? If you do then say so. All you've done is disagree. OTOH, the games we've lost, were categorically coaching debacles in two instances, with worse than rookie coaching gaffs, and a less than spectacularly coached game against the Chiefs otherwise. To ignore all that and sweep it under the rug is fine, but it's not baseless and you haven't replied with any kind of objectivity or reason to it. Again, simply say that those four playoff wins were well-coached games.

It's definitely not nice. Like many tourist areas, once you get off the beaten path you risk getting beaten. ... Not that bad like Baltimore, but it simply isn't nice.

If Torrence doesn't start ... Chemistry as a single unit with the same guys in the same spot however is an undervalued thing among fans. It's ridiculously critical and what made our '90s OL as good as it was. Or the HOGS for instance as just one of many examples.

Yeah, I didn't for a second believe that you put up being admirable as an alternative measuring stick as you put it. Just sayin'. I don't think that Pegula does anything for years as long as they're posting winning records, and regardless of what kind of performances we turn in the playoffs. Remember, it's a business first and foremost. Bills fans will fill the seats no matter what. I agree with what you wrote generally speaking.

Let's discuss the bolded sentences. He's an admirable human being and he and Beane have transformed the organization into an exemplary franchise, so you root for that. I suppose, but is that why we hired them, because they were "admirable human beings"? This is a business, no? We're often reminded of that, typically when it's convenient for many fans. When they hired McD, was the buzz that he was such an admirable person and that's just what we needed, win or lose the big games? I seem to recall most talking about how they hoped he would be the one to bring us a championship. Here's the thing, once we get into the "admirable human being" stuff, that's getting into "but she's got a great personality" territory. Andy Reid, Nick Sirianni, Zac Taylor, and Doug Pedersen all seem like very admirable human beings too. But they don't botch games like McD does. McD doesn't get paid millions to be an admirable human being. I've been consistent in taking the position that without Allen we could easily subtract 4 wins/season off of our win totals. No one has argued that other than using tangents. IMO it's more and that 4 is the floor. It's been an average of 4 with Belichick w/o Brady, and no one's going to argue that McD is as good as Belichick, not rationally anyway. Either way, subtracting 4 wins from our win totals the past three seasons would have yielded 9-7, 7-10, and 9-7 and no divisional titles and zero playoff appearances. It also would have led to an entirely different narrative on McBeane. Levy was among the best people that ever graced the NFL, unfortunately he simply didn't have what it took in the biggest of games. I will also disagree that Beane transformed the organization other than to draft Allen. I'm not sure that people realize that our streak of winless playoffs would have continued w/o Allen. We've barely beaten some very average teams in the playoffs with Allen, and most barely. Where I see daylight for hope is that finally they made a greater commitment to address at least the IOL and I believe the FA additions and Kincaid overall make the offense potentially much more dangerous. Let's keep in mind that it's taken Beane 6 offseasons to finally [seemingly] adequately address the offensive line, and seemingly so because his hand was forced, not due to good planning. It does appear to be much better, but again, we're relying on a rookie and I've seen conflicting reviews of McGovern. I myself haven't watched him play or haven't paid attention when I have, so I cannot comment on him in an educated manner yet. Here's the thing, we've had relatively easy schedules the past three seasons, which obviously aided our regular season record, this season it toughens up significantly, particularly on the slate of QBs and offenses that we face. I see our defense regressing big time, particularly with our LB situation. But since it's been the D that's been the problem in the playoffs, I'm not sure that we improve. It's not reasonable to expect Allen to lead the team to 30-some points (or more) to win games on a regular basis. If I had to guess now, I'd guess that we end up with a very average defense this season and one worse than any that have advanced deeply into the playoffs. Anyway, you say that another year ending in disappointment will result in a crisis. LOL I won't disagree, but how do you define "disappointment"? I would say that if we either don't win the division or cannot manage to advance past the divisional round, then it won't be good and the heat will start coming in large waves. I just realized that I've assumed we make the playoffs. I cannot imagine not making them with Allen, but if that were to happen then I would definitely say a crisis. And if for some reason Allen sustains a serious injury that keeps him out, if we cannot be at least .500 with Allen or even Barkley, then that pretty much lets us know how good McD would be w/o Allen. I seriously hope that part of Allen's new focus is pocket passing and that correspondingly our OL really is significantly better and that the starters can stay healthy.

Next up, RB and TE. Granted, Kincaid is a TBD, but then Knox, Cook, and whomever you think the next best RB is, presumably Harris. Knox - Kincaid - TBD Cook - Harris -

Well, and here's where Gunner and I disagree, but I run with verifiable things, yet he claims that they're all simply ad hominem against McD. I don't have anything against McD, and unlike so many other people, I had no idea what he'd bring as his results as a DC in Carolina were a completely mixed bag with overall below-average performance, and given that he had one of the best MLBs in the game at the time, and some other talent better than we have here on D, it also didn't make me giddy with glee. But IMO we've seen enough to be able to point out the specifics, which relative to the playoffs, are ... In '17 we barely made the playoffs on an unlikely play by Cincy on the last play of the game, achieving the same record that two other coaches during the drought had, and only one game better than three other seasons, and with help from another team in the most unlikely manner otherwise. Still, indisputably a playoff appearance, where we lost to the Blake Bortle led Jags on an otherwise pretty offensively bereft team resulting in a loss to a low-end playoff team with a record only one better than ours. I see nothing special in coaching there. '18 was a whiff at 6-10. In '19 we lost to a mediocre playoff team, again in the wild card round, unable to do much against the Texans' 19th ranked D, and with our 2nd ranked Defense allowing their 14th ranked offense to take us to OT and beat us. The following week the Texans were obliterated by the Chiefs. I see nothing special in coaching there. In '20, prior to our getting hammered by the Chiefs, our 2nd ranked D allowed the Colts and their 16th ranked offense led by Rivers to outplay our offense in just about every category in a game that we barely won in the wild-card round while being outplayed otherwise. I see nothing special in coaching there. The Ravens game was a solid coaching effort, but in being honest, the Ravens offense essentially was Jackson. In '21 we hammered NE led by Mac Jones and a team that otherwise had no offensive talent worthy of note and certainly nothing above-average, and in a game in which Allen simply went off as he does occasionally. We followed that up with "13 Seconds." Not only is there nothing special about coaching there, but coaching cost us that game, indisputably. This past season, '22, we barely beat a Skylar Thompson led Fins, whose 11th ranked offense (w/ Tagovailoa) put up 24 points on us, in the cold and snow. Then we were embarrassed by the Bengals with horrifically questionable defensive play-calling and a complete inability to do much of anything offensively. Excuses aside, there certainly wasn't anything special in coaching, particularly considering that McD simply didn't have the team prepared to play. In round-up, the teams we've beaten in the playoffs featured the following QBs: Jackson, Rivers whom we barely beat, Jones, and Thompson. We've lost to KC twice and Cincy once, two of those times due to egregious coaching errors, or whatever we choose to call them. That doesn't exactly scream out Super Bowl somewhere down the line. Yes, agree. It's not the losses that bother me. As with the Super Bowls, it wasn't losing to the Skins that bothered me, as they were clearly a better team pretty much all around, except at QB where the Hogs kept the entirely immobile Rypien clean. Kelly was clearly the better QB. But it was more the Giants and at least the second Dallas SB that bothered me, because we were the better team, we were simply outplayed and outcoached. I have little problem with losing as long as we play our best and either get beaten by some completely unexpected monumental performance, or more generally speaking by a better team with better talent and better coaching. We haven't done that. We couldn't compete with KC in '20, in '21 "13 Seconds" says all we need to know, and to dismiss that is remiss, and last season the only way things could have been worse for us is losing to Skylar Thompson, or us forfeiting the Cincy game in the playoffs too. I see absolutely nothing indicative that McD & Co. are poised to all of a sudden for no explicable or apparent reason to beat KC, Cincy, and now even possibly another team or two in the AFC playoffs. Anyone that claims that they do is reaching. Doesn't mean we won't, all I'm saying is that there's no evidence that there's a good likelihood of it occurring. BTW, that's not taking accountability for it. Ignoring it in pressers until the issue is forced by the media days afterwards, if not weeks afterwards. Either way, he failed where any average fan knew better, that's the takeaway here. As such, it's certainly fair to question other aspects of his coaching, again, particularly after this past season's playoffs. You'll see as the season progresses if we fail to win the division or struggle again in the playoffs failing to make the AFC CG. National media is already over this. We love it when they say positive things, but when they don't, then all of a sudden "they don't know what they're talking about." LOL

LOL, well that's a pretty monumental and egregious error, and again, not one that McD has done as he's preaching, and accepted accountibility for, in fact, it's quite the opposite, he's shamefully hidden from the fans and media on it. That's enough to rub people the wrong way. As newera said, it's akin to the "Homerun Throwback" but worse, because it wasn't circumstantial, it was entirely within the control of McD himself. To suggest that "oh well, that's just in the learning curve of a future great head coach," .... LOL, that's nonsense. Then factor in that in his 6th season he did what he did in this past season's playoffs, ... SMH. That's just as bad. Anyway, we're going to continue to disagree in this way. As I said, unless that changes, and I see no reason as to why it will as the writing on the wall is that McD will continue to be outcoached by the better coaches in the playoffs, more and more people and fans are going to start seeing things that way. Some simply see it sooner than others, that's all. You can have the last word, but we're making zero progress here. There's no reason to continue this. Let's continue with the player ratings.

You're hedging there, bigtime. The short answer is that it's pretty universal. So when we incessantly hear how the coaches (and GMs in other conversations) are highly paid experts, it certainly raises questions when entirely unpaid casual fans know better than those "experts," which then raises further, tougher questions. To dismiss that is to ingore reality, and that's what McD apologists are doing. "Just ignore the elephant sitting on the hood of the car," and the "man behind the curtain," and let's look only at the more superficial positive things. And look, McD has his strengths, like anyone, but on-field coaching, particularly when it comes to tactics and strategy or adjustments do not appear to be among them. Preparedness is now in question as well until further notice, all the "good reasons" aside, some of which also pertained to our opponents that didn't seem to have the same issues. And again, I'm fine with McD as a regular season coach, he's been great there, I'll freely admit that. But it'd be nice to hear his apologists admit that he's equally problematic in the playoffs except when he's played NE with Jones at QB or Miami with Skylar Thompson. I realize that some fans, acknowledged here, don't care about winning a SB unlike the rest of us, and for them, great, that's fine. But if as a fan one's goals are a championship, serious questions presently exist, and after six full seasons, there's less basis for believing that those things will change for the better than thinking that they won't. Either way, discussing and debating it isn't going to change one thing. But one of two things is going to occur this season, either that trend will be broken, or it won't be. If it is, great, but if not, then I certainly think that it's fair to start asking how many more seasons we roll with a head coach whose level of understanding, in several instances, isn't even on par with unpaid casual football fans. Defending that won't make much sense. I will only mention, again, that we've still never even gotten an explanation for either of those egregious coaching failures. As I've said before, for someone that preaches accountability, to refuse to accept any or ante-up in that way himself, in and of itself is also problematic. I also don't think that players like Diggs are gonna sit still for things if we merely have a wash/rinse/repeat type of season. He, and Allen, and others, want a Championship whether many fans here are content with that or not being irrelevant. And honestly, which fan accepts underachievement and thereby not winning a championship. That part seriously eludes me.

We were completely unprepared heading out of the tunnel for that game, it reminds me of how we emerged in the 2nd-half of the last Super Bowl we were in, before getting throttled 24-0 after coming back out with a 13-6 lead. And now it's out that we had the wrong cleats while Cincy, on a road field, was fully prepared in that way. And it seems that they could have made those changes on the sideline even. I will add to what you said, in terms of coaching, IMO McD & Co. is among the worst at adjusting in-game than any we've ever had, and that's a huge part of coaching.

Tomlin won a SB in his second season. He went to a second two seasons later. We've only made it past the divisional round once, and then we got smoked by the Chiefs. He started 55-25. I'd trade that in an instant for what we have. You didn't answer the question. I'll ask it again. Where on the "football knowledgeability scale" would you rank our "13 Seconds" debacle? A few options are, that everyone knows that you don't give Mahomes/Kelce/Hill 25 yards of open space to work when they only need that for a reasonable FG try; every good coach would have done the same or similar; only the most astute fans can even grasp that it was not a good decision given the tempo of the game; most football minded fans know that it was a bad decision; etc. Put another way, how "football smart" does one have to be in order to have known, before hand, that doing what McD did was not a good idea?