PBF81

I thought that it was simpler the other way, I could be amiss, ... apparently I was. LOL Either way, I try not to clutter up analyses with anything but the most pertinent points for reasons that you can imagine. BTW, there's "Metrics," as in the programs that the teams use, which IMO is putting faith almost exclusively into detailed analyses, but good analysis always includes perspectives that the numbers don't always wash out in the numbers and that "DVOAs" don't always account for despite the perception otherwise.

BTW, Brown was taken at the tail end of the 3rd-Round, only 4 picks before the compensatory picks began. That feeds into the point that I made as well. Also, the two picks immediately following Brown are better than he is. Ben Cleveland and Robert Hainsey. Also, two Centers taken afterwards, are better than he is. Quinn Meinerz and Drew Dalman. Numerous OL-men taken on day 3 are better too. I'd take any of them over Brown. Centers can always play G, an easier position. It isn't necessary, but it emphasizes it. Again, add Brown into the mix, per above, it doesn't help Beane, it actually makes him look even worse given that the two immediate OL picks behind Brown are both already playing at starting levels, well, it simply kept the analysis more simple. Never good to complicate things here. LOL As to the other three singular picks, per my post above, the only other three teams to have drafted only 1 OL-man in the first 92 picks. They're all better than the one that we got, Ford.

OK, not sure what you want me to say at this point. Play for play for seven seasons until '78 Mitchell gained more yardage per game altogether than Harris did. So if instead of 96.2 YPG on average YFS people would rather have 87.4 YPG on average, OK. I have no problem with that. I can see the appeal the game was different back then with "3-Yards-and-a-Cloud-of-Dust" RBs being more valuable in general. I simply remember watching Mitchell and he was the overall more versatile RB, which back then was somewhat more novel than it became later on. Your reference to the Super Bowls is irrelevant. Baltimore had Bert Jones at QB whose career was also plagued with injuries. Bradshaw was far more reliable from an injury perspective. Baltimore also didn't have nearly the talent at WR that Pittsburgh had with Swann, Stallworth, Grossman, etc. Mitchell also didn't have the support that Harris got from Bleier either. And comparing Defenses during those years is ridiculous. Sounds like you're saying that the Steelers won four Super Bowls primarily because of Harris, which would be ridiculous given the legendary Steel Curtain D with wall-to-wall talent, much of which is in the Hall of Fame, and Bradshaw/Swann/Stallworth also. You say that as if Harris carried the Steelers to 4 SB wins on his back. The reality is that he had a monster postseason in '74 and contributed heavily to that SB win, but in the other three not nearly as much rushing 67 times for 196 yards in the other three games, averaging a mere 65 rushing YPG on fewer than 3.0 YPC. If you want to engage there, let me know. My point was very simply that Harris wasn't runaway better on an apples to apples comparison that you laid it out to be. If you want to think differently, great, I'll respect that. To each his own. Frankly, it also depends upon the team. Harris IMO wouldn't have done as well as Mitchell in Baltimore for that very reason, the lack of support just mentioned, on both sides. At the same time, the Steelers didn't really need a versatile RB that Mitchell was, they needed Harris, a bruiser. They had all of the other components of a well-rounded offense, unlike Baltimore at the time. It was fun watching both of them at the time. The more versatile of the two however was clearly Mitchell, even at PSU. There's not much of an argument to the contrary, Harris simply wasn't the receiving RB that Mitchell was. First 92 picks ... Brown (93rd and bottom of the 3rd round) hasn't been what the other three singular picks are either regardless. Beane has neglected our OL more than any other team in the NFL.

No, but I was responding to your comment below ... My point was, while trying to be respectful, that that's entirely debatable. Mitchell, by Yards-from-Scrimmage was the more productive player over the first 7 seasons. His career was simply shortened due to injury, and Harris really wasn't all that afterwards. In fact, his time in Seattle was an embarassment, he didn't even pretend that he was trying, averaging 2.5 YPC. The moment he got the ball he headed for the sidelines just there to get his 12,000 yards. He averaged a pedestrian 3.8 YPC in his last 5 seasons. Frankly, I'd rather have had Mitchell back then. Had he not gotten hurt and had he been able to play longer, he'd have done better than Harris IMO. More importantly, as I said above, for us to draft a RB is to put the cart before the horse. Apparently few Bills fans understand that Beane on his watch has devoted fewer top resources to OL-men than any other team in the league. I simply don't see how that can continue to be overlooked if Beane is to keep his job.

If the Bills don't take an Offensive Lineman in the first three rounds, under Beane the Bills will have selected only one (1) Offensive Lineman among the first 92 picks in 6 Drafts, once. Cody Ford at 38th overall at the top of the 2nd. As it is, only three other teams have drafted only one Offensive Lineman in the first 92 picks over the past 5 Drafts. One of them is the Rams who've, for whatever reason, only had three 2nd-round picks and no 1st-round picks in in those five years. The Chiefs' one OL was Creed Humphrey, who's one of the best interior OL-men in the league. The Rams got Joseph Noteboom, a decent OL-man. The Cards got Josh Jones, a very good tackle. (The "Josh's" are lighting up the league.) They all start. We got Ford, who was horrible and has been a backup. Those three teams also spent more resources in the 50 or so picks after that than we have on the OL. In short, we've spent fewer resources on our OL than ANY team in the league during Beane's watch. I think it's ridiculous to even hint at a notion that that's meaningless given our circumstances, which include that we can't run the ball and that Josh gets hammered at times and has to adjust his play as a rule to compensate for Beane's failures there. Drafting a RB at this point is to put the cart before the horse.

Interesting comment. Different take though ... Mitchell's career was shortened due to injuries. He was a more versatile back, one of the most exciting in the NFL to watch at the time. Harris was more bruiser and less finesse. Mitchell was also a dual threat RB. In twice the career starts Harris only had 50% more yards-from-scrimmage, or so. Mitchell averaged 29 receiving yards-per-game, Harris only 13. Through 1978 Mitchell had nearly a thousand more yards from scrimmage. Harris' overall numbers came from playing longer. Mitchell was finished after that while Harris went on to play a bunch more seasons, he was only average at best after that tho. It's more like comparing Thurman to Christian Okoye.

It feels like the Levy years to me, when he was coaching that is. He just wasn't good enough to beat the likes of Parcells, Johnson, or Gibbs. We had to hope that we had such an advantage in talent that we could overcome him. Then they shitcanned Polian who built that phenomenal collection of talent. McD's similar to Levy in that regard, out-coached by his peers that we'll see in the playoffs, and Beane's no Polian.

You just hit the nail on the head. I don't remember when the last time I watched a Super Bowl was. What everyone goes Gaga over I don't care about, namely the halftime show and the commercials. In fact I don't both to be irritating. ("Get off my lawn!" LOL) But it's a pop-culture event, designed not for football fans, but for the masses and mass consumption. It's designed to be a cultural extravaganza to maximize TV reasons and generate interest outside the states. The NFL cares about money, not the fans, other than milking them for their money. I no more watch it than I would any other game in not interested in. The only reason why I watch the playoffs anymore is to see who we're playing next.

A "dance of luck" yes and no. Again, this is one of those areas where you can "make your luck." It's important when you scout to consider who the player you're looking at went up against. If they're small school and logged all their stats and yards in situations that typically don't occur often in the NFL, it's probably a good idea to factor that in heavily. Also look at the caliber of players that a player went up against, if those he didn't do anything against teams featuring individual opponents that are likely headed for the NFL, there's a good chance he'll struggle in the NFL as well. Only makes sense. You can help yourself by drafting players that did well against other players that are headed for the NFL and against teams that often field them. IOW, if a player logs a ton of stats against Kent State, Akron, and Ball State, but does hardly anything against other teams, but putting up gawdy numbers and overall very good numbers against weaker competition, don't take 'em high. Zay Jones was one of those for example. He also played in a lot of games with 5 WR sets and when his team was hopelessly down. This information is statistically available publicly, for teams not to avail themselves of it is remiss.

Thanks! Having said all that, I guess that the eternal optimists always have the possibility that we'll just get one of those "lucky seasons" that propels us to a championship, like LA a little in '21. But if rather rely on talent and good coaching, which we're short on. What's strange is how some teams, like ours, don't consider making similar changes in their coaching ranks like they do for the roster/depth chart. It's a business, nothing should be off the table, and unless you've achieved perfection, and we haven't come close, then there's always room for improvement.

Thank you! 🙄😂🤣😂

Agreed, but at the same time I'm not penciling is in for 13 wins again either, I think that the holes in our Defense are going to cost us this season. Also, I'm thinking that the Jets & Fins are both going to improve and they were already competitive this season.

Great read! If those are the only two options, pursuing option 2 doesn't seem as if it would be particularly productive. For that one to be productive, both short and more importantly longer term, it would require good drafting, something that Beane has done anything but proven a propensity for. Even in free-agency he's hit-n-miss on "proven" players. Either way, I wouldn't put a lot of money on the notion that we win the division this coming season, which is disappointing as most of us had assumed that we'd be winning the division for years to come as was I. Oh well ... I'm also not in the camp that prefers to have a weak division so that we can win it, like the Pats for 20 years. I prefer some competition, although I wouldn't want to be in the same division with both Cinci and KC for example, but having the Fins, Jets, and meh, maybe even the Pats be competitive IMO is a good thing and helps come playoff time.

Whatever they choose to do, it requires someone that knows how to put cheap (aka drafted) talent into place. This crew hasn't even sniffed being able to do that in five seasons. Now they're on the cusp of lapping themselves in the cap hell situation, and we're in it for round two, .... I guess. Doesn't sound all that inspiring to me. If history holds, we'll draft our players, be told how going against conventional wisdom in one or more ways will net us a big improvement in whatever facet they put forth. The media will applaud us for having an A- Draft, and how couldn't it be with all of the holes we have, none of our rookies will make any kind of impact this season, we'll be having the same conversation next year, and over time we'll see that all of our day 1 & 2 picks aren't holding their draft status as to where they were selected, and one or two of our day 3 players we'll get rid of claiming that they're not needed while they go and do more than any of our other draft picks except elsewhere. That's the established pattern here. To wish upon a star for something different, well ... LOL

So give away all of our biggest picks for later round picks, most of whom we'd have to cut anyway for lack of roster space, then assess which ones are good, like Teller and Hodgins, send them packing, and keep the ones that are of backup caliber yet will end up starting? That seems to be Beane's strength. And when it gets to a point where a team has to work around the normal facets of the draft to attempt to overcome the weaknesses of the architect of the Draft, isn't that kind of a signal for something? Just sayin' ...

BTW, part of my point was that when the HC is hired first and allowed to select his own GM, the process is flawed. That situation shouldn't exist unless the coach is someone with decades of winning experience, which obviously McD did not have. We knew that the GM, whomever it was going to be, was coming from Carolina. There's something wrong with that process.

Gettleman was the GM in Carolina and was responsible for their drafts there, but I looked when we hired Beane, I didn't see any kind of significant draft picks for the two seasons prior that he was "Asst. GM," whatever that means, besides McCaffrey, who was a no-brainer, if they hadn't grabbed him at 8th overall he'd have gone in the next several picks. In fact, his drafts otherwise very much resemble his drafts here, a lotta nothing, a lotta B/C players and not getting value he should from the spots where he selects guys. That's why I didn't care for the pick back then. HIs best pick not in the top-10 was Vernon Butler, no wonder he ended up here in the Carolina to Buffalo express like so many others. Anyone can give anyone credit for a good draft pick, if they had one besides McCaffrey on his watch, but at the end of the day everyone can't take credit and we have no idea what the impetus for that particular pick was. Given his performance here it wouldn't see as if it was his, but we really don't know. He was GM mystery meat. We hear of "up and coming candidates" all the time that never end up doing anything, so that's all fluff. Point taken nonetheless. My point was implying that we could have I'm sure gotten a more proven GM, but the fact that McD, the coach, was in on the process, that pretty much hamstrung us and predicted our short-list of choices to have been someone from Carolina, which of course it was. It's also a safe thing to suggest that he wasn't the best candidate out there. There's a lot of room for disagreement here, but my focus is on where things stand today. Five seasons in and he hasn't proven that he was the best choice.

BTW, we had many teams on the cusp over that "Last 20 Years" stretch. I count 9 seasons during that stretch where we were 7-9 to 9-7. What if Ryan's 8-8 or 7-9 teams had had Allen instead of Taylor, I'm pretty sure we'd have made the playoffs. Would that then have made Ryan the coach to take us to the Super Bowl and win a championship? Hardly, but he wouldn't have been fired more than likely, ... because he "made the playoffs." Or Marrone's last 9-7 season, if instead of Orton he'd had Allen. Don't you think we'd have won at least one more game and "made the playoffs?" I do. IMO we'd have won several more. Doesn't meant that I think that Marrone was a good HC, he wasn't, never was, and still isn't. Just sayin' ... Agreed, and without seeing his contract, which we'll never see, we'll likely never know the details. But it's obvious when a Head Coach gets to choose his own GM, and that HC selects a guy that really wouldn't qualify anywhere else and who was also on his former team, and as a result that new GM owes everything to his HC. Common sense.

Thanks! Appreciate it! Allow me to comment on this part of your comments in particular, as well as answer your question ... To start, we had an incredible amount of luck getting into the playoffs in 2017, so let's not credit McD entirely for that. Beane's influence wasn't even a factor then since he wasn't involved in the 2017 Draft other than as a spectator. After that and otherwise, it's only been four straight playoff appearances, not six. But point taken. But I would turn that into how have we performed in those playoffs. Apart from the Miami game with Skylar "Who's He" Thompson leading the Fins a month ago, we've allowed an average of 410 yards in the 7 playoff games prior to that in those four seasons. Is that good? Hardly. I would also argue that we lost to the Texans in the 2019 Playoffs, to the Chiefs in 2021, and to the Bengals this season, all games that we should have won. The Allen pick was not only the major reason for it, I think that it's quite safe to say that it's the only reason for it. Which other picks by Beane have contributed to a significant extent to it? I don't see one. His free agents helped, feeding into my original argument, but no draft picks otherwise. So if Allen was the reason for it, and since all of our other coaches and GMs have "sucked," which generally they have, and I don't think that any of them would have taken us to the promised land either, even with Allen, but wouldn't a fair way to look at this then be how would those coaches and GMs have been viewed had the unique Allen come along on their watch? I'll say firmly right now, that strip off Allen, and IMO many of the teams over that "Last 20 Years" stretch were better apart from the QB position. Our OLs alone in most of those years were notably better than the one we have now. We definitely had better RBs, and while we didn't have a Diggs, we did have Jackson, Henry, Lynch, McCoy, Moulds, Johnson, Evans, Price, Riemersma, Chandler on offense, and on defense we had Schobel, Kyle Williams, Whitner, Kelsay, Fletcher, Clements, Milloy, McGee, Byrd, McKelvin, Aaron Williams, Hughes, etc. Now imagine if Allen had been on those teams. "The Last 20 Years" wouldn't even be a thing, and any number of those coaches and GMs would have been getting the fanfare that McBeane are. On the flip side, take Allen off this team and IMO we're looking at the worst single era of football under McBeane than we've seen since the pre-Levy days. (coach that is, not GM Levy) This team does not have a lot of talent on it, and what it does have is largely bought talent of known players, not anything having to do with Beane's prowess as a talent evaluator from the NCAA ranks. As I essentially said up top. So it's really a matter of perspective. So in answering your question ... ... the answer to that is wholly dependent upon the perspective. I would ask a "success" predicated upon what? If the simple criteria is "making the playoffs," then the fact answers the question. But the moment a "why?" is introduced, everything changes. If the criteria is, as you cited, "a joy to watch the games," "a playoff run," a few plays in isolation, ... sure, I guess it's a success by that standard. But I would first define what "success" in this case is, and for me it's different. I've noticed that many of the posters here are older guys that went thru that Super Bowl stretch (and we haven't even sniffed a Super Bowl yet) and have been there, done that regarding "making the playoffs." I was at every one of our home playoff games back then, like many here (other than the comeback game for me, LOL), experienced that level of excitement. I could go into details but let's just say it was just as exciting back then. I've also noticed a number of poster having said that they'd even be fine with the team moving if we'd win a Super Bowl first, myself among them. So for those whose standard is a Championship, no, we wouldn't call it a success. But I would go even further. I've always maintained that I'm good with whatever outcomes occur as long as we do the best that we can with the resources that we have, both on the field as well as drafting, offseason, etc. Do you think that we've done the most we could with the resources we've had on their watch? You've already answered that and said no, so that's clear. And I apply the same to myself personally, I've always said that if I get beat on a field/court, but I played my best and did everything that I could to win, I'm good with it. That's all one can do. But what we have here is the opposite. McBeane are "succeeding" despite themselves and their decisions, because the bar is not a championship, or even building a complete team even if we don't win a championship. We have anything but a complete team. We have tons of holes despite Beane now having had 5 seasons to work his magic, and on-field performance that leaves much to be desired after six seasons of McD's "Process." In fact, we have a worse cap situation now than when Beane inherited the team. That hardly spells that he's doing a great job given the fact that he doesn't even have a solid overall roster as the reason for the cap issues. If you ask me, had Allen been here instead of Bledsoe, Fitzpatrick, or those transitionary QBs in between, we're not even having this conversation. So perspective really is the lion's share of one's perspective on this. But at the end of the day, both Beane's and McD's efforts have not only fallen short given what they've had to work with, but the reason is because of them, their methodologies. I mean who's to blame for "13 Seconds" and not having the team prepared for the Skylar-Led Miami and Cinci this season? McD is, clearly. Who's responsible for having B & C level talent across our roster and depth chart other than for Allen and a few players that predated Beane, coupled with a significant salary-cap issue caused by an overreliance on expensive free agents? Beane is, clearly. I realize that you agree with that, but I'm saying at some point you have to fish or cut bait, and I see absolutely nothing on the table here that tells me that either McD's process or Beane's team building methodologies are for some entirely unbeknownst much less entirely unsubstantiated reason are going to bring home the hardware. Sure, if we move on then we may not find a coach or GM that can, but that then becomes the job of Pegula, Reccuia, or someone else in the organization to find them that can. But I find it incredibly difficult to believe that just about any coach or GM that we would replace them with would do worse as long as Allen's here. The job that they've done, while "having made the playoffs," is all but entirely attributable to Allen, particularly since our D goes on vacation once the regular season ends, and if Allen's here, any coaching would do similarly I don't see how it's possible to do a much worse job than Beane's done having stocked the team with no A-List players beside Allen, who we both acknowledge was another enormously risky decision, from our drafts. Again, Dawkins and Milano don't count for Beane. Which brings up a point, we can argue that we did better in the drafts without Beane that one season. That was by far and away one of our best drafts and arguably our best draft since our 2001 Draft which produced Clements, Schobel, and Henry. It's all about perspective, but it's a terminal mistake to say that McBeane have done better than their predecessors since 2000 or so without considering what those teams would have been like if A, Allen had been on them and McBeane had had what those GMs/HCs had for QBs, and B, comparing how the rosters of those teams stacked up to our current roster apart from Allen. I don't see a lot of anger, I see a lot of dissatisfaction. There's a difference.

Well, exactly, so why does he have so much support then. I realize it's a rhetorical question, but a serious question nonetheless.

I would argue that this isn't exactly "thinking out of the box," it's what good GMs regularly do.

Here's the thing, and let's start with the premise of this thread, ... ... that sounds wonderful, and we have the 27th, so what, trade up for the 20th? But then couldn't the same thing be said, and move up to the 12th? Then couldn't the same thing be said and move up to the 5th? ... then to the 1st overall at exorbitant expense? Sure it could. All that tells me is that Beane needs to be in a position to make a "no-brainer" pick to "succeed." But he's getting paid to think and do much more, finding value at lower picks, not merely pluck the fruit that everyone's eyes are on. But the two highest draft picks we've had besides Allen, and one involved in a significant trade-up as such, were the 9th (Oliver) and 16th (Edmunds), neither of which we got the draft-spot value for. Trading up only makes sense, in fact any draft pick is optimized, only when the appropriate value or better is obtained from that particular draft spot. Beane has hardly shown, much less proven a propensity for being able to do that. Same for trading away picks for proven players, like when we made that trade of our 1st (et al) for Diggs, everyone said it was the same thing. But was it, is it? For Diggs we paid an average of $24M/season out of the gate. Mid-1st-Round picks get an average of $4-5M/season. So it's clearly not the same. Going the free-agent route always costs more, which makes sense. But this is what GMs get paid to do, and to be able to avoid cap issues. Beane got some lattitude for "inheriting a cap mess," which was overstated. Yes, it wasn't good but it was also hardly the nightmare that many made it out to be. Either way he's had five years now to straighten that out, which is three years more than necessary and to install his own program, which under good management would not see a rehash of the same thing. But we do have the same thing, yet worse. This is largely because of Beane's overreliance upon free agency, ... because his Drafts haven't been good enough to offset the need for going to free-agency. We're not getting nearly enough impact from our "cheap labor" draft picks. Most of Beane's biggest free agents also haven't produced to standards in that way. Lotulolei was an enormous waste of money and he provided very little for that money. That's on Beane. Vernon Butler and Mario Addison were brought on, not crazy expensive, but also not cheaply, but neither really added much that JAG could have for much less. They were among our highest paid players those seasons. That's on Beane. Trent Murphy and John Brown were also among our highest paid players and same there, we didn't get much out of them that a much less expensive JAG could have gotten. That's on Beane. Quinton Jefferson and Ty Nsecke while not crazy expensive were among our most expensive OL-men. Did they perform to that standard? Hardly. That's on Beane. Von Miller was an enormous risk, high-risk high-reward kinda thing. Well, we've reaped the high-risk side of that relegating that decision to similar to the above. At 34 next year and recovering from an injury that typically takes a good year for a younger healthier person to recover from, is hardly an odds-on proposition going forward. That's also on Beane. He swung for the fences, great! But he also missed, and that shouldn't be overlooked either. And let's not overlook the reason for having had to take such a risk, it was because his drafts have come up empty as such despite putting an enormous amount of draft resources into our DL/F7. Our best players with only the exceptions of Allen, Dawkins (not Beane), and Milano (not Beane) were not drafted. That's on Beane. In short he has one good draft pick, Allen, who's carrying both his and McD's water. We'd be more of the same of "The Last 20 Years" if not worse without Allen. OK, so here we are today, arguably with a worse cap mess than Beane inherited. So why is there any discussion that he's done a great job? A "great job" as a GM is A, not allowing yourself to get to this point, B, drafting well so that you don't have to overcome your poor drafts with far more expensive free agents, and C., doing this so as to stock an entire team, not merely a flashy position or two or three. Being able to spot talent, and more particularly, hopefully find talent available when your pick is up that should have gone higher. Beane does the opposite. He makes risky picks and generally gets value of notably lower rounds from those picks, if those players even see the field at all. You've seen the posts here about how many of our draft picks are starting, but that's not a good thing, because we typically don't have above-average play at most positions. So yeah, they're starting, typically our Day 3 picks, but that's only because Beane's priciest free agents and Day 1 & 2 draft picks haven't worked out to the level of their picks or the free-agent prices of their contracts, ... per above. So now we've come full circle, we've got another cap situation, but this one is entirely of Beane's own making. So why is anyone defending him? I don't get it. He's had five seasons now to get us out of the [nominal] cap situation we were in and do his thing, and prevent us from repeating that. Not only has he failed, but apart from Allen, it's actually worse than it was. And let's be honest if we can here, the only reason why we're not discussing "The Last 25 Years" right now, is entirely because Allen's on our team and for no other reason. We wouldn't have won a single division title without him much less challenged for anything in the playoffs. This team would be below-average without Allen. No need to get into McD's contributions to this current situation, but he's hardly free of responsibility in the matter either.

Most people tend to look at the draft in a vacuum, as a bunch of individual players/positions, not as a unit in a big picture mentality. This leads to the thinking that if "oh, if we could only get [this] player who would put up huge stats we'd be great." But it's much more of a zero-sum game and if you're going to build a great TEAM, then a big-picture approach is necessary. ... despite Beane not even hitting on most of his picks for where they were taken. (i.e. Oliver's good, but hardly 9th overall good) So far we haven't seen that under McBeane. One simple example is that for every defensive player you draft, you can't draft an offensive one. Common sense but seemingly overlooked by McBeane. And again, a mere one example in a list that runs on. But it seems that Beane lacks simple understanding of the Draft in that way. Without having landed Allen, McD likely wouldn't have been extended and Beane likely wouldn't be here anymore, and we'd be talking about "The last 25 Years." The reason why we're as good as we are, after Allen, and we're no better than what we were over "The last 20 Years" without him, had more to do with free agents, not or draftees. You're much better off with a team full of above-average players at all positions and no superstars, than you are with two or three superstars and a bunch of mediocre and fair players otherwise.

I hear ya, but I don't see any way to not at least have gotten rid of Frasier by now

My biggest thing about McD is talking a good game but doing nothing in the accountability department to correct why the D plays lights out during the regular season but like ***** in the postseason. That cannot be ignored and it really doesn't have anything to do with gameday coaching experience. As to their draft picks playing, that may be true, but not one of our draft picks from Day 1 besides Allen have produced to the level of their pick while numerous players selected afterwards obviously have.