Rampant Buffalo

Many people here have an all or nothing mentality. They aren't necessarily all that big on nuance. Does the preseason count in the standings? No. Can it communicate information about the state of our team, whether positive or negative? To some extent. Let's say you're driving, and your check engine light comes on. Could be nothing, could be something serious. Let's say you're watching a preseason game, and your team's OL and DL look significantly inferior to the opponent's. Okay, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Guys can have a bad day. Maybe there are guys who need more time to learn the system and to gel. On the other hand, it's possible your team's linemen just aren't as good as the opponent's. It's too early to reach any conclusions right now.

Not worth rereading.

Really? What is your basis for making this claim?

OJ Simpson murdered two people. Aaron Hernandez and Ray Lewis are also murderers. Robert Kraft had sex with an underage sex slave. Michael Vick abused dogs. Tyreek Hill is guilty of domestic abuse. What has Brady done, to put himself on the same list as guys like that?

You are getting lost in the details. Pizza and football are both things people enjoy. Neither is a necessity. That is the big picture, and is the basis for my comparison.

Years ago, Terry Pegula watched this very same video clip. As he watched, key phrases started running through his head. Defensive coach. Buffoon. Embarrassment to the Bills. Terry started nodding his head. The next day, the announcement was made. Rex Ryan hired as Bills head coach!

Imagine a city with 100 pizza places. If one raises its prices too much, or provides bad product or bad service, it will lose customers to its 99 competitors. Adam Smith's invisible hand serves to hold all 100 pizza places accountable. Now imagine a large corporation buys up all 100 pizza places. Prices go up. Quality goes down. The invisible hand no longer holds the one pizza company accountable. Pizza is not a necessity. There are plenty of other types of food people can eat instead. Does that mean the public is under some kind of moral obligation to permit this monopolistic behavior? Is the public only allowed to defend its own best interests when a monopolist seeks to control basic necessities? On another matter, you have trivialized people's concerns about increases in housing costs. From this site: "Average rent prices have increased 8.85% per year since 1980, consistently outpacing wage inflation by a significant margin." If the middle class and working class are taking it on the chin with respect to housing costs, why do you have a problem with people pointing that out?

Two points about the UFL. 1) Normally, for every 100 people who watch an NFL game, only about 5 will watch a UFL game. 2) The UFL is a spring football league. How is it "competing" with the NFL? If someone is watching an NFL game, it's literally impossible for him to change the channel to watch a UFL game instead. The games are on at different times of the year! To whatever extent the UFL is pulling viewers away from watching other professional sports, it's pulling them from spring sports such as baseball. As for revenue sharing: that's great, but is off-topic. When you have many customers dealing with one monopolist, said monopolist will always have more bargaining power. Much more. The only way customers can take any power back in that relationship is through government restrictions on the monopolist's behavior.

Because the NFL is a monopoly, and there are laws in place which make it illegal for monopolies to price gouge. In the specific case of the NFL, the money from their price gouging is used to further enrich millionaire players and billionaire owners.

Having watched my share of Manuel's college play, I would say that neither his accuracy nor his information processing were better than what I'd expect from a typical college QB. Probably below-average for a college QB, at least for information processing. So why draft him? He had good physical tools. Whaley was really excited by the commanding presence Manuel had when he entered a room. In the NFL, Manuel was the exact same guy he'd been in college. Manuel did not improve over time. He was no better in year 5 than he'd been as a rookie. Manuel's physical tools were good, but not good enough. When Rex Ryan was hired as head coach, he chose Greg Roman as his offensive coordinator. Roman's offense feeds off of a QB's running ability. Manuel (4.6 in the 40) was benched in favor of Tyrod Taylor (4.4 in the 40). That offense benefited from the extra running speed Tyrod was able to provide. If you want a passing QB, you'll get more from Kyle Orton than you'd get from Manuel. If you want a running QB, you'll get more from Tyrod than from Manuel.

Let's say you're the GM of an expansion team. You don't have a first round pick. Instead of that first round pick, you're allowed to choose one of two options. Option 1) You get a rookie age Josh Allen. Option 2) You get rookie age versions of all other Brandon Beane draft picks combined. Which of these options would you choose? For me, option 2 is tempting. I'd love to add guys like Dalton Kincaid, Shakir, Rousseau, Oliver, etc. to my football team. But at the end of the day, I know which option I'm picking. And it's not even close. Of the good that Beane has done in the draft, more than half was achieved with a single pick.

Public enemy #1 is this man:

I should have been more clear. Someone made a point about the offense being inconsistent in the postseason. I pointed out that one of the reasons for that is that the Bills have had inconsistent levels of play, in the postseason, at WR and OL. There have been postseason games when we've gotten good play out of one or both those units. Other postseason games, not so much so. The point I'm trying to make with all this is that if the Bills want consistently good offensive play in the postseason, they need OL and WRs who can be counted on to consistently play well in January.

I agree that we had the talent to get more than one 1 TD against the Texans. That was an offensive letdown, no question. As for WR: the Bills didn't have a #1 WR prior to Diggs' arrival. These last two years, he faded late in the season and in the postseason. That means Allen has had just two postseasons of maybe good play from his Z. Then you look at slot. Beasley version 1 was very good, no question. Shakir played well this past season, albeit not at Beasley's level. Other than that, the Bills haven't had much at slot. At X, Gabe Davis has had excellent games in the postseason, most notably his 200 yard performance against the Chiefs. But he's also inconsistent, and during the regular season puts up one of the NFL's lowest catch percentages for a WR. "I don't see any spot where the Bills WR during the playoffs was really bad." In this most recent playoff loss, Bills WRs had 160 yards of drops, while struggling badly to gain separation. How much more badness than that do you want to see, before this meets your definition of really bad?

So . . . you believe that even if the WR corps gets off to a rough start, it's unlikely to have a rocky landing? 😮

What I wrote was, "there have been years when the Bills had a poor OL. There have been years when the WR corps was below-average to really bad." Pre-Diggs, Allen's WRs were certainly below-average, at best. That's worth bearing in mind when we're talking about offensive inconsistency in the Houston playoff game. This most recent playoff loss the WRs has 160 yards of drops. Whatever the WR corps' achievements during the regular season, it certainly had a terrible game that day. Now think about the OL. If you don't remember any poor OL play during Allen's time here then that's on you. We had a late career Roger Saffold as a starter. We had an injured and poorly performing Spencer Brown as another starter. The OL was completely dominated by the Bengals in our playoff loss to them. (Another game that's being thrown around as an example of offensive inconsistency in the postseason.)

Yes.

Postseason defensive collapses Chiefs collapse #1. One stop all game, Tre White healthy. Chiefs collapse #2. Two stops all game, Tre White didn't play. Bengals collapse #1. Two stops all game. Von Miller didn't play. Tre White played but wasn't fully back to his pre-injury self. Chiefs collapse #3. Two stops all game. Numerous injuries to the defense. I personally believe that Chiefs defensive collapse #3 was due primarily to injury. I also believe that Chiefs defensive collapses 1 and 2, as well as Bengals defensive collapse #1, were due primarily to the McDermott/Frazier soft zone/prevent defense.

Nope. Not what I said. You have creatively reimagined my post, for the purpose of making it more extreme than what it was.

To be fair . . . there have been years when the Bills had a poor OL. There have been years when the WR corps was below-average to really bad. Give the offense average to above-average players in both those areas, and yeah, I'd expect to see a heck of a lot more offensive consistency.

Yeah your post is solid. You've made good points. But I'd like to draw a distinction. Have there been playoff games when the offense played poorly? Absolutely. No question. But there have also been a number of playoff games where the offense has played well. Whereas with the defense: every time the Bills have played the Chiefs or Bengals in the postseason, the defense has never generated more than two stops. That's 4 games against top passing QBs, and four defensive collapses. Not once in the postseason has the defense done anything other than collapse, when faced with a top passing QB. Not once. If the defense had some good postseason games against Mahomes and Burrow, as well as some bad games, then I'd feel like we had a shot of winning a Super Bowl if things fell our way. But with the defense experiencing near-total failure every single time it faces a QB like that in the postseason, Super Bowl hopes feel unrealistic.

If I was the GM of an expansion team, I'd choose a rookie Allen over a rookie version of any other QB in the league. That specifically includes Pat Mahomes. That said, I view Burrow as a top 5 QB. One of the things he does well is to take what the defense gives him. Accurate throws, high percentage passes. Move the chains. Keep the drive alive. Whereas, one of Allen's weaknesses is that if it's 3rd and 8, and if he's got a guy wide open 9 yards down the field, there's a chance he'll throw it to the guy who's double covered, 40 yards down the field. In watching Kurt Warner's analysis of Allen, there were a number of times Warner mentioned that Allen should have taken the easier, open throw underneath. Let's say Allen were to call me up and were to ask, "What's the one thing I can do, to take my game to the next level?" I'd respond with, "How do you even know who I am?" But then to answer his question, I'd tell him to get coaching from Kurt Warner. "You need that coaching like a thirsty plant needs water." But even as he is, I still think Allen is better than Burrow. If the Bills and Bengals swapped QBs, the Bills would be worse off, and would win fewer games with Burrow than they would have with Allen.

You act as though the Bills are wise to de-emphasize their own passing game, due to the increased difficulty of passing. If you look at the list of NFL passing leaders over the years, it's clear we are in a golden age of passing. If teams are playing two high, that reduces your big plays, but maybe opens up other passing opportunities for intermediate routes. The Bills have a first ballot HOF player at QB. If you have a guy like that, you need to surround him with weapons. You need to build an elite passing offense around him. Running the ball more than half the time, as Brady did last year, is exactly the wrong approach long term. The offense needs to be built around the pass. Compared to 2020, the Bills are better off at TE (having added Kincaid). As a slot receiver, Shakir is a downgrade from Beasley, but is still a pretty good player. They've upgraded at gadget player (Samuel is better than McKenzie). Their weaknesses, at least as perceived by me, are at Z and at X. No obvious replacements for either Diggs or Davis. But maybe a guy I don't expect much from will step up.

Every team needs an offensive identity. The identity of the Bills' offense should be built around the pass. Back when the Bills' passing offense was at its best, it had the following. 1) Josh Allen at QB. 2) Good offensive weapons: Diggs, Beasley, Davis, Knox. 3) An OL which was reasonably proficient at pass protection. 4) A good OC, in the form of Daboll, who was committed to the pass and knew how to scheme guys open. When the team has a proper identity, all four of those boxes are checked. A failure to check even one box means the offense is not firing on all cylinders. Does this style of offense work in January? Josh Allen achieved the highest QB rating in NFL postseason history, with one playoff game in Buffalo and the other in Kansas City. Yeah, I'd say a passing offense can work in January. The enemy of passing isn't cold so much as it is wind. By the time you get to January, the windiest games of the season are generally behind you. In the Chiefs' postseason games, do you see the Chiefs give up on the pass? Take the ball out of Mahomes' hands, in order to give it to the RB instead? Is that how they've been winning their Super Bowls? Did the Patriots win their Super Bowls by getting away from Tom Brady in the postseason, and running the ball instead? You win in January by having an elite passing offense.

The 6-6 start was due in large part to McDermott sometimes opting for a soft zone/prevent defense. The Eagles game was a good example. Tight pass coverage and a good defensive plan for the first half, limiting the Eagles to just 3 points at halftime. Soft zone/prevent defense for the second half. Simply allowing the Eagles to complete 8 - 12 yard passes, with literally no opposition from the defense. The Eagles scored every drive once the Bills went to that style of prevent defense. The result was a completely avoidable loss. The Bills defense also allowed the short stuff when facing Mac Jones and the Patriots, even though that Patriots offense was built around taking the short stuff. Result: Mac Jones put up Montana-like numbers, and another Bills loss. The primary reason for the late season win streak was because the defense tightened up. McDermott had gotten away from the soft zone/prevent defense which had failed so abysmally earlier in the season. The offensive improvement under Brady is mostly a mirage. He got more drives per game, causing overall numbers to go up. But his points per drive stat was about the same as it had been under Dorsey. When the Bills' passing offense was at its best, the team came within 13 seconds of a postseason win over the Chiefs. That was despite a near-total defensive collapse (two defensive stops). If an elite passing offense is good enough to carry the team almost to victory over the Chiefs, despite pretty much no defense, why get away from that type of offense? Are there times when the play-calling should be run heavy? Absolutely! The Dallas defense was selling out against the pass, while daring us to beat them with the run. You run the ball all day against a defense like that. I want the OL and RBs to be good enough to punish that particular type of defensive misbehavior. It's one thing to run the ball all day against a defense like that. And it's another thing to take the ball out of your best player's hands, in order to run James Cook up the middle for a 3 yard gain. I recall that Brady called slightly more running plays than passing plays. That's the wrong ratio. A lower octane offense. If he was doing that as a temporary measure, due to Allen playing hurt, or Diggs fading down the stretch, fine. I can respect that. But if he genuinely wants to run the ball at least as often as he passes, then he's the wrong OC and needs to be replaced.