folz

You could kind of put lists together like this for every team (save maybe the Super Bowl winners, since they can always answer that list with a Lombardi): For example, in relation to the bolded statement above: Isn't Shanahan a supposed offensive expert? In 5 of his last 6 playoff games they have averaged 15.8 points per game. The only time SF scored more than 23 points in their last 6 playoff games, it was against a Geno Smith-led Seattle team that was thought to be tanking at the start of the season. Or, SF blew a 10-point lead with 6 minutes to go in the Super Bowl...this great SF defense allowed the Chiefs to score 21 points in the last six minutes of the game. [Shanahan walked the Loss over to Reid on a silver platter at the end of the game] ETC. I think we all have a bit of Bills myopia, whether one is considered a "Homer" or a "Realist". We are so hyper-focused on our team that we don't often have a similar perspective on other teams. It is almost like "Realists" tend to see our flaws as worse than similar flaws on other teams, and "Homers" tend to see our strengths as better than similar strengths on other teams. Or in reverse, "Realists" see our strengths as lower than others, while "Homers" see others flaws as worse than ours. But as the OP showed (at least in regards to the drafting of SF and Buf) the truth is usually somewhere in the middle...or more even than (not as extreme as) we may think it is.

A few thoughts on MLB: 1. At this point, I think they would like Dorian to man that position, but it is a lot for a rookie from a small school to learn the defense well enough to call it right away. And if they had come out and said he's going to be the MLB and then he struggled early, it would be a much harder road (fans down on him, maybe he loses confidence in himself, etc.). Hopefully as the season goes on he gets plugged in more and eventually takes over. He's smallish, but he's a tackling machine...and fast enough to cover. 2. Obviously McD had a plan to change the defense up a bit (faster, cover LBs; putting three safeties on the field, etc.). I don't think they purposefully ignored the position, instead they wanted to change direction with the position/defense. They didn't want an Edmunds-type replacement. We'll have to wait until the season begins to see how McD is calling the defense and what the personnel groupings really are, but I'm sure he doesn't want to tip his hand too much before then. Will the change work...we just have to wait and see at this point. But it is silly to believe that they just forgot to get a MLB. I mean, with teams like KC, Cinn, and Miami, etc. speed is more important than bulk at LB. How many times have we been killed by quick hitting slants over the middle. A guy like Tremaine Edmunds (and probably even Dodson) don't have much of a chance covering or tackling slants by Tyreek Hill, Jaylen Waddle, Jamaar Chase, Tee Higgins, or fast and athletic TEs and slot guys. I don't think they wanted a Bobby Wagner or similar type of LB...they want faster LBs who are sure tacklers, so they can cover the speedy receivers we have to face without being a liability in the run game. I think it is a change in philosophy, not an ignoring of the position. 3. The Bernard injury hurts. I have a feeling he was the preferred option (with how they want to run things) until Dorian got good enough to take over. The idea also may have been to platoon the position for a while, much like they did with CB2 last year (though it's a much tougher position to do so with since they call the plays). But if we are playing a heavier run team, we'd see more Dodson and Klein; a better passing team, we'd see more Bernard/Rapp/Spector/Williams. And I don't think we even really have a traditional Will and Mike anyways. The LBs will be more interchangeable. With only two backers on the field, you don't really have inside and outside LBs, it is more your side and my side. 4. Beane is the type of GM who looks under every rock (see the kid they brought in from the USFL---not that his signing prevents them from bringing in someone better, say after team cuts or whatever). To think he is ignoring the position is silly. And yes, last year there was a problem with depth across the team because we had so many injuries. But to the guy complaining about the WRs last year, I think you may have forgotten that Crowder went down in what game four. Had he stayed healthy, I don't think the WR position would have been as rough as it was last year. Lack of production from the slot and interior offensive line were the issues with the offense last year and they tried very hard to address that this off-season. Again, we have to wait and see how it all plays out...maybe the posters who are very concerned about the position will turn out to be right, or maybe we just don't really know what their actual defensive plan is yet, and we are thinking too much about how we were previously rather than the new direction they want to go to combat the types of offenses that exist now, so everything will be fine. Not too much longer until we find out. 🤞

My shoutouts from the game: RBs: This group looked good. Cook ran with ease. Murray showed strong in both the run and pass game. Mims played tough. And even Evans had a nice kick return. When Damien comes back, wow, this is going to be a real solid RB room, bringing a bit more balance and toughness to the offense. WRs: Ditto. A lot of guys flashed. Shakir had two great catches but the bad drop also (needs to find consistency). Shavers also had a drop that marred his two nice catches a bit. But catching a TD pass always looks good. Isabella looks real fast and looked at least sure-handed in the return game. Patmon, Ateman, and Johnson all looked real good too, answered the bell (with Patmon pulling in the other tuddie). Dorian Williams: 7 tackles (6 solo). This is exactly what I liked about this kid when the Bills drafted him. Fast, sure tackler. I love that the Bills put a focus on tackling with their defensive players. If you are a strong tackler, doesn't matter your measurables or draft position, you got a shot to make it in the league (see Dane Jackson and Damar Hamlin, etc.). Dorian still has a long ways to go to become a starter, but I will feel pretty confident with him backing up Milano. Nice game for Boogie with 3 solo tackles and a sack. And Eli Ankou stood out to me as well. Dane with the INT. Still holding off the young guys. Lots of young guys on defense with one or two good plays, highlighted by Travin Howard's massive hit and solo tackle to prevent the 2-point conversion. Martin punted real well. With punters, you don't know what you got till its gone. Glad we got Sam. Matt Barkley: Insync with his receivers, got the ball out quickly, great anticipation and command of the offense. Completed 14 of 15 with 2 TDs. The only thing I will say for Kyle Allen is he was under a good bit more pressure than Barkley (and against the 1s and 2s), and this is a very complicated offense to learn. He's had like 5 months to get it down, Barkley has had 5 years. Kyle deserves more time to get it together before we run him out of town...but yes, at this point I would definitely feel more comfortable with Barkley taking over in an emergency.

Another factor, which I actually really like with Sean's staff, is that players have to earn their playing time. It's not that McD won't play rookies, but you have to earn that playing time first. You don't get gifted a starting spot just because you were a first or second rounder or have a higher salary...you have to actually beat out (play better) than any vets or other players ahead of you. Like at the start of camp, etc, the vet/incumbent always gets the first crack at it (at least out of respect) and then they mix in the younger guy, and if he is better, he'll eventually take over. But he has to earn it. It just may take some rookies longer to earn playing time or a starting spot than others. I think this really matters in the locker room (with the vets), team chemistry, confidence in who's on the field, etc. And as others have mentioned (in regard to rookies), you have to realize that now that we are a very talented team across the board: 1. It is harder for young guys to crack the starting lineup, and 2. we are now drafting at the bottom of the draft. It is not a guarantee, but the odds are you'll hit more often with guys drafting say 7-16 than you will drafting 23-30. The lower you go in the draft, the harder it is to find guys that are ready to just step right in to a starting role. Also, it seems that Beane likes to take some shots early in the draft. Rather than take the guy who you kind of know his ceiling and he'll be a good/solid player, reach for the guy with untapped potential and more elite measurables and hope you can coach him up into a higher-end player. It's a bit of a boom or bust strategy maybe, but to me it looks like all of Beane's 1st rounders, except for Kincaid, fit that mold. We'll see if that strategy pans out in the long run and/or if he sticks with it, but the fact is that some of these rookies needed a lot more coaching and experience to reach their potential than other more pro-ready players---which obviously would affect their rookie playing time as well.

I don't think your stat is as definitive as you believe it to be. It is the nature of #2 wide receivers to be a bit up and down throughout the season depending on opponent, game plan, etc. If you've ever played fantasy football...that becomes very clear. And that isn't even taking into account injuries. Plus, you are exaggerating a bit now too. Gabe had 4 games with 2 or fewer receptions (that is 23.5%---not more than half). Gabe did have 8 games with 40 yards or less (still less than 50% in a 17 game season). He did have 10 games with 3 or fewer receptions (finally matching your more than 50% quote). I'm not saying I wouldn't like Gabe to be more consistent and even more productive, that would be great (and he may prove that this year---he's still young)...but it is not uncommon for #2 WRs to have at least a handful of quiet games. And by no means am I comparing Gabe to the players below, just trying to point out that this stat that you are holding on to does not really denote failure for a #2 WR (again, especially when you aren't factoring in injuries). 2022 Tee Higgins had 6 games under 50 yards Jaylen Waddle had 6 games with 1-3 recs and fewer than 50 yards Davonta Smith had 7 games under 50 yards (including a 0, 17, 22, 23, 39, 44, 50) And those three are currently considered the best #2s in the league right now. Guys who were drafted 33rd, 6th, and 10th overall (compared to Gabe, 128th overall) and who would all be #1s on any team that didn't happen to already have a superstar ahead of them. Too often, when talking #2 WRs, people compare Gabe to the top 3-5 #2 WRs in the league only (all who were drafted significantly higher than Gabe). Yet, as it is, only 6 #2 WRs had more yards than Gabe last year and only 1 #2 WR had more TDs than Gabe last year. If you compared Gabe to all #2 WRs, not just the top few guys, you would see that Gabe did perform as a top 5/6 #2 WR last season (in all areas but comp. %...and there are reasons for that too beyond just his drops, which he needs to clean up---a lot of low percentage passes thrown his way, i.e. bombs, etc.). But no, that's alright, you go ahead and keep saying Gabe is barely even a #3 WR. 🙄

👍 He's gotten much better/more comfortable with that type of thing (commercials, etc.). But I think the shoot's hair stylist tried a little too hard with his locks. Stick with the natural look Josh. 🙂

Drafted 3rd round (93rd overall) by Tennessee. Played for Titans for two years and then the Bears for one year. Going into his 4th year. Career totals: 125 yards on 30 carries, 4.2 avg., no TDs, no fumbles 5 receptions for 71 yards and 1 TD Never saw more than 14% snap count on offense Last year played 63% of STs snaps for Chicago (for active games) Has no punt returns in the league, but has returned 10 kickoffs with a 22.3 yard average First year in the league he had a grade 2 hamstring strain that kept him out of 10 games (with him eventually ending up on IR) Second year in the league, injured his knee in preseason and missed 6 regular season games. Came back week 7 only to reinjure the knee and get placed on IR. Third year, was only active for 6 games for the Bears (doesn't appear to be any injury issues last year). So, he has only played a total of 12 NFL games. Could be untapped potential (if he can stay healthy), or just camp fodder/practice squad emergency only type of guy. Doesn't hurt to kick the tires though. Looks like the signing is official now per Jeremy Fowler of ESPN and Darrynton's agent. https://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/football/news/bills-darrynton-evans-adds-depth-to-buffalo-rb-corps/ https://billswire.usatoday.com/2023/07/25/buffalo-bills-sign-darrynton-evans-nyheim-hines/

Did you take a look at Matt's quads? Holy moly!

Are you trying to infer that because McD started Peterman, he wasn't on board with the Josh Allen pick? That he was going to push his 5th round QB from the prior year over #7 overall Josh Allen because Peterman was his pick and Josh was Brandon's pick? lol Since McDermott brought Brandon Beane on, they have been a team. There is no way Brandon drafted a QB that McD didn't at least sign off on. And more likely, they dissected the QBs together and made the decision hand-in-hand. Peterman was starting because he had a year under his belt and Josh was a very raw rookie. Remember it was a rebuild year after a purge, they weren't expecting to go on a playoff run or anything. I guarantee you that the plan was always to work Josh into the starting line-up sometime that season, but they were hoping Peterman could buy them some time in letting Josh settle in and acclimate himself to the NFL. It's a big jump from Wyoming. Unfortunately, Nathan couldn't provide that and Josh was forced in earlier than planned. 👍 I wish we could do double emojis so I could both like and laugh at your post. 😆

You guys continue to try and set parameters to fit what you want to prove (and yet there are still a couple of exceptions to your statement---see below). And sure, some of the guys on that list didn't have great luck with QBs (not every head coach does---especially on a list of guys who didn't make a SB), but let's not pretend that none of them had anything to work with at QB: Mike Sherman had Brett Favre (HOF) for 6 years Don Coryell had Dan Fouts (HOF) for 9 years Matt LaFleur had Aaron Rodgers (*HOF) for 4 years Chuck Pagano had Andrew Luck for 5 years Jim Mora had Peyton Manning (HOF) for 4 years Jack Pardee had Joe Thiesman (HOF) for 3 years and Warren Moon (HOF) for 4 years Marty Shottenheimer had Bernie Kosar for 4 years, Joe Montana (HOF) for 2 years, Drew Brees (*HOF) for 4 years, and Philip Rivers for 1 year Steve Mariucci had Steve Young (HOF) for 3 years and Jeff Garcia for 5 years Dennis Green had Warren Moon (HOF) for 3 years and Kurt Warner for 2 years Chuck Knox had Dave Krieg for 8 years and Joe Ferguson for 3 years Marvin Lewis had Jon Kitna 2 years, Carson Palmer 7 years, and Andy Dalton for 8 years Bum Philips had Archie Manning 1 year, Dan Pastorini for 5 years, and Ken Stabler for 3 years. Wade Philips had John Elway (HOF) for 2 years and Tony Romo for 4 years Mike Smith had Matt Ryan for 7 years Jason Garrett had Tony Romo for 6 years and Dak Prescott for 4 years *Future Hall of Famer Obviously not all of those QBs equate to Josh. But then posters like you always seem to forget how raw Josh was coming into the league too. His first two years were seriously on the job training. It wasn't 5 years of automatic HOF QBing from Josh for McDermott. Really, isn't 3-4 years of a HOF QB in their prime just as good (or better) than 5 years of Josh, when you weigh in his first two seasons? He wasn't bad, but how could you equate his rookie year to say Brett Favre's 10th year in the league, or Warren Moon's 12th year, or Joe Montana's...etc.

Yeah, I shouldn't have included Blanton Collier. Good catch. Agree on Coryell. Should be in the HOF regardless of no ring. If Chuck Knox didn't return to the Rams for those last 3 years, he'd still be 13th overall in wins, have a .600 career win %, and in 19 years---13 winning seasons and 11 playoff berths. Great coach, but his 7-11 playoff record hurt him.

I'm not sure if I totally understand what question(s) you are asking and why, but... Here are the coaches with the highest win% with no Super Bowl appearances (including only HCs with all, or the majority of their career in the SB era; active coaches in purple): Matt LaFleur (4 yrs): .712 Blanton Collier (8 yrs): .691 Sean McDermott (6 yrs): .639 Marty Shottenheimer (21 yrs): .613 Mike Sherman (6 yrs): .594 Mike Smith (7 yrs): .589 Mike Vrabel (5yrs): .585 Don Coryell (14 yrs): .572 Wade Phillips (12 yrs): .562 Mike Zimmer (8 yrs): .562 Jason Garrett (10 yrs): .559 Chuck Knox (22 yrs): .558 Joe Schmidt (6 yrs): .558 Chuck Pagano (6 yrs): .552 Frank Reich (5 yrs): .547 Jerry Burns (6 yrs): .547 Dennis Green (13 yrs): .546 Jim Mora (15 yrs): .541 Chuck Fairbanks (6 yrs): .541 Jack Pardee (11 yrs): .530 Brad Childress (5 yrs): .527 John Robinson (9 yrs): .524 Matt Nagy (4 yrs): .523 Bill O'Brien (7 yrs): .520 Kevin Stefanski (3 yrs): .520 Art Shell (5 yrs): .519 Ron Meyer (9 yrs): .519 Marvin Lewis (16 yrs): .518 Steve Mariucci (9 yrs): .518 Bum Phillips (11 yrs): .516 Here are the records/winning percentages, for NFL Head Coaches who made more than one SB, prior to their first SB appearance (there are 35 other guys who made it to a single SB, but I didn't have the time/energy to include all of them---but this should at least give you an idea of whatever you were looking for): [I did not include the four coaches who started coaching well before the Super Bowl era. McDermott is 62-35 .639 for reference.] McVay 11-5 .688 Cowher 32-16 .666 Reid 51-29 .654 Tomlin 10-6 .625 Reeves 45-28 .616 Holmgren 38-26 .594 Flores 9-7 .563 Shanahan 29-23 .558 Coughlin 93-83 .528 Carroll 58-54 .518 Gibbs 8-8 .500 Johnson 29-29 .500 Vermeil 29-31 .483 Levy 61-66 .480 Noll 33-37 .471 Parcells 22-25 .468 Belichick 45-55 .450 Grant 11-14 .440 Fox 7-9 .438 Walsh 8-24 .250 Not sure if this adds up to anything---you'll have to tell me WF. But I had fun crunching the numbers for you.

Just because you don't choose to accept the merits of someone else's argument, doesn't mean they haven't put forth an argument with merit (which I think has been done by many throughout this thread). There are many reasons for wanting to keep McD and thinking a SB is still possible: Ended 17-year playoff drought .639 overall win percentage (21st overall of all coaches who ever coached in the NFL) 3 AFC East titles Playoff berth 5 out of 6 years (one with Tyrod Taylor as QB) 1 AFC Championship appearance Great culture, great locker room/team camaraderie Continuity of systems and personnel (not having to reboot with new schemes, new coaches, etc.) Family atmosphere among team and between team and fans Free agents want to come to Buffalo now Players want to come back to Buffalo after they have left McD brought Beane here In turn, they brought Josh here It was Sean's staff and culture that groomed Josh Josh backs McD This year's team is probably the deepest we've had since the 90s SB era He moved on from Frasier I cut him a lot of slack for how last year ended because I understand that a football team is made up of human beings who can only take so much at one time. ETC. And in earlier posts, I showed a list of many Head Coaches who have made and won a Super Bowl after their 6th year of coaching. (But apparently, the standard is now that he has to have had the same QB and be with the same team). Sure, you too can poke holes in each of my arguments above, but don't act like McD supporters don't have a leg to stand on. Here's a stat to look up, how many coaches were fired after 4 consecutive 10 win seasons and a playoff berth each of those years? How many coaches were fired after a 3-year stretch with a 37-12 record, with the most recent season being 13-3/14-4? You can hold on to the 5 year QB/HC stat, it just doesn't sway me to want to move on from McDermott, or make me believe it is impossible for him to win a SB.

But as others have noted, there is no context for that stat. How many of those QBs started as rookies (their first 5 years in the league)? How many were as raw as Josh? How many of those coaches had prior head coaching experience? How many of those teams were in a rebuild? Or how many were already well-established teams when either the QB or HC took over? What were the circumstances those teams went through in those 5 years? Injuries, etc.? How many duos ended due to either the QB or HC retiring? Who is the owner and GM, what is their relationship with the coach, how do they handle business? ETC. None of that discounts the stat itself, or says it isn't a true stat, but it kind of shows why the stat isn't necessarily predictive of future outcomes. Because each situation is unique. Obviously, Sean will be coaching the team this year and no way Terry fires him mid-season. So, we will all have a new perspective at the end of the season. Either the Bills win the SB and we're all happy, or we will dissect the reasons for not making it or not winning it and adjust our thought processes. If the Bills fail to make the playoffs or something (without some crazy circumstances), or get crushed in the playoffs, or lose to a much lesser team in the POs, then I think you'll find a lot more people agreeing with you. But if they lose a hard-fought game to a very good team in either the AFC Championship game or SB, then you'll probably have to deal with another off-season of fans (and Terry) still backing McDermott. We'll see, but until this season plays out, this argument will just go in circles. You guys have no PROOF that Sean McDermott can't or won't win a Super Bowl, and I and other McD supporters have no PROOF that he can or will. It is all opinion and conjecture. One stat doesn't make something so. I think you are painting McDermott supporters inaccurately. Just because someone wants to stick with the coach doesn't mean they only care about regular season wins and/or don't want a Super Bowl. And no one is saying if he were fired there is no chance that someone else could come in and win a SB. It's an odds thing. For me, there are far greater odds that the next coach could set the team back, rather than win a Super Bowl. For every Siirianni and Gruden, there are 10-20 examples of it not happening. Besides Sirianni hasn't won anything yet. Now if McDermott were a mediocre or bad coach, then sure, you take that chance and make a switch. But when you have a winning coach, who built your program, you give him time (based on the circumstances of his tenure). Some of you guys act like McD walked into a Super Bowl roster and he has failed miserably for 6 years. His first year, he inherited a severely talent-needy team with a below average QB; year two's team had even less talent (as they blew things up to start again and fix the cap) with an extremely raw, but talented QB; year three, still building up talent and Josh was still no where near what he became. So, in essence, it has only been three years where the team was talented enough to really compete. Yet he has a .639 win percentage, despite a 2-3 year rebuild. We don't point out his record because we only care about regular season wins, but to show that he is actually a very good coach. You can't fake it for 6 seasons. [Currently his percentage ranks 21st of all-time for NFL head coaches, just .002 behind Andy Reid.] It is not foolish or some ploy to point out a coach's record. That is one of three main things by which a coach is judged: record, playoff appearances, Super Bowls. Sean has two out of three. I think the arrow is still pointing up. You don't. And that's fine. But at least be honest in your posts. You know McDermott's supporters don't think the way you painted them above.

👍 Fair enough. And yes, with Landry, it's fair to take him off my list (as an outlier---due to coaching 6 years prior to SBs). But you definitely can't equate him going to and losing an NFL Championship (in a 15-team league, the same year as SBI) the same as going to a Super Bowl. The Super Bowl actually existed that year and Landry wasn't in it. So, I'm fine taking him out of the discussion altogether on both sides. I don't know...it just seems in these discussions that the bar keeps getting set higher and higher for McDermott. The only coach who didn't win appear in a Super Bowl in 5 6 7 8 seasons, with the same team, with a top QB for more than 5 years (no discussion of how raw that QB was), when the president was a democrat, and Mercury was in retrograde. I know, I'm being a bit over the top there, but it just seems that the more variables get added, the less useful the stat is in showing any kind of true trend or to be used as any type of predictor. Look, we're all Bills fans. We all want a Super Bowl. We differ on our feelings about our head coach getting us there. It's all good.

Dude, if you are going to argue a point with examples, maybe you should at least look up those examples to see if they are correct first (verify your information). And I find it interesting that early in this thread it was all about how long it took a coach to WIN a Super Bowl, and once it was shown that like 40% of Super Bowl coaches didn't win their first Super Bowl in 6 years, then the bar lowered to how long it took a coach to APPEAR in a Super Bowl. Yet if McD APPEARED in a Super Bowl and LOST, none of the McD detractors would be happy with that, they would be calling for his head for losing the Super Bowl. So, to lower the bar for your argument, but not for Sean, shows that you are grasping at straws. But, you should at least try and get your arguments correct and not just make stuff up. Here is some data I posted earlier in this thread (obviously you haven't read the whole thread): Coach Years to 1st SB appearance Years to 1st Super Bowl victory Tom Landry 11 12 Bill Belichick 7 7 Andy Reid 6 21 Tom Coughlin 12 12 Pete Carroll 8 8 Chuck Noll 6 6 Bill Cowher 4 14 Tony Dungy 11 11 Dick Vermeil 5 10 John Madden 8 8 Gary Kubiak 9 9 Bruce Arians 8 8 I see seven coaches (not just Madden) who didn't appear in a Super Bowl until after their 7th season (and please check and verify my list). And its hard to use Tom Landry as an example because he coached for 6 years before the Super Bowl existed. So, while he did win Super Bowl #6, you can't count that as his 6th year when he had actually been a head coach for 12 years already. And if you say, well he probably would have done it earlier if Super Bowls existed earlier in his career, I would counter with his win/loss record of his first 6 years (25-53). And using the fact that he made a Championship game in his 7th year, is a bit misleading as well because it was an NFL championship game in the first year of the Super Bowl, that Dallas lost to Green Bay. Green Bay would go on to play and beat the AFL Champion KC Chiefs in Super Bowl I. So, that Championship game, was more like the first NFC championship (not a Super Bowl). Also, there were only 15 NFL teams in 1966 (pre-merger) when Landry made that Championship game. A lot easier to make a Championship game (not even a SB) with 15 teams, rather than 32 teams.

I don't think anyone hated Tyrod then or hates Tyrod now. It's just that at the end of his tenure, most fans could see that he wasn't going to get us where we wanted to go and wanted a change, an upgrade. It had absolutely nothing to do with race (please). It had to do with football. We have wanted to move on from every QB, white or black (including Fitz), who couldn't get it done. Most were done with Fitz by the end of his run too (and Losman and Edwards and...). Fitz just had a bigger and more likable personality, so more fans were attached to him in that way. It's laughable for anyone to pull the race card when it comes to Tyrod. 2015 League average of top 37 QBs (at least 200 pass attempts): 3,245 yards and 21 TDs Tyrod: 3,035 yards and 20 TDs [21 QBs had more yards and 16 QBs had more TDs than the league average in 2015] 2016 League average of top 33 QBs (at least 200 pass attempts): 3,582 yards and 22 TDs Tyrod: 3,023 yards and 17 TDs [19 QBs had more yards and 16 QBs had more TDs than the league average in 2016] 2017 League average of top 35 QBs (at least 200 pass attempts) 3,132 yards and 19 TDs Tyrod: 2,799 yards and 14 TDs [21 QBs had more yards and TDs than the league average in 2017] Tyrod was a below average passer: 2015: 25th in pass yards and 25th in passing TDs 2016: 25th in passing yards and 24th in passing TDs 2017: 21st in passing yards and 23rd in passing TDs And even if you add in his rushing yards, he would still be: 2015: 20th in total yards by a QB (and that's not adding in other QB's rushing stats, so could be a touch lower still) 2016: 20th in total yards by a QB (again not counting other QB's rushing stats) 2017: 21st in total yards by a QB (not counting other QB rushing stats) He was a bottom third of the league QB any way you crack it. Of course everyone was ready to move on after 3 years of that. And there was no hidden potential left to tap. That was his 5th, 6th, and 7th year in the league. That was his ceiling. I think everyone liked Tyrod as a person, just not as their starting QB. I like Tyrod and he will always be part of Bills history for being the QB when we broke the drought, but I don't revere him because his play wasn't good enough for that type of reverence.

Gabe had two targets that he didn't reel in in the Cincy game. Both passes the defender got a hand on the ball before it reached Gabe and the NFL ruled both as pass break-ups, not drops. The first one (I assume this is the one you meant) comes with :19 seconds left in the third quarter (score: Cincy 24 Bills 10). Gabe was open, if Josh leads him, it's a touchdown, but Josh under throws the ball. You can see Gabe having to slow down to wait for it and in the meantime, the defender caught up, put his arm up and the ball grazed the raised hand of the defender before it got to Gabe (which changed the trajectory a bit---as Gabe is now trying to corral the ball with the crook of his outside arm---rather than in closer to his chest). Gabe still might have caught it, but the defender then swiped it out of his arms. And this was on a cold and snowy field too. I think part of the problem with this one is Tony Romo, because on the broadcast, he first says: "That's possibly a game saving play." They show the replay again, and he says, "That's a little bit of a drop though...that ball was perfectly thrown...Gabe Davis doesn't normally..." And then they show the replay again, but most Bills fans are already screaming at Gabe for a drop. Then Tony says, "Ehhhhh, it might have tipped his finger for a second" [meaning the defender's finger] "Good form at the end by Taylor Britt." This miss was more on Josh than Gabe imo, if the ball was out in front, TD. Could Gabe have still caught it and held on, possibly...but it wasn't a "routine drop." The second one comes with 7:32 left in the 4th quarter (score: Cincy 27 Bills 10). Busted play/scramble drill. Josh's throw to the front right corner of the end zone wasn't just way behind Gabe, but it was even behind the defender who was trailing Gabe. The defender had to reach back to even get his hand on the ball and he was behind Davis. Oh and btw, Gabe did pretty good against Miami in the playoffs too (not just the KC game): 113 yards and a TD vs. the Phins. No one is saying Gabe doesn't need to clean up some of the drops from last year, but some of his detractors blame him for a lot of drops that they would forgive other receivers for. And as I have stated a number of times on the site, Gabe Davis was not the problem with the offense last year, it was interior offensive line, lack of a consistent run game, and no slot receiver. All which the team addressed. The lack of a quality slot and run game allowed many teams to bracket both Diggs and Davis. And yet despite the drops, the bracketing, the ankle, Josh's elbow, Gabe still put up excellent stats for a #2 WR. We bolstered the OL, the RBs, and the slot position. We now have 5 guys that could play a slot-like role (Kincaid, Harty, Shakir, Sherfield, Hines). All of this should help free up both outside receivers a lot more and I guarantee you that Gabe has worked like a beast in the offseason on his hands. I think a healthy Gabe, with the improvements on offense, will have a very good year this season. But, either of us could be right or wrong...we'll just have to wait and see...

Is it? Gabe's playoff stats over the last two years (4 games): 18 of 26 (69.2 catch %) for 389 yards and 6 TDs On a per game average that equals: 5 of 7 for 97 yards and 1.5 TDs per game. Playoffs don't seem to be a problem for Gabe.

For what it's worth, the precise number of head coaches appearing in a Super Bowl for the first time is 60 (25 head coaches made it to at least 2 SBs, with Belichick at the top with 9 appearances). There have been 306 NFL head coaches in the Super Bowl era (coached 1966 or later) There have been 57 Super Bowls 60 NFL head coaches have made a Super Bowl appearance (19.6% of all head coaches, in the SB era) 35 NFL head coaches have won a Super Bowl (only 11.44% of all head coaches, in the SB era) Just FYI to anyone who is interested.

First of all, I find it interesting that you chose to include head coaches who have appeared in, but not won a Super Bowl because if McDermott took the Bills to the Super Bowl, but lost, you would be all over him saying, see he can't win the big game when it counts. From reading your posts, I am pretty sure you wouldn't be happy that he got us to a SB, you would be calling for his head because he lost it. Secondly, I haven't crunched all of your data to see if it is correct, but there have been at least 7 coaches, not 5, who didn't make their inaugural Super Bowl until after 7 seasons of head coaching (there may be more, but I'm not sure as I only looked at Super Bowl winning coaches, not all coaches who have appeared in a Super Bowl). And while your data can show some averages of what HAS happened, it is by no means predictive of what CAN or MAY happen. Here are a some coaches who (at least generally) buck your trends/averages (again, I only looked at SB winning coaches): Coach Years to 1st SB appearance Years to 1st Super Bowl victory Tom Landry 11 12 Bill Belichick 7 7 Andy Reid 6 21 Tom Coughlin 12 12 Pete Carroll 8 8 Chuck Noll 6 6 Bill Cowher 4 14 Tony Dungy 11 11 Dick Vermeil 5 10 John Madden 8 8 Gary Kubiak 9 9 Bruce Arians 8 8 Some damn fine coaches on that list.

You throw a lot things out there with absolutely no context or awareness of what actually happened and why. You just look at point totals and make broad, sweeping judgements that aren't accurate. First of all, no one is comparing McD to Belichick. You really can't compare anyone to Belichick. The only reason that Belichick is in the conversation is that the OP was trying to make a case that any defensive head coach who called their own plays was not successful. They (Belichick, Carroll, and Tomlin) were brought up to show that the premise is incorrect. There have been defensive head coaches who called their own plays who were successful. None were meant to be direct comparisons to McD though. But since you brought up comparisons of contemporary coaches with good QBs: in recent posts, I showed that Sean Payton (who is considered a great coach, albeit offensive rather than defensive) only made one Super Bowl in 14 years with HOF QB Drew Brees. They missed the playoffs 5 times during that run too. And after winning a Super Bowl, Mike Tomlin went 13 years without another appearance with Ben Rothlisberger as his QB. In Tomlin's last 10 years, he has had 4 top 10 defensive finishes (by yards) with a 24th, 21st, and 18th place defensive finish in there too. In the last 6 years, McDermott's defense has 4 top 10 defensive rankings. So, some comparisons might be closer than you think (not quite so indisputable). Secondly, if you think "13 seconds" is one of the worst coaching blunders ever, then all I have to say is you must be very young and/or have not really watched that much football. And as others have pointed out in other threads, yards is a much better stat to judge a DC rather than points, as total points do not account for field position, defensive and special teams points, etc (as you'll see below). But you keep using points only because it fits your argument better. McDermott's defensive rankings by yards in Carolina (2011-2016) were: 28, 10, 2, 10, 6, 21. That is four top ten finishes in 6 years. Even counting the two down years, that equates to a 12.83 average placing. You do also realize that in 2010, the Carolina Panthers were the worst team in the league. So, Sean and Ron Rivera were coming into a total rebuild that first year. The Panthers drafted Cam Newton in the first round and traded away their second round pick. They didn't give the defense much help that first year. Also, Luke Kuechly wasn't drafted until 2012, so McD did not have him the first two years in Carolina. And you could also say that McD helped Kuechly become the player he was, so there's that too. McD's defense also revived Thomas Davis' career (Davis played 15 years and 5 of his 7 best seasons were under McD). What about Josh Norman? He had an All-Pro season under McD's development after being a late 5th round draft pick. As far as player development, you have to give McD some credit (Hyde, Poyer, Milano, Tre, Tauron, Dane, etc.). So, McDermott's two down years in Carolina were his first year, 2011, when he was coming into the worst team in the league at that time. And his last year, 2016. Let's look at the 2016 Panthers. They were coming off of losing the Super Bowl (SB hangover perhaps?). The team lost both starting CBs (Josh Norman---contract issue, and Charles Tillman---retirement). McDermott had to start two rookie CBs all year. The team also lost Safety Roman Harper, DT Dwan Edwards, and DE Jared Allen. He lost 3/4 of his secondary before the season started and they were not replaced with top-end players. Also, Kuechly missed 6 games that year, Newton missed 4 games, his rookie corners missed 6 games combined, Mario Addison missed 4 games, the O-line was plagued with injuries, etc. That team was decimated by injuries on top of their off-season losses. As to the Super Bowl, you do realize that the #1 Carolina offense committed 4 turnovers and only scored 10 points right? One turnover was a sack-strip fumble by Newton that was returned by Denver for a TD (do those 7 points go against McD's defense?). Another turnover was a second sack-strip fumble that Denver recovered on Carolina's 4-yard line. The Panthers special teams also gave up a 61-yard punt return. So, for 18 of Denver's 24 points, the Broncos offense needed to gain a total of 18 yards. But no, you're right, it was all McDermott's fault, choking in the post season again. Basically, McD's defense gave up 6 points and the Carolina offense and special teams gave up 18 points. Do you see why point total is not the best stat to use when looking at a defense? Also, in the previous game, the NFC Championship, Carolina held Arizona to 15 points. Besides, since 1990, 26 of 34 Super Bowl winning teams scored 24 points or more. In the last 10 years, only 1 Super Bowl winning team was held under 23 points. So, 24 points isn't some massive defensive failure, when going up against playoff/Super Bowl caliber teams, even if the points had all been on the defense. And guess what, in that 2013 playoff loss, the Panther's offense also only scored 10 points. Newton had two interceptions and the Panthers turned the ball over on downs once. In the 2014 playoffs, the Panthers held Arizona to 16 points in the Wild Card round, then lost to Seattle 31-17. The first three offensive possessions for the Panthers in the first half of that game were a punt, a Newton interception near mid-field, and then a Newton fumble on their own 28-yard line. Carolina's first three possessions of the 2nd half were a punt, punt, Newton interception returned 90 yards for a TD. Hardly seems like you can put that game on the defense either. You always need context when looking at stats. McDermott's time in Carolina was actually very successful, proven by him being a top HC candidate in 2017---because the people who hire head coaches obviously look a lot deeper than points against.

Yes, it appears that Tomlin created the defensive gameplans and called his own plays for at least 2015-2021, possibly a few years prior to that also (2012/3-2014) if the previous Pittsburgh DC is to be believed. And even as the new DC took over last year, the reports were that it was believed that the new DC would call most of the plays. So... https://www.steelernation.com/steelers-mike-tomlin-relinquish https://steelersdepot.com/2022/01/mike-tomlin-called-plays-during-final-years-of-dick-lebeau-era-says-keith-butler/ https://sports.yahoo.com/controlling-steelers-defense-nothing-hc-185211010.html Similar to Reid in KC (and others) with offense, I think there have been many defensive head coaches who have had a "Coordinator" in title, but were really the one controlling the defense. I think this sometimes gets confused for two reasons, 1. There is a stigma amongst some media and fans that it is too much for a Head Coach to also take on coordinator duties, and 2. it is a courtesy to the "named" coordinator to not say they aren't actually in full charge (for future opportunities, pride, etc.). So, it isn't something that you necessarily advertise. But, when you promote young guys from within (like Tomlin has), it's usually because they are there to run your defense. A guy like Leslie Frasier is different. He has been a DC and HC before. It is a much bigger pride/ego issue to not let him call the defense (be in charge in a way). Similar to Mike Tomlin inheriting Dick LeBeau. It appears that LeBeau called the defense early on in their time together, but at some point Tomlin took over the play calling duties (LeBeau's last couple of years). Then LeBeau leaves for Tennessee and Tomlin twice promotes from within, but obviously he had full control of the defense. McDermott just doesn't have someone titled "defensive coordinator" on staff now, but I suspect that "Senior Defensive Assistant" Al Holcomb will fill a similar role as DCs whose defensive head coach is really running the show. And at least with McDermott making it clear that he is in charge and calling plays, there will be no confusion or rumors or whatever. Everyone knows the defense...and the whole team, rests squarely on his shoulders.

The same thing that these three do (or have): Bill Belichick, Pete Carroll, Mike Tomlin...

He had 14 seasons in New Orleans with one of the greatest QBs ever (Drew Brees). He did win a Super Bowl of course, but he also missed the playoffs 5 times (with Brees as his QB) and his playoff record was 9-8 with Drew. And you want a comparison to McDermott? How about New Orleans losing in the divisional round of the 2017-18 playoffs on the last play of the game (the Minnesota Miracle) and then losing again the following year to the Rams in OT. New Orleans led on the scoreboard the entire game, until the Rams tied it up with a field goal with 15 seconds left in the game. The Rams went on to win the game in OT. [And both of those seasons, NO was probably most people's favorite to at least represent the NFC in the SB, if not win it.] Not sure why those things get forgiven for other coaches (Payton, Reid, etc.) but not McD. Doesn't mean Sean Payton is overrated or not a great coach, but it does point out that even a very good coach with an elite QB doesn't just waltz into the Super Bowl every year. Only one Super Bowl appearance in 14 years with an all-time, HOF QB.