The Big Cat

Whose list?

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/191668-bills-interviewing-olson-for-oc-on-thursday;-childress-out/page-32?do=findComment&comment=4224228

...and that the Rams and the Jets were consistently worse. YET WE STILL MANAGED TO FIND A WAY TO DROP TWO...TWO!!!...GAMES TO THE JETS!!

My takeaway: The Falcons and Pats* were the only teams in the NFL definitively better than their competition on a consistent basis.

If you were basing this on what's broadcasted, sure.

His primary failure was bringing in his brother. I know this for a fact. Will happily respond to a PM.

Right, it's the offense's job to score points, so when it scores 7 points in 28 minutes of football, having only run 25 plays during that time over 7 drives, then you'd agree that it didn't do its job, like it didn't during the entire second half against Miami: Or like when it completely disappeared for the last 24 minutes of the Oakland game: I'm glad that we agree in both these cases the offense did not do its job. You won't convince me otherwise. Save your strength for arguments that matter.

Your impression is wrong. BAL: offense's fault NYJ1: defense's fault MIA1: offense's fault SEA/NE2: nobody's fault, just out played (though we were 8 yards from the endzone to win at the end of SEA...) OAK: shared blame. defense let them back in, offense couldn't protect the lead and keep Carr off the field PIT: they both sucked MIA: defense's fault NYJ2: not going there I've defended each of these stances countless times. IMO, when games were on the line and we needed the offense to come up big, they consistently failed (and have with TT as the QB for two seasons now).

I'm not doing either of those things.

Raheem Morris, AHC/WR's, Atlanta.

Then you're missing the point. The point was that the offense wasn't good enough to win. You have to keep pace in the NFL nowadays and ours wasn't built nor called to do so. It was meant to complement a good defense. Without that it failed. 9 times we allowed 20+ points. Look at the rest of the AFC playoff teams: KC: 6 MIA: 12 HOU: 11 PIT: 9 NE: 5 OAK: 13 The difference between our team and those teams was we couldn't keep pace.

I'm not sure why you're resisting the point. Perhaps you've lost track of it?

If ifs and buts were nickels and nuts every day would be Christmas.

The OC must be lined up. Leads me to believe Olson is interviewing for QB's. Who the !@#$ knows.

It was an issue with virtually everyone.

For reference, AFC playoff teams when opponents scored 20 or more in 2016: KC: 5-1 https://goo.gl/DSlLpV MIA: 7-5 https://goo.gl/PBTlNm HOU: 4-7 https://goo.gl/6vGvJl PIT: 4-5 https://goo.gl/6vGvJl NE: 4-1 https://goo.gl/ubLr64 OAK: 9-4 https://goo.gl/ubLr64

a pro set is literally two backs in the backfield. what did you mean when you asked about pro set?

Oh, the likelihood of the offense taking a step back is stupendously high, mostly because of uncertainty at QB. But make no mistake, said step back will be seriously overstated because it will be coming from the assumption that the 2016 was good enough to win. 1-8 when your opponent scores 20 points or more suggests that they were not. 0-4 when the opponent score more than 30 1-3 when the opponent scored between 20 and 30 So again, clinging to those rankings and waving them as evidence that the offense was good in 2016 is dishonest. And even though it won't matter, people will be PISSED that we don't match those rankings next year.

Right, but the other trend there is QB's who couldn't find it in them to turn it around even after he left. Freeman? Wasn't he out of the league shortly thereafter? Bortles? It's not secret that he did virtually no work in the offseason before this year. It's why his mechanics completely went to **** and likely why he looked like he was discovering football for the first time every time he dropped back. Making assumptions about a guy's ability to coach an offense when we're pointing to how productive he was with Freeman, Bortles and Pryor leading the charge strikes me as questionable, at best. To make matters worse, none of us can be confident that won't happen here...since we don't have a clue who the QB will be. So, again, that anyone has made up their mind about this guy or any OC candidate at this point is incomprehensible to me. Um. That is my point. Seems your toggle switch is stuck at "disagree."

Still looking for that link? Insults? Hmm. Also, I find it curious that in all of this I'm the one with one note to play. Is there anything in particular you'd rather I clarify in this thread? I am 100% vindicated in what I said then about Dick Jauron and the putrid talent he had on both sides of the ball to work with. That the man even made it to 7-9 is beyond miraculous. Players make plays. Would you prefer I link to the abominations we called rosters in those days?

Players make plays and we don't have the most important player. You're damn right I'm consistent.

We ran mostly pro set under GRo. And with dual threats at RB and with a re-engaged Felton, it complements our personnel. From what Sal tweeted earlier today, Olson is adaptable in his scheme, so I'm not sure why we're worried about what he's run elsewhere. I don't profess to know what will or won't work. And I'm calling BS on everybody who does namely because we have no f'ing clue who the QB will be. The only preference I have for any kind of coaching is a guy who is not married to his scheme. For me, this is more important to the offense than the defense because of how personnel can change week to week. All I care about is we have a guy who makes the opposing defense account for Watkins, Clay and Shady on every play. And I want a quarterback who can read and distribute the ball on time and to a spot.

Our first-time HC has garnered praise for surrounding himself with seeking experienced assistants. If that is indeed is strategy, I don't think this scenario is feasible, though I'm not opposed to it.

Your self-ascribed expertise does not deter my skepticism. Especially when you want to argue that QB rating tells you everything you need to know about a passing offense. Where can I clarify?

Also inflated by not throwing INT's. Throwing only 7 INT's is great. Throwing only 7 INT's when you also only throw 17 TD's is a whole lotta bleeeeeeeeeeeeh.