2020 Our Year For Sure

I've addressed your point about Spikes.

It's the same defense that was very good last year. "But Brandon Spikes" That's like supporting Nate Hackett on the basis that he didn't have a fullback to work with. If he wanted a fullback, he'd have had a fullback. One-dimensional run stuffing linebackers who are a liability in coverage are role/fringe players in today's NFL. Brandon Spikes was not highly sought after before the Bills got him, nor after. If we didn't have a one-dimensional run stuffing MLB who is a liability in coverage its because the coaches didn't think it would help them.

I signed Lane Johnson in Madden, and the game encouraged me to put him at LT and Glenn at RT. Glenn was rated the same on both sides while Johnson improved slightly on the left. Irrelevant but it gets a fella to thinking I don't know much about Johnson although I remember his tremendous athleticism from the draft. Do you think he's capable of playing left tackle at a high level? I'm wondering if the Bills could make the case that Philly decided to have two left tackles, and paid accordingly, and if that could help in negotiations with Glenn in any significant way. edit- I see you answered this already, lol

I thought just that.

I think Barbarous is saying Tyrod leaves the pocket too soon too often, valid critique imo. He may well improve it though, seems to have an excellent feel for the rush without looking away from the WRs. just needs to get more comfortable stepping forward rather than scrambling.

Indeed we lost in Washington because the defense flat out quit, in a way the same players never did under gailey or marrone.

Thanks for the help on Darby- I don't know one way or another but at least that's a mechanism for Darby's life being more difficult which makes logical sense. I think Darby is a slightly better corner today but this is mostly a subjective view. I think it was K-9 who earlier in this thread painted Gilmore's title quote as a negotiating ploy. I hope that Mr. 9 is correct. I don't see any extenuating circumstances over Gilmore's time in Buffalo that would lead me to pay him a dime on prospect. While I applauded your earlier point that everyone gets beat (that gets forgotten at more positions than just corner), and while I see him as a quality corner and a piece of some value, he isn't in the ballpark of a Sherman or Peterson imo, so I can't see paying him as such. It's a long offseason and I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to talk offense in a more appropriate thread, so I'll try (really I will!) to be brief here. I think if you want to get more production out of the passing game, the answer is simply to throw the football more. We were 31st in pass attempts, 28th in passing yards, yet tied for 6th in yards per pass play. Watkins was underused- capable of more than his final stat line. There may not be a human being alive today who can cover Sammy Watkins. The Chiefs game is a clear example: in the first half he catches 6 for 158 and 2 TDs, almost singlehandedly lifting the Bills to a 16-14 halftime lead on the road over an eventual playoff team. In the second half he gets 1 target for 0 catches, and the Bills lose 30-22. If you want more production just throw it more. Charles Clay, matchup nightmare for safeties and linebackers, capable of more than we got from him. Ditto for Lesean McCoy's role in the passing game. There are only so many balls to go around when you're 31st in pass attempts. I do not expect that 31st mark to drastically change under Rex and Roman. This is the philosophy they have separately used for the entirety of their careers. Its the reason they see eye to eye and joined together in Buffalo. Running as much as possible is simply the way they go about winning a football game and its not going anywhere. I don't know how much difference it makes to have 4 matchup nightmares rather than 3, when we were efficient this year but still chose not to pass the ball. However, I look at our ranking of 19th in 3rd down percentage. I think of all the times on 3rd down and 1 or 2 to go, we ended up heaving incomplete fly routes and punting. And I have to think if you were to plug in Roman's old line from SF, you're going to see an appreciably more efficient offense, one which can dominate opponents and stay on the field. One which can run the ball in short yardage, or on 1st down, or in the red zone. If we're going to ground and pound, lets build the corresponding roster, is my thought. Winning by running the ball in a passing league is already an uphill battle, so lets come prepared for it. Go Bills edit- I agree with your words about Taylor, but this is not in the hands of the GM.

He certainly had his moments where he was taking people's heads off in the run game, I would say he flashed the ability to be potent in this area. I think however you may be overestimating his polish and consistency in the ground game at this early stage.

The Bills in a dome feels very wrong to me.

I don't see how Gilmore being absent from the field would cause Darby's play to drop. Did Darby just get super bummed out that his mentor was away? My understanding is the Bills line their corners up consistently on a given side of the field, and have 'em cover whatever receiver happens to line up across from them. They don't play the matchup game. People seem to be thinking with Gilmore out, Darby's life would be more difficult having to deal with #1 WRs. On the contrary, his life was probably easier, as teams looked to target Malcolm Butler or whoever, and lined up accordingly. I think Gilmore is really good (and good players at key positions win games). I do think Darby was even better this season. If we're talking about who's elite, to me Darby is closer. But it doesn't matter. When you build a team you give your coaches the pieces that will make them better. On offense, linemen are the only thing that will make Roman better in an appreciable way. On defense, Rex is a disaster when he doesn't have multiple press cover corners. He needs front 7 help too, but it'll hardly matter if we can't cover man to man.

And the best receiver we've had in twenty years involves his agent and goes public with his frustration, in a failed attempt to get targeted appropriately.

Happy birthday buddy

Yeah RT is also a much more dire need. We're likely about to pay Tyrod 15-20 million per season, which will also have an impact on the defense. Wood makes over 6 million, has 2 years on his deal and isn't an ideal fit for what we do. It's when Roman has a drive blocking O-line that he's at his most dangerous. Well worth considering in the middle rounds, where you're highly unlikely to net a day one defensive starter anyway. I'll hang up and listen so we can eventually get back to bandit giving us the skinny.

I've imagined skipping to 2017 with a new coaching staff a number of times now. glad to see I'm not the only one.

I'm not talking about drafting a center for the sole purpose of upgrading the backup spot on the depth chart, of course. I fully agree Urbik is a strong backup who likely would start on a number of teams. However, he's not an ideal fit as a starting center in an offense like this. Genuine question GB, how much longer do you expect Eric Wood to be the starting center of this team? He profiles perfectly to mentor a young player. Center is a position that typically requires a year or two or three before you get high-level play from a draftee. I think the time is now to hunt for a true power run center, while we still know Wood has a year or two left in Buffalo. The OL is the lifeblood of the offense now, I say handle it with care.

I remember reading All-22 recaps early in the season that showed Tyrod failed to see and throw the ball to receivers in the middle of the field, compared to the work he'd do on the boundaries. How much of that deficiency is Roman vs Tyrod I do not know, but just as Taylor taketh away, so too does he giveth. How many third downs did he pick up with a scramble or after buying time? Surely a number of third and longs we were unlikely to gain otherwise. I tried but failed to find the numbers particularly on third and short...that was where we seemed to have the most struggles by my recollection and it's more directly tied to OL play. Even total third downs though, I have to think if you were to plug in road graders at those three O-line positions, a guy like Roman would do appreciably better than 19th. Do you think Wood and Urbik being less than ideal fits as drive blockers may have had an effect? I believe Urbik played more this year than Miller? I was referencing #60, as Miller's pass pro kept him off the field for us at times, and I was talking about how different linemen could have made us better in '15. But JM looks like a good prospect to me and is the type of lineman I think this coaching staff will target more going forward. Whether he's ready to replace Urbik and make our line more imposing as soon as 2016 is up in the air, but I'm good with wait and see there.

Yet we're not W I N N I N G. Maybe being 19th in third down percentage had something to do with that? Roman can deliver a championship calibre offense if you give him the hogs up front. He can use a great line to dominate and exhaust his opponent like nobody else in pro football. This past season's starting center, RG and RT have never been outstanding run blockers. With a coordinator like Roman this will inevitably have an impact on wins and losses.

There was absolutely an element of conscious game management here. We were huddling the entire possession, not something you do by accident. Further, we handled the situation the same way week 16 that we did week 1. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201509130buf.htm Every play that ends with a tackle in bounds, we're siphoning off big chunks of clock. We take over with 2:42 remaining in the 1st half, immediately complete an 8-yard pass to the 50 yard line and run it to the 2-minute warning. Very questionable, not egregious. Tyrod eventually runs for 31 yards out of bounds, then a holding penalty gives us 1st & 20 from the IND 31, clock stopped at 1:03. At this point, the clear first priority should be scoring a touchdown. The second priority is taking time off the clock before scoring a touchdown, so the opponent can't respond. However, priority 2 should never interfere with priority 1. I don't doubt any coach in the league would tell us he'd happily give the other team 30-40 seconds and deal with that, if it means our side gets a touchdown first. So the correct play is to intentionally run clock only when you're certain it won't cost you offensive snaps, and won't limit your playbook. We don't run clock if it lowers our odds of scoring a touchdown. Tyrod runs for 5 yards on the next play, and the clock goes from 1:03 to 26 seconds. From 1:03 to :26 on the opponent's 26 yard line. This is the part that is egregious. The next play is 2nd & 15 and we're running out of time, so we give up and hand it to the running back. Good offense bails out poor management, and Karlos Williams runs for a 26 yard touchdown. I know I don't have to explain to you why that one favorable result does not make poor management okay. In week 16, we get a clear illustration of why this is the wrong approach to this game situation. This is not only about offense, its about game management.

I don't know if the Bills line is below average, average, above average. I do know that, like many things, it could be better. I was at the Ralph the day we played the Giants. Lesean McCoy didn't play, and Karlos Williams carried it 18 times to the tune of 40 yards rushing and 2.2 per carry. I watched our offensive front get blown off the line of scrimmage repeatedly for 60 minutes by a defense that finished #32 in ypg. At some point a thought occurred...if we had come into that game loaded with Brandon Moore and Nick Mangold from their prime, might we have scored more than 10 points? Not something we could have realistically achieved of course. But in building our team moving forward...? Roman's passion is in finding creative ways to run the ball. We do it all, inside, outside, zone, power, etc. He is somewhat less creative in the passing game. However the Bills have a tradition of great rushing offenses that goes back a very long time, and we had that again when McCoy was on the field this year. It can't be overstated. Our philosophy is to use our varied formations and blocking schemes to run the ball the very most that gaining first downs will allow us to run it, and minimize passing attempts. 15-20 passes seems to be where that lands us on a good day. In and of itself, all this is fine. Tyrod is talented and smart but still has his limitations. Sometimes it seems as if he'll go a half of a game without once dropping back 1-2-3 and releasing on time. He's pretty good all things considered though, and we hope he can develop. But even if Tyrod can't do that and we have to move on, the next guy in line is not going to be Joe Montana. He's going to have his own set of limitations, and our strategy to compensate for those limitations will be the run-heavy philosophy above. I ask you. If we're going to try to win games by running the ball about as much as anyone...with as complex a run game as anyone...and of course we want to be one of the BEST teams...does it not stand to reason that we should get as close to the best offensive line in football as we possibly can? Rex had his success as a head coach, Roman as a coordinator not with a maybe-above-average offensive line. They lined up and drove people back from the point of attack week in and week out. I think we should work toward making the right side of our line as good as the left side, and try to find a gem of a center to draft too. Urbik isn't a 'bad' player. I'd bet he could start for more than half the teams in the league at one of his three positions. But he could not start for either of those lines in my estimation. And since that time, it's only gotten more difficult to win games by running the ball.

something that comes to mind in reading your post. if you'll humor me... scenario: you're winning by 2 points with say 1:45 left in the game. opponent has one timeout. you have possession on your own 30, facing 3rd & 6. you can throw to try to get the game-winning first down, or you can run and take your opponent's final timeout away but (most likely) punt the ball, giving your opponent a chance with a minute and a half left. Is this an offensive call? Or is it a tactical, strategic decision? What qualifies an offensive coordinator to make such a monumental game management decision? It has little to do with X's and O's, and far more to do with what type of team do you want to be? What is your identity? Which risk do you prefer to take? To me, this is a Head Coach's jurisdiction. Adapting to and managing game situations is his responsibility. If he wants to go ahead and pass the decision making baton to someone else that's fine. But you don't get to slide off the hook, to me anyway, just because you passed off your duties.

We've seen the Bills run the no-huddle before under Rex and Roman. It is disjointed but it is functional. The fact that they weren't in the no-huddle this time, and the overall snail's pace of the offense, seems indicative that running clock was part of their tactical approach to the situation. We can hardly get on Taylor for not revolting against his coaches, even if they do stink.

If you're a quarterback are you more relaxed with a) a running clock that is down to 8 seconds, or b) a stopped clock at 40 seconds? Just an example out of thin air. Tyrod erred but the coaches by running the clock out on their own team put him in a position where he was more likely to do so.

They were not- I remember only because I was yelling about it. Well someone has to take control, no? If you were a coach who's been in the league for decades and you see that your run-oriented OC and inexperienced quarterback are hemorrhaging time, would you have stood there and cost your team a touchdown, or taken a timeout? Or said, "gee Greg, maybe we shouldn't be running the clock out on ourselves." ?

Belichick* Any competent coach would've had his team in the no huddle to give their team multiple snaps with the whole playbook open rather than one heave. welcome

If he were coached by Belichick* I have no doubt he'd have done just that- and the team would've been in no-huddle rather than running the clock out on themselves.