Another team angle related to Josh’s play...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I don't disagree there were spots where the D could have executed better. 

 

Nor was my argument about the personnel compared to the Seattle game. It was about the personnel to play a team like KC.If the Bills had played the Seattle defensive gameplan against KC it would not have gone well. Different teams need different plans.

 

OK, we have points of agreement.  Though I believe Frazier pretty much said that they reviewed the KC game and learned and implemented some changed approaches against Seattle based on what they learned, in this weeks presser.

 

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

But the KC loss was on the offense. The defensive plan was fine and while they could have executed better in spots

 

I think you need to distinguish between the plan and the execution.  And no, sorry, when the defensive execution is giving up as many third and longs and rush yards as we did that's 1) not part of the plan 2) as we agree, demonstrates poor exection

 

Where we seem to have a divergence, is that when a unit does not execute a plan well - they do NOT get a pass.    The loss is on them for not executing, as much as on the offense for not executing.

 

It was a team loss.

 

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

the Bills knew when they put thar plan out there they were going to get run on. They wanted KC to run on them. They were practically begging them to. 

 

Surely.  Just not to the extent that they did, giving up as many long runs and allowing as many 3rd down conversions especially long third down conversions.   You do that against a good team, you lose.  And sorry, D, when you do that, a good-size share of the blame for the loss is on you

 

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

The offensive gameplan meanwhile was incoherent and confused and while they did make some changes at half it was too little too late. Coupled with some ordinary execution that is why we lost. Every loss is a "team loss" but this is as close as you get to a game you have to put on the offense.

 

Well, I disagree here.  I don't think the offensive gameplan was "incoherent".  I think we were having trouble executing an offensive game plan that was not intrinsically unreasonable.  Guys were getting open.  Part of that was on Josh - he had a number of throws that were just off.  Jim Kubiak's TBN breakdown does a good job of pointing these out, as well as pointing out the times when receivers didn't make a catch they could have made or Josh tried to run instead of throwing into the blitz to a hot receiver.

 

But these aren't signs of an "incoherent" game plan, they're problems of execution.

 

 

[BillsFan619]

15 hours ago, MJS said:

"Playing not to lose" is the appropriate approach sometimes.

 

We can't be so rigid. Being too aggressive when you really should drop into coverage will burn you. Each game and each down of football requires a unique approach.

 

I do like it when our defense is aggressive, but there are times (like earlier in the year when we blitzed Fitz over and over and he picked apart the defense) that I want to bleeding to stop and the defense to change their approach. I feel like the team needs to be very nimble. One aggressive approach will not get it done.

I agree with you that there are different approaches and strategies that you have to take to win. It’s a week to week, matchup to matchup league.

 

That said, you can’t play not to lose. There’s a difference between playing wisely and playing not to lose. Playing not to lose changes a team’s mentality way too much. It’s too passive of an approach and it’s just isn’t going to win you many ballgames.

Edited November 14, 2020 by BillsFan619

[machine gun kelly]

19 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

Wallace, Norman, White, Milano, Edmunds, one of our safety duo, plus a bunch of rotational players and backups on the D have been out or playing injured for a long period of time, the game plans were adjusted because of that, also consider our QB, John Brown, and multiple O lineman were out or playing injured, and we still went 2-2 during that period, so.... what the hell were you expecting to happen?

 

Go Bills!!!

Don and Eball, I think you’re both right.  I do see McD having confidence in our offense to stand toe to toe with anyone, and Don, we were ravaged with injuries mostly on defense, but when you add Brown and Feliciano, that’s rough.  For the record, E-man, I don’t mind another Allen thread from a true Bills fan.

[MJS]

7 hours ago, BillsFan619 said:

I agree with you that there are different approaches and strategies that you have to take to win. It’s a week to week, matchup to matchup league.

 

That said, you can’t play not to lose. There’s a difference between playing wisely and playing not to lose. Playing not to lose changes a team’s mentality way too much. It’s too passive of an approach and it’s just isn’t going to win you many ballgames.

I disagree. McDermott has gotten conservative to hold onto leads plenty of times and the team usually DOES win those games.

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, MJS said:

I disagree. McDermott has gotten conservative to hold onto leads plenty of times and the team usually DOES win those games.

 

18-10 in one score games. He gets it right a lot more than he gets it wrong

[GunnerBill]

16 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, we have points of agreement.  Though I believe Frazier pretty much said that they reviewed the KC game and learned and implemented some changed approaches against Seattle based on what they learned, in this weeks presser.

 

 

I think you need to distinguish between the plan and the execution.  And no, sorry, when the defensive execution is giving up as many third and longs and rush yards as we did that's 1) not part of the plan 2) as we agree, demonstrates poor exection

 

Where we seem to have a divergence, is that when a unit does not execute a plan well - they do NOT get a pass.    The loss is on them for not executing, as much as on the offense for not executing.

 

It was a team loss.

 

 

Surely.  Just not to the extent that they did, giving up as many long runs and allowing as many 3rd down conversions especially long third down conversions.   You do that against a good team, you lose.  And sorry, D, when you do that, a good-size share of the blame for the loss is on you

 

 

Well, I disagree here.  I don't think the offensive gameplan was "incoherent".  I think we were having trouble executing an offensive game plan that was not intrinsically unreasonable.  Guys were getting open.  Part of that was on Josh - he had a number of throws that were just off.  Jim Kubiak's TBN breakdown does a good job of pointing these out, as well as pointing out the times when receivers didn't make a catch they could have made or Josh tried to run instead of throwing into the blitz to a hot receiver.

 

But these aren't signs of an "incoherent" game plan, they're problems of execution.

 

 

 

I can't see the BN these days cos of GDPR. The incoherence was running deep routes against a team playing cover 2 soft zone. There were times in the first half of the game where we sent 4 receivers deep. They adjusted 2nd half and started to feed Beasley underneath more. Was too little too late. Yes, Josh made some bad reads and some bad decisions, he didn't play well that night, but he was not put in the best position to succeed by the plan - especially first half. 

 

You have failed to convince me that by far the biggest factor in the loss was not the offensive plan. And I say that as a Daboll defender for the most part. He got it wrong against KC.

[TigerJ]

McDermott, having come from a defensive background naturally has some conservative DNA.  I agree that he recognized the threat posed by Seattle's offense last week, and felt he had no choice but to take risks on defense, as well as pursue a relatively radical (almost pass only) offense.  I suspect that against a certain kind of opponent we would see him gravitate back toward balance both offensively and defensively.

[BADOLBILZ]

On 11/13/2020 at 7:43 AM, eball said:

Yes, it’s a Josh Allen thread.  Sort of.  Deal with it.

 

So until last week the Bills’ defense has been decidedly mediocre, and in some instances just plain bad.  They’ve had key injuries, sure, but the game plan against KC made me want to vomit.  I think we saw a turning point with the defense, however, that I believe is in large part due to McD’s and Frazier’s confidence in the offense.  The Bills’ D played with a risky, go-for-broke mentality against Seattle we have not seen previously.  Did they play that way last season?  Hell no they didn’t; they essentially played Jauron-ball (like they did against KC).  I think McD now trusts Josh and Daboll to put points on the board against anyone, and if the D happens to get burned on a play or series the mentality is now “we’ll get it back” and they’re going to keep putting the pressure on opposing offenses.  I will be watching the defensive game plans very closely from here on out.

 

 

I literally took a ration of abuse from you for predicting that the 2017 Bills were going to play Jauron Ball instead of tanking...............and now you are saying they've played too much Jauron-ball for you.

 

Classic TSW.

 

You guys are lucky I still keep calling it like it's going to be for ya'. (this is where I put the emoji that I use to "pretend" that I have it in the proper perspective).

 

On a serious note.........yes I think that trusting the offense will score should help the defensive staff be more aggressive...........getting John Brown back in the action and Gabe Davis having his breakout game were big too and hopefully the arrow is pointing up on their production from here on out..........if so that is huge for Allen.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

43 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I can't see the BN these days cos of GDPR. The incoherence was running deep routes against a team playing cover 2 soft zone. There were times in the first half of the game where we sent 4 receivers deep. They adjusted 2nd half and started to feed Beasley underneath more. Was too little too late. Yes, Josh made some bad reads and some bad decisions, he didn't play well that night, but he was not put in the best position to succeed by the plan - especially first half. 

 

You have failed to convince me that by far the biggest factor in the loss was not the offensive plan. And I say that as a Daboll defender for the most part. He got it wrong against KC.

 

You know, you could pay $1 a month and read TBN.  You could also look at various write ups here on Kubiak's stuff.  The evidence was offered, if you don't follow up and just reiterate your viewpoint, it's really not my or anyone's job to "make you look" and convince you.  In fact, it's kind of "on you" to offer superior countering evidence.

 

You could also check out this post-game breakdown from Cover1 which does a good job of explaining what was there and what was missed.  He is focused on breaking down Josh as a passer but the fact is, there were run plays to be had as well and we didn't execute there either. 

 

There will always be plays in a game that the guy calling it thinks are a "good idea" that turn out not to be, such as the 4 WR deep play.  There's undoubtedly something Daboll was trying to achieve with that play in the Football Chess Game.

 

The fact is, there were open guys in the first half and the first several possessions and we just whiffed on our shots. Allen was 3-for-10 in the 1Q, and it's not because the throws weren't there to be made.  First 3 plays: Beasley open.  Allen missed.  Brown open.  Allen missed.  Good throw to Brown: Brown didn't catch it.  Shot downfield to Brown that was well-defensed - it happens.  Blitz where Allen scrambled instead of throwing into the blitz at Singletary, who appeared to be so wide open he could have scored.  In the 2Q, Allen was 3-6.  He made a good audible against Blitz 0 and only a PI saved the TD to Diggs.  We scored.

 

The plays were there, the opportunities were there, we didn't execute as much as we needed to when there were opportunities. 

 

It's not that the offense doesn't bear some blame, but that is NOT the sign of an "incoherent game plan" and repeating that claim won't make it so.

 

Again, I'm not trying to put it all on the defense for the loss.  My point is that it was a total team loss.  Both sides of the ball had game plans that gave them a realistic chance to win.  Both sides of the ball just failed to execute well enough.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You know, you could pay $1 a month and read TBN.  You could also look at various write ups here on Kubiak's stuff.  The evidence was offered, if you don't follow up and just reiterate your viewpoint, it's really not my or anyone's job to "make you look" and convince you.  In fact, it's kind of "on you" to offer superior countering evidence.

 

You could also check out this post-game breakdown from Cover1 which does a good job of explaining what was there and what was missed.

 

There will always be plays in a game that the guy calling it thinks are a "good idea" that turn out not to be, such as the 4 WR deep play.  There's undoubtedly something Daboll was trying to achieve with it in the Football Chess Game.

 

The fact is, there were open guys in the first half and the first several possessions and we just whiffed on our shots. Allen was 3-for-10 in the 1Q, and it's not because the throws weren't there to be made.  First 3 plays: Beasley open.  Allen missed.  Brown open.  Allen missed.  Good throw to Brown: Brown didn't catch it.  Shot downfield to Brown that was well-defensed - it happens.  Blitz where Allen scrambled instead of throwing into the blitz at Singletary, who appeared to be so wide open he could have scored.  In the 2Q, Allen was 3-6.  He made a good audible against Blitz 0 and only a PI saved the TD to Diggs.  We scored.

 

The plays were there, the opportunities were there, we didn't execute as much as we needed to when there were opportunities. 

 

That is NOT the sign of an "incoherent game plan" and repeating that claim won't make it so.

 

 

 

I still disagree with you and I have watched Cover 1's breakdown of the game. The offensive gameplan especially the 1st half was playing into KC. You can think different if you like. I think you are wrong. 

 

And I can't pay $1 and sign up to the BN. It is blocked because of GDPR.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I still disagree with you and I have watched Cover 1's breakdown of the game. The offensive gameplan especially the 1st half was playing into KC. You can think different if you like. I think you are wrong. 

 

Riiiiight.  What's up with the wide open WR that Allen missed?   The wide open checkdown to Singletary where Allen pulled the trigger? 

 

You're not offering any reasoning or discussion, just "I'm right you're wrong the gameplan was incoherent" - an incoherent game plan that had guys open and plays available to be made that were missed. 

 

I'm outta here, just pointing out that "you are wrong" when evidence is offered and not effectively countered is not a very strong look.

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Riiiiight.  What's up with the wide open WR that Allen missed?   The wide open checkdown to Singletary where Allen pulled the trigger? 

 

You're not offering any reasoning or discussion, just "I'm right you're wrong the gameplan was incoherent" - an incoherent game plan that had guys open and plays available to be made that were missed. 

 

I'm outta here, just pointing out that "you are wrong" when evidence is offered and not effectively countered is not a very strong look.

 

 

I have given my explanation. At least twice in this thread. You countered it with "yea there were some plays there though that they missed on." Agreed. There were. But that doesn't change the fact that attacking a defense that is largely keeping two safeties deep and playing zone on the outside by trying to go into their teeth running 4 receivers past the sticks multiple times is not what I would consider a good plan. It played into the strength of what KC was doing. 

[MJS]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

18-10 in one score games. He gets it right a lot more than he gets it wrong

And he has only lost one game when they lead at halftime (although that was a big one. The playoff game).

[aristocrat]

Whatever adjustment edmunds made is what made the defense work. Guy was everywhere. Is he feeling better or just a different plan?  If he plays like that here on out our defense will be legit.  
 

Look at the years Seattle had one of the best defense ever and played the pats. They were holding other teams to like 12 points but the pats put up 28.  You’re not gonna hold Seattle’s offense to under 25 points and expect to win 

[BADOLBILZ]

6 minutes ago, MJS said:

And he has only lost one game when they lead at halftime (although that was a big one. The playoff game).

 

 

Yep and it's a concern when a coach gets off to a playoff start that's different than his MO.

 

Marty Schottenheimer didn't blow leads in the regular season either............but once he got that rep in the playoffs it took on a life of its own.

 

One of the reasons why I've been confident in Josh Allen developing is that early on in his career he was able to win some games in the 4th quarter..........they weren't necessarily spectacular but it got that signficant psychological barrier out of his path.   

 

[BillsFan619]

3 hours ago, MJS said:

I disagree. McDermott has gotten conservative to hold onto leads plenty of times and the team usually DOES win those games.

I see where you’re coming from. If the situation in a game rightly called for McD to be a bit conservative, that’s fine with me. I guess I would call that playing wisely though, not playing not to lose.

 

We may be saying similar things, just calling it something different. Playing not to lose is a mindset you just don’t want to teach your players to have and falls into a different category, in my opinion.

 

Appreciate the back and forth, MJS.

Edited November 14, 2020 by BillsFan619

[eball]

12 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I literally took a ration of abuse from you for predicting that the 2017 Bills were going to play Jauron Ball instead of tanking...............and now you are saying they've played too much Jauron-ball for you.

 

Can you read? I said last year - as in 2019. 

[DCbillsfan]

On 11/13/2020 at 8:09 AM, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

 

To a certain extent I think McD is unlearning habits from his first couple years as HC when the Bills had a lot of heart but a remarkably untalented roster.  We were 15-17 in those two seasons and probably had a talent edge in 5 of those games.  It was very impressive but I think he learned to "stay off the freeway" in order to win and is just now realizing that we're now one of the talented teams. 

 

Probably the most furious I've been about a coaching decision is when he punted with 3 minutes left in OT in the Indy snow game when tying essentially meant missing the playoffs.  I'll be happy when the propensity for that kind of thing is completely scrubbed and I do believe he's getting there.

I agree.  Allen keeps improving and I believe McD is learning to trust his offense more.  He has a better roster now and I believe he's trying to shed his conservative ways.