Mitch Morse will start at Center

[Doc]

Just now, YattaOkasan said:

I’m confused too. Does he think Morse shouldn’t start or is it some narrative about that McDermott benched him and he doesn’t agree with that (not clear at that is what happened). 

Well it’s neither of those two things I mentioned, which is usually the reason he doesn’t like a Bills player, so you’ll have to ask him. I believe it’s because he doesn’t like Beane and/or thinks he overpaid him.  Although what that has to do with needing to be benched is anyone’s guess. 

[folz]

I'm just speculating like everyone else here, but...

 

I think that Morse is a very good center, but he isn't the stoutest at the point of attack. So, when he went down, they got to see Feliciano at center. Obviously he is more of a mauler and a bigger dude (he's two inches shorter than Mitch, but 20 pounds heavier). So, maybe they just wanted to give the combination with Feliciano one more week (as an experiment) to see if it helped the running game. If it did, maybe they would have kept running with it. But, it didn't seem to achieve that goal or they realized that any small advantage they were gaining at Center was being lost in the Guard position, so they went back to putting the 5 best players out there (which includes Morse at center and Feliciano at guard). And it wasn't a bad time for the experiment, a non-conference game, plus it gave Mitch the two more weeks to heal up (especially with his concussion history). But when asked about it, McDermott was honest. Mitch was out of concussion protocol and could have played, but it was a football decision. They weren't holding him out just for his health...they also wanted to see if that other combo might work better. 

 

 

And speaking of the run game, everyone keeps laying that at the players feet (O-line and RBs---all of a sudden Singletary and Moss suck, according to some)...and no doubt, the players have not been executing well. I'm sure some of the film junkies could show me where all the breakdowns are occurring. But, I keep wondering if it isn't more of an offensive play calling problem. Don't get me wrong, I love what Daboll has done this year. But, we have become a pass first, pass often offense. The only game that we came out leading with our run game and stayed committed to it was the Patriots game...and they had some success. How many times have we heard running backs and offensive lines say it takes so many carries to start getting into a groove or rhythm with the run game. When your running backs aren't getting their first touch until the 2nd quarter, or they only have 2-3 runs a piece in a half, well it seems like it would be hard to get it going later (say for a 4-minute drive in the 4th quarter when you need to close out a team).

 

Looking at the stats, it looks very balanced: 247 rushing plays/253 passing plays on the year, but only 168 of those rushes have been by the RBs. It just never seems like we establish the running game in the first quarter. Sure, sometimes you want to come out passing (depending on the opponent) or if you aren't picking up enough yards on say first downs running the ball, you start passing (so maybe it is a combination of things)...but I wonder if the run game would improve if they just showed a little more commitment to it earlier in games. Just for instance, 28 RBs have more carries than Devin; Derrick Henry (the leading rusher) is getting 23 carries/game---Devin is averaging 10 carries/game and Zach is averaging 8 carries/game. 

 

Then again, maybe with the chameleon-like, Daboll/Patriot way of changing your identity per opponent, it is tough to have a great run game because one week you run a lot, the next the RBs hardly touch the ball, or you want to use a specific type of RB, etc. and guys just never get in a groove during the season. I mean look at the Patriots running game throughout their dynasty. Of course, they very rarely had a stud RB, but maybe the system just never allows the RBs and O-line to get in a rhythm with the run game to be an above average rushing team.

 

Again, just speculating...and please remind me if you can think of other games where we really tried to establish the run game in the first quarter. But, I'm just wondering if it is more of an identity/play-calling issue rather than solely a "players suck" issue?

[Mr. WEO]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

Why are you so desperate to make this claim?  Did he say something you didn’t like or get into legal trouble that we didn’t hear about?

Claim?  McD confirmed it.  
 

you didn’t hear about it?

[Doc]

51 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Claim?  McD confirmed it.  
 

you didn’t hear about it?

 

No.  I only heard a lot of speculation over McD's vague comments.  And if he had been benched, he'd have remained benched.

[Pasaluki]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Claim?  McD confirmed it.  
 

you didn’t hear about it?

Yeah I dont understand why people are people are acting like you saying that Ford being out forced them to start Morse at Center is some edgy take when like he's been benched for one week already (read: medically cleared to play and on the bench) and McDermott said when asked if he is the starting Center "He's in the mix."

 

 

[BillsShredder83]

11 hours ago, Jpsredemption said:

I think they are very concerned about future of Morse. May look to FA/Draft hard for a long term C next year.

I thought this last concussion might be the end of his career. And the next one ill be on even higher alert. Time to start planning for the future and draft someone who's ready to start, but will hopefully have some time to grow before hes thrown out there.

[BillsShredder83]

4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Claim?  McD confirmed it.  
 

you didn’t hear about it?

Hes coming off his 50th concussion. He sat the bench knowing it would give him another 2 full weeks to recover.

Sure sounds like something you could file under "football decision". Hes been our 2nd best lineman all year, he didn't get benched 😆😆😆. WATCH. THE. TAPE.

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, Doc said:

 

No.  I only heard a lot of speculation over McD's vague comments.  And if he had been benched, he'd have remained benched.

 

 

He was cleared, dressed and on the sideline and didn't play.  Not playing him was labeled a "football decisions" by his HC who thought putting him in would upset the momentum the O had.

 

Only you would claim that any of this was "vague"

6 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:

Hes coming off his 50th concussion. He sat the bench knowing it would give him another 2 full weeks to recover.

Sure sounds like something you could file under "football decision". Hes been our 2nd best lineman all year, he didn't get benched 😆😆😆. WATCH. THE. TAPE.

 

He was recovered and cleared as per the medical staff.  A HC isn't going to overrule them and keep his 2nd best O lineman on the sidelines.

 

Asked specifically if there was anything other than football reasons for the decision, McDermott said it was “strictly a football decision."

“Mitch is a good player,” McDermott said. “We felt like we had some momentum with the group we had in when Mitch went down and we wanted to take a look at the group there.”

Edited November 28, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[ganesh]

19 hours ago, Jpsredemption said:

I think they are very concerned about future of Morse. May look to FA/Draft hard for a long term C next year.

Yup...with upcoming big salary payments, they have to go to the draft for cheaper versions at place where they have paid heavily in the past. 

[CaptnCoke11]

Hopefully it’s Winters that gets benched tomorrow 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Would be interesting to know what the starting lineup would have been if Ford had been available, instead of down for the season.   We were speculating earlier in the week about whether Feliciano was taking Morse's job.  WIthout Ford, McDermott had little choice.  

 

22 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Bingo.  With Ford gone, he now has to play Morse.

 

I don't follow this logic at all. 

 

Ford has played exactly 14 snaps (against Seattle) since he went out in the 4Q of the Kansas game (and arguably cost the team a 4th down conversion from not going out a play earlier).  He hasn't been a factor on OL for the last 3 games and was inactive against the Cards.  I like Ford and don't agree with folks he's a "bust", but he's been a mess, "walking wounded", all season between some kind of shoulder or elbow injury, knee, ankle etc.  You can see how hindered he is in run blocking on film. 

 

The line Daboll and McDermott said they wanted to look at for a 3rd game did not involve Ford, and it's not even clear Ford would have replaced the most problematic guy on the line (Winters at RG).

 

Since McDermott and Daboll chose to play Feliciano at Center for the previous 3 games without Ford, what is the logic that says no Ford = has to play Morse now?

 

Absent evidence to the contrary, why not assume they're telling the truth that they wanted to see what continuity of the same 5 guys on OL would do for them?  And having looked, they probably decided "not as much as we want to see".  Bringing Ford back in after he's been out for the majority of 4 games would bollix that continuity anyway if he were available, so IMO it would have made a stronger argument for making other changes as well (like Ford back to center and Mongo to the other guard spot).

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

I don't follow this logic at all. 

 

Ford has played exactly 14 snaps (against Seattle) since he went out in the 4Q of the Kansas game (and arguably cost the team a 4th down conversion from not going out a play earlier).  He hasn't been a factor on OL for the last 3 games and was inactive against the Cards.  I like Ford and don't agree with folks he's a "bust", but he's been a mess, "walking wounded", all season between some kind of shoulder or elbow injury, knee, ankle etc.  You can see how hindered he is in run blocking on film. 

 

The line Daboll and McDermott said they wanted to look at for a 3rd game did not involve Ford, and it's not even clear Ford would have replaced the most problematic guy on the line (Winters at RG).

 

Since McDermott and Daboll chose to play Feliciano at Center for the previous 3 games without Ford, what is the logic that says no Ford = has to play Morse now?

 

Absent evidence to the contrary, why not assume they're telling the truth that they wanted to see what continuity of the same 5 guys on OL would do for them?  And having looked, they probably decided "not as much as we want to see".  Bringing Ford back in after he's been out for the majority of 4 games would bollix that continuity anyway if he were available, so IMO it would have made a stronger argument for making other changes as well (like Ford back to center and Mongo to the other guard spot).

 

 

 
Continuity?  There hasn’t been much.  McD wouldn’t put a healthy Morse against AZ because he was looking at yet another combo to see what would work. 
 

That combo resulted in 74 points in 2 games.  Ford gone again is another depth hole

[Jerome007]

We always fault McD for his honeyed politician responses, but here if he was unnecessarily blunt IMO. He could have easily the bye week for a prudent approach answer, at least to t he media.

 

Anyway, Morse is paid well, plays well too IMO, and having both him and Feliciano is good! I love how Jon says he prepares as a center anyway. It makes him both ready and better as a guard, knowing what everybody else is doing 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

13 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 Continuity?  There hasn’t been much.  McD wouldn’t put a healthy Morse against AZ because he was looking at yet another combo to see what would work.

 

It was exactly the same line that had played the two previous games, not "yet another combo"

[Doc]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

He was cleared, dressed and on the sideline and didn't play.  Not playing him was labeled a "football decisions" by his HC who thought putting him in would upset the momentum the O had.

 

Only you would claim that any of this was "vague"

 

Yeah, a "football decision" to let a guy sit another game after missing almost 2 full games and a day of practice due to his 6th concussion. 

 

Why not continue to "bench" him then?

 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Yeah, a "football decision" to let a guy sit another game after missing almost 2 full games and a day of practice due to his 6th concussion. 

 

Why not continue to "bench" him then?

 

So you are still claiming that McD would overrule his med staff and keep his best C out of the game...and a week later describe him as only “in the mix” (finally naming him to play on Thursday before the game)...,,because he was concerned about his concussion issue?

 

ok

17 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It was exactly the same line that had played the two previous games, not "yet another combo"

And without Morse, it produced.  In fact before AZ McD said he wanted to roll with that combo (1 of several that had existed over the season) because it had “momentum”.
 

 

[YattaOkasan]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

So you are still claiming that McD would overrule his med staff and keep his best C out of the game...and a week later describe him as only “in the mix” (finally naming him to play on Thursday before the game)...,,because he was concerned about his concussion issue?

 

ok

And without Morse, it produced.  In fact before AZ McD said he wanted to roll with that combo (1 of several that had existed over the season) because it had “momentum”.
 

 

I think he’s saying he didn’t get full reps cause he wasn’t back until part way through the week.  That’s a good football reason related to the injury. If anyone’s evidence is McDs clear words then that’s not gonna help your case much. mcD is cagey about so much; I would want to see some other confirmation that the staff doesn’t think Morse is good enough. 

[Mr. WEO]

6 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

I think he’s saying he didn’t get full reps cause he wasn’t back until part way through the week.  That’s a good football reason related to the injury. If anyone’s evidence is McDs clear words then that’s not gonna help your case much. mcD is cagey about so much; I would want to see some other confirmation that the staff doesn’t think Morse is good enough. 

possibly.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

I think he’s saying he didn’t get full reps cause he wasn’t back until part way through the week.  That’s a good football reason related to the injury. If anyone’s evidence is McDs clear words then that’s not gonna help your case much. mcD is cagey about so much; I would want to see some other confirmation that the staff doesn’t think Morse is good enough. 

 

I'm pretty sure that McDermott said Morse had cleared the protocol in his Weds before-practice presser.

Since teams usually watch film Monday and usually have Tues. off,  that would give Morse full reps for the week (3 days).

Now with his activity limited the prev. week and perhaps over the weekend, whether he is in full "game condition" is another question.

[Doc]

9 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

I think he’s saying he didn’t get full reps cause he wasn’t back until part way through the week.  That’s a good football reason related to the injury. If anyone’s evidence is McDs clear words then that’s not gonna help your case much. mcD is cagey about so much; I would want to see some other confirmation that the staff doesn’t think Morse is good enough. 

 

This.  And the evidence to the contrary (that Morse isn't good enough) is that he is back starting.  If he had been benched, he'd still be benched.

 

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I'm pretty sure that McDermott said Morse had cleared the protocol in his Weds before-practice presser.

Since teams usually watch film Monday and usually have Tues. off,  that would give Morse full reps for the week (3 days).

Now with his activity limited the prev. week and perhaps over the weekend, whether he is in full "game condition" is another question.

 

They only get Monday off. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Doc