ROCKPILE REVIEW - End of the Road

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yeah I know, that was flabbergasted.  The reporter was fighting to keep a disbelieving tone from his voice.

 

Beasley just tossed it out there in response to a follow up question about him saying that he was looking forward to a second full off season, he was asked something like "we know you've been playing through an injury, how will that impact your off season?" and he just tossed it out "well I broke my fibula but it won't need surgery"

 

I had no idea you could hear jaws dropping on Zoom

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

13 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

In a sense, the Bills play a finesse game.  The Chiefs play a finesse game with power.  The Bills were overpowered.

 

The thing that struck me about a couple of our games this season - Pittsburgh, the 2nd NE game, and the Ravens game came to mind - is how physical we were both on defense and offense.  Our DBs were knocking WR around on the line, playing physical.  We were leaping and smacking into guys as they tried to make a catch.  Diggs was literally knocking DBs over.  Even Dawson Knox pulled some physical route running out of his curly hair.

 

We can play a finesse game with power.  Yesterday I thought we played like we were really a bit overawed by the whole thing and playing cautiously.  Playing, perhaps, to not lose instead of playing to win.

 

We can play to win.  We did against NE - all the stops, go for it on 4th down, fake punts, the works.  That aggressive coaching mindset was absent yesterday.

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

 

 

[Shaw66]

10 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The thing that struck me about a couple of our games this season - Pittsburgh, the 2nd NE game, and the Ravens game came to mind - is how physical we were both on defense and offense.  Our DBs were knocking WR around on the line, playing physical.  We were leaping and smacking into guys as they tried to make a catch.  Diggs was literally knocking DBs over.  Even Dawson Knox pulled some physical route running out of his curly hair.

 

We can play a finesse game with power.  Yesterday I thought we played like we were really a bit overawed by the whole thing and playing cautiously.  Playing, perhaps, to not lose instead of playing to win.

 

We can play to win.  We did against NE - all the stops, go for it on 4th down, fake punts, the works.  That aggressive coaching mindset was absent yesterday.

 

 

Thanks for all this. Interesting about fibula injury location.

 

I think you're exactly right about physical play, and I would guess it's McD and Frazier to blame.  I think they were so afraid of getting beat deep that they played with a prevent defense mentality the whole game.  I think the players may have come into the game with that mentality, which is a passive, non-physical way to play. 

 

I'm generally in favor of taking the field goals McD took, but not going for it was also evidence of the passive approach.  

 

The Bills seemed to be approaching everything very carefully, afraid to make mistakes.  

 

Wrong approach to football, especially playoff football. 

 

 

[CodeMonkey]

19 hours ago, I am the egg man said:

Mahomes will be the end of the road for Bills for awhile.

 

 

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Groin said:

Don't lose faith yet.  Let's say that DC changes.  The Bills will have the pick of the litter.  Let's say that OC changes.  The Bills will have the pick of the litter.  I am unfazed by last night, because this team has been trending in the right direction under McD's watch.

Plus if you look at the age of some of the weapons Mahomes has, they will be needing to retool in a couple years.  Who knows what happens then.

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, CodeMonkey said:

 

Plus if you look at the age of some of the weapons Mahomes has, they will be needing to retool in a couple years.  Who knows what happens then.

It's more than that, too.  McDermott is about continuous improvement.  That's not simply about getting better talent, either on the field or in the coaching staff.   It's about the players the Bills already have getting better at what they do.  

 

One example that I've been talking about is how the Chiefs attacked Edmunds.  They were essentially running options off Edmunds - if he broke one way, Mahomes threw the other.   It was very clever.   There's a defensive response to that.  I don't know what it is, maybe dropping a safety into the box, or dropping a DE into coverage with a slot corner rushing the passer, something.  The point is that the weakness that was exposed was a schematic weakness that can be fixed.  

 

Individual skills also can be improved.  DBs can get better at finding and attacking the ball.  Dlinemen can get better at hand fighting, footwork.   

 

Bottom line is that just because the Chiefs were better than the Bills in 2020 doesn't mean the Chiefs will be better than the Bills for the next ten years.   The Chargers were the best team in the AFL and better than the Bills in 1963, but they weren't better than the Bills in 1964 or 1965, even though the personnel were largely the same.  

 

 

[Billever76]

Imo the biggest upgrade we can have on defense in this off-season is moving on from Leslie frazier...he is way too conservative and too stubborn to adjust in Big games...when you have no answer to even limit the opposition top 2 weapons then you have failed your job!....the Tampa 2,palms,soft zone defense is so anti Buffalo its pathetic.....its time we move on from Frazier 

[Cygnus99]

I know it is way to early for a prediction  for the 2021 season but I am gonna  start with a sweep of the Miami Dolphins 2 wins there . 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Cygnus99

[Shaw66]

13 hours ago, Billever76 said:

Imo the biggest upgrade we can have on defense in this off-season is moving on from Leslie frazier...he is way too conservative and too stubborn to adjust in Big games...when you have no answer to even limit the opposition top 2 weapons then you have failed your job!....the Tampa 2,palms,soft zone defense is so anti Buffalo its pathetic.....its time we move on from Frazier 

Well, I can't say I've been an enthusiastic supporter of Frazier, but it's McDermott's defense.  It's his philosophy, and it's based on a lot of sound reasoning.  So I'm not sure we're going to see a radical shift in defensive philosophy if Frazier leaves. 

 

However, I have to say I tend to agree with you. I will repeat something I said a few times now, and I will acknowledge that it's not an original idea - someone else said it.   When you have a big offense, and the Bills have a big offense that likely will be better next season, the defense's job is to get the ball back to the offense as soon as possible.  You know how Jauron always said a punt is not a bad play?  Well that's true if you have a small offense.   If you have a big offense, getting burned for a touchdown isn't a bad thing, because it gets the ball back to your offense.  

 

That means that if you're playing complementary football, you complement a big offense with a risk-taking defense, a big-play defense that takes chances and gets beat sometimes.   Why?   Because a risk-taking defense doesn't stay on the field very long, which means time of possession is in your favor, which means your offense has the ball more.  It's okay to let Tyreek Hill beat you once in a while on a 73-yard catch and run, if your risk-taking defense also is getting sacks, three-and-outs, and takeaways.  

 

If you play passively, which is what it sure seemed like the Bills did against the Chiefs, you let time of possession go against you, which keeps the ball away from your offense.  

 

It seems simple looking at the Chiefs game.  Two admittedly big offenses, one aggressive defense playing tight man-to-man, pressuring the QB, and one defense playing two deep safeties, getting sliced and diced underneath and STILL giving up the occasional big play.  

 

The more I think about the game, the clearer it is to me that the Bills played scared.  I'm not a fighter, but I know when you go into a fight, and can't fight scared.  You can't be defensive.   You have to have the courage to attack.  The Bills were afraid of the Chiefs speed and sat back, daring the Chiefs to dink and dunk.  The Chiefs said "thank you very much, sucker."  

 

It's funny to me that the Ravens have the opposite mix.  They have a grind-it-out running and short passing game with a super aggressive defense.  It's the wrong combination.  An aggressive defense gets beat big on some possessions, and the Ravens offense doesn't have the ability to come from behind.   The Ravens should be saying to opponents, "We can go on long, 80-yard drives all day.  Let's see if you can."   

 

The Bills should be saying "We can score points in bunches.  Let's see if you can."  

 

The Chiefs have the better pairing of offensive and defensive philosophy.  

 

I started with the fact that McDermott likes the Tampa 2 style of play, evidence by the middle linebacker he has.  I have confidence in McDermott's desire to improve continuously.   He will be studying that game and thinking about what it takes to be better, and I hope he will find ways move toward more aggressive defense.  

[y2zipper]

Looking at the postseason as a whole, Buffalo didn't look like the team that was going to be able to score a bunch of points, especially after the Indianapolis game. 

 

The conversation about the mix is interesting, but I think Buffalo is going to have to move more in the other direction if they want to successfully beat Kansas City. I think the right way to play defense against them is to use soft coverage to protect from big plays and make tackles underneath because a shorter game gives anyone a better opportunity to beat them. Buffalo however it does not have a complimentary offense right now to play that way and building some balance and would help them become a better team. As an example, I have seen buffalo have a functional run game about two times this year in the 19 games that they have played. The team really needs to focus on adding a run game or some kind of high percentage short game to move the chains consistently more in the postseason. 

 

During the regular year we saw Buffalo beat a lot of teams playing quickly and trying to score a lot of points. But nobody is beat Kansas City in a year and a half trying to play that way.

 

 

[Shaw66]

8 hours ago, y2zipper said:

Looking at the postseason as a whole, Buffalo didn't look like the team that was going to be able to score a bunch of points, especially after the Indianapolis game. 

 

The conversation about the mix is interesting, but I think Buffalo is going to have to move more in the other direction if they want to successfully beat Kansas City. I think the right way to play defense against them is to use soft coverage to protect from big plays and make tackles underneath because a shorter game gives anyone a better opportunity to beat them. Buffalo however it does not have a complimentary offense right now to play that way and building some balance and would help them become a better team. As an example, I have seen buffalo have a functional run game about two times this year in the 19 games that they have played. The team really needs to focus on adding a run game or some kind of high percentage short game to move the chains consistently more in the postseason. 

 

During the regular year we saw Buffalo beat a lot of teams playing quickly and trying to score a lot of points. But nobody is beat Kansas City in a year and a half trying to play that way.

 

 

I dont think this correct.  When you have a superstar qb, and I think the Bills do, you dont go away from that strength.  The Bills didn't get Diggs so they could pass less.  The Bills are a big-play explosive team; otherwise they could have kept Tyrod.  

 

The Chiefs have a better running game than the Bills, but that isn't a balanced offense, either. That's an offense that uses its passing to set up the run.  They challenge you every week to stop Hill and Kelce and Watkins and Hardman.  

[stuvian]

My main takeaways were that outside of Josh we have no credible running threat. Singletary and Moss are complimentary players, not features.

 

On defense, the Chiefs were playing a short field to protect Mahomes. The Chiefs ran a lot of reverses, shovel passes and screens that were designed to keep Mahomes' time in the pocket minimized. Our Defense looked to be geared toward preventing the big play that never came. 

 

It felt very similar to our mid season game against the Chiefs in that we appeared to be playing to stay close as opposed to dominating.

 

I'm thrilled with where the team is at on the field and as an organization

[LABILLBACKER]

On 1/26/2021 at 6:48 AM, Shaw66 said:

Thanks for all this. Interesting about fibula injury location.

 

I think you're exactly right about physical play, and I would guess it's McD and Frazier to blame.  I think they were so afraid of getting beat deep that they played with a prevent defense mentality the whole game.  I think the players may have come into the game with that mentality, which is a passive, non-physical way to play. 

 

I'm generally in favor of taking the field goals McD took, but not going for it was also evidence of the passive approach.  

 

The Bills seemed to be approaching everything very carefully, afraid to make mistakes.  

 

Wrong approach to football, especially playoff football. 

 

 

Other teams you can get away with scoring fgs early and mix in tds later. Not with KC. You get inside the 15 its td or nothing. And you're observation on defensive mentality is so true. We had a passive D game plan and out intensity reflected that. Sean can never allow that again. 

Just now, LABILLBACKER said:

Other teams you can get away with scoring fgs early and mix in tds later. Not with KC. You get inside the 15 its td or nothing. And you're observation on defensive mentality is so true. We had a passive D game plan and our intensity reflected that. Sean can never allow that again. 

 

[97bills]

On 1/25/2021 at 7:45 PM, HomeTeam said:

This for me rings true the most. 

 

We have been questioning the toughness of the Offensive and Defensive lines all season. Our winning streak was able to mask over the cracks but when the playoffs rolled around, the cracks became apparent.  

 

This off season we have to invest in some big uglies that can eat up space, move their man, and generate pressure. Upgrade the TE and RB position and run it again. 

 

Thank you for your post as always. Very insightful. 

I love it big uglies I hear you brother and agree 💯 our QB was under duress all night while there QB was easy sledding. I will say I was kind of shocked how bad our oline got destroyed 

[Old Coot]

On 1/25/2021 at 9:56 AM, Shaw66 said:

It was fascinating to watch Edmunds manipulated in the middle of the pass defense.  Time and again in the first half, he drifted right or left to respond to the routes run by Kelce and others in his zone and to respond to Mahomes drifting right or left and threatening to run.  Whichever way Edmunds moved created a weakness somewhere, and Mahomes attacked mercilessly.  It looked to me that each time Edmunds was doing what he should have been doing; it was just that Mahomes had the brains and the role players to exploit the weakness.  That will give Sean McDermott something to think about during the off-season.

 

A well designed play targets a conflict defender.  The play is designed so that whichever way the conflict defender moves, the pass play goes in the opposite direction.  Similarly, if the defender plays run, QB passes & if the defender plays pass, QB makes it a run play.

 

The way to defeat the conflict is to disguise the coverage so the conflict defender makes a move not anticipated by the offense.  This is, of course, much easier said than done.

[machine gun kelly]

On 1/25/2021 at 3:42 PM, Shaw66 said:

Thanks.  It's nice to have fans.

Each year Shaw, you and Virg do such a nice job with you’re reviews.  As to Beasely, I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with Daboll and McD’s choice to use him and Davis.  They weren’t getting separation as their injuries were hampering their ability to separate.  It’s hindsight, but why not use McKenzie and Stills.  Diggs was getting double teamed and with two healthy receivers, it may have been a different outcome. 
 

The Chiefs were more prepared than our team, and it showed.  Shaw you were spot on with Edmunds.

[Shaw66]

10 hours ago, Old Coot said:

A well designed play targets a conflict defender.  The play is designed so that whichever way the conflict defender moves, the pass play goes in the opposite direction.  Similarly, if the defender plays run, QB passes & if the defender plays pass, QB makes it a run play.

 

The way to defeat the conflict is to disguise the coverage so the conflict defender makes a move not anticipated by the offense.  This is, of course, much easier said than done.

Conflict defender is a term I was unfamiliar with, but that says exactly what I was talking about.  

 

And now it becomes even more clear, because the Bills were not disguising their defense.   They were in that passive two-deep zone a lot, KC had seen it before, was well prepared for it.  They expect to be able to attack Edmunds, they did, and the Bills didn't respond.   

 

Thanks for the post. 

[Blainorama5]

Thanks!  Always appreciate your perspective and thoughts.

[timekills17]

42 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Conflict defender is a term I was unfamiliar with, but that says exactly what I was talking about.  

 

And now it becomes even more clear, because the Bills were not disguising their defense.   They were in that passive two-deep zone a lot, KC had seen it before, was well prepared for it.  They expect to be able to attack Edmunds, they did, and the Bills didn't respond.   

 

Thanks for the post. 

 

Which is interesting, because the overarching comment on the Bills defense was that it was predicated on disguise and forcing take-aways.

 

The second goes to your point about risk/reward defense and getting the ball back into the offense's hands. To be fair, it wasn't "outsiders" that said the Bills defense is built on taking the ball away - that's straight from the horse's (in this case, players') mouth(s).

 

I haven't yet built the intestinal fortitude to re-watch the AFCCG, but my memory concurs with you that we didn't seem to disguise much. Some fake pressure then drop-back, some Dline dropping into coverage, but it's not an effective disguise if you don't occasionally do what you're pretending to do. I.E. that corner sneaking up or that LB sneaking up to the line - if you always drop them back, it's not really a disguise. It's more of an ignore. Take-away/high-risk/high-reward defense would see that guy sneaking up actually crashing down on a regular basis. Even if it does give play up, you get the ball back.

 

I tend to agree with some others' assessment that somewhere in this game the coaches decided they couldn't score against the Chiefs like they had most of the season, so changed their style of defense. I hate(d) it.

[Shaw66]

5 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:

 As to Beasely, I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with Daboll and McD’s choice to use him and Davis.  They weren’t getting separation as their injuries were hampering their ability to separate.  It’s hindsight, but why not use McKenzie and Stills.  Diggs was getting double teamed and with two healthy receivers, it may have been a different outcome. 

Well, the thing is, when your veteran star says he's playing, you play him.   Maybe it shouldn't be that way - Brees told Payton he wanted to play, and in retrospect it was a mistake.   

 

As I've thought back on the game, I had the same thought about McKenzie.  I've never been a huge McKenzie fan, but his speed alone should have put some pressure on their defense that Beasley wasn't able to do.   

 

Stills is a different story.  Who knows how well acclimated he was to the offense.  Maybe Allen wasn't comfortable throwing to him.  

[transplantbillsfan]

Nicely written Shaw.  The game was disappointing, but I wasn't upset after the game ended and haven't been upset since.  For me the Chiefs were just obviously better on that day.  That doesn't mean they always will be or even that they were the obviously better team in say week 14 or 15.

 

But the reality is that Buffalo's success this year went strictly through Josh Allen.  Our Defense was opportunistic, but often too sieve-like.  Our running game was nonexistent.  Wins and Losses came on the arm and legs of Josh Allen.  And going into the game against the Chiefs, our ENTIRE WR corps was injured.

 

We found out later that Beasley fractured his fibula in Week 17.

 

John Brown was clearly not 100% still dealing with the knee injury he was on IR for earlier in the season.

 

Gabriel Davis had some kind of an ankle injury the week before against the Ravens that was bad enough to make him a game time decision.

 

Diggs had an "oblique" injury, which I think was exacerbated when he was body-slammed.

 

So our amazing WR corps--and make no mistake, they were absolutely amazing this year--is wholly injured and I honestly have no clue if that factored into the Chiefs game plan to press at the line against our WRs and play really physical, but it worked like a charm for them.  When healthy, I think our WR corps would have been able to get open more consistently.  Unfortunately, they were hobbled.

 

So we were relying on Josh Allen's arm throwing to a hobbled receiving corps and his legs, which are clearly being taught out of him.  Allen should have run more on some of those passing plays.  Yes, I realize he gained 88 yards with his legs, but there were some openings where he should have run, but instead forced a pass or threw it away.

 

I'm not upset this offseason because I'm 100% sure this game will serve as fuel to light the competitive fire of the likes of Allen, Diggs and co. and they're going to come back next year stronger.  

 

I'm not upset because I think we've pretty much reached the point where we should expect to be legitimate Super Bowl contenders every year.  And I think we'll be back next year.