Here we go again.... Bills beat a decimated shell of a team in NO and now comes the test

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

See I am with you largely but I think I come to the view that Beane and McDermott took the view that what they have is good enough and that their little money was better spent on a receiver that, largely, keeps Gabe Davis off the field. My apportionment of blame starts there before it comes back to gameplan. I think Daboll has showed he is willing to run in it games where the running is having some effect. He does, I agree, abandon it quickly when it stalls. To an extent I understand that. I want the game in Josh Allen's hands not in Zack Moss's. 

 

I don't think we're saying anything that different when you look under the hood.

 

"Daboll has shown he is willing to run it in games where the running is having some effect" is only a sidestep away from "Daboll honestly doesn't believe we need a run game.  He may pay lip service when forced, but he really believes that there is no offensive downside to coming out of the tunnel with a game plan to sling the ball 50 times and run 5, when the opponent knows that's what you're going to do and has schemed up exotic pressures to take advantage of that tendency."

 

Daboll has repeatedly said that he game plans week to week to take advantage of an opponent.  Everything we see suggests that part of that game plan is to look at (say) the Colts or the Ravens in the playoffs last year, decide that we won't be able to run effectively, and work on a game plan that doesn't involve the run.  Or look at the Jags, decide that we can exploit their secondary, and ditto.  Now sure, he can and will design game plans that are very run heavy as with last year against NE or against San Diego.  But that's different from saying "we have to at least show a credible threat to run, Every Single Game".

 

The difference may be that I buy into Greg Cosell's point (and Tony Dungy's etc etc) that even if you aren't running very effectively, the threat of running keeps the defense in need to defend the run and keeps them from going nutsoid with the pressure looks that overload one side of the line and have no one home on the other (what Pittsburgh and the Jags and to a lesser extent to Colts seem to have done). 

 

I also buy into Steve Tasker's point that if you create a pass-heavy game plan, the runs just don't get practiced as much, so the timing and execution on run plays will suffer.

 

Now sure, what he perceives as likely to be effective DOES depend upon the player personnel we've got, and the "buck" for that stops with McBeane.  But I don't believe for a minute that Daboll doesn't have strong input into the team's prioritization.  I don't think Beane went off to sign Sanders without input from Daboll.  Therefore if the big bucks in FA got spent on Sanders, it's because Daboll said his #1 priority was another receiver to pair with Beasley who could also run deep routes and get open when Diggs was doubled.  If Daboll said his #1 priority was improving the IOL, do you really think McDermott and Beane would have ignored that and run out to sign Sanders?

 

I don't.  I think Daboll signed off on the idea that the IOL was "good enough", that Ford would likely develop given an injury-free off season, and that some combination of Feliciano, Boettger, Lamp and Douglas would be servicable.

[djp14150]

On 11/29/2021 at 9:27 AM, Billsfan1972 said:

I have 100% confidence in the Bills talent and skill positions, but again that nagging feeling whether NO was at all an indicator of where the Bills are.  

 

I said the same after the Dolphins & Jets games.

 

They should beat the Pats and by 10 imo, but I would take very little from the NO game that they still need to clean up things and particularly on defense be aggressive vs. NE.

 

So some things I want to see.

 

1. Pressure on Jones
2. Don't play a loose secondary
3. Don't allow underneath as Jones will take easy completions and yac
4. Allen takes what is given 
5. Careful not to force the ball as NE seems to deflect a lot and are opportunistic
6. Get outside the pocket 

 

Most of all be aggressive like they were game #2 last year vs. NE.  Don't give Belichek too much respect, which they did the first game in 2020 and almost lost it.  Take a look at the two box scores from last year.  Seems pretty obvious what the Bills need to do.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/game/_/gameId/401220115

 

vs.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore/_/gameId/401220130

 

N.e got quite a few shell team too….

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

On 11/29/2021 at 3:21 PM, Mr. WEO said:

 

Jones has been a dud.  Only 6 games played and hasn't cracked 350 yards.

 

Without Henry, Titans had 2 guys combine for 240 yards rushing. 

 

Their D blows.

 

Some injuries on D as well.  Obviously on O they're missing henry, julio, brown so... a lot.  They're also missing bud dupree, david long, rashaan evans, caleb farley on defense vs. the team that played buffalo.  Landry and autry gave us problems, but dupree on the other side requires some additional thought.  They were missing both ILB's on defense and it seems like NE made their money in that area of the field.  Farley was their 1st round pick and starting CB.

[GunnerBill]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't think we're saying anything that different when you look under the hood.

 

"Daboll has shown he is willing to run it in games where the running is having some effect" is only a sidestep away from "Daboll honestly doesn't believe we need a run game.  He may pay lip service when forced, but he really believes that there is no offensive downside to coming out of the tunnel with a game plan to sling the ball 50 times and run 5, when the opponent knows that's what you're going to do and has schemed up exotic pressures to take advantage of that tendency."

 

Daboll has repeatedly said that he game plans week to week to take advantage of an opponent.  Everything we see suggests that part of that game plan is to look at (say) the Colts or the Ravens in the playoffs last year, decide that we won't be able to run effectively, and work on a game plan that doesn't involve the run.  Or look at the Jags, decide that we can exploit their secondary, and ditto.  Now sure, he can and will design game plans that are very run heavy as with last year against NE or against San Diego.  But that's different from saying "we have to at least show a credible threat to run, Every Single Game".

 

The difference may be that I buy into Greg Cosell's point (and Tony Dungy's etc etc) that even if you aren't running very effectively, the threat of running keeps the defense in need to defend the run and keeps them from going nutsoid with the pressure looks that overload one side of the line and have no one home on the other (what Pittsburgh and the Jags and to a lesser extent to Colts seem to have done). 

 

I also buy into Steve Tasker's point that if you create a pass-heavy game plan, the runs just don't get practiced as much, so the timing and execution on run plays will suffer.

 

Now sure, what he perceives as likely to be effective DOES depend upon the player personnel we've got, and the "buck" for that stops with McBeane.  But I don't believe for a minute that Daboll doesn't have strong input into the team's prioritization.  I don't think Beane went off to sign Sanders without input from Daboll.  Therefore if the big bucks in FA got spent on Sanders, it's because Daboll said his #1 priority was another receiver to pair with Beasley who could also run deep routes and get open when Diggs was doubled.  If Daboll said his #1 priority was improving the IOL, do you really think McDermott and Beane would have ignored that and run out to sign Sanders?

 

I don't.  I think Daboll signed off on the idea that the IOL was "good enough", that Ford would likely develop given an injury-free off season, and that some combination of Feliciano, Boettger, Lamp and Douglas would be servicable.

 

Sure Daboll likely agreed on them going for Sanders. But the IOL is on Brandon Beane and ultimately Sean McDermott IMO. Even if Daboll might have thought the IOL is good enough that isn't, ever, an OC call. They will take input but that is on the personnel people to decide. That is Beane with ultimate sign off from Sean. 

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

Some injuries on D as well.  Obviously on O they're missing henry, julio, brown so... a lot.  They're also missing bud dupree, david long, rashaan evans, caleb farley on defense vs. the team that played buffalo.  Landry and autry gave us problems, but dupree on the other side requires some additional thought.  They were missing both ILB's on defense and it seems like NE made their money in that area of the field.  Farley was their 1st round pick and starting CB.

 

My points that without Henry, they still ran wild.  And that Julio hasn't paid off for them this season. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

My points that without Henry, they still ran wild.  And that Julio hasn't paid off for them this season. 

 

Yeah - i questioned the julio addition when they did it.  I think the idea was to replace corey davis - limit the route tree and have that deep threat over the top, and someone who can make contested catches.  Tannehill throws a good deep ball when its there, but Julio's lack of health has harmed them and now without AJ brown they're missing their main threat in the passing game.  

 

I'm not sure Julio is straight up washed though either.  I also don't really know how to fix a player whos hamstring has been screwed up since the beginning of 2020.  Prior to this consistent hamstring issue his injury history was mostly stuff he could play through, and the broken foot that took him out of the 2013 season.