Sean McDermott Ranks 5th Among Coaches on EDJ Sports list

[JohnNord]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

In this game it was because every 4th down attempt was under five yards and in the Chiefs territory.  I agree with you as it's the way you have to play against the Chiefs.  Staley would be commended for his boldness if they complete even just one of those fourth downs they missed as they pry win the game. 

 

Staley stuck to his guns and I respect that.    The only questionable decision was not going for 2 up 7 in the 4th quarter to make it a two possession game.  You've been aggressive all game.  Why not go for two there?

The  only decision I really didn’t like was at the end of the half where he passed up a FG. You can argue this was the difference in the game 

 

I didn’t mind going for it early and the other 4th down was a long FG was a toss up.  The 3 points aren’t a guarantee from that distance.  

 

I think Staley was helped by the fact that Lc kept shooting themselves in the foot.  They blew some chances to take advantage.   So because of that, it makes the decisions look less important than they really were to the game.  

[HappyDays]

7 hours ago, FireChans said:

Of course it is.

 

So if you assign a value to every offensive play, where 4th down conversions add given more value, a drive with multiple fourth down conversions that ends in a TD is more valuable than a drive with zero fourth down conversions that ends in a TD? How do you explain that?

[BADOLBILZ]

10 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

So you're saying a 4th down conversion is inherently more valuable than a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down conversion? By that logic a TD drive with three 4th down conversions is more valuable than a TD drive with no 4th down conversions which makes zero sense. Every 1st down is the "equivalent of stealing an extra possession" if that's the weird definition you want to use. The only difference between a 4th down play and any other play is that the 4th down play has a ton more risk involved. It isn't inherently more valuable, it's inherently more dangerous.

 

 

Come on. You're not seriously going to try and convince anyone that the Chargers decisions tonight are proof that going for it on 4th down is a good thing. Even if you want to take the most generous analysis of tonight's game, if the Chargers had kicked a FG on every 4th down and missed one of them they would have scored 5 more points (taking away the TD drive on the 4th and 1 conversion, although I already said earlier I have no problem with that decision in that spot on the field). Give the Chiefs their 3 points for their 4th down attempt and the Chargers are winning by 2 with 1:15 left in the game and the Chiefs kicking off. Joe Staley killed his team tonight with an overly aggressive mindset. The big bad Chiefs can be beaten with field goals. He coached scared. Belichick would have kicked every field goal and won a boring no-nonsense game for about the 300th time.

 

 

1. Having a 4th chance is inherently/statistically much more valuable than having just 3.   You are going off the rails with these down numbers.   Try to remember that all any possession promises is a 1 down.    The objective is to get a TD on every drive (with the exception of some end of half/game drives).    The numbers favor the bold.   

 

2. You aren't going to beat the red-hot Chiefs with field goals and bad defense.   The world where playing aggressive, 4 down offense produced 4 TD's and several other red zone trips doesn't even exist if the Chargers play not to lose.   The Chargers dictated the game to KC.

 

But this time the better team still won.   And to illustrate my point about the Chargers not being a team that can afford to play conservative..........exhibit A was their last drive.   When they needed to just get into field goal range........they weren't good enough at executing to get it done.    That last drive should look familiar to Bills fans.   Some teams are dynamic but not efficient.   Those teams can't play "not to lose".    Staley basically said as much post game.   That's the team they have and he's coaching to their strengths. 

 

McDermott has a much better team than LAC.  But they are still the same style of team.   Dynamic but inefficient.   By not coaching to their style McDermott is too often coaching them down to their competition or flat out coaching to the other teams style.   

 

 

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

So if you assign a value to every offensive play, where 4th down conversions add given more value, a drive with multiple fourth down conversions that ends in a TD is more valuable than a drive with zero fourth down conversions that ends in a TD? How do you explain that?

The conversation is 4th down conversion vs a punt. What the ***** are you talking about?

 

A drive where you don’t give the opponent the ball and get points would be more valuable compared to a drive where you give the opponent the ball and don’t get points.

Edited December 17, 2021 by FireChans

[Big Blitz]

I just watched Staley stick to the analytics last night and he got whooped.  

 

Why is this a metric if everyone goes by the same math? 

 

 

 

You know what Staley didn't do?

 

Should have went for 2 when they went up 7 but kicked the extra point instead in the 4th I think they went up 28-20 kicking the extra point.  

 

That was the worst call of the night.  

Edited December 17, 2021 by Big Blitz

[HappyDays]

6 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

2. You aren't going to beat the red-hot Chiefs with field goals and bad defense.   The world where playing aggressive, 4 down offense produced 4 TD's and several other red zone trips doesn't even exist if the Chargers play not to lose.   The Chargers dictated the game to KC.

 

The red-hot Chiefs? What are we talking about here? The Chargers were moving the ball at will against them all night. In their last 5 games against teams not named the Raiders the Chiefs have averaged 15.4 points. The Chargers dictated the game to themselves. By failing to take easy points they made it a 50/50 game.

 

10 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

exhibit A was their last drive.   When they needed to just get into field goal range........they weren't good enough at executing to get it done.

 

They got the ball with 1:16 remaining. What does that have to do with failing to take easy points when they were there? If they had simply taken the points all game the Chiefs would have been trying an onside kick or possibly already be out of it by that point.

11 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The conversation is 4th down conversion vs a punt. What the ***** are you talking about?

 

You said a 4th down conversion is inherently more value than a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down conversion. I am saying objectively that is false.

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

The red-hot Chiefs? What are we talking about here? The Chargers were moving the ball at will against them all night. In their last 5 games against teams not named the Raiders the Chiefs have averaged 15.4 points. The Chargers dictated the game to themselves. By failing to take easy points they made it a 50/50 game.

 

 

They got the ball with 1:16 remaining. What does that have to do with failing to take easy points when they were there? If they had simply taken the points all game the Chiefs would have been trying an onside kick or possibly already be out of it by that point.

 

You said a 4th down conversion is inherently more value than a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down conversion. I am saying objectively that is false.

A 4th down conversion alternative is a turnover. A 1st down conversion alternative is second down.

 

Do you understand that?

Edited December 17, 2021 by FireChans

[HappyDays]

18 minutes ago, FireChans said:

A 4th down conversion alternative is a turnover. A 1st down conversion alternative is second down.

 

Do you understand that?

 

That is the difference between the risk, not the reward. All you've done is point out that 4th down attempts are inherently more risky. Moving the chains has the same value no matter what down it happen on. I already spelled it out for you by explaining that a TD drive featuring multiple 4th down conversions has the exact same value as a TD drive featuring no 4th down conversions.

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

That is the difference between the risk, not the reward. All you've done is point out that 4th down attempts are inherently more risky. Moving the chains has the same value no matter what down it happen on. I already spelled it out for you by explaining that a TD drive featuring multiple 4th down conversions has the exact same value as a TD drive featuring no 4th down conversions.

Brother, you are intentionally being obtuse here. 
 

“already explaining a TD is a TD” is not a rebuttal. It’s missing the point so hard, I hope it’s intentional.

[BringBackFlutie]

17 hours ago, JohnNord said:

All that this list shows is that McDermott isn’t as conservative on 4th down according to the analytics, as it would appear.

 

It does not prove that he’s perfect or that he always makes the right decisions.  Just that in terms of game decisions he usually follows the data

 

Which is SO MUCH MORE than most coaches (even in 2021!) in the league do.  Furthermore- for a coach who is so defensive-minded and conservative in nature, that's a really good sign of how willing he is to learn and adapt.

[GunnerBill]

20 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

This is just one aspect of his job. Ourside of the 4th and 3 call against Tampa I've been moslty ok with his in game decisions.  I dont get too worked by the choice for going for two or an XP.  The percentages aren't that much different. Issues I have with him is roster make-up,  lack of player development, in game adjustments, and overall regression of the team. 

 

Roster make-up - yep, partly on him because I do think overall McDermott has the power to veto anything the front office wants to do but this is a Brandon Beane issue for the most part. The weaknesses on the roster are on the personnel guys. 

 

Lack of player development - who hasn't developed? The Bills generally do a good job in this regard.

 

In game adjustments - has been mixed at times I agree. Think they have done it well some weeks, less well others. 

 

Overall regression of the team - the fact is it has been performance in close games, once a McDermott hallmark, that has hurt us this year. Is coaching part of that? Absolutely. But execution by players in key moments is too (and by the refs in Tampa). 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

22 hours ago, JohnNord said:

Many people have chastised Sean McDermott’s “conservative” decisions with the Bills.  It turns out that he’s one of the best at following what the analytics suggest.  

 

EDJ sports and analytics company created a model to analyze every coaching decisions.  The CCI stat specifically evaluated coaches on 4th down decisions.  

 

McDermott ranks 5th on this list among coaches overall.   14th in CCI and 4th in EPI.

 

Like Greg says below, he’s far from perfect, but he’s also not the Richard Jauron or Doug Marrone that some make him out to be.

 

 

Not #1??? Fire him. I’m so done with this team

[FireChans]

I love analytics. I really do. I think we are seeing coaches all over the league learn from them and make better and smarter decisions.

 

I want to know why the “analytics are king” crowd are so resistant to admit that the league wide set of numbers are not applicable to every single team or situation? Look at the NBA. EVERY team emphasizes the three. And for good reason. But every team knows that Steph Curry taking a three and some bench dude taking a three are two completely different animals in terms of probability and “good shots” and etc. why can’t we do that in football?

[RoyBatty is alive]

I assume Staley had to drop from #1 on this list with his series of decisions to go for it and failed when he could have easily won the game kicking FGs.

[Billl]

4 hours ago, FireChans said:

A 4th down conversion alternative is a turnover. A 1st down conversion alternative is second down.

 

Do you understand that?

Taking a pitch for strike 1 is just as bad as taking a pitch for strike 3, right?

[FireChans]

18 minutes ago, Billl said:

Taking a pitch for strike 1 is just as bad as taking a pitch for strike 3, right?

No, absolutely not.

[Dopey]

On 12/16/2021 at 4:20 PM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Yeah I heard Sal and Joe talking about this on WGR this am.

 

14th in 4th down decisions.......coaching a team that isn't built to succeed by being cautious.......has had a significantly large game day impact since his sphincter tightened up in that AFCCG.

 

A good comparison might be Staley versus McDermott on 4th downs.

 

They have very comparable superstar QB talents in Allen and Herbert.........but Staley coaches to win on 4th down and McD has been coaching "not to lose" while having the more talented (but also mistake prone) roster.

 

Belichick ranks 30th in 4th down decision making..........but despite CCI claiming to take a ton of things into account........what it fails to show is that Belichick's team is built to play and win by being conservative.    They are conservative because they aren't dynamic but instead are just excellent in execution on both sides of the ball.

 

The Bills are dynamic but not consistent in execution on either side of the ball.   So over the 10-12 possessions they get per game they are best served trying to separate rather than keep the score close.    

 

Two distinctly different types of teams but McDermott plays it too much like he has the team that is built to win close games,  which he does not.

 

 

Here's the thing, the Chargers lost last night because of Staley's decisions not to kick a FG (3 times). Went for it on 4th every time.  People like you would be bitching about it ad nauseam. To some of you, a play that doesn't succeed has to be blamed on someone. It can't be a good play by the opponent, can it?!?  Always comparing to someone else like you have an inferiority complex. "Daboll sucks, McDermott sucks Beane sucks, Frazier sucks, Staley is great. Only Josh is good" .  Most of you complainers will find anything to complain about. Even in a win. " It was vs a crap team. Doesn't mean anything". JMO, you'all are a bunch of whiny b!tc$3$.

🤮

Edited December 17, 2021 by Dopey

[Billl]

12 minutes ago, Dopey said:

Here's the thing, the Chargers lost last night because of Staley's decisions not to kick a FG (3 times). Went for it on 4th every time. 

🤮

This simply isn’t true.  People like to rant about things they don’t even understand.  Nobody is talking about the Chargers first TD drive when they passed up a FG and got the first down on their way to scoring a TD.  That’s at least 4 points they got because of aggression and possibly 7 had they missed the FG.

 

Similarly, nobody seems to care that the Chargers beat the Chiefs in week 2 by going for it repeatedly and stole a win.  It’s easy to ignore the times it works and blaming him when it fails.

[Dopey]

2 minutes ago, Billl said:

This simply isn’t true.  People like to rant about things they don’t even understand.  Nobody is talking about the Chargers first TD drive when they passed up a FG and got the first down on their way to scoring a TD.  That’s at least 4 points they got because of aggression and possibly 7 had they missed the FG.

 

Similarly, nobody seems to care that the Chargers beat the Chiefs in week 2 by going for it repeatedly and stole a win.  It’s easy to ignore the times it works and blaming him when it fails.

Ok, I missed 1, but that decision didn't win the game, did it? They missed out on 9 points by going for it on 4th. In this game, Staley's "big balls" lost them the game and now they're 2 games behind KC. The last game was just that, the last game.  Seems coach didn't adjust and thought they could do the same thing. Bit him in the ass. I stand by my comment that the complainers would have blamed McDermott if he did the same and lost. That's my main point.

[Billl]

13 minutes ago, Dopey said:

Ok, I missed 1, but that decision didn't win the game, did it? They missed out on 9 points by going for it on 4th. In this game, Staley's "big balls" lost them the game and now they're 2 games behind KC. The last game was just that, the last game.  Seems coach didn't adjust and thought they could do the same thing. Bit him in the ass. I stand by my comment that the complainers would have blamed McDermott if he did the same and lost. That's my main point.

They missed out on 9 and got 7.  Let’s also recall that they had a TD except for an incredibly fluky play where the receiver, untouched, fell to the ground and concussed himself causing him to drop the ball. Outcome based judging is worthless.  
 

It’s amazing to me that so many people think that the key to knocking off the 5 time defending division champs is to play them straight up.  Spoiler alert…it’s not.  They didn’t lose because of poor coaching.  They lost because a HOF QB coached by a HOF coach started making big plays to his HOF WR and HOF TE.  It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last.