Taiwan Jones on About The Game Pod (Squib related)

[Big Blitz]

I don't know what to make of McDermott's "we just didn't execute" comments anymore.  

[Doc]

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I don’t see how you could make that comparison.  A pooch or squib kick with over a minute and twenty seconds left makes no sense while it makes perfect sense with 13 seconds left.  Especially with how poor our defense was playing against the best offense in the NFL.

 

The point is you shouldn't be able to move the ball 44 yards in 10 seconds.  The defensive calls were the problem. 

[Billsfan1972]

19 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

No, not likely.  KC would fall on the ball and give themselves up.  Or take a fair catch on a pooch kick.  Either way, no time goes off the clock.  Now, if they muff it, or somehow if the back thinks he has to run, yes, then maybe you get a few seconds, but that wasn't likely to happen.  

Yes but they'd be at the 10 yard line, not the 25.  However every analyst has claimed that you have to give yourself up and that takes 1-2 seconds off the clock on a squib.  

 

I doubt any returner is fair catching Bass' pooch kick at the 5-10 yard line.

Edited February 19, 2022 by Billsfan1972

[Shaw66]

12 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

 A pooch or squib kick ... makes perfect sense with 13 seconds left.  Especially with how poor our defense was playing against the best offense in the NFL.

I guess I don't understand what the magic is with a pooch or squib.   If it was an excellent technique for pinning the other team inside the 15, okay, I get it.  But if it's such an excellent technique, why don't teams use it all the time?  I think they don't use it all the time because it's unpredictable.   On a squib kick, the ball might be recovered on the 35, maybe on the 20, maybe on the 10.   Or it may go all the way to the end zone.   So, what your tell your cover team?  Converge on the 30?  No, maybe converge on the 20.   I think it's a terribly unpredictable play, and that's why it isn't used regularly as a kickoff technique.  What it does do is make it difficult for the receiving team to run a trick play, because they can't count on the ball coming to any particular player. 

 

A pooch kick, a high kick that definitely falls within the field of play makes more sense to me.  As someone pointed out, Bass has successfully kicked the ball short, and to one side, many times.   That's a much better way to kick it from the point of view of the cover team, because a pooch kick to the ten near the sideline allows the cover team to cut off the far side of the field, it forces the opponent to catch it (because the coverage team would be converging on a loose ball if they don't).   But it didn't seem the Bills called for a pooch kick - the coverage team were staying in their lanes and not converging on a point where they expected the ball to be.  

 

So, what exactly is the benefit of the pooch kick, anyway?

[newcam2012]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I guess I don't understand what the magic is with a pooch or squib.   If it was an excellent technique for pinning the other team inside the 15, okay, I get it.  But if it's such an excellent technique, why don't teams use it all the time?  I think they don't use it all the time because it's unpredictable.   On a squib kick, the ball might be recovered on the 35, maybe on the 20, maybe on the 10.   Or it may go all the way to the end zone.   So, what your tell your cover team?  Converge on the 30?  No, maybe converge on the 20.   I think it's a terribly unpredictable play, and that's why it isn't used regularly as a kickoff technique.  What it does do is make it difficult for the receiving team to run a trick play, because they can't count on the ball coming to any particular player. 

 

A pooch kick, a high kick that definitely falls within the field of play makes more sense to me.  As someone pointed out, Bass has successfully kicked the ball short, and to one side, many times.   That's a much better way to kick it from the point of view of the cover team, because a pooch kick to the ten near the sideline allows the cover team to cut off the far side of the field, it forces the opponent to catch it (because the coverage team would be converging on a loose ball if they don't).   But it didn't seem the Bills called for a pooch kick - the coverage team were staying in their lanes and not converging on a point where they expected the ball to be.  

 

So, what exactly is the benefit of the pooch kick, anyway?

The real issue that you didn't address was the clock. Top priority should have been taking precious seconds off the clock. A kick to the end zone obviously does nothing in this regard. A squib or pooch kick gave the Bills the best opportunity to take seconds off the clock. In that situation, it clearly called for a squib or pooch kick. Imho, you take the risk to execute the correct kick. Flat out kicking it into the end zone was the wrong call. Nevertheless, the Bill's defense still should have stopped the Chiefs. However, that doesn't negate the kicking error. In summary, the Bill's coaching staff gave the game away in a 13 second span. Sickening...

[Shaw66]

44 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

The real issue that you didn't address was the clock. Top priority should have been taking precious seconds off the clock. A kick to the end zone obviously does nothing in this regard. A squib or pooch kick gave the Bills the best opportunity to take seconds off the clock. In that situation, it clearly called for a squib or pooch kick. Imho, you take the risk to execute the correct kick. Flat out kicking it into the end zone was the wrong call. Nevertheless, the Bill's defense still should have stopped the Chiefs. However, that doesn't negate the kicking error. In summary, the Bill's coaching staff gave the game away in a 13 second span. Sickening...

Yes, the clock.  But a squib kick, which apparently what was called, really doesn't do much to the clock.  The clock doesn't start until the ball is touched by the receiving team.  The receiving team will do everything it can to handle the squib kick outside the 15, and they will immediately take a knee.   No time, or at most a second, will go off the clock.   They're only going to return a squib kick if the kick makes it inside the 10, and maybe not even then.  

 

A pooch kick is different, because the kicker can deliver it more or less where he wants.  But the replays make it pretty clear that a pooch kick wasn't called.   That would have gone toward a corner, the way the Bills always kick it, and the coverage team would have been running full speed with their lanes converging on that corner.   They weren't doing that.   They were in some sort of slow motion, prevent mode, covering all lanes (in part to protect against a reverse, a throw across the field, or other gadget.  

 

I don't know what the Bills were trying to do, but they didn't execute it properly.  Still, I don't see that it was a big problem.  The chances were good that even if they'd executed properly, KC would have had 12 or 13 seconds left to work with - maybe from deeper in their own territory, maybe not.  Maybe the Bills had a way to force KC to return the ball, which would have burned more time, but which also opens up the possibility of giving up a game ending touchdown if the execution is blown or if the Chiefs had a play the Bills weren't prepared for.   What the Bills got was nice, conservative, risk-free result - ball on the 25 with 13 seconds left.   

 

So, I still say the same thing - I don't see the benefit of a squib kick.  The Bills left themselves with an easy task - hold the Chiefs under 30 yards on two plays.  The squib kick wouldn't have left them much better off.  

[Billsfan1972]

48 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, the clock.  But a squib kick, which apparently what was called, really doesn't do much to the clock.  The clock doesn't start until the ball is touched by the receiving team.  The receiving team will do everything it can to handle the squib kick outside the 15, and they will immediately take a knee.   No time, or at most a second, will go off the clock.   They're only going to return a squib kick if the kick makes it inside the 10, and maybe not even then.  

 

A pooch kick is different, because the kicker can deliver it more or less where he wants.  But the replays make it pretty clear that a pooch kick wasn't called.   That would have gone toward a corner, the way the Bills always kick it, and the coverage team would have been running full speed with their lanes converging on that corner.   They weren't doing that.   They were in some sort of slow motion, prevent mode, covering all lanes (in part to protect against a reverse, a throw across the field, or other gadget.  

 

I don't know what the Bills were trying to do, but they didn't execute it properly.  Still, I don't see that it was a big problem.  The chances were good that even if they'd executed properly, KC would have had 12 or 13 seconds left to work with - maybe from deeper in their own territory, maybe not.  Maybe the Bills had a way to force KC to return the ball, which would have burned more time, but which also opens up the possibility of giving up a game ending touchdown if the execution is blown or if the Chiefs had a play the Bills weren't prepared for.   What the Bills got was nice, conservative, risk-free result - ball on the 25 with 13 seconds left.   

 

So, I still say the same thing - I don't see the benefit of a squib kick.  The Bills left themselves with an easy task - hold the Chiefs under 30 yards on two plays.  The squib kick wouldn't have left them much better off.  

And I too had a thread on that. Cincinnati did it versus Kansas City at the end of the first half and it did exactly what it was supposed to do and was fielded at the 5 and returned inside the 25 and 5 Seconds came off the clock.

 

Final 13 seconds were handled terribly by the coaching staff. End of story.

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

The point is you shouldn't be able to move the ball 44 yards in 10 seconds.  The defensive calls were the problem. 

Defense was gassed and Mahomes was on fire.  You have to understand the flow of the game at that point.  Even Romo on the call said “oooh I don’t like that” after Bass kicked it through the end zone because he knows we may have left them just enough time to get two plays off where you don’t have to throw a Hal Mary.  Terrible defensive play but the kickoff was the most egregious call in that game.

[newcam2012]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, the clock.  But a squib kick, which apparently what was called, really doesn't do much to the clock.  The clock doesn't start until the ball is touched by the receiving team.  The receiving team will do everything it can to handle the squib kick outside the 15, and they will immediately take a knee.   No time, or at most a second, will go off the clock.   They're only going to return a squib kick if the kick makes it inside the 10, and maybe not even then.  

 

A pooch kick is different, because the kicker can deliver it more or less where he wants.  But the replays make it pretty clear that a pooch kick wasn't called.   That would have gone toward a corner, the way the Bills always kick it, and the coverage team would have been running full speed with their lanes converging on that corner.   They weren't doing that.   They were in some sort of slow motion, prevent mode, covering all lanes (in part to protect against a reverse, a throw across the field, or other gadget.  

 

I don't know what the Bills were trying to do, but they didn't execute it properly.  Still, I don't see that it was a big problem.  The chances were good that even if they'd executed properly, KC would have had 12 or 13 seconds left to work with - maybe from deeper in their own territory, maybe not.  Maybe the Bills had a way to force KC to return the ball, which would have burned more time, but which also opens up the possibility of giving up a game ending touchdown if the execution is blown or if the Chiefs had a play the Bills weren't prepared for.   What the Bills got was nice, conservative, risk-free result - ball on the 25 with 13 seconds left.   

 

So, I still say the same thing - I don't see the benefit of a squib kick.  The Bills left themselves with an easy task - hold the Chiefs under 30 yards on two plays.  The squib kick wouldn't have left them much better off.  

Shaw I hear what you are saying. I think you really are missing the big picture and making some assumptions that are unfounded and incorrect. Again, I will say a squib or pooch kick was the right call because it gives the Bills a chance to burn the clock. Whether it would have or not is debatable. The right call wasn't to kick it in the end zone because it has no chance to tick the clock. It's really that simple. 

 

What happened after the kick is a separate issue. Obviously, the Bill's coaching staff and players blew it. That's being kind and I don't want to beat a dead horse.

 

It was terrible. I ask all Bills fans this. How comfortable were you when the Cheifs had the ball at their 25, 3 time outs, and 13 seconds? It gave Mahomes two plays to get into fg range. I honestly thought it would be like a 60 yard kick to tie the game. Tony Romo was right!

Edited February 19, 2022 by newcam2012

[Billsfan1972]

11 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

Shaw I hear what you are saying. I think you really are missing the big picture and making some assumptions that are unfounded and incorrect. Again, I will say a squib or pooch kick was the right call because it gives the Bills a chance to burn the clock. Whether it would have or not is debatable. The right call wasn't to kick it in the end zone because it has no chance to tick the clock. It's really that simple. 

 

What happened after the kick is a separate issue. Obviously, the Bill's coaching staff and players blew it. That's being kind and I don't want to beat a dead horse.

 

It was terrible. I ask all Bills fans this. How comfortable were you when the Cheifs had the ball at their 25, 3 time outs, and 13 seconds? It gave Mahomes two plays to get into fg range. I honestly thought it would be like a 60 yard kick to tie the game. Tony Romo was right!

And I was too as I explained to everyone at my house that a squib kick or a short kick was what was needed. I couldn't understand when the kick went to the end zone and was screaming at the call. And trust me I know Tony Romo or coach, but near the right call at the moment.😜

Edited February 19, 2022 by Billsfan1972

[newcam2012]

23 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

And I was too as I explained to everyone at my house that a squib kick or a short kick was what was needed. I couldn't understand when the kick went to the end zone and was screaming at the call. And trust me I know Tony Romo or coach, but near the right call at the moment.😜

I screamed NO!!!! when the kick went into the end zone. I knew at that point the game had a really really good chance of going into ot. I was besides myself that the Chiefs had such an easy fg attempt. I was expecting Butner to make a 60 yarder or so. 

26 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

And I was too as I explained to everyone at my house that a squib kick or a short kick was what was needed. I couldn't understand when the kick went to the end zone and was screaming at the call. And trust me I know Tony Romo or coach, but near the right call at the moment.😜

To not even attempt to burn the clock on the kick off is gross negligence. To have miscommunication at that point is inexcusable. 

[atlbillsfan1975]

14 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

I don't know what to make of McDermott's "we just didn't execute" comments anymore.  

McD had the play, squib kickoff. McD didn’t execute, walk over and tell Bass. 

[Ray Stonada]

Pooch kick was the right call, and probably was the call they made.

 

Bass is very good at it.

 

They would have had the ball at their own 20-30 yard line with 8-10 seconds on the clock.

 

Dammit.

 

 

 

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, newcam2012 said:

Shaw I hear what you are saying. I think you really are missing the big picture and making some assumptions that are unfounded and incorrect. Again, I will say a squib or pooch kick was the right call because it gives the Bills a chance to burn the clock. Whether it would have or not is debatable. The right call wasn't to kick it in the end zone because it has no chance to tick the clock. It's really that simple. 

 

What happened after the kick is a separate issue. Obviously, the Bill's coaching staff and players blew it. That's being kind and I don't want to beat a dead horse.

 

It was terrible. I ask all Bills fans this. How comfortable were you when the Cheifs had the ball at their 25, 3 time outs, and 13 seconds? It gave Mahomes two plays to get into fg range. I honestly thought it would be like a 60 yard kick to tie the game. Tony Romo was right!

Thanks. That's a good explanation.  Personally I don't agree that the possibility of burning time was worth the risk of the uncertainty that play brings with it. 

 

And I'm not really arguing that the squib was the right call.  What I'm saying is that the result of what actually happened, first down from the 25, wasn't some kind of disaster.  It wasn't a pick six, it wasn't a muffed punt or a 60 yard return.   Yes, it may have been a blown opportunity to end the game, but we will never know that.  What we know is that the Bills should have won the game with the Chiefs starting when and where they did.

 

It was a mistake without a serious consequence.  

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, newcam2012 said:

 

To not even attempt to burn the clock on the kick off is gross negligence. To have miscommunication at that point is inexcusable. 

That's a really good way to put it.  McD wasnt guilty of gross negligence.  He called the play and he communicated it the coordinator.  The coordinator failed to communicate with the players.  It was literally inexcusable.  McDermot could not excuse the failure and fired the coordinator who failed. 

[newcam2012]

32 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

That's a really good way to put it.  McD wasnt guilty of gross negligence.  He called the play and he communicated it the coordinator.  The coordinator failed to communicate with the players.  It was literally inexcusable.  McDermot could not excuse the failure and fired the coordinator who failed. 

I'd agree with that. Let's take it a step further following that rationale. How bout after the kick? Who called those defensive plays? Was it Frazier or did Coach McD take over? What were they thinking? What consequences should that person receive? Is it fair to say their defensive strategy blew the game? Is not like Mahomes and the Chiefs won on a fluke play. They won as a  direct result of the defensive incompetence. Curious to hear what you have to say. Thanks

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, newcam2012 said:

I'd agree with that. Let's take it a step further following that rationale. How bout after the kick? Who called those defensive plays? Was it Frazier or did Coach McD take over? What were they thinking? What consequences should that person receive? Is it fair to say their defensive strategy blew the game? Is not like Mahomes and the Chiefs won on a fluke play. They won as a  direct result of the defensive incompetence. Curious to hear what you have to say. Thanks

Wow!  That's a much more interesting question.   As I've said, I just can't get upset, in terms of how the game played out, with the non-squib quick.  Yes, as you said, it was a chance to win the game on the kickoff, and that's a communication failure is inexcusable.  The plays that determined the outcome were the next three (I include the field goal, because it was an opportunity to make a play, and no one did.  In fact, I don't recall being impressed by any attempts to block place kicks this season.) 

 

I think the bigger failure, the more complicated failure, happened on the first two plays after the kickoff.  

 

I don't know enough about defense, and I don't remember the plays well enough to be able to critique intelligently what they did and should have done.  I know a few things.

 

Someone here once said about the defense they ran was that they dropped their two best defenders so deep that they were able to be factors in the play as it unfolded.  

 

I heard Sean Payton say the Bills DBs were defending the sideline, to stop quick outs and clock stoppages.   But the Chiefs had time outs - they clearly had the whole field to attack.  There was no reason to defend the sidelines, and that opened the middle, even more.  Think of it - your DBs tethered to the sideline and your safety 30 yards downfield.  

 

Someone suggested holding Hill and/or Kelce at the line of scrimmage on the first play.   The play runs out, Mahomes' has one key guy subtracted from his attack, and he burns time trying improvise the next best choice.  Maybe you blanket the other guys and Mahomes burns 6 or 7 seconds, maybe ends up throwing incomplete to get out of the down.  Bills take the five-yard penalty.  

 

Those are just random, serious questions to be answered.  Maybe there are answers, but I doubt it, not for all of them, especially when you include more specific questions that others can suggest.   

 

Either McDermott delegated all that authority to Frazier, and I doubt that, or the defensive decisions were joint between Frazier and McDermott or even dictated by McDermott.   Had to be one or the other.  I don't think you can conclude anything other than that they underperformed expectations.   They didn't have the strategies or hadn't prepared their defense well enough to execute two plays and hold the offense under 15 yards per play.   

 

So, what's McDermott's response?   I think however he thinks about it, he has to have less confidence now in Frazier, and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't secretly hoping Frazier would get a job somewhere.  McDermott can't very well fire Frazier, especially not in the current racial climate in the NFL.   And it's not that he wants to fire him because of what happened, but I'd guess that he would like a more creative, maybe younger, guy in that role, a guy who's not quite so passive.  And McDermott simply doesn't have the time to get seriously involved in running the defense.   His system demands that he be free from day-to-day D coordinator stuff.  

 

All McDermott can do, I think, is work hard with Frazier to develop goals for Frazier to hit. I don't know goals they should be, or why they weren't goals before now.   I think one goal, one deliverable, would be a revamped strategy for end-of-game situations.  They need a defense that can attack when necessary, that can truly take a player out of a play.  What they seem to have, the ultra-prevent styles that show up every once in a while, has two problems:  they're passive to excess, and they're too predictable.  Too predictable in that all teams know how to attack prevent defenses, and when you're playing the Chiefs or the Rams or the Bengals or the 49ers or the Packers and some others, they're throwing a receiver at you who will kill you in all that space you leave open.   The Bills have to be able to do something better than "keeping the play in front of you."   

 

Was being unprepared to do better a fireable offense.   I think it could be considered fireable insofar as the defensive coordinator is concerned, but as I said, I can't imagine the Bills firing Frazier now.   They wouldn't want the political heat, and McDermott's too loyal, anyway.  Fireable for the HC?  Well, yes, if you had a head coach with a mediocre track record, you might say "damn! of all the other things you haven't really changed around here, now there's this."  But with McDermott's track record, and with his attitude, you have a high level of confidence that issues like the 13 seconds will not continue to be problems.   

 

That's why I think that all they can do about the defense is move on with the guys they have, try to learn from it, and get better.  

 

 

 

 

[newcam2012]

32 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Wow!  That's a much more interesting question.   As I've said, I just can't get upset, in terms of how the game played out, with the non-squib quick.  Yes, as you said, it was a chance to win the game on the kickoff, and that's a communication failure is inexcusable.  The plays that determined the outcome were the next three (I include the field goal, because it was an opportunity to make a play, and no one did.  In fact, I don't recall being impressed by any attempts to block place kicks this season.) 

 

I think the bigger failure, the more complicated failure, happened on the first two plays after the kickoff.  

 

I don't know enough about defense, and I don't remember the plays well enough to be able to critique intelligently what they did and should have done.  I know a few things.

 

Someone here once said about the defense they ran was that they dropped their two best defenders so deep that they were able to be factors in the play as it unfolded.  

 

I heard Sean Payton say the Bills DBs were defending the sideline, to stop quick outs and clock stoppages.   But the Chiefs had time outs - they clearly had the whole field to attack.  There was no reason to defend the sidelines, and that opened the middle, even more.  Think of it - your DBs tethered to the sideline and your safety 30 yards downfield.  

 

Someone suggested holding Hill and/or Kelce at the line of scrimmage on the first play.   The play runs out, Mahomes' has one key guy subtracted from his attack, and he burns time trying improvise the next best choice.  Maybe you blanket the other guys and Mahomes burns 6 or 7 seconds, maybe ends up throwing incomplete to get out of the down.  Bills take the five-yard penalty.  

 

Those are just random, serious questions to be answered.  Maybe there are answers, but I doubt it, not for all of them, especially when you include more specific questions that others can suggest.   

 

Either McDermott delegated all that authority to Frazier, and I doubt that, or the defensive decisions were joint between Frazier and McDermott or even dictated by McDermott.   Had to be one or the other.  I don't think you can conclude anything other than that they underperformed expectations.   They didn't have the strategies or hadn't prepared their defense well enough to execute two plays and hold the offense under 15 yards per play.   

 

So, what's McDermott's response?   I think however he thinks about it, he has to have less confidence now in Frazier, and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't secretly hoping Frazier would get a job somewhere.  McDermott can't very well fire Frazier, especially not in the current racial climate in the NFL.   And it's not that he wants to fire him because of what happened, but I'd guess that he would like a more creative, maybe younger, guy in that role, a guy who's not quite so passive.  And McDermott simply doesn't have the time to get seriously involved in running the defense.   His system demands that he be free from day-to-day D coordinator stuff.  

 

All McDermott can do, I think, is work hard with Frazier to develop goals for Frazier to hit. I don't know goals they should be, or why they weren't goals before now.   I think one goal, one deliverable, would be a revamped strategy for end-of-game situations.  They need a defense that can attack when necessary, that can truly take a player out of a play.  What they seem to have, the ultra-prevent styles that show up every once in a while, has two problems:  they're passive to excess, and they're too predictable.  Too predictable in that all teams know how to attack prevent defenses, and when you're playing the Chiefs or the Rams or the Bengals or the 49ers or the Packers and some others, they're throwing a receiver at you who will kill you in all that space you leave open.   The Bills have to be able to do something better than "keeping the play in front of you."   

 

Was being unprepared to do better a fireable offense.   I think it could be considered fireable insofar as the defensive coordinator is concerned, but as I said, I can't imagine the Bills firing Frazier now.   They wouldn't want the political heat, and McDermott's too loyal, anyway.  Fireable for the HC?  Well, yes, if you had a head coach with a mediocre track record, you might say "damn! of all the other things you haven't really changed around here, now there's this."  But with McDermott's track record, and with his attitude, you have a high level of confidence that issues like the 13 seconds will not continue to be problems.   

 

That's why I think that all they can do about the defense is move on with the guys they have, try to learn from it, and get better.  

 

 

 

 

Love your post. It's upfront, honest, and realistic. I don't agree with every point but that's not the point. Lol

 

I contend that Coach McD took over the play calling. I don't believe for a min he let Frazier make the calls. Of course, I have no proof. That's my guess as to why Frazier's head wasn't on the chopping block. Additionally, the Bills called timeouts before each play. They had the time to call the best defensive plays. First play, Bills players 10 to 15 yards off the line of scrimmage; thus giving them a free 20 yards. Second play, Kelce free release off the line for an easy catch and run. WTF! Coach McD called the plays. He had to be directly involved in those calls. No other way to put it. In short, he blew the game in 13 seconds. No one will convince me otherwise. Is it a fireable offense? Yes and no. You bring up a great point on coach McD record and attitude. I'm not one calling for a new head coach. However, his ineptitude in that 13 seconds will remain with me forever. Similar to wide right and the Tenn miracle. 

 

I'm not a big fan of the Frazier defense. It clearly is a bend but don't break scheme. I think it's way less effective vs better teams. I for one never believed the Bills defense was deserving of the number 1 NFL defense. I believe most Bills fans thought similiarly. The defense didn't get the stops.

 

We can only hope as you said the Bill's improve from here on out. Some changes and additions will be needed. Thus far, Beane and company have built one of the better teams in the NFL. A healthy Allen means the Bills should be in line for another super bowl run. Please please please we fans want that Lombardi trophy and the parade in Bflo. 

[Shaw66]

17 hours ago, newcam2012 said:

Love your post. It's upfront, honest, and realistic. I don't agree with every point but that's not the point. Lol

 

I contend that Coach McD took over the play calling. I don't believe for a min he let Frazier make the calls. Of course, I have no proof. That's my guess as to why Frazier's head wasn't on the chopping block. Additionally, the Bills called timeouts before each play. They had the time to call the best defensive plays. First play, Bills players 10 to 15 yards off the line of scrimmage; thus giving them a free 20 yards. Second play, Kelce free release off the line for an easy catch and run. WTF! Coach McD called the plays. He had to be directly involved in those calls. No other way to put it. In short, he blew the game in 13 seconds. No one will convince me otherwise. Is it a fireable offense? Yes and no. You bring up a great point on coach McD record and attitude. I'm not one calling for a new head coach. However, his ineptitude in that 13 seconds will remain with me forever. Similar to wide right and the Tenn miracle. 

 

I'm not a big fan of the Frazier defense. It clearly is a bend but don't break scheme. I think it's way less effective vs better teams. I for one never believed the Bills defense was deserving of the number 1 NFL defense. I believe most Bills fans thought similiarly. The defense didn't get the stops.

 

We can only hope as you said the Bill's improve from here on out. Some changes and additions will be needed. Thus far, Beane and company have built one of the better teams in the NFL. A healthy Allen means the Bills should be in line for another super bowl run. Please please please we fans want that Lombardi trophy and the parade in Bflo. 

Hey, Newcam, I'm really enjoying this discussion.  You raise really good points. 

 

I won't argue with that McDermott was completely in charge of the defense in those moments.   As I said, I think he was either calling the shots exclusively or in conjunction with Frazier.   Either way, McDermott's fingerprints were on the decision making.  

 

An important thing we don't know, damnable in either case, is whether (1) this defensive scheme had better plays to call than were called - in which case McDermott is culpable for not having called the better plays, or (2) they didn't have in place any more suitable defensive formations and approaches, in which case Frazier is culpable for not having put them in place and McDermott is culpable for not having identified that weakness and insisted that Frazier develop some other approaches.   Damnable in either case.  

 

Your comments remind of two points I've made lately.   One is that I don't like the defensive style, either.   I mean, I get it, it's designed to be a defense that serves you well, week in and week out, as the type of team you play changes, and it's designed to keep you in games by keeping the score down.   It works very well.   And it often comes through with big stops when needed - there are lots of examples.   It doesn't come through every time, no defense does.   What I don't like about it - and I think this is McDermott, not simply Frazier, is the bend-don't-break nature of the defense does lead to complementary football when you have an explosive offense.   With this offense, you want a defense that gets the ball back to the offense quickly.   You do that with takeaways and three and outs.  You also do it by giving up touchdowns - I know that's odd, but it's true.   Which offense, high scoring or low scoring, makes it more imperative that you give up few points?   A low scoring offense.   Worst combination for a team is an offense that can't score and a defense that gives up scores.   But if you have an offense that scores a lot, you can afford to give up more points, especially if in the process of risking a quick score, you're increasing your chances of taking the ball away.    Look at the Chiefs game - if the defense hadn't let the Chiefs score as soon as they did in the final two minutes, Josh wouldn't have had time to lead the game-winning drive.  

 

That tells me that the Bills need a more aggressive defense.   Maybe better put, they need a defense that can do what this defense does over the long term - limit yards and points, but that ALSO takes some risks to make big plays.  It needs to be more unpredictable, and part of being unpredictable is threatening to attack the QB with any player on your defense.    Dropping your two safeties so deep, two or your best playmakers, seriously limits your ability to make a play on defense.   You said, essentially, that not squib kicking cost the Bills an opportunity to win the game (by running clock, by pinning them deep, or even by maybe getting a turnover on the kickoff).   Well, playing prevent defense also costs you opportunities to win the game right there.   The Bills need a defense that can and does play more aggressively.   Maybe it means they need a high-level, stud edge rusher - he alone would be a threat to make plays.    But they need to be willing to blitz and make it work, and they need to be willing to rush 3 or even 2 and make that work.  

 

I hope McDermott sees that and recognizes that his process hasn't led him yet to develop a defense that meshes better with this offense.   I trust that he sees it and will work on it.   In any case, the Bills missed an opportunity because he hadn't done enough to have the team prepared to play those 13 seconds in anything other than ultra-prevent mode. 

 

The other point is that you say you will remember this right along with Wide Right and the Music City Miracle, and I will too.   And I'd throw in the Monday night loss to the Cowboys.   And the loss to the Cardinals on the Hail Mary is almost up there, too.   I get that.   But McDermott reminded us a few weeks ago that beating the Pats in the playoffs wasn't as big a deal for him and the players as it was for the fans.   There's a bit of that here, too.   I mean, sure, the players are devastated by this loss - it's a horrible loss for a player to go through, given the months of hard work and struggle, only to lose because you and your team completely blew it in the end.   But only some of those players lost to the Cardinals, only a few of them lost to the Texans in overtime, and none of them lost the Cowboys, Titans, or Giants in those epic collapses.  And they've had a lot of successes.  They don't think of this loss as just one more episode in the life-long lament of Buffalo Bills fans.   So, for the coaches and players, it's very much about getting over the short-term pain and then doing the work to have some confidence that you won't do that again.  It's about learning how to win, and this game has taught them all that they have more to learn.   That's exactly the kind of challenge that drives McDermott, which is why I wouldn't think of firing him.   Under McDermott, this team is going to get better - he will not permit anything else. 

[Mat68]

I feel like instead of a squib they would have done a high kick that lands between the 10 and 5.  I think either Bass got to much off it or wasnt told.