Buffalo Fanatics has a point - Burrow is elite but JA is superior

[PBF81]

2 hours ago, loveorhatembillsfan4life said:

I think your spot on and something else I was thinking about this morning.

 

Allen is the face of this Franchise. His Legacy will be decided by Rings and Super Bowl appearances. Diggs needs that as well… like these are 2 Elite players. 
 

 

From the outside I think Mcd and Beane get a lot praise because we have been a 10 plus win playoff team year after year. 

Other than this board,  this might be the the first offseason where I heard  1-3 media types begin to actually question if Mcd is the best coach for this team..I still believe the majority back him. 
 

I also think this correlates to him taking over the D. Leslie was not coming back and I don’t think he will ever will as a D coordinator…Even if it’s the same scheme I think it will look different..more mixup, pressure whatever. I am pretty excited he has taken this on.

 

Thanks!

 

Yeah, I don't think that Frasier's coming back either.  I digress however in thinking that McD's defense is going to be better.  IMO we have too many shortcomings on defense to be a top-10 D this season, particularly against the slate of QBs and correlating offenses that we play.  

 

I do think, fairly or not, that that may lead to Frasier's getting a HC job somewhere as the perception will be that it was him that was responsible for our #1 & #2 ranked Ds.  Maybe not, we'll see.  The rub is that our playoff D has been on the opposite end of the spectrum, and as I pointed out in another post somewhere, focusing on 1st-Down stats as a singular indicator, they type of D that we have typically fielded in the playoffs, no team has won a recent Super Bowl with a defense like that, so it's incredibly unlikely that we will.  In another thread I pointed out how statistically our D was well below average in pass-rushing after Miller went down, and we hardly played Mahomes, Burrow, and Lawrence after that.  Mac Jones (twice), Justin Fields, and Mike White.  Tua had a much better game w/o Miller than his game with Miller in.  

 

Defensively we have no impact pass-rusher, only one LB that's known to be a capable starter at something other than a replacement level, not one CB that was even average last season, aging Safeties and no help from the draft.  There's a whole lot hinging on White's knee health this season.  Von Miller's finished as an impact player at his age although we'll see him post-surgery at 34, I wouldn't hang my hat that his performance will even approach being reminiscent of last season much less in his prime.  There are a whole lot of variables in a season where we face quite a few offenses in the top-half of the league and many top-10s, more than last season easily.  

 

We'll see how the season shakes out.  

 

 

2 hours ago, Airseven said:

Allen is an elite athlete but he’s yet to become an elite QB. He’s capable of dominating games…he’s also capable of losing his focus, his mechanics, his poise, and can struggle to complete a pass for long stretches of games. Mahomes and Burrow aren’t infallible, but their floor - their relative consistency of execution from game to game - is so far beyond Allen.
 

The need for Bills fans to manufacture so many outside influences, so many hypotheticals, so much context in order to pretend Allen is the best is unnecessary. Just allow him to improve and perform and earn it.

 

I have to think that so much of his "lack of focus" are the stressors of having to overcome so many other shortcomings of the play of the team, and coaching.  

 

 

[78thealltimegreat]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Great comment.  I think you're correct. 

 

Charles Barkley said something the other night that I thought was interesting.  He was talking about being the star on a basketball team, but the same thing applies in football and particularly to Allen.  He said if you're a real star, like Embiid, you're better than just about all the players, and everybody knows that.  That causes your teammates to have a tendency to change how they play, to rely on you often.  The star and the coach have to get everyone to play THEIR game and to stop feeling like they're just the supporting cast to the star.   The star essentially has to be saying to his teammates, "look, you have to do the things we need to win so that I don't have to do it for the whole game.  My job is to win the game in the fourth quarter, if we haven't already won it."   None of the successful QBs is carrying their offense like Allen.  Not Burrow, not Rodgers, I'd say not even Mahomes.   Mahomes is great, and he's making star-quality plays (like Allen) throughout the game, but it never feels like the Chiefs really NEED him to do it.  

 

And that's not just on the coach.   It's on Allen, too.  There are great NBA players, incredible dominant talents, like Lebron, who just somehow demand the attention, rather than just being the guy who plays with the team until the fourth quarter and then takes over.  Lebron's been very difficult that way, and Curry has been able to lead but not dominate.   Mahomes is Curry, and Allen needs to become more like Curry and less like Lebron. 

You know Shaw someone the other day mentioned I think it was on Sirius that Josh reminds him very much of Alexander Ovechkin he has these amazing performances and stats of a generational player but there was always yeh but till he won his Stanley Cup…that’s Josh he’s capable of doing things only a handful of guys who have ever played this game can do but till he wins the Lombardi Trophy he’s always going to have a yeh but deal…just a shame the D couldn’t have held on for 13 seconds last year or more then likely it wouldn’t be when is he going to win one too it’s how many. 

[PBF81]

11 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It seems odd to hear myself saying it, but Allen has to become more than he is.  The guys who's asked to do everything has to do more.  He has to be part of the team, not THE team, and he has to lead the others to be better.  

 

OK, so on that note, and in the vein of our discussion, how is he supposed to get more out of the RBs?  Or the D?  How about the OL-men who seem to be playing their hearts out for him already?  

 

I can see him forcing more out of Diggs who seems to think that none of this is his fault despite near invisibility in three of the last five playoff games and one underperforming effort.  

 

Isn't is entirely possible that we simply don't have the level of talent for Allen to be able to "get that out of them?"  ... other than for say Diggs?  

 

Also, was Allen responsible for ditching his safety valve Beasley?  That's on Beane.  

 

There needs to be a degree of realism in any expectation for anyone that has a task set before them.  It strikes me that we're asking Allen to turn mud into an award-winning chili as such.  

 

But the question remains, at the end of the day, isn't it entirely possible that the level of talent that we have generally speaking, simply isn't good enough to perform to those levels?  I mean there are obvious talent differences between say Diggs and Brown, which is widely stated by our fan base every offseason, that we need better receivers.  When fans say that, even they know that the talent is not there.  

 

Right?   So why couldn't the issue be that some of us as fans, overrate the talent that we have?  

 

 

[Shaw66]

10 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Please, I enjoy a good and respectful back-n-forth, I wish there were more of it, not at all taken personally like so many others.  Allow me to respond to some of your comments in that same vein.  And please, feel free to respond back again.  

 

 

There's nothing for me to "get over," I have no dog in the fight.  It is what it is.  I do analyze it though, objectively.   From an analytical perspective I do find it a little discouraging to see that the things most negatively impacting this team generally continue to remain unaddressed.  But in deflecting heat from oneself while allowing it to settle on another under your charge, and someone that's essentially made you what you are, I do have a difficult time disrespecting, anyone and at any level, even employees.  This was about Allen however, not me.  I was defending him.  I don't care if I'm 100% wrong on everything that flows from my pen if we go 17-0 or 8-9, slip into the playoffs as a wild-card, and win the Super Bowl.  I'll be the happiest person on the planet at that time.  If we continue to "make the playoffs" with Allen at QB, and continue to underachieve and get ousted in the WC or D rounds, then I will be incredibly disappointed like most other fans.  But there's nothing personal on my end.  At the end of the day absolutely nothing that you or I do or say changes anything.  

 

 

I didn't say that Allen would be winning Super Bowls, I said we'd be seeing a different Allen, for sure a more efficient Allen.  I firmly believe that we would be, and no, I didn't elaborate because I didn't want to deal with the backlash and tangents, but I will briefly here.  IMO he'd be more of a pocket-passer while using his athleticism only to escape trouble when absolutely necessry, which he wouldn't be facing with nearly the frequency on any of those three teams because their OLs are better, ... because their GMs have done a notably better job at doing that among other things.  

 

I was not all that high on the Rams and have even took heat here for stating that their success was largely hinged upon a soft schedule that year and some good fortune and peaking in the playoffs.  Not that that matters, your thoughts on McVay aside, IMO Allen would be different anywhere that has a significantly better OL than we've had, and that's a good number of teams.  

 

 

Beane's had 6 drafts now, so I'm not sure "how much time" he needs.  Others have done it in far less.  As to the Pegulas, who cares, Kim's entirely out of the picture now and Terry has implied if not all but admitted that he's not a football guy like that and he takes no active role in overseeing the team.   The Pegulas are not germane to the discussion.  How many owners have supported underachieving GMs and HCs in the past, and even now, today.  

 

My biggest issue, since apparently it wasn't clear, was that Allen's taking more heat than he should be, and much of that has to do with McD.  Your supportive statements re: McD above aside, what does it say for a coach that preaches character and integrity, that refuses to address the biggest reasons why his team loses games, and coaching related, not QB related, and leaves his QB out there to address the media on the topic?  In my book it doesn't say very much and is hypocritical.  You validated that McD has done that, so do you support it?  Do you think that it's good form for someone that preaches (almost literally) integrity and character?  Because I don't, I think it sends a poor message to be frank.  

 

Allen's trying to be the consummate "team player" in the proverbial sense in this regard, but taking far more heat and responsibility than he should be, and taking it for both Beane's and McD's errors, shortcomings, and mistakes.  I mean seriously, allowing an average of 393 yards and over 24 1st-downs in 7 playoff games over the past three seasons is hardly Allen's fault.  It is unarguably horrific defensive performance however.  We can disagree on all that, but I will say this, if that continues, I'm worried about Allen exercising his out in a couple of seasons.  It's nice to think that he'd never leave Buffalo, but if he continues to take a beating because Beane's neglect and/or judgment about building enough protection for him, thereby threatening the longevity of his career not to mention his ability to take his team to the promised land, and if McD keeps fudging up our defensive performances in the playoffs, like with those ridiculous alignments in the Cincy game, and do we need to even discuss "13 Seconds," something that McD has never come clean on, then Allen may opt to leave.  

 

In finishing this post, you said the following ... 

 

 

Beane has now had 6 drafts and McD's heading into his 7th season.  Defensively we've been tops in the NFL in the regular season, but in the playoffs we have regularly performed to the opposite end of the rankings.  The offense has essentially been all Allen, even for running the ball.  

 

Now it's commonly held that we're trending downward, and that both the Fins and Jets are trending upward.  What if one of them wins the division, or heaven forbid NE?  We have better talent on paper than all three teams.  And as to McD, to this date we still don't know why "13 Seconds" happened, or whom was specifically to blame for some of our ridiculous defensive alignments in the playoffs.  Why?  Because he, McD, hasn't come clean on it.  That's all fine and dandy, but then it leaves people to speculate and leaves the likely assumption that he was responsible.  Right?  But if refuses to clear things up, then he should expect people to put things on him, question him, and expect that if it continues, as it has, that it may end up costing him his job.  I don't think that's unreasonable in the least.  

 

So the question is, how much longer do you give both Beane and McD to "build success"?  8 years?  10?  15?  I ask in all earnestness btw.  

 

The issues we have continue.  So either we're hoping for a leopard to change its spots, or for enough time to pass for McD to learn in OJT fashion, how not to make mistakes that even the average football fan understands the basis for.  At some point, whether it's after this season, two more, five more, or 20 more, the plug needs to be pulled.  But here's the rub, if we wait too long, we forfeit the advantage of having Allen here, which is 100% of the current basis for hope on this team.  

 

Right now there's a stigma held by many, a good chunk of Bills fans as well as a majority of the national media and fans now from what I'm reading, that McD's merely another Marty Schottenheimer or Marvin Lewis, and neither of those coaches had a Josh Allen.  And speaking of Lewis, what if Cincy hadn't ditched Lewis and gotten Taylor, who's obviously a better coach?  Are you content to ride Allen's career out like that if that's the case?  I and many others view it as a tragedy if it shakes out like that.  That's essentially what we're talking about here.  

 

At the end of the day we have obvious flaws that are preventing us from winning it all.  The question must be which of those flaws are more responsible than others, and then let's address those first.  What much of the talk of Allen is about these days is his (personal) failure to take us to the promised land, when the reality is that he's that absolute last one that should be taking heat while parties more responsible take less than he does.  No?  

 

Parting thought ... pick ANY of our QBs during our playoff drought years, put them on this team over the past 6 seasons.  What kind of record do you think that McD would have had with those QBs of your choosing?  

 

 

I'm not going to respond to all of this, but it's in some ways spectacularly good.  Thanks for taking the time to put it down.    It all makes sense, and I won't argue with it, not all.   You're asking excellent questions that go to the heart of how a football team needs to be run.  

 

Why should I have confidence in McBeane?   Well, maybe you're right - maybe my confidence is misplaced, and maybe now or soon I should get off the bandwagon.  Fundamentally, I've drunk McDermott's Kool-Aid about growth mindset, etc.  I believe that he's so committed to the concepts surround continuous improvement that he will solve whatever problem stands in his way.  What he's done so far is build a team that over the past four or five years has been, arguably, the best regular-season team in the league.   He now has to figure out how to take that kind of team and make it succeed in the playoffs, too.  He and Beane said it when they came - they were going to build this team slowly, and step by step.   You have to win in the regular season before you can win in the playoffs.   Most coaches and GMs never learn to win consistently in the regular season.   So, they've taken a big step already, and they're working on rest.  

 

If the 2023 Bills are third in the betting to win the Super Bowl, well, how much more could one want at this point in the season?  They were first last season, but we saw that that didn't necessarily mean it was a lock.   The fact is that the most one can expect is to be a team that the consensus can see as a team that might win it - that is, all one can expect is that you have one of the, say, top five teams.  

 

Well, if Beane and McDermott have a methodology, and if that methodology has gotten the Bills to the top five for three years running, I just don't see what I'd be looking for in a new head coach or new GM.   Yes, you can say they're in the top five because of Allen, and there's some, maybe a lot of truth in that.   But McBeane share the credit, because they alone among several HC-GM pairs in the league, knew that Allen would be Allen, and created an environment around him where he could become what he has.  

 

Who are the current perennial Super Bowl favorites.   The Bills, the Chiefs, the Bengals.  Why?   Because they have a super QB and they have high quality coaching and front office work.   I just have trouble looking at it concluding McBeane are a problem.  They'r succeeding but haven't won yet.  

[folz]

9 hours ago, BigDingus said:

 

I don't know how much non-Bills stuff you follow, but the general conversation on sports social media & traditional media has moved on well past the point of people taking Allen over Burrow.... like that's just not a conversation rooted in reality at this point anymore.

 

Polls, YouTube videos, Twitter, sports outlets, you name it, Josh's stock was falling before the Cincy game, and the Dolphins & Cincy game sealed it. 

 

Nick Wright & others successfully got NFL fans to focus in on Josh's turnovers, highlighting not just the sheer number, but just now bad many of them were. On top of that, they added all his fumbles together (not just LOST fumbles), to where you now see people calling him a turnover machine with 30+ fumbles & INTs combined. 

 

I know it sounds harsh, but seriously, I have not seen a single poll or video discussing QBs all off-season where ANYONE put Allen ahead of Burrow. Bills fans would, but we're the same group that still claim we'd take Allen over Mahomes, so yeah...

 

I mean, on the one hand, who cares what the "football world" thinks. There is always so much recency bias. And we know what we have in Josh.

 

But, as to the turnovers, here are the numbers (and no, I'm not counting fumbles not lost...stats don't show almost interceptions, or almost tackles):

 

Player          Gms    INTs  FMB   TOs/Gm

Mahomes     80       49      10      .7375

Allen             77        60     20     1.038

Burrow         42        31       9       .952

 

To this point in their careers, you can definitely make a case that Mahomes (besides the 2 SBs of course) separates himself from Josh when it comes to turnovers. PM has 21 fewer turnovers than Josh, having played three more games. That is really impressive.

 

As for Burrow, well, he's played a lot fewer games at this point. But if you pro-rate his percentages out to 77 games (to match Josh), Burrow would have 57 INTs and 17 fumbles lost (not that much different than Josh's 60 and 20).

 

Plus, let's not forget that when you run as much as Josh does, there is more of a chance for fumbling...but those extra fumbles do not outweigh the positive yardage and points he gets.

 

Burrow           517 rushing yards (pro-rated out to 77 games, he'd still only have 948 yards)     7 TDs

Mahomes   1,547 rushing yards      6 TDs

Josh           3,087 rushing yards     13 TDs

 

And of course, Josh was a much more raw prospect than the other two (and walking into a talent-depleted team, unlike PM) and thrust into the starting role as a rookie (unlike PM). So, yes, Josh was more reckless with the ball his first couple of years, but he has gotten much better. He's not perfect and never will be with his style of play, but I don't think it discounts what he does do, or knocks him down the QB rankings in any significant way.

 

Over the last two years:    

 

                         Total attempts                   Fumbles

                           (pass/rush)        INTs          lost             

Mahomes:              1,433              25              4                 

Allen:                      1,459              29              8                  

Burrow:                   1,241              26              5                   

 

And obviously more attempts means more turnovers. If you pro-rate the other two to the same number of attempts as Josh, it looks like this:

 

PM:  25.45 INTs    4.07  fumbles     =     29.52 total turnovers

JA:        29 INTs        8  fumbles      =      37 total turnovers

JB:     30.5 INTs      5.9 fumbles      =      36.4 total turnovers

 

So, again, you can use the turnover argument with Mahomes, but not so much with Burrow. 

 

 

[Shaw66]

10 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

OK, so on that note, and in the vein of our discussion, how is he supposed to get more out of the RBs?  Or the D?  How about the OL-men who seem to be playing their hearts out for him already?  

 

I can see him forcing more out of Diggs who seems to think that none of this is his fault despite near invisibility in three of the last five playoff games and one underperforming effort.  

 

Isn't is entirely possible that we simply don't have the level of talent for Allen to be able to "get that out of them?"  ... other than for say Diggs?  

 

Also, was Allen responsible for ditching his safety valve Beasley?  That's on Beane.  

 

There needs to be a degree of realism in any expectation for anyone that has a task set before them.  It strikes me that we're asking Allen to turn mud into an award-winning chili as such.  

 

But the question remains, at the end of the day, isn't it entirely possible that the level of talent that we have generally speaking, simply isn't good enough to perform to those levels?  I mean there are obvious talent differences between say Diggs and Brown, which is widely stated by our fan base every offseason, that we need better receivers.  When fans say that, even they know that the talent is not there.  

 

Right?   So why couldn't the issue be that some of us as fans, overrate the talent that we have?  

 

 

Yeah, that's possible.   I think I'm fairly objective.   I think the receiving corps was good enough, in terms of talent, and is better now.  I have never been happy with their running backs, and I think their offensive line has struggled consistently.  

 

I'd guess, however, that a careful understanding of the rosters of other teams would show that every team has under-resourced some parts of their team.   When people complain that the Bills devote more resources to the defense, maybe that's the choice they've made precisely because they HAVE Allen, and some part of the team needs to be under-resourced.  Yes, you can challenge the actual talents of the players the Bills get, but I'd guess that around the lineup the Bills are as talented, maybe even more talented than most teams.  

 

I think we tend to get blinded by the stardom of the few.   The Chiefs have Kelce and had Hill, but other than those two, there has been a parade of players through their receiving room.  They aren't all stars.   I suspect it's true about offensive linemen, too.  Again, sure, every year we hear about how this team or that team's offensive line is killing it, but that never lasts very long.  When we see that line, we think Beane's done something wrong, but the reality is that there are 25 other teams saying, "Hey, why can't we have a line like that."  

 

How does he get more out of running backs and receivers?   Well, I don't know, exactly, but we know that Tom Brady got great performance out of average players by simply insisting that they do what they're supposed to do.   He was all over his teammates in ways that some guys didn't like but others responded to.  You didn't want to be the guy who let Brady down.  

 

I'll say what I said before - I don't who's out there that I would be confident will do better than McBeane, even assuming you could get him.   Reid?   Yeah, if I knew I had him for five years, I'd take him.  There just aren't many coaches who have won Super Bowls and been a consistent playoff threat.   Payton had a decent run.   It's very hard to do, and McBeane have had more success than almost anyone.  

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

Burrow has a better supporting cast than Allen. I don’t really care what the media thinks. If it came down to putting it all on the line for a game winning TD on 4th down, I’m taking 17 every time. Burrow did not have to deal w a UCL injury last year either. 

[PBF81]

22 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, maybe you're right - maybe my confidence is misplaced, and maybe now or soon I should get off the bandwagon.  Fundamentally, I've drunk McDermott's Kool-Aid about growth mindset, etc. 

 

Entirely understandable, after all, we're all fans and want the same thing at the end of the day.  I don't begrudge anyone "drinking the koolaid" per se, but for purposes of discussion it's more fun and makes more sense if there's a basis for that discussion.  I asked some questions in that post, if you go back and answer them, even if only to yourself, I think you'll open things up a little bit more.  

 

Thanks for the rest!!  

 

 

[Never NEVER Give-up]

19 hours ago, BillsFan619 said:

While the last playoff game was brutal, some are putting too much stock into it (in more ways than one).

This.

This says it all.  The Bills will be fine!!

[Southern_Bills]

Burrow has performed in the spotlight and that's pretty much where this comes from, perhaps rightfully so.

 

Allen has been on the end of 2 bad losses in the playoffs (Bengals 2022, Chiefs 2020) and a Heartbreaker (Chiefs 2021). 

 

That's what people remember, doesn't make Allen a bad QB, just changes the casual fans perception of him. 

 

Only one way to fix it. For the record I will still take Allen ove Mahomes or Burrow. 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

Entirely understandable, after all, we're all fans and want the same thing at the end of the day.  I don't begrudge anyone "drinking the koolaid" per se, but for purposes of discussion it's more fun and makes more sense if there's a basis for that discussion.  I asked some questions in that post, if you go back and answer them, even if only to yourself, I think you'll open things up a little bit more.  

 

Thanks for the rest!!  

 

 

You did exactly what you hoped, and I thank you for it. 

 

I mentioned the Pegulas and you sort of said they were irrelevant.   And I understand what you mean.  All I meant to say is that what you and I have been talking about is whether, if we were the owners, we would move on from McBeane today, next season without a Lombardi, or longer.   That's the owner's job - to evaluate the people who are running the show and to decide when to bring down the curtain and bring in a director and casting producer.  

 

Thanks, truly.  I enjoyed and was interested in what you had to say.  

[PBF81]

14 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think we tend to get blinded by the stardom of the few.   The Chiefs have Kelce and had Hill, but other than those two, there has been a parade of players through their receiving room.  They aren't all stars.   I suspect it's true about offensive linemen, too.  Again, sure, every year we hear about how this team or that team's offensive line is killing it, but that never lasts very long.  When we see that line, we think Beane's done something wrong, but the reality is that there are 25 other teams saying, "Hey, why can't we have a line like that."  

 

True, and I don't think that if Mahomes had the Patriots' wide receivers, as an example, that he'd be nearly as good.  Also, as we know, QBs always take more heat and get more credit than they're responsible for, generally speaking.  

 

But I'm not sure that too many other fans are jealous of our OL.  

 

14 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

How does he get more out of running backs and receivers?   Well, I don't know, exactly, but we know that Tom Brady got great performance out of average players by simply insisting that they do what they're supposed to do.   He was all over his teammates in ways that some guys didn't like but others responded to.  You didn't want to be the guy who let Brady down.  

 

Brady also had coaches noted for their competence and top-notch OLs.  Can you think of anything akin to "13 Seconds" or those ridiculous defensive alignments etc. that Belichick or his other coaches were responsible for?   I can't think of a single major SNAFU that readily comes to mind throughout his entire career.  We have numerous ones in six short seasons.  

 

Brady exceled in realizing that it was the high-percentage passes that were key and focused on them, realizing that most average WRs could be utilized in that way.  Same there, he rarely had receivers exceed much over 1,000 yards, and if they did, typically not by much.  Edelman and Welker, both short-yardage slot guys that averaged 11.0 ypr career were two of his better WRs.  Gronk was Gronk and would have exceled anywhere.  He spread the ball out and was a great on-field tactician in that way and knew how to read Ds, perhaps better than any QB ever.  He got more out of all the pieces as a whole, but he also had far better OLs than Allen's best OL ever, who knows when that was.  Allen's never had an Edelman or Welker, Beasley's the closest he's had and that was his most successful season, 2020, when he was actually hitting the high-percentage stuff more often.  This season will be interesting but Kincaid's still a rookie.  

 

Point being, perhaps Allen could do the same with coaches that didn't make "13 Seconds" type of errors or hand huge chunks of yardage to opponents and a top-10 OL.  I mean don't you think that would improve Allen's "lifting of everyone else"?   

Otherwise, right now I see most of the players on our team that would run through a brick wall for Allen.  

 

14 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I'll say what I said before - I don't who's out there that I would be confident will do better than McBeane, even assuming you could get him.   Reid?   Yeah, if I knew I had him for five years, I'd take him.  There just aren't many coaches who have won Super Bowls and been a consistent playoff threat.   Payton had a decent run.   It's very hard to do, and McBeane have had more success than almost anyone.  

 

That's a valid concern.  My MO is to get the people when their available, not wait until your hand is forced by the media and/or fans that have had enough, force you as the owner to fire them, and then have lesser options than had you planned it out according to when the best would be available.  

 

One thing that has plagued us in that way is wanting coaches (and GMs to a lesser extent) for cheap, which I've never understood.  I don't know exactly what the cap is these days, but teams spend around $300M on players annually, but hesitate to dish out $10/season for a coach who's the one responsible for putting it all together.  That makes no sense to me.  I would think that now we would have no trouble attracting the best candidates, it's simply a matter of paying out for the best ones.  

 

Moreover, how were the better ones in the league now hired.  Obviously someone of influence saw something in them.  That wasn't the case when we hired Beane, who was obviously coming from Carolina after the way that they hired McD.   What did they see in McD?  His track record as DC wasn't particularly stellar, in fact it was incredibly average and inconsistent.  And as of today, can you or anyone define what this mythical "Process" actually is?  Sounds to me like a ton of BS designed to keep the questioning at bay.  Just sayin'.  

 

I think that lost in this as we're discussing, again, is where they would be without Allen, that singular draft pick.  Honestly, I don't see more than a 6-8 win team annually, which is what we had before they got here.  If that's true, then what's the defense of them?  (rhetorical)  

 

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

You did exactly what you hoped, and I thank you for it. 

 

I mentioned the Pegulas and you sort of said they were irrelevant.   And I understand what you mean.  All I meant to say is that what you and I have been talking about is whether, if we were the owners, we would move on from McBeane today, next season without a Lombardi, or longer.   That's the owner's job - to evaluate the people who are running the show and to decide when to bring down the curtain and bring in a director and casting producer.  

 

Thanks, truly.  I enjoyed and was interested in what you had to say.  

 

Thanks!!  And likewise!  I always enjoy a respectable and well thought out back-n-forth!  It's the noise, the tangents, and the unnecessary ad hominem that make interactions unenjoyable.  LOL  

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

5-2 v 4-4

[Shaw66]

21 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Brady also had coaches noted for their competence and top-notch OLs.  Can you think of anything akin to "13 Seconds" or those ridiculous defensive alignments etc. that Belichick or his other coaches were responsible for?   I can't think of a single major SNAFU that readily comes to mind throughout his entire career.  We have numerous ones in six short seasons.  

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the discussion.   I'm Belichick's offense thre moving on with day's events.    But ...

 

Just last season Belichick's offense threw a backward lateral that was fumbled and returned for the winning touchdown.   That was pretty bad.   I saw Brady one time throw a pass as he was falling over backward; just before he hit the ground the ball went 30 feet in the air and fell into a defender's hands.   It happens, although I will grant you that Belichick is really good at getting his team prepared for things other teams aren't.  

[PBF81]

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks for the discussion.   I'm Belichick's offense thre moving on with day's events.    But ...

 

Just last season Belichick's offense threw a backward lateral that was fumbled and returned for the winning touchdown.   That was pretty bad.   I saw Brady one time throw a pass as he was falling over backward; just before he hit the ground the ball went 30 feet in the air and fell into a defender's hands.   It happens, although I will grant you that Belichick is really good at getting his team prepared for things other teams aren't.  

 

Yeah, I remember that lateral, that was post-Brady tho, right?   That was also a desperation move, wasn't it?  All players and coaches make mistakes, the question is how many rise to the level of "13 Seconds."  And our defensive alignments as in the Cincy game are mindboggling.  

 

Belichick has sucked as a coach when he hasn't had Brady lending credence to my points similarly about McD and indirectly about Beane.  Only two playoff appearances in what, 10 other seasons, only one playoff win, ironically against the Bledsoe led Pats.  LOL  

 

Also, likewise, thanks!!  

 

 

Edited May 6, 2023 by PBF81

[Shaw66]

33 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Yeah, I remember that lateral, that was post-Brady tho, right?   That was also a desperation move, wasn't it?  All players and coaches make mistakes, the question is how many rise to the level of "13 Seconds."  And our defensive alignments as in the Cincy game are mindboggling.  

 

Belichick has sucked as a coach when he hasn't had Brady lending credence to my points similarly about McD and indirectly about Beane.  Only two playoff appearances in what, 10 other seasons, only one playoff win, ironically against the Bledsoe led Pats.  LOL  

 

Also, likewise, thanks!!  

 

 

Wait.  You asked me name one.  I named two.  You can't just dismiss them as not so bad.   Those things happen.   You think Belichick wasn't just as bonkers about that backward lateral as McDermott was about 13 seconds?  

 

As for Belichick without Brady, yes, he hasn't been so good.   Earlier you said without Allen, McDermott would win 8-9 games.   But that's true for ALL coaches.   If I've got a Brady, Rodgers, Allen, Burrow, I've got a good shot at the playoffs.  If I don't, I'm 8-9.   It's hard to indict McDermott for winning with Allen.  

[PBF81]

51 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Wait.  You asked me name one.  I named two.  You can't just dismiss them as not so bad.   Those things happen.   You think Belichick wasn't just as bonkers about that backward lateral as McDermott was about 13 seconds?  

 

As for Belichick without Brady, yes, he hasn't been so good.   Earlier you said without Allen, McDermott would win 8-9 games.   But that's true for ALL coaches.   If I've got a Brady, Rodgers, Allen, Burrow, I've got a good shot at the playoffs.  If I don't, I'm 8-9.   It's hard to indict McDermott for winning with Allen.  

 

I guess, but I think you're reaching three.  LOL  IMO tho 13-seconds was far worse because it essentially handed the game to KC on known premises throughout the game, whereas that lateral, as stupid as it was, obviously wasn't the called play.  I'm not sure that it was supposed to have happened under those circumstances as they evolved.  Did Belichick ever state that it was the actual called play?  Point being at least they tried, it was poorly executed and more on the players, particularly the one that made that idiotic lateral.  "13 Seconds" was a complete vacating of any chance for hope whatsoever didn't even put the players in a position to have it work.  It was doomed other than for poor passing by Mahomes and it was fully planned.  I think I'd rather wager on getting hit by lightning.  That lateral wasn't planned.  

 

Besides, if McD leads us to two or three SBs and then does that in his 20-something-th season, I won't say a word.  LOL  

 

Also, Jones was in the midst of a horrible game, on the road in LV, and Belichick was probably thinking that he had no chance in OT, and frankly, he probably didn't, whereas we had outplayed KC in that game otherwise.  It was also the very last play in the game and I doubt he envisioned a perfect lateral by his own player to an oppponent that was in the absolutely perfect position to score a TD for the Raiders.  I'm sure he figured, "WTF, this is headed for OT, so let's give it a shot" kinda thing.  I can't compare that to "13 Seconds."   Jones didn't even appear to be ready for a lateral.  

 

Point noted however.  I will say, that that wasn't under Brady tho, and as I'd mentioned, Belichick sucks and isn't even a winning coach w/o Brady.  

 

As to McD, I see an average 6-win team the last three seasons without Allen.  I said that they wouldn't win more than 8 as a ceiling, I said 6-8, and that's with the relatively easy schedules we've had that I took into consideration.  Belichick is still on the bubble for playoffs, which is maddening, but he still sucks w/o Brady.  I'm forcing myself to reserve judgment for another season or two.  He at least has seen to it to put a decent OL on the field, and anytime you have that you have a shot at a 10-win season if your D is average.  It's not difficult, for any team, to win 5/6 games.  Very few teams win less.  Last season only four teams won fewer than 5 games.  In '21 only 5 teams.  It's difficult to do, but either way, our average during our "drought" was 6.6 IIRC.  

 

 

Edited May 6, 2023 by PBF81

[Einstein]

20 hours ago, Success said:

It's been said - but I wouldn't trade Allen for Burrow or Mahomes. 

 

I love Allen, but i'd trade him for Mahomes in a nanosecond.

 

Not for Burrow though.

[PBF81]

21 minutes ago, Einstein said:

I love Allen, but i'd trade him for Mahomes in a nanosecond.

 

Not for Burrow though.

 

Mahomes wouldn't have the degree of success here that he's had in KC.  

 

JMHO  

 

 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

I guess, but I think you're reaching three.  LOL  IMO tho 13-seconds was far worse because it essentially handed the game to KC on known premises throughout the game, whereas that lateral, as stupid as it was, obviously wasn't the called play.  I'm not sure that it was supposed to have happened under those circumstances as they evolved.  Did Belichick ever state that it was the actual called play?  Point being at least they tried, it was poorly executed and more on the players, particularly the one that made that idiotic lateral.  "13 Seconds" was a complete vacating of any chance for hope whatsoever didn't even put the players in a position to have it work.  It was doomed other than for poor passing by Mahomes and it was fully planned.  I think I'd rather wager on getting hit by lightning.  That lateral wasn't planned.  

 

Besides, if McD leads us to two or three SBs and then does that in his 20-something-th season, I won't say a word.  LOL  

 

Also, Jones was in the midst of a horrible game, on the road in LV, and Belichick was probably thinking that he had no chance in OT, and frankly, he probably didn't, whereas we had outplayed KC in that game otherwise.  It was also the very last play in the game and I doubt he envisioned a perfect lateral by his own player to an oppponent that was in the absolutely perfect position to score a TD for the Raiders.  I'm sure he figured, "WTF, this is headed for OT, so let's give it a shot" kinda thing.  I can't compare that to "13 Seconds."   Jones didn't even appear to be ready for a lateral.  

 

Point noted however.  I will say, that that wasn't under Brady tho, and as I'd mentioned, Belichick sucks and isn't even a winning coach w/o Brady.  

 

As to McD, I see an average 6-win team the last three seasons without Allen.  I said that they wouldn't win more than 8 as a ceiling, I said 6-8, and that's with the relatively easy schedules we've had that I took into consideration.  Belichick is still on the bubble for playoffs, which is maddening, but he still sucks w/o Brady.  I'm forcing myself to reserve judgment for another season or two.  He at least has seen to it to put a decent OL on the field, and anytime you have that you have a shot at a 10-win season if your D is average.  It's not difficult, for any team, to win 5/6 games.  Very few teams win less.  Last season only four teams won fewer than 5 games.  In '21 only 5 teams.  It's difficult to do, but either way, our average during our "drought" was 6.6 IIRC.  

 

 

You didn't ask me to name one that was worse.  You asked me to name one.  

 

Six wins without Allen?   How many wins do the Bengals get without Burrow?   Chiefs without Mahomes?   It just isn't meaningful to say the Bills are a bad team because they couldn't win without Allen, because (1) no one knows how good or bad they would be without Allen, and (2) no one knows how good or bad other teams without their star QBs.