Bills Offensive Coordinator Interviews have started according to Jeremy Fowler

[Monty98]

1 minute ago, MrEpsYtown said:

 

One of the issues with slip screens to backs is Josh Allen, and not in a negative way. A lot of times there is a spy on Josh, so some guy just hanging around the line of scrimmage waiting and spying. That takes away the slip-screen game as well, even in blitzing scenarios. Just my 2 cents on it. 

Fair, but then do a throw back screen, lots of teams will do that vs a spy, roll a QB away, stop and dump. Best part is, you can run it off a QB sweep look, you can run it off a sprint out look, even a play action boot look. All of those get the spy moving.

[BigDingus]

23 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:

I hope they interview: 

 

Joe Brady

Kliff Kingsbury

Kellen Moore

Arthur Smith

Zac Robinson

Brian Johnson

Mike LaFluer

 

Kingsbury would be my top choice. If you want change, you take a demanding prick and put him in the building. He is not a yes man. 

 

Please no, not as an OC.

 

I closely followed every step of Kingsbury's career (being a Texas Tech guy myself), but I don't have any confidence in his play calling abilities. 

 

He was instrumental in helping some prominent college QBs take that next step, but he shouldn't be calling an NFL offense. 

 

it would be cool to have him as the new QBs coach working closely with Josh, but he'd be even more one-dimensional than Dorsey calling plays.

 

I can see it now...Air raid/spread college offense, going 5 wide, passing nonstop & getting asking Josh to chuck 40 attempts per game.

[beer can shower]

20 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

I think the failure bar is very high for McD as well. 
 

I can see a situation where the OC we hire this year will be the HC we look to hire next year. 

 

Do you  honestly think McDermott will hire anyone that  would have a chance to "shine" and be his possible successor?

 

20 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

One low key interesting storyline to the OC/DC search.

 

McD may be hiring his successor, could that impact who he hires? Frank Reich and Eric Washington aren’t replacing him…

 

Geez, I certainly would think so.  Read above 👆

 

[Livinginthepast]

I would be shocked if Brady isnt acclaimed as the OC. He did pretty well under the circumstances and its the safest hire for Beane where Mcd will not feel a bit of pressure.  Whoever gets the job has to get our offense to the level of where it should be, Dabol got us close to it but Dorsey went backwards. 

[Shaw66]

13 minutes ago, Livinginthepast said:

I would be shocked if Brady isnt acclaimed as the OC. He did pretty well under the circumstances and its the safest hire for Beane where Mcd will not feel a bit of pressure.  Whoever gets the job has to get our offense to the level of where it should be, Dabol got us close to it but Dorsey went backwards. 

I love how so many people here think they can psychoanalyze McBeane.  Why will McBeane make the decision that puts them in under the least pressure?   Don't people understand how badly McDermott and Beane want to win?   They tell us all the time - they want to win.  They are among the most competitive people in the world.   They aren't going to make decisions to protect their jobs.   They both already have made enough money so that they can retire if they get fired.  

 

Now, what IS true about McDermott is that he likes to hire from within.   He likes to take guys who have succeeded in their current jobs and promote them.  It's a tried and true organizational technique.   People want to work for a boss who has a track record of promoting from within.   So there IS a bias that McDermott has shown for people already on his staff.  But, ...

 

... as I said earlier in this thread, I thought McDermott gave Brady less than a ringing endorsement in his press conference earlier this week.  Brady was the natural choice as the interim guy, but now McDermott has seen him for half a season, and McDermott will evaluate him (actually, already has evaluated him).  If McDermott thinks he can do better with someone else, he'll make the move.  

 

 

[Cash]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

The point about small ball is a good one.   Bills intentionally developed the short passing game this season, and it naturally leads to more YAC. 

 

And I've been meaning to come back to my earlier post.  I don't pay much attention to YAC, and all I did was go grab the stat and post it.  I looked again later, and although the Allen was, in fact, 6th in YAC, he was 19th in YAC per completion, which is probably the more relevant stat.  So, even though is YAC improve considerably, given the number of passes he completed, he still wasn't generating a lot fo YAC. 

 

Having said that, I don't care about YAC.   Coaches do, in some sense, but I think it's one of those stats that is illuminating about some aspects of a guy's game, what matters is completions and yards and touchdowns.   If Allen improves his YAC per completion to top 10, it's still going to be only maybe 300 more yards per season.   That's nice, of course, but that's not what will make the difference between what we got this season and what we all want.  300 yards is 300 yards, and if they get 300 more yards more from the receivers and not one more yard of YAC, it's the same 300 yards.   Or 300 yards from special teams.  Or 300 yards in INT returns.   

 

YAC's a detail. 

 

My thoughts:

1. I prefer RAC (run after catch) to YAC (yards after catch).  No beef with anyone who disagrees; just personal preference.
2. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I would expect that our RAC numbers look very different under Dorsey vs under Brady.  My guess is we were somewhere around 28th in RAC/completion under Dorsey, and probably close to 10th under Brady.  Shakir especially starting getting some great RAC once Brady took over.
3. Like Shaw says, what matters is yards & TDs.  A throw into the endzone, by definition, can't get any RAC.  But no coach, player, or fan would ever think it's bad to complete a pass in the endzone if you're trying to score.
4. I think a lot of RAC is scheme dependent (see #2).  Both in terms of what plays are called and how they're designed.  An offense with a lot of screens, crossers, and swing passes is going to get more RAC than one that mostly throws hitches and deep outs.  Obviously there's a player component as well - ball placement by the QB makes a difference, and skill players who are fast and/or can make a guy miss, etc.
5. So what?  So RAC is only important when it's important.  By which I mean overall numbers don't tell you much of a story.  What the coaching staff should be (and probably is) doing is looking at plays where we could or should have gotten signficant RAC, and determining why we got it or why we didn't.

[hondo in seattle]

5 hours ago, extrahammer said:

Instead of JUST landing with Brady, why not hire a team of offensive experts? Like an offensive board of directors for Brady to report to. 

 

I think you need one guy in charge as OC so there's no confusion among the position coaches or players about who to listen to.  

But I'm absolutely in favor of creating an offensive brain trust.  We already have some former OCs on staff.  I would love a few more smart guys - coaches who know how to scheme a passing game and can help Brady fine-tune his craft.  

 

I'd love it if Brady spent some time in the offseason with people like Gruden, Kurt Warner, etc., and picked their brains.  

[Figster]

10 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I think you need one guy in charge as OC so there's no confusion among the position coaches or players about who to listen to.  

But I'm absolutely in favor of creating an offensive brain trust.  We already have some former OCs on staff.  I would love a few more smart guys - coaches who know how to scheme a passing game and can help Brady fine-tune his craft.  

 

I'd love it if Brady spent some time in the offseason with people like Gruden, Kurt Warner, etc., and picked their brains.  

The WR position lost its importance in the Brady Offense IMO. The shift from the original Daboll high powered WR passing attack is clearly evident. Allen is being used like a RB again to make the Brady O work. So why would we expect anything different after an off season. If anythying Allens cannon of a throwing arm will be used even less. 

 

Joe Brady did a great job taking over the OC position. I'm just not sure he's the answer long term.

 

Brain trust you say?. Pick someone thats got Buffalo Bills football drilled into it already. 

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick.... 

[Shaw66]

54 minutes ago, Cash said:

 

My thoughts:

1. I prefer RAC (run after catch) to YAC (yards after catch).  No beef with anyone who disagrees; just personal preference.
2. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I would expect that our RAC numbers look very different under Dorsey vs under Brady.  My guess is we were somewhere around 28th in RAC/completion under Dorsey, and probably close to 10th under Brady.  Shakir especially starting getting some great RAC once Brady took over.
3. Like Shaw says, what matters is yards & TDs.  A throw into the endzone, by definition, can't get any RAC.  But no coach, player, or fan would ever think it's bad to complete a pass in the endzone if you're trying to score.
4. I think a lot of RAC is scheme dependent (see #2).  Both in terms of what plays are called and how they're designed.  An offense with a lot of screens, crossers, and swing passes is going to get more RAC than one that mostly throws hitches and deep outs.  Obviously there's a player component as well - ball placement by the QB makes a difference, and skill players who are fast and/or can make a guy miss, etc.
5. So what?  So RAC is only important when it's important.  By which I mean overall numbers don't tell you much of a story.  What the coaching staff should be (and probably is) doing is looking at plays where we could or should have gotten signficant RAC, and determining why we got it or why we didn't.

Good stuff.  I agree. 

 

Especially as to #4.  If I have Kittle, Samuel, and McCaffrey, I'm designing my offense to get the ball to those guys in open space.  Every player is different.  Diggs is shifty, but he really isn't a productive open-field runner.  Nor was Davis.  Nor Knox.  So, if those are my broken field runners, I'm not worried about getting them the ball so they can run.  It just isn't a priority in my offense.   

 

Which means that #5 is correct, too.  It's important when it's important, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.  

 

I've said this before, but I'll say it again.  There's a reason some stats are more important than others.   Completion percentage, for example, is more important than RAC or YAC.   How do I know?  Because completion percentage is more predictive of a good passing offense than RAC or YAC.  RAC and YAC may be valuable to coaches trying to evaluate players, to evaluate offensive strategy, etc., but it isn't predictive of overall offensive excellence.   It's like the debate that went on for a few years about Taylor not throwing over the middle enough.   It was interesting data, but if he'd suddenly started completing two more passes a game over the middle, he wasn't going to suddenly become a star quarterback.  All that data showed was that there was an area of the field that he was, relatively speaking, neglecting.  Or like people saying the Bills need a better #2 receiver.   Unless you have two first-round picks at wide receiver, you just aren't going to get 1000 yards out of you number 2, and two first-round picks is not sustainable.  So talking about that as though that's the fix to the offense, or talking about YAC, or talking about throwing more over the middle is focusing on the wrong stuff.  

 

The Bills have a really good offense (it actually had a bit of an off-year this season).   The objective is to improve it, but it really needs only marginal improvement.   Those improvements could come from many different sources.  Fixating on these narrow data points isn't what will make the team better. 

[Warriorspikes51]

Can we please interview around half a dozen people?   I mean maybe it's Brady....but at least take a long look 

Is there any innovative young college mind out there?  Sign me up for that.   

[Billschinatown]

I hope the new OC has say. I have a feeling Puca would have not seen the field because of his rookie status. Other than Dalton this has been an irritating pattern under McDermott.

[Warriorspikes51]

1 minute ago, Billschinatown said:

I hope the new OC has say. I have a feeling Puca would have not seen the field because of his rookie status. Other than Dalton this has been an irritating pattern under McDermott.

even with Kincaid, he wasn't really used until what... week 7-8? 

[Billschinatown]

1 hour ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

even with Kincaid, he wasn't really used until what... week 7-8? 

We're saving them for next year's playoff exit. 

[JohnBonhamRocks]

10 hours ago, Monty98 said:

Just want to address this, yes screens are great CAN WE RUN A SLIP SCREEN GO TO A BACK THOUGH?! I get bubbles to get Shakir or Diggs in space but like how many times would a RB slip screen or a TE screen been effective against a blitz?

I feel like I recall a few to TEs but yeah especially with Cook. I think what they do with him instead is just that delayed fake block the  middle curl route thing, but it is not a screen.

[Cash]

8 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Good stuff.  I agree. 

 

Especially as to #4.  If I have Kittle, Samuel, and McCaffrey, I'm designing my offense to get the ball to those guys in open space.  Every player is different.  Diggs is shifty, but he really isn't a productive open-field runner.  Nor was Davis.  Nor Knox.  So, if those are my broken field runners, I'm not worried about getting them the ball so they can run.  It just isn't a priority in my offense.   

 

Which means that #5 is correct, too.  It's important when it's important, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.  

 

I've said this before, but I'll say it again.  There's a reason some stats are more important than others.   Completion percentage, for example, is more important than RAC or YAC.   How do I know?  Because completion percentage is more predictive of a good passing offense than RAC or YAC.  RAC and YAC may be valuable to coaches trying to evaluate players, to evaluate offensive strategy, etc., but it isn't predictive of overall offensive excellence.   It's like the debate that went on for a few years about Taylor not throwing over the middle enough.   It was interesting data, but if he'd suddenly started completing two more passes a game over the middle, he wasn't going to suddenly become a star quarterback.  All that data showed was that there was an area of the field that he was, relatively speaking, neglecting.  Or like people saying the Bills need a better #2 receiver.   Unless you have two first-round picks at wide receiver, you just aren't going to get 1000 yards out of you number 2, and two first-round picks is not sustainable.  So talking about that as though that's the fix to the offense, or talking about YAC, or talking about throwing more over the middle is focusing on the wrong stuff.  

 

The Bills have a really good offense (it actually had a bit of an off-year this season).   The objective is to improve it, but it really needs only marginal improvement.   Those improvements could come from many different sources.  Fixating on these narrow data points isn't what will make the team better. 

Where I think it matters is for big games against elite teams with top-end coaches (like the Chiefs or Bengals). Those teams have a tendency of being able to force teams into doing what they’re worst at. That could mean giving up completions underneath and daring our guys into making one of their guys miss. If we don’t have anyone who can break or evade a tackle, or don’t have a QB who can place the ball accurately enough, that could be a problem. Maybe there’s other ways to beat that kind of defense; I don’t know. 

[Monty98]

2 hours ago, JohnBonhamRocks said:

I feel like I recall a few to TEs but yeah especially with Cook. I think what they do with him instead is just that delayed fake block the  middle curl route thing, but it is not a screen.

It's just there for us to take and we seem to think it's like off limits to use a RB screen. It just makes teams think about blitzing us, can add an extra half second

[GunnerBill]

11 hours ago, Figster said:

The WR position lost its importance in the Brady Offense IMO. The shift from the original Daboll high powered WR passing attack is clearly evident. Allen is being used like a RB again to make the Brady O work. So why would we expect anything different after an off season. If anythying Allens cannon of a throwing arm will be used even less. 

 

Joe Brady did a great job taking over the OC position. I'm just not sure he's the answer long term.

 

Brain trust you say?. Pick someone thats got Buffalo Bills football drilled into it already. 

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick.... 

 

Two counters to this:

 

1. They ran more because that was their best way of moving the ball. Dorsey had stuck with the desire to pass downfield and be explosive and it was very inefficient with the players we have. Our most reliable offensive weapons second half of the year were Cook (running back), Kincaid (tight end) and Shakir (shifty slot). Relying on those guys will make you a small ball offense but they were our best chance to move the sticks.

 

2. They ALWAYS run Josh more later in the year. That is a pattern over 3 years and 3 coordinators now. They put a lid on Josh's running the first 10 games. But when the season is on the line down the stretch his carries rachet up again. I crunched the numbers on that at Christmas.

[Doc Brown]

12 hours ago, Billschinatown said:

I hope the new OC has say. I have a feeling Puca would have not seen the field because of his rookie status. Other than Dalton this has been an irritating pattern under McDermott.

Besides Edmunds, Oliver, White, Dawkins, Ford, Singletary, Knox, Epenesa, Moss, Bass, Rousseau, Benford, Cook, Kincaid, and Torrence you are correct.

[GunnerBill]

13 hours ago, Billschinatown said:

I hope the new OC has say. I have a feeling Puca would have not seen the field because of his rookie status. Other than Dalton this has been an irritating pattern under McDermott.

 

The guys who are good start early. Tre White. Tremaine Edmunds. Josh Allen. Ed Oliver. Greg Rousseau. Taron Johnson. Dawson Knox. Dalton Kincaid. O'Cyrus Torrence. Christian Benford.

 

Then the likes of James Cook, Dion Dawkind and Matt Milano came on late in their rookie years. 

 

The guys that don't play early are the guys who are not ready to play.

Edited January 27 by GunnerBill

[Figster]

12 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Two counters to this:

 

1. They ran more because that was their best way of moving the ball. Dorsey had stuck with the desire to pass downfield and be explosive and it was very inefficient with the players we have. Our most reliable offensive weapons second half of the year were Cook (running back), Kincaid (tight end) and Shakir (shifty slot). Relying on those guys will make you a small ball offense but they were our best chance to move the sticks.

 

2. They ALWAYS run Josh more later in the year. That is a pattern over 3 years and 3 coordinators now. They put a lid on Josh's running the first 10 games. But when the season is on the line down the stretch his carries rachet up again. I crunched the numbers on that at Christmas.

Brady > Dorsey and its not even close. Daboll on the other hand was very good moving the football with a vertical passing game. Ideally an O that can do both allowing one to compliment the other becomes very hard to defend IMO.

 

The brain trust game plan by committee is not a bad idea IMO. Brady stays OC with say Ryan Fitzpatrick as a consultant/ good example to sprinkle a vertical passing game into the O works for me.

 

Use Diggs like S J was used back in the day under Chan Gailey...