Recipe to Winning Titles

[Malazan]

Who knew it was as easy as making a casserole! Speaking, anyone got a recipe for that? I tried it without one and now look at the economy

[BBFL]

1 hour ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

Yes they were the difference is they played a ton more man to man then we do and we're much much more physical them us as well. Remember they played that clutch and grab style in the secondary that year they lead the league in penalties. 

 
When you intimidate your opponents skill players by trying to take off their head every time they touch the ball like Wagner, Thomas and Bam-Bam (one of my fav players of recent years) then you’re going to have penalties. 
 

That overly aggressive style can have its benefit to success. 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

20 minutes ago, Zerovoltz said:

The Bills are already 4th best odds to win SB next year.  I think when you are close and you havn't made it yet, there is a tendency to overanalyze everything.  

 

You have Josh Allen and a talented roster.  

 

I'd compare the current Bills team VS the Chiefs similar to the 70's Steelers and Raiders.  The Raiders were close...and the imaculate reception got them ...kind of similar to 13 seconds.  Finally the Raiders broke through in the middle of Pittsburgs run whe the Steelers made it to the AFCCG with both their 1 and 2 RB's injured and unable to play. The Raiders won and went on to win the super bowl.  The Steelers would go on to win 2 more in that decade and then Raiders would win a couple in the early 80's.  

 

I don't think every little thing about what the Raiders were doing needed to come into question and be nit picked to death.  They were on the right track to building a team capable of winning a title, but so were the Steelers.  Winning titles is hard and often you have to play against and overcome another really good team......even as your roster is good, your team is good, your coaching is good.  

 

I think the Bills are right there, they just simply haven't gotten over the hump...no amount of analysis etc is going to solve a problem you really don't have.  When the time comes around again, the Bills will have to beat some good teams to win a title, even as the Bills ARE a good team that other teams have to overcome to win.

That does seem to be what’s happening around here…people are talkin like the chiefs are blowing us out every game but the last two of those playoff matchups easily could’ve gone the other way (as could the regular season matchup that we won) 

 

if we were losing two score+ type games and getting clearly outclassed like that afc championship game a few years back I’d feel a lot more hopeless 

[NastyNateSoldiers]

59 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They did not play a ton more man than us. They were overwhelmingly a zone coverage team. They held and committed a lot of PI. Do I think they were more physical than us? Yea probably but they were not a press man team. They played zone with DB with length and two safeties that had corner like coverage skills. It was extremely similar to the scheme here. 

 

EDIT: what I will say is there is an argument that the cover 3 / cover 1 scheme peaked in the last decade - Seattle x2, Carolina, Atlanta all made Superbowls and were regular playoff teams. The Jags ran it in that great year they had where they made the conference Championship game. Even the Bills are more hybrid now than they were. 

My point is they clutched they grabbed with the Wrs that's something we don't embrace on a high level were not committed to it. 

 

U mention Seattle, Carolina , Atlanta using Cover 3 and 1 and having great success but now I can go Pats 3  KC 3 , Den 1 , Balt 1, NYG 1, Rams 1 & BUCS 1 that's 11 Champions since 2012 that ran man to man press defenses. I'm not sure exactly what Philly ran  so I didn't put them in there but that's basically a sweep . 

[McBean]

1 hour ago, Chaos said:

The Chiefs lost the turnover battle in yesterday's super bowl.  That was the 14th game in a row, where the chiefs lost the turnover battle, and the chiefs still won the game. 

 

The Bills head coach leans on "its hard to win when you lose the turnover battle", as a reason for losing games. 

McDermott's statement is probably true.  Here's the rub:

 

It would appear the Chiefs have won 14 games in a row, "where it was hard to win".  I think there is a mental toughness exhibited by winning games that are hard to win, that the Chiefs have and the Bills do not seem too.

 

Awesome post.

 

Read it folks. Then read it again.

 

McClap. Has. To. Go.

[NastyNateSoldiers]

7 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

That does seem to be what’s happening around here…people are talkin like the chiefs are blowing us out every game but the last two of those playoff matchups easily could’ve gone the other way (as could the regular season matchup that we won) 

 

if we were losing two score+ type games and getting clearly outclassed like that afc championship game a few years back I’d feel a lot more hopeless 

Do u realize the last 3 QBs we beat in the playoffs and who they are 2 3rd stringers in Rudolph and Thompson and a Rookie in Mac Jones and guess what they all scored good points against us. 😂

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

My point is they clutched they grabbed with the Wrs that's something we don't embrace on a high level were not committed to it. 

 

U mention Seattle, Carolina , Atlanta using Cover 3 and 1 and having great success but now I can go Pats 3  KC 3 , Den 1 , Balt 1, NYG 1, Rams 1 & BUCS 1 that's 11 Champions since 2012 that ran man to man press defenses. I'm not sure exactly what Philly ran  so I didn't put them in there but that's basically a sweep . 

 

There is a RANGE of schemes among those teams though. Trying to throw Spags in the same pot as Wade Phillips and them in the same pot as Bill Belichick is just basically saying "here is cover 3 / cover 1 zone and then here is everything else." Not all of those schemes were press man. 

 

[NastyNateSoldiers]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There is a RANGE of schemes among those teams though. Trying to throw Spags in the same pot as Wade Phillips and them in the same pot as Bill Belichick is just basically saying "here is cover 3 / cover 1 zone and then here is everything else." Not all of those schemes were press man. 

 

The common denominator in there schemes is the man to man press schemes. That's the point! 

 

Most of those defenses are 3-4 defenses or hybrid . We don't run that D . My point is this is the way to go if u wanna win big

[NastyNateSoldiers]

Now did those teams play some zone absolutely they did but the core principle is man to man. Coughlin, Wade, Belichek, Bowles & Spags run majority man to man u can't deny that. That's 8 championships right there 

[Chaos]

14 minutes ago, McBean said:

Awesome post.

 

Read it folks. Then read it again.

 

McClap. Has. To. Go.

I made a mistake in the original post regarding super bowl turnovers.  but the fact that the chiefs have won 13 in a row where the lost the turnover battle means they are better than anyone at overcoming adversity, or the turnover battle is over rated as mattering. 

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

The common denominator in there schemes is the man to man press schemes. That's the point! 

 

Most of those defenses are 3-4 defenses or hybrid . We don't run that D . My point is this is the way to go if u wanna win big

 

They were not all heavy man to man press schemes though. That just isn't true. Wade and Bill are really pattern matching schemes. Spags is a heavy blitz guy and lots of press Todd Bowles with the Buccs was too. There is just way too much scheme variety to group them all together. And the amount that they played man would differ greatly (I don't have the numbers in front of me) because those are not carbon copy defenses or anything close to it.

[Zerovoltz]

Maybe I misunderstood the post about KC winning 13 games in a row with a negative turnover ratio...but if that is what the poster said and intended...that is wrong.

 

KC wins a nuber of games with negative ratios (so do the Bills) but being on the wrong side of TO ratio is hard and even great teams lose more than win whenever the TO ratio isn't in their favor.

 

Bad teams can NOT overcome it all.  

 

The broncos for example..haven't won a negative TO ratio game in nearly 2 years.

[34-78-83]

1 hour ago, Zerovoltz said:

The Bills are already 4th best odds to win SB next year.  I think when you are close and you havn't made it yet, there is a tendency to overanalyze everything.  

 

You have Josh Allen and a talented roster.  

 

I'd compare the current Bills team VS the Chiefs similar to the 70's Steelers and Raiders.  The Raiders were close...and the imaculate reception got them ...kind of similar to 13 seconds.  Finally the Raiders broke through in the middle of Pittsburgs run whe the Steelers made it to the AFCCG with both their 1 and 2 RB's injured and unable to play. The Raiders won and went on to win the super bowl.  The Steelers would go on to win 2 more in that decade and then Raiders would win a couple in the early 80's.  

 

I don't think every little thing about what the Raiders were doing needed to come into question and be nit picked to death.  They were on the right track to building a team capable of winning a title, but so were the Steelers.  Winning titles is hard and often you have to play against and overcome another really good team......even as your roster is good, your team is good, your coaching is good.  

 

I think the Bills are right there, they just simply haven't gotten over the hump...no amount of analysis etc is going to solve a problem you really don't have.  When the time comes around again, the Bills will have to beat some good teams to win a title, even as the Bills ARE a good team that other teams have to overcome to win.

Why does it take a fan of another team for this perspective around here in doomsville? Well said. A very good analogy.

[Mr. WEO]

 I like how, after a SB with Shanahan and Reid, posters are rolling with "we're close.  Joe Brady just needs to put in some schemes......."

 

 

[JMM]

2 hours ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

I also think there’s a snowball effect for the Chiefs.  The fact that they’ve already won adds confidence to their ability to do it again, while taking some pressure off at the same time.  Since trading Tyreek, one could say they’ve been playing with house money, yet they keep winning.  Meanwhile, teams like the Bills tighten up in some of these clutch moments, because they want it SO bad and have a fear of failure in the back of their minds.  Even last night, it’s like even if Mahomes loses, he still has two SBs already, which takes pressure off of him to have to win another.  Which I think actually helps him non-chalantly lead his team to victory in OT.

Yes Romo discussed thus last night, calling it the Mahommes effect.  And before that it was the Brady effect. Teams facing them felt more pressure to be perfect,  teams with them relax more and believe no matter what, the QB will pull it out for them. That's just a Huge advantage.  The Bills with Allen have it to some extent, but until he proves he can get over the hump and get to and win the SB it simply won't be the same.

[Reks Ryan]

4 hours ago, Chaos said:

The Chiefs lost the turnover battle in yesterday's super bowl.  That was the 14th game in a row, where the chiefs lost the turnover battle, and the chiefs still won the game. 

 

The Bills head coach leans on "its hard to win when you lose the turnover battle", as a reason for losing games. 

McDermott's statement is probably true.  Here's the rub:

 

It would appear the Chiefs have won 14 games in a row, "where it was hard to win".  I think there is a mental toughness exhibited by winning games that are hard to win, that the Chiefs have and the Bills do not seem too.

 

They didnt lose the turnover battle, it was 2 - 2.   in fact the 49ers muffed punt was a unforced error that turned the momentum of the game

[Chaos]

2 minutes ago, Reks Ryan said:

They didnt lose the turnover battle, it was 2 - 2.   in fact the 49ers muffed punt was a unforced error that turned the momentum of the game

I am aware.  I acknowleged the error twice previously in this thread.  Thank you for your further assistance.