It really comes down to Brady

[NickelCity]

3 hours ago, Rampant Buffalo said:

In our four most recent playoff losses, his defense has generated a total of seven defensive stops.

 

Good lord. Ouch. 

[Rampant Buffalo]

20 hours ago, Lfod said:

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/bills/news/buffalo-bills-top-10-defense-cbs-sports#:~:text=Buffalo has finished all but,the 2021 and 2022 campaigns.

 

"Buffalo has finished all but one of its seven seasons under McDermott with a top-10 defensive unit, finishing first in total defense in the 2021 and 2022 campaigns"

 

Top defence 2021-2022 and Top 10 every other year.

 

 

The stats you quoted neither confirm nor disprove my contention. My contention is that we have had two defensive coordinators. The really good one is named Sean McDermott. The terrible one is also named Sean McDermott. We got both of them in the Eagles loss: the really good one in the first half, the terrible one in the second half. The terrible Sean McDermott often puts up terrible defensive stats. Your links show that the Bills defense has almost always been a top ten ranked unit under McDermott. What does that mean? It means that over the course of the season, we've generally gotten the good McDermott more often than we've gotten the terrible one.

 

When we needed good defensive play calling the most, when our backs were against the wall, when we were facing the NFL's best in a playoff elimination game, which McDermott did we get? We got soft zone/prevent defense. We got the terrible McDermott. Seven defensive stops, total, in our last four postseason losses. In this most recent Super Bowl, the 49ers defense generated seven stops also. They still lost.

 

Maybe this improves under Babich. If he gets four defensive stops in a playoff game against the Chiefs, I'll be happy. That's enough to give the team a decent chance to win. That's all I ask. But what I don't want to see is more soft zone/prevent defense, our usual two defensive stops in our next playoff loss, and then mountains more praise heaped on McDermott just after his terrible defensive play calling has cost Josh Allen yet another year of his career.

 

 

[Sierra Foothills]

On 4/30/2024 at 5:48 AM, Don Otreply said:

Nah Rodgers is old, boring and a bit of moron, Josh is young dynamic, and knows when to keep his mouth shut, 🤣

 

Or to default to his endearing defense mechanism, "Go Bills!"

 

On 6/18/2024 at 11:58 AM, Rampant Buffalo said:

Each of us needs to answer the question, How am I going to see the world? The most common answer to that question is to believe what you read in the paper, what you see on the news, etc. Conformism. A person who uses that approach is going to have correct views about some subjects, incorrect views on others. But, and here is a key point, that person's incorrect views will still be socially acceptable. No one is going to be called crazy or a fruitcake for believing something he saw on the news.

 

Let's say a man wakes up one morning and decides, I can do better than this. He goes online, and starts researching alternatives to mainstream ways of seeing things. The problem is, it's cheap and easy to create alternatives to the mainstream way of thinking. As a consequence, there are plenty of alternatives to mainstream thinking out there. The vast majority of these alternatives contain far more falsehood than truth. It would be easy for this man to be misled by some of these alternatives. This type of error is not socially acceptable. A man will absolutely have the verbal equivalent of rotten eggs thrown at him, if he indulges in this type of error.

 

As a hobby, I chose a topic. Over the years, I've done about 10,000 pages of reading about it. I've written a 90 page article about it. My article is supported by numerous quotes from mainstream sources. My conclusion is not mainstream. I avoided both the error of conformism and the error of being seduced by a conspiracy theory. Life is short, and there simply isn't time to perform this level of effort for very many subjects.

 

How much time has Aaron Rodgers taken to research the subjects he talks about? Has he written about them? How much research has he done, and how credible are the sources he's citing? I don't have the answers to these questions. Putting aside the specific example of Aaron Rodgers, I would say it's far more common to encounter someone easily seduced by a half-baked conspiracy theory, than it is to encounter someone who's reached a non-mainstream conclusion through rigorous research.

 

I agree with @Beck Water that Aaron Rodgers is fundamentally an intelligent person.

 

My theory on the stupid things Rodgers says and does is that (like most high-profile celebrities) he's probably surrounded by "yes men" who avoid contesting his views and probably reinforce them. Essentially he lives in an echo chamber which insulates him from a rigorous examination of his opinions. Lacking any checks and balances, he's prone to offering his half-baked opinions for public consumption.

 

 

 

[hondo in seattle]

On 6/19/2024 at 4:41 PM, Rampant Buffalo said:

 

The stats you quoted neither confirm nor disprove my contention. My contention is that we have had two defensive coordinators. The really good one is named Sean McDermott. The terrible one is also named Sean McDermott. We got both of them in the Eagles loss: the really good one in the first half, the terrible one in the second half. The terrible Sean McDermott often puts up terrible defensive stats. Your links show that the Bills defense has almost always been a top ten ranked unit under McDermott. What does that mean? It means that over the course of the season, we've generally gotten the good McDermott more often than we've gotten the terrible one.

 

When we needed good defensive play calling the most, when our backs were against the wall, when we were facing the NFL's best in a playoff elimination game, which McDermott did we get? We got soft zone/prevent defense. We got the terrible McDermott. Seven defensive stops, total, in our last four postseason losses. In this most recent Super Bowl, the 49ers defense generated seven stops also. They still lost.

 

Maybe this improves under Babich. If he gets four defensive stops in a playoff game against the Chiefs, I'll be happy. That's enough to give the team a decent chance to win. That's all I ask. But what I don't want to see is more soft zone/prevent defense, our usual two defensive stops in our next playoff loss, and then mountains more praise heaped on McDermott just after his terrible defensive play calling has cost Josh Allen yet another year of his career.

 

 

 

So what's the theory?  Playoff games suck McD's IQ out of his head?  The stress of the playoffs make him forget everything he knows about football?  

 

Here's my theory.  McD is the same coach year round.  He studies game tape the same way whether he's in the playoffs or not.  He coorborates with the defensive coaches the same way.  He goes about his game planning process the same way.  He schedules the players for the same preparations.  And if he's calling the defensive plays, he does so in accordance with his philosophy and beliefs whether it's a playoff game or not. 

 

So why the different results in the regular season versus the post-season...

 

(1)  In the playoffs, we face the very best offenses so of course our D is challenged.  

 

(2)  The past two seasons, we entered the playoffs significantly banged up on defense.   

 

(3)  The players overperform during the regular season thanks to McD's scheme and excellent teamwork.  In the playoffs, teams like  KC have the smarts to overcome our scheme advantages.  So in the playoffs, the battle of our D versus the Opponents D gets decided by roster talent.  McD's magic scheming doesn't overcome the shortcomings of our defensive players who lose too many one-on-one battles in the playoffs.  We just haven't had enough talented players to match up with the AFC's best offenses.  

[Rampant Buffalo]

2 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

So what's the theory?  Playoff games suck McD's IQ out of his head?  The stress of the playoffs make him forget everything he knows about football? 

 

Four. Four is the minimum number of defensive stops I need to see in our playoff games against the Chiefs. Four is my number, and my number is four.

 

Is that a realistic standard? Is it attainable? In the year of 13 seconds, the Chiefs had three playoff games. In their first, the Steelers' defense generated 6 defensive stops. In their third playoff game, they lost to the Bengals, in overtime. The Bengals defense also generated six defensive stops. Their second playoff game was against the Bills, and of course our defense was just 1/3 as effective as either of the other two. It generated two defensive stops. Those games occurred when the Chiefs still had Tyreek Hill.

 

In this most recent Super Bowl, the 49ers defense generated seven defensive stops against the Chiefs. I'm not asking for six or even seven defensive stops against the Chiefs. I'm only asking for four. Under McDermott, the Bills defense has never generated more than two defensive stops in a postseason game against the Chiefs or Bengals. Culprit #1 for that is coaching.

 

I don't need the defense to win every snap, or win every drive. That's an unrealistic objective. But, I do want the defense to put up a fight, every single play. Soft zone/prevent defense is the opposite of putting up a fight. It's allowing the other team to gain yards in 8 - 12 yard chunks. The Chiefs offense unwraps a present. Look! It's 12 yards, gifted by McDermott. They unwrap their next present. 8 yards! They unwrap yet another. 10 yards! That's not a winning defensive strategy. Obviously.

 

Why is McDermott so good at defensive coaching so much of the time, and so completely boneheaded the rest? I have no idea. I'm not going to present any kind of theory on that. I just want the boneheadedness to stop, especially in our playoff games against elite passing teams.

[hondo in seattle]

6 hours ago, Rampant Buffalo said:

 

Four. Four is the minimum number of defensive stops I need to see in our playoff games against the Chiefs. Four is my number, and my number is four.

 

Is that a realistic standard? Is it attainable? In the year of 13 seconds, the Chiefs had three playoff games. In their first, the Steelers' defense generated 6 defensive stops. In their third playoff game, they lost to the Bengals, in overtime. The Bengals defense also generated six defensive stops. Their second playoff game was against the Bills, and of course our defense was just 1/3 as effective as either of the other two. It generated two defensive stops. Those games occurred when the Chiefs still had Tyreek Hill.

 

In this most recent Super Bowl, the 49ers defense generated seven defensive stops against the Chiefs. I'm not asking for six or even seven defensive stops against the Chiefs. I'm only asking for four. Under McDermott, the Bills defense has never generated more than two defensive stops in a postseason game against the Chiefs or Bengals. Culprit #1 for that is coaching.

 

I don't need the defense to win every snap, or win every drive. That's an unrealistic objective. But, I do want the defense to put up a fight, every single play. Soft zone/prevent defense is the opposite of putting up a fight. It's allowing the other team to gain yards in 8 - 12 yard chunks. The Chiefs offense unwraps a present. Look! It's 12 yards, gifted by McDermott. They unwrap their next present. 8 yards! They unwrap yet another. 10 yards! That's not a winning defensive strategy. Obviously.

 

Why is McDermott so good at defensive coaching so much of the time, and so completely boneheaded the rest? I have no idea. I'm not going to present any kind of theory on that. I just want the boneheadedness to stop, especially in our playoff games against elite passing teams.

 

 

Maybe my memory is bad, but I don't recall McD playing a higher percentage of soft, zone, and prevent defenses in the playoffs than he did during the regular season.  His base defense, 4-2-5, would be considered a "prevent" defense back in the 1980s.  But it's common in the NFL these days and serves us well - in the regular season. 

 

My recollection is that (1) we've had trouble getting pressure in the playoffs with our 4 down linemen, and (2) while our DBs were good, they weren't lockdown great.  If you give Mahomes or Burrow time - and we did - they'll complete passes in tight windows.  

 

If you're correct about the soft, zone, and prevent observation, I agree its a problem.  I'm just not sure you are. 

 

In any case, I do agree that the coach is ultimately responsible.  McD has got to find a way to win - maybe with exotic blitz packages or new coverage schemes the opponent haven't seen before.  

 

But I think the more fundamental problem is that Beane hasn't yet given McD quite enough talent on D.  Nor have the Gridiron Gods been kind to us - too many bandaged Bills warriors were on the sidelines watching as Mahomes marched the Chiefs down the field.   We need our best guys in the game to stop offenses of the Chiefs-Bengals calibre.  

 

Imagine if Groot and Elam were as good as Beane hoped they would be.  And if Milano, Tre, Von, Rapp, Bernard, Douglass, etc. were all fully healthy.  Last year's playoff story would have been different.   Those are all Brandon Beane and Lady Luck issues. 

 

Let's not forget, too, that despite playing on crutches, we outgained, earned more first downs, and came within 3 points of beating the SB champs.    If Bass hadn't missed that FG...

[Rampant Buffalo]

2 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

 

Maybe my memory is bad, but I don't recall McD playing a higher percentage of soft, zone, and prevent defenses in the playoffs than he did during the regular season.  His base defense, 4-2-5, would be considered a "prevent" defense back in the 1980s.  But it's common in the NFL these days and serves us well - in the regular season. 

 

My recollection is that (1) we've had trouble getting pressure in the playoffs with our 4 down linemen, and (2) while our DBs were good, they weren't lockdown great.  If you give Mahomes or Burrow time - and we did - they'll complete passes in tight windows.  

 

If you're correct about the soft, zone, and prevent observation, I agree its a problem.  I'm just not sure you are. 

 

In any case, I do agree that the coach is ultimately responsible.  McD has got to find a way to win - maybe with exotic blitz packages or new coverage schemes the opponent haven't seen before.  

 

But I think the more fundamental problem is that Beane hasn't yet given McD quite enough talent on D.  Nor have the Gridiron Gods been kind to us - too many bandaged Bills warriors were on the sidelines watching as Mahomes marched the Chiefs down the field.   We need our best guys in the game to stop offenses of the Chiefs-Bengals calibre.  

 

Imagine if Groot and Elam were as good as Beane hoped they would be.  And if Milano, Tre, Von, Rapp, Bernard, Douglass, etc. were all fully healthy.  Last year's playoff story would have been different.   Those are all Brandon Beane and Lady Luck issues. 

 

Let's not forget, too, that despite playing on crutches, we outgained, earned more first downs, and came within 3 points of beating the SB champs.    If Bass hadn't missed that FG...

 

I believe my soft zone/prevent defense statement is correct. But, I don't claim to be a football expert.

 

In the Chiefs/Bengals playoff game I mentioned earlier, the Bengals defense hadn't accomplished much against the Chiefs in the first half. In fact, they looked a lot like McDermott's defense usually does in its playoff games against the Chiefs. But then in the second half, they tightened up their coverage, and started generating stops. The vast majority of their six stops came in the second half, or in overtime.

 

I agree that Beane could have done more to feed talent to the defense. The DL is one example of a unit whose performance hasn't lived up to the resources invested. You also have a point about injuries, especially this past time around.

 

If a defense generates just two defensive stops, that in and of itself pretty much determines the outcome of the game. You have to be near-perfect on offense to give yourself a chance. In the year of 13 seconds, Josh Allen had attained the highest QB rating in NFL postseason history. Even that was not enough to overcome the collapse of the Frazier/McDermott defense (2 stops against the Chiefs). We appear to have taken a step back at offensive coordinator and WR, compared to what we'd been in that game. That means the offense will be less capable of compensating for yet another defensive collapse.

 

Do I think the defense is capable of being the next '85 Bears or the next Steel Curtain? No. I don't see the horses for that. But, I do think we have the horses to generate more than two defensive stops, in our playoff games against the Chiefs and Bengals. Whether we have the defensive coaching is another matter.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 22 by Rampant Buffalo

[Beast]

On 4/30/2024 at 9:29 AM, Sharky7337 said:

Going to disagree here. The talent is an issue because most of it is unproven we have 0 players with a 1000 yard receiving season.

I’d be willing to bet you anything reasonable that we have at least one 1000 yard guy this season, as long as Allen stays healthy.

Edited June 22 by Beast

[3rdand12]

16 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

So what's the theory?  Playoff games suck McD's IQ out of his head?  The stress of the playoffs make him forget everything he knows about football?  

 

Here's my theory.  McD is the same coach year round.  He studies game tape the same way whether he's in the playoffs or not.  He coorborates with the defensive coaches the same way.  He goes about his game planning process the same way.  He schedules the players for the same preparations.  And if he's calling the defensive plays, he does so in accordance with his philosophy and beliefs whether it's a playoff game or not. 

 

So why the different results in the regular season versus the post-season...

 

(1)  In the playoffs, we face the very best offenses so of course our D is challenged.  

 

(2)  The past two seasons, we entered the playoffs significantly banged up on defense.   

 

(3)  The players overperform during the regular season thanks to McD's scheme and excellent teamwork.  In the playoffs, teams like  KC have the smarts to overcome our scheme advantages.  So in the playoffs, the battle of our D versus the Opponents D gets decided by roster talent.  McD's magic scheming doesn't overcome the shortcomings of our defensive players who lose too many one-on-one battles in the playoffs.  We just haven't had enough talented players to match up with the AFC's best offenses.  

Do you feel this season might improve come playoff and the test of Playoff caliber teams with all the changes on defense

Or do results still hang in the balance with the talent

Agreed last year we were limping in

That needs to be prevented or planned for accordingly

 I am more likely to lean towards Coaching is always the answer.

McD is still a young Coach , and he has adjusted his defense actually. Last year was an example. Adding pressures rotating players and packages.

 let me believe he is still learning to play against elite teams and can yet still raise his defense another bar or two 

 go bills !

[3rdand12]

13 hours ago, Rampant Buffalo said:

 

Four. Four is the minimum number of defensive stops I need to see in our playoff games against the Chiefs. Four is my number, and my number is four.

 

Is that a realistic standard? Is it attainable? In the year of 13 seconds, the Chiefs had three playoff games. In their first, the Steelers' defense generated 6 defensive stops. In their third playoff game, they lost to the Bengals, in overtime. The Bengals defense also generated six defensive stops. Their second playoff game was against the Bills, and of course our defense was just 1/3 as effective as either of the other two. It generated two defensive stops. Those games occurred when the Chiefs still had Tyreek Hill.

 

In this most recent Super Bowl, the 49ers defense generated seven defensive stops against the Chiefs. I'm not asking for six or even seven defensive stops against the Chiefs. I'm only asking for four. Under McDermott, the Bills defense has never generated more than two defensive stops in a postseason game against the Chiefs or Bengals. Culprit #1 for that is coaching.

 

I don't need the defense to win every snap, or win every drive. That's an unrealistic objective. But, I do want the defense to put up a fight, every single play. Soft zone/prevent defense is the opposite of putting up a fight. It's allowing the other team to gain yards in 8 - 12 yard chunks. The Chiefs offense unwraps a present. Look! It's 12 yards, gifted by McDermott. They unwrap their next present. 8 yards! They unwrap yet another. 10 yards! That's not a winning defensive strategy. Obviously.

 

Why is McDermott so good at defensive coaching so much of the time, and so completely boneheaded the rest? I have no idea. I'm not going to present any kind of theory on that. I just want the boneheadedness to stop, especially in our playoff games against elite passing teams.

So the number is ? Six ?

 

 he needs better assistants is the Answer

 

[Beck Water]

20 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

I agree with @Beck Water that Aaron Rodgers is fundamentally an intelligent person.

 

My theory on the stupid things Rodgers says and does is that (like most high-profile celebrities) he's probably surrounded by "yes men" who avoid contesting his views and probably reinforce them. Essentially he lives in an echo chamber which insulates him from a rigorous examination of his opinions. Lacking any checks and balances, he's prone to offering his half-baked opinions for public consumption.

 

In other words, Rodgers intelligence lacks regular, vigorous pruning and checking to keep it under control and in balance, so like Kudzu it is sprawling unchecked all over the place 

[hondo in seattle]

4 hours ago, 3rdand12 said:

Do you feel this season might improve come playoff and the test of Playoff caliber teams with all the changes on defense

Or do results still hang in the balance with the talent

Agreed last year we were limping in

That needs to be prevented or planned for accordingly

 I am more likely to lean towards Coaching is always the answer.

McD is still a young Coach , and he has adjusted his defense actually. Last year was an example. Adding pressures rotating players and packages.

 let me believe he is still learning to play against elite teams and can yet still raise his defense another bar or two 

 go bills !

 

I agree McD did a fantastic job in his role as DC over the second half of the season.  But Rampant Buffalo is right when he says that McD needs to find a way to generate stops in the playoffs.  

 

Better talent would help a lot: guys who can pressure the quarterback and DBs who can blanket receivers.  I'm not sure we have either of those but we'll see.

 

But McD needs to surprise, outthink, and outscheme opposing OCs and HCs in the playoffs.  Relying on his normal gameplans has proven inadequate.  Being healthier (fingers crossed) will make a huge difference but I also want McD to be more innovative on defense - a defensive version of Andy Reid.  Maybe McD's frustation at not getting to the big dance yet will have him rethink some of his past conservatism.  

 

We needed to be 4 points better against the Chiefs.  Just 4.  Maybe Brady's modifications to the offense gives us that.  Maybe just being healthier will give us that.  But I'd like to see the defensive scheming get a little better as well.  Having Babich as DC handling the day-to-day stuff might allow McD to do more high-level, innovative game-planning.  

 

I don't what to expect.  I'm heading into the season with a ton of curiosity and a lot of cautious hope.    

[JohnNord]

On 4/30/2024 at 7:54 AM, oldmanfan said:

We’ve witnessed the usual stuff post-draft.  The second guessing of everything Beane did vs. those praising him to the heavens.  Constant arguments about 40 times and gauntlet drills and on and on and on ad nauseum.  How we needed to draft a speed guy even though there are several on the roster.  On and on and on.

 

But the most important thing that will determine the success of guys like Coleman, what will determine the team’s success, is Joe Brady.  He is charged with putting the guys he has in a position to get open, whether that be short throws or long. People are talking about how teams will clog the middle because we don’t have sideline receivers or guys that can go deep.  While I would argue that, it’s on Brady to make sure we do by the packages and route trees he designs. He is also charged with getting Josh on board with finding open guys and getting them the ball.

 

To me we have plenty of offensive talent, led by the most dynamic QB and dynamic player in the league.  I am encouraged by what I saw from Brady last year, but he must continue to improve.  He must continue to alter things week by week so opposing defenses can’t predict what’s going on, which is what ultimately cost Dorsey his job.  He must maximize Josh. I think he can, but time will tell.  Let’s hope he’s up to the task.

It does… Brady and Josh Allen.  When you look at the lack of moves to find a bonafide WR1 to replace Diggs.  Like Moneyball they believe they can re-create Diggs’s production in the aggregate with a numbers with competent though not spectacular WR’s.  

[Beck Water]

On 6/22/2024 at 2:21 AM, Rampant Buffalo said:

Four. Four is the minimum number of defensive stops I need to see in our playoff games against the Chiefs. Four is my number, and my number is four.

 

Just for clarity, what does defensive stop mean to you?  Punt or turnover?  What about FG?

[Rampant Buffalo]

2 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Just for clarity, what does defensive stop mean to you?  Punt or turnover?  What about FG?

 

A defensive stop is a punt or turnover. A FG is not a defensive stop.

[Augie]

15 minutes ago, Rampant Buffalo said:

 

A defensive stop is a punt or turnover. A FG is not a defensive stop.

 

What if they got the ball deep in our territory due to turnover? They could actually lose yards, and that is still considered a failure? That’s why I don’t like hard and fast rules for “what we need.” Just find a way, and unfortunately a lot of that has to do with health and good old fashion luck. 

[Rampant Buffalo]

8 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

What if they got the ball deep in our territory due to turnover? They could actually lose yards, and that is still considered a failure? That’s why I don’t like hard and fast rules for “what we need.” Just find a way, and unfortunately a lot of that has to do with health and good old fashion luck. 

 

Let's say, purely hypothetically, that the offense turns the ball over deep in its own territory. The defense comes on the field, holds them to just three plays, and then a field goal try. Would I have considered that to be a defensive stop? I hadn't actually thought about that. Why not? Because that set of stuff hadn't actually happened, either in the Bills' recent playoff losses, or in the postseason games other defenses had had against the Chiefs. Doing things your way wouldn't change the number of defensive stops either for the Bills defense, or for the other defenses I examined. 

 

I hear what you're saying. If the offense were to turn the ball over deep in its own territory, about the best you could reasonably expect from your defense would be to hold them to three plays and then a field goal try. If that should occur in the future, I will award the defense in question a defensive stop. But, that hasn't happened in any of the games I examined.

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Rampant Buffalo said:

A defensive stop is a punt or turnover. A FG is not a defensive stop.

 

And yet, if your team holds the opponent to a FG, while they score a TD, over the course of a game, they win

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

And yet, if your team holds the opponent to a FG, while they score a TD, over the course of a game, they win

 

How many times have we said “we need to get 7 points! We can’t win kicking FG’s!!!” 

[Rampant Buffalo]

38 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

And yet, if your team holds the opponent to a FG, while they score a TD, over the course of a game, they win

 

I agree that counting defensive stops does not differentiate between FGs vs. TDs. But it's not as though we always hold the Chiefs or Bengals to FGs in our postseason games, without them ever finding the end zone. Also there were times when the Chiefs kicked FGs against the non-Bills playoff defenses I examined.

 

If you guys want to poke holes in my metric, fine. It's by no means a perfect metric, and I'm not claiming it's perfect. But other defenses the Chiefs faced in the postseason were 3x or 3.5 x as effective as the Bills defense, at generating defensive stops. Either that tells you something meaningful about defensive performance, or it doesn't. What do you think Josh Allen would prefer? The 6 - 7 defensive stops that other postseason defenses have been getting against the Chiefs? Or the 1 - 2 defensive stops his own defense has been generating?