SI Article on Bills Successful Re-load

[LABILLBACKER]

6 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

Last thing I’m going to add to this. When teams march out Mason Rudolph, Geno Smith, a 90 year old Aaron Rogers, yes, it only matters that we have Josh. It is enough to win 3 out of 4 of those games as we have for a long time. Where the things you call out matter is when you face other great QB’s. Then you need the roster, the coaching, and the rest of it. Which is why we can’t get past the divisional round. 

You have to have a HC who can out-scheme his opposing HC.  And besides wild card games, we don't have that. And because of this fact, we immediately ask Josh to be Herculean. This is not a recipe for winning a SB, let alone getting to one. But if you're happy & content with the Bills dominating the regular season than this is your jam.

Edited November 5 by LABILLBACKER

[PBF81]

7 hours ago, appoo said:

That's not at all the implication. Talent is the biggest factor far and away. 

 

Great, then you should easily understand that he wouldn't even be close to where he is without Allen.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

Sports fans under estimate the importance of culture. It happenes in every single sport. But anyone who has played or coached at any kind of serious level knows it matters. 

 

Talent is always what matters most, but the Bills culture isn't nothing and I think it is pretty safe to assume at this stage it is part of why they have been able to withstand a ton of turnover and still be 7-2 at this point. 

 

No doubt tougher tests still lie ahead and I have said all year, and stick by, this roster is a longshot to be a genuine Superbowl contender. We are short of experience in some key spots and talent in others. And add to that except for Josh the only other elite player on the roster is a nickel corner. But this year could have been a really tricky one for the Bills and they haven't let it become that. If they can continue to develop and add one or two key pieces I'm already pretty excited about 2025. 

Edited November 5 by GunnerBill

[SoTier]

12 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

First of all, I love your choice of words.  "Blow things up."  

 

So firing a coach that has obviously held us back is "blowing things up" despite keeping most else, particularly a generational talented QB, in place then?  

 

Otherwise that's simply not true.  Those that simply want entertaining football in general and for whom winning a Championship isn't as important, yes, "not wanting to blow things up" does in fact mean that they don't care if we win in the playoffs.  

 

Pick your words better.  Every Bills fan wants the team to win.  We all want an extra million dollars too.  But there's a huge difference between caring whether or not we do and wanting to.  Does that really need an explanation?  

 

 

 

LOL 

 

No, it stems from the theory that the #1 thing holding us back come playoff time is McDermott.  Allen covers a wealth of issues that closes that gap and is the only part of our team that shines with any regularity whatsoever come the postseason.  

 

This season we're 0-2 against teams that appear to be headed for the playoffs, with one of those losses entirely on coaching, and clearly the other, the shellacking at the hands of the Ravens also having a good bit to do with coaching and preparation.  For those that care about beating the Fins, whom we own, twice, the Jets, LOL, the Jags, Titans, Seahawks, and Cards, good for them.  I think all of us are happy we won those games.  No one has argued that.  

 

How many people were claiming that the Ravens or Houston loss wasn't that bad?  ... with 10 and 20 point offensive performances against the 22nd and 14th ranked scoring defenses.  

 

It's ridiculous not to see significant coaching issues come playoff time with this team.  In that regard, again, if a regular season record is more important than not underachieving in the playoffs, that's in the eyes of the beholder.  Many think that it's a real shame that there aren't more fans that care as much about winning in the postseason as they do in the regular season, but more importantly, reconciling why the winningest team in the regular season over the past x number of years doesn't have a postseason record to match.  

 

That is something that clearly you won't be convinced of.  

 

 

 

How exactly does a team fire a HC and NOT "blow things up"????   A new HC is going to bring his own philosophy and his own people, and that means that a significant number of the current players are not going "fit" what the new coaching regime wants ... and a bad scheme fit can make an All Pro look pretty ordinary.   Allen could suffer if he was in an offense like those in San Francisco and Miami which wouldn't fit his playing style all that well.

 

Your "theory" isn't a theory at all.  It's simply your belief -- or more precisely, your prejudice.  You have no real proof and no way to actually acquire proof because coaching success is dependent on so many other factors, including team ownership and team management.  Bill Belichick was fired from his first head coaching stint in Cleveland in the 1990s because he didn't win enough.  Andy Reid was run out of Philly because he didn't get to the Super Bowl enough.  

Edited November 5 by SoTier

[Sweats]

14 hours ago, julian said:

What is this telling me ? Im old and learnings and thinkings along with graduating grade 10 have me stumped lol.

 

that was an actual question, not being a smartass just wondered what you think it says.

 

 

 

It says you gotta get into some of them "learning books", boy.

[PBF81]

2 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

How exactly does a team fire a HC and NOT "blow things up"????   A new HC is going to bring his own philosophy and his own people, and that means that a significant number of the current players are not going "fit" what the new coaching regime wants ... and a bad scheme fit can make an All Pro look pretty ordinary.   Allen could suffer if he was in an offense like those in San Francisco and Miami which wouldn't fit his playing style all that well.

 

Your "theory" isn't a theory at all.  It's simply your belief -- or more precisely, your prejudice.  You have no real proof and no way to actually acquire proof because coaching success is dependent on so many other factors, including team ownership and team management.  Bill Belichick was fired from his first head coaching stint in Cleveland in the 1990s because he didn't win enough.  Andy Reid was run out of Philly because he didn't get to the Super Bowl enough.   He

 

Well, consider, McD admittedly knows nothing about offense. 

 

So how would it be "blowing things up" if Pegula were to bring on someone that does know a lot about offense to turn the only elite player that this team has into the focal point of the team instead of components not fueled by anyone even close to elite?  (Aka the running game and D) 

 

Isn't it possible yea even likely that our offense would improve?  

 

What's your theory on that?  

 

Against the only two playoff teams that we've faced we averaged a pathetic 15 PPG, 14 1st-Downs, and 256 total yards with Allen bring a combined 25 of 59 for 311 yards and 1 TD in those two games.  

 

No room for improvement?  

 

Those were two of his worst games ever.  

 

Why?  Because we were trying to force "complimentary football.". 

 

The dots are there, just gotta connect 'em.

 

Let's reconvene after the KC, SF, and Detroit games.  

 

Beating up on the dregs is fine, and if that's all that your schedule features then that's the way it is, and some fans are admittedly satisfied with that and winning the division.  I'm not one of them.  

 

This team is fully capable of winning it all with Allen under center, but not under the philosophy with which they're approaching the game now.  Worse overall teams with worse QBs have won Super Bowls.  

 

That's fine against the stiffs in the league, but come playoff time or has terminal limitations.  

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

Great, then you should easily understand that he wouldn't even be close to where he is without Allen.  

 

 

 

The QB he drafted and under his Leadership was developed.  Yeah, lets hold that against him.

14 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Well, consider, McD admittedly knows nothing about offense. 

 

So how would it be "blowing things up" if Pegula were to bring on someone that does know a lot about offense to turn the only elite player that this team has into the focal point of the team instead of components not fueled by anyone even close to elite?  (Aka the running game and D) 

 

Isn't it possible yea even likely that our offense would improve?  

 

What's your theory on that?  

 

Against the only two playoff teams that we've faced we averaged a pathetic 15 PPG, 14 1st-Downs, and 256 total yards with Allen bring a combined 25 of 59 for 311 yards and 1 TD in those two games.  

 

No room for improvement?  

 

Those were two of his worst games ever.  

 

Why?  Because we were trying to force "complimentary football.". 

 

The dots are there, just gotta connect 'em.

 

Let's reconvene after the KC, SF, and Detroit games.  

 

Beating up on the dregs is fine, and if that's all that your schedule features then that's the way it is, and some fans are admittedly satisfied with that and winning the division.  I'm not one of them.  

 

This team is fully capable of winning it all with Allen under center, but not under the philosophy with which they're approaching the game now.  Worse overall teams with worse QBs have won Super Bowls.  

 

That's fine against the stiffs in the league, but come playoff time or has terminal limitations.  

 

 

 

I believe you said KC has better everything between player talent and coaching.

Why did it take a gaff at the end of the game and a missed FG and dropped ball by Diggs to beat the Bills?  Not to mention having both starting LB's out, the back up and our best corner out.  Shouldn't KC just dominate them and the games shouldn't even be close?

[PBF81]

5 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I believe you said KC has better everything between player talent and coaching.

 

Where did I say that?  

 

The teams were comparable all things considered.  Back then they had better WRs/TE, QBs were different but comparable.  Our D was clearly better.  At the time we had a better running game and a better RB.  

 

You're putting words in my mouth.  

 

 

5 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Why did it take a gaff at the end of the game and a missed FG and dropped ball by Diggs to beat the Bills?  Not to mention having both starting LB's out, the back up and our best corner out.  Shouldn't KC just dominate them and the games shouldn't even be close?

 

We lost.  Why, because of that gaff, no?  Whose fault was that?  

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, PBF81 said:

 

Where did I say that?  

 

The teams were comparable all things considered.  Back then they had better WRs/TE, QBs were different but comparable.  Our D was clearly better.  At the time we had a better running game and a better RB.  

 

You're putting words in my mouth.  

 

 

 

We lost.  Why, because of that gaff, no?  Whose fault was that?  

 

 

 

I didn't say that in this thread, but you have said KC has more talent over the years.

 

Reid needed a gaff with a HOF QB, HOF WR and HOF TE to beat a coach with terminal limitations?  Why didn't he just straight dominate us.

 

Why are you holding it against McDermott for drafting and developing Allen when he turned out great?  Do you see what bad leadership does to promising QB's?

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

14 hours ago, FireChans said:

But that’s not a unique situation. They constantly start the year underperformed and behind the 8 ball.

 

Not defending McD here, but Burrow and Zac Taylor are running a LOT of mileage out of that single SB run 4 years ago.

 

In most cases Taylor would be fired after this season, but that's the one advantage of working for a cheap owner.  Look how long he kept Lewis. The trick in Cinny is to win in the last year of your contract, that gets you re-signed and even if you lose after that, you're safe until the contract runs out.

 

Speaking of Lewis, is he working anywhere in the league, kind of a name that has vanished

[PBF81]

13 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I didn't say that in this thread, but you have said KC has more talent over the years.

 

I'd really like to see where I said that.  My take has always been that their D has sucked until recently and that they've done it all via offense.  

 

When they had Hill they were great offensively, still, bereft of a decent RB.  Then came Pacheco, who's good but far from elite, but Hill vanished and Kelce has diminished.  

 

Again, I'd love to see my own quote on that, it's not my take nor has been.  I've always thought that on the whole, given the talent, the two teams have been comparable.  

 

 

13 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Reid needed a gaff with a HOF QB, HOF WR and HOF TE to beat a coach with terminal limitations?  Why didn't he just straight dominate us.

 

Apparently you missed the lights out ball that Allen & Davis played, ... having nothing to do with McD.  

 

Rewatch the game and let's reconvene.  

 

 

13 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Why are you holding it against McDermott for drafting and developing Allen when he turned out great?  Do you see what bad leadership does to promising QB's?

 

McD didn't "develop Allen."  Since you actually believe that, let's terminate this discussion.  

 

Frankly, how is it even possible for someone admittedly bereft of any knowledge of offense to develop a QB to that level?  

Don't take away Allen's individual achievements, he deserves those!  

 

As to your leadership question, who's the better leader, Allen or McD?  

 

 

[colin]

the concrete reasons we have not gotten a chip since 2020 are:

 

free agent dollars getting us sub par returns (Star, that white DE from washington, addison, settle, that OT from the jets, spain, several more.  right now smoot is good, but hurt, nothing from the safties we signed, samuel is trash, von obv blows)

 

Injuries (in afc chip game brown and bease were toast)

 

huge coaching and defensive failures (13 seconds, the d in the divisional round in our last 3 seasons)

 

i think mcd has outsized impact on our roster vs other head coaches.  we consistently get new guys on O who just aren't used (hines, samuel but he's prolly hurt, kinkaid doesn't get the burn a 1st round te should get) so im not letting beane off the hook for that, but the bad d in the playoffs, non impact free agents, and injuries (because we run such a small and not fast d) all have some impact from mcd.

 

mcd's scheme is limited -- reid lost with it and is now winning with spags, it is so precious and exacting that it made us take the shell of aj klein off the beach over a 3rd round rookie to ensure a loss vs kc, and i think this scheme lends itself to smaller guys getting hurt more because they have to run so hard to get to the ball and tackle.

 

the coaching blunders are simply 100% on mcd.  we've been outcoached flatly in games too, but the bone headed stuff is just a bridge too far.  we are a bit of an open book on D, and we saw miami eat our lunch on sunday and baltimore walked away in a laugher by just changing up their scheme to destroy us, and we had a player talk about how tenn was busting us up early and he said that they had to return to their normal plays at some point.  we are a one note band there.

 

so, i do get that firing mcd and beane opens the door to a downgrade, but I think we need change, so either mcd finds religion and just improves, or we have to make a change.

 

if you remember, the bucs had dungy who built them up but could not get them over the hump, they ditched him for gruden.  gruden won a chip for them, and dungy went on to win a chip for the colts.  some times you just need to change what isn't working.  philly had ried but never got over the hump and won their first chip after bringing in a new coach too.

[PBF81]

4 minutes ago, colin said:

if you remember, the bucs had dungy who built them up but could not get them over the hump, they ditched him for gruden.  gruden won a chip for them, and dungy went on to win a chip for the colts.  some times you just need to change what isn't working.  philly had ried but never got over the hump and won their first chip after bringing in a new coach too.

 

Well, this much is obvious, that McD insists on making the running game and defense the focus of his approach.  That's how he defines complimentary football.  

 

But it's certainly not unreasonable to ask whether, or perhaps why, making the running game and D the focal point for the overall strategical approach for our offense is wise or makes the most sense.  

 

Apologists will cite Allen's stats and lack of INTs.  

 

But critics will point out that against any team worth a crap Allen was flat out awful going 25 of 59 for an average of 155 yards with 1 TD combined in both games en route to losses to the only two likely playoff teams we've play thus far, and both with flaws.  We averaged 15 PPG in those two games.  

 

For many, the cloud of the overall season overshadows the ability of our team to win the chip as you put it, which is not good and for which he is obviously an impediment.  So holding out hope that he won't be an impediment come January for three, possibly four straight games, becomes an unlikely hope.  

 

Performing so well during the regular seasons but forever failing to advance past the divisional round, and then only once, makes quite a statement when you have Josh Allen as your QB.  

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

8 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

I'd really like to see where I said that.  My take has always been that their D has sucked until recently and that they've done it all via offense.  

 

When they had Hill they were great offensively, still, bereft of a decent RB.  Then came Pacheco, who's good but far from elite, but Hill vanished and Kelce has diminished.  

 

Again, I'd love to see my own quote on that, it's not my take nor has been.  I've always thought that on the whole, given the talent, the two teams have been comparable.  

 

 

 

Apparently you missed the lights out ball that Allen & Davis played, ... having nothing to do with McD.  

 

Rewatch the game and let's reconvene.  

 

 

 

McD didn't "develop Allen."  Since you actually believe that, let's terminate this discussion.  

 

Frankly, how is it even possible for someone admittedly bereft of any knowledge of offense to develop a QB to that level?  

Don't take away Allen's individual achievements, he deserves those!  

 

As to your leadership question, who's the better leader, Allen or McD?  

 

 

 

McDermott is the HC of this team.  All the Assistant HC's and players are under him.

Is McDermott then not responsible for the special teams issue in 13 seconds because he doesn't coach special teams?

 

The HC isn't responsible for the overall team....yeah lets terminate this discussion.  

[PBF81]

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

McDermott is the HC of this team.  All the Assistant HC's and players are under him.

 

vs. 

 

The HC isn't responsible for the overall team....yeah lets terminate this discussion.  

 

OK  

 

Yes, consider it terminated.  

 

 

[SoTier]

22 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

In most cases Taylor would be fired after this season, but that's the one advantage of working for a cheap owner.  Look how long he kept Lewis. The trick in Cinny is to win in the last year of your contract, that gets you re-signed and even if you lose after that, you're safe until the contract runs out.

 

Sad but true.

[Royale with Cheese]

Just now, PBF81 said:

 

OK  

 

Yes, consider it terminated.  

 

 

 

I was referencing your point about giving McDermott zero credit for Allen's development.   The team is under his leadership so yes, he gets credit for developing Allen.

I now put that in quotes to better clarify.  Understand now?

[PBF81]

5 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I was referencing your point about giving McDermott zero credit for Allen's development.   The team is under his leadership so yes, he gets credit for developing Allen.

I now put that in quotes to better clarify.  Understand now?

 

I thought we agreed to terminate this.  

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

I thought we agreed to terminate this.  

 

 

Just wanted to clarify the previous post.

[GunnerBill]

9 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

You have to have a HC who can out-scheme his opposing HC.  And besides wild card games, we don't have that. And because of this fact, we immediately ask Josh to be Herculean. This is not a recipe for winning a SB, let alone getting to one. But if you're happy & content with the Bills dominating the regular season than this is your jam.

 

So the better head coach wins every playoff game? Is that seriously your contention? Come on, that is nonsense. There is waaaay more correlation between QBs and playoff wins. The better Quarterback is successful in the post season way more often. And we have lost 3 of 4 to Patrick Mahomes.  We lost to a better coach too I accept that.

 

We did lose to an inferior coach and slightly inferior QB (there isn't a massive gap but Allen > Burrow) vs Cincy. But the Bills just stunk that day. It was a clanger the likes of which this team puts it at a lower rate than every other team in the NFL over the last 4 years. Unfortunately it came in a playoff game.

Edited November 5 by GunnerBill