McD: Has your view changed?

[GoBills808]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Shanny QBs 5-2.

Thumbs up

 

Just now, Andrew Son said:

What a silly comp.  Let's pay Josh what they pay Purdy, then we could build a better team around him that could better withstand below average QB play

Lol

 

That's not what we're talking about

[GunnerBill]

I don't know if it matters or whether that threashold means anything but they are the numbers. When a QBR is below 65:

 

Bills 7-5 regular season (last two years)

9ers 3-8 regular season (last two years)

 

Bills 2-3 playoffs (since 2019)

49ers 5-2 playoffs (since 2019)

[GoBills808]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

I don't know if it matters or whether that threashold means anything but they are the numbers. When a QBR is below 65:

 

Bills 7-5 regular season (last two years)

9ers 3-8 regular season (last two years)

 

Bills 2-3 playoffs (since 2019)

49ers 5-2 playoffs (since 2019)

It would also be constructive imo to look at playoff records when QBs are over 65 qbr

Full disclosure I don't have any particular reason to believe 65 qbr is a meaningful threshold 

[Mikie2times]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

It would also be constructive imo to look at playoff records when QBs are over 65 qbr

Full disclosure I don't have any particular reason to believe 65 qbr is a meaningful threshold 

It was meaningful in the context of evaluating regular season just looking at where the data breaks. Not a lot of qualifiers per year. So at that level you have a really good season. On a per game level, I would have no idea what that looks like. 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

It would also be constructive imo to look at playoff records when QBs are over 65 qbr

Full disclosure I don't have any particular reason to believe 65 qbr is a meaningful threshold 

 

No nor do I. But agree it is interesting to look at the numbers . 

 

So Josh must be 3-2, right? He is 5-5 overall I think. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

No nor do I. But agree it is interesting to look at the numbers . 

 

So Josh must be 3-2, right? He is 5-5 overall I think. 

Yeah I think you have to set a number somewhere...I'm not fond of QBR if I'm being honest

 

But I don't think it's so controversial that we've left a lot of meat on the bone in the postseason on average

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

It was meaningful in the context of evaluating regular season just looking at where the data breaks. Not a lot of qualifiers per year. So at that level you have a really good season. On a per game level, I would have no idea what that looks like. 

 

Not sure how long you went back but Brees was above 65 all three years that the Saints missed in the mid 2010s. That was the same formula as Burrow this year though, certianly two of those years the defenses were historically bad.

[GoBills808]

7 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

It was meaningful in the context of evaluating regular season just looking at where the data breaks. Not a lot of qualifiers per year. So at that level you have a really good season. On a per game level, I would have no idea what that looks like. 

I am guessing it makes sense on a per game level to go higher for a 'good' performance and lower for a bad one

 

But again qbr is not my favorite metric

[JGMcD2]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Not sure how long you went back but Brees was above 65 all three years that the Saints missed in the mid 2010s. That was the same formula as Burrow this year though, certianly two of those years the defenses were historically bad.

Many here would absolutely love to can McDermott and bring in Sean Payton.

[Chandler#81]

Yes, because He has! 

[The Frankish Reich]

Folks, admit it ... we have a great coach and an even better GM and an even better than that QB.

 

I count 12 current Bills players who were on McD's first division champs in 2020: Allen, Milano, Knox, Dawkins, Oliver, Epenesa, Taron Johnson, Quinton Jefferson (left and came back), Cam Lewis, Reggie Gilliam, Reid Ferguson, Tyler Bass. And I guess Micah Hyde now.

 

So 3/4 of the roster turns over in four years and the team doesn't miss a beat. 

 

That's what that great GM-HC-QB team will do for you. Six years ago what Bills fan could've dreamed of that? 

 

[Rochesterfan]

12 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

It was meaningful in the context of evaluating regular season just looking at where the data breaks. Not a lot of qualifiers per year. So at that level you have a really good season. On a per game level, I would have no idea what that looks like. 

 

But what is the point.

 

There have been multiple QBs with 65+ QBR with winning records and no playoffs.  Fitz has done it a couple of times.

 

This year you have 3 QBs with Burrow, Carr, and Purdy above 64.5 with losing records. 

 

If there is some correlation that would be helpful, but it doesn’t match anything other than teams that have pretty good QB.

 

 

[Last Guy on the Bench]

On 12/4/2024 at 1:04 AM, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

I don’t really get paragraph 2…the nfl playoffs is so crazy high variance involving so much dumb luck with needing the right guys staying healthy, questionable calls going your way, OT coin flips being won 😂, etc that the best way to bring one home is to keep getting back there with good seeding imo. 

Playing the chiefs as tough or tougher than any other team in the league in a big sample size feels like evidence it’s gonna happen to me but to each their own. 

Thank you! It is soooo hard to just look at playoff outcomes and make meaningful numbers-based conclusions. The sample is so small and the variables so large. You are much better off looking at the details of what happens and the longer-term patterns over many games/seasons of a given coach. The idea that you aren't a great coach if you don't win a Super Bowl never made sense to me. Too reductive. And even sillier is the idea that you are a great coach if you do win a Super Bowl.

 

As a fan, while I am dying for the Bills to win a Super Bowl once in my lifetime, I can't say I would trade the last several years of phenomenal enjoyment and excellence for one Super Bowl win. If you told me that Norwood's kick would be good, but that subsequently the 90s team would fall of a cliff and not make it back to the next three Super Bowls and that years later the Josh Allen experience would never come to Buffalo, no way in hell I make that trade. I know some of you (many?) would. But not me. I'll take the years and years of deep enjoyment over that one euphoric moment. Of course, if I can have both all the better. Go Bills!

Edited December 6 by Last Guy on the Bench

[nedboy7]

I watch for regular season wins. Playoffs mean nothing to me. And I won’t be impressed with McD till he 3peats. 

[amprov56]

4 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You're wrong, and incredibly over-sensitive. The vast majority of us who are willing to discuss issues and provide criticisms are nothing like what you perceive if you'd actually read posts instead of writing people off immediately and then calling them names.

 

I do agree that it is sad to see your type of posting devolve this forum.

 

 

No he is not wrong, there is a segment of this board that loves the negative and not in an objective way!

[BullBuchanan]

How could it change in December? We're still in the regular season (pre-season for good teams).

No one critiques McDermott's ability to win regular season games. If he loses in the playoffs again, will the people who never criticize him continue to support him without critique because he won another division championship? McDermott built a great team, but I have always believed, and have no reason not to believe based on what I've seen in big games, that he just doesn't have what it takes to close. You can stick with that forever and say you got unlucky, blame the refs, whatever - but you have a choice not to.

[Mister Defense]

4 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

What?  Literally zero?  Did you even look at the thread brought up that was preseason asking if the team was a playoff contender?  Many posters said the Bills wouldn't make the playoffs.   And the people who were worried about the playoffs weren't all anti-McDermott, a lot of it had to do with the talent of the team, the "retool", the digging out of the Diggs disaster and the cap restraints that came with it.

 

But now that we're safely in the playoffs the goal posts are trying to be moved.  It's some playoff type metric that needs to be met - be it divisional round, AFCCG, or SB appearance, or SB win - whatever it is that isn't accomplished it seems.

 

 

Well said.

 

But  the facts, and reasoning, won't get in the way of their animosity.

 

 

[hondo in seattle]

4 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

But that's not the case. As I said upthread, I don't think our playoff results are random. I don't think his system can hold up in the playoffs. It's designed for having a lead. It has serious weaknesses in playoff football where running games are better and QB's are more efficient. The data strongly supports our defense being an extreme negative outlier vs regulars season performance when just base average probably gets us to the Super Bowl. It's not just KC, again, discussed upthread, It also doesn't have to be winning a Super Bowl to me. Why don't we start by playing good defense against an NFL level QB? By my account the only time that has occurred in the playoffs is when we had a wind tunnel vs Lamar.  

It has 100% been about the postseason to me from the start of this year and last year.  If other people thought we couldn't get to the playoffs with Josh Allen, they have an issue, not me. 

 

 

With a HF QB..... 

 

McDermott era playoff losses:

 

3-10 versus Jacksonville

19-22 versus Houston

24-38 versus KC

36-42 versus KC

10-27 versus Cinci

24-27 versus KC

 

In two games, our D was horrible.  In two games, our O was horrible.  In the other games, we were just a little more mediocre than our opponent.  In those games we allowed 22 and 27 points respectively - neither great nor awful - and still couldn't win. 

 

I'm not sure what our losses teach us other than the obvious: we weren't good enough.  I don't see them necessarily as proof of a problem with McD's defensive system since we can blame at least two of the losses on the offense.   

 

It might be we don't have the right players to execute the system as flawlessly as he wants - especially when we repeatedly enter the playoffs with injuries to key players on defense.  Regardless of the system employed, the talent you put on the field matters.  

 

I also think that the roster overperforms during the regular season because McD's system is so complicated and good at disguises that many QBs struggle against us.  That's not roster talent - that's coaching.  But the regular season coaching advantage largely disappears in the playoffs when going up against the very best QBs and coaching staffs who are smart enough to recognize what McD is up to.   At that point, with the battle of wits is at a draw and the better players win.  And sometimes that's not us.  

 

[The Frankish Reich]

4 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

McDermott era playoff losses:

 

3-10 versus Jacksonville

19-22 versus Houston

24-38 versus KC

36-42 versus KC

10-27 versus Cinci

24-27 versus KC

 

In two games, our D was horrible.  In two games, our O was horrible.  In the other games, we were just a little more mediocre than our opponent.  In those games we allowed 22 and 27 points respectively - neither great nor awful - and still couldn't win. 

 

I'm not sure what our losses teach us other than the obvious: we weren't good enough.  I don't see them necessarily as proof of a problem with McD's defensive system since we can blame at least two of the losses on the offense.   

 

It might be we don't have the right players to execute the system as flawlessly as he wants - especially when we repeatedly enter the playoffs with injuries to key players on defense.  Regardless of the system employed, the talent you put on the field matters.  

 

I also think that the roster overperforms during the regular season because McD's system is so complicated and good at disguises that many QBs struggle against us.  That's not roster talent - that's coaching.  But the regular season coaching advantage largely disappears in the playoffs when going up against the very best QBs and coaching staffs who are smart enough to recognize what McD is up to.   At that point, with the battle of wits is at a draw and the better players win.  And sometimes that's not us.  

 

Good comment. The Bills are undoubtedly one of the best regular season teams. As you suggest, maybe that's because we're one of the most prepared (and typically, deepest) rosters. I'm not sure that our starting 22, all other things (injuries, etc) has ever been clearly the best starting 22 in the NFL. Other than those early Jacksonville/Houston losses, it's hard to argue that we lost to a weaker team.

[NewEra]

6 hours ago, FireChans said:

I’m ASKING you the question. I don’t think McD would have. Do you?
 

To your second question? If he had Josh Allen at QB, yes I think it’s possible. That’s the point lol. I think Shanny would ABSOLUTELY have at least one SB appearance. Maybe 1-2 playoff losses to the Chiefs. 
 

 

It doesn’t matter what either of us think.  That’s not THE point.  That’s YOUR point. A point that I don’t dabble in very much because it’s pretend make believe stuff that will never happen. 
 
my point is that Shanahan has choked multiple times, 3 times to be exact- in 2nd half/4th qtr of the Super Bowl.  He choked with a 28-3 lead while having an actual MVP QB under center.

 

I’m done here.  Have fun playing pretend.