Broncos, Ravens, Chiefs - Can the Bills run through this gauntlet.

[What a Tuel]

2 minutes ago, dma0034 said:

 

 

I don't know but I would hope my goal is to win the Superbowl and I would 100% make that change and live with the results even if it means worse results.

 

So you think a coach change would still have been a successful change with worse results?

[billieve420]

I would like to just be at full strength come the playoffs this year. For me the formula will need to be the following to get out of the AFC and reach Super Bowl. Offense getting off to quick starts and putting up 30+. Defense playing with a lead and keeping teams under 30 while coming up with some key stops and turnovers.

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

I'm not concerned about any potential team we could see in the wild card round other than the Bengals (and there's almost no chance they make the playoffs). I just can't see us losing to any of the Colts/Dolphins/Steelers/Chargers/Broncos. Any given Sunday and all that, but I'd say we have a 75-90% chance to beat any of those teams. Bengals would be a coin flip even with their DEF looking like trash

 

The Ravens are terrifying. Their offense has been good to great for pretty much the whole season. Their run DEF has been #1 the whole year. Their pass DEF was trash for the first half of the season, but they've really turned a corner in the last ~6 weeks or so. The only thing against them is the history of Lamar choking in the playoffs. 

 

The Chiefs are the modern day dynasty even though they have a ton of lucky wins this season. Their DEF looks great and their offense has been a lot better the 2nd half of the season. 

 

I think we'd have a 40-45% chance of beating either the Ravens or the Chiefs. Our DEF has looked awful down the stretch, and we've had 4 straight seasons of the DEF pooping the bed in the playoffs. 

[Buffalo Junction]

All I know is that if this team goes through Baltimore and KC and then wins the SB….  JA17 will have earned the right to walk onto the set of any ESPN talk show, drop trow, and tell every commentator to kiss his 🫏. 😆 

Edited December 29, 2024 by Buffalo Junction

[dma0034]

12 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

So you think a coach change would still have been a successful change with worse results?

 

No ofcourse not. If you change a coach and they get worse results obvious it's not successful. What I'm saying is if you are afraid of taking the big swing you'll always settle for being a loser.

 

In my opinion McDermott will never lead the Bills to the Superbowl (not even talking about winning, just getting there) because 1. He makes questionable decisions in game 2. He coaches scared a lot (not taking risks when the team absolutely has to; playing to not lose/get blown out when he is losing) and 3. his defense is never prepared to stop one of the elite passing QBs. I think the Bills will end up losing to the Ravens unless they lose in the first round or weather hampers Lamar's throwing and allows the Bills to focus exclusively on the run game. When that happens the Bills will be 1-5 against the other 3 elite QBs in the AFC (with a 6th loss to Watson when he was an elite player). 

[90sBills]

1 hour ago, clearwater cadet said:

Bengals took big step today

They’ll need 5 more big steps. 

[dma0034]

For the Bills I think the best seeding would be: 5. Chargers 6. Steelers 7. Colts

 

The Colt are just not good. I think the Steelers could potentially upset the Ravens if some things break their way and I think the Texans are trash but the Chargers could give the Chiefs a scare if the Bills and Ravens both win.

[GunnerBill]

54 minutes ago, dma0034 said:

 

 

I have a question for you: If you had the power and you knew after 1990 the Bills would go to three more Superbowls and lose them all, nothing else given.... would you have fired Levy? Because that's how I feel after 13 seconds except the Bills don't even make it to the Superbowl. 

 

Only if I thought the reason they lost them all was definitely Marv Levy. Because if it wasn't then firing him is messing with what gets you there. Firing coaches just to "try something else" is bad strategy.

[dma0034]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Only if I thought the reason they lost them all was definitely Marv Levy. Because if it wasn't then firing him is messing with what gets you there. Firing coaches just to "try something else" is bad strategy.

 

You have to try something... or you settle on not winning. Right now the Bills are settling. Never in history has a QB and HC been together for this long and win their first Superbowl

[GunnerBill]

So the 7th seed scenarios are:

 

- Denver win (possibly v KC backups) and they're in

- Denver lose and Indy beat NYG and JAX and Indy are in

- Denver lose and Indy lose at least once and Miami beat NYJ and CLE and Miami are in

- Denver lose and both Indy and Miami lose at least once and Cincy beat PIT and Cincy are in

 

 

 

 

 

[GoBills808]

Yes

 

But that's about as tough a row to hoe as I can think of tbh

 

Will require three consistently excellent performances

[GunnerBill]

Just now, dma0034 said:

 

You have to try something... or you settle on not winning. Right now the Bills are settling. Never in history has a QB and HC been together for this long and win their first Superbowl

 

I am sorry I just think this is the classic logical fallacy. We have to try something, this is something, ergo we have to try this. 

 

The Bills should fire McDermott if they believe he deserves to be fired based on decisions he has made and the impact he has had. Not just because they don't know what else to try. And I'd apply that same logic to the 90s teams even with the benefit of hindsight too. That isn't settling. It is rational decision making.

[What a Tuel]

31 minutes ago, dma0034 said:

 

No ofcourse not. If you change a coach and they get worse results obvious it's not successful. What I'm saying is if you are afraid of taking the big swing you'll always settle for being a loser.

 

In my opinion McDermott will never lead the Bills to the Superbowl (not even talking about winning, just getting there) because 1. He makes questionable decisions in game 2. He coaches scared a lot (not taking risks when the team absolutely has to; playing to not lose/get blown out when he is losing) and 3. his defense is never prepared to stop one of the elite passing QBs. I think the Bills will end up losing to the Ravens unless they lose in the first round or weather hampers Lamar's throwing and allows the Bills to focus exclusively on the run game. When that happens the Bills will be 1-5 against the other 3 elite QBs in the AFC (with a 6th loss to Watson when he was an elite player). 

 

You keep bringing up John Harbaugh and Jackson so lets go with that.

 

Lamar Jackson and John Harbaugh are 2-5 in the postseason with losses against a variety of QBs (Philip Rivers, Ryan Tannehill, Josh Allen, Joe Burrow, Patrick Mahomes) and wins against (Ryan Tannehill and CJ Stroud), do you think the Ravens should have fired John Harbaugh after 2 straight playoff losses? 3? No? I'm gonna guess "because hes a SB head coach"?

 

Prior to Jackson, Harbaugh lost 4 straight years in the playoffs to the likes of Roethlisberger (Tomlin), Peyton Manning (Caldwell), Tom Brady (Belichick), before finally winning the Super Bowl in 2012. Which year should they have taken the big swing and not settled for being a loser and fired Harbaugh?

 

Then Harbaugh subsequently didn't make the playoffs 4 out of the next 5 years after the Super Bowl win, and got beat again by Tom Brady in 2014 where Harbaughs defense allowed Brady 8/9 for 72 yards on the final drive. You'd call that a McDermott collapse and 2 years of not making the playoffs would have Bills fans all out against McDermott (I think if we missed it just one time) but here we are talking about the Ravens and Harbaugh being better positioned than the Bills.

 

Coaches lose in the playoffs. In the last 20 years theres only like 10 that haven't given Belichick and Reids god forsaken dynasties.

 

Change for the sake of some mystical SB winning HC is terrible in my opinion and is the quickest route back to less than mediocrity for the Bills.

 

[dma0034]

10 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

You keep bringing up John Harbaugh and Jackson so lets go with that.

 

Lamar Jackson and John Harbaugh are 2-5 in the postseason with losses against a variety of QBs (Philip Rivers, Ryan Tannehill, Josh Allen, Joe Burrow, Patrick Mahomes) and wins against (Ryan Tannehill and CJ Stroud), do you think the Ravens should have fired John Harbaugh after 2 straight playoff losses? 3? No? I'm gonna guess "because hes a SB head coach"?

 

Prior to Jackson, Harbaugh lost 4 straight years in the playoffs to the likes of Roethlisberger (Tomlin), Peyton Manning (Caldwell), Tom Brady (Belichick), before finally winning the Super Bowl in 2012. Which year should they have taken the big swing and not settled for being a loser and fired Harbaugh?

 

Then Harbaugh subsequently didn't make the playoffs 4 out of the next 5 years after the Super Bowl win, and got beat again by Tom Brady in 2014 where Harbaughs defense allowed Brady 8/9 for 72 yards on the final drive. You'd call that a McDermott collapse and 2 years of not making the playoffs would have Bills fans all out against McDermott (I think if we missed it just one time) but here we are talking about the Ravens and Harbaugh being better positioned than the Bills.

 

Coaches lose in the playoffs. In the last 20 years theres only like 10 that haven't given Belichick and Reids god forsaken dynasties.

 

Change for the sake of some mystical SB winning HC is terrible in my opinion and is the quickest route back to less than mediocrity for the Bills.

 

 

 

I mean.... I never brought up John Harbaugh once but sure let's go. #1 Harbaugh didn't have an elite QB. #2 Before Lamar, Harbaugh had a pretty solid record in the playoffs without an elite QB before the SB season. He had beaten the Brady Pats once and while he did lose to Big Ben twice and Manning. Those teams all had an elite QB while Harbaugh did not. He then lost to the Pats in the AFCCG after that Brady Drive when Lee Evans dropped a TD for the win late and his kicker missed a FG to tie.  To quickly touch on something you said: I don't think one drive is a "McDermott collapse" unless that drive is pretty much exactly what in 13 seconds. What I do think is a McDermott collapse is when the Defense plays an elite QB and they always score 27 points at minimum (could have been more in both of those games because you know they both had the ball late) and in your last 4 playoff losses your Defense is giving up 33.5 points a game. In that game against the Pats the Ravens allowed 23. Now the thing about John is, he isn't a Defensive Coach like McDermott so if his Defense wasn't successful he could hire a new DC no problem. With McDermott the Bills are stuck with this flawed Defensive scheme. The Bills had no answers for the Chiefs the first two times and the Bengals. Last year I watched the banged up Dolphins Defense play better than the banged up Bills Defense and yet we continue to allow McDermott to have excuses for this Defense. #3 John then did end up winning when his QB caught fire and the Broncos misplayed a pass; now with Lamar, an elite QB, they are 2-4 together (they did lose the close game to the Bengals). HE does have a little bit more leash because he won one but if the Ravens lose to the Bills in the 2nd round I would 100% expect Harbaugh's seat to be warm going into next season. If a coach has an elite QB I expect results. Here are the elite QBs since 2000 imo: Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Big Ben, Mahomes, Allen, Burrow and Lamar. For me personally: if I don't reach the Superbowl within 5 years of you having one of those QBs: I move off you. Hell I'd say if I don't reach the Superbowl within 5 years of your last win I may move off you unless you because you don't elite QBs in their prime for long

[dma0034]

 

Also. Since 2020 The Bills have been #1, #2, #3 and this year #13 in Defensive Spending. So the HC that got the job because of his Defensive Mind cannot figure out which players the Bills need to keep or let go. 

 

I've watched Dan Quinn turn the Commanders Defense better over the year, Zimmer with Dallas, Orr with the Ravens, Fangio with the Eagles but the Bills have a terrible scheme so let's just hope they don't get blasted in the playoffs like they always do. Give Me A Break

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, dma0034 said:

Here are the elite QBs since 2000 imo: Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Big Ben, Mahomes, Allen, Burrow and Lamar. For me personally: if I don't reach the Superbowl within 5 years of you having one of those QBs: I move off you. Hell I'd say if I don't reach the Superbowl within 5 years of your last win I may move off you unless you because you don't elite QBs in their prime for long

 

I am not debating the how hot should McDermott's seat be based on his record that has been done to death elsewhere a million times and unless we win it all will be all the board talks about for the next 3 months. 

 

But I do again just want to challenge the above becaue I think it is really flawed thinking. Good coaches are not ten a penny. They are easier to find than elite Quarterbacks, granted, but not by much. If you believe you have one firing them because they go five years without making the Superbowl because you have set that as an objective standard without really evaluating the reasons for why and how they have fallen short is just illogical.

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

On 12/25/2024 at 7:19 PM, loyal2dagame said:

Everyone was worried (myself included) about the back half of our schedule this year.  How'd that turn out?

We'll be fine. Every team in the AFC is beatable by the Bills.

"We'll be fine." So you're guaranteeing a Super Bowl appearance. Got it

[ganesh]

6 hours ago, billieve420 said:

I would like to just be at full strength come the playoffs this year. For me the formula will need to be the following to get out of the AFC and reach Super Bowl. Offense getting off to quick starts and putting up 30+. Defense playing with a lead and keeping teams under 30 while coming up with some key stops and turnovers.

I also want to have our best players on the field... If Williams is playing better than Milano, then he should be on the field.  If Knox is playing better than Kincaid, then he should be the starting TE....If Bishop is playing better than Rapp or Hamlin then put him on the field.  If Solomon is better than Epenesa then put him on the field more often.

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am sorry I just think this is the classic logical fallacy. We have to try something, this is something, ergo we have to try this. 

 

The Bills should fire McDermott if they believe he deserves to be fired based on decisions he has made and the impact he has had. Not just because they don't know what else to try. And I'd apply that same logic to the 90s teams even with the benefit of hindsight too. That isn't settling. It is rational decision making.

The Eagles struggled with the same during the Andy Reid years...The same goes for the 49ers as much as for the Bills...They simply are not able to get over that hump...Similarly for Zach with the Bengals

[loyal2dagame]

2 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

"We'll be fine." So you're guaranteeing a Super Bowl appearance. Got it

I don't guarantee anything. But I sure as hell don't have a defeatist attitude about much.

[SoMAn]

On 12/25/2024 at 7:11 PM, Chaos said:

Maybe some variation between the Broncos and Chargers, but right now the path to the Super Bowl seems established.  Do you think the Bills can do it?

Not unless they either control the clock and score on most drives, and/or figure out how to stop the opponent’s run game. 
If teams like the Ravens continue to plow through the Bills’ porous D-line, it will be an uphill fight. 
I hate to admit it, but until the Bills look something like top 5 on the defensive side of the ball, their Super Bowl odds are slim.
They’ve had occasionally good defensive showings. The question is, can they field a consistently good D for four consecutive games starting in the wild card round?  Doubtful.