hondo in seattle

A couple thoughts... Is our scheme the problem? Or our roster? People keep saying our scheme is deficient, but I only hear generalities - we're not aggressive enough, we're too soft, etc. I think if you do a detailed tactical analysis of our Xs and Os, you'll find our scheme isn't altogether different from the schemes of other teams. We just don't execute as well as some others, mostly - I believe - because we don't have many All-Pro or Pro Bowl-type players. Since our "scheme" wins 2/3rds of the time, I don't think most opponents would say our scheme is easily defeated. The other thought... The Fins and Jets are national embarrassments. Being 4-2 this season and winning the AFCE 5 consecutive seasons is not an embarrassment, though it is frustrating for sure.

Probably, but it's situationally dependent. I think there are so many lucky and random events in a football game that the better team does not always win: bad ref calls, balls taking weird bounces, tipped balls going off in strange directions, players slipping, a normally sure-handed receiver allowing a ball to slide right through his hands for a pick six, all that stuff. Obviously, you can tilt the odds in your favor by having a good roster and coaching staff but neither of those provides a guarantee. What compounds the problem is that NFL playoffs are one-and-done. No best of three, or five, or seven. So the way I think about it is that a good coach gets you a lottery ticket to the dance. And there's no telling what will happen at the dance. But 32 teams vie for tickets and only 14 get 'em. So if your coach can get you that ticket, he's doing well and giving you a chance. But I also look at the roster and expected outcome. If a roster is stuffed with All-Pros, I expect something more than a woeful departure after the wild card round, year after year.

More Josh than McD. When I think back on each of McD's seasons, I feel like he either won as many games as you'd expect given the roster or maybe a couple more than that. In other words, he's above average but not stellar. I think our main problem has been the players on the field. Either Beane hasn't gotten enough playmakers, or the playmakers were hurt, or both. I don't know how we can demand McD win a SB when, at least in my estimation, Beane's never given him a SB roster. I think McD is good at 'process' and building culture, good habits, effort, execution (usually), and teamwork. I don't think he's done a great job with picking coordinators and that shows up on those days we lose the X-and-O battle. Not only is Andy Reid better than McD, his coordinators are better. That's a real problem. Though the gap isn't so great that the games aren't typically competitive. Between Terry, Beane, and McD, I probably trust McD the most. I don't know how much faith I have in Beane. After his homerun with Josh, he's become a base hitter with more than his fair share of strikeouts. Terry is the member of the Bills Triumvirate whom I have the least faith in. I think the chances of him hiring someone better than McD aren't especially good. And, yeah, I get your points about the Sabres and Pegs hiring a consulting firm. I also acknowledge the possibility that if McD was fired, Terry might just surprise me and find a great coach. But if there were two alternate universes: one where we keep McD, and the other where he's replaced, I'd put my money on the keep option. But I'd have some trepidation about it. There are no sure bets in this game.

I can't say with any certainty that I know your point. I know mine: changing coaches right now is probably a bad idea. I don't think Pegs is likely to hire a better coach. I think it's more likely he'll hire a coach worse than McD, thus making it less likely we'll win a Lombardi. You clearly disagree and that's fine. Neither of us gets to make the decision. It you want to call my opinion "pearl clutching," go ahead. Besides maybe not understanding your point, I also don't know why you resort to ad hominem attacks to support your case. It's truly puzzling to me but I'm having a fine day regardless. About to take the husky along for a ride on my bike on a sunny California day. Hoping for both our sakes that - however it happens - this team hoists a Lombardi someday soon.

I don't think signing Tre was a horrible idea. I do agree, though, that Beane didn't do enough for the CB position overall and that we lack a certain level of athleticism. Some teams are faster than us. Some teams are more powerful than us. Some are both. Josh is our only elite player. It's not a great roster.

Fair points. But I guess even though I'm not a mathematician, I'm a game theorist at heart because I see the future as a bunch of probabilities with no certainty at all. With 32 teams in the league, the average NFL team has a 3% chance of winning a Lombardi. I think with McD and Josh (and Beane's flawed rosters), we have about a 10% chance each season. Better than most teams, not as good as KC's. That means we have a 65% chance of winning at least one trophy over the next ten years. But let's say the fans get their wish and McD is fired. I think there's only about a 10% chance that Pegs hires someone better than McD. Historically, teams usually get worse after firing a winning head coach. And Pegs track record at hiring coaches (just look at the Sabres) isn't good. Finally, most proven head coaches are either gainfully employed or retired. Hiring a coordinator to be our HC, or a college HC, is a real roll of the dice. I think our odds are better with McD.

The average tenure of a head coach is only about 3.5 or 4 years. Guys like Tomlin are the exception, not the rule. That's why it's called it the Not For Long league." So of course Super Bowls are going to be won by coaches who haven't been in position very long. Most coaches haven't been in position very long. That doesn't mean firing a coach leads to a trophy because usually it doesn't.

To all the good folks out there who want to fire McD: Tell me what you see in Terry's resume that makes you believe he's going to pick a good successor? Pegs first hired Rex for the Bills. And he's been through Ruff, Rolston, Nolan, Bylsma, Housley, Krueger, Granato, and Ruff again with the Sabres. Unless you count the Bandits, his track record at picking coaches isn't good. McDermott is his best major sports hire so far - in fact, the only one to have a winning record and the only one to reach the playoffs As I posted previously, 11 coaches with winning records were fired in the SB era. Only 2 teams improved after they fired their winning head coach. Only 1 won a Super Bowl. It just doesn't happen a lot. Terry's track record doesn't suggest he'll beat the odds. I trust McD to deliver us a trophy eventually more than I trust Terry to pick a successor who will.

With his winning record, if McD gets fired by Pegula, someone else will hire him as a HC. He'll be a HC coach long enough in this league to see some of his subordinates become head coaches. In that sense, he'll have a tree. But I think the idea of a "tree" means a bit more than that. To me a coaching tree means a coach who mentored and influenced his subordinates who later on exhibited that influence when they were head coaches. Bill Walsh comes to mind. I think the coaches under McD might be influenced by his "process" and culture. But his tree will lack any distinctive, original X and O tactical stuff. To me, that's not a true tree. McD is just another branch in the Reid tree.

If you change your head coach, you're probably also changing most of the coaching staff. And you're probably changing either the offensive playbook & scheme, or the defensive playbook & scheme, or both. So I do think it's pretty much a binary choice: Keep McD or blow it up. Saying firing a head works sometimes is arguing by anecdote and isn't valid. I can give you other anecdotes. For example, after the 49ers fired Harbaugh, they collapsed under Tomsula. 11 head coaches with winning records were fired during the SB era. Only 2 of the teams involved posted a better record in the first two full seasons after the firing. Only 1 team won a SB within 3 years. Firing a winning head coach isn't generally speaking a good idea. Coach | Team | Record at Firing | Pre-Firing Win % | Post-Firing Win % | Super Bowl Win ----------------------- |-------------- |------------------|------------------|-------------------|---------------- Tony Dungy | Buccaneers | 54–42 (.563) | .563 | .625 | ✅ Yes (2002) Marty Schottenheimer | Chargers | 47–33 (.588) | .588 | .563 | ❌ No Jim Harbaugh | 49ers | 44–19–1 (.695) | .695 | .313 | ❌ No Lovie Smith | Bears | 81–63 (.563) | .563 | .500 | ❌ No Mike McCarthy | Packers | 125–77–2 (.618) | .618 | .625 | ❌ No Mike Shanahan | Broncos | 138–86 (.616) | .616 | .438 | ❌ No Tom Coughlin | Giants | 102–90 (.531) | .531 | .375 | ❌ No Brian Billick | Ravens | 80–64 (.556) | .556 | .500 | ❌ No Wade Phillips | Cowboys | 34–22 (.607) | .607 | .500 | ❌ No Mike Smith | Falcons | 66–46 (.589) | .589 | .438 | ❌ No Jeff Fisher | Titans | 142–120 (.542) | .542 | .438 | ❌ No

I think they brought Tre in to be a backup and mentor. Anytime you bring in a FA, there's some risk involved. He might have trouble learning a new system, adapting to new coaches and teammates, paying attention in meetings, whatever. There was little risk with Tre because the coaches already knew his character and Tre already knew our system. He has a good depth signing that turned out to be a bad starter.

I'm not sure how any of us know what's good enough for the Pegulas, unless you happen to know them personally. Since I don't, I can only guess. I think they want to win a Lombardi with all their hearts. But I think their attitude is that getting to the playoffs - as far as the AFCC game - shows that the team is close. So instead of blowing the organization up, they look to get better the following year with the same main leaders in place. A small staff change, a better draft, a good FA acquisition, etc. could conceivably put this team over the top.

It's hard to know but I don't think that was Beane's intent. Beane can only spend real money on a limited number of position groups and I'm guessing he had a thoughtful plan on how to build a good overall roster within the restraints of the cap. I think Beane thought he built a good OL. And, with Josh at QB, he believed he didn't really need elite receivers for this offense to work. Give Josh some protection and he'll find a way to get yards. I also think Beane may have overestimated the OL, DL, DBs, and receivers he had acquired. That's my guess.

Our receivers struggle to get open while our OL has been seriously inconsistent in protecting Josh. I agree with your general idea that under these circumstances, Josh needs to use his legs more - both on designed plays and improvisational stuff.

We don't have the right players to play offense with speed or power. We don't have the right players to play aggressive defense. I don't think we have the right coaches to play innovative (i.e. non-stagnant) offense. Sadly, the problems you list are not easily fixed. It seems to me that making a run in the playoffs will require: * Josh to play hero ball. * Babich to coach his guys up to a higher level. While we don't have great athletes on D, they can communicate better, miss fewer assignments, swarm to the ball more energetically, play to the whistle more often, and cover each other's mistakes, etc. as we've seen in previous iterations of the McD defense. * Brady to be much more consistent at developing effective game plans and calling good plays.

This isn't a rhetorical question... Set the stats aside; what skills does Lockett add at this point in his career that we don't already have on the roster?

I think Poyer's considered a SS. But on McD's defense, the dividing line between SS and FS is blurry and fluid. McD likes safeties who can do everything: deep zone, man coverage, in-the-box run support, whatever. It's easier to disguise the scheme when both safeties are Swiss army knives and the QB can't be sure what either of them is doing.

Our Defensive identity is we'll let you run all day but we'll meekly try to stop you from passing downfield. Our Offensive identity is Josh is our hero but if you sit in a soft shell all day, we'll give Jimbo the ball.

I usually scoff when journalists pretend to know more than coaches. But I agree with most of this.

I think Hoecht's versatility is interesting. If the Bills can use him creatively to confuse offenses, he'll be a plus. If they simply use him as another rotational guy - well, then he's just another rotational guy with minimal impact.

How do fans sense urgency during a week of practice? I think maybe - I'm just guessing here - that's just your lack of faith in our coaching staff talking. I know McD has flaws but I don't think complacency is one of them. I think the Bills know how badly they've been playing, know the situation they're in, and are fully committed to winning this game. That won't mean they will because there's a real roster deficit to deal with. But, as someone who doesn't attend practices and has no insider knowledge, my guess is that urgency is not an issue.

A cursory look at the numbers shows two teams more or less evenly matched: Bills Cats Offense #3 #16 Defense #19 #7 TO Diff -1 -2 However, the Bills are in a funk. While I hope McD and Babich fix some of our defensive problems, I'm pinning my hopes on Brady and Josh. If we play offense like we did the past two games, we lose. But if we play offense like the first 4 games, we win.

I don't think it's ever been a consensus that Beane, McDermott, and Allen were all elite. But I do agree that Beane is the weak link. It's not a new revelation. I've been saying this for a long time. I'm not sure how to evaluate Beane because he deserves credit for drafting Josh. But here's a guy who hit an impressive home run once years ago with only a few base hits since. On the flip side, I think McDermott has done okay (.657) with the rosters he's been given, and the injuries the team's endured. He may not be a great coach, but he's a good one. As for Josh, he may not be the GOAT, though at moments - even entire games - he looks like he could be. In any case, he's by far the best player we have and deserves to be surrounded by better teammates. Every season, he either plays with a subpar OL, or a subpar receiving corps, or both.

I don't want to fire Brady. I want him to get better. The Bills offensive coaching staff consists of roughly 10 guys. The roster has 20-some offensive players. I'd like to see the Bills develop a collective IQ that matches the 49ers, Chiefs, or Rams. Solicit the players for input (some of them are smart and observant) and collect the best offensive football minds you can find. Right now, our passing game specialist is Marc Lubick. I know little about the guy, but I wonder if we can upgrade him. Or complement him with another young passing game sensei or maybe an Assistant OC who excels at Xs and Os. Whatever the case, Brady needs to build a team of smart offensive coaches who collaboratively scheme and problem-solve at such a high level that no opponent can stop our Superman-driven offense. So, yes, I agree the main problem of our offense is Beane, not Brady, but I still want more from Brady. The last two weeks of offensive turds isn't all on Brandon. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Brady didn't make much lemonade in the Pats and Falcons games.

You're right, GB, and yet... Regardless of what separation stats may say, I feel like I see #2's, #3's and even backups getting wide open more often on other teams than our guys. The problem is bigger than not having a #1. Let me ask: do you believe our passing game is as good under Brady as it would be under, say, Kyle Shanahan? I agree that execution (generally a factor of coaching) and talent are critical. But I'd like Brady to put together a staff that can scheme a passing game as well as Shanahan and his coaches. And get the execution, too. And I'd also like Beane to get us more talent - which I agree also holds us back. As a fan, am I wrong to be greedy and want both?