hondo in seattle

You're not wrong. But it seems to me great speeches are more of a Hollywood thing than anything else. I've seen a lot of other coaches give speeches and they're mostly uninspiring too. As a former soldier, I'm always interested in the speeches military leaders make in Hollywood movies. I received no big rah-rah speeches before I went into combat from anyone. Nor did I give one to my soldiers. We talked all the time. There was nothing left to say; they were fully prepared, mentally and physically. After our success (Desert Storm), again there were no big, eloquent victory speeches. Hollywood gets this stuff wrong. I think it's similar to football. McD and the other coaches talk with the players nearly every day, building relationships. A big halftime or postgame speech just isn't going to accomplish a lot.

Grade inflation? If Cook gets an "A" for 107 yards and a short trip to the endzone, how would you grade OJ when he ran for 273 yards and 2 TDs against the Lions? Never mind. I know: "A+"

Don't misunderstand... I think Josh deserves to be the MVP frontrunner. I also think he should have won MVP before last year. If there were a stat that could truly evaluate how valuable a player is to his team, Josh would score high. But there isn't - despite some claims from analytic sites that there is. It's cool that the NFL has an MVP award but the process for picking a winner is inevitably flawed.

I like the fake smile midway through his reply.

But why isn't the QB who's #1 in QBR, passer rating, TDs, or yards per game the leading MVP candidate. As you know, stats matter. But so does the eye test, context, hype, personality, and wins. It's a complicated, subjective evaluation with many considerations, not all of which are fair.

True enough, but one of the reasons rookies tend not to play a lot on SB contenders - besides the strength of the roster - is that every game matters. If I'm coaching a team contending for the playoffs and fighting for home-field advantage, I'm probably reluctant to put a rookie on the field who's going to make rookie mistakes. But if I'm coaching a team with little hope of playing in January, I'm going to give my rookies lots of playing time to gain experience that will hopefully make 2026 a better year.

Jerry Hughes, a first-rounder, only had 1 start and 1 sack in his first two years in the NFL. Not every football career follows the same trajectory.

Exactly. When the Ravens or Chiefs play a bad game, they lose. When we play a bad game, we win by 12. I'm NOT saying that we don't have things to improve. We do. The run D has been terrible; the pass D has moments; and the O can run hot and cold. But there are only two undefeated teams left. We have more to celebrate than criticize.

I used to think Brady called the best game he could every week to optimize our chances of winning. And that makes total sense. I think coaches like Reid try to win today's game but, at the same time, are looking to show certain tendencies, hide certain plays, and so on. In other words, put things on tape to get future opponents looking one way so he can move another. I'm starting to believe that maybe Brady has become more like Reid. Albert Incognito, Richie's annoying but oft-quoted brother.

My point was that Josh was more effective in play-action than most QBs. Therefore, you'd think we'd do more play-action than other teams, not less. Here's what I got from AI: Josh Allen’s Play-Action Performance (2024) Completion Percentage: 70.1% Yards per Attempt: 9.2 Touchdown Rate: 7.8% Passer Rating: 117.6 These numbers reflect his ability to leverage play-action for chunk gains and red zone efficiency. His passer rating on play-action was among the top five in the league. NFL Average Play-Action Stats (2024) Completion Percentage: 65.3% Yards per Attempt: 8.1 Touchdown Rate: 5.4% Passer Rating: 102.3

I'm rooting for KC-Ravens tie, which gives each of them half a loss.

I thought I heard/saw a stat last year saying Allen was super-effective in play action. If so, yeah, it's a mystery why we don't do it more though maybe Miyagi is right.

Proud daddy moment... My step-daughter grew up in the Philippines and knows next to nothing about American football. But she knows that in this family, you have to be a Bills fan. So she wears her gear on game days, and again the day after wins. Josh Allen is probably the only player on the team she can name, but she represents. Her and some med school friends drove into the parking lot of a ramen restaurant the other day and saw a woman doing CPR on a homeless person. My daughter checked for a pulse - there was none - and took over the chest compressions. Meanwhile, one friend called 9-11 while another got a Narcan kit from her car. By the time the EMTs arrived, my sister and her friends had already revived the guy. My daughter called it a "community effort," though I'm happy to say the Bills mafia played a role.

Saints ain't good but ain't as bad as some say. Bills 34 Saints 24

Not for me. I'd give Beane an "A" even though I often complain that he needs to get better. The Bills had 1 All-Pro last year. The Ravens and Eagles both had 6. The Lions had 4 and the Chiefs had 3. It's hard to win a Lombardi with just one All-Pro. But when that All-Pro is Allen, you have to Beane a high grade. Still, you have to consider that the goal is to win a Lombardi and only the top team gets one, not the top four. So why congratulate Beane for being 4th on this list? Of course, I'd rather be in the top 20% on this list than the bottom 20%, but Brandon has work to do. Our FO is ranked #4 (and according to the point totals, not even close to Philly or Baltimore). Yet we're #2 in wins since 2020. In other words, our coaches are outperforming the work done by the FO.

I've been complaining about the OL for so many years now that I don't know what else to talk about now that they're good. I might as well become a Trappist monk and take a vow of silence.

I agree with you. But imagine your Brandon Beane. You have your dream job. You're winning a lot of games. People are interviewing you because your opinions are newsworthy. You're making more money than you ever have before and materially taking better care of your family. Given all that, how much would you allow a coach, or anyone else, to draft a guy you didn't believe in when your job is on the line? Beane is going to consider McD's opinion just like he considers those of his scouts. Beane knows that a team of people typically makes better decisions than any one individual. But Beane's making the final call, and I doubt if he's making any trades or picks that he doesn't have faith in. Whoever else had input is, from my point of view, immaterial. Beane has the ultimate accountability. If the coaches and scouts are giving him bad draft/trade advice, he should ignore the coaches and replace the scouts.

This changes the narrative in Daboll's favor. Instead of losing games with a veteran, he's now patiently developing a rookie much like he did with MVP Josh Allen.

That was a great watch. Thanks for posting. I rooted for him anyway but I'm going to root harder now.

It's always hard to be critical of the reigning Super Bowl champ. I did the best I could. But someday the Sirianni honeymoon will end. The list of coaches who got fired AFTER winning Super Bowls includes Tom Landry, Jon Gruden, Doug Peterson, Mike Shanahan, and Pete Carroll. It wouldn't surprise me if Sirianni joined this list someday. They don't call it the Not For Long league for nothin'. In any case, I'm not in fact advocating that any of these coaches be fired. That's kind of how satire works. Without being too specific, I generally believe that if you have a winning coach, you keep him. Yet virtually all the coaches on this list have hometown fans who want their heads.

Love the optimism in the land of lasagna, romance, and leaning towers!

Trolling? I'd say I'm using satire to make the point that even successful head coaches are flawed. If you look critically, there are reasons to fire all of them. When a pickpocket walks down the street, all he sees is pockets. When a McD hater watches football, all he sees are additional reasons to fire McD. Confirmation bias is a b*tch. Which is not to say McD doesn't deserve criticism or doesn't have room to grow. He does. But I'll take a coach with a solid winning percentage over lots of bad other options.

Maybe I'm naive but I thought Josh was talking about turf and Pat was talking about something else. Though I do think Josh was entirely aware of the double entendre from the beginning. I got confused on some other interview show when the nutz jokes popped up. Had no idea what was going on until someone explained. You may be right but over the years, I've encountered people whose vices (or lack of them) were very different than you'd expect. I wouldn't say anything "for sure" unless I knew the individual personally.

My simple point is that even the most successful NFL coaches have failures, mistakes, and blemishes on their resumes. But as a guy who's lived through Kay Stephenson (.278), John Rauch (.268), Hank Bullough (.190), Jim Ringo (.130), and the late great Harvey Johnson (.096), I'm happy to continue with McD (.646). McD and Beane have gotten us close to the promised land. I hope they've learned from their shortfalls and find a way to get us over the hump. Improving an organization and leadership team that's been almost good enough seems like a more achievable task than starting over with a different team of flawed leaders.

I'm not sure if I should laugh or feel offended.