GunnerBill

The Bills will draft a receiver in the first two days of the draft for the first time under this regime.

We have lots of good players. But on a schedule with 5 games against double digit win teams (likely 6 by the end of the season cos the Jags will beat the Titans) and playing Cincy while Burrow was healthy and generally having one of the tougher schedules in the league this year you need those good players to be pretty consistently at their best to get to the bigger win totals. And the difference between good players (which we have lots of) and elite players (which we have fewer of) is the ability to repeat it week in week out, game in game out. We have lost two games this year that I put squarely on coaching. Patriots and Broncos. To argue all 6 of our losses are on coaching is ridiculous.

It can win 14. It can win 17. It can win 7. 11 or 12 is par for this roster agains this schedule. 13 or 14 wasn't impossible but I do think would have been an overachivement. 9 or 10 would be an underachievement. They were provided. You just didn't like what it proved so disregarded them. Stick with your narratives. They are safer for you. I have given my reasons earlier in this thread.

Nope. I never said he did it all last season. That is an outright lie which is the other thing you do. I said he had a specific role on the offense that in certain games they use and has an impact on the defense. I broke down a KC game in great detail gave you the numbers and the succes rates with him on the field bs without him. Explained why that was. You just didn't like the answer. You don't like answers that unpick the narratives you make up in your head.

Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't. But when it executed like it did I think the result absolutely justified the call. The 5 yards in that scenario (very unlikely to get the ball back) mattered more than the timeout.

I gave you examples there too. You didn't like them. You only consider someone has answered the question if you agree with their response. You are incapable of meaningful discussion. And I think you are overestimating it.

On that timeout on Sunday I mean given where the clock was (we weren't going to use it, punting with 1:16 left in the half) the 5 yards for the punt mattered more. My first reaction was also "take the delay" but actually Martin pinned them with the punt and they knelt. Had the punt resulted in a touchback or a return maybe the Pats try a screen or something safe at least. I think on reflection it was a pretty good decision because the punter executed.

No I answered your question. Very directly. When someone gives an answer you don't like you accuse them of not answering.

Yes. But do you really look at this roster and think that is where they should be? If they'd won every game they'd be overachieving. If they end up 10-7 they will have underachieved. Vegas had the over/under at 10.5 and the formula Pro Football Reference uses had us at 11.3 wins.

He should fire Smiley. I never liked that hire. Whatever went on with Farwell after 13 seconds I don't think there was a plan in place and it was a "just promote the assistant" type move. I still remember his opening presser. He looked and sounded like a guy who had won a competition on the back of a box of Flutie Flakes. I don't. But the talent was what lost us the Jets game. Our biggest talent. It wasn't bad coaching that lost us that game. Our biggest talent sucked to high heaven. The Pats loss and the Broncos loss were on coaching. But again it isn't looking just at the games we lost. It is about stepping back before a ball was kicked in anger and saying this talent, that schedule, where should they be. And 11 / 12 wins always felt right to me. Maybe you'd have picked the 11 or 12 wins in a different combination than they might end up coming. But that is true most years.

It does. I fundamentally disagree because I don't think the talent on this roster is 13 or 14 win type talent on this schedule. We still lack sufficient elite level talents to put up those sorts of win numbers in a year where there are 9 teams with double digit wins after 16 games. One of them is Buffalo and we will play 5 of our games against the other 8. Particularly on offense we lack elite game breakers who can do it game in game out. That is why I fundamentally disgaree.

Agree totally with this.

We didn't lose to the Jets because of coaching. We lost to them because our biggest talent absolutely sucked. I don't think this was a 14-3 type roster on this schedule. I think our talent level is much more 11 or 12 wins. We lost some games we shouldn't have where coaching cost us - primarily New England and Denver. We won some where coaching was a big part. Including the last two where the Bills coaches have out performed the Bills players. But I didn't think this was a 13 or 14 win roster vs this schedule at the start. I still don't.

But he didn't call plays. And the idea that he was somehow still the secret sauce in the recipe with Wentz which was kind of floated around the time the Pederson - Wentz thing imploded rather saw its credibility trashed by Wentz's performance in Frank's offense with Frank's playcalling in Indy.

With a Quarterback playing as Allen did against the Jets - yes. That game was on 17. The Patriots and Broncos games I completely agree coaching was the major fallibility and said so at the time and ever since. But even give us those two wins and have us 12-4 now we don't have the division wrapped up going into week 18, let alone by week 15. The Dolphins have won 11 games. The playoffs would be sealed and the #1 seed would still be in play but the division wouldn't be sealed.

I have zero college football affiliation and I wouldn't hire Lane Kiffin. I just don't think he has the character to be an NFL Head Coach. I think he understands the Xs and Os well enough. I don't think he understands people well enough.

Based on what?

I wouldn't hire Reich.

Or advocating not moving on from anyone.

To have the division clinched two weeks ago we would have to have been 13-1 at that point. Do you really think this roster is a 13-1 roster? Particularly on this schedule? Personally I think that is ridiculous.

I would also still consider firing him if we miss the playoffs if I were the owner. It isn't going to happen and it was never going to happen beyond a total collapse. I don't think my view has changed that missing the playoffs with this team is an underachievement and while I do think there are circumstances that come into play I think it is fireable. The one area I have changed my view is coming out of Denver I thought he had to give up defensive playcalling (or Terry had to make him). In that middle stretch of the season he was doing a terrible job of it. But give him his due post bye his defensive gameplans and playcalling have been totally on point.

The reality is he was never on the hot seat. I fundamentally don't agree with that statement.

He was out there 30% of snaps last year. For a struggling 5th round rookie that felt pretty much right to me.

I like Shakir coming out too. I had a 3rd round grade on him in that draft. But at the same time the tape told the story last year. He was struggling. I don't think it was just a case of usage. He wasn't ready. Which isn't a huge surprise. He came from a very gimmicky system at Boise and last year he was in the wrong place, ran the wrong routes, struggled to understand spacing vs zone and (I think because his head was swimming) had concentration issues catching the ball. Possibly this season Dorsey could have used him more, but the key thing is he is a considerably better player now than he was as a rookie.

There are two DT slots on each team. If Ed isn't among the 4 it is inexplicable. I take the argument on Madubuike (another guy I really liked coming out btw) and I think as a pass rusher he is very good and has had a terrific season but I think as an all around player Ed has been better.