Jump to content

Last Guy on the Bench

Community Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Last Guy on the Bench

  1. 35 minutes ago, DrPJax said:

    Was just quoting him directly.  Check out his interview w tasker / brown.  I think it’s his risk evaluation perhaps concerning guys with medical issues whom he feels if you take them and have to sit them while seeing if they return to form  CAN set them up for failure. Was his analysis and related to if he was faced with two guys rated equally on his board.    He said he would then go for higher floor guy over POSSIBLE higher ceiling as it’s a safer risk , and fairer for expectations to the players.  Intersting ideas. Check out the podcast and see if you get the same takeaway. It’s always possible I misunderstood, but it was about players with Med issues on their board, not necessarily his entire approach to every player / pick.  At high picks he didn’t feel it was fair to take a guy that high with Med issues and then have him sitting out with that pressure to get to his full ceiling.  Could be just smoke ,, but he seemed sincere.  😊

    I think he was saying that it depends on how immediately you need them to play. He said he would be comfortable with a high floor/low ceiling guy if he had good vets at that position and the draftee didn't need to play right away. But he said if it was a real position of need, he might take the high floor lower ceiling guy. He worries that if you plug a high ceiling guy in too soon you are setting him up for failure.

  2. 8 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:

    Unpopular opinion, but there has been a shift and ESPN coverage is better. Their highlights are better and they show highlights and analyze almost every pick over three days. I like Mel. He is like a savant in a weird way. He’s super awkward, but I like his analysis. Not a McShay guy. It was unbearable when Gruden was on. 

    I love DJ and I really liked Mayock. But they skip over picks too much and sometimes  just show the scroll at the bottom. ESPN does the scroll, but they always circle back and analyze the picks and show highlights.

    So I will watch NFLN a lot tonight, but will watch ESPN the other days because they actually talk about the picks and show highlights on days 2 and 3. The ABC feed is for people like my wife who like the stories and the stuff like that. 

    Good tip. I haven't watched ESPN in a few years. Maybe I will try them on Days 2 and 3. Thanks. I much prefer analysis and clips of the later picks to all the rehashing of Round 1 that seems to go on. If ESPN is better at that, then I'm in.

    • Like (+1) 1
  3. 2 hours ago, Big Blitz said:



    Thanks. People who judge mocks by percentage of exact player at exact draft position are missing the whole point. Mocks give you a pretty decent, if imperfect, sense of the shape of the draft and of the ranges and scenarios for various players.


    In Sharp's tables, the top 20 are startlingly accurate (9 of the top 10 were predicted to be top 10, and 7 of the next 10 were predicted to be in the 11-20 range).


    Precision naturally decreases as you go down. Mocks that go into the later rounds should be looked at with a much broader lens (e.g., how many guys predicted to be Day 2 were actually Day 2). There is no sense expecting a super close correlation the farther down you go, but I bet you still get a reasonable sense of the shape and of the bulk of the players going in a given (expanding) range.


    There is a lot of useful information in aggregated mocks, especially for Rounds 1 and 2, unless you are trying to figure out exactly who the number 56 pick will be or something insane like that. Then they are useless. But so is everything else, including detailed notes from the war room of the team actually picking number 56, since even they only have a mock-like idea of who will be there.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Agree 1
    • Thank you (+1) 3
  4. 2 minutes ago, Homey D. Clown said:

    apparently you don't need the dish to get the ticket, you can get it from their streaming service now.  I have decided a couple of years ago to just get NFL gamepass, go do stuff during the acrual game, then watch it right afterward.  you can hide final scores on the NFL app and fact forward through all the BS for 99 bucks, or watch the condensed game.  

    Same for me. I had GamePass live for years living overseas, but since I moved back to the U.S. last year, I've been very happy to pay the $99 and just watch the games on delay, Sunday afternoon or evening. I actually like not spending my fall Sundays stuck in front of the TV. I get the beautiful fall early afternoons, and then I come in to watch the game, in total ignorance of what happened. I also love jetting past the commercials this way.

    • Like (+1) 1
  5. 9 minutes ago, Simon said:



    But someday I hope to upgrade to something less reliable and more complicated so that I can watch 1000 crappy TV shows and then get on the internet and pretend I'm better than everybody else. :thumbsup:

    I hear you about the Internet bragging. But why do you think streaming is unreliable? Can’t remember the last time I had any issue streaming live sports or anything else. 

    • Like (+1) 1
  6. 8 hours ago, Don Otreply said:



    But will be topped again when we win it all this year!

    Lord, I hope not. My heart couldn't take it. I hope when we win it all this year we're up early and cruise to a 50 point victory. I hope the rest of the country is completely bored by how dominant the Bills are. That Chiefs game almost killed me. I want more playoff wins like the *Pats game. Now that was relaxing.

    • Agree 1
  7. 11 hours ago, What a Tuel said:


    You can only watch so much content at a time. With cable you had to pay for the whole bundle. With streaming, find a service that has several shows you'll watch, and then switch it up once they are done. Max two or three at a time. Anything more is just wasteful.


    Right now I have netflix (my toddlers kids shows or id cancel), and Paramount+ (star trek and halo) and Peacock (Brooklyn 99, the office, and some other good background comedies). $30 a month, more than enough content. As opposed to buying 100 different cable channels on a 1 year deal for $30-40 and then $59.99-$69.99 because "$#%@ our existing customers" spectrum.

    That's exactly what I've started to do, and it's great. I'll have a couple of subscriptions running at one time. When I've gone through most of the current content that interests me with those subscriptions, I'll cancel one or both and add another. You don't pay much that way, and you can watch anything from any service (eventually), as long as you don't absolutely have to watch every show you like the minute it drops a new episode.

    • Like (+1) 1
  8. Question for the contract/capologists:


    There's been a lot of talk about the Bears drawing up a contract with a poison pill with a huge up front number. I guess the idea would be a very high first year salary. (Since any other kind of guaranteed money would be prorated across the contract.) But I feel like I remember reading that NFLPA agreement prohibits a drastic salary cut from one year to the next within the same contract. Don't remember what the number was. And I could be wrong, because I think I read that a few years ago. But if my memory is correct, that means you can't pay a guy $10,000,000 one year and $500,000 the next (in salary).


    If that's true, the Bears really couldn't have artificially jacked the front end of the contract up too much. Does anyone else remember this rule or know about it? Or am I just mistaken?


    BTW, clearly there is no rule against large increases in yearly salary within the same contract - Watson is supposedly getting only $1,000,000 in salary his first year in Cleveland so any suspension won't hurt him financially (which is pretty effed up in my opinion).

  9. I actually thought the low-key vibe of the video was refreshing.


    I've enjoyed the Bills' recent social media hype work as much as the next guy. But it's nice to see something down-to-earth like this too. I love catching all of these little glimpses of the facilities and the people behind the scenes.


    And Von didn't seem that subdued to me - more nervous, reserved, trying to feel his way into the place. Even for a multi-millionaire, HOF vet, it's gonna feel disorienting at first walking through your new home and meeting 100 people at once.


    I hope they do more videos like this. I can't get enough of the day-to-day life of the team.

    • Like (+1) 5
    • Agree 1
  10. These critiques of the Rooney Rule are simple minded. Regardless of race, there are lots of reasons it's good to get in a room with execs, even if they have already decided who they think they are going to hire. And there are also lots of good reasons for the organizations to hold multiple interviews, even when they have a preferred candidate.


    I've been on lots of hiring committees where we had a pretty good idea of who we would probably hire (often an internal candidate). But we went through our process and interviewed multiple people. Sometimes, we changed our minds because someone unexpected blew us away. More often, we did end up hiring the candidate we thought we would, but when we liked someone else we interviewed, we kept them in mind for other jobs (which they sometimes got), and also were able to talk about them to others who were looking. If you don't get in the room, none of this can happen.


    The Rooney Rule is a reasonable response to systemic, structural racism (based on who has what networks and relationships historically) and to personal, unconscious racism (who execs are "comfortable with," the "kind of person" they are looking for). It can't singlehandedly change either of these, but it does offer some incursion.


    Not saying it's perfect or beyond critique. There may be better ways to tackle the problem. But all of these "See, it's a farce!" posts are pretty thin.

    • Like (+1) 6
    • Agree 2
    • Awesome! (+1) 3
    • Thank you (+1) 2
  11. 2 hours ago, Success said:

    Same with Beane.  We have a coach & GM who have turned this team around COMPLETELY from the drought years.  They've brought in the right players, coached them up, gameplanned well and changed the culture.  


    The Buffalo Bills are now one of the best teams in the league, and have a window that's open for miles.


    I don't know what happened in the last 13 seconds of that game, but clearly, coaching errors were made.  From the kickoff, to the soft coverage, to singling on Kelce, to rushing 4.  But I saw those kinds of coaching mistakes all weekend, in all 4 games.  McVeigh is generally considered one of the best up & comers, and that game was almost a comedy of errors while the Rams gave up a 20 point lead and almost let that slip away. And look at Reid, who we all agree is one of the top coaches in the league now - Philly fans celebrated when he moved on.  He had years of futility in big games there, and was particularly known for terrible clock management.


    We have a good one.  McD may never be elite, but there are so few elite coaches out there.  He's very good, and you stick w/ that.  He'll keep learning, and keep getting better in these situations.


    Great post. I'll add:


    Let's assume there is a badass, elite coach out there who is definitely better than McD. (I'm sure there is, somewhere, somehow. No on is arguing that McD is the greatest coach of all time.) Given their history with the Bills and Sabres, what on earth makes people think that the Pegulas are just the owners to find that coach? Or Beane? He's never hired a coach. Even the best football minds (not the Pegulas, though their hearts are in the right place) struggle to find good coaches. It's as hard as finding good QBs. Most teams miss a lot more than they hit. The odds of this leadership group finding a better coach than McD are super low.


    As many have said, one of his greatest strengths is his willingness to self-assess and to work on his weaknesses. And he seems to be very ego-free in terms of his relationships with his staff and players, so he will continue to try to bring in the people that can help him. Let the man grow. Let him evolve. Let him coach.

    • Thank you (+1) 1
  12. 3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

    I hear ya.  I agree…..josh is as good if not better……but when you talk about who’s the best…..you have to win a super bowl and you can’t let the  incumbent “best” qb beat you in the playoffs every year.   This isn’t my opinion.  This is just the way it is.  Like it or not

    I don't know. Kelly beat Marino more often than not, but lots of people rank Marino ahead of him. Then and now. Of course, Mahomes is fantastic. I have no problem with anyone who says he's the best. But if I have to start a new team and pick one player, I'm taking #17. 

    • Agree 3
  13. 41 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

    Good take.  There is no one solution.  Steelers and Ravens stick with their guy. Bears fired Jauron and Lovie Smith both with winning records if memory serves and they have never recovered.  Eagles moved on from Reid and won a SB a few years later. Obviously Tampa and Dungy/Gruden is the most extreme example of making a change that worked out. 

    It is so odd. Had they lost by 10 and McD never had to coach those last 13 seconds you probably just chalk it up to KC being better and maybe a change needs to be made at DC.

    However when you are winning because your superstar QB made amazing plays, and you call timeouts to prepare and you still manage to screw it up by defending against a TD and the boundaries he deserves criticism.

    Like I said there is zero chance he is not coming back as HC.  Hope he doesn't melt in the moment again. 

    Good points. It's very fair to criticize decisions and strategy in that game (or in any game).


     And I totally agree that there is no one solution. That's why I think you have to look at the gestalt of the thing, rather than focusing on one year or one result. There are definitely coaches that are reasonably competent and kind of plateau and don't grow into greatness. Maybe Jauron is a good example? Still, give Jauron Josh Allen and who knows how that goes? Even the Bucs Dungy/Gruden example is questionable to me. Yes they won the SB so it's hard to argue. At the same time, they only made the playoffs twice in the ensuing 17 years and got bounced in the wild card round both times. So was that really the direction to take for the team? Might Dungy have won a SB along the way and kept them more competitive? I don't know. I do know that when he arrived they hadn't made the playoffs in 13 years, and under him they went four times in six years. Pretty good.


    The alchemy of a good team is mysterious. Maybe it will become apparent over time that McD's weaknesses outweigh his strengths. But for me right now, his considerable strengths dramatically outweigh his weaknesses, even assuming I have a good read on his weaknesses, which I probably don't. And I do think he is a guy that will attack his weaknesses head-on. That's one of his most admirable qualities.



  14. 10 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

    Reid had a reputation of choking in the biggest moments until he drafted Mahommes.  

    Dungy had one of the greatest defenses of all time (3 HOF players) in Tampa and couldn't get it done.  

    Reeves was a solid coach that also fell flat on the biggest stage with one of the greatest QBs of all time.  


    Let's flip the conversation. McDermott is of course not going anywhere this off-season.  What outcome next year is acceptable to you that he is still the coach in 2024?  Like the other thread, how many more years do you give him?


    That "choking" reputation is what I'm talking about. It's juvenile. Reid won lots of big games before Mahomes. So did all of those coaches. I don't put so much weight on whether a person wins one particular game - the Super Bowl. There is too much randomness in there and too small a sample size. Coaches that go to multiple Super Bowls or even multiple conference championships win tons of big games along the way. I don't subscribe to the idea that there is only one big game. If you do, you are bound to be disappointed in most coaches most of the time. I believe there are many big games every year.


    That's not to say that all coaches are equal, or that different coaches don't have different strengths and weaknesses, including game management. That goes without saying. I just don't find it so obvious that someone is a genius or an idiot based on, say, whether a kicker hits a kick or not. If one play goes differently yesterday, McD just beat the big bad Chiefs on the road and likely wins a Super Bowl this year, or at least gets there. Is he a different coach based on any one of those plays? Not to me.


    That being said, I do think McD and Frazier made mistakes in that 13 seconds. I'm particularly troubled by the way they were guarding the boundary as if out of bounds mattered at all with time only for three plays and with three KC timeouts left. Out of bounds or not wasn't going to make any difference. I also don't understand how you don't put two bodies each on Kelce and Hill, and I agree with people who argue that you didn't really need much pass rush, since Mahomes was going to throw it quickly no matter what. Still, we could be wrong about all of that, and even if we're right, so what? They made a mistake. I don't see it as indicative that they will never win "the big one." It's just something they'll have to learn from.


    To answer your question, I would never put a specific result on a specific year to decide whether to fire a coach, if it were up to me. I'd look at the overall body of work, I'd look at the way that coaches and players do or don't improve over the years, I'd look at the relationships between coaches, players, front office staff, support staff, etc. All of that matters to me. If the Bills continue to field a competitive football team that is generally in the playoff hunt, and if they continue to cultivate what looks like a very healthy organizational culture and learning mindset, I would keep the coach. The only reason I would fire a coach that had that kind sustained competitive success is if it grew clear that things had gotten stale, that he had stopped growing and progressing, and/or that he was no longer relating to and developing players well.


    So pretty much nothing next year short of a player revolt would make me in favor of letting McD go.


    Again, I wasn't originally a big fan of the hire. And I still don't think he's the kind of guy I would really jibe with. Not my kind of personality really. I also suspect he might never be the sharpest tactical tool in the shed. And I do wonder what Reid saw in him that made him fire him. Still, with all of that, I think he is doing an absolutely fantastic job and I hope to see him as the Bills coach for many years to come, unless something major changes in his approach.

  15. 3 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

    What gap did we close?  Last year they made it to the AFC Championship game.  This year they didn't make it out of the divisional round. Went 0-6 in one score games.  Lost to the Jags. Lost to Pats at home.  OL regressed. DL didn't get any better. Edmunds didn't get any better.  Moss regressed.  Ford regressed wchih is amazing as he was bad to begin with.  Allen continued to be a superstar.  Knox, Davis, and Singletary are they only guys that got better.  Brown, Bass, Davis, and maybe Rousseau are the only guys contributing in two draft classes.  


    With all that Allen still had his team and our city in the lead with 13 seconds left.  McDermott blew it.  He is our version of Dungy, Schottenheimer, Reid (without Mahommes) or Reeves.  He is not the guy that is going to get our city a trophy.  We will suffer through one more year of failure and then Pegula will realize McD has brought us as far as he can.  

    Your list of "failed" coaches is hilarious. I hope McD is our version of those coaches. Two of them won Super Bowls. The tother two won bushels of games. Reeves won multiple conference championships and was NFL Coach of the Year twice. I love your definition of failure. I guess it includes 99% of coaches who ever coached, including a number of HOFers. McD will be in good company if he is one of those guys. According to you, the Chiefs never should have hired Reid, I guess.

  • Create New...