HappyDays

If your argument requires you to concede that Brock Purdy was a better QB than Mahomes and Allen (and many others) for any period of time, you should probably just re-evaluate your argument.

Allen has better playoff stats than Mahomes over the course of their careers. I've mostly avoided this thread because the back and forth arguments are entirely predictable and have been done to death. It's boring at this point. Personally I think since 2020 Allen and Mahomes have alternated. Mahomes was better in 2020 and 2022, Allen was better in 2021 and 2023. But it really doesn't matter which QB is #1 and which is #2. Whatever difference exists between Allen and Mahomes is not the reason they have 4 Super Bowl appearances to our 0. For the record I think if Manning and Brady had swapped places their playoff success would also be swapped. I say that even with the belief that Brady was a little better than Manning throughout their careers. People just put way way too much emphasis on that sliver of difference that exists between two great players.

I don't discount Mahomes' greatness or his contribution to the Chiefs playoff record over the last few years.

Right. The top 2 QBs in football last year were Brock Purdy and Lamar Jackson. Followed very closely by Jared Goff and Dak Prescott. Everybody has been saying this.

Wait now you're placing player execution on coaching? You're all over the place in this discussion.

So when you said it is not clear that Allen is #2 and said that risk of injury is one of the reasons to believe this, that isn't something you personally believe? Alright. FWIW I'm fine including injury risk in the evaluation of QBs which is why Burrow is very clearly #3 at best.

Lol what? Allen has started more consecutive games than any other player in the NFL and it isn't close. Who is his competition by this weird injury standard you've created? Burrow? Jackson? Yeah good luck with that one.

In my mind this is a rebuild year with little chance of a championship, so I'm good with giving Bass one season to get over his yips. If he doesn't, then finding his replacement next offseason absolutely has to be a priority.

I've never tried to say it's literally all Allen. That would make me a hypocrite because I've said Mahomes has gotten more help from his roster than Allen has. What I do believe is that most head coaches could do what McDermott has done with Allen and the other talent that Beane has added over the years, and many coaches would have done more. But like I said I don't have it in me to go back and forth on the merits of keeping Beane. Whatever needs to happen to change the fundamental priorities of the organization, I am all for it. If I'm wrong about Beane and he's the one setting the investment priorities, then yeah get him outta here too.

Like I said before his value is as an executive and front man for the organization. He has added enough talent to the roster to keep us competitive year after year. He has a good relationship with agents and other GMs and has surrounded himself with good people in the front office. The Bills as an organization have a very strong reputation and are known to be well run, which is why they're constantly getting poached. Beane is the man primarily responsible for all of that. I like the stability that he's brought here and would prefer to see that stability continue even if McDermott is replaced. That being said I'm not like some of you guys with McDermott where I'm going to defend keeping Beane to my grave, like it would be a personal offense to see him get fired. If firing McDermott means firing him too, I'm good with that. If the next head coach says I'm filling the front office with my guys or it's no deal, of course I'm good with that too. I just think Beane with an offensive head coach would probably approach his resource management differently and I'd like to see how that would work more than I'd like to see him fired.

I personally like Samuel better than Davis. Less downfield production but less mistake prone and more consistent on a down to down basis. But I don't know how to compare how even of a swap it is because they effectively play different positions. Davis could be planted outside, Samuel can't. So I don't really see him as a swap for Davis, he is just a new addition to the offense. No I wouldn't be as worried but I would certainly still have my concerns. I had concerns about the WR room at this time last offseason when Diggs was thought to still be in his prime. I was proven right to have those concerns. So of course I am still concerned this year when the WR room inarguably looks worse than it did at this time last year. No. Hollins is a nothing signing for me. Claypool needs to prove he can weather NFL intensity, both mentally and physically. MVS is merely a baseline fill in as a field stretcher, he offers nothing special. For me it doesn't boil down to Diggs. I fully advocated moving on from him because the issues were just too annoying and he fell off a cliff down the stretch last year. For me it boils down to investment strategy. This offseason they once again tried to make DL the biggest investment on the team. You can't say they didn't have the cap space to try and pay an outside WR when it is an open secret that they made a push for Arik Armstead, and only got rebuffed at the last second because he decided he'd rather go to Florida. I also would have been totally fine if they hadn't made a big investment at outside WR in free agency but had made two substantial draft picks at the position. If it's a planned rebuild year, fine, at least get the new young core of WRs built around Allen now. Instead they drafted exactly one WR in a WR-rich draft, after failing to sign a single outside WR in free agency, and were stuck scrambling having to sign cast offs in Claypool and MVS just to have even minimum competency at the position. I'm just sick of signing cast offs at WR but constantly making big investments at defensive positions.

It isn't just about drafting offense early. It's the entire team building philosophy. It's making a huge push for Arik Armstead to the point that (I know this for a fact) Beane at one point thought he had him for pretty much the exact numbers Jacksonville got him at. Even though nobody came into the offseason thinking the Bills needed a big ticket player at DT. Nobody. It is a position this regime has just thrown ample resources at again and again every single offseason, and only pure luck stopped them from making it once again the biggest investment of the offseason. Compared to last offseason where they made a modest attempt to get DeAndre Hopkins before Beane played dumb in front of the media talking about how little money they had. A little fine tuning on decisions like those is something that I absolutely believe an offensive head coach would bring to the organization, and I have no reason to think Beane wouldn't go along with it. Why wouldn't he? A GM who's really just an executive teamed up with a great offensive coach is the best job going right now - just ask Brett Veach and John Lynch.

Yeah it's obvious to me that an offensive head coach would change the investment priorities of the organization. The idea that Beane is pushing forward with a defense first philosophy with little to no input from McDermott doesn't make any sense at all. Beane scouts the talent and picks the players but McDermott sets the broad goals of the organization. That's how all NFL regimes are run these days. So despite Beane's faults I'd be interested to see him build the team with different organizational directives guiding him. He's a great executive and front man for the organization, but he needs a strong voice in the room telling him, for example, you don't publicly congratulate yourself for landing a safety in the 2nd round after foolishly attempting to trade up for him. As opposed to McDermott who surely told him he needed his Hyde/Poyer replacement at all costs.

I don't care about that at all. I think it's funny that you believe the Bills are a popular and renowned team because of Sean McDermott.

Yes the nation tunes in weekly to watch Sean McDermott clapping on the sidelines. That's the only reason in fact.

So in your view the Chiefs have a better QB and head coach than us. Logically that means to beat them we will have to improve at one of those areas to bridge the gap. Allen can't realistically be improved on, everyone (I think) agrees with that. So the alternative is trying to improve upon the head coach, yes? Unless the plan really is to just hope we get lucky one of these years?

It doesn't really matter. Whatever difference exists between Mahomes and Allen is not the reason they have 4 Super Bowl appearances and we have 0. The rest of the discussion is just trying to figure out what the difference is. If you think QB is the main reason, we are so far apart in the discussion you might as well be talking about the CFL. That's why these discussions aren't productive. Everybody is having a completely different conversation. The excuses for next year are already written. It was a planned step back year and McDermott isn't to blame for the roster deficiencies. I'm hopeful that after Allen's age 30 season we'll finally have 95% of the fanbase on board and Pegula won't be able to avoid the inevitable.

This is the argument for keeping McDermott stated succinctly.

If the next hire doesn't work out, worst case scenario is we will continue to not win Super Bowls. This is the exact scenario some of you are lauding McDermott for so what's it to you? What you have to understand is that some of us have already decided McDermott is incapable of winning a Super Bowl short of totally perfect and somewhat lucky circumstances. So it's not about what the next guy will do for sure (which is impossible to predict) but what the next guy has even a decent chance of doing. Of course the irony of giving McDermott every benefit of the doubt, but immediately assuming the worst outcome for his replacement, isn't lost on me.

Definitely need to see another year first, ideally two, but yes he's on the up and coming list. My big concern with him right now is he's really inexperienced. He's been an offensive assistant and coordinator but he's never coached a position group. Also he's only been an NFL offensive coach full time since 2019. So are you getting Sean McVay or are you getting Mike McDaniel?

Ben Johnson, no contest. Surely you must know he's the #1 choice in the minds of almost everyone who is done with McDermott. He might be the best offensive mind in the NFL right now, top 3 at worst with Reid and Shanahan. He managed to turn Jared Goff into an even better QB than Sean McVay did. I think his system fits our current personnel very well too because he has shown an aptitude for getting TEs, slot WRs, and RBs involved in the passing game. If any coach has a chance at being the next Andy Reid, it's him. My worst fear is that Pegula has already chalked this year up as a rebuild year which means McDermott's job is safe pretty much no matter what, and Ben Johnson gets hired somewhere else next offseason. We got lucky he decided to wait for a better opportunity this year. I doubt we get that lucky again. If an experienced head coach is the goal, Mike Vrabel would be my personal 2nd choice. Before anyone chimes in with the obvious (and misguided) "what's he done that McDermott hasn't??" I'll point out he took Ryan Tannehill as far as McDermott has ever taken Josh Allen. Give him an elite QB, an owner willing to spend, and a GM that doesn't inexplicably trade away their best player in his prime, and I am very confident he can get past Andy Reid in the playoffs.

Mike McCarthy got a Super Bowl when Aaron Rodgers had a run like that. A QB dominating to that level in the playoffs is supposed to be a cheat code. Not for us unfortunately.

When? Everyone seemingly agrees the roster is worse this year. We may never see the caliber of dominant offense that we got in the 2022 playoffs again in Allen's career. If that wasn't good enough, what will be? It's hard for me to envision a situation favorable enough for this coaching staff to manage getting through a couple of elite QBs and then beating whatever team dominated the NFC that year. Remember the goal isn't to beat the Chiefs once in a decade. The goal is to win the Super Bowl. Personally I don't think we would have won either of the last two Super Bowls even if we had made it there. So what exactly are you envisioning? We suddenly add four elite players to the roster in the next couple years, enter the playoffs with zero injuries to starters, manage to skate by the Chiefs and Bengals in coin flip games, and then win a shootout in the Super Bowl? Because let's be honest that's the most realistic path under this coaching staff. Everything has to be absolutely perfect, for our elite QB to have a shot at winning a single Super Bowl in his career.

Wait are you using this as an argument in favor of McDermott? This is stunning. Thank you for putting this together. Proves our point exactly.

I don't think our rosters have been too far off, especially in the last two playoff matchups. They've generally had more offensive talent than us but we've generally had more defensive talent. I think McDermott totally mismanaged his injury substitutions in this past game. AJ Klein should not have been a starter, and that falls on him. The Chiefs beat the two best rosters in the league in each of their past two Super Bowl wins. Nobody thought they had a championship caliber roster last year in particular. Their coaching staff was just elite throughout their playoff run, Reid and Spagnuolo both. What I know is that when an offense racks up 8.5 yards per play like they did against us in the divisional round, coaching has to be part of the reason. It just has to be. Having to start a couple backups will affect defensive play, obviously, but not to that kind of historically bad degree against an offense that was not particularly talented. I mean really, 8.5 yards per play. Nearly a 1st down on every single play they ran. That's insanely bad defensive coaching, I'm sorry.