HappyDays

Two win probability models slightly favored going for it over kicking a FG, and one win probability model slightly favored kicking the FG. https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/matt-lafleur-aaron-rodgers-nfc-championship-fourth-down-field-goal/ Not exactly "horrific and indefensible." Be honest - you have no clue how Matt LaFleur does in the minutiae of coaching decisions because you don't pay that close of attention to the Packers. Either way, bringing him or any other head coach into the conversation is entirely irrelevant. It's a distraction. My argument isn't that McDermott should be replaced with Matt LaFleur. It's that we should give somebody else a try with Josh Allen because the very worst case scenario is that we continue to not win Super Bowls, which I believe will be the case under McDermott regardless based on past results.

Okay if you're less ignorant than me of the hyper specific game planning failures or in-game coaching mistakes of Matt LaFleur, give me some examples.

Actually he was gifted an owner willing to spend as much or more than any owner in the league. As a franchise our cash to cap philosophy ended right before Pegula took over and Doug Marrone immediately parlayed that into a 9-7 season with Kyle Orton and EJ Manuel as his QBs. McDermott also turned in a 9-7 season, but because it happened to result in a playoff berth now until the end of time his defenders get to say that he's the one that ended the playoff drought. But for the record his flagship accomplishment without an elite QB is equivalent to what Doug Marrone accomplished without an elite QB. In fact Marrone took Blake Bortles to an AFCCG. So what reason is there to think the team's accomplishments with Allen wouldn't be the same under Doug Marrone, to use an example of a coach that everyone agrees is a failure?

My instinct is that McDaniel is a great offensive mind but not a very good head coach, and that LaFleur is quite a good head coach. I'm not going to defend those opinions to my grave though because I don't pay close enough attention to those teams (especially the Packers) to know exactly why they have failed. I pay close attention to the Bills. I have seen firsthand where McDermott has failed and how his coaching errors have specifically and directly led to lower seeds and playoff losses despite having the benefit of objectively outstanding QB play. What other teams and coaches have done isn't relevant to that argument at all. You know that thing you always say where if you have numerous threads about if a player is good or not, it probably means they aren't? I feel the same about McDermott. At a certain point you have to accept that the debate exists because there are very good reasons to believe he is not a particularly great head coach. Every season that passes and ends in failure is just another data point in favor of that belief.

Once again this discussion becomes less about McDermott and more about tearing down other coaches to ostensibly raise up McDermott. That's a losing argument. It has exactly zero relevance to McDermott's own success and failure. Allen is the only QB that consistently plays at or above Mahomes' level in their matchups, most notably he has done it twice in the playoffs. Only two other times I have seen a QB play at Mahomes' level in a playoff matchup - Burrow in the 2022 AFCCG and Brady in the Super Bowl. Fill in the blanks. If Burrow had played as well as playoff Josh Allen in the 2023 AFCCG, the Bengals would have gone to the Super Bowl last year. Ditto for Lamar Jackson and the Ravens this year. The 49ers would have won two Super Bowls by now if Garappalo and Purdy played at even an above average level in their games, let alone at Allen's level. Other teams are losing to the Chiefs in the playoffs because their QBs aren't quite good enough. We're losing because our coaches aren't quite good enough. That's the difference. If you're not factoring Josh Allen into your analysis, it's a bad argument. If you're pointing to the failings of other coaches, it's a bad argument. McDermott and his coaching staff have not been good enough to take an elite QB who raises his play in the playoffs past the divisional round more than once in five attempts. That one time they got semi-close it was a blowout loss. That's the simple reality and nothing that anybody points to can hand wave it away.

I haven't totally give up on Von. I'm not expecting him to get back to the early 2022 version of himself but even him being just an above average EDGE would be a huge boon to the defense.

You know in retrospect that was possibly the worst coached Bills game of the millennium. A comedy of coaching errors at every possible juncture culminating in an ending so bad I actually laughed out loud instead of the usual feeling of depression after a loss. Seven years into this regime and we managed to reach new depths of failure. I appreciate the fans who are trying to stay optimistic but it's just so hard to convince myself that the man responsible for that monstrosity of a game, on top of everything else, is ever going to hoist a Lombardi.

Yes there is a lot of revisionist history with the Chiefs. WR was a much publicized and talked about issue with them and most people expected it to be the reason they didn't win a Super Bowl. A lot of Bills fans are intentionally pretending that that wasn't a thing. The Chiefs overcoming that is no more proof of concept than Nick Foles winning a Super Bowl is proof that high end QBs don't matter. In any case, if I've said it once I'll say it 100 times - our goal can't be to try and emulate the Chiefs. Nobody should be trying to emulate them. We need to follow the standard formula of winning a Super Bowl and that formula includes multiple high end pass catchers.

I'm voting "other" as the most probable answer. As far as the Chiefs, getting to the Super Bowl three times in a row is just really really hard and the AFC is still extremely competitive. As far as the Bills, I don't think we have enough high end talent to make a real run this year. Of the Bills and Chiefs I think the Chiefs are quite a bit more likely to make it than we are because of coaching advantages and less turnover on their roster compared to us. So overall I'd bet on the field but it's close between the field and the Chiefs.

I see this opinion a lot but not sure I agree. They have the same question marks at OT and WR that they had last year. They lost their best CB in Sneed. Kelce is another year older. Not that any of that will matter of course but just looking at the roster it is a lateral step at best IMO.

This. When we traded for Diggs and then extended him I don't remember a single Bills fan saying the Bills were stupidly investing in an unnecessary position. The Chiefs have become the rallying cry for our poor WR room. But we aren't the Chiefs. No one is.

There's a wide gulf between "Curtis Samuel sucks" and "Curtis Samuel is as good as Stefon Diggs." Everyone else on this board falls somewhere in between that. You're the only one sitting at one extreme.

There's a reason players get a certain number of targets.

That isn't how statistics work.

And yet Diggs in his prime averaged 1,400 yards a season in our offense. Samuel is not going to get 1,400 yards. I'm sorry, it's just not going to happen. What you're doing is the definition of paralysis by analysis. Occam's razor - a career 600ish yard WR is not going to suddenly double his career average. Because Allen will be throwing him the ball and he'll likely be the 2nd best skill player on the field at any time I expect he will produce more than he did last year if he stays healthy. But he is not going to become a dominant #1 WR like Diggs was just because of one out-of-context metric in Matt Harmon's charting. Diggs in his prime could beat man coverage anywhere on the field againat any pass defender. Samuel is a mismatch against LBs and slot CBs who can sometimes win outside in favorable situations. Those are not the same thing.

They are different WRs with different skill sets and different roles they fit in the offense. Their strengths and weaknesses are almost polar opposites. It's like trying to compare Cole Beasley with AJ Brown. You're alone on this one, man.

Honestly man nobody can convince you that Curtis Samuel doesn't have Diggs' skill set. That is something that 99% of football fans just know to be true. This statement is the height of blind homerism. I respect finding reasons to be optimistic, I really do, but you still have to be at least a little realistic.

That wasn't my point. My point is that WR production is less influenced by QB play than people think.

All of them do. Tyreek Hill went from Mahomes to Tua and actually saw his production increase by a significant amount.

Garrett Wilson DJ Moore Michael Pittman Davante Adams Ja'Marr Chase (for most of last year) What is the point of this question anyways? You know not a single WR on our team is a "stud" WR, right?

Allen - No brainer extension, if not next offseason then the one after. Cook - Let go. Never give RBs 2nd contracts. Brown - I know this will be unpopular but I would let him go. I think Brown is in line for a massive contract on the open market. We're in an environment where Jawaan Taylor got $20M AAV and Mike McGlinchey got $17.5M AAV. Personally I would not pay that much for a RT. I would accept the 3rd round comp pick and use the money on a high end WR instead. Rousseau - Let it play out, take advantage of two years of cost controlled salary. I need to see him stay healthy for an entire season and get double digit sacks. If his best trait is always going to be run stopping I don't think that's worth a 2nd contract. Knox - I would let him go but we seemingly got him to restructure his contract by setting it up in a way that makes it extremely difficult to cut him next offseason. Maybe some team throws us a 5th rounder to take him off our hands. Otherwise we are stuck with him until the 2026 offseason. Shakir - This is an easy let it play out. We need to see how he does in a higher volume role this year before we even begin to have this discussion.

I think this is two unrelated statements. We needed a pro-ready outside WR, agreed. That doesn't mean you throw out the draft process though. Early draft picks are about picking premium positions with high ceilings. If you start drafting based on who's more ready on day one you've already lost. That's how you end up with Sam Darnold instead of Josh Allen. That being said I also worry about Coleman being ready to be the starting X from day one which is unfortunately somewhat of a necessity because of how little we invested at the position. The fans will judge him too harshly I fear and that will be Beane's fault, not Coleman's.

For anyone that cares about Reception Perception: So that was my takeaway from the season too. He did a lot of the little things better than ever in his career. As far as just playing the position normally I thought it was his most consistent season, which shows up across the board in any analytics measurement that accounts for context. But I also think he had some of the lowest lows of his career since 2019 which sticks out in people's minds and makes them forget how he looked on a play to play basis.

Yeah this is what gets missed in the discussion. Can't just look at additions without looking at losses. I would say the Bills did the absolute bare minimum at adding to the offense this year. On the OL they made zero substantial investments after cutting Morse so it is actually a net loss there. At WR they just did a straight 1:1 replacement for every player they lost. So no the Bills have not suddenly changed their philosophy. They are choosing to add just enough on offense to field a competent roster, but they are not really actively building around their best asset (Allen, obviously). Plugging holes is not the same as genuine investment.