Shaw66

I think was 97 yards. I heard Fitzpatrick talk about it (or maybe it was TO). Broke the huddle and lined up. Both of them looked at the defensive set and thought, "oh, boy!" Fitz and TO made brief eye contact. Then the snap, and they just did it. TO actually didn't have such a good year in Buffalo. He was, as you say, a total pro. But every year in the league after his fourth season, TO went for more than 1000 yards, except for two years when he would have made it, but for injuries, and his single season in Buffalo. His problem in Buffalo wasn't injuries; it was named Trent Edwards. For whatever reason, Edwards did not throw the ball to Owens. That ended when he was benched for Ryan Fitzpatrick. It was pretty clear that Fitz's thought process was something like, "Hey, I'm a mediocre QB on a bad team that happens to have a HOF pass receiver. I'm throwing it to him." Owens' targets and receptions went up. If Fitz had started the whole season, Owens would have been over 1000 yards.

Cal - I'm not upset. You're one of the guys I most enjoy talking with about this stuff. We have different takes, and I like it. I said you're the poster child because you, like others, do seem to regularly read something into what I write that I don't intend: I'm not here to reflexively defend what McBeane do. I talk about why I think they do what they do. You seemed to be saying I thought they were super football genius, and I don't. I think they've worked hard to develop a plan and their following. Maybe that's not what you were implying. Sorry if you got the wrong impression.

I agree. I think the Bills are heartless decision makers. The only question is which players make the team better? From that standpoint, Daquon is at risk, just like everyone else is at risk. Having said that, their decisions about who makes the team better will be colored by what they've seen players deliver in the past, so it may be hard to unseat simply by looking better in camp. A lot better, sure. A little better, well, then the coaches start thinking about what a guy adds in the locker room, whether the guy has shown a tendency to be better as the season progresses, etc. etc. McDermott has made it clear how much he values having a veteran leader in every position room. Daquan may be that veteran leader for the tackles.

i stopped reading here, John Elway. And probably others. Marino.

Hey, everyone. This is a great discussion. It's why coming here is so good. A bunch of people who know at least something about what they're talking about, and a lot of give and take about the player and the situation. Love it. I had no opinion until I read the thread. Here's what I think now: Bottom line, I have to agree with the notion that it's a year, the first of several, to make a run at the Super Bowl. Can't release talent and create a hole if you think you can win it all. However, there are a couple of countervailing thoughts. One is that the Bills clearly are building for a multi-year Super Bowl run. Last year they cleared out a lot of veteran talent that contributed but that wasn't likely to be part of that run. Jones is one more of those guys, so I'd think his days are clearly numbered. The fact that there's a cap savings to be realized is a nice bonus. The other thought is a the theme I've been on lately, which is the Bills love versatile players, which often means undersized but overachieving guys. Just like the Bills obviously are not in a hurry to get a stud wideout, I think they're also not in a hurry to get a classic one-tech. They have Carter coming back and they've drafted some guys who project as under-sized one-techs. If they have one true big guy who can hold his ground to insert in the lineup on short yardage, I think the Bills might decide to go under-sized one-tech route, hoping to achieve what they need with quickness and competitiveness rather than bulk. So, there's a way I can see it, but I would guess it's much more likely a move to be made after this season.

Maybe you're the poster child for why I'm misunderstood around here. What I try to do is understand what McDermott and Beane are thinking. Many people, including you, seem to confuse that with my thinking they're great. As I've said in this thread and elsewhere, often, is that I'm just trying to understand. If I understand their philosophy, I understand better what's going on with the team. I haven't said they're a "super genius duo." I think they are extraordinarily good at executing their plan, a plan that's based on their philosophy, but it doesn't matter how good they are at executing the plan if it's the wrong plan. Some people are sure it's the wrong plan; I understand the plan and can see how it could work, but I don't really have an opinion about whether it's the best way to build an NFL team. What do I know? The only thing I do know is that the Bills are winning more regular season games than just about any other team, so that much is good. Whether this is the way to finish the job, I don't know. I have my doubts, but in the meantime, I'm rooting for my team. And I don't see anyone out there who's giving their team a better shot at winning, year after year, than these two. McVay was the flavor of the month a couple of years ago. Shanahan. Reid. Now it's the Eagles guy. As I've often said, if the Bills cut McDermott loose, he'd be some other team's head coach in 24 hours, subject only to the Rooney rule. So, by that standard, I'm perfectly fine betting on this duo. I don't agree the Bills went the "star route." I hadn't said this before, but in the NBA comparison I've been talking about those teams having one star - in the NFL setting, it might be necessary to have two stars, one on offense and one on defense. That's the point that Uticaclub just made - SGA does it at both ends, and Jokic can't. Allen does it on offense, and maybe you need one on defense, too. I would guess that signing Miller wasn't going the "star route," (which I think is the Jerry Jones philosophy). I think it's more likely that it's going the route that they need one lead dog on each side of the ball. Miller didn't work. Now they're trying Bosa, and in both cases it's intentionally a short-term effort. In the meantime, we see them drafting all guys with high ceilings. I think the Bills are doing exactly what the Chiefs did when they drafted Chris Jones - drafting high ceiling guys and hoping one outperforms his draft ranking.

This is a really good point. Excellent point. As extraordinary as Josh is, it's hard to see him fitting into McDermott's defense. He isn't the physical type. He's such a competitor, I can imagine him learning to play the edge - has the size, strength, and speed - the raw talent - but he doesn't look the part. Just like Jokic, who makes plays on defense but who struggles to be good enough on that side of the ball. I love McDermott and I want to keep him, but the point about coaching change is important. I don't think a coaching change would help the Bills - the roster is built to play the game he wants to play, and changing coaches almost certainly would mean changing the roster. It would mean starting over. Someone commented about the Warriors needing to change from Jackson to Kerr to get good. The difference was amazing. But Jackson clearly didn't know what to do with that roster, and Kerr did. McDermott knows what to do with his roster - it's exactly the kind of roster he wants. I don't know where you'd find someone better. Maybe Shanahan, who seems to share the philosophy. But he hasn't won either. Maybe that means that the philosophy is wrong. I've said this before - McDermott thinks that football really is team wrestling. He wants 11 guys on the field who approach each play like it's a one-on-one wrestling match. And that's another thing that makes his model similar to the NBA - the toughest wrestlers all seem to be wrestling up a weight class and using competitiveness, tenacity, and quickness to overcome a modest weight and strength disadvantage. I'd bet that if McDermott watched the Thunder on Sunday, Caruso was his favorite player on the floor, given how he fought with Jokic. I don't think there's a coaching solution for the Nuggets. I think the roster was built for the 2010, and it's trying to win in 2025. I think Gordon and Porter, Jr., like Jokic, are a step too slow and too one-dimensional for the modern game. They aren't slashers. Even Murray has the problem. These guys are good players, but they don't have the body types or personalities to play with their hair on fire, which is what you see from Indiana and OKC.

Yes. Yes! Yes!!! You're absolutely right, it hasn't worked to win a Super Bowl. And if you look back, I haven't said that McDermott is right and that this will work. All I've been talking about is that his philosophy about this is the same as the philosophy that the winning NBA teams are using. One thing I haven't said about the NBA teams is that as much as the philosophy that makes the Thunder so good is tough to maintain. Players come and go, and you need the right mix of personalities, the right chemistry, for the team to function in the synergistic way the Thunder is playing now. It's tough to keep it going. On the other hand, it has worked to make the Bills consistently one of the top five teams in the league. And (this is something I've written about before) McBeane said early on that their model is that the team will get better every year. They meant it - better year after year. That's what we've been seeing. I think Beane's been masterful this year, extending the best core talent on a very good team, then drafting a bunch of guys with high ceilings. I think the Bills will be better this season than last, and I think 2026 will be amazing. There are different philosophies. Jerry Jones likes his stars. The Eagles, the Lions, and Mike Vrabel believe in power. McDermott believes in competitiveness. (Obviously, everyone like stars and power and competitiveness - I'm talking about what the team style or personality is.) I don't know if McDermott is right. I'm encouraged by the fact that his philosophy seems to be the philosophy that currently wins in the NBA, but that doesn't mean it will work in the NFL.

No. All these teams have a star. I named them. It's a team full of dogs, with a lead dog. SGA is a lead dog. Brunson is a lead dog. Allen is a lead dog. The difference between Jokic and Allen is that to be the lead dog, you have to be a physical match for the team's style of play. Jokic isn't a physical match for the kind of team offense and team defense that the surviving NBA teams play. And it pains me to say that, because I absolutely love Jokic, his skills, his determination. He is a dog, for sure, but his body type and physical limitations require that he slows down the game. As I said, five relentless high-end athletes can play team basketball better than four relentless high-end athletes and a big, slower superstar.

I think it's interesting to compare the two. The QBs are interesting, for example. It's not just a new set of young star QBs, they are different QBs. Manning and Brady couldn't run and didn't need to run. Because of rule changes and strategy evolution, it's almost impossible for a QB to succeed if he isn't a running threat. In my mind, it's the big knock against Burrow. The Bengals suffer because he isn't really a threat to take the easy running yards. I see something similar in the NBA. Rule changes, including the three point shot and how they officiate, has changed how the NBA plays. For a while it's been difficult for a big man to really dominate. Shaq may have been the last. You have Jokic and Giannis, exceptional talents, but everything has to fall together just right for them to win. Instead, and this was my point, you have teams running, really running, with five guys who can run, jump, shoot, and defend. The difference, as someone pointed out, is best seen in the defense. Five quick guys, 6'2" to 6'9" can defend better than four of those guys and Jokic, or four and Giannis. The big guys, mobile as they may be, aren't mobile enough. I haven't watched the NBA this year until the playoffs, and I don't know what happened to Durant this year. I assume he's at the end, maybe he was injured, whatever. Durant had awesome speed and quickness for a man his size, and he was devastating in his day. But I think coaches have figured out that they can win more with a smaller, quicker guy in the lineup (assuming you can figure out how to replace his points). So, for example, you have four teams left, all of whom play this way - stifling defense, with one star who gets you the points you need and who still plays defense the way you need. Five guys running together, attacking relentlessly on offense and on defense, with a star leading them So, what we're seeing this year is smaller teams with one star. You need the star to get 25-35 a night. The rest of the guys have nice offensive skills, can shoot threes, etc., but they win by having five guys on the floor who can cover the whole court, who can defend tough, anywhere, close out on threes, defend in the paint, anywhere. (Caruso on Jokic the other day was amazing to watch - pure determination, and it worked). And because teams are putting five guys on the floor who can defend anywhere, you need five guys who can play offense anywhere. The Celtics showed it last season - everyone can shoot threes, every can drive. Celtics hadn't gone all the way yet, because they Horford and the other big guy who aren't mobile enough, but they made it work. And this is where I see the similarities with what McDermott has been doing. Early on in Buffalo, McDermott said that the problem in football is to attack the entire field, vertically and horizontally, and to defend the entire field. And McDermott has been pushing the roster more and more toward what I just described as the NBA model. We all fret about the fact that the Bills don't have a true one-tech tackle. Why not? Same reason the 7'2" center is tough to win with - the big one-tech guy just isn't as mobile, isn't as versatile, can't cover his gaps as well as smaller, quicker guys (three-tech guys). The smaller guys are challenged in some matchups (just like Caruso was challenged sometimes by Jokic), but McDermott's view is that if he has smaller guys who fight like hell, he can get good enough performance in those physical mismatches, and he can get better coverage of territory with the mobile guy. Same thing with Bernard, undersized MLB. It's why Beane and McDermott talk all the time about being competitive - they're putting undersized guys on the field, guys who make up for the lack of size with speed and quickness. Same thing with Spencer Brown - sometimes he looks outclassed, physically, but his quickness and versatility, combined with his tenacity, makes him valuable. He's a lineman who allows the offense to attack all of the field, because he can block all over the field. And that's just like I've said about the NBA. The style these teams are playing features, relentless defense, with guys working really hard to make everything difficult for the offense. And as I said yesterday, that's why the Bills receiving room looks the way it does. We can argue about whether they're good enough, but the style of the receivers is obvious. Every receiver, including Kincaid, has enough speed to get deep when they face the right defense or matchup. Every receiver blocks. Every receiver goes over the middle. It's the same as the Thunder's offense - yes, they have a star in SGA, but every guy on the floor is a threat, every guy plays well in a motion offense. The result in both cases is that the offense is best able to attack the entire field (football) or attack anywhere from the three-point circle in to the hoop. And the Bills don't care how talented a guy may be, if he won't play that way, happily, the Bills don't want him. Exit Diggs. And as I said, these NBA teams are good, better, actually, without having to chase after multiple super-stars. And what's really good about this philosophy is that there are more players who can play the new NBA style than there are super-stars. I live in New England and I watched the Celtics a fair amount last year. The guy who made that team was Jru Holiday. And guess what? He's the same model - fast, quick, relentless defender, good offense from all over the floor, not a super-star. Guys like Holiday aren't exactly a dime a dozen, but there are more of them than there are mega-stars, so you can find them and add them to your roster. I see the same thing when I look at the Bills' roster. All those guys the Bills have extended in the past couple of years, none of them is the close to the highest paid guy at his position in the league. They're not super-stars. But they all have the characteristics I'm talking about - fast, quick, relentless, team players. McDermott's philosophy is that 11 guys who play like that will regularly outplay 10 guys and a star who doesn't fit that mold, no matter how good he is otherwise. That's why Elam is gone - he was, presumably, more physically talented than some or all of the corners on the team, but he just wasn't useful because he didn't play the relentless team defense McDermott requires, play after play. Dane Jackson does. Benford does. White does. That's why, I think, the Bills don't go after the free agent agent edge who takes plays off, or a guy like Metcalf, who I also think takes plays off. You don't see anyone on the Thunder taking plays off. I think it's the same philosophy, and I don't think it's a philosophy followed by every team in either league. I love watching Doncic play, but I think he makes it impossible to play like the Thunder play. Still, the Lakers bet on him.

Really Turk. Get off it. Here's what I said:

Absolutely the dog days. There's nothing to talk about. This wasn't intended to "justify" anything. It was just noting that the NBA seems to be moving away from the pack-your-roster-with-stars philosophy and approaching roster building in a way that is similar to what McDermott has been doing. Can't help it if you have trouble thinking about two sports at the same time.

I've been in the difference maker camp for a long time. However, the other side of the argument is this. When JJ Watt was the best defensive player in the league, I heard Colin Cowherd say he asked a Las Vegas bookmaker what impact it would have on the betting line if Watt is out of the lineup. The answer was a half point, maybe a point. The best defensive player in the league! It seems to me that 11 dedicated good athletes playing an excellent team concept are worth more than a half point. They won without Durant. Durant took them way over top. Green was always a role player, even in his best years. And it's not depth that makes the difference, it's team play. Team play is where you get synergies, and it was team play that made Green so valuable. And Kerr won in his first season with essentially the same team that Jackson couldn't win with. It was the team concept that did it.

Good arguments. It's true, one or more of them may emerge as "the guy." But that would mean that by accident four teams emerged on top playing the same style. That's pretty unlikely. The "do your job" "everyone eats" concept (I wish I'd referenced those phrases) is what made the Warriors great, and I don't think it's an accident that several teams are playing this way now. What teams thought was the winning model a few years ago was to get three stars and just overpower teams. Heat did it with Lebron, Celtics with Pierce and Allen and whoever was the third. We're not seeing that now. Lakers thought they could do it with Lebron and Davis, now Lebron and Doncic. Trailblazers hoped to do it. Phoenix hoped to do it. You may be correct that this is an accident. However, my point wasn't that the NBA has changed permanently. My point was the philosophy that these teams clearly are following is the philosophy McDermott is running with.

As I was watching the Oklahoma City Thunder take apart the Denver Nuggets, I could see the tangible realization of the formula Sean McDermott is pursuing with the Bills. I've seen it before from time to time, but what's happening in the NBA makes it hard to ignore. The formula: collect the most talented athletes you can find and ask them to do everything that their position on the field may require from time to time. Everything. That means: 1. Execute your assignment within the team concept. 2. Play - and fight - as hard as you can, all the time. It's easy to see in the NBA this season. The superstars can't carry their teams any longer. Yes, there were injuries, and yes some are past their prime, but whatever the reason, they're all gone from the final four: Lebron, Tatum, Curry, Durant, Jokic, Giannis, Doncic, and probably one or two I'm forgetting. Jokic is the really important name on the list. The guy is supremely talented, an exceptional, one-of-a-kind offensive talent. in his prime. In years past, including only a few years ago, having a guy like that on your team meant you were more or less automatic to make it to the conference finals. Not any longer. This year's final four teams each have a great player: Brunson, Gilgeous-Alexander, Haliburton, and Edwards, but those teams don't depend on them like teams depended on superstars in the past. These guys play within a team concept, especially on defense, team concepts that depend on relentless pursuit and extreme athleticism. They're stars, for sure, and there are times when they carry their teams, but their teams win because they're willing to play the style that their less talented teammates play - tough, tough in-your-face defense, team-oriented offenses that create opportunities for all the players on the floor, and a commitment to delivering when those opportunities arise. When the Thunder beat the Nuggets in game seven yesterday, Alex Caruso was as important as Gilgeous-Alexander. Caruso is by no means a star, but what the Thunder gets from Caruso (and from a half-dozen other role players) is intense execution, play after play. And what the NBA is realizing is that when you have a team full of intense, committed players, talented guys but not necessarily highlight-reel talented, and when they play a team concept on offense and on defense, they can be consistently better than teams who feature stars. For the best NBA teams this season, it’s not about having players who have raised their game over a year ago; it’s about talented players who do their absolute best, play after play. Who are these players, what's their profile? They are exceptional athletes, with speed, quickness, jumping ability, and highly developed basketball skills (shooting, passing, dribbling, protecting the ball). Those skills all are matches for what their expected to do on the court: Run fast, change direction fast, jump, shoot, pass, dribble, protect the ball. And they are intense competitors, willing to use all of their physical ability and skills, all of the time, in whatever way is necessary for the team to succeed on every play. As the Thunder's blowout of the Nuggets was playing out in the fourth quarter, the TV announcers filled the time talking about, among other things, what the Nuggets had to do to their roster to get better. They said the Nuggets need to find the right role players to team with Jokic and Murray. That's wrong. The problem with the Nuggets is that Jokic and Murray can't play with the speed and intensity that the stars on the final four teams show. They don't play consistently intense defense, they don't run the floor with amazing speed and quickness. The NBA is showing that five guys playing with speed and intensity will beat two stars and three role-players, all the time. It doesn't matter if some of those five have names like Hartenstein and Caruso, guys who sometimes make you wonder how they're even in the league. Those guys are dedicated, hard working athletes who thrive in a true team concept. The Warriors began the trend. Curry was, of course, the leader, but it was the dedication to the team concept by both Curry and the lesser players that made them special. Gilgeous-Alexander, Brunson, Edwards, and Haliburton each are their team’s Curry, and their teammates are the Greens and Looneys and other guys. What does that have to do with McDermott and the Bills? McDermott is following the same formula. It’s most easily seen in everyone’s favorite punching bag these days: the wide receiver room. McDermott has a room full of high-quality athletes who never will threaten to go to the Hall of Fame (the same as all those role players on the NBA’s final four team this season). The Bills’ receivers are pesky; they keep coming at the opponent, and together they consistently to make the passing game work. Shakir is the model for the receivers: Intense athlete, competitor, works at his game all the time, consistently delivers everything he has, every play. McDermott has a defensive backfield that looks the same. McDermott’s defensive backs all run to the ball with intensity, in the same way OKC’s run in transition. It’s not a mystery why Dane Jackson is back. He has a defensive line that looks the same. Epenesa is the Energizer bunny. An offensive line too. His offensive players always use their very good but not necessarily great athleticism to make the block. Each guy does whatever he can to make each play work. Spencer Brown is not a classic offensive tackle, but his talent and his intense dedication to the team concept is one example. The reason the Cowboys never succeed is that Jerry Jones operates on the old NBA philosophy—get two or three or four of the best players you can, and then try to fill in the rest of team. That formula doesn’t work, for two reasons: First, as the NBA is showing, collective teamwork with good athletes beats the best players trying to carry their teams. Second, the dedicated role players on teams like the Thunder can be found all over the basketball world, and they can be signed without breaking the bank. Jerry Jones loves his stars so much he doesn’t have the money to pay the modest salaries of the no-name guys who drive success. Some will say, “yes, but each of the NBA final four has a legitimate star to lead them.” True, you have to have the star. And the Bills have theirs, a guy who meets all the requirements: Great athlete, intense competitor, never quits on a play. What the Bills have been doing, year after year, is collecting better and better role players around Josh Allen. It takes longer to assemble that roster than in the NBA, because you need 35 or 40 of those guys in the NFL, and only eight or ten in the NBA. People complain that the Bills have lost some big games—literally lost them—and haven’t won the big one. And that’s true. But the Bills are getting better each year, and the pro football world is noticing, even if all Bills fans aren’t. The Bills are now a perennial favorite to win it all. It’s noteworthy that the betting world has made the Bills the favorite to win each of its regular season games in 2025. It’s a sign of perceived dominance, a sign that McDermott’s approach, the modern NBA’s approach, is working. GO BILLS!!! The Rockpile Review is written to share the passion we have for the Buffalo Bills. That passion was born in the Rockpile; its parents were everyday people of western New York who translated their dedication to a full day’s hard work and simple pleasures into love for a pro football team.