Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,870 Excellent


About Shaw66

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,967 profile views
  1. Oh, yeah. It's happening. I wrote about it in May. In 3 years Josh Allen will be one of the premier QBs in the league. I completely disagree. I saw a QB who can make all the throws who is learning to play against all the defenses the league can throw at him. Game by game he learns.
  2. No, the whole point of the post was even if Tyrod=Josh, the Bills are paying a lot less for Josh than they would have paid Tyrod.
  3. We love to talk about those guys here, but the question is whether any of this talk actually causes people to go read Sullivan or listen to Schopp. For me, the answer to both questions is "no." I don't go to them because they simply are not good at what they do. They don't inform me, either with information or with insights, so I don't bother.
  4. And, of course, I believe that if Belichick had started training camp in place of McD, the Bills also would be 9-0 right now.
  5. Fun question. It deserves it's own thread. I'd definitely take Belichick and Allen. Belichick is the greatest coach of all time, and Allen has more than enough talent for Belichick to make him a winner. Plus, I'd get the benefit of Belichick coaching the other 52 guys. McDermott is trying to be like Belichick, and I think he will have success over time. He'll never be Belichick, but that's like saying Werner von Braun will never be Einstein. And I think McDermott would have success with this team more quickly if he had Russell Wilson today. If he had Russell Wilson to start this season, the Bills could very well be 9-0 right now. But I can't have Belichick and I can't have Wilson, so I have to write about McDermott and Allen. I like them both. As I said, I think McDermott will have success as a head coach, because of his approach. And I think Allen will, too. They're both just climbing their respective learning curves.
  6. I agree. As I said to Gunner, I think a lot of these questions reflect bad reporting. "Are you frustrated with the success of your offense?" Come on, you actually need a quote from McDermott about that. I think a fair question is "you say player X needs to improve. Can you give us an example of the kind of thing you do to get improvement? And don't just say ' we have to continue to work.'" Ask him tell us what kind of things coaches are doing, what are they looking at on film, what are they talking to the players about? McDermott, for his part, needs to be a little more forthcoming about things. He needs to give the press something, and all of this "continue to work, continue to improve" stuff only goes so far. At some point he has to say something. He needs to prepare for the press conferences with some nuggets that he can give the press so that have something write about. If need be, he should talk to, say, Josh in advance and tell him that McD is going to use him as an example about something, so that Josh knows it's coming and knows that however the press spins it, it isn't intended as showing a lack of confidence in Josh. True. The processing part takes years to master.
  7. He said it several times last season. I don't recall his saying it this season, but it would have big news if he dumbed down the playbook this season. They did say once or twice that they were trying to simplify the reads on certain plays, but that sounded more like the reads were too difficult for the QB generally, not that they were simplifying for Allen.
  8. I don't mind if he's a provocateur in what he writes. I mind when his objective when interviewing is to set up his interviewee, to trap him into saying something that will make it easy for Jerry to go after him. If he actually wants to write a column about Josh being no better than Tyrod, he can write the column. It's his opinion, and he can say it and try to defend it he wants. But he knows, knows for a certainty, that a legitimate column on the subject would come out concluding that Tyrod wasn't improving and Josh is, Josh is younger, Josh has a bigger arm, etc. etc. etc. He KNOWS that. He asked the question to see whether McD would say something that Jerry could attack. That's just lazy journalism.
  9. Well, whether it's the right approach or not, the approach that McD has always taken - and he's been very frank about it - is that every player is asked to play the position as it's drawn up in the offense, not some watered down version because the guy is just learning. That's the approach. So you get McVeigh taking a different route with Goff, talking him through every play on the headset to make up for what Goff can't see on his own. There was discussion on this board a couple weeks ago about whether that approach actually stunted his growth. I don't know what the right answer is, but I know the approach the Bills are taking with Allen is "this is the position, the entire position. Play it." The result is that he's going to make mistakes that a veteran QB won't. You can argue that McD costs the Bills some wins by doing this, because Allen makes mistakes. But if you dumb down the position so he can play mistake-free, you also make it easier for the opponent to defend against the offense, because the offense becomes much more predictable. I don't know if there's a correct answer. I like what McDermott is doing, but I get that others might not.
  10. But Gunner, Jerry's idea of an interesting story is to throw someone under the bus, so he asks these loaded questions. How about any of these questions: When you're reviewing with Josh his play against the Browns, what do you tell him about: 1. Staying in the pocket? 2. Recognizing the blitz packages? 3. Anticipating breaks and making quicker throws? 4. Game preparation? McDermott is wise to Sully's bs and declines to answer questions designed to trap him. I Sully would ask questions like the ones I just listed, he and we might learn some football and might learn what's going on with Allen. THAT would make an interesting story.
  11. It's a very interesting question for people like us to discuss. It's a totally unfair question for Sullivan to ask. Sullivan is a smart guy. He knew exactly what McD would say if McD handled the question well. He asked the question because if McD didn't handle it well, he could go after Allen or McD or both. In other words, he asked the question to set up McDermott to make a mistake. McDermott, being the gentleman he is, answered respectfully. Belichick would have blown him off. Two years from now Sully will be complaining that he's one of only a few guys covering the Bills who hasn't had a quality one-on-one sit down with McD. He'll blame it on McD not wanting to answer the tough questions. The truth will be that McD already knows who Sully is and what he's up to, and he isn't going to reward Sully with interviews or anything else.
  12. I'd say this is a bit too harsh, but generally right. A proficient NFL QB would have won that game for the Bills. Josh isn't yet proficient. One thing about Cover 1's analysis is that although he shows what didn't work for Josh on several plays, he doesn't explain what Josh SHOULD have done to make it a positive play. And on some, like the pass down the right sideline late in the game to Brown, Brown essentially says that Josh made the right read and the right throw but he, Brown, didn't anticipate the throw early enough to look for it and make the catch. I agree about the first 20 games being freebies. It's the next 20 that matter. We shouldn't be surprised that Josh had trouble when presented with blitz looks on 50% or more of the plays. That's where all young QBs have trouble - the blitz look gives them more information to process in a short period of time and raises the level of emotional pressure the QB might feel. It seems like Josh made the right play a lot of times when faced with the blitz, so I don't think it's a problem with what he understands. It's a problem of raising the success rate of the entire team on the execution. Josh has to be better more often, but Brown has to make the catch on the back shoulder throw and, as Cover 1 pointed out, Knox has to make his catch along the left sideline. If at the end of next season Josh still plays like he did Sunday, there's reason for concern. At this point in his second season, I'm not all that troubled. I'd like to see a little more out of him consistently, but he's doing okay.
  13. I just read the article. Seems fair enough, for an amateur. I will always repeat what Kyle Williams said when he was told people are reviewing the All-22 and grading him. He essentially said it's ridiculous. He asked how someone who doesn't know what his assignment was can evaluate how he performed. So when Buscaglia goes after Trent Murphy, I just remember what Kyle said. Everyone was going after Lotulelei a week or two ago, until the team and coaches finally came to his defense said he's doing exactly what he was brought in to do. It's nice that Joe B is grading every player, but the only grades that matter are the ones that the Bills coaches are giving to players. I'd like the link to that website. I think that comment applies to every position, but a little less so to the skill position players, because we can see what they're doing. So, for example, I think what he says about Allen is pretty good. He's critical of several aspects of Allen's play, but it's clear that Buscaglia isn't saying Allen is a failure - he's just saying that Allen needs to improve or he will fail. I think that's true. And I agree with Joe B that Allen is showing that he can do all of the things that he needs to do - he's shown that he can throw with anticipation, he's shown that he can manage the pocket, he's shown that he can scramble and throw on the run, he's shown it all. But he's also showing that he can't do it consistently yet, and that's what's missing. He's making the right decisions some of the time, he's making decisions quickly some of the time, he's making quality throws some of the time. He needs to do all of that more consistently.
  14. Guys like Jackson and Mahomes come to the league with a special skill set that allows them to have success early, if their coaches can figure out how to take advantage of the skill set. Over a few years, the league catches up with them, learns how to contain them, more or less. Guys like Mike Vick and Cam Newton come to mind. Their special skills made them successful early (not necessarily immediately in the win column), but the league figured out how to deal with them. Their field generalship never developed. They never became expert at reading defenses and running the offense. The people we think of as truly successful QBs all developed very high levels of field generalship - Peyton, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Wilson. Lamar Jackson has all the scrambling ability of Wilson, probably more, but we will have to wait a few years to see if he can consistently package those skills with the high football IQ that makes Wilson so successful. I like the Wonderlic as an indicator, but it doesn't determine whether a guy has all that he needs. Successful QBs usually have a relatively high Wonderlic, but plenty of guys with high Wonderlics don't make it and some guys with low Wonderlics do.
  15. I did over 35. Seems like he wins every game with exactly 35 attempts. As for causation, no one can anything with simple analysis. It's complicated. But I gave a logical explanation about why balance works best. I proposed a theory. And your data is consistent with the theory, so that's something.
  • Create New...