Shaw66

This highlights my point. I can argue just as easily that the Bills don't need more YAC - they have to stop the opponent from getting so many. If I did it correctly, Bills were 22 in defensive YAC. The point is that YAC is a stat that helps see what's going on on the field, but it isn't uniquely an indicator of success.

What you say about the stalled offense is true, although I am reminded that McDermott often says that the reality is that there are always periods in the game when things just don't work well. Still, the stuck in the mud feeling is real and should be improved. Again, however, I don't think that focus on YAC as a "solution" makes sense. It's focus on more effective offense. I agree, Bills need better, more effective running out of the backs, to goose the numbers a bit and reduce Josh's carries. That's part of what's needed. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect much more out of Crowder/McKenzie. Yes, Crowder might be a modest upgrade over Beas, but the Bills went into last season with a well developed slot game, and I don't think we can expect a lot more there. I really think the extra element that has been missing is the screen/swing pass game. That's what KC did, for example, with Edwards-Helaire - they goosed their offense by adding someone dangerous in a part of the field they weren't already attacking. The Bills' downfield passing has been fine - it's the screen game and swing passes (not just outlet passes, but true swing passes where Josh's read of the defense says a quick attack on the flank is what is necessary). Singletary and Moss simply haven't been effective in that game, and that stuff is Cook's bread and butter. If the Bills can make Cook a threat out beyond the tackles in that way, it not only will account for more yards (yards that, incidentally, will improve YAC) - it also will occupy the attention of a DE and/or linebacker in a way that will make slants to the slot man easier and create gaps for occasional runs by the blocking back or others. I think, for example, that's how the Chiefs generate success on those inside shovel passes to Kelce - they get a defender chasing Edwards-Helaire out of the box and send Kelce into gaps that are now easier for the line to create. I'm not predicting, but I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see some of those plays to Knox this season.

Hey, SC - This is good stuff. I like it. I agree it's a valid stat. But what it's useful for is to help understand how the Bills offense works, which is what you do in this post. What I object to is the notion that there's something wrong with the team because they were last in YAC. The problem is that people talk about a stat like that as though it correlates with winning, and therefore needs to be fixed. That's wrong. YAC is just one of dozens and dozens of stats. Points for and points against correlates with winning. Giveaway-Takeaway correlates with winning. YAC doesn't. I reminds of a few years ago, in the Taylor era, when there were these endless discussions about Tyrod not having enough completions over the middle. Yes, a couple more completions over the middle would have been nice, but so would a variety of other statistical improvements. As I've said, more effectiveness in passing to the backs will change YAC, because those are the nearly-automatic YAC plays. As others have said, Josh extending plays reduces the number of throws to backs. Do we want Josh to stop extending plays so the Bills can increase YAC. I don't think so.

Notice how Mahomes threw a lot more passes to his running back, who averaged 9.6 yards per reception. Notice how Burrows threw more passes to his running back, who averaged 7.5 yards. Rodgers, too. Singletary had fewer receptions than either, and averaged 5.7 yards. The Bills had an anemic passing game to the running backs, and that's where you get the YAC. That's why Cook was drafted.

Screens and short passes to running backs are best opportunities to get yards after catch. Allen was one of the league leaders in air yards per completion. That means he throws the ball downfield more than most QBs. Singletary was far from the league leaders in targets. That is, the Bills have a downfield passing attack, which reduces YAC opportunities. If the screen game improves, YAC will improve. I'm not worried.

Absolutely. Dorsey is the by far the biggest question mark going into 2022. Frankly, I'm excited, because I expect he will be better than Daboll. But he's the guy who's going to be the biggest reason from change, positive or negative.

This stuff drives me crazy. Bills were 9th in the league in passing yards per game. If the Bills moved to the middle of the pack in the league in YAC, they'd have 25 yards more per game, and they would have been about 5th in the league in yards per game. What's the big deal? If the Bills get 25 more rushing yards per game, it's just as good if they get 25 yards more per game in YAC. If the Bills give up 25 yards fewer per game, it's the same thing, sort of. The point is, there are dozens and dozens of statistical categories, and the Bills would be better if they get better in any of them. And, in case anyone is interested, the easiest way to get more YAC is in the screen and short passing game. Hello, James Cook.

I see it the same way, except I think from interviews and other investigation they already are pretty sure he will perform.

Actually, though, it's quite similar to Hauschka and Bass. Unproven drafted high potential rookie, with some questions, up against a serviceable veteran who generally is good and consistent, but has let you down sometimes. Thinking about it, I'd guess that Beane wasn't burning the pick unless he had, with McDermott, a high degree of confidence that the rookie will be good enough in the short term and better in the long term. And that's why Hauschka was gone so quickly, before the end of preseason. The Bills bet on Bass because they had been pretty sure on Bass since the draft. It's likely to be the same with Araiza.

Oh, yeah, I'd definitely add Moss. If Singletary shows that he's the back we saw last season, and maybe better, and if Cook learns quickly (which can be done at that position), Moss could be in trouble. Moss has to show he can bring some value without a lot of touches. Can he be a different kind of back when it's third and six or seven? Can he be the up-back in short yardage plays? What can he do that will justify keeping him? Moss's future is in Dorsey's hands. Will Dorsey's playbook create opportunities for Moss? I mean, if Cook looks like some kind of Edgerrin James, just a a different, big-time multi-purpose threat (he could), then Dorsey's playbook may not have room from Moss, unless Moss can bring value without serious touches.

Matt Haack is on an easy path. His training camp is simple - come to camp and do what you do well - directional kicking and holding. Whether you make the team has nothing to do with how good you are. It's 100% about how good the other guy is. If the other guy punts consistently and shows a knack for holding, well, you're gone. If the other guy is just too inconsistent to be relied on yet, you have a shot. Simple.

I agree about the speed, and size, but there was something else going on, too. In the 50s, the game was naturally under control. Players tended to stay on their feet, and do classic blocking and tackling. It was more like a big wrestling match among strong me. It wasn't gentlemanly, to be sure, but the line play in particular was more about pushing the other guy back so the back could gain a few yards. Gradually, some players started realizing that if they hit with more force, they could inflict some pain and discourage the opponent. The Raiders took it to another level, recognizing that if they could inflict pain, the other guy might actually become fearful, and then they had a big advantage. Clearly, it worked, and the players started playing more violently because violence helped them win. It was all on television, so the college players and then the high school players began to take a more violent approach to the game. There was a story that one high school team refused to play the team Cornelius Bennett played for unless Bennett didn't play. He was too big, too fast, AND too accustomed to hitting with ferocity that the other team simply didn't want their kids to get hurt. Finally, as we know, the league realized (with a lot of pressure) that as spectacular as the violence was, it simply was too much like war and not enough like a game. So, the rules changed, and they keep changing. Yes, and it was kind of surprising that the same team had gathered itself so well in the comeback game, stayed in the game, focused, working.

My recollection of the Super Bowls was that the Bills clearly were competitive in two (XXV and XXVIII) and not in the other two. The other two, Washington and Dallas clearly were the best teams in the league and proved it in the Super Bowl XXV is analyzed a lot, XXVIII not so much. My view of XXVIII was that the Bills fell apart for maybe 15 minutes of clock time, starting with the fumble and return, and then got it together in the fourth quarter and competed, but the meltdown cost them any chance to win the game. Dallas competed for 60 minutes, and that's why they won. As the years go by, increasingly I think that the problem with those teams was Levy. He was too hands-off. He didn't really lead - he just seemed to do what game prep he thought was necessary and then let the players play the game. McDermott's teams are much better prepared to deal with adversity and overcome it - not perfect, but it's something they prepare for. Even the comeback game: I though that game was more about the resilience of some of the players than about the coaching. It also was about Houston's total lack of discipline and coaching. The Bills were good in that era because there was no salary cap, and for once in his career, Ralph opened his wallet a bit. And Polian was good at his job. The result was that Kelly, Smith, Bennett, Thomas, Reed, Talley, Tasker and a lot of quality role players all ended up on the team at one time. It was the greatest array of talent in Bills history, excepting only now. And it was better talent than any other team had been able to put together, except the Cowboys. To his credit, Marv put the talent in a position to win, and the players did the best they could. It just wasn't enough. I remember Marv being asked after XXV whether if he had it to do over again, he would have done more to motivate his players. (Remember, the reports were that Kelly and others were out drinking the night before the game.) Marv said something like the players are professionals, and it's their job to get themselves ready to play, not his. You can be sure that when they heard that, Bill Parcells and his defensive coordinator Bill Belichick thought that Marv was an idiot. The Giants were much better prepared for XXV.

Whew! 17 sounded like a lot. Interesting that the article says we will be a bigger and faster Gabriel Davis. If that's true, he'll be a special target for Josh. In the red zone, Josh will have a big strong guy and Diggs, who can beat pretty much anyone off the line. Nice combo.

James Cook will be the answer to that. The Bills' rushing attack is going to look a lot different this year. Cook is going to spread the defense, and everyone - oline, Josh, and Singletary will benefit.

And run around a little bit, to make the defense wonder what you're doing! Ok, coach.

As the seasons have gone by, I've come to disagree more and more with this point of view. I think you're right - OLB is an instinctual position. What I like about Milano is his instincts - he reads and reacts naturally in ways that we tend call instinctual. But instincts is at the core of what so many of us don't like about Edmunds. What we don't like is that he reads, processes, then reacts, and that's why he often seems to be late to the ball. The coaches have said at various times over the past few seasons that they've encouraged Edmunds to stop thinking about it and just react. He's never done that. That's one reason, for example, that he's not very effective in the blitz and Milano is. The fact is that by putting Edmunds in the middle, the Bills cover his inability to react instinctively. On the outside, he still would read, think, and react, and that would be deadly out there. In middle, he doesn't have to be the guy to make the play - he can be a guy who helps everyone else make the play. He can misread a play and still recover to help. Yes, he has the physical attributes to be a monster outside linebacker, but he's never shown the instinctiveness to play out there.

A couple of interesting things about this article. It cites the ESPN survey and says Edmunds is a top 10 linebacker. People will have their opinions about that. At the bottom it links to another article about the fact that ESPN did a similar survey on edge rushers. Miller's apparently in the top 10. So, top 10 edge rusher is worth a gazillion dollars, but a top 10 linebacker isn't worth big dollars? It's a little puzzling how little people appreciate Edmunds. Second, the article says he was ranked sixth worst in passing yards allowed among linebackers. But it also says something that I've been wondering about. The article says that ranking is based on the "nearest defender." That's different from someone evaluating his pass coverage skills. And it's consistent with what I've been saying the podcast says. The Bills play a lot of zone, and I think they ask Edmunds to cover a bigger zone than most linebackers. They do that because he has the size, length, speed, and quickness to cover a bigger area, and it makes it tougher to throw outside and deep, because the other defenders have smaller zones to cover. They also do it because, in general, giving up yards over the middle is less harmful than outside and deep. The Bills invite teams to throw into Edmunds zone, in part because they know that Edmunds and others may give up a completion but will stop the big play. So, it would make sense that Edmunds numbers as the nearest defender wouldn't be good. I'll say it before someone else does - that's all well and good until you play Mahomes, Hill, and Kelce with Andy Reid calling plays. I think Edmunds will be extended this summer.

I'm a homer, and I agree. I think they count because they were the two championships immediately BEFORE the first Super Bowl. So, for example, there's no reason the Browns shouldn't count their 1964 NFL championship, but the fact is that the best AFC teams were as good as the best NFC teams in those years, except until the Packers separated themselves from EVERYONE in both leagues. Bills-Browns, Bills-Packers (the 64 and 65 champions, paired) would have been great Super Bowls. So, yeah, they count. The 1960 AFC champs, the Houston Oilers, maybe not, because there was a talent differential in the early years. But the talent gap closed pretty quickly, because the the AFL was paying for good talent. (That's why the merger happened - the NFL didn't want to keep competing for talent.) But by 64, 65, the league had a lot of guys, like Otto and Alworth and Cookie and Shaw, guys who would play in any league.

I agree with this, and the substandard coaching is Jerry's fault and no one else. His only job is to hired a coach and a GM, and he does that job miserably. And he makes it hard for the organization to succeed, because he's always meddling. As for the talent, I think the Cowboys always seem to have mismatched talent. By that I mean that talent doesn't fit together as a team very well. We like McDermott and Beane because they work together. They know what kind of players they want, and they work together to get it. The Cowboys don't do that. Plus, I think that Jerry is so much into marketing that he overvalues what he thinks is marketable. He wants skill position players who are stars. Guys like Deion Sanders, TO. Then you have guys like Dak and Zeke, who get over-hyped by the press, because the press always over-hypes the Cowboys, and Jones starts believing the hype and thinking he has a star. So, instead of giving his coach and GM wiggle room to go in the direction they want, he locks them into good players who aren't the guys they need to win with. It's simply very clear that the success and quality of the franchise is driven by the owner. The Cowboys are a good example. And so are the Bills. I loved Ralph - he was loyal, and that meant a lot, but he demonstrated that he didn't know how to make a successful franchise.

I also think people are twisting his words around. When I read the article I thought these things: 1. He's a veteran, so he's a little more comfortable talking about the whole experience. 2. He's talking about a lot of different thoughts he's had at various times as he's trying to decide what to. Other than getting married, most of us never have big choices like that. It's big dollars, personal happiness, career path, chance for championships, friendships, family, etc. A lot of things to consider, and at various times in the process, he's thinking different thoughts. We're collecting all the things he's said, and some of us are looking for contradictions, or implications that aren't really there. He thinks different things at different times. 3. What I heard him say is that career was most important. Buffalo was the place that was offering the combination of best chance of winning, best chance of extending career (he liked the 6 year deal), guys he wanted to play with, and a team with a plan for him. Nobody else was offering all of that. 4. Was money important? He didn't say that. He said he was interested in Dallas because it meant he could be at home, but in order to go to Dallas, he needed to see money that was at least close to what he could get elsewhere. That is, he was willing to give Dallas a hometown discount, but not as big as Dallas wanted him to take. 5. Sounds like he didn't have a lot of interest in going back to Denver. Reading between the lines, his heart said maybe but his head said they don't have a quarterback, and winning was important. 6. I suspect LA was offering money that would compete with Buffalo, but again between the lines I'm guessing that he was weighing Allen vs. Stafford, Aaron Donald (who may hang it up before Miller) against Oliver and McDermott, etc. Bottom line, so far as I can tell, Miller is in Buffalo for the same reason that McDermott, Diggs, Hyde, and lot of other guys are there: There is nothing they care more about than being great at football and winning. That's why the Bills went all in on him. He has a reputation for professional excellence, and commitment to team and to winning. The Bills wanted his sacks and the pressures he can create, for sure, but his total commitment to excellence is what they really wanted. And he wanted to be someplace that valued that attitude.

What matters is TV markets. The NFL wants cities in the biggest TV markets, because that's where the revenue is. Wikipedia says Buffalo is the 53rd largest TV market in the US. Milwaukee is 37 and Green Bay is 69, so even Green Bay is a better market than Buffalo. Las Vegas is 40 and New Orleans is 50. However, Bills fans are so rabid that NFL ratings in Buffalo (based on percentage of households) are higher than the market size would suggest. That's been Buffalo's saving grace., but that's only because the Bills are there. If the Bills were to leave, the percentage would drop. And there are several cities with much better TV markets, and even with a lower percentage of households, those bigger TV markets would be more attractive than Buffalo. Fact is, ten years ago the Bills were at risk of leaving Buffalo. They needed a committed owner and a new stadium. Thankfully, both came along.

Must have been. The weck has changed over the years and isn't quite as good as it once was but still, most times I go there I'm amazed at how good the sandwich is. And the second one is as good as the first! I keep thinking I'll get tired of them, but it hasn't happened yet, and it's been 70 years.

I grew up in Buffalo, haven't lived there since 1970. I live in Connecticut and go to Buffalo eight times a year. I love Buffalo. But to be honest about, Buffalo offers very little of the attractions of a big city. It simply isn't vibrant like Boston or New York or Austin or Seattle. If you're looking for urban excitement, Buffalo is not it, by a long shot. Yes, it plays above its league with the Albright-Knox, but the big cities have two or three or five museums its equal. What Buffalo has is character. People are, as the nickname suggests, good neighbors. There's a togetherness, a helpfulness, a genuine caring for one another that you don't get in the big cities. That's why Bills fans are so great. Los Angeles and Atlanta and Dallas don't have fans like that. You do get that feeling, however, throughout the midwest. Milwaukee feels like that, and Indianapolis, and plenty of other places. So, Buffalo isn't unique. When I read what Miller said, it seems clear to me that although he likes the bright lights of LA, and he liked being in Denver, he likes Dallas because it's home. He doesn't care about Dallas, he cares about that plot of land and his family. He chose Buffalo for a lot of reasons, including the chance to win again, but I think one of the reasons (although he didn't say it) was that he understood from players he talked to and on his visit that Buffalo is a place that can feel like home. It's quiet, friendly, welcoming, and for some people, including Josh, they will tell you that they want that kind of environment. It's not a great city in terms of being on some list of the ten best cities in America; it's a place where it's easy to feel at home. And, frankly, I don't know what some of you folks are talking about. I've taken several people, to Schwabl's, people who have never been in Buffalo, and just about all of them say that's the best sandwich they've ever had. Ever. They talk about it years later.

Not the best, but the most dominant.