Shaw66

Many years ago, I heard Lou Holtz interviewed. He was asked, "When you're sitting at home, quiet evening, just relaxing and having a drink, do you think about the wins or the losses?" Without hesitation, he said the losses. No question. If you're a true competitor, the losses eat at you forever. I've been told that politicians are like that, too. The day after an absolute landslide win, with 70% of the votes for him, he's asking "why the other people vote for me." I remember by high school basketball losses from 60 years ago. The losses are killers.

Agreed. but the stats are nevertheless useful to point out what kind of improvement one might expect. To go from worst to first, Bills would be getting 2 more yards after catch on each completion. That would be 800 more yards per season, which would have left the Bills second in the league in passing yards, up from ninth. While that would be nice, none of that strikes me as the thing that would make a real difference in the team. The fact is that the Bills were an excellent team in 2021, and I'd be happy if they showed no statistical improvement anywhere. In terms of production, and defense, they were good enough. Heck, they were excellent. What they need are things that don't reduce themselves to stats very well. As you say, red zone performance is something that would be nice to improve. That too can be measured by stats, but the stats don't reflect real efficiency there. In fact, I didn't think the Bills had very good plays inside the five, and that is one area where I hope Dorsey can be more creative than Daboll. Frankly, so long as Dorsey doesn't screw things up, defense is where I'd like to see improvements. I'd like to see more free runners at the QB, either for the sack or at least to drive the QB off his spot and disrupt the timing of the opponents' offense. Whether they get that by scheme or adding some talent doesn't matter.. I'd like to see a defense that gives me more confidence that it can make big-play, fourth quarter stops. I think with better creativity, the Bills offense could be spectacular, but I think it's creativity on defense that the Bills need to win the games they lost this season.

I took a look. Bills were last in the league in YAC per completion at 4.2. 49ers were best at 6.6. Bills were just average around the league in yards per attempt and yards per completion. Both of those numbers would improve if the Bills could get another yard of YAC. On the other hand, the Bills were third in first downs, third in total plays, third in scoring, fifth in total yards on offense. Hard to argue with that. So, I'd say YAC isn't the stat I'd target to improve.

Well, I think he has evolved since then. He learned the trade working under Jim Johnson, who loved sacks and who blitzed from every position on the field. But it recent years, McDermott has been very clear that he wants to get pressure from four rushers, leaving seven to play pass defense. And he's been very clear that pressures are more important than sacks. They drafted two defensive linemen last year, but neither of them projected to be a sack star. They are disciplined guys who play their position, not guys who rip past blockers and get to the QB. I'm guessing that McDermott is starting to rethink his approach to defensive line play.

I just caught up with several things you said in this thread, and I wanted to comment. Bottom line for me is that I think you're correct in what's quoted above. Both sentences. I have great confidence that McDermott will grow and develop. I hoped Frazier would leave, so that a somewhat less passive guy would take over the defense. Your comment about open space, quoting me about the Titans game and citing other games, is interesting. I think in some cases it's game-day coaching failures, and in some cases it's scheme related. I suggested the overreaction to the run in the Titans game was a game-day coaching failure. I was interested in Sean Payton's comments about the end of regulation against the Chiefs. He said something that others probably had said but I hadn't seen it, which is that the Bills were defending the sidelines in the final 13 seconds, which was completely stupid. The Chiefs had timeouts, enough of them to call timeout every play. So, they didn't feel the need to throw to the sideline. They had the whole field to work with, and the Bills conceded the the middle of the field to them. That's a huge mistake to make. McDermott won't make the same mistake in the future, because he's always learning. I say it's part scheme because it's becoming clearer to me all the the time that McDermott's defenses is designed very much to play the averages. They want their averages at the end of the season to be good, not because they care about the rating, but because they care about consistency. They want to be good all the time instead of great some of the time. They defend deep to prevent explosive plays. They rush four, to contain the QB more than to sack him. So, for example, they have a league leading passing defense, but they're only 12th in sacks. That's why they haven't signed the Vonn MIllers the world - they don't particularly care about the extra sacks. They guys who have been in the system for years, guys who understand how the defenders all work together to be good all the time instead of great some of the time. I'm not not defending it; I'm just saying that's why we haven't seen the Bills go after stud free agents on defense. I think what you say is right - this scheme works great, but it has a tendency to let you down in big games. That's because it's not a big-play defense, it's a consistency defense. I think by now that point cannot be lost on McDermott. He's studying all of the time, and 2021 showed the problem pretty clearly - in big games, at crunch time, a defense that has good averages isn't enough. He needs a defense that is going to make some plays. One-score game, one final possession for the 49ers, who hit Garoppolo and forced the wild throw that ended the game with an interception? Aaron Donald. The 8- or 9-man rotation on the Dline is great to get you good defensive pressure throughout the season, but when they had three plays left to win the game, the Bills didn't have Aaron Donald. When the Rams had three plays left, they did, plus Von MIller. I have confidence in McDermott. I hope it isn't misplaced. Separate point - thanks for the speculation about Palmer. I'd guess that you're underestimating the costs he has associated with his activities, but even if I'm correct about that, your revenue numbers suggest he's doing really well. And if he's going to be good at his job, he has to be putting in a lot of prep time, studying film, going to clinics himself, etc. So, he earns his money, but I think you've demonstrated that it's pretty good money. Also, I poked around a bit, and the best guesses are that the salary for assistant coach, like a position coach, is now averaging around $400,000. A good QB coach is probably above the average. Whatever, Palmer is probably doing better and has a better life that the NFL assistants, who are grinding away.

There's a part of me that agrees with this - I've been hoping Frazier gets a head coaching job, just like I was hoping Daboll would. But I don't think it's as bleak as you suggest. The Bills are about continuous improvement. They won't come back in 2022 with the same defense they had in 2021. They will study the defense and find things that they want to do better, and that will, I think, include an adjustment in defensive philosophy. McDermott doesn't need many more examples that his extreme prevent-defense approach late in games isn't ideal. The Chiefs game was not the first time that he's either blown a game or come darn close to blowing it because of that stuff. He will change and adapt. Remember, he came out of the Jim Johnson defensive coaching tree, along with Spagnuolo, and Johnson didn't have a conservative approach. He wanted to attack. McDermott's going to be thinking about his defense a lot this off season, and he won't forget his roots. McDermott will adjust, and because he's a good soldier, Frazier will, too. Just my hunch.

This caused me to go back and look the Chiefs other receivers. Kelce, third round. Hardman, second round. Pringle, undrafted free agent. So, that's three guys - Hill, Hardman, and Kelce who were highly rated by scouts, and one diamond-in-the rough. As much as I'm the guy who's always saying coaching is more important than talent, the Chiefs clearly have gone out and gotten talent to execute what the coaches envision. The Bills have invested draft capital in only three receivers - Diggs (by trading a first-round pick), Knox, and Davis. Beane always says you build your team through the draft, you plug your holes in free agency. What does that tell us about McKenzie, Beasley, and Sanders? They were acquired to plug holes, and although you certainly hope to strike gold in your free agents, it isn't likely. There are two kinds of free agents - the older ones and the younger ones. You sign the older ones because you know what you're getting, and that's what the Bills got in Beasley and Sanders. You sign the younger ones because you think you see things in them that will allow them to develop into the kind of player you want. In fact, the Bills struck gold in exactly that way with Poyer and Hyde, although, they'd already shown they could have impact before the came to Buffalo. McKenzie, however, was an experiment. Maybe he can become the guy, maybe not. Turns out, I think, not. The Chiefs already had Kelce when they drafted Mahomes, and then they took Hill in 2016. They already had the table set when they drafted Mahomes in 2017. The Bills weren't so fortunate. The Bills got their version of Hill in Diggs, but until now they've filled out their receiving corps with guys who have plugged holes more than been weapons. I know I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth here, because I've been saying that offensive philosophy and route design has limited the success those receivers, like McKenzie have had, but of course it works both ways. Daboll might very well have been more creative with a Kelce in the lineup instead of Knox, and with a Hardman instead of Beasley. I've talked myself into believing that the Bills need to invest in a wideout.

Yeah, I don't know that I'm anointing Davis to anything yet, and I agree about his drops. But he's a serious hands catcher. He had one on the sideline against the Chiefs last week, and he had two great catches like that in some comeback last season. He's a serious catcher, drops or not. I don't think there are a lot of guys who get themselves open on their initial routes. Diggs does, Beas does, but I think at best most teams have one guy who can get himself separation. Most everyone else gets open on route design. Sure, they have to run crisp routes, sharp cuts, all that, but mostly they're open because they have space to run to. That's where I'll defend McKenzie. I mean, maybe those guys from KC I named are somewhat better ball catchers than McKenzie, but they aren't faster, and they aren't any shiftier. They're just getting open in schemes that BIenemy and Reid put together that create space while the defense is focusing on the Chiefs' stars. I don't see any reason McKenzie shouldn't be running to open space like that and, again, I put that primarily on the coaches. The guy has elite speed, or at least that's what my eyes tell me when he turns the corner on sweeps. I think he wasn't used properly by Daboll. As for his catching ability, kudos for you for finding the data. And the data supports what I saw this season - he was a much more reliable ball catcher. I do think, however, that the stats for him and Davis are the way they are because in general, Allen throws to McKenzie only when he's open, while Davis gets a higher percentage of tough chances. At least that's how I remember it. None of that is neither here nor there. What I do think is important is that the Bills should get better production out of someone - they should have a second 1000-yard receiver. And I think that the Bills need a reliable kick and punt returner who also is a contributor on offense. McKenzie wasn't reliable, but to his credit he was a contributor on offense. Finally, I think you suggested elsewhere, and it's another gripe I had about Daboll, is that he seemed to get away from things and then suddenly rediscover them. It was true this season for both Davis and McKenzie.

You're almost psycho-analyzing the guy, and I'd guess you're doing a good job of it. Most important is the bolded part. He hasn't quite gotten there. You know, just like they say the most important thing for a QB is accuracy, the most important thing for a receiver is catching. I watch Davis, and I want him on the field. He can catch. McKenzie never has inspired that confidence, and I think that unless that changes, he's always going to have trouble staying on the field at this level. Part of the problem is that we feel bad for the guys who just about get there but fall just short. We love the idea of McKenzie, but he disappoints just enough to make him not the guy. I'll give you a different guy at a different position. Harrison Phillips. Gee, I wanted him to make it. Good size, good attitude, but season after season he showed just enough to be almost there without being there. It was disappointing. Then, the second half of this season, suddenly be became more than a guy just occupying space on the d line while I was hoping someone else would make a play. Maybe he just flashed for a few games and will regress next season, but I don't think so. I think he actually became what he needs to be, and now he can be a regular contributor on the d line. He seems to have taken advantage of the opportunities he's had. McKenzie hasn't quite done the same thing.

Well, I haven't been too outspoken here, because I think all things considered he did a good job, but I was quietly rooting for Daboll to get a head coaching position somewhere. I never got really comfortable that he was the kind of master strategist you need as OC (and DC). If I'm right about that, McDermott certainly sees it, too, and he will find himself someone who's more creative. I had the feeling for the past two years that Daboll simply wasn't as good as the Bills needed in terms of finding (and creating) space in the defensive backfield and getting receivers to those spaces. Particularly as this season went along and it became increasingly career that Allen was mastering whatever they gave him, the Bills had a guy who could put the ball wherever the open receiver was. Let's face it, the reason guys have these gaudy completion percentages is NOT because they're throwing into tight windows although the best QBs do that. They complete all those passes because receivers are attacking open spaces, quarterbacks are identifying those openings and have the arm-strength and accuracy to get the ball there. Just look at the TD passes to Davis against the Chiefs. Hapless and I talked a few days ago about why Kelce catches all those passes. Mahomes finds him comfortably open all over the place. Hapless said Kelce did it and Knox doesn't because Kelce is really smart and recognizes the openings. The announcers say he runs a lot of option routes, and he makes good choices. Well, okay, that may be true, but even if it is, he's running routes where one option or the other is going to be open, and he's picking it. I don't see why that can't be true for Knox, too. He's as mobile as Kelce - a good OC should be finding openings for Knox and teaching him to make the reads. Knox could be a 1000-yard receiver. So, yes, I think some of the "problem" (I mean, how much of a problem is it?) is the creativeness of the coaches. But, as I said, I think there's a personnel issue, as well. Beasley isn't good as a free runner; McKenzie isn't good as a possession receiver. Neither of them is kick and punt returner. Both have been good in limited roles, but not broad roles. Look again at Pringle and Hardiman. Each is a reliable return man, each is a threat on the jet sweeps and other plays that attack the perimeter with speed, each is a downfield pass catcher. When they're on the field, anything is possible. When Beas and McKenzie are possible, they don't threaten with the same broad array of tools. I don't think passing schemes will make Beasley more valuable, and I don't have a lot confidence that McKenzie will deliver consistently. Sanders would be a better threat in Beasley's role, but I wonder if he'll be back. I think Stevenson is too small, but he has some upside. Knox, Davis. There are talented guys to work with, and there'll be a new face or two next season. As I said, I welcome the prospect that the next OC will be better at getting receivers into space, because if that happens, Allen will be amazing.

Not that the Bills need to be mimicking the Chiefs, but I think it's instructive to look at them. They have Hardman and Pringle handling kickoffs and punts, and they also are have the third- and fourth-most receiving yards on the team. So they had more touches by far, between them, than McKenzie, and they had one fumble. So, think about that from a roster point of view. The Cithiefs have two primary receivers - Hill and Kelce, and then they have two general purpose speed guys. They don't seem to me like either is about to blossom into a legitimate number one receiver. They're just guys who are useful in the offense, finding openings when the defense gets too focused on Hill and Kelce, catching the ball consistently when the ball comes their way, handling the returning duties. That's four guys handling receiving and returning. By contrast, the Bills have only one primary receiver - Diggs. Everyone else is a support guy like Pringle and Hardman. Beas, Knox, Sanders and Davis all contribute in the 600-yard range like Pringle and Hardman, AND the Bills have another role player, McKenzie, to handle the kick returns. It's easy to see that if from no other point of view than roster efficiency, the Chiefs are better positioned. It is, in fact, a huge advantage for one of your studs to be a tight end, but it's pretty unusual to have a guy like that. I reach three conclusions from this. One is that Beasley is too limited. As good as he is, when he's one of four receiving threats on the field, he just doesn't make the Bills as dangerous as the Chiefs are with their four. He limits the offense. A second is that McKenzie has to go. He has the speed to be a dangerous complementary receiver like Pringle or Hardman, but only rarely has he shown the ability to be that guy, and not at all on a consistent basis. If he were a reliable return man and something of a threat there, that would be plus, but he just isn't as reliable as is necessary. Third, someone else has to emerge. Either Knox has to take a step and become a legitimate 1000-yard tight end threat, or Davis has to take over as a full-time starter. Imagine Diggs as Antonio Brown and Davis as Mike Evans. Bottom line, I don't think the Bills have the versatility that they need at the top end of their receiver roster. Some coaches would have cut him. Belichick might have.

A friend of mine sent me a link to some article glorifying what the author said was the Rams' approach. It was based on the fact that they do their homework on the later rounds, and the result was they got Cooper Kupp in the third round. The article made it sound like they have some kind of geniuses running the organization with a system that no one else was smart enough to figure out, part of the system being regularly trading out of the first round to stockpile later picks, where you find cheap value. The more I read it, the more I concluded it was nonsense, for a couple of reasons. First, if they were so brilliant to figure out Cooper Kupp was a superstar, they were pretty stupid to risk losing him before they picked in the third round. If they knew who Kupp would become, why didn't they take him in the second round? Second, every team knows the value of the later picks, for exactly the reasons discussed in this thread. All you have to do is get out your calculator and do the math. You need 22 talented players to fill out a starting lineup, plus 23 others (assuming ZERO injuries for the entire season). With the salary cap, you can't get all the talent you need in the veteran free agent market, so you MUST get talent out of the draft and make it useful. It's the only place you can find cheap talent. The Rams aren't the only team to figure that out. Third, you have to have a QB. The Rams did exactly what every other team does - they tried to find a franchise QB at the top of the draft when they drafted Goff. They then discovered, exactly as happens to a lot of teams who do that, that Goff wasn't the answer. So where are they now? They're in the position of trying to fill in the most important spot on the field with SOMEONE. They mortgaged their draft future a bit to get Stafford. They are trying to convince themselves that a number one overall pick can be their franchise guy, even though he never could do it in Detroit. Yes, you can tell me that Detroit is a dysfunctional franchise, but you can't tell me that NONE of the failures of that franchise over the past 13 years have anything to do with their quarterback. If Matt Stafford were Aaron Rodgers, we would have seen it by now. Life in the NFL has been the same since Bill Walsh transformed the 49ers with Montana and Young. If you want to win consistently in the NFL, you need a great QB. End of story. There are at any given time three or four or six or seven great quarterbacks. If you've got one, you keep him. If you've got one who's close but not there (think Matt Ryan, Andy Dalton, Philip Rivers, Matt Stafford), you probably fall into the trap of keeping him and hoping he take the next step. That's a mistake; all great quarterbacks need time to develop and grow, but the kernel of their greatness shows early in their careers. Rodgers, Manning, Brady, Montana, Aikman, Kelly, Marino, Mahomes, Allen. All of them did things early in their careers as starters in the NFL to make people take notice. If you see that greatness in your quarterback, you pay him. If you don't see the greatness, you may as well move on. Good luck to the Rams, but all they're doing is hoping that they can get everything to fall together, including a career year out of Stafford. The Bills are in the place that every coach and GM wants to be. This is correct until you get to the end. It's going to come down to who has more creative coaches and GMs. The differences between the talent that they have on their rosters below the top five or six high-paid guys will be minimal. They'll each hit on some draft choices and miss on others, but that will happen because the coaches succeed or fail integrating their young talent into the team. That's how Belichick succeeded for two decades, and that's what McDermott is trying to do.

We saw what it's like when you don't have a QB who commands big bucks. We called it "the drought." There is no choice. When you have Josh Allen, you pay him and you manage the rest of your roster as well as you can. QB is the only position that matters. You spend whatever it takes to get and keep a star QB. It's a fool's game to save money on a QB so that you can spend it on positions that, relatively speaking, don't matter.

Great OP and lots of good comments. This is classic. I had forgotten all about Marv's ad. That was painful, too. I loved the OP, because I'm the same. I get better every day, but I haven't recovered yet. The game comes into my head, and I just try not to think about it. Unless I just think about what an incredibly great game it was. All-time great. I'm still a little numb, and I haven't gotten used to the fact yet that there's no more Bills football left. I barely know who's playing this weekend, I don't know when the games are on, and if I miss the games, I feel like I wouldn't care. It's really tough, recovering from this one.

They don't call it on a gesture like that. It has to be more direct and in your face. I think it was Singletary who did something similar against the Patriots when he ran into the end zone around McKenzie's block, or on some other play, and it wasn't called. Just holding up a finger and wagging doesn't get called. And, as others said, it wouldn't have mattered.

I grew to have a lot of respect for Ben. Talented, tough as nails. In a way, he was a lot like Kelly - something of a wild man, on and off the field, when he came into the league. His experiences in the league and his experience meeting and marrying his wife and starting a family help him grow up. Congrats to Ben on a fabulous career.

He didn't delegate responsibility on the decision. I'm sure he made the call to squib it. What he delegated, in August, was the responsibility to organize the kickoff team to execute a squib kick when it's called. I'm sure what happened is McD called for the squib, Farwell or an assistant was responsible for putting the plan in action. Every coach involved with special teams had a job to do. Someone's job, some coach's job, was to be sure Bass got the message. That person or persons blew their assignment.

Oh, my goodness. The simplest measure of your total lack of objectivity about this that you think that was the worst loss in NFL history. That is so incredibly stupid that I should simply dismiss everything else you say. A-T-L-A-N-T-A. McDermott would say "it was my call and I stand by it" if in fact he had called for the kick into the end zone. He often has owned up to decisions he has made. That's not what happened here. What happened is that one or more people in his organization failed to do their jobs. They failed in their execution, and that is exactly what he said. He will not name who failed in their job precisely because thousands of people like you will then proceed to persecute the guy for having made a mistake. McDermott protects his people; we've seen it plenty of times. His players are proud of him. They are proud that he protected the people who screwed up. And they know that the press has to be managed, that what is said to the press has a particular purpose. His players are savvy, and they don't have a problem with what he said on the subject. He's saying something different inside the building; he's not covering up anything inside the building. He is not losing his plays. You're just unhappy. We're all unhappy.

A mistake is a mistake. If you don't think throwing an interception in the fourth quarter up less than 10 is a big mistake, I can't help you. You'd be just as upset, and I would, and McDermott, if Allen threw a pick and lost the game. The only reason we're focusing on this mistake is that it cost the game. How important was the play on first down in overtime? How important was the second play? Was McDermott supposed to remind somebody what his assignment was on each of those plays? The whole point of how McDermott approaches the game, and, by the way, the whole point of how any competent coach approaches the game, is that OTHER people are responsible for doing things, and you have to rely on those people to do their jobs. McDermott can't do everyone's job.

Well, I think you're wrong on both points. First, it's very clear that the way McDermott operates is to delegate responsibility. He can't be, and doesn't want to be, responsible for everyone and every play. He intentionally is hands off. By your way of thinking, every time Allen goes on the field in the fourth quarter up by less than 10, McDermott and not someone else should be reminding him not to throw and interception, and reminding Singletary not to fumble, and reminding the offensive linemen to block but not to hold. It's not McDermott's job to do all that. It's his job to train other people to do it. Second, all of the evidence, including some fairly credible rumors and some visual evidence, like the kickoff team not running to the end zone, suggests that everyone knew it was a squib kick except Bass. LIke you, at first I thought McD might have wanted to kick it through the end zone, but the evidence suggests otherwise. McDermott himself said that they had failures of execution on the kickoff. It's hard to imagine what else about that play could have been a failure. It was a perfect touchback.

That's 8.4 yards per catch in 2021. One thing that way refreshing in the Chiefs game was that he average 10 yards a catch. Allen was finding him downfield more than he did most of the season. In the Chiefs game, Beasley look more like the Beas of a year ago.

Every time someone actually gets me to go to Cover 1, I wonder why I don't go there more often. That's an excellent discussion of the kickoff screw up and what the Bills should do about it. I will add one thing to their analysis of the play itself. They show the end zone view of the kickoff, and they show that a few players turn look to the sideline, as if to ask "what just happened?" And I guess there are some unattributed comments from players that it was called as a squib kick. Well, the other piece of evidence that proves that it was a squib kick is this: When Bass kicks into the end zone, every time, six to eight Bills on the cover team run to the goal line. Every time. Not this time. The ball was kicked into the end zone, and they stopped. They stopped because the play was over, and something had happened that they recognized was not business as usual. I like the discussion of whether it's a "fireable offense." I think that depends on what you said earlier - if the guy's overall performance has been subpar, this screwup by Farwell should be the last straw. Otherwise, no. Turner called it something like a huge mistake. It was a little mistake that may have had huge consequences. That's very different. A big mistake is fireable. A small mistake that happens to have huge consequences isn't. I don't think you're correct about this point. The coach is responsible for everything that happens on the field. If his kick returner is having trouble handling the ball cleanly, then it IS a fireable offense if the coach doesn't address that problem. The coach has to sit with the appropriate assistants and with the player and develop a strategy for improving the players' performance, or he has to get the guy off the field. The coach has to own all of it.

No doubt. That's why we're all just talkin'. Only the people in the building know what's what.

Not to speak for Hapless, but I think when you look at the totality of what you just said, you have to ask whether Farwell is the right guy for the job. Essentially, you said Farwell is unable to get McKenzie to do his job and was unable to get Haack to do his job. Probably unable to get the line to do its job. There was a broad collection of problems on special teams.

I came to this thread intending to say something else, but in looking through the last couple of pages, I found this. What you say is a terrific insight into the bigger picture. You've demonstrated that the special teams underperformed to McDermott's standards. The Jones penalty and the miscommunication on the squib kick is bad enough, but your look back over the season really makes the case. They're just supposed to be better than that. It's clear from what McDermott said that what to do in the kickoff situation was a detail that they had thought about and planned for. As a group, the players and coaches failed to execute, which is exactly what McDermott said. The finger points clearly at Farwell. McDermott's job in the coming days is to decide whether he continues to believe that Farwell is the right guy for the job, whether he can learn and grow so that he executes teaches and executes better. Some teams would have fired him the day after the game. McDermott won't treat people that way; he will let the waters calm a bit, but he isn't going to keep the guy if he doesn't think he can do the job better. Several years ago, a US submarine surfaced off the coast of Hawaii and struck and sank a Japanese ship that was carrying school children on a summer oceanography class. Several kids died. Several months later, I happened to see the captain of the submarine on Larry King. King kept trying to get the guy to say it was the radar operators' fault for not seeing the ship on the surface, or the helmsman's fault for surfacing without checking with the radar guy, or someone else's fault for not doing something else. The captain repeatedly refused. He kept saying it was his fault. He was responsible for the training of the crew, and if someone didn't do his job right, it was the captain's fault. It was admirable, and it was true. His job is to organize everyone on the boat in a way that they always execute. McDermott sees it the same way. He is not going to blame what happened on anyone, because he is going to work and evaluate and train to be sure it doesn't happen again. It was someone's job to be sure that Bass knew to squib it, and that someone didn't do it. The training has to be better, but maybe the system has to be better, too. Maybe there needs to be a second guy, maybe a guy on the kickoff team, whose job it is to double check with Bass. And maybe there are other on-field situations where they need a better procedure. McDermott understands that's his job, and there will be changes made.