Shaw66

I'd like to hear it too. The Bills have a process. It's about continuous improvement. One part of the process is self-evaluation, which includes what isn't working well enough and why. Based on what they learn, they adjust what they're doing. Coach differently, emphasize different things, adjust strategies, all of that. McDermott is evaluated, too. Now, they probably don't always succeed at improving what they targeted; no one succeeds all the time. But it's a proven process that leads to improvement, permanent improvement, over time. Now, you'll say they haven't improved over four years, but that's true only based on the final outcome: no Lombardi. But if you could see what their self-evaluation said each year and how they evolved and change in response to it, I'm sure you'd see that it's generally working in the way it was intended. There's an interesting interview with Belichick, maybe in March, after they'd beaten the Falcons in overtime. They were sitting in a restaurant/bar in Annapolis. The interviewer asked what they have to do to go back-to-back. He said he didn't know. (Well, I'm sure, he could talk about things in generalities, but as to specifics, he actually didn't know.) Instead he said everyone except him was back in Foxboro, doing what they were supposed to be doing today. Stuff like studying film, developing offensive and defensive strategies, etc. It was all designed to get better, to build on what they already knew. It was the off-season version of what he says in-season - we are focused on today and tomorrow and not on anything beyond this week's game. The process determines where improvement is necessary, who's responsible for the improvement, and what the strategies for improvement are. I think it would be really cool to sit in, maybe once a week or more, on various meetings, hear what they're targeting for improvement. It would be interesting.

Well, I agree with the first half. I've been saying here for years that people over-emphasize the importance of acquiring more talent. The NFL is designed to be sure that it's practically impossible to out-talent the rest of the teams in the league. You have to win with a few stars and a bunch of ordinary talent. Which means the success of teams depends on coaching. Where we disagree is on McDermott. You're saying, in some many words, that McDermott isn't a winner. I'm saying that he just hasn't won yet. That is, I believe in and the possibility, actually the likelihood, that McDermott will win, probably win more than once. You believe that the Bills that we've seen in the past is the most we can expect to get so long as McDermott is the coach. It's exactly what Eagles fans said about Reid. I think people learn and improve, and McDermott is dedicated to that principle, to the max. If anyone is going to improve, it's McDermott. It's very hard to win a Lombardi - very hard, and a lot of luck is required, too. There have been a few exceptions: Reid now, Belichick, Walsh, maybe Landry, Paul Brown, Noll, probably Shula. Most of the coaches who've won have been one and done, and they were fortunate to get one.

No, I don't agree. Coaches improve year after year. McDermott is way, way up the learning curve, and he's 49 years old. Pete Carroll didn't win the Super Bowl until he was 63. When he was 49, he was fired after three dismal seasons as head coach of the Patriots - Bill Belichick almost immediately turned the team into a winner. Pete Carroll learned a lot between age 49 and age 63, and McDermott will. The only difference between McDermott and whomever the Bills might hire to replace him is that the guy they hire will have to learn more than McDermott has to learn to succeed.

Okay, we'll call this Corollary One to the Schottenheimer Rule - If one part of the team hasn't performed in the past, that part of the team will continue not to perform in the future unless the coach is changed. It's the same thing. You're assuming that the future will be the same as the past, and that the people responsible for the past cannot improve. People change and get better at their jobs all the time, year after year.

This all well and good, but the point of the overtime rules ALWAYS has been sudden death. There are reasons for this, I suppose. One reason is that sudden death is exciting. It's dramatic. Another reason is TV. The networks like their schedules, and they want the games to end when they're supposed to end, or as soon thereafter as possible. Another reason is injury. Playing a full quarter to see if the tie is broken, and certainly having to play a second quarter, creates a war of attrition. It might be dramatic, but it isn't fair to the players. Remember how gassed the Bills and Chiefs were in 13 seconds? The Niners and the Chiefs this year, too. Those guys' bodies want it, need it, to end. The current system makes it reasonably fair to both teams. Essentially, the game is sudden death after the first possession. Would you rather go first or second? Sure, there's a difference, and analytics will determine what's the smarter move, but that doesn't make the game unfair.

I think that's true, but I think that's part of the plan, the process. There have already been exceptions - Benford and Shakir are good examples. In fact, I think in the later rounds the Bills go for guys with the brains and commitment necessary to get acclimated quickly. The first couple of rounds are for physical talent, and those are the guys who make take longer to get up to speed. But in any case, I think you're right. This coming season, more so than the past, the Bills are expecting some young players to step up. I think they have high hopes for Williams. I expect the Bills to go after a receiver early on, and I expect it will be someone they intend to count on as the 2024 season rolls along, a guy who makes a bigger impact as a rookie than Shakir. I also expect Bills will be looking a D lineman to contribute early. The Bills also need a good young corner. Having said that, I don't expect as much turnover as some others around here. If the Bills did nothing but brought in someone to be a solid #2 receiver, with some speed and route running talent, I'd be OK with that. Diggs, New Guy, Shakir, Kincaid, Knox, Cook - I'm good. Oline is set, although I would be surprised to see the Bills bring in someone who could challenge the existing lineup. There will be some changes in the D line, but the Bills don't need to clean house. Linebackers are set. The defensive backfield will have some changes, but there will be a lot of familiar faces. I should add that getting first and second year players to contribute is part of the process. McDermott explained it when he joined the team. The collective IQ that the team develops over time has to be taught to the rookies quickly, so they can get up to speed. McDermott's plan has always been to get to where he is right now - having a high-performing team that can continue to succeed even as good veterans leave the team. It's not like he just realized last week that he needs some young bloods - he and Beane have been planning for this for a couple of years.

No, you aren't wrong. It's because of the complexity of the systems McDermott wants to run. Most rookies contribute very little their rookie season. The best of them show great improvement in year two - Bernard and Cook. For many others, it's year three - Brown.

I think it was supposed to be Spencer Brown - What Say You? Missed by a bit.

Yes. And the "blueprint" is to have two standout #1 wide receivers, which is not sustainable. They were able to do it on Burrow's rookie contract, but those days are over.

If you're going to get rid of McDermott because he couldn't beat Kansas City, why would you replace him with a guy who got fired because he couldn't beat Kansas City? It's silly. Except for the fans of these teams, everyone thinks Shanahan and McDermott are two of the very best coaches in the league. The only reason to replace them seems to be that some people have created in their minds something I'll call the Schottenheimer Rule, which goes like this: If your team's coach has been good but hasn't won it all yet, your team's coach never will win. The Schottenheimer Rule is nonsense made up by people who are frustrated that their team hasn't won. It's an attempt to make it seem like there is some logic to their desire to scapegoat the head coach. If the Bills and the Niners fire their head coaches today, those two would be, BY FAR, the two best coaches available in the head coaching market over the past five years.

It's not "this" version of the Bills. It was "those" versions of the Bills. It's a different team every year. But my point was that EVERY team "chokes" against the Chiefs. The Bills, in fact, "choke" a little less than all the other teams, because (1) they get closer than everyone else who "chokes," and (2) they actually beat the Chiefs in the regular season. One or two things have to happen for the Bills to win the Super Bowl. The Bills have to get a little better and/or the Chiefs have to get a little worse. The Bills are working very hard on their piece of the puzzle, and they don't need to do a lot to get better and win it all.

Thanks for this. First, maybe I should go back and look at your other thread. I never opened it simply because of the title - I didn't see the point in talking about your or my emotional reaction to two Chiefs games. I like this explanation about your point there. I think the only difference between you and me is perspective. I think the proper perspective is that the league often has periods where there is a dominant team. The Niners were like that when they had Montana, Young, and Rice. They didn't win every year, but there was a feeling, a little bit, of the inevitably of losing to them when you played them. Then the Cowboys for a few years with Aikman and Smith. And while the Niners and Cowboys were doing that, the Bills were right behind them - the whole AFC felt that same inevitability. But the Bills were still just outside, knocking on the door. Then we had 20 years of the Patriots, a remarkable run, and now the Chiefs are doing it. Unfortunately, when the Bills finally got good and blew past the Pats, there were the Chiefs. What's truly unfortunate is that the team to emerge as the top dog is in the AFC, so there's an unusually big challenge standing the way for the Bills. The Bengals beat the Chiefs because the Bills had beaten up the Chiefs in the 13-second game. I choose to look at what's happened from the NFL perspective, not the Bills' perspective. From the NFL perspective, the Chiefs are the best team in the league. Period. No one beats them. It's why Mahomes and Kelce kept talking about being the underdogs. From their point of view, they were thinking, "Who are you kidding. We're the best team in the league." And they are. So, from my perspective, yes, of course, we can ask, "What's wrong with the Bills and how can they fix it?," but 30 other teams in the league are (mostly to a greater extent) asking the same thing. The only difference between the Bills and most of those 30 others is that the Bills are a lot closer to being able to answer that question. The Bills are in the same position the Manning Colts were in trying to get past the Patriots. The same position the 1950s Dodgers were in facing the Yankees in the World Series every year. Yes, the Bills have to get better, and yes, we want them to have a period of domination like the Chiefs are having now. That would be great. But it may just be the case that the Chiefs, like the Pats and the Yankees, always will be one step ahead, and the best the best challenger can do is break through one year, win one championship, and be satisfied with that. Now, people will say I'm a loser and I'm giving the Bills a pass, and I'm satisfied just with making the playoffs. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Bills are very good - the Bills are date the Chiefs circle on the calendar every year, but that simply is very difficult to improve enough to get over a very high bar: Beating a generationally good team. The Colts kept losing to the Pats in different ways, and the Bills are losing to the Chiefs in different ways. (In fact, and this is not my point, but it is interesting, that Brady was the GOAT and Peyton, top-five all time, kept losing to him, and now Allen, who himself may end up top-five all time, keeps losing to Mahomes, whom people are starting to compare to Brady.) So, yeah, I really hate losing in various ugly fashions to the Chiefs, but the reality is the Bills were 13 seconds away from beating them once in the playoffs, and a Josh Allen step away from beating them last month in the playoffs, and there is no other team in the league that has played the Chiefs that tough consistently. And, yeah, there are things that the Bills could have done better to beat the Chiefs, and yeah, the Bills need to get better to achieve their goals. All of that. But that doesn't mean the Bills should change coaches or change GMs. The only reason the Niners haven't lost more to the Chiefs is that they play in the other conference, and the two chances Shanahan had, in the Super Bowl, he lost. Shanahan and McDermott are the only two coaches who have gotten their teams close to beating the Chiefs, and the fact that they haven't won is more a commentary on the Chiefs than on them. The Bills aren't losers. The Chiefs are winners. McDermott has his team knocking the door. The Bills know it, and the Chiefs know it. The way I look at it, of all the situations I can find my team in, the Bills are in the second best. They aren't hopeless losers, they aren't .500, hoping stick their noses under the playoff tent. They are a team that pretty much everyone who knows football understands to be on the very best teams in the league, with a quarterback who is well on his way to the Hall of Fame. I love being in this situation, and I want - oh, I want it so badly! - for the Bills to be the best in the league. They aren't quite there, but they're knocking on the door. Next year may be the year they blow down the door burst into the hall of champions. In short, without putting words in your mouth, your perspective is that something is wrong with the Bills and they can't do it better. My perspective is that the Bills are very good and just haven't been able to beat the dominant team of the era. It's just another step for the Bills to become the new dominant team, and 2024 is their next chance to do it.

Exactly. And the reason to be optimistic is that because the margin between how good the Chiefs (and a few other teams) are and how good the Bills are is so small only marginal improvement is necessary to be the best. So, for example, would you rather be, today, the Bills or the Browns? Would you rather be, today, the Bills or the Colts? Small improvement is all that's necessary. McBeane aren't limiting their objectives to small improvements only - they'll go big every time it makes sense, like going after Miller. But all they need is small improvement to be the best team in the league, small compared to how much improvement everyone else has to achieve to be the best. Think about the improvement that is reasonable to expect: Player improvement: Allen, Cook, Kincaid, Torrence, Bernard, Milano back, Benford, Rapp. And, yes, the receiving corps will improve. Coaching will improve. McDermott improves every season, because he demands it of himself. Brady is likely to improve (altho Dorsey didn't seem to). Through film study, the offenses and defenses will be adjusted, everything will be worked on much will improve. The whole point of McDermott's process is to create year-after-year improvement in all aspects of how the team functions. If I own the second or third or fourth best team in the league, I like where I am, because I know that my team has a better chance to become the best than 25 or 28 other teams. I'm going to keep building on what I have.

Wow. (1) The defense is one of the best in the league. (2) It typically takes more than a year to recover fully from a torn ACL. 2024 is when we find out what Miller has. (3) The two biggest holes were at linebacker, both caused by injury, both players will be back, in their prime. The Bills actually have no holes, at least until there are some free agent departures. They just have positions they'd like to get better at. Safety, wide receiver. Pretty much every team is always looking for another corner back, and better linemen. There are at least 20, probably 25 owners who would trade their entire organization for the Bills' organization. Who's happy with what they have? Chiefs, 49ers, Ravens, probably the Bengals, maybe the Rams, maybe Jags. Eagles, Seahawks, Steelers, Cowboys, Dolphins, and pretty much everyone else would trade and have an immediate upgrade at GM, Head coach, and quarterback.

Beast - I agree. I'm happy with the Bills and what they're doing. I think they will continue to get better The simple fact is that, like the Patriots before them, the Chiefs are the best team in the league right now and as they reminded us last week, they ALWAYS are the favorite in big games. Chiefs showed last night that they're beatable. They're great finishers, but they can be beaten. I don't know what the outcome would have been, but I agree with others that with Milano and Bernard in the lineup for the Divisional round last month, the Bills might have been in Las Vegas last night. The Bills have been the league's best hope to beat the Chiefs for the past four years. And for all the people who think McDermott isn't the guy, I just don't get it. There are only a few coaches in the league who consistently win a lot of games and have teams that look like they could be champions. McDermott, McVay, Shanahan. I'm not anointing the guy in Detroit until he does it for a few years. I'm much happier to bet on a coach and a GM who have gotten the Bills consistently close than any guys who may have potential but haven't done it yet. (McDermott had potential but hadn't done it when he arrived in Buffalo, and he's shown he can win.) McDermott is closer to being a Super Bowl winner than any other coach or coordinator in the league who's never won one. I'm sure McDermott is thinking that he's close and he's going to do it. Give him a team that's relatively healthy in January (with his top 10 players on the field - Miller, Milano, Bernard, Oliver, Allen, Diggs, Cook, Kincaid, at least four out of five Oline, something like that), and he'll tell you today he's ready to win it all. Two Bills learned a lot last night: McDermott and Allen. McDermott learned again that the most important key to stopping Mahomes is the pass rush. He wanted Miller to harass Mahomes, but he didn't have the real Miller last month. Allen watched Mahomes and saw what real poise on the field looks like. He saw the value of superior decision making, play after play. You know that Allen was watching and thinking, "I can do that." I think next season we will see the best version of Allen. He was nearly there this January; he now knows what it feels like, and he's seen Mahomes do it. It's all coming.

I think yours is a pretty good description. It's always a question of whether the Bills can match the opponent's offense, or be as stout as the opponent's defense. Which means, in both cases, they're dictating to the Bills. And that probably derives from McDermott's philosophy of being good at all phases (which necessarily means you aren't great, or dominant, at one). And that philosophy - being good at everything, is a good regular season philosophy. In the playoffs, you need to be able to dictate. I keep coming back to one event - signing Miller - that signifies that the Bills understand this distinction. They signed Miller for the playoffs. The Bills wanted to dictate to the offense by having a dominant threat on the edge. That's a playoff strategy. Hasn't worked yet.

This is all strictly my opinion, but I think there unquestionably are strategy changes necessary for the team to be as successful in the playoffs as they have been in the regular season. Absolutely. I think winning at this level is all about how the team functions, and very little about the talent. Look at today's game. 49ers on offense are better than the Chiefs. Yes, there's Mahomes vs. Purdy, but Kittle, McCaffrey, Samuel is a big talent differential over the Chiefs skill players. In my mind, it doesn't matter. Even with that differential, the Niners aren't and shouldn't be the prohibitive favorites. It's all about how one team plays against the other team. Although there are games where one player does something that flat out wins the game for his team, in most games talent doesn't determine the outcome. I think that's true because the draft and the salary cap make it impossible to aggregate enough talent simply to overwhelm the opponent. Total talent on teams is, more or less, evenly matched. That tells me that strategies are what it's all about. Training strategies, so that players are able to implement varied game plans from week to week, in the playoffs as well as the regular season. Offensive and defensive strategies - that is, the game plans. Play designs, which also are strategies. It's not that the players don't matter, but even with players, what drives the success of the team are strategies about the kind of players you want, how to get that kind of player, the proper mix of age and youth, all kinds of stuff like that. Teams succeed by having and implementing strategies at all levels of the operation, and the winners have (1) very good on-field strategies (who and how do we attack?) and (2) very good off-field strategies about how to accumulate and train players. So, what does tell me about the Bills? They have to do some things differently. Obviously true, because the things they've done haven't won a Super Bowl. That's not just luck. So, yes, strategy changes are necessary. One could argue, I suppose that all that's necessary is better luck in the execution of strategies for acquiring players, so that the roster is better, but as I said, talent usually isn't determinative. Sure, the Bills could have different players, but the players have been good enough to win more in the playoffs. Adjusting strategies is something that McDermott and most good coaches do. This time of year they evaluate in depth how well strategies have worked, how successful coaches have been in adjusting strategies, etc., and they make changes based on that evaluation. They change coaches, or they keep coaches and give them specific areas where they need to improve. McDermott's performance gets evaluated too, so that he can change and improve his strategies. And, of course, the Pegulas have to decide whether they think McDermott is capable of leading and implementing change. If they think all McDermott is doing is the same thing every season and just trying harder, they believe that's the right strategy. They have decide whether they need to make a change at that level in order to have someone who will install the strategies that will actually win in the playoffs.

I enjoy the Xs and Os and find it interesting, but like all the other data that produces a list of which teams are best and worst in the data category, I'm skeptical. Absolutely, the offensive coordinator of every team must understand the benefits of condensed formations and know when to use them, and I do think that Shanahan tends to be ahead of the rest of league in developing offensive wrinkles (Shanahan, McVay, LaFLeur, and Reid are the guys who seem to lead the way regularly). But like every other data category, it's something that the offensive coordinator has to consider and determine the extent to which that approach is something for their team. Actually understanding the true significance of the tight formations is very difficult, if not impossible. You can take ANY data, turnovers, sacks given up by your left tackle, number of times you threw to running back, completions over the deep middle, anything, and it always will form an array from 1 to 32, with one team on the top and one team on the bottom. People tend to look at those arrays, and when they find a successful team at the top, they tend to think (quite naturally) that whatever this category is must be important to success. It just ain't necessarily so. Notice, for example, that the Bills and the Ravens are near the bottom of this list of tight formations. Why might that be so? I don't know, but one possible explanation leaps out at me: If I have a QB who is great at getting running yards out of passing formations, so great that his running is a clear positive addition to the offense, I want the defense spread, not tightly packed. Brock Purdy was 23rd in rushing yards among QBs. If you have a QB who's too slow to get you chunk yardage by running the ball (Purdy), and if all you want him to do is distribute the ball quickly, you have less interest in spreading the offense. Now, I will say that I don't think Dorsey was very creative as the Bills offensive coordinator, and it's quite possible that he didn't understand all the benefit you get out of tight formations, or he was slow to implement it. I don't know. There's also been some discussion about what's made the Chiefs so effective is the fact that to counter the best modern defenses, the Chiefs have been putting 4 receivers on on side of center and 1 on the other, and it's THAT approach that has been the big change. That works for the Chiefs whether their formation is wide or tight (and the Chiefs have been doing more tight formations). Finally, when you have three All-Pro skill position players, each of whom could legitimately demand a double team on every play, the left guard could line up facing backward on every play and the offense would still be pretty good.

He got the interview only because Rex told Jerry Jones that his father was Black.

XXV

Old Coot's thread about Analysys of Defenses is where the other videos were linked. Jan 30.

Not a lot to add here, especially because it's true that this all keeps evolving. However, I'll add one item. There was a thread, maybe last week, about how Fangio created the defense that everyone runs now that's so effective at stopping the deep balls, essentially splitting the field down the middle and running two independent zones or man concepts on either side. The thread linked to some good analysis of those points. On of the videos was about Reid countered by running a lot of formations that put four receivers, instead of three line up in one of the two halves. That is, Fangio's defense works well when the receivers are split 3-2 to one side or the other, but it can be attacked by splitting the receivers 4-1. (Note that the receivers include the tight ends and the backs, some of whom may be lined up in the backfield, but who by virtue of where they are lined up are still poised to attack one side of the field or the other.) So, worked pretty well for Reid (and worked very well against the Bills). And then Reid started using 4-1 condensed formations, with a cluster of receivers just off the end of the line to one side or another. And other teams, including the Bills, have been copying that approach. The point is, those videos about Fangio and Reid demonstrate the power of the condensed formation, on running plays to the edge where three or four receivers are clustered as well as on passing plays.

I see a lot of posters expressing a similar sentiment. I don't understand it. There are pretty much teams winning Super Bowls by simply outscoring their opponents. In December and January football, scoring drops because everyone knows the style of each team's offense, and everyone has access to film of defenses succeeding against the offenses. When I think of the Bills' late season games, it's the defense, not the offense, that has let the team in the fourth quarter. @warrior9 posted recently that in four of the Bills' six regular season losses, the last time the Josh Allen touched the ball, the Bills had the lead or were tied. That means, of course, that the defense lost the game at the end (except the Jets game, which was a special teams TD. What does that mean? It means that generally, the offense is good enough to win games. And, in fact, that's what KC had this season - an offense that is good enough to win games. What KC had and the Bills didn't was a defense that shut down teams in the fourth quarter. Just look at the offensive and defensive regular season stats. The Bills are top 10 in offense and defense, both yards and points. That's good enough to win championships. What don't the Bills do? They don't finish games. And when they don't finish games, which side of the ball is the problem? The defense. What was the problem against KC this season? The Bills didn't get to Mahomes, at all. What's the solution? Among other things, it's better pass rush. Well, Beane signed his answer to the get-Mahomes problem two years ago: Von Miller. The Bills didn't have the Von Miller they hoped for in the playoffs this season. (In the Super Bowl against the Bengals, he had 2 sacks, 3 qb hits, and one pass defended. When the Bills beat the Chiefs in the 2022 regular season, Miller had two sacks. Those numbers for the Bills would have changed the game. In fact, the score of the 2022 game was 24-20 - same as this year's divisional round game, except Miller wasn't the same Miller and the Bills gave up one more TD.) On top of that, there was a tremendous drop off in talent from the Bills' starting linebackers to the people they put on the field at linebacker against the Chiefs. Medical technology will, we hope, solve the linebacker problem, and there's a good chance we'll see prime Miller in 2024. But the safeties are on their way out the door, corner back is looking a little iffy (whither White?, Elam's last chance (more or less), and not much behind Douglas and Benford). And the Bills need an impact player on the line (Oliver isn't quite it, Miller isn't every down, Jones may be gone, Rousseau hasn't emerged, and the others are placeholders). Bills need help on offense, sure. But it's the defense that needs something that looks like a minor overhaul. And it's the defense that has let them down in January.

Plant I haven't read any of the replies, but this captures exactly how I've been feeling. The roster transition is by design. This is where the process sinks or swims. They knew two years ago the roster would be turning over, and they've planned for this. You explained it well. Thanks.

The drops mantra is the latest bogus issue to infect fans' thinking. Chiefs led the league in drops with 44. Bills were 8th with 30. Just about the whole league was at 20 or above. How many fans are on the Chiefs website this week complaining about drops. Drops doesn't correlate with making the Super Bowl. Chiefs were on the top of the list, Niners were on the bottom with 9! They were a real outlier.