Shaw66

I think it's an interesting problem that Josh has. Graham may have overstepped a bit in characterizing what he thought he heard Pegula say, but I think his point is fundamentally correct. Josh can't be the leader of a gang of junior high school kids, goofing around outside the soda shop. Leaders of men, leaders of organizations, necessarily must stand apart, at least a bit, from the members of the gang, because leaders of men have to hold men accountable for their actions. Yes, there may be different styles. If I think about Manning, Brady, and Mahomes, their demeanor on field may have been different - that is, they had different styles, but in each case it was pretty clear that each demand accountability from his teammates. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to be one of the guys and hold people accountable. I think that Diggs, and Coleman's comment about Josh being goofier than Coleman, are two examples of why Josh needs to be more of the boss. In a discussion here a week ago about Diggs, we talked about how Diggs was a problem for Allen. Diggs wanting the ball put pressure on Allen to look his way, which means that Allen's ability to run the offense as designed was hampered in a way. Diggs could get away with being demanding because Josh wasn't the CEO; in effect, the atmosphere around Allen allows other players to exercise some authority, some power, some control over what's going on, and that shouldn't happen. And once a guy takes some of that power, the way that Diggs did, it's hard to take it back, and everyone on the team sees that the QB doesn't have complete control. Coleman wasn't trying to take control by the goofy comment. In fact, unconsciously he may have been saying that Josh needs to take control. He sounded surprised that Josh could be goofy. Why would he be surprised? Because his sense of how football works is that the QB is supposed to be in control, not making fart jokes in study hall. No one on the Patriots offense told Brady how something was going to work. No one told Peyton. And it looks to me like no one tells Mahomes, either. As I said, their styles differ, but in the case of all three, the QB was indisputably in control. Think about the difference between Kelce and Diggs. I have no doubt that on the sideline Kelce will talk to Mahomes, and sometimes he may be animated about what he's trying to communicate, but he still understands that Patrick is going to make decisions the way Patrick thinks they have to be made. Diggs was different; Diggs didn't always seem prepared to accept what Josh decided. If Josh didn't do it the way Diggs wanted, sometimes Diggs reacted. That can't be the way it works - the QB's decision making has to be accepted absolutely by every player; otherwise, someone else (Diggs, for example) is sharing responsibility for leading, the other players see it, and then the players begin to have doubts about who to follow. Players understand that the head coach gets absolute respect. He's the boss. But there are leaders at every level, and at every level the leaders have to have the respect of the players they lead. McBeane want a leader in every position room. It's something they've always said is key to a solid team. Even more critical is leadership of the entire offense - the leader in every position room has to show respect and follow the leader of the offense. In a sense, Dawkins and McGovern and Shakir and Samuel and Hollins and Cook all have to respect and follow Josh and show the other guys in their room that respect. And Josh has to behave in a way that quietly but forcefully demands that respect. When Josh says they're going to do something, everyone on the offense has to respect that decision, and no one can be thinking in the back of his head, "I wonder what Diggs thinks about that." And the only way that can happen is if Josh behaves like the boss, which means that he has to set himself apart from the gang. He can hang with them, he can joke with them, but everyone in the room has to understand that the moment Josh says jump, they're all jumping.

It might have taken me a while to get their, but yeah, Fitzpatrick. He's had interesting experiences and he could tell the story well. For example, who else in the NFL has spent four years in college with some of the smartest people in the world, a college where the jocks actually take classes. Then he follows it up with an amazing pro career, where he accomplished way beyond what anyone expected of him. And he was funny and reflective at the same time. Remember he wore all that weird red hairy mask think when he was giving his speech at a roast - must have been Eric Wood? And stories about this family and moving all the time. Yes, Fitz! Do it!

It's not a memoir, and I've already read it, but there's a biography of Bo Jackson out that is an interesting insight into a unique individual. That's what would be true about the coaches. I read the Belichick biography, and it's really interesting. Better than most of the player stuff. And I have a friend who wrote his memoir about being a big-time golf agent. Rainmaker. Also good stuff. Really interesting stuff in books by the people who spent a lifetime thinking about their sport at the highest level.

That's great stuff. Makes a lot of sense. I'm not following the roster closely enough to be able to evaluate the talent, but I do have to say that MVS's story, the theme of which is "inconsistent talent," has a ring of truth to it. And what the Bills want is consistent talent. That's the theme for Coleman and Samuel and Shakir. So, yes, I get it. Shavers? I don't know enough to have a point of view. Clayton? I had a different darkest-of-dark-horse story for Clayton, and that is special teams. We haven't seen it in action yet, but the new kickoff rules value big, quick guys who are violent at random points of attack. So, having an athletic rugby player who likes to hit people, whether kicking or receiving, is an asset. And he's on more or less the same learning curve as all the other guys. If he can play kickoffs, then teach him to cover punts. Of course, that might be a dozen reasons why he just can't get up to speed - I get that, but he's a guy who actually could be a surprise winner.

That is great! Thanks very much. And I think, yes, all signs pont to the latter and making Josh take that syep in yerms of decision making. Think about Tom Brady. At yhe snap he always seemed to know where to go with ball. He didn't care who it was; he simply went where the open man would be which was dictated by formatuin and defense. If your QB can do it, it's take what they give you, and they're always giving you something.

Thanks. Interesting stuff. I agree about Coleman's skill set. Having him roaming all over the field from the slot could make him a nightmare for defenses to deal with. Frankly, last season I had hoped we'd see more of that from Kincaid, but his role seemed more limited. If the Bills can get more from him this season, then I like your vision of those two guys running out of the slot. Fact is, those two lined up together almost anywhere along the line is a problem for defenses.

You're technical expertise is way beyond me, but I think you're assuming that Brady has a style, and that style is what he learned in NO. My understanding is that at LSU, with those receivers, the style was different. I'd bet if you asked him, he'd say what McDermott has told him: Play EVERY style. Run, pass, balanced, inside, outside, explosive, west coast, everything. It's true that most people revert to things they're comfortable with, and that may be what Brady will do, but I don't think that's what McDermott wants. Interesting. And as you think about, Allen's maturation and the fact that the QB has to be the leader also meant that Diggs had to reduce his leadership role. I doubt he liked doing that, and that may be why saw him increasingly unhappy.

I agree. I wrote something a month ago about him. When they got him, Bills loved his energy and commitment. They didn't understand that what happened in Minnesota is chronic with Diggs. He is a true dog. Teammates love him for his fight. Problem is that sooner or later, he turns that fight to his own team. Houston should plan on two good years from him, but then they'd be wise to move on.

You said this: I challenged it. Rather than tell us how you know this, you ask me for my data. I don't think you're correct about Josh going deep all the time, so show us it is true.

Thanks. Good points. And I agree - there is no great evidence that Brady has the magic. So, you clarified what you said earlier. It isn't the concept that you find troubling; it is the people executing the concept. I get that.

I don't understand why you're skeptical. The Rams have been doing it for years. Last season, their top five receivers were Puka Nacua WR, Cooper Kupp WR, Tyler Higbee TE, Tutu Atwell WR, Demarcus Robinson WR, which is a hardly a list of stud talent. Yes, Nacua put up big numbers, but he was fifth round rookie. Does anyone really think that he dominated because he has superior talent? Of course not. He dominated because he was operating in a good system that employed the same concepts that we're talking about here. Kupp, too. Those guys aren't studs - they're the right guys for the system they run out there. I'm not saying it's going to work; we'll only know that once we see it in action. But I'm not skeptical - it's the way the league is heading.

Talk about adopting a narrative. I don't think the data support the idea that Josh hasn't succeeded in the short to medium range. Last season he was in the top 10 in ALL categories of throws - 10 yards, 20, 30, 40, 50. Tua was the deep bomber in the league last season, not Josh. But more importantly, this issue about Diggs is not something new. I worried about Diggs all through 22 and 23. It was easy to see through body language, sideline behavior and other things that he was not consistently a team guy. He was a great team guy some of the time, but it was clear that he was always about Diggs. It was obvious, for example, that the Bills went out of their way to get Diggs a completion early - if he didn't catch a ball in the first quarter, his attitude changed. It's a problem when your QB has to worry about keeping his best player happy. The QB's job is to run the offense, and the receiver's job is to run his routes and catch the ball. When the receiver's focus get selfish, and when the QB is worried about keeping the guy happy, that hurts the offense. We saw it last season, but it had been coming before that. In 2023, I didn't think of him as the go-to guy that he was earlier in his career in Buffalo. So, at least for me, the "Diggs is a problem" narrative wasn't new.

I agree, and that's what I've been saying about McDermott's approach in general. I mean, is Bernard really a middle linebacker or just a glorified safety? I think McDermott almost would be willing to play with seven safeties instead of corners, linebackers and safeties. Same thing with the offensive line, except the size of the players is different. He wants mobile guys who can pass block and power block. McDermott might play with five Spencer Browns, if he could find them. Clearly, it's being tried with the wideouts (and running backs) (and tight ends). It's not literally true, but it's feeling like everyone is playing everywhere. In McDermott's perfect world, I think he has 11 well-trained athletes on the field playing almost interchangeably. And I still worry that the problem with this approach is that it works great until they play a Chris Jones or a Tyreek Hill or another stud who is just really, really good, and none of McDermott's jackknives can handle the guy.

I don't think Bishop is underperforming if he isn't starting early this season, or even the end of the season. I agree that he needs to be starting in season two. And, yes, the fact that McDermott makes solid veterans work well in the defensive backfield does make the Bishop pick interesting. It means that McDermott and Beane expect something special from him. It's interesting to compare Bishop to Bernard - that piece in the Athletic was interesting. It essentially said the Bills took Bernard much higher than he was projected to go, but they took him because they had very high expectations for him. We didn't see enough last season to declare him a great player, but what we saw was pretty special play. I'd guess that McBeane would say they have those kind of expectations for Bishop. Bernard sat for season, but then he was expected to be ready, and I'd think the same is true for Bishop. The sooner the better, but definitely by year two. In the case of both Bishop and Bernard, the guy coming out of college was touted as being a true standout in terms of the mental game. They understand and can execute everything. It may take a year to get up to speed, but then we should see impact. And look at O'Cyrus Torrence. Same expectations - be a player by year two, and sooner if possible. Be a clear positive for the team sometime between now (last year at this time, Torrence already was beginning to show how soon he'd be ready) and a year from now (Bernard took a year to get up to where he needed to be).

I agree with this and your earlier post. What McDermott does is take quality safeties and defensive backs and teaches them to operate in a system that creates an effective defense. It isn't necessary for McDermott to get the top talent in the league to play those positions; what's necessary is for his players to work hard and execute the system that he has taught them. He can do that with any solid starting safety in the league, and that's what he has to work with now.

It's not too complicated, but I've said often, and I think others agree, that there is a problem with his system in the playoffs. His approach to developing a football team is to have guys who can do everything. In the case of offensive linemen, it's pass protect, power run block, and block the edges and downfield. Receivers, too, and running backs. And defenders - DBs who play the run tough, Dlinemen who can stop the run AND rush the passer. So it takes a while for players to be able to play that way. The problem with that approach, I think, is that you don't have players who are really, really good at one thing. You don't have a Chris Jones, for example. You don't have a Tyreek Hill. Instead, you have guys who are pretty good at everything, and when then have to play against the studs in the playoffs, they don't match up well. Belichick made it work that way - a bunch of no names who did their jobs. We're waiting for McDermott to show he can win that way.

I agree with all you said (of course, I did, because you were agreeing with me!), but this part that I quoted is important and people forget it. Pressure on Mahomes is important, and the Bills have known it. That's why they got Von Miller. Unfortunately, he went down and wasn't available when the Bills needed him in the playoffs - for essentially two seasons.

Well, it's the same narrative as a year ago. Last year, it was "Dorsey was learning the ropes as a rookie coordinator, blah, blah, blah." Turned out, Dorsey didn't seem to have learned much at all. So, this year it's Brady. I actually buy a lot of what you say about how things went for him 2023. 2024 is when we find out what he has. I'm confident, but we won't know until November or beyond.

Yeah, I agree. And perhaps the most amazing thing is that anyone with a brain can see that Allen still has upside. How crazy is that? Allen almost certainly won't win six Super Bowls (although anything is possible), but if he takes another step or two and stays healthy, he will legitimately be in the G.O.A.T. discussion.

That's right. In Elway's case, he had Reeves as HC for several years, then Wade Phillips, and then he won two Super Bowls with Shanahan. I don't think that means that what's necessary is a head coaching change as much as it means getting the right kind of offensive coaching, which could mean the coordinator. Tom Brady, for example, had a defensive head coach and the right offensive coordinator. In Denver, the offensive coordinators under Reeves included Mike Shanahan, who was there for 85-87 and 91. They didn't get along, and Reeves fired him. Also Chan Gailey for a year. Finally, the Broncos figured out the wrong guy was fired, and they made Shanahan the head coach and won two Super Bowls. So, I agree the Bills need the right coach for Allen to take the final steps to all-round greatness, but that doesn't mean McDermott has to go. It means he has to get the right OC. However, sooner or later, if he keeps getting the wrong OC, then McD will have to go.

I think there's truth here from both the unnamed exec and Alphadawg: I've been saying this for along time about Allen - he isn't an elite game manager. He isn't great at pre- and post-snap reads. He makes some poor decisions with the ball. I think it's all true, but it's all relative. As the exec says, he has "immense talent," and that talent overcomes a lot of mistakes. A guy with average NFL talent who makes decisions like Allen is on the bench, but Allen is so incredibly talented that he is an excellent QB despite the mistakes. I've said for years, and I'll say it here: Allen is Elway. Elway compared to Montana makes the point. There was no comparison in terms of talent, but Montana was masterful as a field general. Then Elway mastered the mental game, and he was brilliant. I think Allen is further along than Elway, and I actually think he is a better thrower (and better runner) than Elway, but Allen still needs to develop his decision making. Mahomes is ahead of him in that category, and Mahomes is a good enough thrower that his mental game makes him superior. But I think Allen is coming for him. All of this discussion about Allen is, I believe, beside the point. Allen is either great right now or awfully close. The Bills can win with him exactly as he is, if the defense will step up in the big play department.

I can't rank them. In no particular order: 64 championship game. Cowboys Monday night. Taron Johnson. The Perfect Game. Nyheim Hines. XXV. Those are my top six.

Yeah, I think you state it correctly. It's not that third down percentage is meaningless. However, as you say, turnovers are much more important. And third down percentage really is a minor stat. The more important stat about downs is first downs. What matters is how many first downs you get, regardless of what down you get them on. And in first downs, the Bills were very good but not standout. They were third in the league, but there was very little difference among the top five. That's why you find the top teams have a good third down percentage. Coaches don't sit around trying to figure out how to improve their third down percentage; they sit around trying to figure out how to make their offense better. People do this a lot - they find some random stat and make a big deal about it. Third down percentage is nice, but it isn't all that important. Having a great third down percentage doesn't give you a great offense. It's the other way around: a good offense gets you a good third down percentage.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find something. That sounds like an interesting stat. Bills were 19th last season. Not pretty. But we sort of knew that, because they were playing hurt all season.

What's the difference? The difference is you don't know what you're talking about. Last season, the Bills punted 49 times. The Jets led the league with 99. A team that punted five times a game more than the Bills would have had 134 punts, so your example is patently absurd. But even if you're going to talk about a reasonable number, like a team punting ONE more time a game than the Bills, which would mean a little better than the median, and put Allen at one half turnover a game more than the median, the difference is that in half the games, the Bills are giving up about 40 yards in field position. That's like the defense giving up more than 10% more yards for the game. I found the number a couple of weeks ago: On average, a turnover means your team is giving up four points. Two extra first downs a game doesn't get you four points, not even close. Field position is one of the most fundamental keys to success in football, and the lower the total points scored, the more important it becomes. The NFL is in an era where scoring is declining, and that makes turnovers more important. However, I'm interested in your last statement. How do you know that Allen has been more efficient over the past four seasons than any other player over any four-year period? That's an interesting stat. How's efficiency measured?