Shaw66

You're truly wrong here. It isn't "not his game." It isn't a game he can't play. It's just a game he hasn't played. Allen is now being coached, maybe for the first time, to take the short throw. His completion percentage will go up nicely this season because he will take the short throw.

Bado I gotta say, I think you really overstate the case, but the more of this I read, the more I tend to see your point. I would say this, however: There were very few people, myself included, who believed the Bills had a good offense in 2016, the stats notwithstanding. Taylor didn't do anything close to his 2015 season in 2016. His 2015 numbers, except for his passes attempted, compared favorably to the best in the league. In 2016 he looked like a journeyman, and there were big questions about whether he was worth keeping around for 2017. And ultimately I come back to this: McBeane are rebuilding, completely. They are installing their system with their kind of coaches and their kind of players. That includes (1) making mistakes and (2) letting talent go that doesn't fit their system. Mistakes make everyone look bad, if all you look at are the mistakes. And everyone lets go of players that don't fit their system. Colts gave up on Jerry Hughes. I'm on record. I think McBeane are going to great places with the team they're building. The fact that someone may think the Benjamin trade was a mistake, or the Darby trade, or whatever, is irrelevant in the long-term history of a successful team. Each of those trades made sense to them at the time in the context of what they were doing, in exactly the same way that the trades up for Allen made sense in that context. It's not a perfect, and reaching conclusions solely on the basis of how the imperfect things look isn't a fair evaluation.

I think this is correct, except for the wrong reason and the wrong time-frame. They should be ready to compete against anyone in 2020. I say wrong reason because it isn't about star players. QB is the only place McDermott needs a star, and he has Allen. Allen learned a lot last season and will learn a lot more this season. He won't be fully developed, but he'll be one of the top 10 QBs by 2020. One aspect of McD's process is that he trains up a core of players who commit, work hard and lead. When new guys come on board, they learn the process and the culture and they adapt quickly. So, yes, there are a lot of new players this season, but they will integrate quickly. Allen and Morse will lead the offensive linemen, Beasley the receivers, Shady and Gore the running backs. Hughes and Star on the dline, ALexander and Edmunds at linebacker, Hyde and White in the defensive backfield. The new players will integrate. In 2020 there will be more talent upgrades - another o lineman, another d lineman, another receiver, always another DB. They will integrate quickly, too. The culture is in place to make this team continuously successful. Edit: Obviously, I hadn't read the intergalactic billiards portion of this thread before I wrote this. Sorry to break everyone's train of thought.

Fair enough. So far as I know, McD's said nothing public about it either way. My view is one more reason why he would it have gone after Mahomes.

Agreed, I like discussing alternatives, but I like discussing the alternatives either while the decision remains to be made or after the results of the decision are known. For example, I like talking about whether to trade up when the Bills had a shot at Watkins, and I like talking about it now that we know what Watkins is, but talking about it as a good or bad decision a year after draft bores me. I think McDermott came in not knowing what he had in Taylor in the same sense that he didn't know what he had in anyone else. The most important thing to McDermott, as he has said multiple times, are the issues we sometimes lump together under the heading "character." Is the guy a total team player? Is the guy an intense competitor? Does the guy live to work at his craft every day? Is the guy a locker room presence? McDermott wanted the answers to those questions about every one of his players, and he especially wanted those answers about his quarterback. If you remember, when he came McD was asked about Marcell's various problems in the past. McD said he wasn't concerned about the past; everyone starts with a clean slate. I think Taylor did, too. You know when McD decided Taylor wasn't his guy? When he started Peterman mid-season. That's when McD said to everyone "Taylor isn't the long-term answer." Whatever. As I've said many times, and many people agree, I like how things are going.

I don't come her to be insulted! ?

I look into this thread from time to time and have been tempted to add my two cents worth. This is post is a nice statement of some of what I've been thinking as I've read the criticism that McBeane could have and should have done something different. The question with any GM and any coach is whether he succeeded. If he succeeded, it's not relevant that he might have taken a different path to success. It isn't even relevant if some other path might have gotten him there more quickly. All that matters is winning. It isn't possible to know yet whether McBeane will succeed. Discussion about other things they might have done may be interesting to some, but unless you think the the Bills are in a bad place or heading in the wrong direction, discussion of other things that might have been done isn't very to interesting to most people. I very much like the point that McDermott came in with some very well defined ideas about how to run a football team, and Beane did too. It makes little sense to criticize them for making decisions based on those ideas - they were hired BECAUSE they had those ideas, and to criticize for not acting contrary to the ideas is stupid. I think people also tend to forget that McDermott is young, had never been a head coach before and decided (probably) that he was going to go slowly in the beginning. He was going to get his feet wet and understand the lay of the land before he took major steps. That's a prudent thing for someone to do when he's new at a job. So, for example, I will not fault him for not going after Mahomes or Watson. He didn't know what he had in Taylor, he didn't know the extent to which he could trust Whaley's judgment or the scouting staff, he probably knew he would be getting a new GM. He wasn't going to make the single most important player personnel decision in that kind of environment. As for decisions other than QB, he wanted to evaluate players before he decided whether he had the guys he wanted to work with. That takes time. His oft-stated philosophy, one that Beane shares, is that it's better to build a team right than to build it quickly. They want long-term success, which in their view has to be built on a solid foundation. McDermott first want to evaluate what he had, then make changes accordingly. If that meant taking a year or two more to put up some winning seasons, they were willing to wait. And I am sure they explained that the Pegulas, who bought the program. McBeane weren't intending quick fixes, and the Pegulas agreed. None of that means that there weren't other ways to go about running the team and building a winner. What it does mean is that they had and they have a process, and criticizing them for doing things that would have been inconsistent with the process is foolish. What matter is long term results, and that story hasn't been told yet. And, by the way, the Allen vs. Watson and Mahomes story hasn't been told yet, either.

This is all fun and games, but the professionals know what they're doing. They know what routes make sense, the shape of the routes, the number of steps, all of that. Its studies in more detail than any of us has studied it. For example, what the OP says about zones is obviously wrong. It matters a great deal what the route looks like when playing against a zone, because every defender in the zone is watching the receivers and reacting to where the receivers are going. One receiver's movements causes the zone to shift a step or two that creates the crease another receiver takes advantage of. Coaches know the best ways to get into and out of cuts, and fans rarely know better.

I think he is. Great arm strength, compared to the very best. Great size, compared to the very best. Great speed, compared to the very best. Maybe the best total package, purely physically, ever.

That's not true. What appears in the first few posts in this thread is praise for what they did. Nowhere does it say that they did the only thing possible. The fact that someone may think there was another way to go and a better way to go does not have to be presented in what he chooses to write. What JW said is that they've done a good job, and I think that's true. Maybe they could have done it better, but that doesn't change the fact that they've done a good job.

I don't follow this. If people understood that the title didn't imply a guarantee, what's wrong with the title? He does believe Jones won't be on the roster. He isn't certain, but he believes it. I wrote a post the other day that said the Bills are entering a period of sustained NFL excellence, where they will be a regular playoff and Super Bowl contender. I believe it, but I'd be a fool if I thought it was the only possible outcome over the next 10-15 years, but that doesn't mean I can't write a post that says what I believe. I don't get it.

When you hear some huckster on the Internet tell you to call his 800 number and he'll give you his dead-nuts-lock-of-the-weekend pro football bet, do take that as a guarantee? If you do, send me your credit card number and I'll give you tomorrow night's baseball winners, guaranteed.

Wow. I haven't looked at this thread for a week or two and just clicked on it to see what's going on it. I have a few reactions: 1. One thing that kept me coming back to this thread is that Dawg didn't start it and run away. He's been here throughout, defending his position. Kudos. 2. A second thing that kept me coming back was that Dawg has been completely clear throughout what he's saying: He likes Zay, but he thinks it's more likely than not that Zay will not be on roster at Day 1 because of the competition. I still tend to agree with him. I think Williams, Foster and Beasley will play ahead of Jones, and once Jones slips to the number 4 spot on the depth chart, he's at risk. He isn't a special teamer and he doesn't have any special skills that make him look like a long-term answer. 3. The thread title is COMPLETELY clear. "I'm Calling It Now" is a common phrase around here and among sports fans, and it's meaning is completely clear: "I'm making a prediction." It's like "I'm calling it now: the Bills will win the Super Bowl" - it's a prediction Everyone should understand that a prediction is, fundamentally, a discussion of some future uncertainty. And Dawg has been clear about that throughout - he admits Zay could be on the roster; he just thinks it's more likely that he won't. The act of making a prediction does NOT mean that the predictor is saying the predicted event is certain to happen or that the opposite of the predicted event can't happen. Frankly, with Beasley down and with the free agent rookie kid down, Dawg's prediction isn't looking so good right now, but there's still a lot of football to be practiced between now and final cuts/trades.

That's well said. You are correct. It's more likely that McD will not be a Hall of Fame coach, at least strictly on probabilities. I've consistently said you're right about some things. Where I've said you're wrong is when you argue that McD can't be a great coach because there never will be another Belichick or because had more success in his first two years.

Much of what you say is Much of what you say about the future is true. Anything could happen. Some of what you say, again, is irrelevant. Sean McVay is irrelevant. Comparisons between McDermott and any one at this point in time have NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. I predicted that the Bills are on their way to a great run, and whatever anyone thinks about anyone else is simply irrelevant. You could of course be right about McDermott's future, but what you describe is completely inconsistent with his history. This is a man who has succeed at every point in his coaching career. He wasn't the best assistant coach when he started, but he became one. He wasn't one of the best D coordinators when he started, but he became one. He was generally viewed around the league as one the very best young head coach prospects in the league. That's not a guy who consistently spikes the ball at the one yard line. And the single most important thing about the guy is that he is a learner, a student. That's who he is. So for you to predict that he's always going to screw up is simply inconsistent with who the guy is. He doesn't make the same mistakes over and over. He corrects his mistakes and improves. That's who he is. You say but new challenges come along. Yes they do, but this game isn't completely different every five years. The same fundamentals apply today as 50 years ago. What changes are details, which are small, not large. So sure, no one knows what the future will be. But the chances are that McDermott will continue to improve as a head coach, year after after, because that's who he is.

Yes, but the point is that there ALWAYS are flaws. There ALWAYS are mistakes. A continuous improvement process recognizes this reality and aggressively corrects process deficiencies so that those mistakes aren't repeated. There were all kinds of mistakes in 2018. And there will be more in 2019. In a well-run process, the big mistakes don't recur, and you're dealing with smaller and smaller mistakes.

Mistakes will be made in any endeavor. The question is whether they will learn and grow from it. Do you seriously think that three years from now Allen will be a lesser QB because of how QBs were handled last season? I don't.

Yeah, I read your post, and it misses the point for two different reasons. First, you assume, but you did not and cannot prove, that there never will be another team like the Patriots. There is absolutely no way to know that. The fact that Bill Belichick exists is proof that it's possible, and if it's possible for one, it's possible for others. There never was an Isaac Newton until Isaac Newton. There never was an Oscar Robertson until Oscar. There never was a Jim Brown until there was Jim Brown. But it was only a matter of time when an equally dominant man came along. Before Jim Brown, he was inconceivable. Was any ever again like him? Not exactly, but others were as dominant. So to say the Bills can't be like the Pats have been is flat out wrong. There is no reason why some other franchise can't come to dominate like the Pats. There is no reason why another coach can't become the GOAT. Second, that's irrelevant, because I never said the Bills would dominate like the Pats or that McDermott would coach like Belichick. I said the Bills are on their way to sustained, long-term success in the league. That's what the Brown-Browns had, that's what the Noll-Steelers had, that's what the Walsh-49ers had, that's what the Johnson-Cowboys could have had if their owner hadn't been such a jerk. Andy Reid has shown he produces sustained, long-term success. And the fact that the Rams and the Chiefs and the Eagles have currently had success and could continue doesn't have anything to do, with whether the Bills could have sustained long-term success. The Colts had it while the Pats did. The Steelers had it while the Pats had it, too. The Bills had it while the Cowboys had it. It doesn't have to be an exclusive achievement. Sustained long-term success has several key ingredients: good ownership, good coach, good GM, good quarterback. Growth and continuity. The Bills have all of that. Does it mean that they will have sustained long-term success? Not necessarily, but they can't have it without those things. They're poised to do great things.

I'm really confident the Bills are going to be great precisely because McDermott cares about all of this stuff. He is perpetually about getting better at everything. I don't think we have to worry that he's missing something. He isn't forgetting about tight-end play, he isn't forgetting about changing offenses, he isn't forgetting about game preparation. He isn't forgetting about anything. That's the whole point.

8 wins, 9 wins, it's about the same to me. And I agree that 10 or 11 are possible. I think 10 or 11 are more likely than 5 or 6. That is, I won't be terribly surprised if this team goes two or three over .500, but I will be quite surprised if they are 2 or 3 below.

I don't think everything is in place yet. I think they need another year of drafting young players. I think, for example, that there still will be weak links on the offensive line. The free agent signings, other than Morse, are not certified NFL starters. It's likely one or two will come through at least okay, but I think it's likely that this will be a power house offensive line. I still have my doubts about Dawkins, and Ford, his press notwithstanding, is still a rookie. I also think that Allen is far from a finished product. He needs years of seasoning. I expect him to be a top 15 passer this season, which would mean considerable improvement over his rookie year, but if your QB is top 15, you can expect your team to be around there, too. Finally, I think the coaches are still learning on the job. Daboll, the oline guy, the special teams guy all are youngsters. And McD is still learning the head coaching job. So when I add it all up, I conclude that this team is on the path to greatness, but I doubt they're getting there this year. 2020 is when I think they'll be a serious team, a top-10 team with playoff aspirations. And they'll get better after that.

Running out the clock.

Rocky - One of the reasons I think it's like a religion is that the viewpoint I expressed about continuous improvement leads to one conclusion: Don't worry, everything will be taken care of. McBeane's approach is "if there is a problem, we will solve it." That's what continuous improvement is. Solve the problem, adjust your system so it doesn't recur, and move on. A system like that eventually is solving smaller and smaller problems. My response to you is "if there is a problem, they will solve it." Yes, I agree the QB play in three acts that we watched last season was bewildering. But is it a continuing problem? No. So I don't worry about what happened last year. There are, I think three concerns about the QB drama. One was the fact that they badly misevaluated both Peterman and McCarron, so they went to camp with their star rookie and no one else who was a viable NFL QB. Second was that when they realized how thin they were at QB, Beane was really slow going out to the market for more help. Third was that McDermott badly misread what he was seeing from Peterman in practice, much so that he actually thought Peterman could succeed starting games. I don't worry about any of that because, in response to the first problem, they have their QB now and they just need to keep the team stocked with viable backups. Bills are a little weak there, but it wasn't a priority in this off-season. As for the second problem, Beane has admitted he was slow to deal with the backup problem last season. He was in only his second season as a FM, and like everyone else, he's learning. That was a mistake, and if the process has worked correctly, it was identified as a mistake and corrective action has been taken. That is, he should have learned from the mistake, reducing the likelihood that it will happen again. Most disturbing is the third problem. How could McDermott not have seen from Peterman in games not have shown up in practice? Again, he's a young coach with a lot to learn. I'm sure THAT thought process has been reviewed and McDermott has learned some lessons from it. Something else needs to be happening in practice to identify flaws that are likely to appear in games. What was particularly troubling about it was that McDermott made the mistake in his first season against the Chargers, and then he came back with Peterman again in his second season against the Ravens. Maybe in year two he was just trying to protect Allen. But if I had to guess, I'd say that McDermott allowed certain positive features about Peterman (his work ethic, his attitude, his competitiveness, his demeanor in practice) to underemphasize other things he should also have been seeing, thinks like lack of arm strength, poor response to pressure, lack of foot speed. If I'm right about that, McDermott has already adjusted how the Bills evaluate players in practice. Mistakes, misjudgments, etc., are always going to happen. The question is how you respond to them. A well designed process identifies the mistakes, takes corrective action, and internalizes the learning to minimize the chances that the mistakes will happen again. If McBeane hadn't made those mistakes, they wouldn't have had a chance to learn from them. And they would have made other mistakes instead. Continuous improvement. Coming soon to a playing field in Orchard Park.

Looks like INTs cost the Bills two games - Jets and Dolphins. Bills win those two and they don't get Oliver. My recollection was that Allen was better than your summary, in the sense that he didn't have a lot of INTs where I thought he was fooled by the defense and didn't understand what he was doing. That is, usually when Allen threw an INT, I thought "bad throw," not "bad decision." Reading your description, if you factor in down and distance, quarter, score, it seems like several were bad decisions in the sense that he should know not to take that risk. That's what Brady is so good at - he's always willing to wait for the next down or the next series. Getting zero and moving on is better than making a throw that has a 1/3 chance of being intercepted. And that goes along with, as others have said, the notion that Allen has to take the easy short throw more often. That's what Brady does, too; If it's okay to get zero and move on, it's even better to get five yards and move on. McDermott talks a lot about putting guys in position to make plays. In the discussion of sacks in the Chris Simms thread, I mentioned that McD said about Hughes that getting pressures is more important to the Bills than getting sacks. I realized that McD says that because a pressure gives at least two guys a chance to make a play - the guy who created the pressure can get a sack or a fumble, and a defensive back can get a play on the ball. Plus, of course, another rusher may get the sack or fumble. McD said at the end of last season that they want Allen to throw more short balls, and it's for the same reason. The short ball gives another player a chance to make a play. It's all part of McDermott's team concept. Big plays are nice, but he isn't relying on big plays to win games - he's relying on guys making the ordinary plays they SHOULD make and trusting others on the team to make the ordinary plays THEY should make.

McD made it sound like the Bill's keep those stats, and the pressure stat is more important to them.