Shaw66

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.

That's right. McD was very interesting on the subject. It sounds like they track and rely on QB pressures. He likes sacks, but pressures is what he wants. The more pressures, the more opportunities for other guys to make plays.

Mr. Vader Thanks for your kind comments. I appreciate them. Your response gives me a chance to say more about what I'm thinking. I don't think you've raised anything that is an impediment to greatness. I will say, for example, that I never have believed that the City of Buffalo is an impediment to recruiting top talent. I get that it's far from glamorous, it's cold, and there are New York State taxes to deal with. I get that. But listen to McDermott. He and Beane are building a roster full of players who don't care about any of that. Boston is cold, taxes are high, and unless you're ultra-liberal or spending 60 hours a week in the library at Harvard or MIT is your idea of a great time, Boston isn't your town. Green Bay gets its share of players. Pittsburgh. McBeane are building a team that players will want to be a part of. A team that wins (that's the most important part), a team where players are respected, a team with great owners. If a player doesn't want to play for the Bills, or wants a premium to move to Buffalo, he isn't the kind of player McBeane wants. Plus, to move on to the draft and free agency, Beane isn't looking for the top talent in free agency. He fills holes in free agency; he gets his talent in the draft. He IS doing what the Pats do in free agency - he's collecting solid players with the right competitive instincts - like Hogan. The only top talent that the Pats regularly go after in free agency is shut-down corner. Beane is certainly not stupid. When the roster is put together the way they want it, which I think means after this season or definitely after next season, Beane's going to be smart about the occasional big ticket free agent. But remember, that isn't generally their plan. When the Bills write a big check for a free agent, in most cases it's going to be for THEIR OWN free agent. Their objective is draft talent and keep it, not get it in free agency. The fans aren't perfect, but they're great. What makes Buffalo stand out is that it seems that a higher percentage of the population is serious fans than almost anyplace else. The whole city is engaged with the team, even over all these years of mediocrity and worse. They CARE about the team, and it's obvious to the players. They all comment on it, including players who don't play for the Bills. The fans are an asset that McBeane obviously are selling to players. McDermott wants his players to understand that it's a PRIVILEGE to play for fans like they have. Most cities have fair-weather fans or worse. Not Buffalo. But the linchpin of my optimistic view is the continuous improvement philosophy. I am not by any means an expert in the philosophy, but I get the core elements. McDermott has explained it several times. The fundamental requirement for a successful continuous improvement environment is to have the organization populated with people who are committed to it. That's why McBeane say that they don't care about a player's physical gifts if he isn't an intense competitor and isn't committed to working at getting better every day. The core operating idea is to evaluate, set objectives, work to meet the objectives, evaluate, set objectives, etc. - forever. Always looking to get better. You do that by internalizing whatever vest practices you develop along the way. So, for example, someone commented about McDermott's success on challenges. It hasn't been good. I am certain that in the team's evaluation of him they have identified challenges as something to improve. And they don't just talk about it - they analyze how they make decisions, they study how others do it, they develop procedures to follow, they implement the procedures, and they see if their challenges improve. Your comments about the draft and free agency point to the same thing. McDermott looks at his team, sees that there's something missing in terms of talent, chemistry, whatever, and he tells Beane. McD, Beane and their coaches and scouts look at the system and figure out why they aren't filling that kind of need and what they need to do to fill it. I expect their draft philosophy and techniques will continue to improve, because they will examine the philosophy and technique all the time and improve it. I've said elsewhere that they are doing what Belichick does. They are. They aren't exactly copying him - it's clear that McDermott's commitment to family, to personal connection with his players is something that isn't such an important part of the Belichick model - but they're generally doing the same things. One of the strengths of the Patriots is that they've used the same core offense and core defense for 20 years. It doesn't change. It's based on fundamental football principles and not on gimmicks or fads. By building that way, the Patriots can tweak it from year to year and now from game to game without rewriting the playbook. It's easiest to see on defense, and McDermott's defense has the same characteristic. Out of the Bills basic 4-3, with personnel who fit the defense, McDermott can do whatever he wants. He can rush three, he can rush six or seven. He can commit safeties all over the field. The benefit of this aspect of what the Pats do and the Bills are building is that continuous improvement becomes possible. What the defense did in 2008 to respond to trends in the league becomes part of the playbook and part of the DNA of the defense - the players in 2010 know it, not because they're playing the way it was played in 2008, but it's part of the system. The players in 2012 are better at playing the defense than the players in 2008 because they've learned the 2008 wrinkles AND the 2010 wrinkles. The players teach each other, and the team keeps getting better. The Bills want to build through the draft because they can pull their rookies up to their level and build from their. Jerry and Star are going to teach Oliver a lot this summer, and the Bills are going to expect him to absorb a lot of it. If they've done their homework on Oliver correctly, he will thrive on the opportunity to learn and get better. A couple years ago I heard someone describe how Brady and his OC were preparing for particular opponent, and one of them said "when they're in that defense, what would work would be that play we put in for the Jets about ten years ago. The next day, they show the play to the offense - an offense based on all the same principles as 2008, and - VOILA! - they had the answer on how to attack this week's opponent. Continuous improvement and continuity made that possible. And continuity comes from drafting and keeping players, and constantly teaching the younger players what the veterans know. Sorry, long-winded answer, even for me, but that's what I see happening. Does Beane get free agency completely right? No, but every year he gets better. Does he get the draft right? No, but every year he gets better. Does McD get every coaching decision right? No, but every year he gets better. A continuous improvement environment makes things better and better. Toyota proved it. AND - the Bills now have a physically gifted QB with brains who is completely, totally on board with this system. He's working daily to pile knowledge on top of knowledge in his brain. He really wants it, he wants to do it right, and he believes he's being led in the right direction. And he doesn't seem to have an ego that's going to get in the way. He knows he has to be the man, but being the man isn't his personal objective. What he wants to do is win, and if winning comes from handing the ball off 45 times, he's gonna do it. Continuous improvement is going to put the Bills on top.

What is it that you see in the present organization that you think would keep them from becoming a great franchise? Me. Wilson wasn't a great owner. Rex wasn't ever going to be a great coach. Fitzpatrick never was going to be a star QB. Whaley wasn't a Hall of Fame GM. I don't see any weak links now. McD isn't a great coach yet, but he has time to grow. He's had some success already, and he is determined. Beane and Allen look like winners, and the Pegulas have impressed me. What do see that makes you think this combination is unlikely to become historically great? What franchises do you think are better set up for an impressive decade?