Shaw66

The reason I like him is anecdotal. It just seemed to me that there were a lot of times where James bailed Ben out of difficult spots by getting to the right spot and catching the ball. That makes him better in my mind than Clay, who (1) never seemed to show the same ability to settle in the open spot and (2) seemed to drop some easy balls. As others have said, Allen needs a reliable guy to bail him out, and James seems to me to be one of those guys.

I think you and Kirby and I all have the same vision for the offense, given Allen's greatest strengths. Or at least a similar vision. I think ideally the offense needs two deep threats. Or at least one really good deep threats and a couple of guys with enough speed to get deep when the scheme creates the opportunity. Clearly, the first deep threat is a wideout (whether Foster is that guy remains to be seen - it isn't enough to have deep speed, you have to be able to run disciplined routes and catch the ball. I'm hopeful, but let's wait and see). Ideally, the second guy is also a wideout - a deep threat on either flank is what really tests the safeties and opens the middle as you describe. The second guy who can "get deep" can be a tight end or even a versatile running back. I think you're correct that if the Bills had two good deep threat wideouts, James may not have the foot speed to take advantage of the opportunities the wideouts would create. He clearly would be good enough to get you 5 to 12 yard completions all day long against a stretched out defense, but he's not going to get the chunk plays that Kelce gets. But I'm squarely in the camp that says such a player, a premier tight end, is more a luxury than a necessity. If you have one, fine, and he takes some pressure off the wideouts to produce and loosens up the defense in other areas, but he isn't a necessity. And I think, but I don't know, that featuring the tight end tends to draw the defense toward the middle, which may help your wideouts but it doesn't do any favors for your running backs. Just ask ThurmanThomas what it meant to play with two burners and a third receiver in the slot, each of whom was a headache for the defense. I'm sure he'd tell you that Lofton, Beebe and Reed created those monster years for him by clearing defenders out of the middle.

Thanks. Now I'm really interested in it. I'll take a look.

I have a truly warm spot in my heart for Canisius. Not that it meant much to me as a kid - I went to public school in the suburbs, the Catholic schools didn't play in the public school leagues (I don't think they played in the Sectionals, either), so I never got into the Catholic High School scene. Don't know if I even knew anyone who went there. My lasting memory of Canisius College basketball (and how irrelevant it was), was going to a Canisius-St. Bonaventure doubleheader at the Aud. It was sold out. First game was the Bonnies (with Lanier) and somebody. When the game ended, 2/3 of the fans got up and left and filled the bars in downtown Buffalo to watch Niagara (with Calvin) playing at the Palestra. Nobody except you secret society members stayed for the Canisius game. But as I've been away, and as I've seen resumes from different people in Buffalo and gotten to know people there through various connections, I've been impressed at how Canisius has built a significant part of the backbone of Buffalo. Secret society or not, Canisius has for generations graduated people whose strength and character have been an important part, for all the right reasons, of the survival and rebirth of Buffalo. It's pretty impressive.

I was typing while your were posting this. This is a really clear statement of what your thinking, and it makes sense. I think Beliichick and McB still would disagree with you and stay raising your weaknesses is more important, but they'd definitely agree that their goal is to get better at everything. If you haven't listened to the podcast that HappyDays linked to, I'd recommend it. It does have only nuggets, and this woman is kind of young and starry-eyed, but it's very interesting to hear her talk, briefly, about McD's approach. It is ALL about the team. She says that everything that goes on around him is about everyone getting better. What is Canisius? Sorry. I couldn't resist. I've been gone from WNY for a LONG time, so long that Canisius is starting to look like a word out of some foreign language.

WOW. I've been wondering you say thoughtful things but come out in a really different place than I, and then you explain about Strengthfinders. I'll have to look at it. Reading your explanation of why you think Allen has to bomb away based on the strengthfinders philosophy makes a lot of sense and explains your views on Jesse James. I'm absolutely certain that McDermott would disagree with the Strengthfinders approach. If he believed Strenthfinders, he never would have drafted Allen, because he's always known he wants a more conservative offense. He would have drafted Josh Rosen instead. I suspect there's a whole dialog in the business management world about whether Strengthfinders is a better approach than the philosophy that teaches that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That philosophy says build your entire team to be strong, rather than build your strengths and don't worry so much about your weaknesses. (That philosophy didn't work so well for the French in World War II. They build the strongest imaginable World I defensive line to keep the Germans out. The Germans looked at it, so how strong the defense was, and concluded that it might be strong against foot soldiers but it could be overrun by tanks.) Belichick is definitely anti-Strengthfinders. His philosophy is that he's going to beat you by stopping your greatest strength. So against the Rams (and against a Josh -Allen-deep-ball offense), he's going to take away the deep ball and force the QB to find short passes in the seams. He's going to force you to win using what you're not so good at. His offense is also anti-Strengthfinders. His offense rarely has been truly dominating in one aspect of the game, except perhaps the couple of years when Brady, with Moss's help one year, was throwing the ball all over the place. Most years, Belichick beats you with the run until you stop iit, then he beats you with the short pass until you stop it, then he beats you with the long pass. Belichick's teams have no weak links. Of course, Belichick, great as he is, doesn't have a monopoly on how to do things. However, I think the evidence is pretty clear that McDermott's approach is similar to Bill's and the opposite of Strengthfinders. You can argue that McDermott's approach is wrong, and the fact that you have a book that explains and promotes a contrary philosophy makes me think you've got some good arguments on your side, but I think that until the Bills change head coaches, you're not going to get a Strenthfinders approach. McDermott's philosophy is that a true team, with everyone working to do his job on relying on everyone else to do his, will outperform a team that wins because of one or a few superstars. In the NBA, a few superstars can dominate, but in the NFL it's more or less impossible to get enough superstars on one team to dominate. I think if McDermott were frank with us on this subject, he'd say that they drafted Allen because of his competitiveness, his team-orientation and his brains, and that they viewed his throwing ability as an additional plus. (My wildest dreams for Allen are that he will be the kind of QB like Manning and QB, a coach-on-the-field who can outthink the defenses AND with perhaps the best arm the NFL has ever seen. I'd like to think that's the vision McD had when they drafted him.) You'd say take him because of his arm and make the rest of it work. Bringing it back to James and a phrase that I think you used, James is just a guy. In the Strengthfinders approach, you're not looking for just a guy. In McDermott's approach (except for QB and MLB), he thinks he can win with a bunch of just-a-guys, each of whom is desperately determined not to be the weakest link. It's not that he doesn't want guys with special talent, he does. Special talent gives you the opportunity once in a while on the field to take advantage of those talents to help the team. Gronk's a special talent, but the Pats don't run their offense through him. They use his talents to hurt you every once in a while, but most of the time they're telling Gronk to be just a guy, blocking, running routes, etc. I think McDermott would say that, other than QB and MLB, it doesn't matter so much where the extra talent is. He'd say it doesn't have to be tight end. So I'd think the Bills' view on James probably is he's good as just-a-guy, and he can contribute until we happen to get a Strengthfinders-kind-of-guy. And I think that approach explains why Beane says so adamantly that his approach in the draft is strictly best player available. Especially because they seem to have their QB and MLB, McBeane don't really doesn't care which positions are manned with special talent. (Belichick has shown that lock down corner is the one position where he will chase special talent.) I think McDermott tells Beane (and I think they've told us this) to get guys with the right character traits. When you have a chance to get special talent with those traits, do it, and McD doesn't really care all that much what position the guy plays. If he has a guy with special talent at LG, fine, he'll figure out how to take advantage of it. If it's at DT, fine. Safety, fine. Whoever the guy is, and whatever his talent his, he has to be willing to play within the scheme. That's why Gronk has been so valuable - he's a superstar at his position, playing completely within a team concept. Thanks for explaining where your thinking is coming from. It makes it easier to understand your point of view.

Interesting that when asked who are the young leaders she went immediately to Allen, Edmunds and Dawkins. I didn't know Dawkins had locker room respect. And how perfect that the qb and m l b have become leaders already.

Thanks for this. I didn't hear the interview. Some coaches were very clear about this at the end of the season. It seemed like the single most important thing they want is to get Allen to take the easy completion. I don't know specifics, but I said in some post a day or two ago that they want Allen to throw the ball that has a 90% likelihood of being completed for 5 yards rather than than a ball that's 50% that could go for 30. It seems counter-intuitive, but the metrics guys seem to have figured out that completions are more important than yards. Now, getting Allen to complete 65% of his passes by taking a half dozen easy throws a game doesn't necessarily equate to what we old timers called a ball control offense, unless all you mean is that ball control is opposite of quick strike. And ball control doesn't necessarily mean conservative, either. I think McDermott certainly is smart enough to recognize that he has an amazing weapon hanging off Allen's right shoulder, and he's smart enough to know that it would be foolish of him not to take advantage of it. I think what they're telling Allen is that every time he has a guy open deep, take it. But if the guy is covered, so you have only a 50-60% chance of completing it, don't go there. I think it's not ball control, which is the phrase I used, so much as a philosophy that says make every play positive. On 10 throws, 8 completions is better than 5 completions, even if the 5 go for more yards than the 8. Make every play positive. I'd guess they're telling Allen that the only balls they want incomplete are intentional throw aways.

Well, I don't know how McD would characterize it, because I agree that this offense seemed to be evolving to an offense that could get chunk yards. But the message has been very clear that Allen needs to stop being so aggressively after those plays when a very high percentage short-throw is available. Call it checking down or whatever, that's what they want more of from Allen They want it, I think, NOT because they want to go all west coast on anyone and win with what's a disguised running game. They want it because when they take the high percentage check down regularly and effectively, it draws the defense in and the mid and long range passing game opens up. It's not ball control in the sense that we want to hold on to the ball and keep the score low. It's ball control so we can keep it and score whenever and wherever the opportunity occurs. I'm convinced the Bills want a high percentage of POSITIVE PLAYS than we saw last year. They don't want any plays that go for zero yards or less, and incomplete passes do that. I think McDermott's philosophy is to make the throw that has a 90% chance of being completed for five instead of the throw that has a 50% chance of gaining 30. I'll be amazed if Allen's completion percentage doesn't go into the low 60s next season. It will happen because he'll check down more often. I think of that as ball control.

You're correct about this. And the Bill's are moving from big play to more of a ball control offense. TE Sean and curl routes are important to ball control.

I don't hate the Patriots, but I have to agree with you. And your post is LOL FUNNY!!

Thanks. People seem to be missing this point.

I was reading the posts about Gronk and I realized why I think some people's belief in the importance of a tight end is misplaced. People think that KC is good because they have a good tight end and New England is good because they have a good tight end. It's true that their tight ends are important parts of the success of their teams. The point is, however, that they aren't essential. Teams are good because they have (1) good coaches, (2) a good quarterback, (3) some other stars and (4) a lot of good of role players. One of the stars doesn't have to be a tight end. If it is, fine. Belichick and Brady won without a great tight end. When they got one, the offense changed, but they had a good offense before they had Gronk. James wouldn't be a star. He'd be one of the good role players. If the Bills find a star tight end, great. The Bills will run their offense through him. But if they find a star wideout, then the offense will go through the wideout.

Thanks. I appreciate the thoughtful response.

Maybe better than Chandler, but yes. Might complaint about these discussions is that many fans say that this free agent or that free agent is a "camp body" or a "stopgap" or "good depth," as though the Bills are going to sign All-Pros at every position. Most guys on every team are average NFL players at their positions, and the teams win or lose depending on (1) coaching and (2) the QB. Clay let us down last season, Thomas didn't look like de's the guy and Croom isn't built to be a true tight end. James would be a nice, solid addition to the lineup.

I agree. He has a nice little burst that lets him get to the open spot quickly. Clay was a decent old-fashioned tight end. James is an up grade from that. Moves better, has better hands, but still has the bulk to be the blocker you need.

Gentlemen, 90% of the players on the roster are bodies, not talent. Six to ten guys are talent. TE is NOT the position that I care so much about when it comes to talent. Give me talent at QB, running back, one or two wide outs, one or two offensive linemen, edge rusher, one or two linebackers and one or two DBs. A talent at tight end is a luxury.

Right. The Bills will sign very few guys who have been in the league more than four or five years. They want a few veteran leaders; everyone else are likely to be guys coming off their first contract.

I don't agree with this. I think teams these days want one or two big tight ends who can handle the blocking load and be solid outlet and one or two who are sort of hybrid wideouts who may give up some on the blocking side but are more legitimate downfield threats. Croom is clearly the latter, with good hands and decent speed. I think we'll see more of him next season. If he's gone, it will mean that the Bills have a really good collection of TEs.

Why a stopgap? I watched the video of him and had this reaction: Good all around TE. Good size. Not the fastest of all TEs, but he runs pretty well. Not the most powerful in the Gronk sense, and he goes down pretty easily, but he's big and can take the hit. Watch him play and it's clear he's an upgrade over Clay, and Clay wasn't horrible. I don't want a tight end who is the feature receiver in my lineup; I want a guy who's a reliable guy who runs good routes and catches the ball when it's thrown to him. James looks like that kind of guy. If the Bills do what we're expecting, which is to get Allen to take the sure-thing short pass instead of the well covered middle-range ball, James looks like a good tight end for that scheme. He lost playing time in 2018 to Vance MacDOnald, but I think that's more of an indication of how good MacDonald was, not that James isn't good enough. He's young, good size. If he believes in the process, I think he'd be a nice addition.

I think that is EXACTLY the question. I have a lot of confidence that he can build an organization. And I'm not worried about talent evaluation. He and Beane will do that well enough. I think football strategy and tactics involves some creativity that a coach either has or doesn't. I simply don't know if he has what it takes in that category. He can hire good coordinators, I suppose. The reality is that if McDermott builds the organization and doesn't have the strategic ability, the process will require Beane to replace McDermott. But you don't have to out scheme every other coach. When you get to the playoffs all teams have strengths and weaknesses. And the teams are generally pretty evenly matched. And no one is going to outscheme Belichick. Bottom line for me is that I think McDermott's process can get the Bills to the playoffs. We will see what happens when they get there. )

I don't know the college players, so I can't add any names. However, I think that what you've said demonstrates EXACTLY how McBeane will approach the draft.

It's not my mind that has to be changed. I'm not a football coach, so I don't know how to build and rebuild a football team. I'm telling you what I think four people - McBeane and the Pegulas, are thinking. I believe that's what they're thinking because that's what they're saying about what they're doing. You've now gotten to the real point. You think their plan is flawed. That's fine. As I'e said, you've given some good examples of recent NFL rebuilds and shown that those rebuilds achieved results more quickly than the Bills have. I get that, and as I've said, you may very well be correct - it may be that those examples are the only way to build successfully and the fab four in Buffalo don't know what they're doing. If I had a high degree of confidence that they were wrong, I'd be joining your chorus. However, I've spent a lot of my football time in the past few years watching and thinking (and writing) about what Belichick does, and it looks to me like Belichick does what I described above. He built a foundation, he keeps adding to the foundation. Having the foundation, the work ethic, the competitiveness, the intense competitive desire, built into the locker room has allowed Belichick to sustain his team's level of excellence. Given that McBeane appear to be attempting to build what Belichick has, I can't get upset that they didn't get it done in two years or that they may not have it done in three years.

1. I'[m glad you agree. 2. I'm not going to go back and look (I looked yesterday), but Seattle for one had several strong seasons, two bad ones and Carroll came in. Chargers WEREN'T one, except they had their QB in place. I think the Vikings had a solid core in place and had had a few good seasons followed by one or two bad ones. Kansas City has been an odd franchise for about 10 years - they've always had a good collection of players, some good years followed by one or two bad ones followed by good ones. Point being, I don't think all of these teams you listed were actually full-blown rebuilds, which is what the Bills are doing. But I'm not really arguing the point, because even if your list has a few teams that aren't really good examples, it has several teams that ARE. 3. But this is the important point that you're missing. I mean, you may be right, and the if you aren't succeeding by the end of year three, you're failing as a coach. However, I don't think McBeane would agree with you, I don't think they agreed with you when they started this job, and I think the Pegulas agree with them, not you. I haven't said it before, but here's why I think McBeane are doing something different and why your examples aren't pertinent: There is something that goes along with your "win in three years or you're done" approach. It's sort of the typical NFL approach. What goes along with the typical approach is that you're on a roller coaster - be good for a few years, fall, rebuild, be good, etc. McBeane have said from the beginning (without naming them) that they want to be like the Patriots. They want to build something that is good year after year after year. The Steelers are the other example. They want to be in the mix every year, they want to be over .500 every year. They're argument is that there is a right way to build that kind of program, and the right way is piece by piece, building the right foundation first and then growing from there. Now, as usual, I'm not saying this is right or wrong. Your view of this could very well be right and it IS the NFL norm. What I'm saying is that this is what McBeane are doing, and it is the program that, at least for now, the Pegulas have bought. We've seen what that means. The foundation is the most important thing - the team, the entire organization - has to run on the right principles. Those are commitment to one another, intense competitive drive, honesty, continuous improvement. If you don't operate on those principles, you have to go. If you do, you can stay so long as you continue to improve and no one comes along with same values who also is better at doing what you're supposed to do. It means mistakes are okay, so long as you learn from them, don't make that mistake again, and get better at your job. So, for example, McD screwing up the Peterman situation is okay - he's a rookie coach, he's learning, etc. and so long as he internalizes the right lessons from the mistake, a Peterman screw up doesn't mean he gets fired. In order to run a system like that, the first step is to evaluate what you have, throw out the people who don't fit, start teaching the ones who do fit how to behave in the system. That process took place in years one and two. All of the hold overs who don't fit are now gone. The thing about a system like this is that it is NOT immediately concerned about bringing in talent. It's concerned about bringing in people who work in the system. You can see that in the fact that the Bills did NOT go out and acquire free agent talent like Woods and Watkins - they let that talent go. Why? Because, as Beane as said, talent is secondary to the right values. So rebuilding this way necessarily is slower, because ON THE FIELD you don't get immediate results. You don't have a Watkins or a Woods to make plays for you. So the Rams turn around fast and the Bills don't, because talent on the field has immediate impacts. What McBeane are trying to do is build an environment where everyone operates on the values they think are important. When they have that environment, each new player who comes in learns to behave the same way more easily, because everyone in the building is doing it. I think McBeane would tell you that once they have that culture built, a guy who comes in with talent like Watkins will have a completely different career, because the first things he learns when he comes in are the team values. He sees them all over the place. As someone once said, it's a process. They have a process, everyone in the building, including the owners, understand and buy into the process. If McBeane are correct in what they're doing the Bills may take longer than others to get good, but they will STAY good longer. If they're wrong, they'll be gone. But the owners understand that this process takes longer to find out if they're right or wrong than the "flip the talent and see what happens" approach.

There things about this: 1. You make a good point with this list. 2. Some of those weren't classic rebuilds. Some of those teams were good, 8-10 win teams that had a bad season or two, changed coaches and won. 3. Whatever, McD's 4th season is likely the season that he and Beane have targeted as the beginning of a multiple season playoff run. 2019 would be nice, but I think 2020 is the target.