Shaw66

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.

I prefer the journeyman backup. Your backup is never going to be as good as you starter; what you want in a backup is someone who's not going to screw things up while you're waiting for the starter to returner. The developmental QB is a bigger risk as a backup. IF Allen turns out to be a keeper, developmental QBs just take a roster or PS spot that would be better spend on an extra DB. If your developmental QB is any good, you lose him in free agency.

No one can predict the future. All we can do is comment on where things are right now. The only way things could be better would be to have Luck, who is the only mature QB in the game who looks like a star and who isn't in the tail end of his career. I didn't assume anything. The Bill's have the guy they've identified as their QB of the future. No team knows if their QB of the future will succeed. The Bills are no different. Under the circumstances, the most the Bill's could hope for is exactly what they have.

Pretty strong arguments. Thanks.

Me too. Bills could have the same three QBs for the nest 5 years. When they no longer are willing to carry 3 QBs, they'll make Anderson an assistant QB coach.

Plenty of others have had this thought, but it just struck me how well the Bills are set up at QB. They have the guy they think is their QB for the next 10 to 15 years. They have a journeyman backup who will know the system and can step in and run things if Allen is injured. And they have a senior journeyman to mentor the kid and even to mentor the journeyman backup, because Anderson has plenty of experience BOTH as a starter and as a backup. It would be nice to think that McBeane planned it this way, but we all saw how the Bills actually got to this position. If they were good enough to plan those events, they should be running the country, not the Bills.

It's funny. When you step back and look at it, there are multiple, different, equally valid ways to look at what McBeane have done since they arrived. Your view is my view when I'm feeling most optimistic. You've reminded me of some things, one of which is that in the first several weeks of the 2018 season many people, on this board, in the media and around the country were talking about the 2018 Bills possibly being the worst team in NFL history. Football Outsiders wrote weekly about it for about six weeks, comparing the Bills' DVOA to the worst teams in history. Even after the Bills beat the Vikings, worst ever continued to be the theme. No on was calling them the worst ever in December. And as you point out, this was a team where many of the stars and near stars had been sent packing (Watkins, Dareus, Gilmore, Woods, Glenn, Taylor, Preston Brown), they had a second year head coach, a rookie defensive coordinator, a completely unsettled quarterback situation and no receivers. Looked at from that perspective, there's no reason to be unhappy with McBeane after their first two years. But that's one perspective. As others have pointed out, there have been serious telltale signs of dysfunctionality, like horribly lopsided losses, undisciplined performance (the flood of penalties) and some totally unfathomable player personnel decision making (Peterman. I mean, really?). Those are signs that McD's team is out of control and McD doesn't know what he's doing. I can't sit here and feel all warm and fuzzy about the Bills when I think about them at their worst over the past two years. These conflicting thoughts lead me to the conclusion I stated before: in some ways, 2019 is the the first year we really get to see what McBeane have been doing. Over their first two seasons, there has been some bad coaching and some good coaching, there have been some bad personnel decisions and some good ones,, there have been some bad games and some good ones. In 2019, there are no explanations, no excuses. They will have players they chose, they will not have been hampered by salary cap constraints, McD will have his coaching and teaching process firmly implanted in his core players, including his QB and MLB. McD will have had a couple years to develop and refine his head coaching skills and to correct initial mistakes in the head coaching ranks. The 2019 team will be the first team under McBeane's leadership that will show what kind of football their process produces. It won't be the full-blown version of McBeane football, because a lot of the players on the field will be in their first year of the McBeane process, but it will be the first version. 2020 will be the second. If McBeane know what they're doing, 2019 will be measurably better than 2018, both in terms of individual play and wins (they should win 8-9, maybe more). If they don't know what they're doing, we'll see more sloppy play, more lopsided losses, more inconsistent performances. If that happens AND if they win 6 or fewer, it's possible they won't get the chance to see how their process works in 2020.

That's a much better way to say it. It is the entire body of work, and in the case of this HC, it's the entire body of work measured against very precisely defined goals and objectives. When I was responding to Virgil, I almost mentioned the blowout losses, too. They have to stop. Now, even Belichick gets blown out once in a while, actually almost every season. But three or four in a season says the team is seriously deficient in some ways. Week to week high quality competitive product is right. I think it's possible to do that and go 7-9, even 6-10 under unusual circumstances. I like what you said.