Shaw66

I share your viewpoint to a point, but not all the way. I"m one of the first to decry all these online "experts" who are analyzing this and that. Very few of them were players, fewer still were coaches and none either played or coached in the NFL for a serious career. A lot of these arguments about accuracy, throwing guys open, throwing over the middle are being written by seriously under-informed people. I agree. However, some people are better at what they do than others. I, for one, find the Cover1 analysis generally pretty good. Not perfect, and I'm skeptical because it isn't a guy with 15 hears experence coaching offense in the NFL, but I find when I read what he says and look at the video he presents, his judgments about what's going on are pretty good. And I think you're wrong about footwork, or mechanics more generally, and accuracy. Yes, guys have different styles, arm angles, etc. However, there are some fundamental things about mechanics that you find with all successful quarterbacks, like how the upper body opens up on the throw. So you can start with that. And some QBs succeed despite themselves - no coach is going to teach his 10th grade QB to throw like Rivers does. That motion ust isn't very effective for throwing the ball; Rivers makes it work because of outstanding athletic ability, but you aren't going to teach your kid to do that. Favre, too. But if you watch Rodgers on the run, even though he throws from all different positions and arm angles, the fundamentals of throwing motion are always there, and always pure. Finally, if you don't want to talk about this stuff, fine, don't. But there is SOME merit to it and SOME people do want to talk about it. If the conversation has to stop because none of us is a true expert, because none of us really knows what we're talking about, well, then the entire forum has to be shut down. I mean, all I could post is "I like Allen." If I write "I like Allen because ...," then everything that follows should be deleted because I'm not an expert.

For an amateur operation, Cover1 is really nicely done. I'm never sure he's completely correct on this stuff, but his analysis is always sound. Here's my take: 1. You can't throw the ball with the velocity and, often, the accuracy that Allen does without having fundamentally good mechanics. All his measurables in the throwing area are excellen - release time, velocity, etc. The guy has fundamentally good mechanics. So the mechanical problems are not problems with his THROWING, which is what you find with plenty of guys who have mechanical problems. 2. Allen's problems shown in this article and videos are that his footwork in advance of his throw is sometimes flawed, which leaves him in the wrong position when it's time to throw. Then he delays the throw and misses the window or he hurries the throw and his mechanics then suffer, affecting his accuracy. I think the difference between those two points is critical. I agree with those who say changing mechanics in an athlete at this level is very difficult. You can try to remake the throwing motion, but when the pressure is on in game situations, most athletes revert to the muscle memory they've developed over several years. What they practice on Wednesday goes out the window on Sunday. That's why most QBs with mechanical issues in their throwing motion, guys in category 1, never overcome the problem. Allen's not in category 1. He has a great throwing motion. Allen's in category 2. Essentially, the problem Cover1 describes is that Allen hasn't learned the steps to the dance. Sometimes he's doing the cha-cha when he's supposed to be waltzing. That's a different problem, and an easier problem to correct than being in category 1. Any athlete can learn the dance steps. In fact, teams spend a lot of time teaching that. On most NFL passing plays, the ball is released quickly, and QBs are taught to take precise steps preliminary to the pass. THey're taught which foot takes the first step, how far, etc. Step, step, step, pass. It's all choreographed. Allen can learn that. Where Cover1's analysis is more relevant is when Allen is forced to move or scramble. That's not most plays, but it's enough to make a difference. Then, Allen's ability to set a good base with his feet, not spread too much, feet moving, etc., becomes more important. Those things can be taught, but like the throwing motion, the question is whether the teaching will hold when he's under pressure. For that, we'll just have to wait and see.

I like the glasses.

Nice job. Good length. Reasonable stuff to say. Great video. You might think a little more about what to say about the video, and replay some of the video as you explain your points. The plays were going by faster than you could say something meaningful. I like that your level-headed about this. I like that you have solid basic knowledge plus you've dug and found some information not everyone might now. I like how you show a lot of video from one game. It doesn't fell cherry-picked. I like your tone. You're good on camera, because, I suppose, you're a seasoned performer. Keep it up. It's worth watching. As for Allen, I always do this (get more excited from week to week about any big move the Bills make), but I'm really liking the Allen decision. Picking a QB is a crapshoot, but .... I watch your video and see one magnificent thrower. As good a thrower as you'll ever see - accuracy, touch, arm strength. He's the entire package. At least on the video you show, I also agree with about accuracy. There is no accuracy problem on display in those replays, and I'm guessing you're showing just about every throw he made. Plus, he's smart, he's a hard-worker and he's an intense competitor. I kept watching the video and wondering what the Browns, Jets and Broncos were thinking. I think everyone is going to talking about Josh Allen, if not this season or next season, certainly by 2020. Thanks for the work.

Good list with good reasons.

Man, Shady wishes he could do what OJ could day. That said, as I've said in this thread, Shady is underrated around the country. If he gains 2000 yards more in his career (barring injury, he should make it no problem), he's 16th on the all-time list, right there with Thurman. He's 27th on the yards per attempt list, right there with OJ. 15 more rushing touchdowns in his career (also quite likely), he's 18th all-time, right there with Marshawn. The guy is special. And, once again, not many teams have had running backs like Buffalo. OJ, Thurm, Lynch, Shady, Cribbs and Cookie. And Freddie. Wow.

Right. That plus his injury are why he wasn't drafted. But he looks like a hard worker, knows his assignments and executes. That's the kind of guy McDermott likes. They'll work on his technique.

Thanks for posting this. I wasn't in Buffalo in those days and never saw Hooks play. Some fantastic running in this video.

Watch the video. He looks pretty good. Gets pushed back into the QB too much - doesn't look strong enough to hold his ground. But watch how he's mastered his assignments. He's good at handing off a pass rusher to the guard and picking it up the outside rush. Also gets to the second level nicely in the run game. Kind of guy who will do his job.

I really don't recall what he did in pass protection. Probably not much. Making guys miss? OJ was one of the best all-time. Maybe top five. Good as OJ was, I might give Shady the edge. Shady is the only guy I've seen who approaches what Sanders could do. Pass receiving? Outstanding. Great hands. Incredible after the catch. Plenty of Bills fans say Thurman was a better receiver, but I don't think so. The Bills ran a different offense and threw more to Thurman, but Simpson's averages were better. Simpson had more yards per catch and more touchdowns per catch. OJ was a top 5 all-time running back. Shady is underrated, but I doubt anyone who saw them both play would take Shady over OJ.

No, it isn't arguable. I love McCoy, but Simpson was head and shoulders above him. As someone said, the Bills have had good running backs. Maybe the best collection running backs of any team in the league. Bears has Peyton and Sayers and Forte. Cowboys. Browns. Simpson, Thomas, McCoy, Gilchrist, Cribbs, Lynch. Name a team where Fred Jackson would be the SEVENTH best back in franchise history.

OJ was the best. Thurm is my favotite. Freddy is second.

You make a good point about someone's coaching history. He's unproven, for sure, but having a guy who's lived with Belichick for multiple seasons and then Saban, he's been prepped about as well as he could be. I think McDermott is all about teaching, letting people grow and giving them responsibility for what they do. I think that Daboll now has a great opportunity. McD will tell him what McD wants, but he's going to ask Daboll to figure out how to deliver it. That is, McD is asking Daboll to create an offense that will work with the talent they have and will work as the talent upgrades. If Daboll has learned from Billy Boy and Saban, he should be up to the task.

DP - Thanks for the great post. I, too, think people will be surprised by the quality of the offense. I think you way overstate the significance of the change to EP. If it were that obvious that EP is superior in all respects, EVERY team in the league would run it. I mean, if the only reason the Pats offense is good and diverse is because of EP, every team would be doing it. There's a lot more to it than that. And, from the the things I read when Daboll signed on, EP really is a nomenclature system. The articles all said pretty much all the teams run all the same plays; it's just that the play call is different. Having said that, I don't understand WHY all teams don't run it. It certainly is a good explanation as to why the Pats can get in and out of the huddle and snap it quickly. I like the idea that with just a few words, a whole route tree can be called and can be adjusted by formation. It just makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for the recap of the system. I'm not sure your conclusion about passing to the backs is correct. As I understand EP, the backs can be just as active in the passing game - it just depends on the formation. If the second man from the outside is a back in a certain formation, then he runs a particular route. If he's the third man from the outside, he runs a different route. Again, EP doesn't so much dictate that the pass plays are different; it's that the play call is simpler (for the QB). It isn't simpler for the receiver, because he has know the entire route tree and figure out which route is his, based on the formation - essentially, in EP the QB can know where he's going find A receiver without necessarily knowing which receiver it's going to be. SOME receiver is in the flat, SOME receiver is running the post, SOME receiver will be sitting in the short middle. It's easy to see how it makes life simpler for the QB. My view is that what's going to make the offense better is (1) better NFL-style quarterbacking from McCarron (or Allen if he somehow wins the job). By that I mean, better decision making pre- and post-snap. The EP scheme may help McCarron (just as it probably would have helped Taylor). (2) Receivers better suited to the style of play. We don't know exactly who the receivers will be, except that we should expect Benjamin and Jones to be the primary receivers. The emphasis is going to be on precise route running and recognition of the defenses. I'm a big believer that people tend to way overvalue receivers. When you think about it, how many receivers can you name who consistently beat their defender and get wide open? Not very many; most of the time when a receiver is open, it's because he ran his route well and the pattern or scheme created the opportunity. The receiver just takes advantage of the opportunity. That's why the Pats can get a lot of mileage out of a Hogan, for example. (3) Solid but not dominant offensive line play. I think the style of play that McD wants for the Bills is, as you say, plug-and-play. It's a style where each player has a precise job to do on each play, and the job can be accomplished by any NFL-calibre player (in terms of athleticism and experience). So, for example, I get the sense that McD is perfectly comfortable that Dawkins can be the left tackle, that Mills can be the right tackle, that Groy can be one of the interior guys and Ducasse can be another. I know those aren't popular names across the line, but the fans' opinion isn't what matters. I think McD is confident that he can get effective play from those guys and that all he needs is one more. Maybe a rookie. Maybe a free agent they haven't signed yet. It isn't going to be a juggernaut offense, but I think it's going to surprise people. One final thought: Ivory is a pro's pro. He's going to be a significant contributor on this team.

My mental image of McCarron is one of a well-coached, dedicated all around athlete who achieves very well if he's in the right college environment. The right environment is where there's good talent on the team and good coaching, where the QB is expected to execute the plays but not be a playmaker. Frankly, that's what I think Dalton looks like. In that sense, he's good for McDermott, for whom ideal player is one who does his job as well as he can every play. I think Dalton will be solid starter for the Bills, until Allen takes over. When will Allen take over? When he can execute the offense nearly as well as McCarron can. Why will he take over? Because the quality of his arm and his physical talents generally will allow Allen to be a playmaker as well as a field general. So when Allen's field generalship approaches McCarron's, in 2018 or 2019, Allen's athletic superiority will be enough to get him on the field.

Right. Article demonstrates broad ignorance of what the Bills are doing and of McD's philosophy. McD intends to make the playoffs in 2018, and his plan is to do it with an improved offense and a much better defense. Theres a difference betwewn building and rebuilding. Rebuilding involves tearing down. Bills are essentially done with that. They're still building.

I'm getting close.

I will be there with a priest. I hope that helps.

My comment was comparing Edmunds to Keuchly. Read the OP and tell us if you disagree.

6. He's a good teammate. 7. He loves to compete. McDermott loves this guy.

Yes, Berg and Hapless. You're right on. He's going to keep on doing the same thing - talking to a lot of insiders, getting to cover the big games. But he won't be responsible for a lot of stuff that adds stress to his current job. The stuff about giving the youngsters a chance is pure bull ****. If he liked his job at SI, or if SI had reduced his responsibilities and given him more money, he would have stayed, youngsters be damned. My opinion of King changed the day he told this story. He went to spring training and was sitting down the right field line. Some young phenom he'd come to see, like Mike Trout, someone who has really highly touted but hadn't yet made a big splash in the majors, was playing. The guy homered to right, and King wanted to save the ball as a souvenir. He was pretty close, so he left his seat and headed to the open space behind the fence. The ball was there on ground, and there was another ball out there, too. Some nine year-old kid ran out to get the ball, and he asked King which ball was the home-run ball. King, in his column explained that he identified the wrong ball, so that the kid wouldn't take King's souvenir. I'm not buying that King is leaving SI to give the youngsters a chance.

The guy writes a great column. He's plugged in all around the NFL and gets great information. He has great insights into the game. He also has an enormous ego. He can be pompous and condescending. He's Boston centric to a fault. Still, he's great at what he does. I'm glad he isn't retiring.

This is the point. And it's a point that I think many people miss. Coaching is really important. In football, it is more important than anything else, including total team talent, except for the QB. Did you see Al Horford after the game on Saturday? He was asked about the in-bounds play that got Horford a layup late in the game. The first words out of his mouth were "Brad Stevens is a genius." In football, the differences between teams in total team talent (other than QB) are minimal. Except for the occasional horrible team or two, my team's total talent is always pretty close to your team's talent. The draft, free agency and the salary cap make that happen. Are there some differences? Sure. And do those differences make a difference in games? Yes. But coaching makes a bigger difference. Belichick doesn't have better talent than everyone else, year after year. Andy Reid doesn't. It's too early to tell about McDermott, but his first season in Buffalo certainly was encouraging. This season is a big test for him. Many of his players are returning and know the system. He's gotten rid of the guys he thinks didn't fit. He's added players he thinks do fit. As he's said, they aren't done. He needs 2019 to add more rookies and free agents, but then he'll have a roster full of the kind of guys he wants. This season, he's still working with less than he wants. If he's a great coach, the Bills will win 2018 like they did in 2017, by being really well prepared and doing the little things right. I think they've won three. Merger was about 35-40 years ago. I first learned the lesson about the importance of coaching 30 years ago, when Jim Calhoun came to UConn. Prior to Calhoun's arrival, UConn was pretty bad, pretty consistently. I went to a game in Calhoun's first season. The opponent pressed, and UConn broke it easily. That's when I knew things were going to be different. Those players, more or less the same players that had been there the year before, were prepared for whatever came. Calhoun got them ready. It wasn't about talent. It was about coaching.

Well, the first 20 yards are the most important, so that's an edge to Keuchly. But it's not a significant edge. As I said, I think it's a push. If the discussion is whether one is a little better athlete than other, i think the discussion is over. You're talking about premier athletes. Bills got one.