Shaw66

I don't think I'm exaggerating his value. I think we certainly agree that we are not writing him ANOTHER contract like the last one. And we agree that its okay to pay him 2018.

I said one of the best, not the best. It's really very simple: The way to determine the best running backs in the league is to imagine you're putting together a team for one season, 2018, and you can have any running back you want, for a free. Age isn't a consideration, contract, none of that. Just ask a simple question: which running back do you want? You're taking Orleans Darkwa before you'd take Shady. Good for you. You're maybe the only GM in the country who would do that. If I'm taking a running back, Shady's somewhere around fifth on my list, behind Bell, Elliott, maybe the guy in Atlanta and I'm sure there are one or two more. But Bell and Elliott may be the only two that everyone would agree on. Shady's in the top five of anyone who's thinking clearly about this. It's a simple, demonstrable fact that Shady's been, on average, the best running back in the league over the past seven or eight years. Not the best in every season - in fact - he's had the best season only once or twice over that period. But he's consistently, more so than any other back, in the top 5 over that period. The only question with Shady in 2018 is whether he's lost his edge. Based on 2017, I think the answer is pretty clear - not so much that it matters. In 2017 Shady was, once again, one of the very best running backs in the league. You can cherry pick data, like yards per attempt, but use your eyes and your brains. Those runs for losses, they were largely the fault of the oline. All through the 2017 season, people complained here bitterly, not about Shady but about the fact that the O coordinator and the Oline coach changed the offensive line run blocking scheme. Why did people complain? Because defenders were in the backfield all the time, that's why. I get that there are other considerations. I get that you might believe, and I'll agree with you, that it may not be worth spending top dollar for one of the best running backs, because you can have an Orleans Darkwa for a lot less, and he'll give you nice production. And if Shady had three-years left on a big contract, it might make sense to let him go. But that's not the situation. Shady is a legitimate top-five running back getting paid what top-five running backs get paid. In 2017 he clearly was still in his prime, and there's no reason to believe he won't still be there in 2018. He gives you an advantage over Orleans Darkwa because, well, he's just better. He's been better than just about everyone for several years. He gets yardage that others don't get. He plays hurt. He catches passes. He's just better. Is he so much better that he's worth the extra money he gets? Maybe not. But he's better, and when 1:00 Sunday afternoon comes around, I'm glad the Bills have him on the field instead of Orleans Darkwa.

That's really dumb. The guy is regularly in the top 5 in rushing in the league, regularly in the top 5 in total yards from scrimmage. Over the past 7 or 8 seasons he's probably been the best running back in the league. He plays hurt. Almost all of his negative yards plays come when he has no hole and a lineman has missed his assignment. So the best running back in the league has the second highest running back contract in the league, and you're complaining. He's worth every nickel.

other than this, he'd be perfect.

All the articles say all teams run more or less the same plays. So I don't think Ehrhardt Perkins teams are coming at you with fewer plays or a more simplified offense. It's more that the way plays are identified is simpler. The basic point seems to be that a route tree from half the field has a name, like "slick." If the QB says right slick, the three receivers who will line up on the right know that the outside receiver does one thing, the slot guy does a second and the inside receiver does a third thing. Now, you can do it out of any formation, so if you're in trips, the three receivers all know what's what. But if you have one wideout and a tight end with a guy in the slot, the slot guy still knows what he's doing. But if the slot guy goes in motion to the left, now the tight end is the second guy and the running back is the third. So you can run the route tree from all different formations. If you have six named route trees and four formations, that's essentially 24 different passing plays. And that's just on the right. You're doing something similar on the left. Then, from week to week, they may decide that against the defense they're facing they need a different tree, or they need one receiver to cut the opposite way. So for that week there may a new route tree. Or "slick" might get varied. Over the course of the season, you're modifying and growing the offense. What's nice about it is that it's easier for the QB. Under the other systems, each receiver gets a pattern that's identified in the play call, so the QB essentially is telling each guy what do to on each play. If during the week they add some wrinkles, it's new instructions to give to each receiver. It sounds like it gets really cumbersome, and you're layering more and more stuff on the QB. The EP system makes all of that simpler. It means the receivers have to be doing their homework during the week and paying attention on Sunday, because "slick" may be a little different this week. One of the benefits in the EP system, if you have continuity in the system and the personnel, is that you can install something for week 2 and come back to it in week 17, and it's familiar to everyone. I read somewhere that the Pats will go back several YEARS to bring back a scheme they used in one game or another. Brady's smart and he remembers them, but the point isn't so much Brady's memory as it is that with very little difficulty they add or bring back wrinkles with names that fit right into the system, so everyone gets it.

Thanks. Good stuff. I think after the game Williams said something about avoiding the interference call. That means he was focused on the wrong thing, and I agree that's a coaching problem. To me, the most amazing thing about the INT Butler got win the Super Bowl against the Seahawks was not that Seattle didn't run Marshawn. It was that during the week the Patriots coaches told Butler that on the goal line in that formation the Seahawks will run that inside slant play. He was told that the most important thing was that he could not let the receiver get inside position on him - he had to step up soon enough so that he'd have a play on the ball. Seahawks come out in the formation, and then it was a simple matter of executing. As I said, Belichick's safety knows his job and makes the play against the Vikings. And if Gregg Williams was still the DC at New Orleans, the Saints safety makes the right play. Micah Hyde makes the right play. It's about being taught and playing within yourself.

As I think about it, what's particularly interesting is the comment in the article about week to week changes. You mention that it's hard to know whether the Pats are run- or pass-oriented from week to week. The article talks about how it's easy in any week to install variations off the concepts. That is, the receivers learn that this week when they're running this concept, they make an in-cut instead of an out-cut. The nomenclature doesn't change; it's still fundamentally the same pattern, but the receiver breaks it off a different way. Again, this spreads the responsibility - instead of the QB needing to change how he calls the play so he gives the receiver all the info he needs to run his route, the QB calls the same play and the QB knows this week the cut is different. It puts more responsibility on the receiver, because he has to have learned the weekly change, too. The more I learn about what Belichick does, the more I marvel at his ability to train his players to be active thinkers on the field. They all have to understand what's going on in this play or that play, they all are expected to understand how the play may be run differently at different times in the game. All the complexity he sees gets down-loaded to players - the players only learn the principles that govern their play and the play of the guys around them, the QB has to learn it all. Belichick has remarkable success getting his players to think along with him. Just because Daboll was worked in the system doesn't mean that he can get players to perform that way. However, I think McD imposes the same kind of expectations on his players as Belichick does, so maybe Daboll is a good fit. We'll see.

I just looked through the first page and a half of posts, and it seems most people except you are making more of this article than it is. As you say, the article is verbiage, nomenclature. And as you say, regardless of nomenclature, most teams, including the Pats, run the same plays. The interesting point to me was that this system tends to be more QB-centric, that is, it allows the QB to talk about plays in ways that help him think about what's happening. Simply by using one word, he knows what all his receivers are doing on one half of the field. It makes life easier for the QB, and it makes a life a little more complicated for the receivers, because they have to know which route to run depending on where he's lined up in the formation. That is, it off loads some responsibility from the QB to other players. Brady doesn't have to know which wideout is second from the outside and tell the wideout what to do. All he has to know is whoever that wideout is, he's running a particular pattern. And, playing for Belichick, if you're the wideout and you don't know your assignment, you're sitting. None of this says much about the offensive philosophy. It doesn't say the offense will be run- or pass-oriented. Remember, it's just about how the plays are communicated to the players, not about the nature of the plays. It's also noteworthy that in one of the articles there was a suggestion that it was time for Daboll to leave Alabama because Saban wants to go to more of a spread-formation college-type offense. In other words, more passing and less running. So I wouldn't be quick to expect Daboll to be a pass-first guy. I think McD is a run-first guy - he's a fundamental-football guy, and I don't think he called up Daboll and asked him how he'd like to run an offense that throws the ball 40 plays a game. One thing I think about this change is that it's another indication that McD isn't planning on Tyrod being the guy. If he wanted to keep Tryrod around, he wouldn't be changing systems. He'd want to keep Tyrod in the same system for a second season. With a new system being installed, Tyrod has no advantage over anyone else competing for the job. I think we have to wait and see.

RIght. Plus, what it did for me is solidify my belief that football is much more complicated than all of us arm-chair coaches think it is. I mean, how many of us BEFORE EVERY PLAY is first checking if there's a 1- 2- or 3-deep safety set, checking the defensive formation inside the tackles and making a note of the deployment of the backs? That's before the play. Then you have to watch where 22 guys go and note it all. Who does that? That's why when someone says Tyrod missed this or didn't do that, I don't trust it. The person who says that here rarely understands everything that was going on in a play. I'm not criticizing anyone. I do it too. We all focus on what we see; my point is that there's a lot that most of us don't see and don't know. Even watching the all-22, we don't know what each player's assignment was. Take a guy like Brian Daboll. He played football in college, which already puts him way ahead of most of us in football knowledge. For the past 20 years, he's been studying film. He's survived because he worked at it from day 1,. He did well enough after a few years in college to get a shot as a defensive coaching assistant at New England. He was a grunt, and he was breaking down film. He must have been good at it, because after two years Belichick promoted him. Then he got some OC jobs, and then Belichick brought him back. Then Nick Saban hired him; Saban and Belichick are buddies, so you know Belichick told Saban the truth about Daboll and Saban trusted Belichick. All the while, Daboll was studying details like the details described in this article. He's seeing things, reporting them, and I"m sure eventually making creative suggestions about what to do next. A guy like that sees detail and has a level of understanding that goes way beyond what I know. Way beyond. And, by the way, that's why I think 95% of the discussion here and on television, discussion about this player or that, is pointless. Winning and losing is not nearly so much about the relative talent of the players - it's about what the coaches know, what they can teach, and what they can create. The missed tackle that lost the game for the Saints, that wasn't because the guy was a bad player, wasn't talented enough. It was because he was coached well enough, trained well enough. Belichick's safety doesn't make that mistake, and I'm happy to say that McDermott's safety doesn't make that mistake, either. Why not? Because Belichick, and I think McD, teaches his players situational football. Belichick's safety is actively aware of several important requirements on that play and executes accordingly. He knows to do these things, in order of importance: 1. Don't get beat deep. 2. Make the tackle. 3. Don't interfere. 4. Keep the guy in bounds. The Saints guy apparently skipped 1 and 2 and made the play as 3 was the most important point. Well-coached football players don't make that mistake. It has nothing to do with how good the player is. Do some players know these things intuitively? Sure, but most players don't. They're taught, they're trained and they understand it's their job to execute.

Thanks for the post. Interesting article from Grantland. Really doesn't say a lot about philosophy. Just passing terminology. But I'm happy to have anyone out of the Belichick/Saban tree.

I think this is right scenario. If the Bills sign a free agent QB (Cousins, Bradford, Keenum) they aren't moving up. If they don't sign one AND they see a QB they really like (Mayfield?) they might trade up into the 10-15 range to get him. Otherwise, they'll do the best they can. Remember, Beane and McD LOVE having picks. They aren't going to want to trade a bundle of picks. That's why I think they spend the money on Cousins.

Pats were 5th in points allowed.

That's what I thought when I saw that. Actually my first thought was Belichick's guys know what their job is. Second thought was McD's guys know. It gave me a warm feeling.

You know, I agree with this. Marrone's ego is SO big, he's arrogant, and he's often in your face. Now, all those things may serve him well as a head coach, but they don't make the guy very likeable.

There are a lot of things that go into coaching. I think Tomlin has a lot of them. He certainly seems to have the respect of his players. They'll follow him anywhere. But I've always thought he as a lousy sideline coach. Showed it again today. The onside kick was clearly the wrong call. And when he got to the five he should have kicked the field goal.

I didn't understand that's what you were saying, and it makes sense. But it's sort of saying "look, I just found some money, I'll spend it something bright and shiny, because it's just extra money." That is, you're saying the Bills have something, extra draft picks that they didn't expect to have, so it's okay to burn them to move. I think it makes more sense just to look at what you have - draft picks - and ignore where they came from, just ask yourself what's the smartest thing to do with what I have? What I have is five picks in the first three rounds, and if I'm smart with those picks (and the GM always assumes he'll be smart with them), I'll have four or five guys playing significant time in 2018. So the question is do I want to trade three of those five guys to take a chance on a QB? And the big problem is that I'm not going to get the best QB prospect, because someone at the top of the draft is going to take him before I can get to him. So I'm giving up three good players to take a shot. And I'll have cap room to sign some free agents to help fill holes. Or do I spend my cap space on Cousins, have a higher probability of getting a quality starting QB, keep those three guys I can draft, but have no cap room to sign free agents? Those are the two ways to go, and neither is obviously the right choice. I like the Cousins choice because of the higher probability that you have a top 10 QB in 2018 and going forward. The other way you MIGHT get a top 5 Qb, you might get a top 10 QB, you might get a bust, and in any case you probably don't have really QB play until 2019. As always, thanks for your comments.

Someone else just quoted this and I wanted to talk about this. It's a very good point. When you pick the wrong guy, whether as a draft choice or as a free agent, he sets you back three years, more or less. Why? Because you have to invest three years in him to know what you've got. If he's the guy you want, you make him the starter and run with him. It's only less if (1) he turns out to be a total bust or (2) somebody like Russell Wilson comes along and surprises everyone. If the guy you're investing in is drafted, if you're like the Bills and not sitting on a top pick, you have to give up several of your picks, usually a couple of firsts to move up, often three. Giving up those picks means you have three holes someplace else for three to five years, and you have to fill them as well as you can. If the guy you invest in is a free agent, it means you're using cap space, so you can't sign as many other free agents (or you have to lose some guys) as you ordinarily would. Bottom line, whichever way you go when you invest in a top QB, you're betting some of your short-term future on the guy. It's different if you're just taking a QB who's available with your pick. That's what happened with Manuel. In fact, the Bills traded down and picked up an extra pick. So the Bills didn't invest a lot to get Manuel, and that's why they were able to be a .500 team even though Manuel didn't work out. The problem with that route is that a guy you're taking with the 16th or 20th pick probably has about one chance in 8 or 10 to be what you need. If he's not at the top of the draft he's a longshot.

I'm telling you, Belichick is McDermott's role model. That's why he'd want Daboll.

That's where I started. I think he's top 10. On the bubble, but top 10. The whole point is (1) you're have to overpay him to get him and (2) it's worth it to overpay him if he's actually top 10. Worth it at top 10 or better, a mistake at top 15 or worse.

And I'd say that it's better than even money that at least one of those is going to be a disappointment, in the sense that he got, say, top 5 money but turns out to be only a top 15 guy. In other words, at least one will be the next Flacco. Yes. He'd be an upgrade right now, and you keep drafting QBs. That way you have his replacement on board if Cousins turns out not be THE answer.

Here's the SI article. Read it and tell me he doesn't sound like McDermott's man. The two guys live for process. https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/11/29/kirk-cousins-washington-redskins-quarterback One more thing. He won't say it, but I really believe McDermott's role model is Belichick. Belichick has succeeded with process and nerdy QB - a guy determined to win, determined to prove that everyone was wrong about him. That sounds like Cousins.

I'll jump back in. A couple of things. First, to reiterate a point I made earlier, I think there's a difference between overpaying for a QB and overpaying for a position player. If you pay top 3 money to a receiver or a tackle or a linebacker who turns out to be top 10 at his position, you've overpaid and it was a mistake. You could have gotten as effective a guy for a lot less. Like Sammy. The Bills paid two first round picks plus for a guy who performed like several guys they could have gotten with one pick. So that was a mistake. At QB it's different. If you pay top 3 money for a QB who turns out to be the 10th best QB in the league, it's not a mistake. You're paying too much, but it isn't a mistake, because you couldn't have gotten another guy who's 10th best. They just aren't easy to find. More importantly, if you have the 10th best receiver, or 10th best offensive tackle, that guy isn't on his own putting you in the playoff conversation year in and year out. If you have the 10th best QB, you are in the conversation. If you pay top 3 money for a QB and he turns out to be the 15th best AB, then you've made a mistake, because the 15th best QB DOESN'T put you in the playoff discussion. Yes, whoever gets Cousins will have overpaid for him. But I think it won't be a mistake. Second, a lot of the discussion has turned to whether Cousins would come to Buffalo. Someone said there's an SI article about what he's looking for and how McD is the kind of guy he'd like. I'll need to go find that article - my sense has been exactly that. Cousins is a guy who LIKES being in a program, a system, where everyone has a role and where he can do his. I don't think people should overlook the ability of OBD to sell itself now. Terry and Kim are a very attractive pair - they're pleasant, warm, charming, and earnest. The simple fact that they're spending BILLIONS of dollars because they want to do something for Buffalo is pretty impressive. It speaks to their sincerity. Then you get to Bean and McDermott, two guys who are interest, deadly serious and committed. They LOOK like winners. That's a pretty impressive package. So I think if the Bills decide that Cousins is someone they want, I think they'll be willing to spend and they'll sell themselves quite well. The Giants, by virtue of tradition and market, would be formidable competition. I don't think they'd shy away from the bidding just because they have Eli. They'd find a way to deal with the cap and compensation issues. The Giants problem is they don't have a coach, and the team actually is in much more disarray than the Bills. The Bills offer a stable package going forward; the Giants are up in the air. The Broncos would seem to be more attractive. Elway is an attraction. There probably are other things that might make the Broncos a place he'd like. But let's go back to the Bills for a minute. I think there are some other things, intangibles, that might make Buffalo especially attractive to him. One is the challenge of bringing a championship to the city. But think about this: Cousins is from Illinois, I think. He went to high school in Michigan, played at Michigan State, and has played pro ball on the East Coast. His parents now live in Florida. I think he's and east coast/midwest guy, and Denver may have little geographic appeal to him. Moreover, his father's a pastor, he went to a Christian high school, he participated in Athletes in Action in college. McD and I believe Beane are serious Christians - they don't beat people over the head with it, so far as I can tell, but if Cousins is a serious Christian, there's a good chance he's going to feel a connection to McD. And having an owner who lives in Florida where is parents live is another connection. Not saying it's going to happen, but I don't think it's far-fetched.

Both were injured for most of the year.

The OP lays it pretty well. What you have to add is the probability of each of the guys actually making it. Even Rosen is far from a sure thing, and after him there no telling. Burning picks to take that chance is a huge risk. If I had a top 5 pick I'd take one. If I had a top 10 I'd trade up. Trading p from 21 would be very costly.

Right. And I'm saying I'm not afraid of the price tag.