Shaw66

I enjoy the Xs and Os and find it interesting, but like all the other data that produces a list of which teams are best and worst in the data category, I'm skeptical. Absolutely, the offensive coordinator of every team must understand the benefits of condensed formations and know when to use them, and I do think that Shanahan tends to be ahead of the rest of league in developing offensive wrinkles (Shanahan, McVay, LaFLeur, and Reid are the guys who seem to lead the way regularly). But like every other data category, it's something that the offensive coordinator has to consider and determine the extent to which that approach is something for their team. Actually understanding the true significance of the tight formations is very difficult, if not impossible. You can take ANY data, turnovers, sacks given up by your left tackle, number of times you threw to running back, completions over the deep middle, anything, and it always will form an array from 1 to 32, with one team on the top and one team on the bottom. People tend to look at those arrays, and when they find a successful team at the top, they tend to think (quite naturally) that whatever this category is must be important to success. It just ain't necessarily so. Notice, for example, that the Bills and the Ravens are near the bottom of this list of tight formations. Why might that be so? I don't know, but one possible explanation leaps out at me: If I have a QB who is great at getting running yards out of passing formations, so great that his running is a clear positive addition to the offense, I want the defense spread, not tightly packed. Brock Purdy was 23rd in rushing yards among QBs. If you have a QB who's too slow to get you chunk yardage by running the ball (Purdy), and if all you want him to do is distribute the ball quickly, you have less interest in spreading the offense. Now, I will say that I don't think Dorsey was very creative as the Bills offensive coordinator, and it's quite possible that he didn't understand all the benefit you get out of tight formations, or he was slow to implement it. I don't know. There's also been some discussion about what's made the Chiefs so effective is the fact that to counter the best modern defenses, the Chiefs have been putting 4 receivers on on side of center and 1 on the other, and it's THAT approach that has been the big change. That works for the Chiefs whether their formation is wide or tight (and the Chiefs have been doing more tight formations). Finally, when you have three All-Pro skill position players, each of whom could legitimately demand a double team on every play, the left guard could line up facing backward on every play and the offense would still be pretty good.

He got the interview only because Rex told Jerry Jones that his father was Black.

XXV

Old Coot's thread about Analysys of Defenses is where the other videos were linked. Jan 30.

Not a lot to add here, especially because it's true that this all keeps evolving. However, I'll add one item. There was a thread, maybe last week, about how Fangio created the defense that everyone runs now that's so effective at stopping the deep balls, essentially splitting the field down the middle and running two independent zones or man concepts on either side. The thread linked to some good analysis of those points. On of the videos was about Reid countered by running a lot of formations that put four receivers, instead of three line up in one of the two halves. That is, Fangio's defense works well when the receivers are split 3-2 to one side or the other, but it can be attacked by splitting the receivers 4-1. (Note that the receivers include the tight ends and the backs, some of whom may be lined up in the backfield, but who by virtue of where they are lined up are still poised to attack one side of the field or the other.) So, worked pretty well for Reid (and worked very well against the Bills). And then Reid started using 4-1 condensed formations, with a cluster of receivers just off the end of the line to one side or another. And other teams, including the Bills, have been copying that approach. The point is, those videos about Fangio and Reid demonstrate the power of the condensed formation, on running plays to the edge where three or four receivers are clustered as well as on passing plays.

I see a lot of posters expressing a similar sentiment. I don't understand it. There are pretty much teams winning Super Bowls by simply outscoring their opponents. In December and January football, scoring drops because everyone knows the style of each team's offense, and everyone has access to film of defenses succeeding against the offenses. When I think of the Bills' late season games, it's the defense, not the offense, that has let the team in the fourth quarter. @warrior9 posted recently that in four of the Bills' six regular season losses, the last time the Josh Allen touched the ball, the Bills had the lead or were tied. That means, of course, that the defense lost the game at the end (except the Jets game, which was a special teams TD. What does that mean? It means that generally, the offense is good enough to win games. And, in fact, that's what KC had this season - an offense that is good enough to win games. What KC had and the Bills didn't was a defense that shut down teams in the fourth quarter. Just look at the offensive and defensive regular season stats. The Bills are top 10 in offense and defense, both yards and points. That's good enough to win championships. What don't the Bills do? They don't finish games. And when they don't finish games, which side of the ball is the problem? The defense. What was the problem against KC this season? The Bills didn't get to Mahomes, at all. What's the solution? Among other things, it's better pass rush. Well, Beane signed his answer to the get-Mahomes problem two years ago: Von Miller. The Bills didn't have the Von Miller they hoped for in the playoffs this season. (In the Super Bowl against the Bengals, he had 2 sacks, 3 qb hits, and one pass defended. When the Bills beat the Chiefs in the 2022 regular season, Miller had two sacks. Those numbers for the Bills would have changed the game. In fact, the score of the 2022 game was 24-20 - same as this year's divisional round game, except Miller wasn't the same Miller and the Bills gave up one more TD.) On top of that, there was a tremendous drop off in talent from the Bills' starting linebackers to the people they put on the field at linebacker against the Chiefs. Medical technology will, we hope, solve the linebacker problem, and there's a good chance we'll see prime Miller in 2024. But the safeties are on their way out the door, corner back is looking a little iffy (whither White?, Elam's last chance (more or less), and not much behind Douglas and Benford). And the Bills need an impact player on the line (Oliver isn't quite it, Miller isn't every down, Jones may be gone, Rousseau hasn't emerged, and the others are placeholders). Bills need help on offense, sure. But it's the defense that needs something that looks like a minor overhaul. And it's the defense that has let them down in January.

Plant I haven't read any of the replies, but this captures exactly how I've been feeling. The roster transition is by design. This is where the process sinks or swims. They knew two years ago the roster would be turning over, and they've planned for this. You explained it well. Thanks.

The drops mantra is the latest bogus issue to infect fans' thinking. Chiefs led the league in drops with 44. Bills were 8th with 30. Just about the whole league was at 20 or above. How many fans are on the Chiefs website this week complaining about drops. Drops doesn't correlate with making the Super Bowl. Chiefs were on the top of the list, Niners were on the bottom with 9! They were a real outlier.

No. Some fans are in win now mode, but the Bills aren't. The Bills are just building, always building. They have one of the best QBs in the history of the game. They have to win, but they don't have win now, except to satisfy the fans. There is no window that is closing.

The Bills need to restock the defense.

Well, I agree a #1 ceiling would be nice, but if Diggs returns to form, not necessary. I've become convinced that the stud #1 isn't necessary and is, in fact, a distraction. Both the Niners and the Chiefs do it without a stud #1. Lions, Eagles, do it with very good receivers but without Chase, Jefferson, Lamb, or one of a handful of others. Two studs, the Miami and Cinci model, isn't sustainable for cap reasons. Hill is a unique combination of a good route runner and world-class speed; give him just Diggs speed, and Hill would still be a very good receiver. What seems to be working now against the defenses that smother the deep ball is having multiple talented route runners on the field. Good one on one guys, for sure, but not necessarily stud burners. They have to know how to run the routes and read the options correctly. If you have a QB who can read the options, then you're good. That's what the Chiefs and the Niners do. I can't even name the Chiefs wideouts, but every one of them will hurt you at some point in the game. And that's why Shakir has been successful. A tad small, so far as I'm concerned, but a good, smart route runner who makes himself available to catch the ball often enough that he's a factor.

Whenever I think wonder what Brady is going to do with the passing game, I always seem to come back to Kincaid. I mean, the Bills need quality play from their wideouts, and I think they will get it. I think Diggs will return to form. I think the Bills will get a better receiver (not a better blocker) than Davis to be the #2. It's said over and over here, but the Bills really could use a Robert Woods-type #2 - decent size, speed, route running, hands, blocker - an all-round good football player. I think Shakir will continue to produce, but his size limits him a bit. I think Kincaid is key. His physical tools are great, but what I really like is his intelligence. He seemed to do a really good job running routes the way they needed to be run. He had a good sense of how to get open. Still, he had to spend a lot of his rookie season just figuring out the pro game, the offense, and life in the league. It's the same issue that all rookies have, like Cook, for example. I think we're going to find that with his off-season workouts and then with his training camp work with Josh, Kincaid's going to jump into the status of being a true threat. (And, as an aside, I think we can look for O'Cyrus to improve, too, which is a very nice thought.) It should be obvious to Brady that he has a special talent in Kincaid, and I'm sure Brady's already working on how to make him a 1000-yard receiver. I watched the video someone posted about why Kelce is so good, about 15 minutes. It was very easy to see Kincaid doing what Kelce does. KIncaid seems to have the same feel for the game. Several months ago some people here educated me about why "smooth" is a real thing that matters. Kincaid is no doubt smooth, and I think one of things that makes Kelce so good is that he's smooth, too. He's bigger all around than Kincaid, so Kelce doesn't have the quickness, but they are similar in that they both seem to do things effortlessly. Kelce can run almost any kind of route; he cuts and changes directions really well, and whatever his body's been doing, when the ball arrives he's ready for it. It's interesting me that the Chiefs even throw him the ball on those wide quick screens, because he can make the catch and make the quick cuts. I see all the same things in Kincaid. I'm not worried about the receiving corps. Why? (1) I think Diggs was injured in the second half of the season, and will be back to the normal Diggs in August. (2) Kincaid will become a true feature receiver. (3) Shakir will continue to be a problem. (4) The Bills will find a solid utility #2, maybe a decent free agent, maybe a 1st or second round pick who contributes as a rookie. Whether that crew catches more deep balls (more than zero) over the middle, I don't know. What is expect is that the passing game will be better. Because of Kincaid, a major overhaul in the receiving room will not be necessary.

Hey, Thurm, thanks for this. I knew this stuff was out there, but I don't do much stat diving and never have played around on NextGenStats. That's excellent. And I agree about all of what you say. I remember when the Tyrod discussion was going on, I thought Tyrod's numbers weren't good but weren't exactly a crisis. What Tyrod's numbers suggested (if I recall it correctly) was that if he were going to be average in the middle of the field, he'd have one more completion per game. That's 20 yards per completion and it's material, but still not a crisis. It doesn't matter all that much where he gets 20 yards per game, but it would be important to the team's performance if somehow the team got 20 yards more per game. And, of course, teams weren't fearful that Tyrod was going to hurt them deep over the middle, nothing like what they think about Josh, so Tyrod should have been able to get more completions in that area. The unfortunate reality for Tyrod is that he never grew much as QB beyond what he was when he started for the Bills. Some guys progress, some don't. I really think this is the kind of data that is important to coaches, not because of the yardage not gained by going 0-15 (as I noted, at a 40% completion rate, that's only 120 yards or so on the season), but because the coaches then can pull up those plays and study and understand something that the defense is doing. That is, the data allows them to ask why this happened and give them further perspective on their offense. For example, when they understand why Josh went 0-15, they actually may not be interested in how to get his completion percentage up in the deep middle; they may ask themselves, "if the defenses are doing this to us when we try to go there, what have they left open that we can attack?" Thus, the coaches may actually use the 0-15 to adjust route trees and to improve the numbers in OTHER areas of the field. As they begin hurting defenses because the defenses are overloaded in the middle, the defenses will adjust and THEN Josh's numbers over the middle may start to improve. The point is, as someone pointed out, these 15 throws are 1% of the total offense. Improving the results on these 15 throws is less important than improving the offense's results generally. These numbers may provide an insight into how to do that, regardless of whether Josh's performance on these 15 throws improves.

This is one of those deep dives into stats that I think is pretty meaningless. What are we, or the Bills, supposed to do with this data? Redesign the offense to make sure they complete some deep passes over the middle? To what end? Think about it: First, remember that all teams have gone to defenses to stop deep throws, and against the Bills they double down on those efforts, because Allen can so deadly. When teams have two deep safeties, throwing down the middle is the last place you want to go, because both safeties have a chance to make a play. The sidelines deep offer better opportunities. I would guess that deep middle throws are prone to higher interception rates. Second, if the Bills were reasonably successful on the 15 deep balls they threw in the middle, that's like 40%. So that's six more completions on the season, and if each was for 30 yards, that's 180 yards, or on average 10 yards per game. Now, I'm just as interested as the next guy in getting 10 yards more per game, but how much time should Bills invest in deep middle throws to get those ten yards? Third, has anyone looked at the stats? I haven't, but I'm sure some other team had an abysmal record on deep left throws, and some other team did on deep right throws. These throws are a sliver of the offensive attempts in a game - one or two plays out of fifty, and that smaller of a sample size is always going to generate interesting - but not meaningful - outliers. I would expect that the Bills have seen this data, and I expect that they are studying it, like everything else, to see whether anything meaningful is behind. But as I said, if there were something meaningful and if it were corrected, at best it's going to have incidental impact on production. Yes, of course, the team should improve in every area, but this hardly should be a focal point. Fans wanted to get rid of Tyrod Taylor when he had bad numbers throwing into the middle middle. Should we now move on from Josh Allen because he has bad numbers in the deep middle? Slicing and dicing data into smaller and smaller pieces rarely leads to any useful knowledge.

It's always worth it to listen to Shady. Man, he's smart, and he understands a lot, and he's funny. He was talking about great running backs. One of the things that I like about the Bills is that they have perhaps the greatest stable of running backs in the history of the NFL. I mean, the Bears have Gale Sayers and Payton, and they probably have had a few others. But the Bills had Gilchrist, Simpson, Cribbs, Thomas, and Shady. Fred Jackson playing for almost any other franchise would have been in their top five, all-time, but not in Buffalo. I never really understood how good Shady was until he came to Buffalo. The guy was a magician.

Good points. I don't really know, but I think the college coaches are the victims of all the scouting services and the showcase circuit. That is, they rely on this whole establishment that identifies, grooms, and showcases high school talent, and they don't, really can't, run a nationwide scouting operation that is turning over every stone. In turn, the people who run that infrastructure are like the sports media in that they listen to each other, and they form this sort of group think that is closed to new ideas. Spencer Brown is another example. Both Josh and Brown came out of these tiny high schools playing in remote areas, and they were pretty much ignored. Once a kid falls outside that system, the big-time coaches aren't likely to find them. They end up at JuCo or small-time schools, not because they aren't good enough, but because the bigger schools, the schools that might actually develop them, aren't looking at them. Someone called the coach at Northern Iowa and told him he should look at Brown, who was on no one's radar. The coach was on a road trip and realized he could drop by Brown's town on his way home. But for that, Brown might have been communications major at some school that didn't even have a football team. Not every overlooked kid sends emails to 1000 coaches looking for a scholarship. So, the kid starts to show something in JuCo or at Northern Iowa. It was before the transfer portal, so getting a kid to transfer and sit out a year wasn't very attractive to the kids, and the coaches aren't anxious to take a flyer on a guy who's just lighting it up in a second-rate conference; most big-time schools already have their guys, they're invested in their guys. Why do those scouting services ignore them? Well, sometimes they're just lazy. But the reality is that very few guys come out of those environments and make it anywhere. They're local phenoms, but when they get into serious competition, they can't compete. Yes, there could be a world class athlete playing in one of those tiny high school leagues, but much more often the kid is burning up the conference because the competition is so bad. I'll give you an example from my personal life. Yesterday I watched my grandson play freshman basketball. He had 30-something points. Last week he had 37. Is he a phenom? Should the college scouts be flocking to see him? Well, no. He also plays on the JV team, kids are one year older, and there he looks like an ordinary player. If I call a scout and say you should look at my grandson, he'll ask where he can see the kid play in real competition. Bottom line, kids still get missed. I love Mayfield. A rare combination of guts and a great, competitive attitude. He just doesn't have the body. Doesn't have the arm, the height, the legs. Close, but not enough.

Great stuff! Thanks. Yeah, those guys are obviously talented. I didn't mean to imply you can put just anybody out there. What I was saying is that you don't necessarily need the super studs that so many fans salivate over. You need guys who can run these option routes intelligently and in sync with the QB. That takes speed, hands, brains, but it doesn't mean you necessarily have to be all world. In fact, I think Diggs is one of those guys. Diggs isn't Lamb, but in a well run offense, Diggs is a real headache.

This time of year, many of us, myself included are trying to convince ourselves that next season will be better. Last year at this time, I was saying the season would depend on whether Dorsey emerged as a quality, creative coordinator. We know how that went. Well, it's a year later, and to a great extent the 2024 season will depend on whether Brady emerges as a quality, creative coordinator. And whether the defense gets better.

Well, Carson Wentz hadn't failed yet. Lots of people were comparing the Allen pick to Wentz. Wentz had had more college success - more wins, but when he came out there were a lot of questions about whether he could do it. Wentz went #2. On the other hand, there was JaMarcus Russell. And I think Darnold was the second best guy of the four. I think Darnold might very well have succeeded in the McDermott environment. I think the Jets quickly started asking Darnold to be the savior, while the Bills were pleading with Allen to STOP thinking of himself as the savior.

Thanks. That is really good. And, in fact, when Beane tells the story of the decision to go after Allen, it clearly was an example of what you say. They spent a lot of time on projectability. Allen had had college success, in the sense that he had succeeded at a lot of things that are important, like leadership and playmaking ability. But where they really succeeded, and the Browns, Jets, Broncos, and Giants all failed, was in evaluating his projectability. They learned about the guy, who he was, how competitive he was, how much his teammates liked him, etc. They decided he had all the attributes he needed, which meant that he projected as a star. It was great scouting and drafting. The Jets had more trade capital and traded up to a spot that was more or less impossible for the Bills to reach, and they took the wrong guy.

That's really good. It explains why the Bills always seem to leave the flats exposed. It's what you give up when you play these complex pass defenses. Interesting that he says one solution is to get your QB under center. People here have talked about that a lot this season. I've been interested in a comment or two that I saw somewhere recently that said that the Chiefs and the Niners seem to have the personnel for attacking these schemes. Neither has the classic stud #1 - in fact, the Chiefs unloaded theirs. Instead, they come at you with a really good tight end and with three wideouts with decent size, decent speed, good hands, and brains. Why does that work? Because unlike in previous eras, when the pass defenses left particular areas exposed for the whole play, these defenses are reacting and adjusting. The result is that instantaneous openings to attack appear, but then the defenders react and adjust, to close those openings. The openings are still there, they just aren't there long. So, you need receivers who can see, actually anticipate, the openings and who have the ability to take advantage. And that's why you need to put the QB under center, because it's easier to get the ball out quickly to good players on the run. And that's why Kelce is such a good weapon. He has size and hands, but his real value is how well he sees the defense and adjusts, and he has a great quarterback who's thinking along with him. Bills have Diggs, who until this season seemed great at playing that game. I don't know if he's lost it or he was injured (I'm thinking the latter). We all were excited this season watching Shakir, and I think it's for exactly this reason. He has the smarts and the skills to take advantage of instantaneous openings, and Josh clearly was thinking along with him. Put another way, winning football for the next few years may not depend on getting a Chase or a Lamb or a Jefferson. It may depend more on getting one or two receivers like an Ayuk or and guys like him. Why not the real stud receivers? Because the whole reason these pass defenses were developed was to stop those guys from going for 150 yards on five receptions. And those defenses are working.

I so hate this take. There was nothing one-in-a-million about Josh. Mechanically, some things were tweaked in him, but anyone with half a brain could look at Josh Allen throwing a football in college and tell that he was fundamentally a great thrower. Stand him on the fifty and ask him to throw footballs at targets 10, 15, 30, and 40 yards downfield, and he'd hit those targets over and over. A guy with bad mechanics can't do that, but Allen could, because his fundamental throwing motion was really sweet, better than Mayfield, Darnold, Rosen, or Jackson. It was pretty clear that Josh's "accuracy" problem wasn't that he was fundamentally inaccurate. His problem was that he didn't have the athletic discipline that comes from years of quality coaching. He wasn't going to the best QB clinics in high school. He played at a podunk high school, a podunk junior college, and a podunk college. Rosen, on the other hand, had the benefit of all the coaching that was available to a rich kid from LA, which is what he was. That meant what you saw was what you were going to get - no one was going to make Rosen into a better thrower than he was. Allen's a one-in-a-million talent, but he wasn't some kind of athletic miracle who transformed himself from a substandard college thrower, mechanically, to a great thrower. He was always a great thrower, just undisciplined.

First - LOL funny! Thanks. I'm on my first cup of coffee and needed an extra jolt! Second - that thread really is something. Third - I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that the posts in any popular thread reflect the opinion of all Bills fans, or even all people who post here. Two months ago it was 80-20 here to fire McDermott. I never believed 80% of Bills fans wanted him gone. It was just that a lot posters decided they didn't want to waste time responding to the hysterical cries of some fans. There's a great story about an old scout who was, I think, the head scout for the Astros. He had been sending reports to the team for two or three years telling them that this shortstop was the greatest prospect he had seen in his entire career. Best player ever, can't miss. Astros had the first pick and went another way. Yankees had the second pick and took Jeter. The scout quit.

Wow! Who would have read all of that and then traded UP to draft the guy. By every statistical measure, he was a mess. Beane maybe deserves to be in the Hall of Fame for how he traded up and up to take Allen. It might have been the pick of the century, (if the Chiefs hadn't trade way up the year before to take Mahomes).

There wasn't universal unhappiness or universal happiness. The situation was this: The Bills hadn't had a good quarterback since Kelly retired - 20 years. The one year they had a top 10 pick, the only guys arguably good enough to go in the first round were EJ Manuel and Geno Smith. Bills took Manuel, and the pain continued. So, finally, by virtue of a lousy finish and a trade up, the Bills had, I think, the 12th pick in a draft that had four guys deemed to be true first-round talent, plus Lamar Jackson, who was intriguing but not rated that highly. So, Bills fans had a lot invested in who the team would draft. The question really was, who would be left at 12? As the draft approached, it seemed the Browns were going to take Mayfield, the Giants were going to go running back, the Jets would take Darnold, and probably one of the two Joshes would fall to the Bills at 12. Everyone had a favorite between those two, and of course everyone hoped that some miracle would happen and Mayfield or Darnold would fall. It was the most important draft for the Bills in 20 years. (Well, if the Bills hadn't traded up for JP Losman and just sat tight, the next year Aaron Rodgers would have fallen in their laps, so that was a pretty important draft decision.) And then Beane traded up to get to #7. Mayfield and Darnold were gone, but now Beane had his pick between Allen and Rosen. The suspense for a few minutes was agonizing. Who would it be? Going into the draft, if I had to choose, I'd always said I'd take Rosen. Then, literally as the Commish walked to the podium, I thought, "Allen. Allen! ALLEN!!!" I wanted the body and the arm over Rosen's supposed brain. So, I was smiling that night.