Shaw66

Yeah, it's funny. It's just the evolution of football and it's language. The guy we call a 1-tech defensive tackle, is a nose tackle in the 3-4. I think when the 3-4 first came into existence, the nose tackle was just the tackle. And 80 years ago, when teams played 5-man lines, you had two ends, two tackles, and a nose guard. The 1-tech, the nose tackle, and the nose guard all were the same body type with more or less the same role. The 4-3 DE is sometimes a guy we used to call an outside linebacker and sometimes a guy we used to call a defensive end. Now, regardless of the formation, we call them an edge. We used to have split ends and flanker backs. Finally everyone gave up agreed that they're all wideouts, regardless of where they line up. Free safeties and strong safeties used to have significantly different roles, not so much any more. Fullback is one situation where the name followed the body type and role, regardless of where he lined up.

As I said, I agree, and I'm sure he agrees too. Brady was principally an outsider. Boras is outside. Butler is outside. Danna is outside. Adam Henry. Kromer. There are a lot of coaches who have cut their teeth substantially outside the McDermott sphere of influence. As you talk about the more senior positions, it's true that they're more likely to come from within, but that's where culture and continuity become more important in the operation of the team, so it's natural that you'd hire more within. So, for example, if McDermott thought the fundamentals of what Daboll was running were the wrong fundamentals, then he'd replace Daboll. The Bills are running the kind of offense McDermott wants to have; otherwise, it would have changed. Since he likes the basics of that offense, then he isn't going to go outside to bring in substantially different ideas. That's how you get continuity. So where is the impetus for change, you ask? From all those guys I've named above who have substantial coaching experience in all sorts of different environments. Some college, all of them with multiple different NFL teams. They're all watching film, evaluating, creating, relying on knowledge they've accumulated in Buffalo and with other teams.

For sure, and McDermott will endorse that. We've seen multiple free agent signings, for example, that acknowledge the benefit of bringing outside ideas and styles. The decision to go outside or promote from within is made on a case-by-case basis. It's just that the inside has a leg up in terms of cultural growth and development.

Yes, he is, and it's part of his philosophy. It's his continuous improvement, life-long learner, growth-mindset philosophy. It makes a lot of sense. Under his approach, he believes everyone will get better at their job every year. When you bring in someone from the outside, you have get him to speed on all the institutional knowledge the team has. When you promote guys, you don't have to do that - they're already up to speed. And who are the guys getting promoted? They're guys who do their jobs with that philosophy. McDermott believes the institutional knowledge continues to accumulate and grow so long as you have a lot of people who learn it and live it. McDermott believes that when you have a healthy system like that, the team actually does get better every year, even though the personnel changes. I've never really thought about it, but I think that's what Reid has going KC. It's the thing that makes KC always seem like they're a step ahead of everyone. Belichick did it, too. Next man up, from within if possible. So, yeah, he is obsessed with it. It's core principle in his organization.

That's an interesting question. I can't tell from what you wrote whether you're joking or not. So, if you know this and you were making a joke, I like it. If you don't know this, then you'll be happy to know there was a day when quarter, half, and full did delineate their relative positions in the formation, with the fullback deepest in the backfield and the half backs a step ahead of the fullback. At least variations of the T formation did that. Out of those formations, the fullback was the power back and the halfbacks were valued more for their speed and elusiveness than their power. McCaffrey lined up in the slot is something you might see from a halfback like Frank Gifford 60 years ago, but never a fullback. As the game evolved, power, speed, and elusiveness began appearing in various combinations, so you had Jim Brown's combination, Gale Sayers combination, and ultimately Thurman's and Emmit Smith's combinations. The feature back began lining up all over the place. The power back, the short-yardage, between-the-tackles back was not as useful, and the power back evolved into more of blocking back and change-of-pace runner. The position still was called fullback, even though the feature back began lining up deepest in the backfield and the "fullback" was lining up more like a halfback used to. So, yeah, the fullback literally is usually not the "full" back.

This description of him is correct, in my mind. He's a guy who's useful to the coaches, because he can play tight end, be a true fullback, split out, he can play special teams, he can even have an important role in gadget plays - like fake punts. When the coaches are talking about new plays and variations of existing plays and someone asks, "do we have someone who can do THIS?," the answer is "Gilmore." I think opposing coaches preparing for the Bills know that Gilmore likely will show up someplace where they haven't seen him before. They know the Bills need him to do a particular thing, and it could be almost anything. He's the ultimate utility infielder, a true Jack of all trades. I don't know how many other teams have a guy like that. The Saints have Hill. That's a pretty unique roster slot. I'm not saying either a Hill or a Gilliam is necessarily a good or bad idea; I'm just saying it's an interesting use of a roster slot.

Floyd said he's going to the highest bidder, and Jones might two, so there are a couple of big holes for you to fill.

Yeah, I'm happy for him, but in my opinion you have to have been somewhere to make a comeback to it. He was a backup safety, and he came back to being a backup safety.

We all are with you, and our energy counts for a lot.

No, I'm not kidding. I should have said safety is one of the most important positions in McDermott's defense. He is defense is all about not giving up the big play. His philosophy is to get pressure on the quarterback with four guys and only four, because with pressure, he can arrange seven back defenders in ways that cover all of the real estate that the QB can attack in less than three seconds. That's his defense. Of the seven back defenders, safety is the most complicated position to learn, because the safeties are responsible for covering the most geography. The safeties provide the defense for the deepest parts of the zone and also are expected to make tackles at and even behind the line of scrimmage. In order to cover all of that territory properly, they need to understand whether the other 5 defenders are going, because they have to make instantaneous judgments about where they need to go. They also need to have the speed to cover all of that territory, they need good cover skills, and they need to be good tacklers. The corners and the linebackers are responsible for less territory, much less territory, so their decisions are less complicated. For some reason, the safeties didn't get the job done against the Chiefs, because the defense gave up all those chunk plays. I doubt, however, that the explanation was that Hyde and Poyer fell apart. I'd guess that it's much likely that the two linebackers and the two corners underperformed. In McD's defense, the safeties rely on the other five backfield defenders do their jobs. Those defenders don't have to be great, but they have to do their jobs. That's why a guy like Levi Wallace could play successfully for the Bills. Not a stud, by any means, but a guy who did his job consistently, so that the safeties could rely on what was happening in his zone. Against the Chiefs, the linebackers and the corners all were suspect. Douglas, because he was coming off an injury, Elam, who always has struggled playing this defense, Jackson, whom the Bills have been trying to replace for a couple of years (he was essentially Wallace's backup, which is all you need to know), Klein, who never has been more than an over-achiever who simply didn't have the physical skills to play the position, and Dodson, another guy coming off injury who, at his best, has been inconsistent. The Bills defense has succeeded as well as it has because Hyde and Poyer have consistently stopped the big play, over and over again. When Hyde and Poyer were out last season, the defense struggled. I'm sure we're going to see the Bills put some high-level player at safety next season. They may may get one in free agency. They may draft one in the first or second round, but they probably don't want to rely on a rookie back there. That's why I think Johnson may move. He as everything they want in that position - all the physical talent, the brains, and the understanding of the defense. It would be easier to succeed with a rookie slot corner drafted in the first or second round than to succeed with a safety.

I just saw this. Good stuff. Thanks. I'm not predicting Taron will move. I was only saying he should be on the list. My guess, however, is that McDermott thinks he can fill the slot corner role more easily than the safety role. First, it's important to remember that they need two safeties, probably one this year and one next year. Rapp is the only safety on the team currently who might fill one of the spots, and I'm not sure Rapp is the guy. Maybe. The fact that they need two means the team will be changing, which we all knew. Now, there's no doubt that Johnson's play has been critical to the D, but there's similarly no doubt that the safeties are critical. I think the safeties are more important, based simply on the fact that the position is harder to fill. Altho the position is evolving, most teams still have their third best corner at the slot corner position. As you say, Williams might play there. If you had Williams and Johnson on the field, when the situation demanded Williams would take the tight end and Johnson would take the slot guy. I don't, for example, see why people see Benford as a safety. If I'm moving him, I'm moving HIM to slot corner. It's much less of a transition for him. As I said, you don't see teams taking a slot corner in the first round of the draft. Cover corners, and safeties, yes, slot corners no. Yes, McDermott has been wedded to the slot corner in his defense, but that's because, I think, it was personnel driven. The Bills had the safeties covered, Johnson's not a shut-down corner type. It just turned out that he played so well that the Bills could afford to leave him on the field when other teams would have gone 4-3. When the Bills get weaker at safety, McDermott's going to change his philosophy. He's going to do what he always does, which is to put the best TEAM on the field and adjust the defense accordingly. The guy on the team who is best able to move from his current position is not White, not Benford, not Elam, and the safety is not going to be Neal, or Lewis, or Hamlin. As I said, maybe Rapp. The guy who is best able to move is Johnson. JMO I'd say Benford is a near-elite corner in McDermott's system. He's excellent playing that scheme. He's a natural. That's why he walked into a starting position as a rookie. Elite cover corner? No. He's an outstanding #2 corner. The plan always was White would be the elite guy until Elam took over.

Good stuff. I agree. Especially as to #4. If I have Kittle, Samuel, and McCaffrey, I'm designing my offense to get the ball to those guys in open space. Every player is different. Diggs is shifty, but he really isn't a productive open-field runner. Nor was Davis. Nor Knox. So, if those are my broken field runners, I'm not worried about getting them the ball so they can run. It just isn't a priority in my offense. Which means that #5 is correct, too. It's important when it's important, but it isn't the be-all and end-all. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. There's a reason some stats are more important than others. Completion percentage, for example, is more important than RAC or YAC. How do I know? Because completion percentage is more predictive of a good passing offense than RAC or YAC. RAC and YAC may be valuable to coaches trying to evaluate players, to evaluate offensive strategy, etc., but it isn't predictive of overall offensive excellence. It's like the debate that went on for a few years about Taylor not throwing over the middle enough. It was interesting data, but if he'd suddenly started completing two more passes a game over the middle, he wasn't going to suddenly become a star quarterback. All that data showed was that there was an area of the field that he was, relatively speaking, neglecting. Or like people saying the Bills need a better #2 receiver. Unless you have two first-round picks at wide receiver, you just aren't going to get 1000 yards out of you number 2, and two first-round picks is not sustainable. So talking about that as though that's the fix to the offense, or talking about YAC, or talking about throwing more over the middle is focusing on the wrong stuff. The Bills have a really good offense (it actually had a bit of an off-year this season). The objective is to improve it, but it really needs only marginal improvement. Those improvements could come from many different sources. Fixating on these narrow data points isn't what will make the team better.

I agree with all of this. I really don't have an opinion about why they're interviewing Lewis. I do have an opinion about whether Brady should be the guy without throwing a net broadly to look for candidates. I'd have a short search and hire Brady only if from I'd seen from Brady (speaking as McDermott here) something that told me there was something more coming than what the Bills got so far. That is, does Brady have an approach that will build on what's there but that couldn't be implemented in the middle of the season? If all he's going to do is continue to tweak, I'm looking for someone who promises to give me more than tweaks.

Well, I don't agree with your takes here, but it points out how difficult these hires are. There are three kinds of candidates: (1) Proven coordinators. If they're young, like Ryans, they take HC jobs. If they're hold, they rarely move, like Spags. Bottom line, there aren't many of these available. Especially offensive coordinators. (2) Journeymen guys, like Hackett and, I think, Kellen Moore. They move around, you know what you're getting, but they aren't superstars. (3) Unproven young guys. Some of them will make it; most won't. So, if you've got Super Bowl goals, who do you hire? There are very few, if any, proven star offensive coordinators who don't already have HC jobs or are about to get one. So, you're left with the journeymen, who sort have proven that they aren't stars, and unproven guys who might be stars. Given that reality, I think if I see a young unproven guy who looks like he has it, yes, I'll take a shot with him. Is it Thad Lewis? No idea.

As usual, you're on top of the detail. Thanks for speaking up, here and earlier. The reality is that guys who have it just have it, and the actual pros in the league can tell whether they have it or not. You mention Demeco Ryans. Sean McVay was one. Bill Belichick was one - lots of people knew who Belichick was, and that's why teams were fighting over him. Terrell Bernard was one, too. The Baylor head coach told McDermott that Bernard was one of those guys with a deep understanding of the game. Some other guys get halos attached to their heads early, and then have trouble living up to it. Kellen Moore, for example. And, I think, Dorsey. I remember hearing that Mike Tomlin was just another guy to interview when the Steelers were looking for a head coach, and then he came in for the interview. Blew everyone away. Beane knows what he's doing, and McDermott does, too. When they interviewed Josh Allen, they knew pretty quickly he had the right stuff in his head. If a young Sean McVay shows up in the interview room, they are not likely to miss it.

1. Yes, and 2. Yes. Beane and McDermott are not stupid. They aren't close to being stupid. They're going to do whatever they think will make the team better. When Brady took over, I didn't see fireworks on the field. I'd say the offense was better than under Dorsey, but it still was the Daboll offense, reworked. In his interview, Brady has to explain his plan for the offense, his vision. If his plan is Daboll's offense, tweaked, well fine, that's one way to go. But McDermott and Beane understand that Daboll's isn't the only vision; they're going to want to hear what ideas other guys have. If Brady wants to install his vision rather than Daboll's, then Brady's vision is going to have compete what those other guys are thinking.

I love how so many people here think they can psychoanalyze McBeane. Why will McBeane make the decision that puts them in under the least pressure? Don't people understand how badly McDermott and Beane want to win? They tell us all the time - they want to win. They are among the most competitive people in the world. They aren't going to make decisions to protect their jobs. They both already have made enough money so that they can retire if they get fired. Now, what IS true about McDermott is that he likes to hire from within. He likes to take guys who have succeeded in their current jobs and promote them. It's a tried and true organizational technique. People want to work for a boss who has a track record of promoting from within. So there IS a bias that McDermott has shown for people already on his staff. But, ... ... as I said earlier in this thread, I thought McDermott gave Brady less than a ringing endorsement in his press conference earlier this week. Brady was the natural choice as the interim guy, but now McDermott has seen him for half a season, and McDermott will evaluate him (actually, already has evaluated him). If McDermott thinks he can do better with someone else, he'll make the move.

The point about small ball is a good one. Bills intentionally developed the short passing game this season, and it naturally leads to more YAC. And I've been meaning to come back to my earlier post. I don't pay much attention to YAC, and all I did was go grab the stat and post it. I looked again later, and although the Allen was, in fact, 6th in YAC, he was 19th in YAC per completion, which is probably the more relevant stat. So, even though is YAC improve considerably, given the number of passes he completed, he still wasn't generating a lot fo YAC. Having said that, I don't care about YAC. Coaches do, in some sense, but I think it's one of those stats that is illuminating about some aspects of a guy's game, what matters is completions and yards and touchdowns. If Allen improves his YAC per completion to top 10, it's still going to be only maybe 300 more yards per season. That's nice, of course, but that's not what will make the difference between what we got this season and what we all want. 300 yards is 300 yards, and if they get 300 more yards more from the receivers and not one more yard of YAC, it's the same 300 yards. Or 300 yards from special teams. Or 300 yards in INT returns. YAC's a detail.

Umm, isn't Josh like the best quarterback in the league? Doesn't he look super-human when he's in his comfort zone? Why would your want to make him uncomfortable?

You making this stuff up? Josh had his best season ever for yards after catch - just under 200 yards. He was 6th in the league.

Thanks. I don't know either one of them well at all. I have a lot of confidence in Beane and McDermott. I'd expect interviews to be rigorous - I'd expect McDermott to evaluate in depth the philosophy and the specifics that each of these guys would seek to implement. The Bills have an established offensive line that plays a particular style - they aren't bulldozers, generally, but they've been effective. They have a running back with a particular style. And they have a unique quarterback. I'd expect McDermott to ask for details of the offense they'd implement with those particular assets, and I'd expect McDermott to be listening with his DC hat on, questioning whether he thinks the offense the guy describes would give him trouble. I don't dislike Brady, but I'm hoping it's someone else, because that would mean McDermott found someone he really likes.

Personally, I don't know what to think of Brady. But I watch the year-end pressers and try to read between the lines, and I didn't hear a ringing endorsement of Brady from McDermott. Made me think he is not a lock. Any hot, up and coming guy would love to have a chance to call plays for Josh. I wonder if coordinators like working for McDermott.

Great stuff! And love the video.

After the game, talking about the play, Josh sort of mumbled something about pocket management. I think Josh was aware of Dion and Jones and thought he had time to make the throw. If he'd reset himself, the window might have closed. He probably could have stepped up and made the throw. Tiny nuances that he'll think about and maybe do a little differently on some future play, but nothing at all to complain about. Credit to Jones.

Uh, yeah. This is EXACTLY why he should be a safety. Hyde and Poyer play all over field because they do all of what you said. Before Taron arrived, the Bills never thought of moving Hde or Poyer to slot corner. Why not? Because safety is a more important position. Have you ever seen a team draft a slot corner in the first round? I don't think so. But teams take safeties in the first round. Why one and not the other? Because safety is a more important position.