Shaw66

Actually they aren't ridiculous. People are just in different stages of their life and their feelings about many things that go by, including the Buffalo Bills, change from time to time. I'm feeling somewhat the same as the OP. It just happens. And when the Bills are playing good, you ignore your children!

I hear you, and there's some truth to it. But losing Milano and Jones for the season hurt, and the D has nevertheless held up pretty well. Yes, struggled late in games, but overall the defense has always had the Bills in the game. It was the offense that really underperformed. I'm just hoping Brady will be the savior of this team, this season and next.

Great admission! But it's a good theory. I mean, an OC taking over in the middle season isn't throwing out whole schemes and installing new ones, but he may very well be tweaking things in just the way you described.

This is correct. No defender came close to making a play where the ball landed. Davis was open whichever way he broke.

I hadn't considered that Brady might have changed the technique on some plays, in which case he would really mean that the problem was on him. I understood his answer to be a the-buck-stops-here answer. That is, regardless of whoever installed the protocol for a play like that, as the OC he is ultimately responsible whenever a player misses an assignment. And I agree with you - the inside read is a better. At a purely amateur, touch football level, as a receiver I would find that both finding the ball and catching the ball would be easier with the throw down the middle. As I mentioned earlier, I think throwing the ball into the corner immediately causes the receiver to begin worrying about the sideline - I'm much more comfortable if I know I can just roam into the center of the end zone and concentrate on the catch. And lest we forget as we slice and dice this play is the bigger problem, which is at the end of close games, the Bills always seem to find a mistake to make that costs them the game. So, as plenty of people have said, there is a level - an important level - where this is a McDermott problem, not a Brady problem.

Bottom line, I would like to have Brady or someone explain what happened and what should have happened, but we aren't going to get that. I agree that going to the corner makes the catch tougher for the receiver, because he's looking over his shoulder and running away from the QB. I think it's tougher also because either the backline or the sideline may come into play, so the receiver has to worry about his feet, too. On the other hand, as someone said, going to the corner pretty much eliminates any possible safety help. What Romo said still makes the most sense to me, but who knows how the Bills operate in this situation. Romo said that in this situation (at least when he was playing), it's the receiver's job to know he's going to be open and to look back to find the ball before he makes his cut. It's cover zero, everyone knows the QB may have pressure and may have to let the ball go early, and the QB is going to have to make a choice. The receiver is supposed to find the ball first and just track it. I agree that where Josh threw it, it was the easiest pitch and catch. What we don't know is whether in the Bills' system, Josh had the option to pick that throw, or whether he had no reason to believe that Davis ever would expect to find the ball in the middle of the field. When Davis made his cut and looked for the ball, he seemed surprised to see where Josh had thrown it. I'd really like to know, but as is pretty much always the case, no one is talking.

You're response is completely driven by your distrust of Gabe Davis. If Davis were as bad as you seem to think he is, he wouldn't be on the field. Dorsey or Brady or McDermott would have insisted he be on the bunch or off the team entirely. The Davis criticism on this board is like the Bernard criticism here this summer. This board was almost unanimously of the view that Bernard was incapable of being the middle linebacker, because of his size, inexperience, and what people saw when he was on the field last year. Finally, late this summer, I asked why it was that McDermott didn't seem worried about the position and Beane had done absolutely nothing to bring in anyone to get a real middle linebacker on the field. I suggested that the reason McBeane had done nothing was because they decided they already had someone on the roster who could do the job. That turned out to be completely correct. The same is true for Davis. There simply is no way that Davis would still be on the field if McBeane thought Davis is as bad as people think here say he is. If he were really that bad, then Daboll should have been fired for playing him, and Dorsey should have been fired for playing him, and Brady would have been instructed when he was hired that he must insert someone else in the starting lineup. None of that happened for a reason, and the reason is that the Bills organization does not agree with your assessment of Davis's ability. As for "an important clutch play going to Davis," you seem to misunderstand how football, and all games, are played at the professional level. At this level, everyone is expected to do his job, and play calling is not done by excluding a player because he isn't trusted. If a player isn't trusted, he isn't on the field. That's why, for example, Cook got benched after fumbling on the first play of the game. He wasn't trusted, so he was given a rest. Gabriel Davis obviously IS trusted - that's why he's on the field so much. If he's on the field, then the offense will be executed without regard to the fact that he may have dropped a pass or anything else. On the play in overtime against the Eagles, Davis wasn't necessarily the primary receiver on the play as called. He became the primary receiver when he and Allen recognized that the Eagles were in cover zero and Davis had the deep route that would be open. As I've said before, the problem with that play was that someone made a mistake and didn't execute properly. It was either Davis or Allen (I think it was Davis), but the real problem was that Allen and Davis hadn't prepared themselves well enough to execute the way they should have.

Cook was drafted BECAUSE of his receiving skills. That's what made him attractive to the Bills. And he catches the ball pretty well. And no one's talking about the rain. That was tough weather to play football in.

I don't know that we know for a fact that this is why Dorsey was gone, but it certainly makes sense. And, really, that play represents what looks like a problem, but it was only one problem. The thing that was troubling everyone, starting at game 5, was the disappearance of any offensive flow or effectiveness. The Bills are 6-6 because the offense substantially underperformed its potential. With decent offensive performance, like we've seen in the last two games, the Bills would be 9-3 or even 10-2. It's really frustrating to have blown (absent a miracle) another opportunity.

Interesting, as well. The real point, of course, is not who did it right or wrong, but why they weren't on the same page. It doesn't make a lot of sense to run a play where there's a 50-50 chance it will fail because two players are both guessing at what to do.

That's why I see Dorsey's fingerprints. I'm sure, as you say, that they've connected on the same kind of plays in the past - heck, he caught so many TDs against the Chiefs, ONE of them most have been the same. The disconnect between the two of them this season suggests they haven't been working on aspects of the game in the same way as they'd done in previous seasons (or under Daboll). The great players all show you that they ALWAYS are working on the details of the game. I remember watching a Colts game late in the time when Peyton and Harrison were playing together. During the game, they showed video from pre-game workouts. Peyton and Harrison were running short out patterns, over and over, working on the timing of the throw, the brake, and the placement of the ball. These guys already were perhaps the greatest passer-receiver combination of all time, and late in their time together, they were still working on details of a simple play. I would guess that Dorsey didn't lead Josh and Gabe to continue to work on some details, and that's why we've seen what we've seen.

Well, I don't disagree with that - ultimately it's on McDermott. I've told this story before: Several years ago a US Navy submarine surfaced and accidentally struck a Japanese ship carrying several dozen Japanese students, like middle school or high school. Several kids drowned. I saw the captain of the sub on Larry King one night, and King kept asking him to identify who was responsible. Was the guy studying the sonar to see if the area where they were surfacing was clear of ships, or his commanding officer, or his? The captain said, immediately - "it's on me. I'm responsible for the boat, for everything that happens on the boat, and if something goes wrong, it's because I didn't cause my crew to be prepare. That's on me." In that sense, absolutely, it's on McDermott. And I don't think McDermott would argue with that conclusion. But in a different sense, when you're trying to fix the problem it's important to find the place where the system failed (the system that McDermott is responsible for and the system that McDermott has to fix). The point where the system failed, in my mind, is at the OC level, because the HC trusts the OC to train his players to execute, and they didn't. I think on the org chart, that's Brady, and so Brady said it's on him. But in truth, he couldn't be expected to train these guys in that kind of detail after only two weeks on the job. It was Dorsey's failure, and although they're working on it, the real fix can only be accomplished by a competent OC in the off-season. The coaching techniques and the attitudes of the coaches and players has to change. Now, there is a broader question that is squarely on McDermott. McDermott had the wrong OC. He knew there were problems with Dorsey after his rookie performance, and McDermott decided to give him a second season. He probably should have pulled the plug on Dorsey earlier than he did. So, there's all of that. And there's the question of whether he is the right leader to get his coordinators to be good at their jobs. He certainly didn't get Dorsey straightened out, and that IS his job.

I don't think it's as simple as both guys needing to make the same read about which way to cut. On the broadcast, Romo said that in that situation, it's the receiver's job to look early and find the ball. He's supposed to know it's cover zero, and therefore he knows the QB is likely to throw before the break. It's essentially Josh's option, to pick a side, and it's the receiver's job to find it and get it. This is operating on the assumption that he's going to beat the defender. Now, maybe that's just the way the Cowboys ran it, and other teams have other rules. But he said it as though everyone runs it that way, because the QB is likely throwing under duress and it's up to the receiver to make the play wherever the QB can put the ball. We don't know what his actions on the bench meant, but it certainly looked like Davis was reacting to his mistake and not just to a missed opportunity. And Josh's press conference was diplomatic, to say the least. The important point, as many have been saying, is that it's the coaches' job at this point in the season to have players on the field who can be depended on to execute the play as it's intended. If they can't run the play correct consistently, then you can't call the play.

I really do lay this on Dorsey. The Gabe-Josh disconnect began last season, so far as I can recall - prior to that they seemed to be truly together. This season there have been multiple occasions when Davis broke off the route and Josh threw deep (including that intentional grounding call), and several others when the opposite happened. Then Sunday. If a rookie had multiple disconnects like, the rookie would sit until he figured it out. It wasn't a problem for Davis as a rookie or afterward, until Dorsey become the OC. I don't agree. I think everyone runs option routes. It's standard - receiver has to read the defense and make the cuts, and the QB has to make the same read. That's the fundamental of the back shoulder throw - beat your man, go, side by side or covered, break it off. Happens all the time. But this season, for some reason, Davis and Allen aren't reading it the same way. It's a problem that is the coach's job to fix.

First, I agree. I think if you watch mediocre teams, you'll see plenty of miscommunication. You just don't see it on good teams. I've been saying something similar about wanting to be champions and putting in the work, but I think it's more than just the hours. I think McDermott has them putting in the hours. I think it's really what you're doing when you put in the hours. Are you mastering the important details and then moving on to the little details and mastering those. It's not just talking about what to do in this situation, and it's not just about doing it a few times in training. It's working really hard at it when you do practice, and you do it right, and you promise your teammates that you'll do it right in a game. It's all of those thing. I think McDermott has to ask himself whether he's leading these men to do THAT kind of work, and that includes himself. I'm going repeat something I've said before, and I think it's an example of what I'm talking about. I heard a retired player on the radio, an offensive lineman, a journeyman who'd played on several teams, including the Patriots. He said that every week the Patriot coaches would give him three to five keys use in the game, things like when the defensive tackle lines up six inches off, instead of head to head, he's stunting. Things that might happen only two or three times in the game, but things that would give him an edge on two or three plays. Every week he'd get three to five things specific to the week's opponent, and he said they always correct. He said no other team did that. What's the point? The point is that the Patriots made a fetish out of doing everything right, starting with coaches studying film to figure out keys like that, to coaches communicating them, to players creating an actual advantage on the field. Everyone committed, everyone working together. When I look at the Bills persistent failures at key times of the game, I see a team that isn't committed to details like that.

Bado - I'll tell you where I disagree, but let me start by saying you're exactly right about "next level" prep. That is what's missing. It's completely clear when you look at the string of late-game failures, particularly in big games and playoff games. Belichick understands "next level" prep. Where I disagree is that you then turn to WR and suggest they have the wrong players. I don't think that's true, or to put it a different way, I think the guys they have will do just fine if they have "next level" prep. Belichick won for years with a great QB and a lot of average players; he did it by having everyone, from the QB on down, buy into "next level" prep. I agree about Allen, and I've said it before. He needs to be the leader in "next level" prep. The team will follow him. And I don't agree that McDermott shouldn't be the coordinator - I think he has the same problem, whether he's the coordinator or not: he needs "next level" prep also. It's not that he isn't talented enough; it's that he hasn't thought about and mastered the details that he needs to. My complaint about McDermott is that by emphasizing versatility - let's be able to play every style - he sacrifices excellence in any particular style. And I think there's a parallel when it comes to preparation: I think he's great in the breadth of preparation ("we're going to have some preparation in everything"), but by going after breadth he sacrifices depth. Davis can block and catches a lot of balls and all - nice breadth, but when the chips are down, has he really mastered the details that will the game?

Brady's exactly right: it's on him. Except that he's only been on the job for two weeks. The failure of that play was a training issue, and the necessary training takes place in the off-season and continues into the season. Allen and Davis have to KNOW what to do on that play, know every little aspect of it, and beyond knowing they have to actually do it when the time comes. Someone screwed up because he wasn't well enough trained, and that problem is an offensive coordinator problem. It's his job to be sure that his coaches - the QB coach and the wide receiver coach - are holding their players to the appropriate high standard. During the broadcast, Romo was emphatic about it being Davis's mistake. He was talking about what he was trained to do, so it might not be the same for the Bills, but he said that going deep against single coverage, when he beats the coverage the wide receiver must look back and find the ball BEFORE making his cut. If Davis had looked back, he would have tracked the ball into the end zone to win the game. If that's right, then Davis wasn't trained well enough, and that's on Dorsey and the wide receivers' coach. Brady was correct organizationally - it's on the OC, but in his defense, he wasn't the OC when Davis should have been drilled about this. People point to the Davis mistake as another tally on the condemn-Davis ledger. Yes, it belongs on that side of the ledger, but there was a lot of excellent play from Davis in that game that goes on the other side.

I think this is correct. Easy to plan for. He gets his success out of disguise - he makes it hard for the QB to recognize what's coming until after the snap. The thing about that strategy is that everyone can plan for it, and the teams with mediocre QBs, or worse, have trouble because their QB can't make the reads in time. However, the teams with good QBs can make the reads, and then the defense is easy to attack. So, Mahomes, Hurts, Burrow, that girl who plays for the Jags, they're all saying, "Keep bringing those disguises." What's working on defense these days is a lot of disciplined, half-crazed defenders chasing the ball and hitting ferociously. That's not McD's style.

You know, I came here hoping you'd list them, and you did. Then, when I read the list, I simply couldn't remember all the situations and all the endings. My reaction: It's happened so often, it's hard to remember them all. And that's a sad tale.

Tremaine Edmunds! Wow. If he'd done that in Buffalo, he'd still be there.

I agree, McD needs Allen more than vice versa. Absolutely. Allen is gift for McDermott, and he's still trying to figure out how to take advantage. I see the Favre comparison, but I think Elway is dead on. Elway was a threatening, reckless runner, even more so than Josh. Never racked up the yards Allen got, but still, that's how he played. And Elway has the biggest arm in the game. Favre wasn't a natural big arm - he threw with power by putting his whole body into. Elway and Allen just fling it like no one else in the game.

A couple of things about this: First, you're almost right - in the NFL, GM and HC make just about all the difference, but not all. It's GM, HC, and QB. QB is far and away the most important position on the field, so much so that the other 21 guys are almost interchangeable. But don't tell me for a minute that the QB, all aspects of the QB performance, are not important to team success. And no, I can't point you to one article that says Allen is a bad leader. But I haven't seen the report, anywhere, that says that Allen is the hardest worker on the team. I'm pretty sure he isn't, because if he were, we'd see those reports. We saw them all the time about Brady - hardest working guy on the team, year after year. Manning was well understood to be a coach on the field. Rodgers is obviously an in-your-face, demanding guy. Allen isn't described by anyone as any of those things. So, I'd suggest you not kid yourself into believing he isn't all that he could be. The question is whether he will become more than he is. And if your answer to that is no, he won't, then you need to do some planning about how you're going to win with him, because what the HC is going to be saying to the team goes something like this: "You guys have to work your butts off to make everything perfect. Except Josh. Josh is so darn good that he doesn't have to work as hard as you need to work." That's not a message that McDermott ever will go with. Some other coach might, and some other coach might make it work. Frankly, I think it will. He needs the right coaches to get there, and I also think McDermott will do it.

Well, then you can't fathom it. I can't account for the depths of your understanding. I think that Allen is like a guy who hits 40 home runs every year but doesn't make the playoffs. He reminds me of Michael Jordan before Phil Jackson. Jordan's first few years, he tried to do it all and expected his teammates to do it, too. Under Jackson, he learned that his teammates never would be able to do what he could do. He learned that he had to show his teammates the work ethic necessary to be a winner, because his teammates could work as hard as he did. That's what Brady did, and that's what Allen needs to do. Rodgers did it in Green Bay, too, but he pissed off some people along the way. Manning did it in a different way. But all of them demanded, in one way or another, that everyone on the team, including the QB himself, work as hard as he can to be good every time. It simply is not enough to say that Davis breaking the wrong was is 100% on Davis. Davis is going to make that play correct every time only if he sees his QB working every day to make it correct, too. It's leadership. I didn't recommend it. I'm just saying that if you believe that Allen will never be a better leader than he is today, then one or the other must go. There are people on this forum who have said from time to time that the Bills should trade Allen, get the picks, and start over. I'm not one of them - I don't think you give up on generational talent, ever. But it's a point of view that I understand.

I hear what you're saying. There are two consequences to that. 1. You're making it much more difficult to win a Super Bowl, if that's true. It's really difficult to win with a QB whose engagement ends where you say it does with Josh, because when you get to the playoffs, you're going to be playing guys like Mahomes, Burrow, Tua, Purdy, and Hurts, each of whom is all-in. 2. Then you really have to decide who goes - Allen or McDermott, because McDermott needs the Allen I described. If he's not going to get that from Josh, then then McDermott needs a new QB. McDermott needs a QB who is a true leader, and you're telling me Josh won't ever be that. If you're not willing to part with McDermott, then Josh has to go. By the way, I don't agree with your assessment. I've been saying for years that Josh is John Elway, and Elway played way into his career before he became the leader he needed to be. McDermott is about being a life-long learner, continuous improvement, etc. He pitches that mantra to everyone, including Josh, and I think Josh will work this out. And, by the way, it seems pretty clear now that although he wasn't the only problem, the failures this season rest largely on Dorsey. (And, if you want to blame McDermott for hiring and keeping Dorsey, I'm not arguing much.)

I've found myself thinking this, over and over. I thought sticking with him after last season was the right thing to do, on the assumption that McDermott's evaluation of him was that he would make progress over what was a shaky first season. As it played out, what we saw in week one was what we saw starting in week five, but one bad game wasn't enough to fire him. He followed that with three weeks of big wins, averaging around 40 points a game. So, you're not going to fire him then. Then came London, so you're not going to fire him after that. The Giants game was the first clear sign that something was wrong, the first time McDermott might have said to himself, "I was wrong; he isn't progressing." But then you have a run of New England, Tampa Bay, and Cincinnati, where it became increasingly clear that Dorsey wasn't the answer. After the Bengals, there was no choice, which means that McDermott waited too long. He should have pulled the plugged at least a week earlier, maybe two, maybe even three. Broncos, Bengals, Patriots all could have been wins, and the season would look a lot different.