Shaw66

I agree with your take on this, and it's why I've been complaining about Dorsey for a while. If they're taking away the deep ball, and they've shut down the 15-yard wideout Josh used to live on, and if they're covering the underneath stuff, too, then their are opportunities to attach SOMEWHERE. It isn't possible for the back seven to cover sideline to sideline, line of scrimmage to the end zone. We saw nothing from Dorsey that suggested he could see where the openings were or that he could design routes that would punish the defense for playing the way they do.

Yeah, the nature of the relationship, and the importance of it, is an argument for an offensive HC, to be sure.

Seems to me it's a two-way street. There has to be a positive, productive relationship among QB, HC, and QB. They do have to listen to Allen, but Allen also has to respond to their leadership. Allen has to want to be great and be willing to do whatever it takes. As someone said, he needs to be obsessed about football excellence. That comes both from I side and leadership on the outside. I go back to Belichick and Brady. Bill was a defensive coach, but he and Brady were always on the same page when it came to what Brady was doing on the field. These recent comments suggest that McDermott delegated the care and feeding of Josh to the OC. If he did, that was a mistake. McDermott has the obsession. He needs to draw Allen in. Allen needs to see and live the vision of true greatness. I thought he was getting it earlier this year but, no. The best way to see it is to hang out with McDermott.

Well, I'm sort of in your camp, but certainly less enthusiastically. I love his past, but his past is irrelevant if your evaluation of McDermott is that his personal style and his vision of organization success just don't and can't deliver ultimate success. If you actually believed that, and there are many people on this forum who believe, then sticking with McDermott is a mistake, regardless of his history. If you believe his relationship with Allen, in particular, has soured for some reason, well McDermott probably has to go. So, I can see scenarios that are fairly realistic but not public knowledge that would make me decide he should go. But as I've said elsewhere, the question is what leadership is most likely to get this team from here to a Lombardi? And the answer to that may very well be McDermott and Beane, because we know that they can at least build a team that is a consistent playoff team, which is the first step to winning the Lombardi. A hotshot coordinator may look like the guy, but he's never done it before. It's difficult to find the right guy. And there's continuity. They've been running the team for the past two years with the next three in mind. They've set up the roster in terms of age with a plan for how they will transition into a new collection of players, including new leadership. That's a huge head start over a newcomer coming. So, for me, there has to be a really good reason to move from those guys. The Pegulas hurried them to be long-term successes in Buffalo, and they haven't yet shown that they can't be. What they've shown is they haven't done it yet.

This raises another interesting question. I haven't seen Brady, but I agree with your observations of Dorsey. In some post today, I said Dorsey seemed like he was trying to solve a puzzle, rather than a guy who feels like beating the DC on the other sideline is the most important thing in the world, and doing it is second only to beating a guy on the field. Dorsey's whole style, including his oral presentation, never gave me the feeling that he was the guy to lead men into battle. The other interesting question is this: If what we're talking about is real, why hadn't Beane and McDermott figured out that he wasn't a leader before they promoted him? That was a serious mistake. Was it because Josh wanted him?

Oh, if Terry P. keeps McDermott for 24, I think he's keeping him for multiple years after. If he's guided by belief in Sean and by belief in continuity as organization principle, keeping him next is deciding you're in with the next run. And, yes, as you say, that belief in Sean would almost certainly mean Pegula likes him personally. It would be interesting to know what up-and-coming offensive assistant coaches think about the Bills OC position. If you would like to have a future that follows the standard ladder - Assistant, Position Coach, Coordinator, Head Coach, would Buffalo be attractive? Or do assistants around the league already think that the environment is poisoned, and the coordinator position there won't be a good stepping stone? When Sean McDermott goes to the market to hire the next OC, will the best candidates submit their resumes?

I don't agree that we know that for McDermott. I think there are people who do know, most importantly Beane and Terry Pegula. They know what the relationship is like, and I'd expect that Mr. Pegula will be thinking a lot about it for the next few months. He may do his thinking on his own, he may do it with Beane, but he'll be thinking. But he might very well simply say to himself, "I trust Sean. I decided to go on a journey with Sean, and I'm on it."

Great stuff, particularly the bold. I've heard coaches say that they love coaching because it's a way to continue competing. That of course is McDermott, but a lot of other guys, too. Beane actually says it, that what he loves about the job is trying to beat the other GMs in free agency and the draft. Dorsey never seemed to me to be a fighter. He seems to like the game because it's a puzzle to solve, rather than a chance to run over the other guys.

This little exchange you and UK had was an excellent collection of observations about Allen I think you describe him, and what else he needs to do, perfectly. "Mentally obsessed with the game" is exactly right. It's not enough to think about it and then trust your body. You've got to know it, inside and out, live it, and when you can do that, then you'll be special. And here's the big question about McDermott. Almost every QB needs a coach who shares his obsession, and the two have to relate. The coach is the one who stokes and feeds the passion. Brady without the obsessive Belichick might never have grown to what he became. Reid is Mahomes' muse. It can't be the OC, because OCs are going to come and go, so it has to be McDermott. McDermott and Allen have to be tight for this team to flourish. If they aren't, then there has to be a new head coach. Simply put, at the end of the day, the job of the head coach of the Buffalo Bills is to harness the power that is Josh Allen. If you can't do that, you aren't the man for the job.

Deek - This is outstanding. Thanks for taking the time to say that. I understand it completely, and it is something that I've observed in people, as well. Most everyone plateaus. In my own career, by several measures I plateaued at an identifiable level. But having plateaued at some point, it didn't mean that my learning plateaued. I continue to have developed as a human being, and accumulated more experience so that I began to understand things and accomplish things that I simply could not have done earlier. I like to think I had some kind of wisdom. If you mean plateaued in the sense that the person will never get better, yes, there are people who just choose to mail it in, plenty of people who just get comfortable in their jobs. However, McDermott is not one of those people. McDermott makes himself get better. He demands it of himself. I'm not saying I know what's right. What you say certainly could describe the reality of McDermott and the situation, and what I say could be nonsense. I tend to like my take better than yours but then, you tend to like yours. The real bottom line is that we pretty much all hope that Joe Brady is special, right out of the gate, and the Bills go 6-1 and stroll into the playoffs, led by their consensus league MVP. What we all want to see is the answer to the real question: What are you going to do now?

I'm sorry, but I can't help you with reading comprehension. All I can do is repeat what I said: Fumbling on the first play of the game means the player was not prepared to play. If he's not prepared, he needs to sit and get himself prepared. Turnovers are different from drops. Completely different.

Excellent. One other point. In the past day, I've been talking about whether McDermott should be kept, and one thing I've said is that the future for the Bills will continue to be about finding a way to win with Allen. When you have a talent like that, you have to find a way to win with it. Dorsey clearly was failing at that. The offense was doing exactly what you say, and Allen's unique skill set was being wasted. One thing about the future is clear to me: Whoever the head coach is, he has to be connected to Allen at the hip, walking and running side-by-side, in lockstep. If dumping Dorsey was McDermott's move to reestablish himself in his relationship with Allen, then it was a good move. In any case, the things that you say McDermott said are clear indications that he understands that the success of the team is dependent on the success of Allen, and that it is his priority to have coaches who make Allen succeed. And, just because it really bothered me, related to your number 4, other than getting a pre-snap read on the coverage scheme, why in the world did Dorsey have Diggs in motion all night long against Denver? I think Dorsey thought he was being creative but, really?

What is the drop everyone talks about? The ball that was intercepted, or was there another one? Whatever, drops are different from fumbles. No player executes correctly on 100% of his plays, and you don't bench players for occasional failures to execute. Fumbles are different. Fumbles are game-changing plays. In the NFL, if you're a fumbler, you don't play. If you drop enough passes you don't play, either, if you drop one here or there, you don't get benched.

A good point. And I know the other fumble was statistically on Allen, but given that Cook had two other fumbles, I have to wonder whether that wasn't on Cook, too. Allen wouldn't say that, of course. After the first fumble and the benching, I would have thought that ball security wasn't going to be a problem with Cook for the rest of the game. It's be interesting to see the next time Kincaid fumbles. Will it be next week, or next season?

Oh, yeah, there's plenty that I say that criticizes McDermott, but I'll admit that primarily I sound like a homer. That's because what I generally do when thinking about the Bills is ask myself why Beane or McDermott might have decided to do what they did. That's what I write about. So, I look for the logic in the decisions that they make, rather than criticize what they did because I think they should have done something else. You can see that in what I wrote about the Cook benching. I don't know whether it was the correct move or not, but I wrote that I could see why it made sense, why McDermott probably did it. And I don't bother to dwell on the negative. In the past couple of days, if you go back and look at my posts, you will see that I say I agree with the idea that McDermott's teams have a lot of unsatisfactory game-ending events. 13 seconds, the penalty against Denver, Hail Murray. There are a lot of them, and they tell me the team isn't properly prepared to win in those circumstances. But my view about those things also is that everyone makes mistakes, and the measure of how good people are in their jobs is how they learn and respond from mistakes. I continue to have confidence that McDermott will be a better HC five years from now than he is today. I get that people disagree with that, some people who just are frustrated and what a change for change's sake, and some people who have some good reasons to believe that he'll always lose big games.

My cousin used to tell me that it's not just the number of injuries a team has and when they occur. Bills had the good luck to face the Jets after Rodgers got injured, and didn't take advantage of it. They had the bad luck of playing the Bengals in one of the few games when Burrow was at his peak and the Bills defensive backfield was a shambles. I'm something of a Burrow fan. I love his cool, and I marvel at his accuracy. Tee Higgins catches all those passes because every one is right on his hands, in stride, chest high. Burrow's amazing to watch, unless he's playing the Bills.

First, I seriously doubt that the OC benched Cook. I'm sure it was McDermott. And I know people had trouble with how long the guy was on the bench,; I see their point of view, but it didn't trouble me a whole lot. McDermott (like all coaches) is very much into the next-man-up philosophy, and he is not going to assume that Cook is the only guy who can execute the plays at running back. Josh may be the only guy McDermott wouldn't bench. I would have benched him too. When I guy fumbles on the first play from scrimmage, it says he wasn't ready to play. It's his JOB to be ready to play. In the old days, Jim Brown always made sure he was ready to play, because in those days a lot of players eased themselves into the game, so Brown knew that the first play from scrimmage was an opportunity. These days, everyone is ready to go on the first play, and Cook showed that he wasn't. It's the coach's job to send a message to a guy who isn't ready, and the only way to do it is to bench him. And McDermott's point is correct - Cook hasn't shown he can be trusted. He hasn't been around long enough, and he hasn't come through for the team in ways that have earned that trust. Taron Johnson, Micah Hyde, Stefon Diggs make a mistake, they are right back out there. I'm a Belichick fan. He takes the same approach. He regularly benches guys who fumble early in the game. And McDermott is a student of the game, and I wouldn't be surprised if he learned this from watching Belichick. Doesn't mean it's right, of course, but it's not like the benching was some kind of bizarre decision the suddenly popped into McDermott's head.

I agree about the roster turnover. I'm still in the keep-him camp, but the roster turnover is a good point. It's going to be a new team with Allen at quarterback, so the question is who is going run the transition to the new roster, and who is going to coach the new roster when it's assembled. Which means the question is are you going to give McDermott a second shot at building and coaching a winner? So, put another way, the question facing the Pegulas is this: Who do you want to coach the next run at success, because this one is ending? Do you want McDermott, or do you want someone else? And that raises a second question: Who is the GM? Would the Pegulas axe McDermott and keep Beane? Would Beane want it? And if the Pegulas believe in McDermott, would they double down on him by keeping him and letting him pick the GM? One advantage that McBeane have is continuity. Without knowing, I can guarantee you that Beane and McDermott already have a plan for the roster turnover. And they aren't thinking of it as a new team - they think of it as a continuation. The plan identifies the likely year in which guys need to be replaced, whether guys will stay with the team but in a reduced capacity - Dawkins to right tackle, for example. I mean, I have no idea that Dawkins might become a right tackle - just giving an example. They know which holes are priorities. That all goes into their draft planning and their cap planning. McBeane will have a much better formed idea of how to transition than a new team coming in. That is, it would be easiest for McBeane to manage the transition you're talking about, and that makes the transition riskier if led by newcomers. It's why there is a benefit in continuity. Of course, it doesn't matter if you've just had it with McBeane. But if the Bills are going to look preliminarily at who's likely to be in the head coach market, they need to ask if any candidate actually will give the Bills a better chance to win. I don't think it's so obvious that the Bills could hire someone better. Why? Because how can the Pegulas tell if any candidate can do an incredibly complex job - assemble talent, including coaching talent, install offenses and defenses, acquire players, develop a winning relationship with Josh, manage games, etc., etc., etc. There's no way to know. So, I think that means the Bills might very well see McBeane in a different light - they might decide that McBeane are doing the right things but they haven't succeeded yet. In that case, they might see McBeane as the best candidates to manage the transition to the new roster. I know, some people think I'm crazy. I'm okay with that. But think about this. When McDermott and then Beane came in, they actually did it. Right? All that stuff - acquire talent and coaching, install offense and defense - they did all that stuff. They turned a perennial loser into a perennial winner. They demonstrated that they can do it. Anyone the Bills hire from the outside has no track record doing that. And the fact that they built what they built, and they learned what they learned along the way in doing it, means they have a big headstart over someone coming in new. For McBeane, they've demonstrated they can build to where they did, and now they need to demonstrate they can get to the top. For every other candidate, he'll have to demonstrate he can build his team and win AND demonstrate that he can get to the top. That is why Mike Tomlin is still the coach in Pittsburgh. The Steelers' management strategy is that you hire someone who's good and you go with him for the long-term. Their strategy is to win based on the advantage that continuity gives them.

Thanks. I love the discussions. I want to respond only because we get this John Brown stuff all the time, and I think it's nonsense. He played for 8 teams in 9 seasons, and he stuck with none of them because he was a lousy route runner and an inconsistent ball catcher. Every team that ever had Brown decided they had to replace him. He had 1000 yards one season with the Bills, in Josh's early years when teams were letting Josh throw deep a lot. This off-season a lot of posters were making a lot of noise about Gabe Davis's 50% catch rate. Well, when Brown had a thousand yards, his catch rate was 63%, nothing to write home about. He made an occasional spectacular play, but in the end he wasn't any more valuable than Davis. Davis has played half as many games, has half as many yards and receptions, much more than half as many touchdowns, and their catch percentages are identical. John Brown is a myth.

Just not true. They signed a good free agent guard, and they spent a second-round pick on another. They signed Morse. They draft Kincaid in the first round and Cook in the second. All the more reason to believe that Dorsey WAS the primary problem. There's talent up and down the offensive lineup, and it's talent that's produced in the past. Over the past two years, there's been a steady increase in talent, and the offense has declined. The one change that took place that accounts for this is the change in the offensive coordinator.

Thanks. Great discussion. I believe in the pendulum in football. We're already seeing the running game come back some as teams overload to stop the passers. And I believe in the pendulum for coaches, too. I simply would not make a five- or ten-year head coaching decision on a factor that is a swinging pendulum. Yes, the Bills are behind the pendulum curve, and that's exactly the point. When you hire a coach, you want to keep him, and living with an offense minded coach in a defensive era is no prettier than the other way around. The one point in your favor, I believe, is that the QB is just so damn important, you have to have a HC who is in sync with the QB. That's why I said earlier I'd want to know how strong the McDermott-Allen relationship is. That's maybe the single most important data point for me. I don't want Allen picking the head coach, but I want Allen to be tight with whoever the head coach is. That's probably easier with an offensive head coach. But frankly, I think offense/defense is less important than the coach's ability to bridge the generational gap. That is, Reid and Mahomes connecting personally is more important than Reid calling plays for Mahomes. Just my opinion. You can deal with the poaching problem a bit with salary, and with a guy who's really committed to the QB and the coach. Josh McDaniel, for example. Reading all this makes me think McDermott better have struck some gold with Brady, because the clock is ticking. If Brady doesn't work and the Bills bring in someone knew, that's probably McD's last chance. Finally, if McDermott really has lost the locker room, and things fall apart down the stretch, then, of course, it may be time for the process to leave town.

I don't know if I agree with your conclusion, but the rest of this is exactly correct. The future of this team is Josh Allen; he is practically the only guy who will be with the team in five years, and a lot of familiar faces will be gone in the next two to three. True for every team. The question is exactly as you say - do you want Beane to assemble the talent coming behind the current talent, and do you want McDermott to coach it. If I'm answering that question today, I'm keeping Beane and McDermott.

Thanks. I love your stuff, and this is particularly good. Let me start with a couple of general things: 1. I haven't been writing for a lot of reasons, but one of the reasons is that I've concluded that I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't know how to manage a football team, how to coach a football, or anything else related to football beyond the peewee level. And that's not an admission that I'm wrong and others are right, because I don't think anyone else does either. Well, maybe you. GunnerBill is the only one here who says things that make me believe that he actually does know what he's talking about at a level that is somewhat comparable to people in the actual NFL industry. 2. I'm absolutely flabbergasted that 80% of respondents to your poll want to replace McDermott. Okay, responding to you: I hear what you're saying, I feel it, and you may be correct. I don't know if you're correct because as I said, I don't know what I'm talking about. I agree that you can have a good coach who isn't right for the team and the situation. Dan Reeves, who I've mentioned in connection with Elway. Tony Dungy with Peyton. I'm sure there are others. Andy Reid, possibly, with the Eagles. Reid, of course, is interesting both ways - the Eagles won the Super Bowl after he left, and the Chiefs won when they got him. On the other hand, no one can say whether Reeves and Elway or Dungy and Manning would have won if the team had kept the coach. It's unknowable. We can have opinions, but it's unknowable. I haven't been reading much lately about the Bills, so I don't know where this talk is coming from that McDermott has lost the locker room. I don't know. But if he has, that's serious, and that would certainly make me think more seriously about making a change. As for your whole offense/defense thing, I get it, but I'm guessing you're behind the curve on this. First, you left out DeMeco Ryans and Robert Saleh, two defensive gurus who are having success. Jets would be eating up a lot of teams if they hadn't lost Rodgers. The defense is superb. So, I don't think it's as simple as you say. Second, offenses are struggling more and more every season, and I'm pretty sure the NFL is going to be making rule changes to boost scoring. I'd bet that the rule about illegal man downfield will be changed this off-season, because it is being enforced in a way that hurts offenses even though almost every infraction that is called had nothing to do with the success of the play. That's just an example. The NFL is going to do things, as they have in the past, to make offense easier. When that happens, any old boy will be able to be an offensive coordinator, and the hot commodity will be the defensive wizard. Chasing the current winning formula is rarely a winning strategy in the NFL, because by the time you get up to speed doing what the other teams have done, the league has moved on. I hear you about the team's failures at critical moments, and I agree that that has to be counted against McDermott. But the mistakes of the past do not predict the future. He's had lots of successes in the past, too, but in times like these, fans forget them. So, when the Bills overcame a meltdown to come from behind against the Rams, the players get the credit, not the coach, but when they don't overcome a meltdown, the coach gets the blame. So, even though what you say makes sense, I don't think it's the right analysis. McDermott is under 50 years old, is devoted to life-long learning, and is no doubt his own toughest critic. He is not going to stand still. He will be a better coach five years from now than he is today. The question cannot be answered by saying the team needs an offensive minded head coach. It can't be answered by pointing out the mistakes of the past. The question has to be answered by a thorough analysis of what it takes to win in the NFL and asking whether McDermott has it. And I can't answer that question. I do know one thing: When you have a talent like Josh Allen, if must find a way to win championships. Like Montana and Brady and Peyton and Rodgers and Ben and Elway, he gives you an advantage over just about everyone in the league, an advantage that is so large that you should be a regular winner. And that means, as I've been saying, that when you have an Allen, you have to have a top-5 offense or you're screwing. Allen's team should be among the pre-season favorites to win the Super Bowl every season, and he should play in multiple Super Bowls. The responsibility for that success falls on two people: HC and OC. Now, it's nice, if you have both in one guy, but it's not easy. Even if you have a genius head coach in terms of offense, if he isn't a personality fit with the QB, it doesn't matter. And, by the way, Brady's mentor at the Pats was Belichick, not McDaniel, another argument suggesting that it won't work with a defensive head coach. So, if I'm Terry Pegula, I want to know if McDermott and Josh are bonded, if McDermott can keep Josh locked in to being the best he can be. It certainly hasn't happened this year, but I am convinced that Dorsey really did block Allen's path to success. Josh is the key to success for the next ten years. If McDermott is the guy to bring out the best in Josh, I'm keeping Sean. If not, I guess I'm looking for a replacement. But as I said, I don't know.

80-20 no. Astounding to me.

But this is the job of the QB. Yes, he may never be a great game manager like Peyton, Brady, or some others, but he has shown that he can be good enough. When they ran no-huddle a few weeks ago, he was really engaged, and he operated the offense almost flawlessly. He's not persistently pig-headed, like Cutler was. He's demonstrated over and over again that he can manage the offense with a high level of effectiveness. He needs an offense that works. Look at how stylized the Patriots offense was that Brady ran. They played a lot of seasons with no great talent at receiver, but they gave Brady options to execute. Then they had Moss, and they gave Brady options to execute. Then they had two tight ends. Then they had that slot receiver guy. Whatever the style was, Brady knew where the opportunities were. There is no reason Josh should not have an offense where it's clear where the opportunities. It's particularly true because his running ability puts a threat on the field that most teams don't have, so the defense has more to worry about. And it's particularly true that his passing ability is greater than just about every other QB, so that gives the Bills an edge, too. As I've been saying, when your QB has that talent, your offense has to be top five, and it's the OC's job to get there.