Shaw66

Absolutely.

What Purdy knows how to do is run the game. His problem is that there are six to ten plays a game where his body can't deliver what the play demands. Allen doesn't have that problem. Allen needs to run games like Purdy does, and when he does, the Bills will be awesome. He did it against the Raiders, and the Bills dominated.

So, I watched the Giants and 49ers last night, and I did this. I imagined Josh Allen at QB, running that offense the way Purdy runs it, game-manager style. When Purdy consistently overthrew receivers deep, I imagined the way Allen would throw the same pass. I imagined Allen escaping the pocket when Purdy couldn't. There were a half dozen throws last night that Purdy failed to complete that are gimmes for Allen. The 49ers with Allen behind center would be unbeatable. And the 49ers offense moved the ball the way the Bills did on Sunday - methodically. Nothing fancy; just get the ball to the skill players on every down. Avoid downs when no skill guy has the ball in his hands. Samuel, McCaffrey, Kittle, other guys, over and over. Just give them the ball. Then, when the defense slips up, hit them with a big play. And, yes, their skill players are different, to be sure, and maybe better (it's amazing how all three of their big stars always get the extra yards), but Diggs, Davis, Knox, Kincaid, Cook and the role players are very good. The Bills even use their fullback/H-back/tight end the same way. Allen needs to get the ball in the skill players' hands every play. He needs to take the sure completion instead of the possible big play. Just take it every time. The biggest enemy in the Bills offense is the incompletion, because incompletions are plays where no skill player has a chance to make a play. People argue that asking Allen to play that way is taking the ball out of his hands, it's compromising his greatness. I don't think so. His total yards rushing will go down, but that's okay because everyone knows that running the ball is going to shorten his career. His passer rating will go up, because his completion percentage will go up, his TD/INT ratio will go up. The Bills' total yards on offense will go up, because every play that is not an incompletion will add yards to the offense. Everything will go up except hits on the quarterback.

Or maybe it was Nicholas Nickleby. One of those guys.

Sorry he's leaving. He was an important security blanket. But I like it when guys know their own minds. As he began to be clear about what his role would be in Buffalo (and as Bernard was showing that he is a real obstacle to getting back on the field), he must have had a frank conversation with himself. He had a nice career. I wish him well.

"It seems difficult," is a good way to put it. Yes, even Sunday, even though lots of drives ended it touchdowns. I can't really prove it, but I think defenses have a book on Allen on the Bills. 1. Do not let him throw long. 2. Do not let him run. A lot of zone defense helps accomplish both of those things. Teams were able to get away with deep drops on zones in part (I think) because Allen didn't take the easy throw, the short throw, unless as a last resort. Sunday, he was taking those throws. It seemed almost like he was looking for them. That gave the offense the look of struggling, because he was throwing what looked like check downs, over and over. I don't think that's really what was happening. I think Allen really drank the Kool-Aid before Sunday's game, and the Bills showed the Raiders (and the league) that they score more or less every time if the defense is designed to stop Allen and the big play. The Bills really crushed the Raiders with that game. Now, it's not all on Allen. Yes, I think he made decisions the way the offense demands. But I think the other change is the running game. The ball isn't in Allen's hands all the time now, because he isn't the running game. So, it wasn't just Allen taking the easy throw. It also was the Bills running the ball with their backs, consistently, with positive gains on enough runs to make running a consistent contributor to the offense. It goes back to what I said about skill players. I think the way modern offenses succeed is by giving your skill guys the ball as often as you can. The more plays your skill players have the ball, the better your offense will be. Until we saw the Bills Sunday, giving the ball to the backs hasn't been something the Bills have wanted to do. The backs weren't great, and the offensive line didn't get the job done. But on Sunday, the running backs consistently hurt the defense, because the backs are better and the line is better. So, in a sense, on Sunday the Bills had more skill players on the field than they have in the past, because they had skill players with the right skills. The other part of getting the ball to skill players more often is a higher completion percentage. Every completed pass is another play a skill guy has contributed, and every completed pass is a chance for a skill guy to make a play. It's why I compared them to the 49ers. So, yes, even Sunday the offense looked difficult. But I think that's primarily because the Raiders defense sold out to stop the pass and stop Allen. Defenses wil adjust, because the Bills are saying to everyone, "If you don't stop our short stuff, you'll never get the ball. We can run 6-7-8-9 minute drives, and we can score in the red zone." Once defenses start looking for ways to stop the short stuff, the things that make the offense look easy - the 15-20 yard completions to open receivers, Allen breaking off a 20 yarder because the defense wasn't looking - will come back. In a way, I think what is happening is something that McDermott said several years ago - that he intended to build an offense that attacks every part of the field, sideline to sideline, from the line of scrimmage to the opponent's goal line. Allen and John Brown and Diggs gave him a way to attack deep up the sidelines. Davis became useful medium deep over the middle. Beasley helped shallower over middle, but he was limited in some ways. Allen wasn't good throwing the touch passes in the flat when he first got to Buffalo, and even now that he throws that ball well, he hasn't really had players who could do much of anything out there. Now, it's different. Kincaid is full-fledged threat in the middle, and he's more effective in the flat that the other tight ends. McKenzie wasn't versatile enough in the flat or over the middle. Cook is a threat in the flat, better than Singletary, and Murray is, too. The run game can attack the line of scrimmage. In short, the Bills look like they have what McDermott wanted, and the offense that can attack everywhere. To bring it back to Allen, he now doesn't have to be the answer on every play. He just has to get the ball to all the other guys. He's extraordinarily talented, physically, at doing that; he just as to keep taking the easy play, over and over. And then, every once in a while, on a play here and there, things won't go right, and Superman will save the day. As I said, what he needs to be is Brock Purdy most of the time - just run the play as designed, and get the ball to all those guys who can catch and run. Then, every once in a while, do something that Brock Purdy can only dream of.

Thanks. Good points. I don't think it's just the turnovers. I think he makes the game more difficult for his teammates. I wrote earlier about making the most of the skill players. I think, for example, the run-after-catch stats that people keep citing are an example of how he may make the game more difficult. Skipping the easy completion for the tougher throw is another. I think he can have easier wins by executing the offense better, by giving his playmakers more opportunities. I understand I may be full of it. I think Allen will get better at his decision making, and that's when I think he and the Bills will have real success.

Interesting. Thanks.

Well, my impression is that it just isn't that bad here. I seem to be able to find plenty of people to talk with in rational conversations. I use the ignore feature on 8-10 people, some of whom know a lot of football, but who are good at drawing me into arguments I don't want to be in. I don't want to be in those conversations, so I ignore the poster. Ignore allows us to know that ignored posters have posted in the thread, and it lets me look at posts individually. Lately I've been doing more of that, because some of them hav inteeresting points to make.

Well, I wouldn't be too tough on your fellows here. The reality is, a lot of fans were really wired for the opener. There was a lot pent up emotion, and a lot people who wanted to see the demons of last season exorcised. Instead, what they got was a disappointing showing in a big game, a nationally-televised game. It hurt. It wasn't surprising that there was a lot unhappiness expressed. Look at my Rockpile Review before the first game. I predicted that what we'd see against the Jets was a thoroughly human machine. Instead, what I got was a team that looked like the nervous challenger to the throne, instead of the steady defender of it. I didn't write a Rockpile Review that week, because I didn't want to talk about it. Just hurry up move on to the next game was how I felt. Fortunately, the next game made me feel better. Once we get a little farther into the season, once it's a little clearer what we have, then I expect the discussions will make more sense. So long as we aren't 3-4.

Very okay with his play? Oh, yeah, I'm on board with that. Absolutely. I'm not complaining about Josh. I'm never trading him, cutting him, losing him in free agency. What I'm talking about (at least my view of it) is whether Allen will be Aaron Rodgers or Philip Rivers. Or Michael Vick or Cam Newton. I think that how Allen played against the Jets looks familiar - it happens to him, and if it continues to happen he won't have reached the greatness we all expect of him. Right now, I think he's spectacular to watch but not winning as consistently as he should. When he really learns how to run games, he's going to be unbelievable. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. In a way, your offense is only as good as how many of your skill position guys make plays. This season it looks like Bills have some real talent at all the skill positions, deep talent. Plus, the Bills have the most skilled QB. The problem is maximizing the touches the skill guys get in the places where they can make plays. Allen is the one who can maximize the touches, because he's the guy who can get the ball to them. So Allen has to run the offense correctly. Once he does that, it should be amazing. Want to imagine what it can be like? I think at the skill positions, collectively the Bills look like the 49ers. Yeah, we can argue about the names, and the reputations, but Knox and Kincaid create a lot of threats at tight end. Kittle does, in different ways. Diggs is a serious threat, different from Deebo, but I don't know that I'm trading, even up. Bills running backs create tests. All the 49er guys have bigger reputations, but the Bills are similarly challenging to defenses. Now, imagine the 49ers having Allen at QB instead of Brock Purdy. I think it's easy to imagine what a huge difference that would be. If Allen ran that offense as designed, and you take his mobility, arm strength, toughness over Purdy's, that would be incredible. That's what I think Allen can be, and I'm all in on it. But it is very much about his ability to increase the touches for his teammates, and that's about sustaining drives and not turning it over. Want to know what the biggest stat of the game was? The Bills ran 74 plays to the Raiders 39. How many of those 74 plays were Josh Allen highlights? Very few. He spent the whole game making sure that the playmakers got the ball. When you have good playmakers, it's all about getting them the ball. And it's an added bonus when your QB is one of the best playmakers anyone has ever seen. That's why I think Allen getting his mistakes under control is important. I think his mistakes are the only thing keeping him from winning a lot, really a lot, of MVPs and Super Bowls, and whatever else you want to measure. I think if he starts playing with discipline and avoids mistakes, he could forever be in the conversation of top 5 QBs, all time. But time's a-wastin. If he doesn't become that, I'd guess he'll still win a Super Bowl. Everything will come together sometime, but his success could be so much greater than just one magical year.

Our collective lives with Josh Allen have been that Josh Allen, the guy throwing 2.25:1. That's what has to change. He needs to be productive at 3:1 rate. Josh is currently 15 on the career list; Cousins, Lamar, Patrick, Burrow, Herbert; they're all ahead of him. And I don't think adding in rushing TDs really matters, because everyone agrees that Josh running isn't sustainable. Plus, if you're going to add rushing TDs, you also have to add fumbles lost. Not that I live and die on ANY stat, but it is good evidence that Allen needs to make better decisions. He needs to put up games like the Raiders game - just routine wins, not full of adventure. Boring wins, if you will. That's what all the great ones did, do. Brady, Rodgers, Peyton, Mahomes. It's a combination of great production and limiting mistakes. When Josh gets disciplined in his thinking, his wins will pile up. The Allen miracle plays and miracle wins will still happen, just like Rodgers and Mahomes, but not so often. Some people have talked before about whether the Jets game was a turning point in his career. Too early to tell, of course, but I thought he made a dramatic change from week to week, from taking the snap and trying to figure it out from there (Jets) to just running the play the way he's taught to run it (Raiders). Make the right decisions, take sure completions over possibly bigger games. Someone said we don't want to turn him into a game manager, but in fact a game manager, in the literal sense, is what he needs to be. Some people imply "athletically limited" when they talk about game managers, meaning the guy can't beat you with his body but he survives with his brain. Allen isn't that guy, obviously, but Allen does need to manage the game by running the plays as they were designed. Most of the Bills plays are designed without regard to Allen's physical skills; they're designed so that normal NFL starting quarterbacks can run them. Allen has to understand that on most plays, his special physical skills are not required, and he should play in a way that does not require him to use his special skills. He has to run the plays as they were designed - read the progressions and do what you're supposed to do. And do it with some principles in mind; principles like (in most cases) a 5-yard throw that has a 90% completion rate is better than a 30-yard throw that has a 50% completion rate and a 10% INT rate. Those are the kind of things that game managers do, because in their case, it's the only way they can survive in the league. But they are also the kind of thing that Brady and Manning did, too. Making good decisions, which will reduce the mistakes, will make Allen great. How great? Well, how long will it take him to play every game like the Raiders game? He's working on a streak of exactly one game. Based only on my stereo-typed view of alcoholics and recovery, and with apologies if I've offended, a part of the solution is an awareness of the problem and a daily intention not to have the problem today. I'd say the same thing to Josh. You've got one, can you make it two?

It's not about one's opinion of who Allen is. It's about your dismissive point, which was that bad games are not to be considered when evaluating Allen's greatness? Why should his good games be considered, but not his bad games? It's all part of the same package.

That's an interesting point. Frankly, I don't expect he'll ever be that kind of QB. I don't think his body is built for it. His body gives him other advantages, but natural quickness is something he doesn't have. Imagine Allen as a wideout. He can't run routes as well as Davis, because his body won't let him. And imagining how he would run routes compared to Diggs is actually funny. Time-to-release is a useful stat, but I think it's principal importance is as a pass-fail test. If you pass, it doesn't matter so much if you were the fastest or slowest. That is, I don't think it matters much if Allen is really fast. I think he brings so much to the game, there's nothing wrong with being just average in some categories. Against the Raiders, I could imagine that this could be a team that is unstoppable. If Allen is disciplined like that, the oline protects him like that, the Bills have a lot of weapons. Three running backs, five receivers. And Allen.

Sorry, but this just flat out wrong. Praise of Allen's play in a game helps establish his greatness, but criticism of his play in a game isn't a valid commentary on the bigger picture? If Josh Allen's poor decision making costs the Bills two games a year, that absolutely is a "larger Josh Allen problem." Two losses a year essentially would mean that for his team to be as good as it should be, Allen has to single-handedly save two other games. In other words, those two games when Allen pulls a rabbit out of hat don't count as part of his greatness, because it's really only offsetting two games he lost. How a player plays every game is part of the analysis of that player's greatness or lack of it. Ask Bill Buckner.

Well, I'm still not so thrilled. I do think the guy needs SOME ability to break tackles; he needs at least a little power in his game. But having said that, I agree with you. And there's a particular point that you didn't mention that has impressed me. I think he sees the creases really well. He has some hesitation in his game, not always, but sometimes, because he seems to understand that the opening isn't there yet but it's coming. Your point about his speed and smooth cutting is relevant here. When he sees where he wants to go, he's quick to accelerate, and he accelerates really well. And it is smooth; he just flows into his cuts. He'll never be a power back and I'm not sure he's going to break a lot of really long runs. But he's a constant threat to go 12 yards, a bigger threat than Singletary was. And because he catches the ball well, part of what makes him a threat is that the Bills can get him the ball in places necessary to attack every part of the line of scrimmage, from the right flat right through the middle of the line to the left flat. Singletary attacked between the tackles, and the Bills needed McKenzie in the lineup to threaten wide. Cook means the Bills can attack all along the line with just one guy. Sunday they ran a few stretch handoffs to get Cook on the edge before the defense could adjust. Allen has the ability to get out to make the handoff behind the tackle in a hurry. He doesn't look like a superstar, but he has the potential to be seriously good. Well, let's say that differently: I'm becoming convinced that he IS seriously good; it's just that people around the league aren't really understanding it yet. (I feel the same way about Rousseau. Later this season, I think the talking heads will be talking about both of them.) Two other related points. First, I know he's not Marcus Allen, but Cook's running style reminds me of Allen. Allen was really smooth, and Cook is smooth like him. Cook seems to glide around the field the way Allen did. Allen had the power that made him a Hall of Famer, and Cook may never show that, but the fact that his style looks like Allen is enough for now. Second, I think the Bills needed a running back like Cook in order for McDermott's vision for the offensive line to work. I'm sure that McDermott's vision is an offensive line that can do it all - protect the passer and support a running game that can dominate in the fourth quarter. His vision of the players he needs are the jackknife guys we keep seeing on his roster. Brown and Dawkins are not classic offensive tackles. They don't hold up to the pass rush as well as elite guys, but they're both mobile in ways that give the run game a lot of variety. There was a play Sunday where Brown ended up ahead of a five-yard run off left tackle. I only saw the replay once, and I simply couldn't figure out how he got there. There was another play when Dawkins led Cook into the hole off right guard. Morse, of course, gets upfield really well. The challenge for the offensive line is to be that mobile and still keep Allen in clean pockets. That went pretty well on Sundays and frankly, the Bills expect Allen to read the rush well enough to escape when his mobile offensive line isn't quite perfect in pass pro.

A lot more QBs get hyped in the draft and their first year or two than deserve it.

I agree. I never got the feeling that he had the passion a lot of guys had. It seemed like he was playing football because his family expected it or something. Passion drives great play.

Oh, yeah!. Allen's discipline on Sunday was excellent. He really managed the team well, because he was making the easy play so often. If he keeps doing that, his greatness will really emerge. I always compare him to Elway, who played several seasons without really getting the same Superman approach under control. Finally, at the end of his career, he did it, and then he really could dominate. The combination of making the right decisions and having special physical skills to make the plays is spectacular. And I hear you about Mahomes. Others have said it. He makes some dumbass plays, too. I think the difference is that Mahomes generally stays on script in terms of taking the easy throw. Allen's problem is when he goes off script, his completion percentage drops, and that makes long drive's difficult. Sunday, he just kept taking the easy throws, his percentage went up, and the ball kept moving. Mahomes has the higher completion percentage.

I don't know, but I think they will improve. Traffic engineering is a science, like anything else. They have data about what opening day traffic is like, but they only could guess how people would approach the stadium area given that those Abbott Road lots are no longer there. They now have the opening day data, and I'm sure they'll make some traffic adjustments to avoid the mess. After all, people should now be parking farther from the stadium, given the lot closing. It'll get better.

I was impressed on Sunday. He makes his reads and explodes to the ball. Much quick challenging at the point of attack than Edmunds was, which isn't surprising given the size differential - you can't expect instantaneous acceleration from a guy Edmunds' size. He also has much better tackling technique than Edmunds - he gets low and drives his shoulder into the ball carrier and wraps him up - classic tackling technique. I'm not saying he's as good or as useful as Edmunds was, but there are some things about his game that make him effective where Edmunds was almost a liability. I haven't seen out of position much, but that's probably because I haven't always watched him. But out of position was a problem Edmunds had in his early years, too. Probably Milano, too. I think that's to be expected from almost any young guy playing the position. What they're looking at is much more complicated than what they saw in college, and there's no way to learn it other than being out there and having it happen to you in real time. That doesn't mean he will improve, but at least it explains why he may not be making the right decision every time yet.

This happens every season. Not all of the teams that look good on paper in August (and often they look because they happened to have a lot of wins last season) are good in October. Thing is, in August you can't tell which teams those are. That's why they play the games.

I didn't watch individuals, and in fact I was only half watching the game, but "overwhelmed" is the impression I had, too. It seemed like a perpetual jailbreak. I chalked it up to the talent and style of the Steelers, but the Browns struggled to hold up to it.

This is a good point. I don't really understand formation strategy, and I think that in the Bills case it's maybe a little overstated. What the Bills have done is had a personnel change more than a formation strategy change. They've gone from a small, speedy slot to a big slot. I know that overstates the change, because the Kincaid guy runs different routes than the Beas or McKenzie. Still, I agree with your point - the Bills are trying to figure out how to use Kincaid, and Allen is trying to figure out where to find him and when he's open. I agree that it's a couple months of work to refine the passing package with this new weapon. At the Raiders game there was a really interesting moment. I think it was in the third quarter drive for a field goal, after the Milano interception. Allen found Kincaid over the middle for 12. It looked and felt like those completions they had in preseason, where Kincaid ran straight upfield and made a break and hooked to catch the pass. Nice route, nice throw, easy 12 yards. What was interesting to me was that the crowd cheered, but not in the way the crowd usually would cheer a 12-yard completion. This cheer clearly said the same thing I was thinking: "Yes! There it is!" I think the comparison to Kelce is overstated, but it was the kind of completion to the tight end that Kelce gets. Up until that point in the game, Kincaid pretty much had been catching the typical tight-end easy-five-yard catches after a release into the flat. Every tight end runs those and catches those. I mean, they're nice completions to have, but you don't have to draft a guy in the first round to get them. They are quintessential take-what-the-defense-is-giving-you plays. The catch over the middle LOOKED different. Knox doesn't run that route - it was tighter, more efficient, much more like what you see from a wideout, but the wideouts aren't lined up in positions that allow them to attack the middle in that way. A lot of people in the stands saw it, and the cheers said, "That's what I've been talking about." So, yeah, I think there's some experimenting and some discovery that is going to continue over the next couple of months. It's work that each of Dorsey, Kincaid, and Allen have to do. And if they're successful, which means if they show defenses that Allen get 10 to 20 yards over the middle like that, that the Bills can attack that area of the field in a way that they've never done before, Diggs and Davis will be the beneficiaries.

I get your point, and I'm pretty sure you got mine. I wasn't excusing the defense; I was just saying that if I'm looking for a primary cause for the loss, I'll lay it on Allen. Yes, absolutely, you want everyone on the team to do whatever they can to win the game, and when the team loses, everyone can look at plays they should have made and didn't. But generally, and as you say, I think when your defense gives up less than 20 you should win and when your offense scores more than 30, you should win. In the first case, it's probably the offense at fault, in the second, it's probably the defense. The Bills gave up 17.9 points per game last season. I don't recall how many, if any, points the offense and special teams gave up. If you call it 14 points, that means the defense gave up around 16.9 points per game. 17.9 was second in the league. If the defense is the same caliber this year, that means against the Jets, the Bills defense had an average performance, because they gave up 16. So, you can look at it two ways. Yes, the players and the coaches expect themselves to be above average all of the time, which is an oxymoron, because if they're always above average, the average changes. On the other hand, average last season was good enough to win 13 games, so average is in fact "more than good enough" to have won the Jets game. You're right about the Chiefs. It's complementary football - it's a team game, and on the best teams, some players and units are picking up the slack for some others, so that bad performances still turn into wins. The Jets game was easily winnable, even with the offensive performance. In fact, the offensive performance was somewhat expected because the Jets defense is so good. Still, the defense gave one touchdown drive of 56 yards. They gave up 289 total yards, nearly 30 yards better than their average last season. It was more than good enough to win.