Shaw66

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.

Nothing. He just isn't a HOF type player. Nothing wrong with Taykor, either.

That's interesting. Thanks. But I wasn't talking just about interceptions. I was talking about decision making. Look at completion percentage. Burrow 3, Mahomes 9, and Allen 32 last year. (Some partial seasons in there, but still, Allen's pretty far down the list.) Lower completion percentage is some indication of poor decision making (although pass rush certainly might contribute to low completion percentage).

It's true. And someone point out last week that the leap in the Jets game looked like a good way to protect the ball. I don't know. Bottom line is the more you leap over tacklers, the less effective it's going to be, because players are preparing for it.

Yes, it's good to point out the dramatic shift from Josh to the running backs, who really carried the load. I'd add that during the game, I had the sense that everyone could feel the threat of Allen running. The TD to Knox was one obvious example where I felt that the defense reacted to the threat. The nice pass on the rollout to the right that Davis caught for a first down was another. Allen on the run out there in the flat got people's attention. So, there's a dual benefit. Limit wear and tear on the QB, and still require the defense to respect the runs that Allen threatens.

That's exactly the point. There are data clusters that exist with players who are not particularly good company. It depends where you set the thresholds. 300 yards and 3 TDs might give a completely different list with 325 yards and 2 TDs. One list makes the data cluster seem like it's a measure of greatness, but the other data cluster would make you think that the cluster is unimportant. In a sense, the passer rating is a different kind of data cluster, one where someone has predetermined the relative importance of various data points. The identity of the top-rated passer depends oh that relative importance. Change the weighting of different data, you get different top-rated guys. We can trust the passer rating, at least to some extent, because there is a correlation between the highest ratings and the guys we think of as the best passers. In my example, I'd gladly have a QB do either combination, but the names on the list likely are different, so it means that the clusters don't really correlate with what we're trying to measure, which is excellent quarterbacking. The data guys at the networks just mine the data to find clusters that have the right names, and we think the cluster represents something important because we recognize the names. If they were permitted to do it, they'd adjust the passer rating criteria to get names they like, too.

Yes, that could be what White is thinking. But implicit in what he was saying that when Josh is good, he's so good that you can afford to have a QB who has those games. I think most coaches would say that no one is so great that you can afford to have him give away a couple of games a year. That is, if the coach knows that his QB is going to lose two games a season for you, the coach would tell the GM they need a new QB. Elam is a similar case. Talent that isn't doing the job the way the coaches want. Obviously different, but similar in that sense. The team isn't going to keep playing Elam if they don't think he can do the job the right way. They won't keep Allen, either, if they don't believe that he can reshaped into a guy who makes decisions the right way. Allen's a smart guy. McDermott's not stupid, either. I don't think there's any way McDermott thinks that Allen is a finished product.

I really haven't thought about it, and I've read nothing of the evidence - when it might have happened, what evidence of confusion afterward is there, lot's of stuff I know nothing about. So, I think it's certainly possible, but I have no idea how likely it is that was the reason. Ultimately I'd say no, because although the Jets game may have been among the worst of his off-script games, it was far from the first time that we've seen him making decisions like that. I think it is a learned behavior. I haven't written this before, but when I saw Josh on the sideline before the start of the Jet's game, I said to my wife that I thought the Bills were in trouble. He had a look that I've seen before. He was wide-eyed, looked like kid for whom the moment was too big. He didn't look emotionally ready. And then in the third and fourth quarter, on the sideline sometimes they'd show him and his face was flushed - red like he was overheating or ov.er-excited. I've seen that look before - first time was the Texans playoff game. So, instead of a concussion, if I had to look for the problem, I'd say it was about his emotional preparedness for the game. He wasn't in the mental state of mind that allows him to be in full control of the game. I think Mahomes, for example, is pretty consistently mentally ready. And, give Mahomes a mild concussion and he might make decisions like Josh. Whatever. We saw on Sunday what can happen when he's zeroed in, mentally, with a good game plan. He was deadly.