Shaw66
-
Posts
8,974 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
Where is all this negative talk about Josh? I haven't heard it, but I don't watch or listen to many of the sports shows.
I've said over and over here that Josh needs to get better. For all his extraordinary talents, what wins in the NFL is consistent execution of the play that is called, with the right choices and with accurate throws. Mahomes and Burrows both are better than Josh in that category. Where Josh excels is on the six to ten plays where things break down and you need someone to make a play. Josh is outstanding then. It's the other plays where he needs to be better.
-
6
-
1
-
1
-
18
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Not at the table Karlos said:
Everything falls at the feet of coaching. If “we all made mistakes” than coaching didn’t prepare them like they should have.
Sorry. Maybe I should have said this: There is no question the team wasn't prepared for the moment, and that of course is on McDermott.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, JakeFrommStateFarm said:
Sounds like a McDermott issue
Nice subjective reading. He said "we all made mistakes." He included himself. Not just McDermott.
There is no question the team wasn't prepared for the moment, and that of course is on McDermott. However, he said "we all made mistakes, and the clear implication is that a lot of different people could have done things differently.
-
6
-
17
-
2
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Westside said:
Is this your own view? Did Beane call and tell you his plan? Did you concoct this theory?
My creation based on what he's said year after year. It's no mystery.
-
1
-
1
-
-
There are no mysteries. Beane has always been very clear about how he will handle the draft. The problem is that the fans have their own views about needs and who's available in the draft, so they concoct all sorts of theories about what Beane is going to do.
Here's what Beane is going to do:
1. Evaluate the players available and rank them.
2. Look for players the Bills covet at any position who may be falling to where the Bills pick.
3. Maybe trade up to get one they like.
4. Do all of this with an understanding, THEIR understanding, of what the Bills need. Their understanding and ours may be very different. This season, in particular, their understanding of whether the Bills need a receiver and what kind of receiver may be very different from ours. Their understanding of where to get what they need may also be very different from ours.
-
3
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:
Fair point regarding Fouts and Coryell who was ahead of his time but could not win the big game.
This is the point where your argument, and others, go wrong fundamentally.
There is no evidence that Coryell COULD NOT win the big game. The evidence is that he DID NOT win the big game.
Marvin Lewis DID NOT win it, either.
There is no logic that proves that McDermott cannot win it. None.
McDermott is virtually universally recognized by knowledgeable pro football observers as one of the best coaches in the league. It is only disgruntled Bills fans who think he isn’t.
And one more thing. People who argue that McDermott has failed because he hasn't won with a great QB are wrong. Last season was the first season where Allen began to run the offense like a great QB, and he didn't do it consistently. He's improving, but he still can't do it like Mahomes. And if you watch the video of Kincaid's targets, it's clear that Allen isn't accurate enough.
McDermott's QB is good but not good enough to support an indictment of McDermott's coaching ability.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
Just now, uticaclub said:
Give Jauron, Josh Allen instead of JP Losman, without Tom Brady in the division and lets see how many Division titles Dicky J wins. We’ll never know. McDermott is who he is, the players and anyone who knows him loves the guy. I'm excited to see him rebuild the secondary, so there's that.
Jauron wasn't a risk taker. McDermott is, at least in some ways. Jauron wasn't ever going to win, even with Allen. Unless he changed his stripes.
-
1 hour ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:
Fair points. All.
What is your breaking point? Philadelphia had theirs with Reid. Tampa did with Dungy. Do you ever give up on him and go with someone else?
Shanahan is closer to Levy with two SuperBowl appearances. McDermott should be so lucky to be in the same sentence as Shanahan at this point.
There is no "breaking point." Such things can't be predefined.
If I'm the owner, I have to make a change if he loses the team, that's for sure. But each year I evaluate his performance, the team's performance. The question never is how many times he's failed to win the Super Bowl. The question always is whether I think he can win the Super Bowl.
Lately, every team has failed unless the QB's name is Mahomes or Brady. The Rams broke through for a year; does that make McVay great? No, it means everything fell right for one year and he won. I'm not firing Shanahan because he didn't beat Mahomes and Reid, and I'm not firing McDermott, either.
I never thought Dungy was a very good coach. The Colts stayed with him longer that I would have. I don't have the same feeling about McDermott. The team is very good, the players love him, and he's young. Coaches get better with experience, just like players do. The difference is that with players, more experience means your body is getting older and failing. Coaches don't have to worry about their bodies failing. McDermott will be a better coach at 60 than his is at 50, and he's better at 50 than he was at 45.
Until he gives me reason to go another direction (and as I said, not winning it all yet is not a reason), I'm happy to watch him get better.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:
My bias against McDermott is well documented.
Wondering how others view his post-season PC and recent interview calling critics narrow minded. He also stated its hard to win in the NFL. I recall a prior HC pilloried on this site for saying the exact same words.
My take on the PC was that he was very defensive. Without even being asked. He launched into a defense of his tenure as coach even dating back to prior seasons.
And now he calls critics narrow minded for wondering if the Bills will win a SB with him as HC. You have to belive at this point the thought has crossed Beane and Pegula's mind. He's trying to defend at best status quo to perhaps taking a step or two back from 13 seconds.
Then the most ridiculous statement of all.
"We're looking for Josh to really be that face of the franchise, like he's been, and continue to evolve."
I mean WTF. What team has he been coaching? Does he think Hyde and Poyer were the face of the franchise?? Is he trying to lay blame on Allen? Without Allen McDermott might be coaching DBs in Kansas City. Was Allen on the field when the defense crumbled multiple times against Denver,Philadelphia, and others. KC only stopped themselves in the playoff game. If not for a goal line fumble the Bills are not even close in that game.
It may not seem that I'm open minded but I really try. I've gave McDermott praise many times last year.
So what does the board think?
For those that crucified Jauron how do you take the It’s hard to win in the NFL line?
For those that defend McDermott, what do you all think?
I think you're wrong.
Your evidence that he's feeling the pressure is based on you evaluation of his performance in a press conference. He's ALWAYS been bad in press conferences. He's uncomfortable, he doesn't like it, and he isn't good at figuring out how to give useful answers to questions without saying too much.
It's ridiculous, meaning it's fair to subject you to ridicule, for you to compare McDermott to Dick Jauron. McDermott has built a perennial top-five favorite to win the Super Bowl, and Jauron went 7-9 three years in a row before the team fell apart. There is NO meaningful comparison.
You're free to not like McDermott, but you're not going to convince anyone who knows football. The 49ers aren't firing Shanahan and the Bills aren't replacing McDermott.
-
13
-
16
-
6
-
8
-
-
3 hours ago, Beck Water said:
So here's my take and maybe I'm all wrong. The problem I see with not being able to blow by corners, is in some games, notably playoff games, if the refs aren't calling DH and DPI, corners just muscle and hinder our guys and they can't get open.
A couple years ago, the Bills almost never saw man during the regular season, because Brown could burn man deep (unless there was a lot of uncalled mugging), Diggs could break their ankles, and there was usually a good outlet in Beasley unless they bracketed him. In 2022, McKenzie could KILL man. But last year, IIRC the Bills saw a huge amount of man coverage, because we lacked guys who could blow by corners or kill them short. No one could get open against man.
6th in sc
We need that element back in our game.
But you're ignoring the fundamental point, which is that almost everyone plays two deep safeties, and they play all kinds of complicated man-zone combinations, all of which are designed to stop the deep ball. It doesn't really matter if you have John Brown II, because he's going to find himself double covered most of the times he goes deep. That's what's happened to the league in the days since Brown left.
It's not like without a deep threat teams are shutting down the Bills' passing game. They were seventh in yards and 8th in TDs in their passing game. That's not bad. They were fourth in total yards and 6th in scoring. As I noted in an earlier post, the teams that win and were effective in the playoffs don't feature a John-Brown type threat. Instead, they force the defense to stop the run and the pass from sideline to sideline and from 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage and 60 yards downfield, and they do it not by having a classic deep threat. They do it by stressing the defense with ins, outs, deep crossing patterns, occasional fly patterns when they get the look they want, etc. They don't do it by splitting a speedster out wide and threatening the defense on every play with the prospect of a fly pattern. They have receivers who are fast enough to get deep when the offense is running the right patterns against the defense.
So, what the Bills need at receiver, I think, is a smart receiver, quick, good hands, and good speed. That's why they got Samuel. He's fine. Now, the Bills need a replacement for Diggs in the next year or two, and I'm not suggesting that they're good for now with Samuel. And more speed is always better than less speed. But speed isn't the most important criterion for wideouts the way the game is being played now, and the notion that the Bills "need" a guy with great deep speed just isn't correct, in my opinion.
In some ways, it's comparable to running backs. In previous eras, people used to think that great speed was essential for someone to be a great running back. People don't think that any more. Yes, it's great if you have a running back who can make the cuts, break the tackles, catch passes out of the backfield AND has great speed, but if he can do all the other things without having great speed, people are fine with that. Nobody is saying McCaffrey isn't great because he doesn't have break away speed, and no one was troubled by the fact that Thurman couldn't outrun the fastest defenders.
-
40 minutes ago, Sweats said:
I agree, however, stretching the field doesn't always apply to 30-40 or even 50 yards downfield.....it can still be designed and game planned for 10-20 yards with outside slants and crossing routes mixed in.
The underneath and middle can be managed by the TE's and Cook, while the longer routes can be done with Diggs and our rookie WR, but as i say, that doesn't necessarily mean that these "longer" routes will be massive chunks of yardage.
It does seem that the intermediate and underneath yardage is the way the game is designed these days, however, you still have to attempt at stretching the field to set up the play action.
Also, with the way that JA creates plays "on the fly", having guys being able to run downfield is a huge bonus for us, as he has shown that if the play is there, he will take it.
If you have guys that can stretch the field AND play tight in the middle for the underneath yardage, you are basically forcing the D to pick their poison. With the proper play-calling, you are telling the D that it's going to be hard to defend both, so which one are you going to defend.
Having guys that can stretch the field creates option, which is something this team desperately needs to compete going forward IMO.
Remember the 90's Bills?.......Thurman Thomas and Andre Reed managed the slots, the underneath and intermediate yardage, while Lofton stretched the field which in turn created mismatches for opposing D's.......10 minutes into each game, they didn't know what to defend anymore......play the middle and Lofton plays the stretch, play the stretch and then dump into the middle or the slot to Reed or Thomas.
They had options, which is what we need.
Thanks. Good stuff.
Where I differ is that for me there's a difference between stretch the field and get deep. Diggs and Davis got deep but weren't classic burners. Shakir too. I think that kind of speed is all you need. It's enough to keep the safeties deep, even though they can't just blow by corners.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
He was good at guard. I don't think you can just say "he will be as good at center" it needs to be proven. He has played it some though and Edwards who would come in at guard in that scenario started at guard on a Superbowl team. And there is the potential for year 2 growth from Torrence. I see a route to the line being better (unlike safety where I see no route) but it shouldn't be considered a slam dunk that it is and if they get a shot at a high calibre tackle early they should take them IMO and work out the best 5 from there.
I agree with this. I don't see how we can just assume center is taken care of. Guy hasn't played there, so we simply can't know. And I don't think we can assume much of anything about Edwards, either. It all might work out, it makes sense, I get it, but it's two changes on the offensive line, two changes from a line that performed well last season.
And I absolutely agree about safety. I don't see how they've gotten better there. Rapp wasn't better last season than either of the two vets, and I don't think Edwards was either. I'm one who believes more help is coming, and it won't be a rookie.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sweats said:
We need guys that can stretch the field.
I've been thinking about this "stretch-the-field" notion for a few days or weeks now. I keep thinking about it when I see posts that want us to return to the days of John Brown. We all loved watching Josh bomb away.
The reality is that the league has changed. Total scoring per game in the league is down six points since 2020. Rich McKay, who heads the competition committee, says it's down because everyone is playing two-high safeties and because they're calling fewer defensive penalties. We all know how interference is called has changed a lot in the last few years. Defenders get away with a lot of contact, including on deep balls, making it that much harder to complete long throws. A few years ago, pretty much all contact was called, which made the defenders play off the receivers, and that's the era where John Brown could thrive.
Yes, they've had injuries, QBs out, etc., but the guys we like to think of as elite receivers, the tall guys who can stretch the field, are not dominating any more, especially in the playoffs. Hill and Lamb put up big numbers, but their teams aren't winning. Who are the receivers in the winning offenses? 49ers, Bills, Lions, even the Chiefs don't feature deep threats. They all have guys who can get deep, not guys who "stretch the field." Why? Because the defenses are designed to stop those guys getting deep, and those defenses create opportunities for smart, talented, versatile receivers, like the guys you see on the 49ers, Bills, Lions, and Chiefs. Shakir would have been useless five years ago, because he's not as physical as Beasley. Five years ago, defenses were designed to stop guys playing like Edelman, and Beas was one of the few who could thrive in it anyway. Shakir couldn't. But with defenses now shutting down the deep ball, guys like Shakir - smart, quick, good hands - can get production in middle of the field.
Maybe they'll tinker with the rules again, and maybe we'll see the return of quick-strike offenses, but until that happens, teams have to be built for the way the game is being called. That means a different breed of receivers are the guys who will be effective.
And that is what Beane was talking about.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, noacls said:
Lol. Does not change what round they were drafted in.
No, it doesn't, but the point is about how you acquire talent. Free agency is a much better market for proven young talent. It's a lot simpler to sign those giluys in free agency than ti draft them.
Well over half the players drafted in the last three rounds in 2018 are out of the league. Three of the first rounders are gone. It's a no brainer that the chances of getting a good long-term player are much, much better in the first round, even if you have multiple late round picks.
-
2
-
-
55 minutes ago, noacls said:
Christian Benford, Matt Milano, Jordan Poyer, Dane Jackson, Micah Hyde. That is just on the Bills off the top of my head las year. All those players were drafted in the 5th or later. More kicks at the can, more opportunity to find a guy
First, the Bills didn't draft Poyer and Hyde.
More to the point, I'm not saying you can't find useful players, even good ones, in the later rounds. I'm saying if you have a good roster, and the Bills do, there's a limit to how many of those rookies you can keep. The Bills are very unlikely to keep several late round picks from this draft. When they go to your practice squad, they get poached.
A first round pick is a high percentage opportunity to get long-term talent on the team.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:
It absolutely would not "compound the problem." Hell, having lots of late picks is not a problem. It's an opportunity.
And not an opportunity that will have been a problem even if we draft twelve and lose two to five at cut-down.
Even if we flat-out assume Beane does not need eleven, much less twelve draft picks, it's still an opportunity. You can use those picks to trade up strategically in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th rounds as the board becomes clear and you know who's available as your picks approach.
That would likely be the route they would go if they do trade back.
But even if they did keep all eleven or twelve picks and have to let three or four or even five go around cut-down, it's still an opportunity. Maybe the last guy you pick in the 7th, or your 3rd 6th round pick, turns out to be a Brady, a Jason Kelce, a Latavius Murray, an Adalius Thomas, an Antonio Brown with a better head, or even without a better head and you make a great trade for him in his fourth year, a Shannon Sharpe, a Mailata, an Edelman or a Donald Driver, a Marques Colston, an Adam Timmerman or even a Gary Anderson to kick for you. All those were 6ths or 7ths.
And you don't know which will be a huge surprise till you get them into camp. Many late picks means a better chance of finding a guy like that, even if several others get picked up by other teams.
If I knew a lot of statistics I could prove this is incorrect. All I know is t odds of getting a star with a late first round puck are better than with three later round picks combined. You named 10 great players taken in the 6th and 7th. That's 10 out of more than 1200 (64 picks, 20 years) or 1 out of 120. Chances of getting a great player are much better late in the first round. By you logic I'd trade my first and second every year. That's why the trade value chart is skewed heavily to the early picks.
And it definitely compounds the problem. If you have a solid roster, it's better to come to camp with a few good rookies than a lot of promising guys, because you won't keep all those promising guys. Bad roster, sure, give me a boatload of fourth rounders to keep, because I can use them somewhere. Good roster, no.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, damj said:
Old news. I saw him at Anchor Bar 20 minutes before DQ's tweet. He was with DHop and OBJ
Love it!
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, HankBulloughMellencamp said:
wow, a great signing!
this is teaching tape on how you maintain gap control, then make plays off that!
the last few plays show him with some nice wins vs. Morse/McGovern in the last Chargers game 😧
You're right! Watch the Cover 1 video. The guy has great strength, standing up and holding his ground, then uses his hands to slip the block one way or the other to bring down the running back. Over and over he does it.
-
2
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:
Even if we trade back to the 2nd round we can still use day 3 picks to trade up…no worries about having too many picks 👍
Of course, but trading back in the first round isn't Beanes style. He's traded up four times in the first round in six years. Allen, Edmunds, Elam, Kincaid.
10 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:Didn't say that, but you'd have to be a fool to believe this team's a Superbowl contender
The fools in Las Vegas have them fourth. I'd say they're a contender.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:
I understand your point and agree mostly, but I think the play to to trade up into maybe the 3rd using the glut of later picks where the value of those picks moves the needle in the trade. The earlier of the two 4ths would maybe move them two spots up in round 1 - perhaps worth it if they could get someone like Thomas or Mitchell, but I think they might need to go further up for those guys.
I think Beane's ideas of who he wants in the first round regularly surprise us. Both position and identity are surprises.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Beane could do anything but he's shown he's prone to trading up, not down.
The Bills aren't going to keep 11 rookies, for sure, so unloading some picks is essential. Trading back compounds the problem.
I expect another trade up, like last season, to get a solid starter they really like. Not ahuge move - they don't have the capital for that - but two three or four spots.
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, H2o said:
This^^^.
Kincaid's drop percentage was lower than Travis Kelce. LaPorta's drop percentage was at 4.2%, slightly better than Dalton.
For the people talking about LaPorta and how he was so much better, he really wasn't outside of his blocking. The difference between the two was the volume of targets and utilization on route concepts. That's it. LaPorta averaged 1 more yard per reception, but we all saw how they kept throwing Kincaid those 3 yd passes that never went anywhere. Then, Kincaid's catch percentage was 9% higher than LaPorta. If Kincaid gets 126 targets like LaPorta did, then he catches 100 passes and puts up 920 yds. The biggest stat that stands out are the TD #'s. LaPorta had 10 TD's where Kincaid only had 2. To me, this again goes back to scheme. We had a lot of guys catch TD passes this year, but none of them had more than 8. One of the big reasons for this? Josh Allen had 15 rushing TD's. A lot of times JA17 gets inside the 10 and just says, "I'll take it from here boys." In all honesty JA probably could have had another 7-10 passing TD's, but chose to run it instead.
Overall, it wasn't a bad season at all for Kincaid. We knew what he was coming out and he is definitely a solid investment. I expect him to be more involved this coming year with Brady drawing up the offense and being able to build even more of a rapport with Josh.
And the TDs are of little concern to me, at least not yet. TDs don't happen all that often, relative to receptions, so a statistical variation in TDs per reception is not uncommon. Davis caught four TDs in one game. That didn't mean Davis was great; it just meant in that game, against that defensive scheme, Allen was finding Davis.
Plus, as I said earlier, I think red zone scoring has a lot to do with how well the QB and receiver communicate. Diggs has had a lot of red zone success, and Beasley did, too, and both were based on their communication with Allen. The spaces are tight, the timing is critical, and the receiver's understanding of how the defense works also is critical. I think we'll see Kincaid improve in that area. Kelce went 5-5-4 TDs in his first three years playing. When he got older, and when Mahomes arrived, is when his TD production went up.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:
While I'll generally agree that NFL players need to "bulk up a bit" from year one to year two, and "receiving" TEs especially usually need to improve core strength to become more consistent blockers, there is always the annoying example of KC's elite TE who at least APPEARS not to spend much time in the weight room relative to other football players. Maybe there is wisdom in eschewing NFL body building norms, with respect to injury prevention? Total outlier, of course, but compelling and frustrating nonetheless.
Kincaid had a fairly significant back injury in college. I wonder if much of the olympic power lifting used to build core strength is unwise for a guy like him?
Thanks for this. I don't know anything about strength building and conditioning, so I certainly won't argue with anything you say here.
My comments were based only on my impressions looking at the guy. He seems a little undersized for a tight end. Now, of course, his current size allows him to be more mobile than the average tight end, so I don't know if added weight would make him less effective. Knox isn't your quintessential blocking tight end, but he has a body that seems to be more of the prototype for modern tight ends, and I think it might help Kincaid to build himself up to be at least a bit more like Knox.
I also think a lot of guys come out of college not having built their strength particularly well. Linemen, particularly, often get to the NFL needing a year or two of learning technique and body building. I don't know for a fact, but I think there's a big difference between the programs that Alabama, Ohio State and a few other schools run and the programs run by a lot of the other schools. Kincaid walked on at San Diego State after being primarily a basketball player, and transferred to Utah, which is a nice program but not elite. So, I wouldn't be surprised if pro weight trainers in Orchard Park looked at him concluded that they could put him on a program that might add weight, or at least redistribute it, and build strength. They didn't have time to do that in his rookie year; this off-season was the first window they had.
As for Kelce, well, every player is different. However, according to listed weights, Kelce carries the ten pounds that I think Kincaid might add.
Bottom line for me is that I don't worry about it. The Bills and Kincaid will figure out what they think is best for him, and he'll work himself into the condition, including weight and strength, that they think is best.
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, Low Positive said:
There is an incorrect narrative on this board that “McDermott doesn’t play rookies,” all stemming from the Elam situation, that drives a lot of those takes.
I used to believe that take, too. I think it was true, but I think as the team has grown, things have changed. One thing McDermott and Beane said when they got here, something that I didn't understand, and I still don't understand, is that as players learn the system and come back for year two, they play at higher level and learn more. Collectively, the team's intelligence and understanding of the system grows from year to year. There is a team learning curve, and somehow the veterans pull the newcomers up the curve, so that things it took Poyer and Hyde years to learn, for example, are learned by Hamlin and the like in a year or two. I don't understand how that works, but it apparently does. The result is that when the team was playing at a lower level, it was harder for rookies to get into the lineup, because the veterans were still working their own way up the learning curve. Now that the team has matured, it gets easier. to pull guys along. So, Kincaid and Torrence both walked into camp and pretty quickly were able to play with the vets.
It's what we saw with the Patriots. Year after year, some guy would get injured for the Patriots and some rookie you've never heard of would move into the lineup and play just fine. Why? Because Belichick's system somehow worked to have the vets pull the rookies up to their level.
It's a beautiful thing.
The criticism of Josh Allen
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
What's he done?
Well, he's beaten Josh Allen in the playoffs.
His career passer rating is 6 percentage points higher. 6! He has better completion percentage, yards per attempt, and fewer interceptions.
Other than that, he hasn't done anything.