Shaw66

What a great offer! This place is cool.

Agree, but I think Beane's done his job. He has a variety of talent that can play the true slot, Beasley style, and he has Kincaid. He also has Cook and Hines. That's why I think it's on Dorsey and Allen.

Nice analysis. And with targets down for all these guys, and no increase in targets for the backs, it means the defense knows that Diggs is going to be the focus. Just throwing the ball to the open receivers and backs will make life easier for Diggs. Kincaid should help. I really like the idea of running two tight ends with Kincaid in the slot. Obviously, he is not going to blister people with changes of direction like Beasley did, but he's going to present other problems. For one thing, he'll be a bigger problem than Beas just running straight upfield, simply because he's a bigger target. He is, by all reports, a great hands catcher, so Allen can throw high to Kincaid, something he couldn't do with Beas. If Kincaid learns his reads properly, running upfield from the slot can be like taking candy from a baby, because the TE almost always has either an in cut or an out cut. The other thing that has to happen, as people have been saying, is to get the ball to Cook, and Hines, in the flat. Just throw the ball out there, take the completion, and force the defense to make the play. Get a block from a wideout, or leak Brown out to the right and get a block. Just do it, whether it works a lot or not. Let defenses see it on film and know that they have to commit attention to the short flat or someone will break off a big one. Even with defenses paying attention, it can be a source of easy positive yardage.

I think this problem is part of a bigger issue with Allen. Now, before everyone gets upset, I'm not saying Allen is a problem. I think the issue with Allen is how does he get from being a great player, truly great, to being an elite NFL quarterback. I don't think he's there yet. One principal difference between Allen and the truly elite QBs is that Allen still has not learned to take the sure good play over the possible great play. Allen's operating rules, in order, seem to be (1) get a great play, (2) get a good play, (3) get positive yardage, (4) avoid negative plays, (5) avoid turnovers. Maybe not exactly that, but something like that. Tom Brady got to be the GOAT by having operating rules in the exact opposite order. That is (1) no turnovers, (2) no negative plays, (3) get something, (4) get a chunk, (5 get a home run. People hated it when Jauron (and others) say, " a punt is a good play." Brady understood that. He would throw an incompletion on third down to avoid a possible INT. Allen still throws the INT. So, yes, you're right about easy completions to the back. Take the 4-6 yards, maybe the back breaks it for more, maybe not, go back to the huddle and call another play. Allen's great at taking the chunk plays and the home runs when they're there, and he definitely should continue. But if he's going to be an elite QB, he needs to stop taking a shot for a chunk or TD when it's a jump ball; he needs to take the sure positive yardage and still have another play to get the first down.

Yes, if the D sells out to stop Diggs, there's no reason the rest of the receiving corps shouldn't pick up the slack. But, no, it's not about a receiver being able to get separation, and it's not about Davis "beating" anyone short. The point is that when a defense "sells out" to stop a weapon (which usually means some kind of double team), the rest of the defensive seven have too much field to be able to cover the whole space. There are opportunities to get open simply by running well-designed routes efficiently. That's on Dorsey's route design and playcalling, it's on the backs and receivers making the reads and executing their routes, and it's on Allen reading the defenses and making the throws accurately and on time. There are very few receivers in the league who consistently get separation on their own, one on one. A few do with speed and good cuts, like Tyreek, and a few do it with lightning-quick stops, starts, and changes of direction, like Diggs. Except for the true #1s who happen to be playing the #2 until their rookie contracts run out, very few #2s get separation on their own.

I'm amused that no matter how much I read here and think about the Bills offense, I always come back to Dorsey and Allen. As you say here (agreeing with my brilliant comments!), the Bills have enough talent on offense. It's about having a scheme and play calling that attacks the defenses properly (Dorsey) and executing that scheme with precision without going off script too much (Allen).

Hover over Diggs's stats and he had 3-4 games where HE was invisible, and he's you're number 1. (Either he had bad games, or he wasn't targeted enough, but if he wasn't targeted, there are reasons that happened.) The number 2 is always going to have games where the ball doesn't find him, as is true for the TE and the running backs, too. The endless discussion around here about the #2 receiver is all wishful thinking. Yes, it would be great to have true #1 playing #2, but once you've written your QB a big check, the only way to get one of those guys is with luck or a high #1 pick. Most teams have a #2 who gets fewer yards than Davis got last season, and who also have empty games like Davis. Not saying Davis was a world beater or anything close last season, but Davis isn't a problem.

I'm not judging him harshly. I don't know how good he is at his job. I do think that his offense became less effective down the stretch,and that shouldn't happen to a good coordinator. But that could have happened for a lot of reasons, like oline, Josh's elbow. And Dorsey was a rookie. And, as I said, getting the same results as the year before doesn't mean he's good. No one thinks a rookie OC who inherits a bad offense and gets the same results as the year before is a good coordinator. McDermott know how good he is and what his potential, but I can't tell.

No. He ranks 103. He's 13th among active QBs.

Definitely Evans, maybe Thomas, maybe Lockett. I don't see the others as major upgrades.

I'll say also that one reason I think the offense fails in the red zone is that the line hasn't been stong enough to dominate. They never give confidence that they'll win the battle to let the back score. They might have a killer instinct, but the other guys are better.

Actually, I think Allen is maddeningly inconsistent in this regard. Sometimes late in games he's let the team down playing for the big play instead of being surgical like Brady Rodgers Mahomes.

I agree with Chaos and Gunner. I think the red zone issue isn't all that big. If you're second in points per drive, that's enough be a winner. But I've felt the psychological piece ever since the Houston playoff game. There are too many games where it just feels like the Bills aren't in charge when they should be, and I do equate it to some kind of killer instinct. At the end of the game, Rodgers and Brady are emotionally draining for the opponent. They make you feel like they're making the blood run out of your veins. Josh and the Bills don't do that. As I watched last season i was glad the Bills had Miller, because he sucks life out of the offense. When the time comes to win the game, he makes plays. And the biggest problem I had with Edmunds was the opposite - when the time came to make plays, he played like he was 5'5" instead of 6'5". It's a complicated thing. It's on the coaches AND the players. McDermott has that fire personally, but I don't know that he ignites his team. It's also a reason I'm glad Frazier is gone. No fire that I could see. Not sure what the answer is, but I do think this a fundamental problem with this team.

Well put. Especially the part about, essentially, it takes one to know one. Great stuff. Thanks.

Well, just to quibble, pursuing OBJ and DHop is not about his "wanting" to replace Davis. He wants to upgrade every position, and he's said that whenever talent may be available that would be an upgrade, he will pursue it if he can. That's different from Beane thinking he needs to replace Davis.

Look out, St. George! A new era is coming!

Sorry, Bob. Most everyone agrees that Einstein is entitled to his opinion, as are you. Where people disagree with him is that he thinks he can prove that McDermott can't win a Super Bowl in Buffalo because no head coach ever won a Super Bowl after five seasons with his first team. There is no logic that supports that conclusion. No head coach in Buffalo ever won a Super Bowl. So does that mean that no head coach in Buffalo ever will? It's the same faulty logic. The fact that something hasn't happened doesn't mean that it never will happen. EVERYTHING never happened until it did. Nobody walked in the moon until someone did. What he is trying to prove is simply wrong. Whether he or you believe McDermott never will win is beside the point.. He cannot prove it will not happen.

First they already have two first round picks invested in receivers - Diggs and Kincaid. And who is this $10 million man? The only receiver who is going to be a serious upgrade over Davis is a true #1. Who is that, and can you get him for $10 million?

I agree with this. That's why I've said for months the success of the offense will be determined by how well Dorsey uses a good collection of assets and how well Allen runs what Dorsey designs. As you've said, once you've invested in your QB, you can't expect to have Pro Bowl talent as your #2 wideout. Oh, and by the way, and as you said, the Bills actually went after receiving talent in the first round. They don't need Hopkins to have a good offense. They need the talent they have to do their jobs.

I mean, you want to talk about best qbs? Best rbs? Great At least you have some stats to look at. Best offensive guards? Tougher to find relevant stats. PFF tries to do it, bit PFF is really suspect. What stats do you look at to evaluate OCs. You don't see any highlight reels of OCs. No replays. And they do their jobs during the week, and we don't see them do it. So, exactly how do we know who's good at it and who isn't? We know by seeing how they do over time. Their head coaches know, because they see the OC every day, but the HCs aren't telling us who's good and who isn't.

I would fund ways to measure who's offenses are most creative. I would find coordinators who turned around bad offenses. I would find coordinators who manage thei assistants well. Again, I wouldn't say that Dorsey is a good coordinator just because he didn't screw up the good offense he inherited. He didn't make it all that different or better, so far as I can see. And when offense stalled late in the season, he didn't seem to have answers. What is it that actually was good at? The fact is that I don't know, and I don't think many people here know, what it takes to be a good coordinator.

You missed my point. I was responding to someone who said that if the Bills have a top offense, then Dorsey must be a top coordinator. I said if that's how you measure top coordinator, then that's a list of the coordinators of the to9p offenses. I didn't say that this guy, whoever he is, made his list that way.

Yes, the Browns would have been heavy favorites, but the Bills may actually have won that Super Bowl. Their defense was outstanding that year, nand the Bills had the second best running in pro football. It would have been an interesting matchup.

Sure, but that way the list is not top 10 coordinators. It's coordinators of top 10 offenses.

All I'm saying is that if there's no material improvement in the offense he took over, how can you tell if he is a great coordinator? Nothing changed. It's like saying you have a great auto mechanic when all he did was an oil change. Maybe he's great, maybe he isn't. You cant tell from what he's done. The one piece of evidence we have is that in the last quarter of the season and in the playoffs the offense wasn't particularly good. How does that make him top 10?