Shaw66

Just for discussion's sake, I don't think this is true. All offenses are good at some things, not so good at others. The fact that they were #2 in points per drive and not so good in the red zone means that they were very good offensively outside the red zone. It's quite possible for a team just to be better when they're playing in the open field, where they can take advantage of the defense being spread out, but worse when the defense is compact. Zones are compacted in the red zone, and more difficult to attack. The right players to attack a zone from midfield may not be the right players to attack a tight zone in the red zone. Josh's improvisational runs work much better when the defensive backfield gets stretched. A guy like Beasley is an asset in the red zone, but less valuable in the open field. In the red zone, defensive linemen know they probably aren't getting a sack (because the passing game is quick-release in that area), so they can play the run tougher. If you have a mediocre offensive line in the run game, it therefore gets worse in the red zone, because the defense is keying on the run. It just doesn't follow that if the offense is good at midfield, it must be good in the red zone.

Fair enough. I didn't recall that his playoff history was that good. And you're right, at least publicly, he's never seemed to be a true prima donna. Part of my view about him is from his on-field body language - he has an ego that might very well have clashed with Diggs. And I have to think that there's some reason two teams have decided they don't need him. On the other hand, he's an exceptional talent. Outshined Sammy Watkins from the get go, and has one of the best collections of highlight-reel catches of all time. The guy has been phenomenal.

Yeah, I don't disagree. Not everyone chases a ring, and even if they are looking for a ring, the dollars still are important. But some guys are different. Von Miller came to Buffalo, and he could have done better elsewhere. He could have been closer to home, in a friendlier tax environment (which in his case could have been worth a million alone), in a warmer climate, and still on a contender. Chris Paul's contract may not have changed, but he wouldn't agree to go to just any team to be a backup point guard. He's happy to be in Golden State for one reason: a shot at a ring. Brady played for less for several seasons in New England.

You're right. He's going to a team that has a shot. Not a top contender, but if things fall right, he could be happy in January. I can't say there are many great receivers I really like, as people or personalities or teammates. Not OBJ, not DHop, even Diggs rankles me. I admire their great skill, but I always wonder if they make their teams better. DHop had Watson and Murray as QBs, and they didn't win. Lots of reasons, maybe, but he was the answer for neither team. I wish him well, but I'll be surprised if he makes one of those QBs an all-star. OBJ, too. The one success OBJ had was as a role player with the Rams. I like Tyreek Hill. He just goes out and does his job. He knows he's a special talent, but he never seems to make it about Tyreek.

Yeah, I don't blame him. If he's looking at $30 million from one team and $10 million from another, that's a lot of money to leave on the table because he wants to win. Just saying that if he managed his previous earnings wisely, he COULD have done it if he wanted to. McBeane want guys with a certain mindset, and that mindset is not "where's the money?" I'd guess that the more DHop showed in negotiations he was about the money, the less the Bills were interested. It probably was a short negotiation.

I can see from Hopkins point of view. The top teams weren't offering nearly the same money. And I don't get the idea that the Bills could have gotten him with an incentive-laden contract. What's the incentive? 1200 yard season? If I'm DHop, I see them throwing a lot of balls to Diggs and Kincaid; I can get to 1200 a lot easier in Tennessee. Bottom line, the Bills didn't see DHop as the silver bullet they needed, contrary to the views of many around here. Nice move for Tennessee. At least it's an effort to recover from letting a high quality receiver leave, and it gives them a high-quality guy to pair with Henry. With that combo, Tennessee might surprise people, but probably not.

In his career he earned $47 million. After taxes, that's probably $30 million. If he lived on $1 million a year (and that's a lot of money to spend in a year), he'd have $20 million banked. Over the last ten years, that would have grown into $25 million. Okay, so if he had been smart with his money, he'd have $25 million in the bank. Say he bought a house for his mom and some other, so call it $20 million. On $20 million, he can take 4% a year more or less forever, so that means he can have annual income of $800,000 a year forever. Forever. He can live pretty nicely on $800,000 a year. Point is, if he really wanted to, he could have joined whatever team he wanted.

It's an interesting point to me, because it supports what I've been saying about Allen. Who ran the offenses for the Patriots and the Saints? Two of the best game managers of all time, Brady and Brees. Why were they great game managers? Because both were content to take what the game gave them. They knew every time they got a completion for positive yardage, it was a win for the offense, so they took the highest percentage throw every time. Often, the highest percentage throw was to the backs. The point is how many more yards or how many more points can be generated by throwing to the backs. The point is minimizing incompletions, interceptions, and negative plays. All-time career completion percentage list: Burrow is 1, Brees is 2, Mahomes is 10, Brady is 21, Josh is 37. Completing passes wins football games. Well, I agree whole-heartedly with your last sentence, but that doesn't mean that talking about improving the team's performance is irrelevant. Whether O'Cyrus Torrence can start and play effectively can have a lot to do with whether the Bills win a Super Bowl, and talking about it is something that may interest fans here. What you're saying is, I think, unlike you and more like others who come into a thread and declare that the discussion is a waste of time. If you think it's a waste of time, isn't the better solution to move on to another thread than to tell the rest of us we shouldn't talk about it?

Well, reluctant as I may be to quote 808, what are we supposed to talk about? I mean, is every Bills fan supposed to kneel at the feet of the great Deek and acknowledge that the one and only subject worth talking about is whether McDermott and his staff can do a better job motivating their players? That's it? It's not worth talking about whether McGovern will start and be an upgrade, not worth talking about when Miller might return, not worth talking about whether Cook can come through as a quality number 1 back? It's all about McDermott's pregame speech?

Well, um, sheer exhaustion. I'm not trying to be funny here, but how do you know this? Frankly, I think you're largely right, but this is a fan forum where people discuss the Bills. Pretty much anyone who watched them last season knows that they could play better than they did, so where's the harm in talking about what they might do to get better?

Thanks for this. The "we need x percent of this" and "we need a #2 who gets y yards per game" arguments tend be made by all of us amateurs who look at a stat that seems out of line and then conclude that by the fixing that stat things somehow are going to be different. Your original points were the right ones. The Bills already have one of the most productive offenses in the league, in yards and in points, and it's unreasonable to expect that there's going to be some massive improvement in one stat or another. If all things remain the same except the Bills get DHop and he goes for 1400 yards in place of Davis's 800, well, sure, that's better, but even that would be only a marginal improvement. The point was made in a different way by Dawkins when he told Cowherd that the media, including Cowher, somehow seem to think that just because the Bills have Allen and Diggs they should be winning every game by 20. The league just doesn't work that way. No team, with very few exceptions, dominates the league, week after week. Which leads to the conclusion you just said - the improved performance the Bills need cannot be measured in statistics. Well, the red zone numbers offer at least a suggestion of the problem, which seems to be that the Bills aren't as effective finishers as they need to be to be a great team. They need to finish better in the red zone, they need to finish games better, and they need to finish the season (i.e, the postseason) better. They have to learn to seal the deal, as they say. That's not Davis having a higher reception/target ratio, and it's not increasing the percentage of targets for the running backs. It's getting into the right play in a given situation and executing it. I wrote earlier in favor of more targets for the running backs, not because I want the percentage, but because in certain situations Allen seems to go after the high-risk, high-reward play when he should be taking the low risk play. I think the offense has to be more disciplined in that way to make the Bills better finishers.

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.