Shaw66

Hey, give me a little credit. I jumped in on his side, and that helped keep things going. It is amazing that people could talk about this for so long. One time the guys on Car Talk gave ten minutes of advice about was wrong with air brakes on a tractor, even though they began their advice by admitting that neither had ever seen. let alone worked on, air brakes. Someone wrote to them and said their discussion conclusively proved that two people who don't know what they're talking about know LESS than one person who doesn't know what they're talking about! Everyone who posted here have two things in common: They're Bills fans, and they have absolutely no information about what Josh Allen has been doing since the loss to Cincinnati, except for what they've seen on TV. We know less than nothing, and we love talking about it!

Whoops. Brain fart. Kentucky Derby, and obviously not the Rose Bowl. All we're talking about here are appearances. All tipster said, and I agree, is that when you're not the best at your craft (and Allen definitely is not), showing up at events in designer clothes and playing in celebrity golf tournaments can give the wrong impression.

I get it. But my point is there is another point of view, a point of view that a lot of athletes espouse, and that is that you're all in, all the time. There's a story about Larry Bird and Bill Walton celebrating their NBA title at Bird's house, knocking off a bottle of scotch. Six a.m. the next morning, Bird woke up Walton to go running. Walton asked why, and Bird said it was time to get ready for next season. Burrow's passer rating splits by quarter were 101, 98, 104, 115. Mahomes' were 106, 111, 113, 88. Allen's were 100, 105, 94, 85. I'd say he has some work to do. Again, I have no idea if he's doing the work he needs or not. What I do know is that when he's at the Rose Bowl, he's not working on his game. That is literally true. Whether he's killing it in the weight room, on the track, and with wideouts in practice sessions is anyone's guess.

You're right, and certainly anyone's point of view here is open for criticism. But the point isn't declining performance. The point is the need for improved performance. In the thread about Josh and Burrow, someone posted some very telling data, showing among other things that Burrow's performance in the fourth quarter improves and Josh's declines. I've come around to believing that no matter how much fun it is to watch Josh, he needs to get better. I don't think he has to work on football 24-7, but when he's so visibly out and around all over the country, it certainly makes me wonder if he's working at his craft as much as he should be. Maybe he is; I don't know, but I wonder. And when people say, "Well, Mahomes is out there too," I'll say yes, he is, and he's wearing his two rings. Not everyone works and grows the same way, and I have no idea what Josh is actually doing, but he hasn't yet earned the right to be included among the best QBs of his era, let alone all time. Under these circumstances, I don't see the harm in questioning whether Josh is all in to the extent he needs to be. There was a Wall Street Journal article a year ago or so about Steph Curry practicing with a device mounted on the backboard that had a digital readout that showed to the tenth of an inch how far off dead center each shot was. He wasn't working on making shots; he was working on making shots perfect. And this was after he'd won multiple NBA titles. I don't think it's unfair to ask whether Josh is working hard enough at his job.

This is true not only about attendance at a horse race but also about his play on the field, and yet we all seem to think we undersrand that. I find it amazing that tipster is buried in criticism because he thinks maybe Josh's focus could be off, but others are heaped with praise when they say he's the best qb on the planet. They're all just opinions of outsiders who really don't know.

Well, you certainly got a reaction. I, for one, have had the same thought. I know he can't be sitting around all day studying film or practicing 17-yard sideline throws, but when I see him on TV, I worry that he's more focused on good-time Josh than football Josh. Of course, there's no way for me to know, but I get that impression. I don't see Joe Burrow all over TV. Didn't see Derek Jeter until he retired.

I watch the video and I see a lot of Mike Evans. Open when he's covered. A tough-minded pass catcher.

Well, I'll chime in. Yes, the Bills 2023 offense could be the best in Bills history. If it all comes together, it could be a beautiful thing. The question, of course, is whether it will come together. I've been talking a lot lately about McDermott's desire for position versatility. He wants a lot of guys who can do a lot of different things, on the assumption that he can mix and match pieces to allow the Bills offense and defense each to play a lot of different ways. He thinks that by doing that, the Bills will be a power running team when they need it, a finesse passing team when they need it, and everything in between. He envisions a team where his personnel create mismatches on every play, and a team that knows how to take advantage of each mismatch. That would be a beautiful thing, but the question is whether the Bills can accomplish that, or whether it's even possible. If it's possible, then on offense Dorsey has to be the one to pull it all together. He has to find a way to make the passing game click with what is a very interesting collection of receivers. He's got size (Davis, Shorter, Knox, Kincaid), maddening one-on-one matchup problems (Diggs and Harty), he's got Shakir doing a bit of everything. He has to develop a genuinely good running game that the Bills can depend on when they need it. In order to do that the Bills have gone away from the jackknife-style running back (Singletary, who could do a little of everything, but wasn't good enough as a pass receiver, as a speed back, or as a power back) and instead put together an array of backs with complementary or different styles. Hines is the speed back, Harris is the power back, Cook is a speed back with enough power to play every down, and Murray is the power back with enough speed to play every down. The roster is versatile to the max, and Dorsey has to make it work. Making it work, of course, means the o-line has to work. And on the o-line, of course, the Bills have been trying to play the versatility game, as well. Dawkins isn't the best pass blocker or the best run blocker among LTs, put he's pretty good all around. Morse isn't a power guy, but he's good glue and leadership, and he can move well. Torrence is presumptively the power guy. Brown is the jackknife on the line, along with Bates. Whether constructing a line that way actually can work is, well, up to Dorsey. He's the one who has to pull it together (with Kromer, of course). I think the discussion about Harris really brings into focus this idea about versatility. McBeane thought a versatile guy like Motor could be good enough in the power back role, and they thought a more muscular version of Motor (Moss) was all they needed. They thought that by being a multi-purpose threat, Motor would force the defenses to hedge their bets a bit, creating opportunities for Motor to make power runs. I think they decided that that theory doesn't work, because in obvious run situations, defenses were willing to ignore Motor's multi-purpose style and stop him, because he was in fact an undersized power back. Same with Moss. McBeane have gone away from that with Harris. They want to use Harris, I assume, like the Pats did, which is to force defenses to respect the fact that he will run you over and then take advantage of the fact that he had just enough speed and shiftiness to beat you for a few yards with finesse. And Murray runs with that style, too, with a little less power and a little more finesse. But for that to work, it begs the same question about the offensive line. Can you win with a bunch of hybrid players, or do you need a true road grader to run behind? Same for pass blockers? Drafting Torrence is a move away from versatility and toward players with special skills that create an advantage without being uber-versatile. Can you get the best of both worlds with Brown and Torrence side-by-side, or do you just have an ugly mismatch that allows defenses to attack the weaknesses of both? In my darkest moments, I worried that McBeane are playing mad scientist and the laboratory is about to blow up any minute now. Still, I can see how it all can come together and in fact be the best offense the Bills have ever had.

I agree with both your conclusions. Ertz wasn't going to supercharge the offense, but Miller would have supercharged the defense. I don't like those trades to bring in a star on a rental, but Miller is a superstar.

Yes, I meant onfield violence. I like it as a good, but after a while I had to agree that the game needed to change to keep from injuring so many so seriously. An ambulence ride was never far away, or at least it seemed that way. But the play of the game? Those games were great.

Hah! Some way along in talking to you yesterday I realized you are like you say you are, and I'm very much that way too. I take a slightly different approach, because I've gotten to the point where I understand fully that I don't know nearly enough football to make any serious judgments about what SHOULD be done. Rather, I spend my time thinking about what the Bills ACTUALLY have done and then try to figure out what they were thinking. Beane's pressers help a lot in that regard, because although he doesn't say everything he's thinking, he does reveal a good deal about the thought process. Then, I try to figure out whether I think what he's thinking actually makes sense. What I've begun to wonder about is whether this endless pursuit of versatility is in fact the right way to do things. In particular, I said something the other day about why the pursuit of versatility and guys who buy into McDermott's process causes the Bills to get less talent out of the second round of the draft than other teams. When you hit on a second-rounder you've got someone who plays like a first-rounder, and that gives your team a nice talent edge over teams that don't. And it's also caused me to wonder about their strategy for building the offensive line, which seems to be "take a swing at a second-talent once in a while; otherwise, just plug holes in free agency." That doesn't seem to have been working (I'm hoping that Spencer Brown shows this season that he was a good gamble and that O'Cyrus Torrence is a hit. In other words, I'm hoping that this season proves me wrong about that part of Beane's approach.). And I agree about the 70s and 80s. Except for the violence. The play of the game was better - fun passing game and still some old-fashioned star running backs.

Brainiac - This excellent. Right on the money. I would say that the other thing Mahomes had last season that Allen didn't was Reid and Biennimy. That's a huge difference. But your main point, about Mahomes being making fewer mistakes, is excellent. I was in a bit of a discussion yesterday about whether the team around Allen has to get to help out Allen, and I said Allen has to get better. The team, too, but Allen has to get better. And his decision making has to be better. His utilization of his teammates has to be better. Yes, the Bills should be adding talent around him all the time, but he has to be better, too. I think the fact that Marino and Rivers don't have rings is the result of several things, but among those things is that as great as they were, they weren't good enough. Some of it's coaching. Marino instead of Brees on the Saints would have won a ring. Rivers playing for Belichick. But at some point, the truly great QBs win it in the end. Rodgers, Brady, Mahomes. Allen has to recognize that he isn't in their league yet, and his job is to get there.

But that isn't what Beane said. He didn't say there wasn't a back for him to take. He said that he realized he could go after other needs if he knew he didn't need a back. It's very clear that his drafting strategy was that if a premium back fell to him, he'd take the back and tell Murray that he no longer was of interest to the Bills, and if no back fell his way, then Beane could sign Murray and shore up other areas of the lineup. Murray's not a long-term solution, and no fifth or sixth round back likely is on either. A first round, maybe second round premium back is taken because he MAY be a long-term solution. Murray is as good or better short-term solution than a fifth or sixth round rookie. So, just like a fifth or sixth round rookie might be a healthy scratch (or possibly PS), Murray may be a healthy scratch from time to time. I would bet that McBeane and Murray had the conversation with Murray when he visited Buffalo.

Thanks. I think they'll have four running backs, and there may be a healthy scratch every weekend. I think they say Murray as an important contributor on the back half of the schedule and into the playoffs. They will decide this summer if they think he can be that guy, and if so, I think he will in fact be a healthy scratch from time to time. So long as he and Harris are healthy, teams won't know from week to week who will see as the Bills power back. What I like about the running back room now is that it's as though the Bills have four guys spead across the spectrum from power back to scat back, with Harris on one end and Hines on the other, with Cook a speed back who's durable and talented enough to carry the main load, and with Murray a power back with some shiftiness that Harris lacks. If Shakir can return punts, Hines could even be the healthy scratch from time to time. Once again, I think they're building toward more and more versatility.

I find I don't spend much time on rhetorical questions. I just focus on what's in front of me, and I'm happy at least, as I'm sure you are, that the Bills have Allen and that they are competing for Super Bowls.

You didn't ask me to name one that was worse. You asked me to name one. Six wins without Allen? How many wins do the Bengals get without Burrow? Chiefs without Mahomes? It just isn't meaningful to say the Bills are a bad team because they couldn't win without Allen, because (1) no one knows how good or bad they would be without Allen, and (2) no one knows how good or bad other teams without their star QBs.

Wait. You asked me name one. I named two. You can't just dismiss them as not so bad. Those things happen. You think Belichick wasn't just as bonkers about that backward lateral as McDermott was about 13 seconds? As for Belichick without Brady, yes, he hasn't been so good. Earlier you said without Allen, McDermott would win 8-9 games. But that's true for ALL coaches. If I've got a Brady, Rodgers, Allen, Burrow, I've got a good shot at the playoffs. If I don't, I'm 8-9. It's hard to indict McDermott for winning with Allen.

Why do you think that? I think it all depends on what he shows in the summer. If he looks like he did last season, I would think he's a lock. He sounds like a guy who stays in shape and who wants this opportunity. Based strictly on what each has shown so far during their pro careers, I think Murray's the best back on the team. He's had a whole career of being a part-time starter with better seasons than Cook. Now, I'm not saying he's the best back on the team, but he has proven ability to be a serious ball carrier for this team. If he's out of gas, he's out of gas, but what I expect is that he's going to be inactive early in the season and Harris will get touches. Then, as we get into November, I think Murray will start getting playing time.

Thanks for the discussion. I'm Belichick's offense thre moving on with day's events. But ... Just last season Belichick's offense threw a backward lateral that was fumbled and returned for the winning touchdown. That was pretty bad. I saw Brady one time throw a pass as he was falling over backward; just before he hit the ground the ball went 30 feet in the air and fell into a defender's hands. It happens, although I will grant you that Belichick is really good at getting his team prepared for things other teams aren't.

You did exactly what you hoped, and I thank you for it. I mentioned the Pegulas and you sort of said they were irrelevant. And I understand what you mean. All I meant to say is that what you and I have been talking about is whether, if we were the owners, we would move on from McBeane today, next season without a Lombardi, or longer. That's the owner's job - to evaluate the people who are running the show and to decide when to bring down the curtain and bring in a director and casting producer. Thanks, truly. I enjoyed and was interested in what you had to say.

Yeah, that's possible. I think I'm fairly objective. I think the receiving corps was good enough, in terms of talent, and is better now. I have never been happy with their running backs, and I think their offensive line has struggled consistently. I'd guess, however, that a careful understanding of the rosters of other teams would show that every team has under-resourced some parts of their team. When people complain that the Bills devote more resources to the defense, maybe that's the choice they've made precisely because they HAVE Allen, and some part of the team needs to be under-resourced. Yes, you can challenge the actual talents of the players the Bills get, but I'd guess that around the lineup the Bills are as talented, maybe even more talented than most teams. I think we tend to get blinded by the stardom of the few. The Chiefs have Kelce and had Hill, but other than those two, there has been a parade of players through their receiving room. They aren't all stars. I suspect it's true about offensive linemen, too. Again, sure, every year we hear about how this team or that team's offensive line is killing it, but that never lasts very long. When we see that line, we think Beane's done something wrong, but the reality is that there are 25 other teams saying, "Hey, why can't we have a line like that." How does he get more out of running backs and receivers? Well, I don't know, exactly, but we know that Tom Brady got great performance out of average players by simply insisting that they do what they're supposed to do. He was all over his teammates in ways that some guys didn't like but others responded to. You didn't want to be the guy who let Brady down. I'll say what I said before - I don't who's out there that I would be confident will do better than McBeane, even assuming you could get him. Reid? Yeah, if I knew I had him for five years, I'd take him. There just aren't many coaches who have won Super Bowls and been a consistent playoff threat. Payton had a decent run. It's very hard to do, and McBeane have had more success than almost anyone.

I'm not going to respond to all of this, but it's in some ways spectacularly good. Thanks for taking the time to put it down. It all makes sense, and I won't argue with it, not all. You're asking excellent questions that go to the heart of how a football team needs to be run. Why should I have confidence in McBeane? Well, maybe you're right - maybe my confidence is misplaced, and maybe now or soon I should get off the bandwagon. Fundamentally, I've drunk McDermott's Kool-Aid about growth mindset, etc. I believe that he's so committed to the concepts surround continuous improvement that he will solve whatever problem stands in his way. What he's done so far is build a team that over the past four or five years has been, arguably, the best regular-season team in the league. He now has to figure out how to take that kind of team and make it succeed in the playoffs, too. He and Beane said it when they came - they were going to build this team slowly, and step by step. You have to win in the regular season before you can win in the playoffs. Most coaches and GMs never learn to win consistently in the regular season. So, they've taken a big step already, and they're working on rest. If the 2023 Bills are third in the betting to win the Super Bowl, well, how much more could one want at this point in the season? They were first last season, but we saw that that didn't necessarily mean it was a lock. The fact is that the most one can expect is to be a team that the consensus can see as a team that might win it - that is, all one can expect is that you have one of the, say, top five teams. Well, if Beane and McDermott have a methodology, and if that methodology has gotten the Bills to the top five for three years running, I just don't see what I'd be looking for in a new head coach or new GM. Yes, you can say they're in the top five because of Allen, and there's some, maybe a lot of truth in that. But McBeane share the credit, because they alone among several HC-GM pairs in the league, knew that Allen would be Allen, and created an environment around him where he could become what he has. Who are the current perennial Super Bowl favorites. The Bills, the Chiefs, the Bengals. Why? Because they have a super QB and they have high quality coaching and front office work. I just have trouble looking at it concluding McBeane are a problem. They'r succeeding but haven't won yet.

That's interesting. And I'd add to that leadership. No necessarily rah-rah-type leadership, but the kind of leadership that brings out the best in his teammates. The leadership that causes everyone to execute in the biggest moments. It says "We're going to win this. WE." It seems odd to hear myself saying it, but Allen has to become more than he is. The guys who's asked to do everything has to do more. He has to be part of the team, not THE team, and he has to lead the others to be better. I've often said that Allen reminds me of Elway - big arm, fierce competitor, great natural athlete. Elway had the same problem. He had to get beyond being THE team, like he had to turn down his pure athletic superiority before he could win. It took him ten years. Maybe what Allen needs is to dial it all back a bit, at least until the final drive. I heard a story about Sandy Koufax stuck in the minors because he had a killer fastball and an unhittable curveball but somewhat out of control. Some coach finally said to him, "Stop throwing it so hard all the time. Just dial it back and throw it." When Koufax learned to do that, he became an immortal.

Great comment. I think you're correct. Charles Barkley said something the other night that I thought was interesting. He was talking about being the star on a basketball team, but the same thing applies in football and particularly to Allen. He said if you're a real star, like Embiid, you're better than just about all the players, and everybody knows that. That causes your teammates to have a tendency to change how they play, to rely on you often. The star and the coach have to get everyone to play THEIR game and to stop feeling like they're just the supporting cast to the star. The star essentially has to be saying to his teammates, "look, you have to do the things we need to win so that I don't have to do it for the whole game. My job is to win the game in the fourth quarter, if we haven't already won it." None of the successful QBs is carrying their offense like Allen. Not Burrow, not Rodgers, I'd say not even Mahomes. Mahomes is great, and he's making star-quality plays (like Allen) throughout the game, but it never feels like the Chiefs really NEED him to do it. And that's not just on the coach. It's on Allen, too. There are great NBA players, incredible dominant talents, like Lebron, who just somehow demand the attention, rather than just being the guy who plays with the team until the fourth quarter and then takes over. Lebron's been very difficult that way, and Curry has been able to lead but not dominate. Mahomes is Curry, and Allen needs to become more like Curry and less like Lebron.

You know, I agree with parts of a lot of what you say, and a bit I disagree with pretty strongly. Please don't take this personally - I'm not criticizing what you say as bad; I'm just saying there's an interesting discussion to be had about what you're saying. I disagree with this take you have that part of the problem is that McDermott doesn't say much of anything in his press conferences. That's true; he doesn't. And I'd say "get over it." Some coaches say more than others. McDermott obviously doesn't think it's very important to say much to the press, so he doesn't. Belichick didn't, either. As fans, we might not like it, but it has nothing to do with whether he's running the team the right way. I think you're right that Allen feels the need to do it all in part because the guys around him aren't doing enough. And there's some truth in that, and it would be understandable if Allen actually felt that way. The Bills have been tooling and retooling the offense from year to year, looking for the right players. There has been a parade of receivers - every season the receiving corps looks different, because they're trying to improve it. Same with the running backs. Same with the offensive linemen, actually. (Defensive backfield is the exception.) At some point, they should be a team where the same guys are back for two or three years and just get better. I'm sure all teams have this problem to some extent, but the point is to get the right guys and hold on to them. To be honest, I don't know if that's a good way to run the team or not. Time will tell, and some fans will have more patience with it than others. On the other hand, when you say Allen would be different (and would be winning Super Bowls) if he were on the Chiefs, the Bengals, or Eagles. I'll grant you Reid. Fine. He's got it going, from a coaching and team perspective in a way that is sustainable, and Reid would do it with Allen as well or maybe even better than Mahomes. But I'm not willing to crown the Bengals or Eagles yet. Before last season the Rams would have been high on your list, too. I'm not sure McVay is the genius everyone thought he was. The fact is that it's simply very hard to have a team that goes for ten years during which they win one or two Super Bowls and makes the playoffs every year. That's what Reid is trying to do, and that's what McVay is trying to do. What about boy-wonder Shanahan? Somehow, he isn't able to replicate that kind of success. He's still trying. Point is, McDermott and Beane are still trying, too. They're among 32 GMs and HCs trying, it's just very hard to do it. What's McBeane's system? It's versatility. It's finding the right guys so the Bills can play well as many different styles as they can. And because trends in the league keep changing from year to year, the players you need to play the way you want keep changing. Maybe they're a rabbit chasing its tail. In any case, I don't see much reason to criticize them for not having won yet or not getting more out of Allen or whatever. Not that there can't be discussions about whether other ways may be better, but the reality is that the Pegulas are believers in what McBeane are doing and they give McBeane more or less free rein to build as they want. So, that's the team Bills fans have. I have some confidence in them; I think they are building to success and they will get there. Others aren't so optimistic.