Shaw66

I don't know on what basis you'd make that bet. One of my principle points is that Davis's games under 50 yards are much too small a sample to say that he's inconsistent. The variations in his yardage over one season of games simply isn't sufficient data to establish that he is "inconsistent. Furthermore, as I said, until you know the play calls, the defenses, the game plan, etc., you can't know whether the Inconsistency you see is caused by Davis or other factors. Second, I don't have any reason to believe that consistency in this data is better in the long term. I certainly know I want an inconsistent receiver who gets me 1200 yards over a consistent one who gets me 600. That's a no brainer. If I have two guys, one at 1200 and one at 1000, yes, I'll take the guy I can count on every day, but in between those two extremes, I don't know where the cut off point is. What I do know is that Davis got a lot of yards last season, and that's valuable. You say his inconsistencies led to stalled drives, missed points and some turnovers. I think that's nonsense until you prove it. In the first place, as I said, the Bills were 7-2 in his games under 40 yards. So, I only care about the two games the Bills lost. And in those two games, you'd have to find the plays where he had drops or ran bad patterns that led to those things. Do the research and come back with some actual data and we can talk. You guys seem to be ignorant of the fact - the fact - that the deeper you go into fine tuned data, the less meaningful the data is. When have you ever heard catch percentage cited as the measure of a good receiver? It's a very important piece of data for coaches to start with, but it is only a starting point. The number of times he caught the ball compared to the number of times he was targeted until you back out of Davis's totals - and every other receiver - all of the bad throws and all of the plays where he was double teamed and all of the plays where the corner made a good play on the ball. After you've done that for all receivers, tell me where he stand in catch percentage, and then we'll have a stat that at least we can talk about. You want to talk about problems the Bills have, about things that really need to improve? Talk to me about Dion Dawkins. Talk to me about Spencer Brown. The Bills have two starting wideouts and two starting tackles. The #1 tackle is mediocre at best, and the #2 tackle probably was one of the worst right tackles in the league. Davis wasn't close, nowhere near close to being the worst #2 wideout in the league. Beane says he has no worries about Davis. I'll take his opinion over yours.

As I just said, how do you know it's Davis and not the game plan? Not the defense? Not the situation? When is the last time you saw pass receivers rated as good or bad based on their game consistency? It is not a stat I've seen anywhere. Why? Because consistent receivers are not better than inconsistent receivers. Productive receivers are better than nonproductive receivers, and Davis was 33rd in yards and 15th in touchdowns. And by the way, the games Davis was under 50, the Bills were 7-2. Hard to say that his inconsistency is costing Bills games.

Have you studied the game plans of every game where Davis went under 50 yards for the game? Have you studied the defensive alignments on every play to determine what defenses he faced? Until you've done that, you can't convince me that Davis's inconsistency is based on Davis's limitations, because Davis is not the only person who determines whether Davis is open and whether Allen throws to him. Have you studied Davis's blocking assignments on every play and graded his performance? Until you've done that, I am NOT going to conclude that Davis is a problem because his 800+ receiving yards weren't spread across 15 games as evenly as you would like. The Bills were 7th in the league in passing yards per game, seventh in the league in passer rating, second in the league in passing touchdowns. They were second in the league behind KC in total yards per game and total points per game. KC's second receiver, Smith-Schuster, averaged 58+ yards per game, Davis averaged 55+. Smith-Schuster had seven games below forty yards, three in a row, then two about 80, then three more in a row below forty. You guys get lost in these little data points and attach great meaning to them to support your subjective feelings because you remember some balls Davis dropped. Several years ago there was a debate that went on for weeks about how much better the Bills would be if Tyrod Taylor just threw over the middle more. He was near the bottom of the league in throwing to the middle. It was so much nonsense. If he'd thrown over the middle the average number of times, that would have been less that two times a game more than he was throwing. The stat simply did not translate into something meaningful, and these stats people are pointing to about Davis don't mean much, either. The Bills have a very good passing offense and excellent total offense. Davis is a significant contributor to that offense. To talk about replacing him is silly. You're actually going to burn a first-round pick on a guy you want to be the #2 receiver, instead of an offensive lineman or a linebacker? Really? And don't say they can get a guy in the third. Counting on a third rounder to start and put up 800 yards is a pipe dream.

No, I won't show you the number 2 you want to see, because it isn't worth going to look for it. It's in the nature of random numbers. It just isn't meaningful that he had four under 40 in six games. Chances are that some other number 2 will do it next season. And even if Davis does it again next season, the question then becomes "why is this happening?" It could be happening for any number of reasons. The unusual season is one where every game a receiver is within 10 or 15 yards of his average, every game. That's rarely how random numbers fall. Did you look at the total yards receiving by top-10 combos? Did you see where I said that Davis and Diggs had 200+ more yards on the season than Chase and Higgins? Which would rather have, more yards or fewer yards and more consistency? It's an interesting question, but it isn't immediately obvious that consistency is the right answer.

Well, that's a very nice statement of the point. However, I think there are two things to recognize here: First, there aren't a lot of #2 receivers who have a higher mean. The mean is just the average of the total, and as we've kept saying, his total yards are good for a #2 receiver. Yes, the best #2s are a couple hundred yards ahead, but most #2s are behind Davis and those have a lower mean. Second, without having gone to study the data, I think it's a good bet that most #2s have a large standard deviation like Davis does. Every week there's a different game plan, a different focus of the offense, different defenders, and then a different game. I suspect the number of targets for most #2s varies widely from week to week. Why? Because every game is different, and because if a receiver is getting the same number of targets every week, that means the offense is predictable. Bottom line, I think people's expectations are unreasonable. I just looked back over the past 20 years. Bills had two #2s who had more yards than Davis. Beasley with Brown and Lee Evans with Moulds. In both cases, they weren't a lot higher. Woods never did it. Granted, the teams were bad, but the QBs were good - Allen and Bledsoe. Having a 1000-yard #2 is a luxury, and complaining about the standard deviation or catch % is nitpicking - yes it would be good to improve those things, but none of it raises Davis to the level of being a problem. I will be completely satisfied to see him on the field come September, and I'll expect him to have 1000 yards by the end of the season.

Diggs and Davis had more yards than Chase and Higgins, so what does it really matter? Davis had 9 games under 50 yards. Higgins had 6. Every number 2 has some non-productive days. These splits you guys are relying on are pretty meaningless.

But that's in the nature of stats, some big games some not good at all.

Um, do the math. There are 32 teams, remember? So, that's 32 receivers who should be #1s and should be better than Davis. 34th in yards per game, that's high #2 receiver yardage. 81st in receptions? That means there were a lot of receivers who were catching nickel and dime throws, because they weren't getting anything like the yards Davis got. Catch % is one of those stats that people get hung up on that are not a measure of football production. Of course, it's relevant to coaches, because it tells them where someone can improve. But it isn't a true measure of performance that is of any real significance if the guy is getting 850 yards. Yards and touchdowns are what matter, and in Davis's first season as a full time starter, boom!, yards and touchdowns. Davis is not a problem.

This is a great example of how people misunderstand the reality of pro football. Other than QBs and maybe a dozen or two dozen other skill players, pro football players do not make meaningful co tri unions in every game, or even half the games. They do their jobs, and sometimes that results in nice days and sometimes not. Most running backs aren't over 80 yards every game. Most receivers don't catch 6 balls every game. The season stats are exactly the way to measure contribution, because every guy, other than the stars, make plays sporadically. It's their totals that matter, and Davis's totals are healthy. Not great, but healthy.

Which explains why Edmunds is gone. Maybe they thought he grow into a tougher downhill guy ro go with his incredible mobility. Year five may have been Edmunds final tryout.

Correct. The defense is going to be 4-3, 4-2-5, rush four, etc. But McD will "expore" pages in the playbook for sure. And if he's the one responsible for calling the defense, it means (1) he has to have studied the opposing offense during the week and introduced the schemes and refinements that he will want to have at his disposal during the game. It's almost certainly the case that McDermott didn't believe that Frazier was as good as he needed to be at doing that nitty-gritty analysis and scheming. If McDermott believed Frazier was getting the job done, Frazier would still be with the team in an active role.

I find it kind of funny that you say that you no longer listen to any of the off-season talk because it's all just talk until they do it on the field, and then you take off from this piece of off-season talk and say some really insightful things. Made me laugh. I think you're right in many respects. As some one else said, McDermott is pulling on the big-boy pants, and now we're going to see what he's made of. There won't be any ambiguity about who's in charge. He had a great defense in Carolina, and now he's going back to having a defense that is largely his. He's probably known this for a month or more, since they made a couple of coaching hires then the Frazier decision. And he knew when they let Edmunds go. He must have some pretty clear thoughts about where he wants the defense to go, and Edmunds didn't fit the plan.

True. I just completed another post that says it seems clear that McDermott trusts Dorsey with the offense. It's a big bet - he's betting Dorsey can be his Spagnuolo.

I think there was a lot more going on back then. It seemed completely clear to me that McDermott could see that he was young, inexperienced, and probably unaware of things that were coming his way. He wanted a head-coach mentor, someone who had been there already and who could say, "look out, kid, here's what could be coming." McDermott welcomes suggestions, so it was a natural to get a someone to be in role. The guy didn't have to be the best defensive coach, he just had to be someone whose style was similar to McDermott's. McDermott could tell him what he wanted, and McDermott could count on Frazier, a veteran coach, to get it done. Thus, McDermott could have a defense more or less like he wanted without having to spend a lot of time on the minutiae, which Frazier would handle. It was a really safe hire. Now, McDermott holds the reins firmly. He knows how to run this team. He doesn't have to spend a lot of time learning how to be a head coach. He's there. He doesn't need a mentor. He doesn't have to spend so much time paying attention to some head coach issues, and he has more time to spend on what he loves - the defense. He can use that time to have a some up-and-comer talent run the minutiae, and McDermott will provide more hands-on oversight to the defense. He will be in a role more like Reid and his offense, where Reid has his hands all over the offense. I think the result will be that we'll start to see more creative defense, both in design and in play calling. The unspoken part of this is that McDermott seems to have full confidence that Dorsey will be able to do his job, because he can't go off dedicating time to the defense if Dorsey can't get it done. That's what I think is going on. Even if I'm correct about why these things are happening, it doesn't mean they will work.

Andy Reid wasn't the "Andy Reid of Offense" in the beginning of his head coaching career, either. Reid spent years becoming the "Andy Reid of Offense."

I think this a Mitch Trubisky signing. A guy with talent needs a reset, so he takes a one-year deal in a situation when he can do that. Hyde and Poyer won't be her forever, so if he shows he can operate in the system, then he becomes one of the successors at safety. He won't have started in Buffalo (absent injury), so the other teams won't know how good he is. That means his price in the open market will be low, just like Trubisky's was. That means if they like what they see this season, they will be able to lock him up longer term at a relatively low price.

Thanks. Those are fair, detailed comments. I'll comment below, but first I'll say that Dopey's comments just after your response are arguments that carry more weight than yours. And I'll say that his production was very good, despite your comments. Contested catches. I think you're correct when you say "consistently." He's made plenty of contested catches, but not as many as he should. He has trouble with bodies around him. But he is generally a good ball catcher - he uses his hands, he doesn't bobble or juggle too many balls. Contested catches is something that can be improved. As Dopey said, this was his first season as a full-time starter, and it's not surprising he had wrinkles in his game. Route runner. I'm not sure what this actually means, but I doubt it's a fair criticism. Brown was not a good route runner, but Davis always seems to end up where Josh expects him to be. If you're talking about getting separation, it's unreasonable to expect great separation from a #2. Few guys in the league get great separation, and if Davis got great separation, he'd be a #1. I think he runs the routes he's supposed, and he often gets open. If his routes don't get him open, it's because of route design or because he's drawn defender to him, which means Allen knows to go elsewhere. And I think both points are details to be worked on and improved, but aren't disqualifying, by any means. 800 odd yards and 7 TDs is very nice production out of the #2 spot, and that's what Davis did in his first season of starting.

Absurd. Crashed and burned? He had more catches and more yards than 10 of #1s in the league, and more catches and yards than about 25 of the #2s. That is not crashed and burned, by any means at all. Anyone who wants to replace Davis because 2022 wasn't good enough has unreasonable expectations for a #2. Anyone who wants him to improve on 2022, great. You do, I do, McDermott does, and he does. But burning quality draft picks to get someone who might be better, forget it. Spending cap space beyond what's already been spent, forget it.

I'm now on a crusade about this. I think many people have this perception that Davis is a problem, and I don't see it. At least, not so big a problem that people should be so excited about. Just seems to me that it would NICE to have top-of-the-league production from the #2, but it isn't necessary for the team to succeed. Yes, the Davis wasn't as consistent making plays last season, but he was still a nice play-maker in the offense. Yes, it's fair to expect some improvement in his production, and I'm sure it's his expectation, too, but he is nowhere near a problem.

Wow! Interesting! I may comment on the others later, but this one is the most intriguing. Not sure I'd say never, but in general I agree. McDermott isn't a natural football genius, like maybe McVay, and a lot of the guys who get deep into the playoffs are like that. However, I'd argue that Reid also isn't a wunderkind. He got where he is by accumulating knowledge and gaining wisdom, and that's exactly what McD is doing. McDermott will continue to improve because that his core principle - the growth mindset. So, I'd guess that 10 years from now, McD will be a star and McVay will be a guy who had some success.

Now that the Bills are this good, I no longer ask myself which teams are better than the Bills. I don't give a hoot, for example, about the power rankings. When the Bills used to be ranked in the 20s, I'd look at the power rankings and ask myself whether the Bills were better than the teams immediately above them. I don't do that any more. Instead, what I think about is which teams on the schedule will be challenges. Before the season started, those teams were the Rams, the Chiefs, the Bengals, and maybe one or two others. After a while it was clear that the Rams actually weren't a challenge, and some other teams looked better. But the Bengals game was always on my radar as a big, big game. And going into the playoff game against I had an uneasy feeling, not because I felt the Bengals were a better team, but because in the recent weeks they had been playing closer to their potential than the Bills were. I thought the Bengals were playing better. So, in that sense, I agree with you. But then the question, the only question that matters, is WHY were they playing better? You seem to think, I guess, that the Bengals had a better roster and lineup, and therefore they were better. I don't think that's true. I have said for years around here that differences between rosters among well-matched teams are irrelevant - there just isn't that much difference in talent to determine the outcome of games. Games are won or lost or by how well the team plays, and that has to do with things like their mental attitude, their preparation, the quality of the coaching and game planning, etc. It's in that context that the emotional state of the individuals and the team is directly relevant to the discussion. As Gunner said, the players admit they **** the bed in that game. The question is why would a team as good as the Bills be so uncompetitive? If, as I believe, the overall talent differential, if there even was one, was minimal. If the Bengals talent is so otherworldly, why did they lose to the Chiefs the next week? Don't tell me it's because the Chiefs were better, because that would mean that the Bills should have been obliterated by the Chiefs, which of course they weren't. I live in Connecticut. I'm a UConn fan. I don't know if you've watched them in the NCAA tournament, but they have been spectacular. I asked myself if they are better than all the other teams in the tournament, and I realize (1) I don't know, and (2) it's the wrong question. "Better" only helps predict the outcome if one team is clearly superior to the other. Once it's clear that no one has clear superiority, then "better" isn't very relevant. What's relevant is what they need to do to win. UConn plays Gonzaga tomorrow. Is UConn better? No idea. The relevant question is not who's better, but who will PLAY better. In January, the Bengals played better.

There's no point in arguing with you, but I have to call you out for things that you make up that are just flat out untrue. Players admit all the time that the other team was better. They say things like "they were the better team today," and "we couldn't match them on the field today," and "there was nothing we could do to stop that." We hear that every week from players around the league after losses. Those are all admissions that the other team was better, at least for that day. They are all admissions that they were outplayed. What players are notorious for is NOT talking about their emotions. They never say, "I had a bad day because I had a fight with my wife this morning," or "I couldn't focus because I had the greatest sex of my life last night," or "I just couldn't do it because my favorite uncle passed away." They don't talk about their emotions. Even so, several Bills admitted after the Bengals game that team was flat or didn't have it in them, but no one was going to come out say "you know what, the weight of the world was just too much for us." They won't because, true or not, they don't want to sound like they're making excuses, and because players rarely talk about their emotions. None of the Bills said the Bengals were a better team because the Bills don't believe that they are. Under ordinary circumstances, the Bills are certainly competitive in some absolute sense. Yes the Bengals might be the better team, in the sense that if they played 10 games the Bengals might win 6 or 7, but they aren't winning 10. The Bills are one of the top five teams in the league, and no one is beating a top five 10 out of 10. The Bills by all means can compete with the Bengals. They just didn't on that day. The Chiefs won the Super Bowl and were, in my estimation, the best team in the league. And yet, the Bills beat them. If they can beat the best team in the league, they can beat the Bengals, who weren't the best in the league.

I've seen you selling this idea, and nobody is buying. Cinci is good, but the first game was far from over when Damar went down. I mean, I understand your point of view about this, and it may be right. But there is no way to prove it's right, no matter how many times you say it.

I don't agree. There are four or five parts to every season. Preseason, Sept-Oct, Nov-Dec, end of season, playoffs. One thing that is always true is that the intensity and hitting ratchet up as you go through the various parts. Playoff football is incredibly intense and physical. If you don't match your opponents' intensity, you will not win. Intensity is an emotion. To be intense, you need to be in shape emotionally. The Bills were not in shape emotionally. That's what Saffold said after the game. Going into the Bengals game, they weren't emotionally ready in the exact same way a team isn't physically ready for a game if it has injuries. I'm not taking anything away from the Bengals; they were excellent. But the Bills simply weren't emotionally able to play with the necessary intensity. That's not an excuse; it's an explanation.

A good explanation.