Shaw66

Well, I agree, and thanks for putting this together, but the first round is more important than any other round. The defense would be just as good, and the offense markedly better, if Beane had found one or two offensive linemen in the first round.

Incredible longevity. How young was he in 2002?

Every time I see and hear him, I'm reminded of what a special guy he is. Essential to have the right team around him.

I'll post my reaction to the news that Edmunds is testing free agency. First, I think that it means that Edmunds isn't worth that much to the defense. Beane always says his objective is to draft good young players, grow them, and keep them. And he shows it by signing or extending players early. If the guy could have been re-signed and Beane chose not to, it usually means that Beane is willing to let the guy go. It also means that Beane acknowledges that the guy actually will get more elsewhere. That begs a question - what does it mean that he isn't worth that much? It means that he doesn't fit as a critical piece in the way McDermott wants to play defense. That would suggest that the Bills will be modifying their approach to defense. For example, they may have decided a year ago that the defense would be evolving, and that might explain the Bernard pick. There was a day, a year or two ago, when McDermott and Beane said to one another, "there will be a time when Hyde and Poyer are gone, and a time when we probably won't want to pay Edmunds and probably won't want to pay Oliver. All of those times are going to overlap, but it means that the personnel we're playing with today are not the guys we're going to be playing within a few years." They knew this time was coming, and they're constantly planning for it. They have a plan for what they're trying to build. And this takes me back to the notion that some suggested: that McDermott isn't the right guy, because he won't change or whatever. He KNOWS he has to change, if for no other reason that he knows that his players are going to be changing, and he wants to have the best players to play in the league as it may look in a couple of years. He simply can't expect to have guys the caliber of Edmunds, Poyer, and Hyde playing in the middle of his pass defense. His defense will evolve.

No

Why do they stand all game? Because they feel it. I've sat all around the stadium, but never in the lower bowl, at least not so far as I can remember. I have club seats now. I've never had seats where people stood all the time. I stand, gladly, whenever someone in front of me stands. I will not miss a play because someone in front is up. And I feel the urge to stand all the time during the playoff games. Why? Has something to do with being with the team, emotionally. It's like I'm ready to take the field to help them. And it feels like I can make more noise standing. It's about being part of the fight, somehow. It's true, people in the club seats, many of them, have a different attitude. They act like they're entitled - entitled to be comfortable, entitled to watch the game on their terms. Sometimes some of them seem like they're at a Super Bowl party when the game is between two teams they don't care about. "Excuse me, I'm going to get a mixed drink and maybe a snack." But it's plenty noisy - not as frantic noise as I've heard in some parts of the stadium, but seriously loud. And, to be honest, at 75 years old I'm not all that interested in standing for three and a half hours. The heart is willing but the legs are weak.

I think you're correct. By imposing the restriction, at a minimum they are keeping the profit-taking on tickets stay in the local market. If they let anyone buy season tickets, then the tickets will end up in the hands of sellers from bigger cities who will take the profits instead of local people. Second, by restricting in this way, and keeping prices low, they make it possible for the people of western New York to have the experience of having a pro football team. So, at best, the restriction is a community service. The Bills could make more by selling elsewhere.

Several considerations: 1. It's personal. Whether they're worth it depends on your situation. I have them, and I have these reactions: 2. Heaters make a difference. Not so much if the wind is blowing, but if there's little wind, it's really nice to have the extra heat if it's 40 degrees or 30 degrees. I think when it gets below 20, you won't feel the impact. 3. Being covered makes a big difference. It's nice to see the rain or snow but be out of it. 4. Club space is over-rated. It's usually horribly crowded and noisy. 5. Restroom lines are shorter. 6. Food concessions are better. 7. Crowd is different. One guy who sat behind me late in the season and then in front of me in the playoffs was complaining that no one was standing. He said "It's the playoffs!! Stand up!!" But the crowd in the club seats doesn't want to be bothered. They make noise pretty well, but the enthusiasm is muted. Some people come with their whole families, and some of the family members just aren't all that interested. 8. Preferred parking is nice. And preferred entrance to the stadium. In my case, no one of those things makes the difference, but the total package is attractive enough to me to make we want to spend the money. But it's definitely a luxury - it's over $7000 a year for two seats, and it's hard to justify compared to sitting at home and watching for free. I do it because I like the in-stadium experience with all the fans, and at this point in my life I can afford it.

Yes, I think that's what he was saying. Not that the team has to look like the Chiefs, but that it has to win like the Chiefs. That is true.

It's also exactly what Beane and McDermott have said, from the beginning, that they would do. They'll pay the guys the want to keep, they'll fill holes in free agency, and they'll draft to feed the pipeline. And if this coaching addition is about a star receiver, it's more likely to be about Diggs than OBJ. I wouldn't be surprised if high on their list of needs when looking at a WR coach was to find someone who can deal with Diggs. This is a veteran wide receiver coach who has been around his share of guys who need to be handled well.

That's a fair comment, and points out what's really a difference in perspective. First, I never thought Rivers could hold a candle to a talent like Allen. The Philip Rivers Chargers were his team, and I've always felt that they didn't win more was due in large part to Rivers. Same isn't true for Allen. If he doesn't win Lombardi's, it's certainly going to be on someone else, and that someone for now is McDermott. The difference in perspective is your perception/fear is that the past will predict the future. That is, that things won't change. And while I agree that that CAN happen, I don't think that's what will happen, because that's not who McDermott is. McDermott isn't may way or the highway in the usual sense. He's willing to change his schemes and philosophies; his "way" is learning and continuous improvement. He will play his 4-2-5 only so long as it gets him the results he wants. That D does get results - it's one of the best in the league. It just needs to be tweaked here and there, with personnel or strategy and tactics. It won't be wholesale change, because part of the system is continuity - run the same system with the same core players and you can rotate a lot of good football players through the other positions. But there'll be change, and it will make them better. They'll change how they play the playoffs, too. I throw out the Bengals game, because I think the team had come apart weeks before that, under the pressure of various things. I think losing Miller was a big emotional blow. But even if that's a fair assessment, the Bills are going to evaluate their playoff performance and learn from it. In particular, they're going to learn what they already knew but couldn't muster in the final game, and that's the need to increase the level of hitting - persistent hitting, so even when you're behind on the scoreboard, you know you're beating them physically. That knowledge helps a lot in the second half. I just don't foresee McDermott doing the same things, over and over, and losing repeatedly. Throughout his high school and college careers, he was always about being physically tough and about finding new and better ways to win. He's not stopping now.

I didn't say that. I said he's winning like a HOF coach, and that's statistically correct.

Yeah, but it's McDermott's way. He is careful about the kind of guys he hires, just like he's careful about the kind of players he wants. When he hires them, he has extreme confidence that they can do what he needs, and when they don't do it, he has extreme confidence that they will learn, because he hires learners. Once he's hired them, he's going to stick with them. I'm sure that's how he feels about Frazier, and I'm sure that's how he feels about Dorsey. He trusts their ability to learn and adapt. If he didn't trust it, he would replace them. Now, people may not agree with his decisions, and that's on McDermott. But as I've said for a few days in these threads, it's pretty hard to complain about the results McDermott has had in six seasons as a head coach. (People still complain, but really, be serious. He's piling up wins like a HOF coach.)

This is right on the money. As I've thought about the season, I've stopped worrying so much about the defense and begun thinking more about the offense. As I said the other day, the problem with the loss to the Bengals was not the defense - the Bengals are going to put up 25-30 against almost anyone, and 40 if your defense isn't good. The problem is that the offense has to score with them. I agree about the creativity. That was my complaint about the early Daboll also. Receivers get open with scheme, not with moves. Scheme comes from film study, understanding the tendencies of the defense and taking advantage of it. The Chiefs got two walk-in touchdowns against the Eagles by doing exactly that - they knew how the Eagles would play against certain sets in certain situations, and they designed a play that would take advantage of it. It's also true about those plays where Kelce cuts back to the weak side, against the flow - they catch the defense reacting to flow and let the defense create the open space for Kelce to move to. That's creative coaching. There weren't enough easy completions for Allen in 2022. Guys weren't getting open by taking advantage of weak spots in the defense. That's all about film study of the opponent, play design, and implementation. That's what we didn't see from Dorsey this season. Yes, the Bills need to protect Allen better. But the genius of Allen is the same as the genius of Mahomes, which is that protected or not, they have the ability to find, and the arm talent to get the ball to, open receivers. What Dorsey has to do is scheme better to give Allen open receivers.

I think the problem Frazier had was the complexity of the defense they run. It is very much a team defense. It's built in a way that each player is asked only to do things that he can execute well, and other players' assignments are determined by what the guys around them are expected to do. So, when you're playing without the pre-injury White, you're not just replacing White, you're giving the guys around White some slightly different assignments. When Edmunds misses time, you're asking the whole backfield to cover differently. When Hyde goes down, you're reshaping a lot of stuff. And when Miller goes down, ditto. What I saw was a group of guys being asked to change their own games because of key injuries, all season long. You can get away with Damar Hamlin growing into the job replacing Hyde, but you can't adjust quickly to Jaquan Johnson or Dean Marlowe stepping in, because with those guys on the field, Poyer's responsibilities will change, and White's, and Edmunds, Milano and Taron Johnson, too. It's in the nature of the defense. Now, that's true to some extent for every team, but I think it's particularly true of the Bills. Tre White isn't a true shut-down corner, but he's a great player because he's been able to think along with Poyer and Hyde to play really nuanced coverages. Elam and Benford couldn't possibly fill that role for the first half of the season (altho Benford was pretty good at it), and there was nothing Frazier could do about it. Just play the rookies and try to get them up the learning curve. And the way to cover for their weaknesses is to adjust the responsibilities of Hyde and Poyer, but Poyer was in and out and Hyde was gone. So, Frazier was trying to get Hamlin to play his own position AND help cover for the rookie corners. I think Frazier was looking at a more complex problem than we'd like to think.

Man, I love the fan reaction! Here is a guy who has spent a dozen years in pro football locker rooms, who is a recognized team leader, who is a close friend of several of the Bills players, and yet, when he gives his opinion, fans here throw it out like it means nothing. Players know when the coaching works and when it doesn't. They know when the season didn't work because, well, it just didn't work this year. They know. And that's what we're hearing from Smith. He's telling us these players - with these coaches - are ready to move forward. He's clearly saying that 2022 was an unusual year, everyone on the team knows it, and they'll be a powerhouse team again in 2023. For me, I think it's quite interesting to hear his perspective.

I don't buy the "how many years" thing. The franchise is not being run on some kind of theory that there's a window closing, and we have to do it now, or some opportunity will be lost. This franchise is being run for the long term, seeking to get better year over year. Their problems with the "how many years" argument. First, as I said earlier, if the Bills panic and replace Dorsey, who do they replace him with? If there's a McVay or Shanahan out there as an OC, he's getting a HC gig. If there's a guy who's about to become a McVay or Shanahan, how do you know for sure? Maybe he'll pan out in one year in Buffalo, maybe he won't. Then there's the issue of the guy coming in and changing the system. If you found a Shanahan, he would completely revamp the running game and the passing game. That means you have to change personnel. It's not a one-year deal. It's multiple years, so you're talking about major impacts to the franchise. Plus, do you want to change the system Allen's running? How about Bieniemy? Apparently he is in the market for an OC spot? Well, does anyone actually know how good he is? Does he need Reid to do what Bieniemy does? Point is, it is far from clear that if you change coordinators today, the 2023 season will be better with the new guy than with an improving Dorsey. And same question for 2024. And if you don't win in those years, are you changing coordinators again, because if you don't win then you've failed at replacing Dorsey with someone better, so your logic would say replace him. There is a lot of logic to the continuity approach to running a franchise.

As long as it takes. Denver waited eight or ten years before they changed coaches.

Yeah, well, life isn't perfect. You do have the occasional boy-genius, like McVay or Shanahan, but most of these guys take time to mature. Boy-wonder Kellen Moore just made a lateral move, after all the projections of him being the next HC genius. Why? Well, because, it takes time to grow into the job. Should McBeane go out and hire some mature, successful OC? Well, for starters, they don't want to change the system on Allen, so there's that. And they don't want to hire a guy and have him leave for a HC gig in a year or two. So, even if McBeane have concerns about whether Dorsey can do it, and when, he may still be among the best choices.

Maybe you're young, but this statement, in my humble opinion, is amazingly naive. Do you think that if Dorsey is an Offensive coordinator for the next 20 years, he won't be any better than he was this season? That he'll never improve? That's just wrong. I've practiced law for 40 years, and I was so much better in year 5 than year 1, it was amazing. Year 10 I was way ahead of year 5, and by year 20, well, that's when I hit my stride. Ask Andy Reid, and he'll tell you the same thing about his coaching career. Ask Belichick. I saw an interview after he won his most recent NBA championship. He was asked what he would say to the 27-year-old Lebron (after his first championship) if he could sit in a room with him. Lebron said he'd tell the kid Lebron, "you don't have a clue." Your letter carrier may not get better his job, but professional football coaches get better, for sure.

I don't know if the hot seat is anywhere on the horizon. It would be interesting to know what the annual post-season dialog is like among Steeler fans. That's the ultimate continuity-based franchise. Tomlin has never been below .500, but he hasn't won a Super Bowl since 2008 and hasn't been to the Super Bowl since 2010. Have the owners settled for just winning more than they lose, getting to the Super Bowl every decade or so? Or do they recognize that a lot of things have to fall right for even the right coach to win it all? If it were easy to be the Chiefs, everyone would be the Chiefs. What's wrong with the Bengals? Why can't they win the big one? They're clearly regressing - didn't beat the Chiefs this time around. Maybe it's time to think about a new coach there. Well-run teams take a long time to get rid of winning coaches.

With you all the way until the last sentence. McDermott will keep doing the same thing, which is following his process. His process is designed to have a continuously improving team. Doesn't mean there won't be ups and downs, but it does mean that over time it will get better. McDermott expects that by continuing to follow the process he WILL get different results.

Well, I've largely stayed out of this thread because a lot it is as you say. But it started out making a different point, or at least I thought so. The point was that a lot of fans seemed to be taking extremely negative positions about a team that is awfully close to being a great team in the league. It's one thing to have intelligent discussions about what needs to be done to get better; it's another to talk about blowing things up, getting rid of coaches or the GM, etc. If we could poll 32 owners and ask them if they didn't have the HC, GM, and/or QB they have, which one in the league would they like, McDermott, Beane, and Allen would be in everyone's top 10 and probably in most cases, in the top 5. So, complaining about how this team is being run in terms that suggest it's some kind of massive failure just doesn't make sense to me.

Fair enough. I certainly am not going to argue the point that resources have been allocated to the defense at the expense of the offense. But the resources dedicated to the defense were dedicated there precisely because the Bills want to hold the Chiefs and Bengals to 25-30, rather than letting them get 40. You need a really good defense to keep offenses like that somewhat under control. Yes, you don't want to surrender long scoring drives to open the game, but as McD always says, you're going to have periods in the game when things don't go well. It happens. It happened to the Eagles in the second half of the game last night. It just happens. But the Bengals kept trying to score against the Bills - they weren't coasting, and they went 3, 7, 3 in the final three quarters. That's about as much as you can expect from the defense against a team like that. (And the Bills were playing without Hyde, without Miller, and without the real Tre White.) I can't help but think that, despite your valid argument that the offense was under-resourced, one thing would have made a difference in that game and in the playoffs generally: Daboll instead of Dorsey. I was not a Daboll fan, and with Dorsey I expected Daboll plus some creativity. Instead, the Bills got considerably less out Dorsey than Daboll. In 2022, defenses adjusted and took away the things the Bills liked to do in 2021, and the Bills didn't respond. Good, creative offensive coaching finds ways to make some things easy for the offense. It looked easy for Allen to find Davis for four TDs in the playoffs last season against the Chiefs. That's coaching, not some magical ability on the part of the receiver to leave the defense in the dust. As I said, those two gimme touchdowns the Chiefs got to win the game last night were the direct result of Eric Bieniemy and his staff looking at film, identifying defensive tendencies, and designing a play that would use those tendencies against the Eagles. Kelce running those routes that break against the flow of the defense is the same thing. Kelce doesn't fake guys out of their shorts - he takes advantage of the defense predictably reading and reacting to keys. We saw very little of that out of Dorsey's offense. Now, here's why I'm not in despair: I have confidence in McDermott. If I can see that stuff, he can, and McDermott is all about improving what needs to improve. McDermott knows Dorsey very well, and he has opinions about whether Dorsey has the ability to grow in the job, to be creative in ways that he needs to be. If McDermott believes that Dorsey has what it takes, he will identify those needs in his work with Dorsey, and he and Dorsey will work a plan for Dorsey to get better. If his review and analysis of Dorsey tells him that Dorsey just isn't likely to be be able to do it, he will move on from Dorsey. That's how McDermott operates. That's why we saw Al Holcomb hired, and it's why they changed safety coaches - McDermott identified areas where aspects of the coaching needed to change to get the performance he wants out of the players he has. And he may have hired Holcomb because he knows that Frazier will retire soon, or something. McDermott's approach is to help people grow, and when he thinks they can't grown any more, he replaces them. I'm guessing that he know Dorsey well enough that he expects the offense, even with the same personnel as he had this season, to be better. He expects Dorsey to get better at preparing his offense on a weekly basis, to study how to attack this week's opponent and how to prepare the team to do that. It's not an unusual expectation. Daboll got better at his OC job. Josh McDaniel grew into his success as OC at the Patriots. Finally, let's recognize that what we're talking about is the last 2% of improvement. It's not like this was a lousy offense. A lot of people did a lot of things right for the offense to as good as it was. The Bills were second in yards, second in scoring, second in DVOA. That's an outstanding offense. Trying to figure out how to tweak it to be just that much better may require only a little improvement here or there, but it's the problem of the last mile. It isn't necessarily easy to get there. As I said, I have confidence in McDermott. There isn't anything we see that he doesn't.

I really think this is the wrong perspective. I think we have to recognize that when you play the Chiefs or the Bengals, you're going to give up 25-30 points. Those are really good offenses, with excellent coaching, excellent quarterbacks, and solid execution. Bengals have two really good wideouts and Chiefs have Kelce. They score against just about everybody, and the nature of the game today is that it's really, really difficult to build a defense that is going to hold those teams under 20. It just is. The only realistic way to beat those teams is to outscore them. The offense has to put up 25-30 of its own. And if the offense can do that against just about everybody (same as the Chiefs and Bengals do to just about everybody), then you can expect your team to be competitive with those teams in the playoffs. The defense could have been better, but the offense failed. That's why Diggs got so upset. He isn't unhappy about the defense. He's unhappy about the offense.