Old Coot
-
Posts
822 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Old Coot
-
-
45 minutes ago, LifeLongBillsFan said:
either there has to be a correction in the next few weeks - or things are going to start coming a part. You can’t take a team predicted for greatness and suck at coaching this bad
This year has been a disaster. On D injury-wise and on O for reasons I'm not sure. Part may be Dorsey but part is also execution by the players. BTW lack of execution is not solely the players' fault. The coaching staff's job is to get the players ready to play.
49 minutes ago, LifeLongBillsFan said:I keep asking - why would a SB contender hire a man inexperienced OC? Doesn’t make any sense
Easy answer: Dorsey was familar with Daboll's system and Josh wanted Dorsey maybe because Josh didn't want to learn a new system. The problem I think is this: The O line isn't good enough to play long ball or to have a consistently successful running game but the WR's (aside from Diggs and Kincaid) and the execution aren't good enough to play small ball -- 10-12 play drives don't happen when there are miscues and you cannot consistently run the ball.
I hate to say it but this team hasn't and doesn't have the talent to be "destined for greatness." Some of the players (like Josh and Stef) are great. It's a good team but there are too many holes that a well-coached opponent will exploit. That's why despite some playoff success they haven't made it to the Big Dance.
I'm not dissing the team here -- when you cut me I bleed red, white and royal blue -- I've been a fan since the days of Golden Wheels Dubenion and Tarzan Torczon (that's 1960 for you, youngsters). I'm just being realistic.
For what it's worth, I think the Bills teams of the four Superbowl appearences were somewhat similar. The O was great -- excellent passing, running and O line (much more talented than the 2023 Bills' O). The D, despite stars such as Bruce Smith, had holes that were exploited by their well-coached opponents. The first SB appearence the Bills' O scored only 19 points -- a failure for an O as prolific as the K-Gun. I read that the Giants switched up defenses from drive to drive and so kept Kelly somewhat confused. That and the Giants ability to sustain long clock-eating drives with power running because out D wasn't good enough to stop them. They also kept everything in front of them to limit YAC. Those K-Gun teams were great at YAC (unlike our present Bills).
The Giants' DC was some new guy by the name of Bill Belichick. I wonder what ever became of him? Probably a gym teacher at a HS somewhere.
At this point we are in the race for the AFC North crown but even if we do make the playoffs I'll be very surprised if we go very far.
In any event, it's on to the next opponent.
-
2 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:
But Intentional Grounding - that really annoyed me. Where did they see "imminent loss of yardage because of pressure". The ref should never have made that call. Josh wasn't throwing that ball because of pressure. It was a terrible subjective call.
I agree. The rule requires that the QB be facing imminent loss of yardage and on that play Josh threw from a clean pocket.
Collingsworth was right that the WRs route was an option route. When Josh throws the WR is running a fly pattern which he breaks off just after Josh lets the ball go because the DB is in good position to defend the fly. Not that this is a defense to the overthrow.
What likely happened was that the refs saw the overthrow but not the clean pocket and called what they saw (or didn't see).
Regardless, this play was not within the reason for the intentional grounding rule.
2 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:Then the rules dork tried to make like it was definitely by the rules correct. But the rule dork clearly left out the whole under duress element of call, dork.
Just to be clear, so you're saying the rules dork was a dork?
-
1 minute ago, Bruffalo said:
It’s a gamble, but if they just plug in Joe Brady or one of the other former OCs on the coaching staff I don’t think it would be as disruptive as you’re making it out to be.
Good point
-
Just now, Bruffalo said:
If the current scheme and playcalling is holding the team back, like many of us believe, then bringing in anyone regardless of the learning curve would probably be a net positive.
I don't necessarily disagree with you but consider the possibility that a new hire could be a net negative.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of coaching changes are net positives and what percentage are new negatives.
-
1 hour ago, Einstein's Dog said:
Then the rules dork tried to make like it was definitely by the rules correct. But the rule dork clearly left out the whole under duress element of call, dork.
Just to be clear, so you're saying the rules dork was a dork?
-
1
-
-
You guys calling for Dorsey and / or McD to be fired do realize that's initially a step back.
Why? Because a new OC will bring in his own system with different theories and play calling names. That means Josh (and other) need to learn a new system. How many times have you heard of a highly touted QB not performing up to expectations because he's had X number of OCs. Why does a new OC bring his own system? Because his job depends on the O's performance so he wants to use a system he knows like the back of his hand. It's an extraordinary (and an experienced) OC who is a master of several O systems.
If you bring in a new HC its the same situation only worse. The HC's job depends on the team being successful so the HC will want both O & D systems he knows well.
This is, I think, why most newly hired HC's OC's and DC's bring in their own system and remake the roster in their images rather than using a system designed to fit the roster.
-
2
-
-
There was a Bengals' leg whip (not called) but it was on Cook, I think.
-
8 minutes ago, Chaos said:
My question to anyone who knows about this: Do teams evaluate their assests with a view to injury liklihood. For example what is the expected games/contract dollars lost for a defense with six starters 31 or older, and 4 players with major recent injury histories? Or is the nature of football that all players/teams have an equal injury risk?
Interesting question. My guess is that if it's done it's done by someone in the front office (think "Moneyball") not the coaching staff. The coaches need to focus on getting the players ready to play not deal with esoteric "what ifs."
-
McD's answer was very Belichikish
-
1 hour ago, juno999 said:
This game sealed it for me. Need to get rid of Dorsey. He's holding the offense back. It's not all on him but you can't fire the players.
I do not necessarily disagree with you but changing OCs in the middle of the year is not an easy task. The replacement needs to be familiar with the Bills' offense and the playcalling terminology. Is there someone on staff who could take over the OC duties?
-
This loss was on the offense. It scored only 2 TDs.
The defense allowed only 3 points in the 2d hald despite the injuries on D.
My initial take is that the O doesn't execute well enough to dink & dunk down the field and Josh can't seem to hit the long ball.
It would be useful if, when the all-22 is available, someone knowledgeable about such things would comment on why the O isn't more effective. Some of it is execution. For example, on two plays our WRs tripped over one another.
-
3
-
5
-
-
19 hours ago, Bob Jones said:
People
fansare dumb"People are strange when you're a stranger" said Jim Morrison
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Logic said:
I hadn't realized that Dalton Kincaid's middle name started with a Z
The "Z" is implied (and silent, of course).
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, SCBills said:
Phillips grabbed Baker’s face mask for no reason and then the ball bounced off Benford for a TD and Phillips for a 2 point conversion.
These things are clearly McD's fault. Don't ask me how; I just know they are ecause McD is not a good head coach.
Engage sarcasm detector
-
2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:
Point is, the clock was the Bucs main enemy. Allowing them to use the sidelines with ease--with the result being four legit plays with 21 seconds and no timeouts--strikes me as pretty bad tactics.
I agree with you in theory. But remember that the D is playing with a bunch of 2d stringers. If you try to cover deep and aggressively on the sidelines you may allow a deep completion. In that situation I'd prefer to let the CBs cover deep and leave the sidelines for the LBs. Problem is, most LBs don't have the speed to cover a WR to the sideline. Use CBs to cover the sideline and Boom, they hit a deep pass.
I remember I think the Pats game when they had Hyde on a WR one on one and the WR burned him for a TD
-
1 hour ago, newcam2012 said:
I disagree. The Bills played excellent on offense. It was a much different, dynamic, and creative offense. Kincaid, Davis, Shakir, Cook, and the oline were all very good. The rhythm, pace, play calling, and execution was similar to the offenses on the past few years. They looked dangerous. Lastly, the use of Allen's legs was a welcomed addition. Overall, I give the Bills O a solid B+ to an A. Remember, the Bucs are number 1 in the NFL in the red zone.
On defense, the Bills were solid but had some issues to clean up. Worried that they will get exposed vs the much better offenses and QBs they will be facing. I thought the run defense was solid. Still need help on stopping the screen pass. I thought the Baker was under pressure a lot but the Bills came up a little short on finishing the sack. Overall, I give the defense a B minus. Penalties hurt the team.
Coaching staff gets a B plus. McD had the team motivated and ready to play. You could see that from the jump. Great game plan by Dorsey to come out with a face paced quick passing game. Great design to get several players involved in the offense. I think this is the first time we've seen such diversity. Diggs was even used in various sets and motion to confuse the D and get himself open. Josh was excellent using his legs and getting the ball out to his hot reads. The Bucs blitzing was pretty ineffective with the exception of the fluke INT. Besides, the Dorsey brain fart on the one yard line he was excellent.
McD is a very good defensive coach. He mixed up his defenses and disguises. He is way more aggressive than Fraizer. Once concerning is that the key defensive injuries are clearly felt. I'm just afraid it might be a little too much to overcome vs quality offenses. I think one big key will be Von Miller. Right now, he's a work in progress. Hopefully, after the bye or so he starts to be more comfortable and effective. He will elevate everyone's game.
Your write up is a good one. I was referring to the Os performance in the 2d half. After the 3d quarter's opening drive it did not look sharp. They had some 3 & outs between then & the Bucs ' time consuming drive to score their td.
-
52 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:
If we're grading this game a pass fail it's a pass. Letter grade would be e C for the uninspired second half. No killer instinct.
Agreed. Except for the opening drive of the 3d quarter.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, RiotAct said:
crazy how if Godwin just looks for the ball and makes that grab in the EZ,
Godwin wasn't looking for the ball 'cause he was shoving the Bill in front of him to the ground. If Godwin makes the catch maybe the refs call that penalty; maybe not.
-
1
-
-
This was a good but not great win.
The D played very well but I'm unsure how good the Bucs' O is.
The O played well in the first half and the opening drive of the 2d half. They played with passion.
But after the score they didn't do much after that. They could hev put the game away but did not.
Yet a win's a win. On to the next game.
-
Elam seemed to be a legit 1st rounder. He played for a couple of years for the Gators and played well.
His dad and uncle played in the NFL so he had that pedigree.
He's played well on occasion and seems to be a fit for a zone D.
What is the problem? He's a bit young. Is he resistant to coaching? Is he a head case?
Those who blame coaching may be right but I find it hard to believe you would tank a 1st rounder over coaching problems especially when the staff has been so successful in developing cbs.
-
What if the goalposts had been 3 feet to the right.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, VaMilBill said:
iMO, it comes back to coaching. Ken has got to do a better job helping Josh out not just with play calling, but what to look for out on the field.
In theory you are correct but consider that the OC devises his gameplan based on what the opponent has shown previously. There is only limited time to prepare & coach the gameplan each week. You can't prepare for everything.
When the opp is doing something you don't expect its very difficult to adjust during the game. Even halftime adjustments are difficult (P Manning says it is an illusion that you can do halftime adjustments).
During the K-Gun years, Kent Hull the center made the line protection calls. Maybe something like this would help Josh by taking that aspect of the game off his plate.
-
Two points:
1. You can't just decide to go up tempo for the whole game unless you game planned it and your O players are conditioned to do it. If you try quickly to sub in personnel packages the D gets to sub also.
2. When you go uptempo the D tends to play a base D because it cannot sub in personnel. That probably simplifies Josh's reads.
-
9 hours ago, ngbills said:
My guess on EPA stats. Its these long drives that boost EPA
What is EPA? I'm guessing that its not the Environmental Protection Agency.
We are now the worst defense in the league
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
"DVOA" is a term I have seen used several times on the board but was unfamiliar to me so I looked it up.
For those who are as clueless as I, I quote from the following site:
"That term is “DVOA” or “Defense-adjusted Value Over Average.” Not “Dorks Value Only Analytics,” as one ESPN reporter put it this week.
Did that just bring your brain to a screeching halt? That’s okay, it’s done the same thing to me too.
Football Outsiders, who uses DVOA as the heart of their work, defines the statistic as the following: “DVOA breaks down the entire season play-by-play, comparing success on each play to the league average based on a number of variables including down, distance, location on field, current score gap, quarter, and opponent quality.”
So in layman’s terms, DVOA is a statistic that takes things into consideration plain old stats might not. For example, Kirk Cousins had a decent day in the box score on Sunday (19-25 for 259 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception plus 34 yards rushing) but his DVOA took a bit of a hit because the Vikings were playing from behind, which does have some impact on how DVOA is calculated as noted above (Cousins ranked 9th in DVOA after Week 1). DVOA looks at the average result of a play in a similar situation, and when teams are down big, they tend to throw a lot and go for chunk plays. Cousins was successful in doing that (over 10 yards per attempt), but because the baseline is higher, his value over average dips."
https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/by-the-numbers/2020/9/17/21441001/dvoa-a-beginners-look-at-a-misunderstood-metric-packers-football-outsiders
Hope this helps.