Old Coot

Who remembers Front Page Football -- last published by EA in 1999. Best football strategy and tactics ever.

I've been looking for a mismatched plaid shirt to complete my oufit.

A common misconception. To be precise, the K-Gun was named after McKellar's nickname "Killer"

Nice breakdown. On the early analysis of Josh's interceptions I noticed that Josh tends to stare his receiver down. Good opponents will pick that up on tape and coach their DBs to follow Josh's eyes. I did not notice Josh doing this last year. It may be a function of the quick reads built into Dorsey's offense which may in turn be a function of our OL not being the best. Josh previously took I think 3.5 secs to throw and now he may be down to 2.5 secs. Josh got that extra second not by the OL but by Josh's scrambling.

On the reading process, specifically which side the QB reads first: Picking a side is based on the alignment of the DBs, usually the safeties. The read of the safeties can be pre-snap or post-snap based on the movement of the safeties. That tells the QB which side he looks to first. If the receivers on that side are covered the QB looks to the other side. It looks easy by as someone has said the QB has about 2.5 seconds to make his reads and throw the ball. FWIW Josh immediately looks to one side. He doesn't attempt to look off the safety on that side so the safety knows which side the initial reads are on.

"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.

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. 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.

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. Just to be clear, so you're saying the rules dork was a dork?

Good point

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.

Just to be clear, so you're saying the rules dork was a dork?

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.

There was a Bengals' leg whip (not called) but it was on Cook, I think.

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

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.

"People are strange when you're a stranger" said Jim Morrison

The "Z" is implied (and silent, of course).

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

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

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.

Agreed. Except for the opening drive of the 3d quarter.

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.