dave mcbride

It's not just the schedule; it's also that the Bills played in nine lousy-weather games.

These are good takes, and I mostly agree, especially re who they hoped he would be vs who he is. But I also see a lot of QBs making bad decisions and avoiding the middle of the field vs the Bills pass D. He's pretty much always sitting in the middle there. I have heard at least one opposing coach say that he's a real problem in pass D, and you of all people know that pass D is more important than run D (not that the latter is unimportant; it is). As for the completion rate, yeah, but a lot of dumpoffs to RBs go his way. As I mentioned earlier, Mixon caught 87.5 percent of the passes thrown his way, and while he's at the high end for RBs, RBs in general tend to catch balls at a high rate. It skews passer rating vs LBs, who let those passes happen and then rally to tackle. But he needs to be making 2-4 picks per season to be sure and breaking up more than the 4 passes he broke up this year (as opposed to 12 in 2018 and 9 in 2019). He's not doing that. You'll probably laugh at this, but one skill he does have is running and chasing guys who've made short catches. He's very good at rallying to the tackle in open space (no need to shed blockers out there) because he's a punishing tackler and very fast for his position. He also only has to react and not read. Hence there will be catches against the Bills pass D, but he's good at preventing them from becoming bigger plays. That doesn't make him elite, of course, but it is an attribute that's probably more important on the point-prevention front than many give the team credit for. He had his best missed tackle rate ever this season - 8.5 percent, which is pretty solid for the LB position. Re: math, you're missing my point. The passes that aren't thrown his way because he's doing something good out there will never reflect on the rating against him. My point is that teams this past season struggled massively vs the Bills pass D, and he's a core part of it in the mid-range areas. QBs get confused and make bad decisions, and it happened a lot this season. (I'm not saying he's all-world at pass defending, so please don't make it sound as if I am!) Bottom line: he may get better, although I think he'll never be great. He also knows how to function in the system pretty well, and things can ALWAYS get worse -- the grass isn't always greener. Interestingly enough, the LB I really wanted in that draft (after the QB, of course) was Roquan Smith. Man, is he good: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitRo07.htm. This past season, opposing QBs throwing has way had an extremely low 76.8 percent rating vs him (LBs tend to have surrender very high passer ratings as a general rule) and he only missed 3.6 percent of his tackles. He is a difference maker. Doesn't force a ton of turnovers, though.

A squib was not the best idea. A short kick to the 5 -- a kick that Bass has executed many times -- was the way to go. It literally forces a return, and if the return gets to the 25 or so, that's 5 seconds off the clock (I timed subsequent returns in the other playoff games that got about 20 yards). Sure, you run the risk of a huge return, but that happens in about 1 out of every 50-75 returns. I'll take my chances. There is a very strong chance that a squib takes no time off the clock at all. And it could go out of bounds.

This is an interesting conversation. My view on Edmunds is that he doesn't make a ton of big plays -- he's no Kuechly, although Kuechly was probably the best NFL LB of the past 15 years -- but what we don't see is how he messes up passing games for opponents. Passes are completed against him for sure, but a lot of passes don't come his way because of his range and ability to execute mid-range middle-of-the-field coverage. Opposing teams had a staggeringly low 65.3 passer rating vs. the Bills this season. That's unheard of in this day and age. Yeah, I know they played backups and a bunch of bad weather games, but still. My point is that the passes and lanes that are taken away by a rangy LB with a massive wingspan have helped the Bills attain their truly lofty status in pass defense. The issue for Edmunds -- and for the Bills in general -- is simply the Chiefs. They have the system, the speed guys, the QB, and--most importantly--the game changing TE who has a mind-meld with the elite QB on option routes to break down and expose the Bills scheme. No other team does. So much of what people are reacting to w/regard to Edmunds are those two playoff games vs. KC. I'd argue that the real problem was not having a true game-wrecking, sack-finishing d-lineman or two. We get pressure, sure, but we don't get sacks like the Chargers do or Tampa did vs. KC last year. Plays get extended, and vs. our matchup zone, KC's elite receivers will eventually get open and the QB will hit them. I'd argue that we should try and maintain our proven ability to hold opposing teams to a passer rating of below 70. Edmunds is a key part of that pass defense. That is a incredible stat and should win a ton of games for you. With regard to upholding that, Edmunds isn't the problem; the lack of a finishing d-lineman and one more high level corner are the issues at present. Anyway, when it comes to Edmunds, I feel like a lot of people don't look at the bigger context of our scheme. Moreover, if you're watching it on tv, it's very hard to see what he does in coverage schemes.

re: Perine (previous running play): https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/16/zac-taylor-says-he-got-third-down-call-in-late-so-it-was-his-decision-to-leave-samaje-perine-in/

I like to think Ramsey simply choked--just liked he choked vs Tampa/Mike Evans (although he was saved by the bell in the form of TB going cover zero on LA's last possession). They did have the short pass option to Burrow's right. It's just that the Bengal's joke of an o-lineman was beaten so quickly and so badly that Burrow had no chance.

Cincy DID go for the jugular twice and hit those plays, and on that final play where Donald made the big pressure that forced the incompletion, Ramsey had fallen down and Chase was WIDE open--and I mean WIDE open--for a TD. I'm mot really speaking to your point here, but if a Bengals o-lineman did the unlikely and actually blocked Donald even a little, Ramsey might have gone down as one of the biggest goats in SB history--"trash," as it were. That would have been hilarious, and I would have loved it. It's also why I think Donald should have been the MVP, although I can't complain too much about Kupp getting it.

You must have loved those Bears/NE and SF-Broncos Super Bowls in the 1980s (the blowout era). The Bears/NE game even had Up With People doing the halftime show!

Losing to Jax in a must win game means that they Indy deserve it. And they didn't just lose; they were dominated. And Staley's inexplicable coaching moves vs both Vegas and KC a couple of weeks before (the ridiculous impulse to go for it every time on fourth down cost them the game) before told me that the Chargers didn't deserve it either. Yeah, they're talented, but if you have a coach who has decided that the common sense wisdom of 75 years of NFL football is all garbage, you really don't deserve to qualify.

Bill Barnwell's column today was interesting. He pointed to another infamous playoff occasion where the flags flew late in the game buy not for the first 58 minutes--TB vs GB last season: 'We know the NFL has a long track record of trying to avoid flags in big games. Teams use that information to their advantage. As former Patriots executive Scott Pioli noted, the Patriots deliberately played more physically in the conference title games and Super Bowls, knowing referees were unlikely to call penalties. If you watch any game as closely as we watch the Super Bowl, you're going to see missed calls on both sides. The bigger issue for me is the timing of the calls. Like a strike zone in baseball, players generally seem to be comfortable with games being called loosely or tightly by the refs, as long as they can get a sense of what that is early in the game and adjust accordingly. In this case, in a game in which the refs seemed comfortable with players grabbing and tugging in coverage, Wilson was flagged for something that I'm sure other defenders on both sidelines did earlier in the game without a penalty. (Of course, the Bengals have also benefited from some questionable missed calls throughout their run, most notably against the Chiefs in the regular season.) This is the second time in two seasons that we've seen officials let things go to a dramatic degree before cracking down with the game on the line. Last time around, it was in the 2020 NFC Championship Game, where the Buccaneers and Packers basically played out a Mutant League Football game for 58 minutes. In the final two minutes, though, Kevin King was called for a defensive pass interference penalty on third down, extending Tampa Bay's final drive and eventually allowing it to run out the clock. We now have two data points from two different referees suggesting that the league might allow teams to go all-out for the first 58 minutes before encouraging referees to crack down in the final two minutes of games. When coaches are instructing their players in next year's conference title games and Super Bowl to play more aggressively than they would in a typical contest, they might also need to tell their defensive backs and linemen to get back to normal after the two-minute warning in the second half.' https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/insider/story/_/id/33284366/how-rams-came-back-beat-bengals-super-bowl-defensive-adjustment-inevitable-cooper-kupp-star-performances

Just looked up that 1978 AFC championship game. I thought the Bills turning it over 9 times vs the Cowboys in the SB (now talk about a BAD Super Bowl ...) was an unmatchable feat, but my god, the Oilers turned it over 9 times too vs Pitt in that game! Pastorini threw 5 picks and Earl Campbell alone fumbled three times. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/197901070pit.htm Also, the Rams were almost as bad vs the Cowboys -- they turned it over 7 times. Christ. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/197901070ram.htm

I though Mahomes played like crap most of that game and that SF, instead of making a stop late (after the Jimmy G miss to Sanders) and giving themselves one more shot, collapsed like a house of cards on KC’s final possession. It was a fine game, and better than the average SB. But it was hardly great. Last night’s game certainly had more drama and probably better qb play overall. Losing OBJ really affected his play. They were decimated at the receiver position. Skowronek is not good.

I'd say Pitt/GB and Pitt/AZ too. Those were all mistake-plagued games. I felt this one was more cleanly played than all of those, and as for that Pitt/Seattle game, this one was at least close to the end and the teams played better.

I think Mixon gets the first on that third down run. No idea why wasn't on the field there. That was a weak run by the other guy (although Donald made a great play).

@ScottLaw was being sarcastic ...

There have been a LOT of bad SBs. They've been better in recent decades (partly because the Pats seemed constitutionally incapable of blowing anyone out or getting blown out in their 9 appearances with Brady), but for a very long time they were generally blowouts. And there have been blowouts in recent years too. Seattle/Denver, anyone?? KC/TB? http://www.espn.com/nfl/superbowl/history/winners Every SB has its share of mistakes and bad plays. And the Bengals line wasn't gassed; they just suck. They are who we thought they were. I've seen a LOT worse. This is the best game since the Feb 2017 game (Atl/NE), in my opinion.

I thought it was a pretty good game. In my opinion it's the best SB since the Atlanta/NE game. The Philly/NE game had zero defense, and the SF/KC game was more "blah" than this one. Last year's SB and the NE/Rams one were bad. The stars all showed up last night and played well, and in my view a 23-20 score is pretty much the perfect number--it indicates that both offenses and defenses made plays. I worry less about a SB team being not as dominant as one might like; the game should be judged on its own terms. At the end of the day, it was a see-saw, hard fought battle with a lot of important individual plays. The fact that the teams are flawed is meaningless to me. The Bills are flawed too.

Good post. People have laughed at me for saying it was a good game, and I still believe that. At the end of the day, there were lead changes, just the right amount of scoring for my taste (24-21/23-20 indicates balance between offensive and defensive play, and the points don't come too cheap), and the good players on both teams made plays. For the Rams, Stafford delivered, Cupp delivered, Donald delivered, Von Miller delivered, and I'd even argue that Ramsey delivered outside of that one deep pass to Chase early one. He broke up the intended TD pass that held the Bengals to 3 a few plays later, and he was obviously blatantly facemasked by Higgins on the TD throw. For the Bengals, Burrow, Mixon, Higgins, and Chase all played well. On D, their good front seven guys played well too. Moreover, it came down to two final possessions. One team got it done, and the best player on the field -- Donald -- made sure the other team didn't on a couple of great defensive plays. The tackle on the third down was amazing, although I think if Mixon had run it he may well have made it. One could gripe about the reffing late, but the PI was definitely PI (the holding call was sketchy) and the non-call on Higgins obviates any claims by Bengals fans that it was rigged. Anyway, it was a hard-fought, balanced, and tight game. Not sure what people are looking for in these games. Last year's game was awful, and I felt this one was better than the previous three too (Rams/NE, KC/SF, and the no-defense Philly/NE game). I honestly think much of the criticism stems from the fact that Bills fans felt that the Bills were the more deserving team (they weren't--they lost fair and square to KC).

I have said elsewhere that if people actually watched that team over the course of the season, they’d realize how terrible their line actually is.

The Bengals’ line is actually terrible and one of the worst in the league.

People don’t seem to like defense. Oh well.

The reason the Bengals lost is because their offensive line made it clear who they actually were — a truly terrible line that couldn’t handle any decent D-line. They were utterly overwhelmed in the second half.

It may well be. I saw that coming and thought “oh no.”

I thought the game was fantastic.

You’re not making the best LA thing!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_taco more specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kogi_Korean_BBQ