Dr. Who

Turns out the first round bye is a thing, but if you're the Bills and can't play well in snow, that's a problem.

You left out Jaws, To Russia With Love, and A Man for All Seasons. He was indeed an underrated and very good actor.

I'm rooting for the Buffalo Sabres.

You're probably right. I live near Athens. I not totally objective . . .

Slightly tangential, but related. Do you have any early views on Darnell Washington? I think he would be a perfect TE#2 and really help the oline.

I hope you're right, because that seems like the path we are going to take. I am with those who want a change. I'd prefer a more aggressive defensive approach. Regardless, more than anything, I hope OBD got the message that oline and offense needs to be the priority this offseason.

He would help the oline year one.

Didn't notice that much till later in the year. Could be wrong, I'm not a numbers guy. Just trying to see how one could creatively solve the slot position, The best thing would be for Shakir to make a second-year leap.

If you add an outside wr with speed and size, you could play Diggs in the slot enough to be a factor in the opposing defense gameplanning.

It's the Fire Everybody game, even if it's overreaction and won't happen.

Throwback blues with the standing buffalo are the best uni in the league. Folks are entitled to disagree, of course. You want to be wrong, that's on you.

Still provides excellent content under a different user name.

Loved that avatar.

You really can't win with that fella. He's like a Leslie Frazier defense in the playoffs.

HOUSE has that one mastered. It is in the Lost and Found. It is always lost when you ask for money, but found when the situation is reversed.

Hey, Figster. Hope you are well, old friend. It can't compete with this site for substantial insight on football. I mainly post over there on matters that are not sports related. If you've read any of my posts over there, you know why.

Yes, I suspect you are right. There isn't likely to be a worthy olineman that fits our scheme and merits a late first. There are some wrs that are arguably worth a shot there. Honestly, I would think about taking Washington if he's availabe at our pick in the first. Washington and a day two wr/ol may be better overall than other options on offense. He would materially impact the oline and offense overall more than I suspect folks imagine a TE #2 would make. All that said, they will probably take a safety and I will scream at the tv.

I was over there, too. One of the those got very weird, can't remember which.

When you get around to looking at TE, I suggest you think about Darnell Washington. He will be an exemplary blocking TE#2 with some catch ability. I've seen him mocked earlier, but if you can get him in the third round, I believe he would be a very nice add.

Any idea why? Here's a list that comes to mind. Maybe the elbow injury limited some throws, the oline was fair to mostly bad, Dorsey had first year growing pains, but none of that is sufficient to explain it. Josh seemed a more mature qb late last year.

I was over at BBMB and was simultaneously registered here, but mainly lurked. Timelords are always planning for contingencies. It's not nice when they implode the universe without warning, but this is a nice place with knowledgeable folk. As in every universe, alas, there are trolls. Don't feed them.

Frazier's scheme came to the forefront decades ago. And like fashion, no doubt there may come a time when various trends make what is retro contemporary again. The question is has it proven effective in the post-season in the game as exemplified today? I can't think of one. Look at the four coaches and teams in the conference finals this year. They are all teams with an offensive coach at the top. Let us hypothetically surmise the Bills put the majority of resources into building up the offense. You do what you can to seriously upgrade the oline, you add an outside wr with size and speed that can reliably catch the ball, you add a solid blocking te #2. You do all that, even if it means sacrificing some skill on D and letting a few fellas walk because you can't pay for everything with a cap and Allen's big contract numbers hitting the books. Then you try to upgrade the overall gameplanning on offense so that your run game and passing game compliment one another and you actually make use of pass catching rbs like Hines and Cook with YAC potential. All that would be in line with what is working right now in the NFL. The corrolary to a dangerous team on offense with a top level qb is you can afford to play an attacking D. If you give up a few big scores, you have the fire power to strike back. The plus side of a non-passive defense is you are less likely to get gutted with long drives while the bend-don't break approach waits for the extended drive to break down. There won't be a whole game of sustained drives that demoralize and keep the ball away from your high-powered offense. And on both sides of the ball, you put pressure on the opposing team. That's the rough strategy behind it and I believe it makes some sense. Regardless, I think Frazier's tactics are deceptive in that they produce generally good numbers and regular season results, but have failed more often than not in the playoffs. Aside from that, they don't blend well with the optimum approach for what would make best use of Allen's talents and the team's overall success. Maybe they keep him and prove all this wrong or that their strategy can be an outlier to how the game is played to success in its current best practice (that is always a fluid situation.) I am skeptical on that, however.

Well, I agree with much of this, but I just don't think the passive D employed by Frazier is the answer. I agree with those folks who assert 1) The scheme requires too many premium athletes and the health of those athletes to be effective and 2) the defense puts up gaudy numbers by pummeling average and weak teams in the regular season, but struggles against better competition in the playoffs. Changing schemes may require a step backwards regarding personnel, but staying with something proven ineffective when it counts most isn't exactly staying in place.

75 yrs old, but he could coach D.

I don't think many folks think he will be gone. Quite a few think he should be. I am personally ambivalent, but I absolutely see the point of concern. You have a defensive coach in an era where the most successful coaches are offensive minded. The D coach prioritizes assets for the defense which does well against average and below average teams, but struggles against better ones, especially in the playoffs. Because the weight of investment is on D, the offense is overly reliant on Josh Allen playing at superman levels for the offense to thrive. It's out of kilter. Moreover, if you want to play complimentary football, it makes more sense for a powerful, quick strike offense to be matched by a more aggressive D. Bend but don't break strategies match up with game manager qbs. What happend this last Sunday should never happen. It was an extraordinary season, emotionally difficult, but at minimum, the coaches should have been much more prepared for the tactics thrown at them. A team with three backup oline dominated. There was no adjustment, just surrender. The trenches are weak on both sides of the ball, the drafts have been mediocre, the early prime of one of the most gifted qbs in the league has been squandered. You think that kind of concern is trollish or ignorant? I'm not at all convinced that McD sees the depth of the problem or that he has the capacity to make the necessary changes. Almost certainly, he'll be given the opportunity. We'll all have to hope and pray he does, but he is on the hot seat.