McDermott is going to cost us in a big game

[Jerome007]

1 hour ago, mjt328 said:

I get so tired of head coaches being second-guessed for everything.

 

The Bills had a chance to the lead with less than 8 minutes left in the 4th Quarter, during a tie-game.

The option was his kicker (who is one of the league's best) to hit from 56 --- or -- 4th and 8 with a rookie QB and inconsistent offense.

His defense had been playing pretty well, so he had plenty of confidence they could stop the Jets from mounting another scoring drive.

 

If the Bills went for it on 4th and then DID NOT make it, people would be screaming how McDermott should have been smart and just taken the points in that situation.

Normally I'd agree but EVERYONE in & out of the stadium knew Haushka was injured. Why not him?

 

And since the  Bills are out of the playoffs GO FOR IT. Hell, run a 4th & 2 instead of faking to go for it and taking a time out...

 

But recall when the Jags went for it on 4th and goal. Not only they didn't score, next play was a 99 yard run against them! Enough to make coaches go back to being conservative...

 

Still, the few times the Bills have been aggressive this year and took a chance it didn't pan out, yet most of the fans did NOT criticize them. We want this.

 

[Shaw66]

6 hours ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

From having an injured kicker go for a 54 yarder to the 2 runs on 1st and 2nd at the Jets 23 on the second to last drive...this conservative garbage is so incredibly frustrating. I just don't understand it. Is the point of the game to keep it close or to go for the win? Even when we're 4-8 the guy just won't go for it. Give Allen more than 1 shot on that set of downs to make a play. Stop playing for a field goal. 

 

You can see this coming a mile away, sometime in the future if we make it back to the playoffs, his brutal gameday management and conservativeness is going to bite us hard at the end of a game. 

 

 

I think the important question is whether he will change.  I think we've seen plenty of examples of his conservative approach to the game.  Conservative is good, but only in moderation.  He has to recognize that winning require aggressive play AND aggressive play calling. 

 

McDermott studies his own performance.  I think we will see a change in philosophy as his offense improves and his understanding of whatnot takes to win is refined. 

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, BananaB said:

Well I guess you believe McDermott will get us too a big game. Considering our history over the past couple decades that is a big step forward. 

 

I kindof thought the Jacksonville game in January was a big game.

Edited December 10, 2018 by reddogblitz

[Happy]

33 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think the important question is whether he will change.  I think we've seen plenty of examples of his conservative approach to the game.  Conservative is good, but only in moderation.  He has to recognize that winning require aggressive play AND aggressive play calling. 

 

McDermott studies his own performance.  I think we will see a change in philosophy as his offense improves and his understanding of whatnot takes to win is refined. 

 

As the OP suggested, and I think you elude to, McD will probably need to lose multiple big games before he realizes this and changes his approach.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...McDermott is wrapping up year 2 in his first HC stint.....realistically he has a learning curve.........game day club readiness, clock management and spontaneous in game decisions are areas of needed improvement going forward......he'd be an obvious hypocrite, earning zero player respect, if he did not hold himself accountable to shore up these weaknesses as he expects from players.....I also think he can make significant improvements in his coaching staff (multiple debates already as to who) which would make his job easier......something about a "manager is only as good as his subordinates" comes to mind.....

[HomeskillitMoorman]

52 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think the important question is whether he will change.  I think we've seen plenty of examples of his conservative approach to the game.  Conservative is good, but only in moderation.  He has to recognize that winning require aggressive play AND aggressive play calling. 

 

McDermott studies his own performance.  I think we will see a change in philosophy as his offense improves and his understanding of whatnot takes to win is refined. 

 

I think you're more confident that he knows where those shortcomings are more than I am. I'm not sure he thinks he is overly conservative or thinks there is something wrong with his ability to manage the game or the clock. While I think he's a better coach than Jauron in other ways...I do think he has some extremely similar traits when it comes to those things. Situational awareness is also an issue.

 

I remember a game between the Bills/Pats during the Jauron era the year Brady was out for the season, it was either the last or one of the last games of the season and it was a super windy game in Buffalo. Both QB's were having a ton of trouble throwing and the Pats led 3-0 for most of the game with neither offense really being able to do anything all day. There was a play in the 4th quarter where it was 4th down and long for the Patriots from inside their own 20, only up 3-0, where the Bills brought in the punt team only to see the Pats keep their offense on the field and line up. Jauron, thinking they might actually snap it, panicked and called a timeout. Belichick was literally smirking on the sideline, almost like he himself was incredulous that he actually got him to use a timeout there. 

 

I honestly think the same exact thing would happen to McDermott if that situation arose today. I think he's a prepared coach in terms of teaching, but I don't think he knows how to deal with game situations as they arise. And when they do, it feels like he's always going to take the conservative approach. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by HomeskillitMoorman

[atlbillsfan1975]

I am seeing the same thing down here in Atlanta with Quinn. McDermott is a great motivator and culture developing HC. McDermott isn’t great at game days yet. I’m hoping he will open his mind up and see how his decisions yesterday played a part in the loss. 

[reddogblitz]

12 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

I remember a game between the Bills/Pats during the Jauron era the year Brady was out for the season, it was either the last or one of the last games of the season and it was a super windy game in Buffalo. Both QB's were having a ton of trouble throwing and the Pats led 3-0 for most of the game with neither offense really being able to do anything all day. 

 

The thing I remember most from that game was Matt Cassell's 70+ yard punt.

[JohnC]

6 hours ago, eball said:

 

He's killing me.  How do you look around the league at what aggressive play-callers are doing and still have this mindset?  It's mind-numbing.  I hope somebody has his ear and can get through to him.  Maybe having more talent on the offensive side of the ball (and an NFL-worthy OL) will give him more confidence?

 

Anyway, it's my single biggest issue with the team right now.  Well, and Crossman.

 

There is a good reason why our coach is relatively conservative on offense: He doesn't have enough talent on offense to execute a more aggressive game plan. Our OL is one of the worst in the league. Our running game outside of the qb is poor. Our backs are clearly on the downside of their careers. Our receiving unit is less than second-rate. And our young qb is very raw. At this early stage in his career he is not very adept at making reads and going through progressions. Because of the lackluster talent on offense Daboll  has had to resort to a number of gimmick plays in order to keep the defense off-balance. 

 

The issue isn't what you want to do as it is what are you capable of doing. The truth is our offense can't do much. When you have a glaring deficit of talent on offense you do whatever you have to do to get by. The conservative approach may be unsatisfying to the fans but under our restricted circumstances the conservative  approach is the right approach to take. 

[Beast]

Sometimes I think they do miss chances to develop Allen.

 

Case in point last week at Miami. The Fish pinned the Bills in at their own 1. I thought this would be a good experience for Allen to learn to throw from his endzone and get some breathing room for the offense.

 

The Bills run on 1st and 2nd down and get nothing.

 

3rd down and he wired a pass to Jones down the sidelines and Zay makes a nice grab on a beautiful pass. 20 plays yards.

 

No harm, no foul, right? They got the first down.

 

Maybe. 

 

I saw it it as a chance to get the kids feet wet by making him make a play in that area of the field on first down and second down....like a veteran QB does.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Binghamton Beast

[Dablitzkrieg]

8 hours ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

From having an injured kicker go for a 54 yarder to the 2 runs on 1st and 2nd at the Jets 23 on the second to last drive...this conservative garbage is so incredibly frustrating. I just don't understand it. Is the point of the game to keep it close or to go for the win? Even when we're 4-8 the guy just won't go for it. Give Allen more than 1 shot on that set of downs to make a play. Stop playing for a field goal. 

 

You can see this coming a mile away, sometime in the future if we make it back to the playoffs, his brutal gameday management and conservativeness is going to bite us hard at the end of a game. 

 

 

Let me know when the Bills have a big game

[LSHMEAB]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I think the important question is whether he will change.  I think we've seen plenty of examples of his conservative approach to the game.  Conservative is good, but only in moderation.  He has to recognize that winning require aggressive play AND aggressive play calling. 

 

McDermott studies his own performance.  I think we will see a change in philosophy as his offense improves and his understanding of whatnot takes to win is refined. 

I mean that's the hope, but while he's a first time head coach, the guy has been around football long enough to know that playing not to lose is a surefire way to ensure more losses than wins.

 

McDermott generally has his teams prepared and does some good things, but it's hard to believe he's going to alter his coaching philosophy very much at this stage of his career. 

[Bill_with_it]

50 minutes ago, JohnC said:

There is a good reason why our coach is relatively conservative on offense: He doesn't have enough talent on offense to execute a more aggressive game plan. Our OL is one of the worst in the league. Our running game outside of the qb is poor. Our backs are clearly on the downside of their careers. Our receiving unit is less than second-rate. And our young qb is very raw. At this early stage in his career he is not very adept at making reads and going through progressions. Because of the lackluster talent on offense Daboll  has had to resort to a number of gimmick plays in order to keep the defense off-balance. 

 

The issue isn't what you want to do as it is what are you capable of doing. The truth is our offense can't do much. When you have a glaring deficit of talent on offense you do whatever you have to do to get by. The conservative approach may be unsatisfying to the fans but under our restricted circumstances the conservative  approach is the right approach to take. 

One of the many reasons I said earlier, the percentage wise of our team able to convert on fourth down comparatively speaking with that of the rams, chiefs, patriots, saints is not even in the same universe for a multitude of reasons. 

 

[Joeziehmer]

We sick and we are 4-9 with many of those games including the Texans with the Bears tied and tethered to McDermott continually relying on Naren Peterman.  While, refusing to even move on from him.  

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

There is a good reason why our coach is relatively conservative on offense: He doesn't have enough talent on offense to execute a more aggressive game plan. Our OL is one of the worst in the league. Our running game outside of the qb is poor. Our backs are clearly on the downside of their careers. Our receiving unit is less than second-rate. And our young qb is very raw. At this early stage in his career he is not very adept at making reads and going through progressions. Because of the lackluster talent on offense Daboll  has had to resort to a number of gimmick plays in order to keep the defense off-balance. 

 

The issue isn't what you want to do as it is what are you capable of doing. The truth is our offense can't do much. When you have a glaring deficit of talent on offense you do whatever you have to do to get by. The conservative approach may be unsatisfying to the fans but under our restricted circumstances the conservative  approach is the right approach to take. 

We were restricted from winning by his conservative approach, with a mixture of there is always next year, while blowout losses have effected and affected fan turnout.  With that in place though the business angle took a hit as well with unsold merchandise, unsold tickets, and ownership relying on third party vendors just to try and do stock sell through.  

[buffalobillswin]

He already did when he benched our QB for something called Nate Peterman when we were in the thick of the wildcard race.

[Cripple Creek]

5 hours ago, mjt328 said:

 

How do you know that Hauschka's injury had anything to do with the miss? 

The idea that "McDermott knew" he was sending out an injured kicker is very key to your argument.  But it's nothing more than fan speculation from the living room.

Maybe Hauschka and the doctors said he was fine.  In which case, he's usually pretty good from 50+ yard kicks.

 

The argument against PUNTING is that you have the chance to take the lead, halfway through the 4th Quarter.

 

I absolutely hate when fans criticize coaches for gameday decisions like these.  There is no "clear" right and wrong... until after the play is done and everyone has the benefit of hindsight.  So many things go into coaching a football team.  But fans boil the coaches performance down to whether the guy was conservative/aggressive enough in a certain situation, whether they punted or went for it, when they decide to throw challenge flags, etc, etc.  The truth is, most fans are clueless and are just looking for a scapegoat to blame. 

 

Did you watch the game? He was "clearly" hurt and is now, I believe, listed as day to day.  The Process had three choices. He did not choose wisely.  

 

You too continue to ignore the best option.  Go for it.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, on this you are clearly wrong.

 

But, have it your way.  Here's to another 5 years of The Process mismanaging games week in, week out.

[mjt328]

9 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

Did you watch the game? He was "clearly" hurt and is now, I believe, listed as day to day.  The Process had three choices. He did not choose wisely.  

 

You too continue to ignore the best option.  Go for it.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, on this you are clearly wrong.

 

But, have it your way.  Here's to another 5 years of The Process mismanaging games week in, week out.

 

He was down after getting hit earlier in the game.

That does not necessarily mean he was "INJURED" and INCAPABLE of making a field goal, or that it had anything to do with him missing.

 

In fact, Hauschka was able to kickoff twice after halftime (which is a lot farther than a field goal) and was able to make a field goal later in the game.

Why did his terrible injury not stop him on those plays?

 

The job of the coach is to TRUST the team doctors and TRUST his players to let him know when they are unable to play.

McDermott is trying to win games, and has numerous choices to make during every game.  A decision is not WRONG just because YOU don't like it.  A decision is not WRONG just because the play isn't successful.

 

Fans second-guessing coaching decisions is one of the worst parts of professional sports. 

Sean Payton became a coaching genius after the Super Bowl onside kick.  But what happens if the Saints kicker shanks it?  Or the Colts recover?  Or one of his players jumps offside?  It was a play that could have gone either way.  The same with Pete Carroll, who has been endlessly criticized for not running Marshawn Lynch in the Super Bowl.  But what about Russell Wilson's responsibility to not throw the ball directly into traffic?  How does Carroll's legacy change if Malcolm Butler is a split-second slower in reacting?

 

 

 

[mannc]

10 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

 

Fans second-guessing coaching decisions is one of the worst parts of professional sports. 

 

 

 

 

Of all the comments I’ve read here, this one is pretty shocking.   Just shut up and watch??  Or cheerlead?

[Antonio]

18 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

This IS THE PROCESS.  Get up by a TD or so in the second half and sit on the football and let the D win it.  Maybe pick up a FG or two if you can, but don't get too crazy.  We saw it last year and we saw it yesterday.  I don't expect to see it change.  it is what it is.

 

I´m not sure thats true. I think he likes to play it by the book, but if he start to trust the offense a little more we will see some changes, a more agresive playcalling, but so far he doesn´t trust the Offense.

21 hours ago, ctk232 said:

The lack of pressure on Darnold got me - the kid is a turnover machine, but especially when pressured. Tre had one of his worst games of his career in the secondary, and injuries aside our run defense was up and down. I can see some of the points conceded on short field situations thanks to special teams, but defensively we seemed to be a different team yesterday than from previous weeks, both in game plan and performance. Would really like to see the cover 1 breakdowns for why. 

 

I agree.

 

What I don´t understand is that if you are playing at home you have to play more agresive so why play vanilla defense all game long. It was like watching a pre season game. 

[mjt328]

43 minutes ago, mannc said:

Of all the comments I’ve read here, this one is pretty shocking.   Just shut up and watch??  Or cheerlead?

 

Most coaches in this league are average.

They aren't brilliant strategists or motivators.  They have a system, scheme and style.  And if their team is full of talented football players who fit into the puzzle, they will be successful.  If their team is full of bad players or poor fits, they will fail.

 

Rex Ryan did not fail here because he was a bad coach. 

He failed here because his defensive scheme did not fit the talent, he had a mediocre/below average QB, he did not see eye-to-eye with the GM and his laid-back style was a poor fit for the rest of this organization.

 

I doubt Sean McDermott is a significantly better or worse coach than Ryan.  He's just different.

His success will not be dependent on whether he is an offensive or defensive coach.  It will not depend on whether he is conservative or aggressive.  It will not depend on his personality in press conferences, how much he uses the word "process" or how often he claps during games.  At the end of the day, his success will depend on whether Josh Allen becomes a franchise quarterback, and whether Brandon Beane can consistently find talent that fits his scheme and vision.  End of story.

 

It's fine to debate.  But calling for a coaches head based on whether he kicked a field goal, punted or went for it on 4th down during a tie-game is ridiculous.  There was sound reasoning for all three options.

 

[mannc]

1 hour ago, mjt328 said:

 

Most coaches in this league are average.

They aren't brilliant strategists or motivators.  They have a system, scheme and style.  And if their team is full of talented football players who fit into the puzzle, they will be successful.  If their team is full of bad players or poor fits, they will fail.

 

Rex Ryan did not fail here because he was a bad coach. 

He failed here because his defensive scheme did not fit the talent, he had a mediocre/below average QB, he did not see eye-to-eye with the GM and his laid-back style was a poor fit for the rest of this organization.

 

I doubt Sean McDermott is a significantly better or worse coach than Ryan.  He's just different.

His success will not be dependent on whether he is an offensive or defensive coach.  It will not depend on whether he is conservative or aggressive.  It will not depend on his personality in press conferences, how much he uses the word "process" or how often he claps during games.  At the end of the day, his success will depend on whether Josh Allen becomes a franchise quarterback, and whether Brandon Beane can consistently find talent that fits his scheme and vision.  End of story.

 

It's fine to debate.  But calling for a coaches head based on whether he kicked a field goal, punted or went for it on 4th down during a tie-game is ridiculous.  There was sound reasoning for all three options.

 

So I guess no coach is better than any other; it all simply depends on whether the players are any good?  You really believe that?

 

in-game decision-making is only a part of the coach’s job, but it’s the most visible to the fans, and there is no question that it can win or lose games.  There is also no question that there are good and bad in-game decisions, based on probabilities, common sense and personnel.  Most NFL games are close and can swing one way or the other based on a single play or a single call.  Coaches that get those decisions wrong will probably cost their teams multiple games over the course of a season.  That’s undeniable and it therefore is (appropriately) a fertile ground for second-guessing by fans.

[dave mcbride]

1 minute ago, mannc said:

So I guess no coach is better than any other; it all simply depends on whether the players are any good?  You really believe that?

 

in-game decision-making is only a part of the coach’s job, but it’s the most visible to the fans, and there is no question that it can win or lose games.  There is also no question that there are good and bad in-game decisions, based on probabilities, common sense and personnel.  Most NFL games are close and can swing one way or the other based on a single play or a single call.  Coaches that get those decisions wrong will probably cost their teams multiple games over the course of a season.  That’s undeniable and it therefore is (appropriately) a fertile ground for second-guessing by fans.

He said "most coaches." He has a point ...

[mannc]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

He said "most coaches." He has a point ...

Yeah, I guess I would have to agree that most coaches in the NFL are mediocrities, but it doesn’t mean fans should accept a mediocre coach or lousy in-game decisions.  It’s not that hard to get right.

[dave mcbride]

6 minutes ago, mannc said:

Yeah, I guess I would have to agree that most coaches in the NFL are mediocrities, but it doesn’t mean fans should accept a mediocre coach or lousy in-game decisions.  It’s not that hard to get right.

I agree. I just think that the larger point -- that McDermott is no better or worse than, say, Jason Garrett or Jay Gruden or Adam Gase or (take your pick) -- is basically right. 

[cgg716]

2 hours ago, mjt328 said:

 

He was down after getting hit earlier in the game.

That does not necessarily mean he was "INJURED" and INCAPABLE of making a field goal, or that it had anything to do with him missing.

 

In fact, Hauschka was able to kickoff twice after halftime (which is a lot farther than a field goal) and was able to make a field goal later in the game.

Why did his terrible injury not stop him on those plays?

 

The job of the coach is to TRUST the team doctors and TRUST his players to let him know when they are unable to play.

McDermott is trying to win games, and has numerous choices to make during every game.  A decision is not WRONG just because YOU don't like it.  A decision is not WRONG just because the play isn't successful.

 

Fans second-guessing coaching decisions is one of the worst parts of professional sports. 

Sean Payton became a coaching genius after the Super Bowl onside kick.  But what happens if the Saints kicker shanks it?  Or the Colts recover?  Or one of his players jumps offside?  It was a play that could have gone either way.  The same with Pete Carroll, who has been endlessly criticized for not running Marshawn Lynch in the Super Bowl.  But what about Russell Wilson's responsibility to not throw the ball directly into traffic?  How does Carroll's legacy change if Malcolm Butler is a split-second slower in reacting?

 

 

 

Except in just the previous week, he didn't allow hauschka to kick from about 56 at half in warm weather and instead opted for a hail Mary, with a healthy kicker. He doesn't grasp percentages and seems to make the lowest percentage choice, which is usually the conservative choice. Though he was aggressive in the scenario I just detailed, it was the wrong call percentage wise and if you trust your kicker. So to make the same call in reverse the next week, he is clueless on game day 

[Bing Bong]

3 hours ago, mjt328 said:

Fans second-guessing coaching decisions is one of the worst parts of professional sports. 

3 hours ago, mannc said:

Of all the comments I’ve read here, this one is pretty shocking.   Just shut up and watch??  Or cheerlead?

At the risk of adding to the worst part in professional sports. I'll pile on and second guess Beli's decision to play Gronk at safety on a 70+ yard hail mary situation. It was moronic. And it cost them the game. I'll second guess naming Peterman the week 1 starter.

 

Wth is the point of being a fan without objectively evaluating coaching decisions and players and GMs.. Some coaches make smart decisions, they also make dumb ones. 

 

For the record I don't give a crap about the kicker situation though. That's seriously nitpicking a coach. But we can ABSOLUTELY second guess Beli putting in Gronk over McCourty last week BECAUSE IT COST HIM THE GAME. And it's fun..? Literally what the fan experience is about, whether we're right or wrong we can have opinions without being the worst part of professional sports. We can take fans and TV analysts away from professional sports I guess as that's literally the only solution to the scourge of second guessing stupid coaching decisions.

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[John from Riverside]

I agree that McD is a conservative coach

 

You know what conservative coaches do?  They run the ball

 

You know what we cant do?  Run the ball

 

A HUGE part of the problem

[LSHMEAB]

8 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

At the risk of adding to the worst part in professional sports. I'll pile on and second guess Beli's decision to play Gronk at safety on a 70+ yard hail mary situation. It was moronic. And it cost them the game. I'll second guess naming Peterman the week 1 starter.

 

Wth is the point of being a fan without objectively evaluating coaching decisions and players and GMs.. Some coaches make smart decisions, they also make dumb ones. 

 

For the record I don't give a crap about the kicker situation though. That's seriously nitpicking a coach. But we can ABSOLUTELY second guess Beli putting in Gronk over McCourty last week BECAUSE IT COST HIM THE GAME. And it's fun..? Literally what the fan experience is about, whether we're right or wrong we can have opinions without being the worst part of professional sports. We can take fans and TV analysts away from professional sports I guess as that's literally the only solution to the scourge of second guessing stupid coaching decisions.

 

If it weren't for second guessing, what in the name of God is the point of visiting a Bills message board?

 

That's kind of what we do around here.

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by LSHMEAB

[Bing Bong]

1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said:

If it weren't for second guessing, what in the name of God is the point of visiting a Bills message board?

 

That's kind of what we do around here.

 

It's the worst thing that's ever happened to sports.

[mannc]

5 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

I agree. I just think that the larger point -- that McDermott is no better or worse than, say, Jason Garrett or Jay Gruden or Adam Gase or (take your pick) -- is basically right. 

Agreed, which doesn’t mean he should be retained.  I feel very confident in saying that McDermott will be gone if the Bills don’t make major progress in 2019.  As it should be...

[reddogblitz]

4 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

I agree that McD is a conservative coach

 

You know what conservative coaches do?  They run the ball

 

You know what we cant do?  Run the ball

 

A HUGE part of the problem

 

we were darn good at running the the 3 years before he got here with the same RB with conservative  coach ing.  

[HOUSE]

I have no real problem with McD. He simply does not trust the players on the field THIS YEAR.

There are no money WRs on this team

[fansince88]

15 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

we were darn good at running the the 3 years before he got here with the same RB with conservative  coach ing.  

And a much better McCoy and Beast of a puller like Richie and a developed center.

BTW,  McCoy is DUNN!

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by fansince88

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

11 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

I have no real problem with McD. He simply does not trust the players on the field THIS YEAR.

There are no money WRs on this team

 

...so if McBeane delivers him "the goods" in 2019 and McDermott does NOT, then what?.....another chapter of Jauron ball?.....

[Misterbluesky]

On 12/10/2018 at 11:50 AM, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Where do people get this conservative narrative from?  Bills are aggressive all the time, going for big plays, trick plays, long balls, etc.  We are among the leaders (if not the one with the most) in taking shots down field.  

 

Everytime a play doesnt work out this board paints this narrative that it means something specific.  The last thing I think on a Sunday is that this team is “conservative”.  We take more big shots than most teams.  We unfortunately aren’t talented enough to convert as many as we would like thanks to bad OL protection and low quality weapons to throw to.

 

I think some fans just can't get that sweet playoff taste out of their mouths.Last year was awesome and we got  that monkey off our backs...but most of us realized this year going to be a rough ride....the decisions that were made by the Beane Counter since he came here suggested the process would mean no success until 2019...our current roster will look nothing like the one that will be in place next September...baby steps...walking...then you run.

[reddogblitz]

9 minutes ago, fansince88 said:

And a much better McCoy and Beast of a puller like Richie and a developed center.

BTW,  McCoy is DUNN!

 

 

we had the Beast puller last year and our run game still sucked.

 

what RB besides maybe Earl Campbell could run behind this line?

 

there was plenty of time after Wood retired and Glenn was traded and Richie did whatever he did to find better replacements than THE PROCESS did. Lame excuse IMHO.

Edited December 11, 2018 by reddogblitz

[KD in CA]

Of course, he's the only coach to actually get the Bills into a big game this century, so there's that.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

48 minutes ago, Misterbluesky said:

I think some fans just can't get that sweet playoff taste out of their mouths.Last year was awesome and we got  that monkey off our backs...but most of us realized this year going to be a rough ride....the decisions that were made by the Beane Counter since he came here suggested the process would mean no success until 2019...our current roster will look nothing like the one that will be in place next September...baby steps...walking...then you run.

 

...too much draft capital and FA $$$$ NOT to make a significant improvement in 2019.....same 4-9 position at this time NEXT year raises some real concerns.......personnel, be it draft or FA has never been, is not and never will be an exact science......just hope we see less questionable personnel moves in 2019....sure the cap cleanup/restrictions forced him to go "value shopping" as in guys coming off injury like "Halftime" Davis (no way to predict him as a quitter) or Murphy (PED fitting the "process"?)......judging we were "all set" with Peterman making the meteoric rise from the 5th round to NFL starter because of performances with "rubber bullets", thereby dumping McCarron?..having to beg Anderson to "exit the beach" and sign as a probable HUGE favor to McBeane?.....the $3.2 mil "Coleman heist"?.......using Cordy as trade bait to move up because our OL was DEFINITELY formidable, making him expendable?.....NOT going to fault him for the Benjamin deal....no way to know what's in the clown's "head 'n heart"..."change of scenery" worked wonders for the Colts' bust Jerry Hughes.......Benjamin?....nope.......think this gang needs to vet certain coaching positions as well (no sense in rehashing names).....off season and 2019 will certainly define your "baby steps...walking...then you run." scenario...BUT...if we're "running in place" or even dare to go "azz backwards".........stay tuned.........

Edited December 11, 2018 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Nextmanup]

15 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

Of course, he's the only coach to actually get the Bills into a big game this century, so there's that.

I guess you are talking about the playoff game.

 

You seem to suggest McDermott has distinguished himself with some sort of accomplishment no other Bills coach has been able to achieve this century.  

 

McD's 9-7 record is no different than Mularkey's in 2004 or Doug Marrone's in 2014.

 

McD lucked out with factors totally outside of his control and beyond the scope of his personal achievements in a way that Mularkey and Marrone did not, so McD gets the playoff game and those guys didn't.

 

Doesn't make McD any better than your typical Bills 7-9, 8-8, 9-7 fare IMO. 

 

That's where this organization has lived forever.

 

The playoff appearance is greatly overblown around here, along with lots of other things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[reddogblitz]

Just now, Nextmanup said:

I guess you are talking about the playoff game.

 

You seem to suggest McDermott has distinguished himself with some sort of accomplishment no other Bills coach has been able to achieve this century.  

 

McD's 9-7 record is no different than Mularkey's in 2004 or Doug Marrone's in 2014.

 

McD lucked out with factors totally outside of his control and beyond the scope of his personal achievements in a way that Mularkey and Marrone did not, so McD gets the playoff game and those guys didn't.

 

Doesn't make McD any better than your typical Bills 7-9, 8-8, 9-7 fare IMO.

 

I disagree.

 

there were several other years throughout the drought where 9-7 could get us in but we never even got close.  McDermott got more out of the team than the sum of it's parts unlike his predecessor who got less.  Drought could have been ended in 2004 or 2014 if those teams had been able to knuckle under and get a big win down the stretch like Coach McDermott's team did in 2018 winning 5 out of the last 7 games including a win over playoff bound KC.

 

2004 team lost to the Steelers scrubs and 2004 team lost to 2-14 Raiders.  That's the difference.

 

give the man his due cred IMHO.