John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

4 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

The Alt-Right Bosas can go scratch.

 

Yes, I loved me some Tyrod.  Loved that 3rd round pick we got for his sorry ass.

 

I'm no draft expert, but I do pay attention to what the talking heads say and I do read mocks, etc.  I recall Mahomes being a first-to-second rounder.  I don't recall anyone projecting him going in the top 10.  I also remember everyone being surprised when KC traded up that high for him.

 

And do you really think Lamont Jackson (first rounder) is a franchise QB?  

 

Lamont will be the greatest QB since Chaz Reingold 

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

The Alt-Right Bosas can go scratch.

 

Yes, I loved me some Tyrod.  Loved that 3rd round pick we got for his sorry ass.

 

I'm no draft expert, but I do pay attention to what the talking heads say and I do read mocks, etc.  I recall Mahomes being a first-to-second rounder.  I don't recall anyone projecting him going in the top 10.  I also remember everyone being surprised when KC traded up that high for him.

 

And do you really think Lamont Jackson (first rounder) is a franchise QB?  

 

I had three going in the top 10. Even though I personally was much more wary than some others on Mahomes - I could absolutely see why teams loved him and I thought he would be the third off the board no later than the Saints at #11. The one who fell as compared to my expectation was Watson getting to #12. 

 

I was pretty adamament that whole draft season when the talking heads were all - even Mike Mayock - saying "this is not a good class, hard to love any of these guys, frighten you to death if you need one" etc that is was a good class and that the NFL would like it much more than the talking heads and that Trubisky, Watson and Mahomes were all going to go early. 

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

They were in an awful position to make a big turnaround. Still in bad cap shape and committed to the owners to get the cap in terrific shape by this season ... hoping to sit a rookie QB for the season or much of it, and with an offense that they hadn't yet seriously addressed except for bringing in Josh Allen.

 

Last year always looked like it was going to be a bad year. This year they are finally in much better shape to achieve some more wins. 11-12 wins is a ridiculous expectation with a 2nd year QB and an OL that doesn't look to have got a single guy who's played next to the guy on either side of him. But yeah, very reasonable to expect real improvement.

 

Badol means in a great position to make a big turnaround this year. I think most people believe that. They had cap space, on the face of it a decent looking draft and have improved some of the biggest weaknesses. Throw in a decent schedule and some issues at a couple of their divisional rivals and the Bills are well placed to make a jump. 

[eball]

13 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

They probably entered the offseason at a lower point than their 6 wins might indicate.......but it's the NFL.........no reason a 4-6 win team can't turn into an 11-12 win team with a young QB improving and an offseason where they basically lose nobody, sign 18 free agents and draft near the top of each round............they were in a great position to make a big turnaround......we'll see how it goes.  

 

Jesus, this almost smells like optimism.

[SoTier]

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yes, you did say in an earlier post that they had mostly misses on offense ... and it's just as ridiculous a contention now as it was when you said it. It's been debunked a dozen times. A thirteenth isn't necessary for anyone but you but since you're on an infinite loop of repeating nonsense, I guess it won't hurt to point out one more time what makes sense here ... that Beane now has two drafts, and only one of the groups has played so far. And on offense in that draft he picked Josh Allen and nobody else till the fifth round. So far, Wyatt Teller, that fifth rounder, has been a good value.

 

And again, they spent virtually no FA money on offense last year, due to the awful salary cap situation that Beane had committed himself - in his job interview - to cleaning up by the beginning of this season. On defense they spent money and got results in FA. On offense they spent almost no money. For what they spent they actually got a bunch of bargains, Foster, Croom, McKenzie, and a bunch more ... unbelievably cheap and yet productive.

 

And since you're also on nonsense repeat as far as wins, I'll repeat the obvious refutation again as well. The Bills were rebuilding. The first two years of a near-complete rebuild are always going to be awful for wins and losses. Always. Yes, it's possible to win quickly when you bring in a new coach ... if you're not rebuilding. Not a single one of the coaches you bring up here was rebuilding. Not one. All reloads.

 

 

You can choose to give McDermott and Beane a pass because they chose to gut a team -- couldn't find any salvageable talent on the offense -- that had gone 24-24 over the previous 3 seasons, but I'm not.  It wasn't necessary as the spectacular successs of several new HCs who inherited under-achieving teams with worse records than the Bills has shown.    It's just one more poor decision on the part of McDermott and/or Beane.    

 

[eball]

2 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

You can choose to give McDermott and Beane a pass because they chose to gut a team -- couldn't find any salvageable talent on the offense -- that had gone 24-24 over the previous 3 seasons, but I'm not.  It wasn't necessary as the spectacular successs of several new HCs who inherited under-achieving teams with worse records than the Bills has shown.    It's just one more poor decision on the part of McDermott and/or Beane.    

 

 

What happens in your world if the Bills have a winning record/make the playoffs this season, and become a perennial contender for the next ten years?  At that point do you give McD and Beane a "pass?"  Or are you absolutely convinced that has no chance of happening?  Just curious as to how your mind works...

[BillsVet]

20 hours ago, mannc said:

You’re right, McDermott won’t be fired for passing on one particular player; he’ll ultimately be judged based on how many games he wins.   In the meantime, though, it’s entirely fair for fans and the media to second-guess the decisions he makes along the way, no matter how smart those decisions seemed at the time.

 

That's the crux of what's being debated here (at least in some cases).  McBeane have made enough less than stellar decisions to cause concern that their "process" isn't all it's been advertised to be.  Plenty of people seem willing to forget the bad moves in 2017-18 because they spent big dollars on UFAs in 2019. 

 

For all the plaudits McCoach receives for defense, his offensive decision making is at best suspect.  And both he and Beane will be even more under the gun if Allen doesn't improve tremendously in year 2.   

 

The jury's out on McBeane.  By no means have they proven anything in Buffalo as a HC and GM.  They need to make the playoffs in year 3 or it's been a waste of time. 

[thebandit27]

9 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

And let me guess ... when it happened, you were yelling, "NOOOOO!!!!!!  The Chiefs just got a QB who's going to win the MVP in his first year starting!!!!!" at the TV, right?

 

No.

 

If you take out "in his first year starting" that was literally my reaction 

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Relax guy.... the Chiefs obviously did. They took him at 10.?

 

 

And they felt like they had to get to 10 for a very good reason. Sean Payton loved him and was taking him at #11 if he got there.

[BADOLBILZ]

3 hours ago, eball said:

 

Jesus, this almost smells like optimism.

 

 

It's more like the understanding that there are no more excuses.

 

You don't often have two years to establish yourself and then an offseason with no free agents and $80M to spend and high draft picks in each round.

 

That alone is a SET UP for a big turnaround.

 

And as @GunnerBill said there are other aspects in their favor..........the schedule........two teams in their division starting over with new HC's.............this season should definitively answer all or nearly all of the McBeane questions.

 

[SoTier]

8 minutes ago, eball said:

 

What happens in your world if the Bills have a winning record/make the playoffs this season, and become a perennial contender for the next ten years?  At that point do you give McD and Beane a "pass?"  Or are you absolutely convinced that has no chance of happening?  Just curious as to how your mind works...

 

I'll gladly eat my crow if that happens because I'd love nothing better than the Bills to reprise their "Glory Years". 

 

Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen, even if Allen becomes a true franchise QB, with McDermott as HC.  I can see Allen becoming a QB somewhat like Matthew Stafford --- very talented but "never winning anything" simply because the coaching he gets and the team around him are never quite good enough to win a lot of games despite his individual heroics.  I think that McDermott is entirely too conservative in his mind set to have sustained success as a HC in today's NFL.  Defense may win championships but a team can't sniff a championship without having an offense that can run with the big dogs at least most of the time.   Beane, at least so far, seems to favor the big risk, big reward scenario, taking chances on signing a FA like Morse with a history of concussions or going all in on a first round QB from a small school with tons of physical talent but in serious need of lots of molding to become a good NFL QB.  If his gambles work out, he's golden, but unfortunately, individual gamblers seldom come out ahead in the long run, whether they're playing Texas Hold 'Em or betting the ponies.

[eball]

3 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

It's more like the understanding that there are no more excuses.

 

You don't often have two years to establish yourself and then an offseason with no free agents and $80M to spend and high draft picks in each round.

 

That alone is a SET UP for a big turnaround.

 

And as @GunnerBill said there are other aspects in their favor..........the schedule........two teams in their division starting over with new HC's.............this season should definitively answer all or nearly all of the McBeane questions.

 

 

I'll give you credit for one thing.  You've managed to shift the conversation so that if the Bills are successful you'll now be able to point to this post and say "see, I told you so.  Any team given these advantages should have done it."

 

Well done. 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

1 minute ago, eball said:

 

I'll give you credit for one thing.  You've managed to shift the conversation so that if the Bills are successful you'll now be able to point to this post and say "see, I told you so.  Any team given these advantages should have done it."

 

Well done. 

 

 

 

No turning necessary.............I've maintained all along that I expect them to have a winning season this year.

 

My issues with McBeane are that I haven't liked a lot of their personnel decisions(mostly on the pro side) and their rationale for making them............and in most of those cases I've been proven right...........and I haven't been impressed with the game day work by McDermott.    

 

You just perceive everything as critical because all you really care about are the things I have expressed negativity about.

 

Meanwhile I had Tre White as the top CB in the 2017 draft so I loved that player.............big fan of the Allen pick for MANY reasons...........really liked the Edmunds pick and I really like Ed Oliver.      

[eball]

1 minute ago, BADOLBILZ said:

You just perceive everything as critical because all you really care about are the things I have expressed negativity about.

 

Nah.  Opinions are one thing.  Belittling those who don't agree with one's opinions is another.

[Royale with Cheese]

If anyone ever needed an example of SoTier's arguments being all over the place...these replies are his....on the same page!

 

He said he didn't include first year HC's (it apparently was my stipulation).  Clearly that's the case right?

Edited June 25, 2019 by Royale with Cheese

[oldmanfan]

7 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

If anyone ever needed an example of SoTier's arguments being all over the place...these replies are of his are on the same page!

 

He said he didn't include first year HC's (it apparently was my stipulation).  Clearly that's the case right?

It's striking, isn't it?

[oldmanfan]

41 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

I'll gladly eat my crow if that happens because I'd love nothing better than the Bills to reprise their "Glory Years". 

 

Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen, even if Allen becomes a true franchise QB, with McDermott as HC.  I can see Allen becoming a QB somewhat like Matthew Stafford --- very talented but "never winning anything" simply because the coaching he gets and the team around him are never quite good enough to win a lot of games despite his individual heroics.  I think that McDermott is entirely too conservative in his mind set to have sustained success as a HC in today's NFL.  Defense may win championships but a team can't sniff a championship without having an offense that can run with the big dogs at least most of the time.   Beane, at least so far, seems to favor the big risk, big reward scenario, taking chances on signing a FA like Morse with a history of concussions or going all in on a first round QB from a small school with tons of physical talent but in serious need of lots of molding to become a good NFL QB.  If his gambles work out, he's golden, but unfortunately, individual gamblers seldom come out ahead in the long run, whether they're playing Texas Hold 'Em or betting the ponies.

Would you accept a team like, say, the 85 Bears that won with a dominant defense, or the Broncos recently that won with a severely depleted Peyton?  Would that be an acceptable outcome?  Because I'd hate to think that we would have to win a SB only in an acceptable fashion to celebrate.

[BADOLBILZ]

52 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Nah.  Opinions are one thing.  Belittling those who don't agree with one's opinions is another.

 

 

Nah?   Talk about moving the goal posts..........that literally is a response to nothing I said.

[Magox]

During the College football season before the 2017 draft the QB that I liked the most was Trubisky, that was before there was even talk of him.  He was a first year starter for Carolina and no one really knew anything about him.  I am a huge Carolina fan so I watched all the games and I thought his accuracy, mobility and competitiveness was going to translate well into the NFL.    That was my guy.  I was never really big on Deshaun Watson, I just didn't think he had the vision to see the entire field and their coaches have done a superb job in simplifying the offense and field of vision and he has exceeded any expectation that I have ever had for him.   Mahomes, I knew very little about and months before the draft I began seeing all his film, the cannon arm and the ability to make these tremendous throws and by about 2 months before the draft, he was the guy that I liked the most.  I really got on the Mahomes bandwagon and I remember here on TBD that it was a polarizing topic because there were a few guys that really liked him me being one of them and then a lot of people who thought his footwork and rawness was too risky for him to be a first round choice.  I was hoping that the Bills would select him.  

 

I completely understand why they didn't.  McD was not going to trust Whaley's evaluation on QB's as his track record didn't warrant it and McD being a coach and not a GM quality talent evaluator was going to select what he felt most comfortable with, someone from defense a DB.  He got the DB that he wanted, the sort of player that he could build his defense around and pick up an additional first rounder which helped land Allen.   Obviously, hindsight says that Mahomes looks as if that should have been the pick but if Allen pans out, then the decision ultimately will work out.

[dave mcbride]

18 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

I don't know about "disaster"...........but a -105 point differential typically indicates that you performed more at the level of a 4-5 win team.

 

It wasn't a pretty season.........Josh Allen turning into an unexpected 100 yard rushing force probably skewed the team success but nobody thinks THAT is sustainable or should even be tried again.

 

They probably entered the offseason at a lower point than their 6 wins might indicate.......but it's the NFL.........no reason a 4-6 win team can't turn into an 11-12 win team with a young QB improving and an offseason where they basically lose nobody, sign 18 free agents and draft near the top of each round............they were in a great position to make a big turnaround......we'll see how it goes.  

 

 

This is correct. The Bills' Pythagorean record last year (as per PFR) was 5.0-11.0. They were basically worse than their record.

[oldmanfan]

11 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

This is correct. The Bills' Pythagorean record last year (as per PFR) was 5.0-11.0. They were basically worse than their record.

The differential was skewed by a couple games where they got blown out.  The NFL measures success and failure by wins and losses, not point differentials.  That said, the blowouts need to stop because it's more a reflection on coaching ability and ability to make in game corrections.

[dave mcbride]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

The differential was skewed by a couple games where they got blown out.  The NFL measures success and failure by wins and losses, not point differentials.  That said, the blowouts need to stop because it's more a reflection on coaching ability and ability to make in game corrections.

The blowout situation was terrible last season. In the first 9 games, they were basically blown out 6 times (the Chargers game was a blowout despite the final 31-20 score; the Chargers were up 28-3 and the rest was garbage time). That was about as bad as I've ever seen the Bills. That said, they didn't suffer any true blowout losses in their final 7 games, although I wouldn't argue with anyone who said their final 24-12 loss to the Pats was a blowout. They score in the final seconds to make it look reasonably respectable, but they were steamrolled in that game. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by dave mcbride

[LSHMEAB]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

And they felt like they had to get to 10 for a very good reason. Sean Payton loved him and was taking him at #11 if he got there.

So you mean to tell me two of the most accomplished offensive minds loved Mahomes, but NOBODY could see it coming? Almost like the top guys see things other's don't. Weird.

[eball]

51 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The blowout situation was terrible last season. In the first 9 games, they were basically blown out 6 times (the Chargers game was a blowout despite the final 31-20 score; the Chargers were up 28-3 and the rest was garbage time). That was about as I've ever seen the Bills. That said, they didn't suffer any true blowout losses in their final 7 games, although I wouldn't argue with anyone who said their final 24-12 loss to the Pats was a blowout. They score in the final seconds to make it look reasonably respectable, but they were steamrolled in that game. 

 

The blowouts last year were the result of an offense featuring Peterman, raw Josh, and DA -- with Benjamin as the #1 WR.  The game vs. Chicago at home (Peterman's last start) was the first Bills game I made no effort to watch live in as long as I can remember.

 

Absent some pretty crazy stuff happening I just can't see that sort of ineptitude returning.

[K-9]

Despite the points differential, the Bills’ underlying defensive metrics are stellar and while I wouldn’t say we have a dominant defense, we have one on the upswing that can contend. 

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

The differential was skewed by a couple games where they got blown out.  The NFL measures success and failure by wins and losses, not point differentials.  That said, the blowouts need to stop because it's more a reflection on coaching ability and ability to make in game corrections.

 

Bills 2018 season says differently.   The Bills lost 47-3 to the Ravens, 22-0 to the Packers, 37-5 to the Colts, 25-6 to the Pats, and 41-9 to the Bears.     That's a -149 point differential in 5 losses (-28.9/ game).  The Chargers were up 28-6 at the half and coasted the rest of the game to win by "only" 11 points.  The Bills were down 24-6 to the Pats in the second game when Allen threw a TD to Jones with about a minute remaining to cut the losing margin to "only" 12 points.   The Bills only had 3 "close" losses in 2018: 20-13 to the Texans with Watson playing with a partially collapsed lung, and to fellow bottom feeders the Dolphins (21-17)  and Jets (27-23). 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Bills 2018 season says differently.   The Bills lost 47-3 to the Ravens, 22-0 to the Packers, 37-5 to the Colts, 25-6 to the Pats, and 41-9 to the Bears.     That's a -149 point differential in 5 losses (-28.9/ game).  The Chargers were up 28-6 at the half and coasted the rest of the game to win by "only" 11 points.  The Bills were down 24-6 to the Pats in the second game when Allen threw a TD to Jones with about a minute remaining to cut the losing margin to "only" 12 points.   The Bills only had 3 "close" losses in 2018: 20-13 to the Texans with Watson playing with a partially collapsed lung, and to fellow bottom feeders the Dolphins (21-17)  and Jets (27-23). 

 

 

A couple was used in a general sense, and I indicated the blowouts concern me as far as coaching.  And like it or not the league measures wins and losses.  Anything else?

[thebandit27]

4 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Bills 2018 season says differently.   The Bills lost 47-3 to the Ravens, 22-0 to the Packers, 37-5 to the Colts, 25-6 to the Pats, and 41-9 to the Bears.     That's a -149 point differential in 5 losses (-28.9/ game).  The Chargers were up 28-6 at the half and coasted the rest of the game to win by "only" 11 points.  The Bills were down 24-6 to the Pats in the second game when Allen threw a TD to Jones with about a minute remaining to cut the losing margin to "only" 12 points.   The Bills only had 3 "close" losses in 2018: 20-13 to the Texans with Watson playing with a partially collapsed lung, and to fellow bottom feeders the Dolphins (21-17)  and Jets (27-23). 

 

 

 

I've seen this repeated a few times in this thread, and I wonder why.

 

Just going purely off of play selection, their play-calling didn't change at all in the 2nd half.  They called 13 passes to 9 runs (this removes penalty-negated plays, a fumbled snap, and a kneel-down at the end), and their first 2 drives opened with pass attempts to Keenan Allen. Their play selection in the first half was 17 pass attempts to 15 runs.

 

There's almost no indication that they took their collective foot off the gas.

[Royale with Cheese]

13 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Bills 2018 season says differently.   The Bills lost 47-3 to the Ravens, 22-0 to the Packers, 37-5 to the Colts, 25-6 to the Pats, and 41-9 to the Bears.     That's a -149 point differential in 5 losses (-28.9/ game).  The Chargers were up 28-6 at the half and coasted the rest of the game to win by "only" 11 points.  The Bills were down 24-6 to the Pats in the second game when Allen threw a TD to Jones with about a minute remaining to cut the losing margin to "only" 12 points.   The Bills only had 3 "close" losses in 2018: 20-13 to the Texans with Watson playing with a partially collapsed lung, and to fellow bottom feeders the Dolphins (21-17)  and Jets (27-23). 

 

 

 

LOL....

Watson suffered the collapsed lung the week before against the Cowboys.  And guess what?  In that game, he was 33-44 passing, 375 yards, 8.5 average and a 75% completion percentage.  The Bills confused him all day and had a rough outing.

 

You will go to any lengths to discredit the Bills.  Even change your arguments to make it fit LOL.

[SoTier]

24 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Despite the points differential, the Bills’ underlying defensive metrics are stellar and while I wouldn’t say we have a dominant defense, we have one on the upswing that can contend. 

 

This is simply untrue.  The Bills were last in Red Zone defense.  They were 18th in scoring defense. They were 16th in rushing defense.  They were 26th in sacks.  Their 2nd ranking for total yards was at least partly a result of the short fields they gave opponents.  Their 1st ranking in passing yards was also slanted because opponents had short fields and didn't have to throw as much because they had big leads. 

 

The Bills defense was decent, probably somewhat above average, but it's got to get a lot better in the Red Zone and against the run to be good enough for the team to contend because they don't have enough talent on offense to win many shoot outs, especially with the top teams.

[Gugny]

Is this officially the "Never Ending Thread 3.0 ?"

 

[Royale with Cheese]

10 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

This is simply untrue.  The Bills were last in Red Zone defense.  They were 18th in scoring defense. They were 16th in rushing defense.  They were 26th in sacks.  Their 2nd ranking for total yards was at least partly a result of the short fields they gave opponents.  Their 1st ranking in passing yards was also slanted because opponents had short fields and didn't have to throw as much because they had big leads. 

 

The Bills defense was decent, probably somewhat above average, but it's got to get a lot better in the Red Zone and against the run to be good enough for the team to contend because they don't have enough talent on offense to win many shoot outs, especially with the top teams.

 

LOL again.  

 

On Defense: 

 

The Bills were #2 in average yards per drive.   #10 on points per drive.  #9 in time of possession per drive.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsdef2018

 

The Bills were also 8th in the league in 3rd down defense.  

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/thirdDownConvPct/position/defense

[dave mcbride]

31 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

I've seen this repeated a few times in this thread, and I wonder why.

 

Just going purely off of play selection, their play-calling didn't change at all in the 2nd half.  They called 13 passes to 9 runs (this removes penalty-negated plays, a fumbled snap, and a kneel-down at the end), and their first 2 drives opened with pass attempts to Keenan Allen. Their play selection in the first half was 17 pass attempts to 15 runs.

 

There's almost no indication that they took their collective foot off the gas.

I don't think playcalling selection correlates with intensity. That game was a complete joke by halftime, and the Chargers knew it. 

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

LOL again.  

 

On Defense: 

 

The Bills were #2 in average yards per drive.   #10 on points per drive.  #9 in time of possession per drive.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsdef2018

 

The Bills were also 8th in the league in 3rd down defense.  

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/thirdDownConvPct/position/defense

They were first in yards per drive allowed and first in plays per drive allowed. They were 32nd in drive start, which means that against the Bills, opposing offenses had the shortest fields to traverse in the entire league. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/2018.htm. 

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

This is simply untrue.  The Bills were last in Red Zone defense.  They were 18th in scoring defense. They were 16th in rushing defense.  They were 26th in sacks.  Their 2nd ranking for total yards was at least partly a result of the short fields they gave opponents.  Their 1st ranking in passing yards was also slanted because opponents had short fields and didn't have to throw as much because they had big leads. 

 

The Bills defense was decent, probably somewhat above average, but it's got to get a lot better in the Red Zone and against the run to be good enough for the team to contend because they don't have enough talent on offense to win many shoot outs, especially with the top teams.

As usual, it’s a matter of opinion and I suspect you’re basing much of that on gross yardage. But that’s not what coaches and pro scouts focus on when evaluating opponents. The key underlying metrics for coaches that give them the most context when evaluating defenses are number of rushing attempts against, average per rush against,  average per pass against,  average per play against, and QB rating against. In short, it’s a snapshot of how a defense does on a play to play basis. 

 

We are poor in the number of rushes given up at 9th worst in the league. That and our red zone softness that you alluded to are why I said we aren’t a dominant defense. Even still, for all the rushing attempts given up, we finished a respectable 9th in average per attempt against.

 

All the other metrics clearly show we are among the better defenses in the league, either first, second, or third. Play with more leads, especially later in games, and I expect that rush attempts against to get better. Fix our red zone defense as well, and we will go from good to dominant. 

14 minutes ago, Gugny said:

Is this officially the "Never Ending Thread 3.0 ?"

 

Gotta get to a hundred, Gugny. 

[Royale with Cheese]

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I don't think playcalling selection correlates with intensity. That game was a complete joke by halftime, and the Chargers knew it. 

They were first in yards per drive allowed and first in plays per drive allowed. They were 32nd in drive start, which means that against the Bills, opposing offenses had the shortest fields to traverse in the entire league. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/2018.htm. 

 

Yes I know....but it's a 6 yard difference between first and last.  Over the course of a game with 70+ offensive plays, I don't think that makes a huge difference.

I would rather have that 6 yards than not but that's not something that keeps me up at night.  

So lets say that's a big deal then.  Well doesn't that make our defense actually look better since we were in the middle of the pack in scoring defense?  Worst field position but not worst scoring defense?

[BADOLBILZ]

15 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

This is simply untrue.  The Bills were last in Red Zone defense.  They were 18th in scoring defense. They were 16th in rushing defense.  They were 26th in sacks.  Their 2nd ranking for total yards was at least partly a result of the short fields they gave opponents.  Their 1st ranking in passing yards was also slanted because opponents had short fields and didn't have to throw as much because they had big leads. 

 

 

?

 

Need to make a lot more plays in backfield and for the DT1T and MLB to be much more efficient against the run.

[dave mcbride]

16 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Yes I know....but it's a 6 yard difference between first and last.  Over the course of a game with 70+ offensive plays, I don't think that makes a huge difference.

I would rather have that 6 yards than not but that's not something that keeps me up at night.  

So lets say that's a big deal then.  Well doesn't that make our defense actually look better since we were in the middle of the pack in scoring defense?  Worst field position but not worst scoring defense?

No argument from me! I thought the defense was really good. Bear in mind that our offense was 26th in TOP. That matters too.

51 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

This is simply untrue.  The Bills were last in Red Zone defense.  They were 18th in scoring defense. They were 16th in rushing defense.  They were 26th in sacks.  Their 2nd ranking for total yards was at least partly a result of the short fields they gave opponents.  Their 1st ranking in passing yards was also slanted because opponents had short fields and didn't have to throw as much because they had big leads. 

 

The Bills defense was decent, probably somewhat above average, but it's got to get a lot better in the Red Zone and against the run to be good enough for the team to contend because they don't have enough talent on offense to win many shoot outs, especially with the top teams.

Not really. Opposing QBs had a collective passer rating of 82.6 vs the Bills (very low), which made them the third best pass defense in the league after the Bears and the Ravens. The reason their pass defense numbers were good is because they actually had a really good pass defense. Nothing more and nothing less. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by dave mcbride

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

?

 

Need to make a lot more plays in backfield and for the DT1T and MLB to be much more efficient against the run.

 

I think Star and improvement in the fundamentals of Edmunds are key. Stop the run it will naturally create more opportunities to get into the backfield and make plays. Oliver's pure talent will help too. 

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

The differential was skewed by a couple games where they got blown out.  The NFL measures success and failure by wins and losses, not point differentials.  That said, the blowouts need to stop because it's more a reflection on coaching ability and ability to make in game corrections.

I think the blowouts reflect a bigger problem than you say.   It's unusual, I'd say very unusual for a supposedly solid team, a team that may be building but is fundamentally sound, to get blownout more than once or twice in a season.   You're not fundamentally sound if you're getting beaten badly for more than a quarter of the season.  Jauron couldn't win enough, but he didn't let games get away from him.   (And, by the way, I agree that the Pats game late in the season was a blowout in a sense.   The Pats were in control, everyone knew it.   That shouldn't happen, at least not very often.   I remember when the Saints came to Buffalo 8 or 10 years ago and shut down the Bills.  One of their coaches or players said after the game something like "We could have played another two hours and they (the Bills) wouldn't have scored on us.")

 

In his second season, McDermott should have had a team on the field that knew what it was doing well enough not to get dominated more than two or three times.   In fact, I think he had the players.   Not to win 10, but to be in just about all games and to find a way to win seven or eight.  Maybe it was poor scouting, maybe it was poor game planning by coordinators.   I say this I guess because there were other games where the Bills were well prepared and the players fought and executed and still maybe lost, but didn't look lost on the field.   That tells me they players were good enough to compete, and the coaches let them down.   That's why I was happy to see McD make some changes.   Something was missing.   

 

And that really is my concern for the future.  Despite the whole debate here about where they are and how they got here, I like the players.   I like them now, and I like the fact that the overall talent on the team will get even better in 2020.   What troubles me is whether these coaches, and ultimately whether McDermott, can get athletes to be competitive every week, athletes who are physically good enough to compete.   Somebody clearly wasn't getting that job done from week to week in 2018, as demonstrated by the blowouts.  

[Shaw66]

40 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Opposing QBs had a collective passer rating of 82.6 vs the Bills (very low), which made them the third best pass defense in the league after the Bears and the Ravens. The reason their pass defense numbers were good is because they actually had a really good pass defense. Nothing more and nothing less. 

I watch a lot, but I'm not expert in Xs and Os.  But I'll say this:

 

I think McD's defensive thinking is WAY ahead of his offensive thinking.   I'd guess that McDermott spends a lot of off-season time studying offense, because he knows that's where this team needs more leadership.  

 

This point about the pass defense is a good example.   I don't know the details of what the Bills play back there, but it's been obvious for the whole defensive back seven last season and at least for the safeties the past two seasons, that they've been give a defense that is difficult to throw against and that they've gotten very good at executing it.   Guys rarely get beaten badly.  Receivers rarely have a lot of open field after the catch.   I admire it, because Belichick's back seven have been like that for a long time.   I don't know if the fundamentals of the D are the same or different, but I know the results in Buffalo look a lot like results in NE.   The pass defense just doesn't give you a lot. 

 

Obviously, the Bills have shown more or less no offensive mastery like the pass defense.   The question is whether McDermott can develop the knowledge and leadership skills to help Daboll get that kind of excellence out of the offense.  

 

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I watch a lot, but I'm not expert in Xs and Os.  But I'll say this:

 

I think McD's defensive thinking is WAY ahead of his offensive thinking.   I'd guess that McDermott spends a lot of off-season time studying offense, because he knows that's where this team needs more leadership.  

 

This point about the pass defense is a good example.   I don't know the details of what the Bills play back there, but it's been obvious for the whole defensive back seven last season and at least for the safeties the past two seasons, that they've been give a defense that is difficult to throw against and that they've gotten very good at executing it.   Guys rarely get beaten badly.  Receivers rarely have a lot of open field after the catch.   I admire it, because Belichick's back seven have been like that for a long time.   I don't know if the fundamentals of the D are the same or different, but I know the results in Buffalo look a lot like results in NE.   The pass defense just doesn't give you a lot. 

 

Obviously, the Bills have shown more or less no offensive mastery like the pass defense.   The question is whether McDermott can develop the knowledge and leadership skills to help Daboll get that kind of excellence out of the offense.  

 

Schematically, I think Daboll is on the right track in that regard. But as always, it comes down to personnel and execution. We will start getting an idea on the former soon enough and, if the personnel is there, the execution should soon follow as they get mores and more reps as a unit together. That may take a little more time.