Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ethan in Portland

What would need to occur to extend or fire McDermott?

Recommended Posts

On 6/27/2019 at 10:56 AM, BigBuff423 said:

 

To your point, here's an entire list of other teams, many of which were worse than the Bills were in 2017, that made the playoffs (pay attention to the last one):

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/958403-the-25-worst-playoff-teams-in-nfl-history#slide25

 

You can now let this sleeping dog lie, or you can keep poking at something where we can agree to disagree.

 

Yaaay, you found one.  

 

Really?  

 

And your point, what, to show that you found ONE?  

 

Follow up on that tho, they didn't go anywhere and the following season with even better rankings they failed to make the playoffs.  Seems like that reinforces what my global point was.  

 

So let's stay focused, shall we, the point is that teams like that aren't playoff caliber teams.  If  you think they are, then you might think that McBeane are  doing a good job. That's fine, we'll simply have to agree to disagree then.   I'd strongly suggest however that you'll be disappointed if they don't budge much from those rankings.  I find that people that didn't go thru those years have a completely different perspective and notably lower standard for what a good team actually is.  

 

When we were good our offense consistently ranked in the top-10 and our D top half, sometimes top-10 in scoring.  That's what we're looking for.  Not getting lucky hoping to shatter odds because we're in a weak division w/o any single team in the division finishing even .500 much less with a winning record.  I would personally like to seem a team like we had in the '90s, where we'd go to games not hoping to win, but expecting to win, not watching some other game not even involving us hoping for an upset from a lucky play so that we can "make the playoffs."  

 

"Making the playoffs" and being a playoff competitive team are two totally different things.  The team that you just cited couldn't even score more points than they allowed by nearly a 100, their division rivals won 7, 6, and 5 games.  

 

Their division rival 7-9 Rams were just as close to making the playoffs.  The difference between the two 7-9 teams was that Seattle beat the 5-11 Cards twice while the Rams only beat them once, which I believe was the tiebreaker.  5 other teams that failed to make the playoffs that season had better records.  

 

It's one thing to attempt to disprove someone's position, but you failed to do that.  Don't let your emotional disposition get in the way of any overall points you're trying to make.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 10:03 PM, Rico said:

“Stats are for losers.”

- Bill Belichick

 

Funny, I've heard several people say that. 

 

Must be why Belichick leans so hard on his great buddy Ernie Adams who's been with Belichick in an analytical role since Belichick's been the coach of NE.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

Yaaay, you found one.  

 

Really?  

 

And your point, what, to show that you found ONE?  

 

Follow up on that tho, they didn't go anywhere and the following season with even better rankings they failed to make the playoffs.  Seems like that reinforces what my global point was.  

 

So let's stay focused, shall we, the point is that teams like that aren't playoff caliber teams.  If  you think they are, then you might think that McBeane are  doing a good job. That's fine, we'll simply have to agree to disagree then.   I'd strongly suggest however that you'll be disappointed if they don't budge much from those rankings.  I find that people that didn't go thru those years have a completely different perspective and notably lower standard for what a good team actually is.  

 

When we were good our offense consistently ranked in the top-10 and our D top half, sometimes top-10 in scoring.  That's what we're looking for.  Not getting lucky hoping to shatter odds because we're in a weak division w/o any single team in the division finishing even .500 much less with a winning record.  I would personally like to seem a team like we had in the '90s, where we'd go to games not hoping to win, but expecting to win, not watching some other game not even involving us hoping for an upset from a lucky play so that we can "make the playoffs."  

 

"Making the playoffs" and being a playoff competitive team are two totally different things.  The team that you just cited couldn't even score more points than they allowed by nearly a 100, their division rivals won 7, 6, and 5 games.  

 

Their division rival 7-9 Rams were just as close to making the playoffs.  The difference between the two 7-9 teams was that Seattle beat the 5-11 Cards twice while the Rams only beat them once, which I believe was the tiebreaker.  5 other teams that failed to make the playoffs that season had better records.  

 

It's one thing to attempt to disprove someone's position, but you failed to do that.  Don't let your emotional disposition get in the way of any overall points you're trying to make.  

 

 

 

 

Your condescending attitude is noted. Additionally, I’m not the one who made wide-sweeping statements as I quoted you, be more upset that you attempted to demonstrate a knowledge base you don’t have and accept that your intent is to denigrate a coach and FO who don’t do the things you think they should or the way you think they should, despite a first year of inexplicable success. That said, continue ramming away at an argument only you seem to be having as I’m done with this nonsense. 

 

Enjoy your Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 2:22 PM, ScottLaw said:

They have a lot to prove.

 

Im not as confident in the offense as most seem to be. WRs are still subpar, TEs are worse. The hope is the offensive line comes together fast and Allen improved a lot in his 2nd year. They didn't do him any favors at the skills position. 

 

Ill be happy if they are competitive game in and game out and aren't getting their asses handed to the Patriots again.... I still see the Patriots and Jets as better teams in the division. 

 

They have everything to prove.  

 

Also, not sure that the TEs are worse, but again, I challenge narratives.  Knox hasn't caught a TD in his collegiate career.  He's yet another player that this staff has plucked that has serious injury issues.  You can't continue to grab guys that are oft hurt and think that for some unbeknownst reason they'll all of a sudden no longer have injury issues here.  Makes no sense to think like that, to the contrary in fact.  

 

But, if you meant with Kroft now out until the regular season, I'd agree with that.  And if Knox for whatever reason doesn't stay healthy and justify their faith in him, I fully agree and they'll be a lot worse in fact.  

 

I was just reading another article this morning about how our WRs are finally above average starters.  I'm not sure how people come to that conclusion.  To start, Brown has started just over half of his 72 games in five seasons, he was really only a full-time starter last season for one or more reasons.  Either way, and I've laid this out before, but he's averaged 646 yards and 4.4 TDs/season, which is only slightly below what he got last season starting 15 games.  Was that above-average starting WR production?  If so, is is something to be so optimistic about?  Are those average starting WR stats much less above-average?  All I can do is look at the numbers.  So if some think that's average I can't say, but technically it's not average for starting WRs, much less above-average.  So again, not sure where this narrative comes from. 

 

Even worse for Beasley.  He's started 22 games out of  103, barely over 20%, so if that's the standard it's not true.  He's averaged 469 yards and 3.3 TDs/season, even fewer than Brown.  I mean is that average much less above average for a starting WR?  I don't see it, and again, even if it is in one or two ways, is that cause for such hope based simply on Brown & Beasley?  They'll both have to match their best seasons ever to render it so this season.  

 

Needless to say that I agree with you, we're subpart as you said with the WRs, we simply have a few more subpar WRs to choose from.  There's hope that Foster breaks out and sheds his injury concerns, but until that happens.  

 

And I fully agree with you, they didn't do nearly what they could have at the skills for Allen, or the OL.  IMO instead of focusing on the D as they did, Oliver in particular, they should have done more to help Allen.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said:

Your condescending attitude is noted. Additionally, I’m not the one who made wide-sweeping statements as I quoted you, be more upset that you attempted to demonstrate a knowledge base you don’t have and accept that your intent is to denigrate a coach and FO who don’t do the things you think they should or the way you think they should, despite a first year of inexplicable success. That said, continue ramming away at an argument only you seem to be having as I’m done with this nonsense. 

 

Enjoy your Sunday.

 

LMAO 

 

My condescending attitude?  Did you read your own post that my response was in regard to?  LOL  

 

And listen, I'm not denigrating anyone, I'm analyzing their methods.  And what, you take it personally that I say what I say about their methods?  ... and you think I have problems?  LOL 

 

I made a point based upon a reasonably stated argument.  You picked one aspect of it to attack while ignoring the greater argument altogether, almost as if to suggest that there are no worries having a 30th ranked scoring offense and an average or slightly below average D is just fine to get your team where they need to go.  

 

I don't see anything at all condescending about my post.  Sorry you see it that way.  I'm guessing that it's because again, I simply pointed out that you leap-frogged the greater point to nitpick one entirely irrelevant point that was completely out of context otherwise.  If that's the way you're going to attempt to make points, I'm not sure what to say.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

They have everything to prove.  

 

Also, not sure that the TEs are worse, but again, I challenge narratives.  Knox hasn't caught a TD in his collegiate career.  He's yet another player that this staff has plucked that has serious injury issues.  You can't continue to grab guys that are oft hurt and think that for some unbeknownst reason they'll all of a sudden no longer have injury issues here.  Makes no sense to think like that, to the contrary in fact.  

 

But, if you meant with Kroft now out until the regular season, I'd agree with that.  And if Knox for whatever reason doesn't stay healthy and justify their faith in him, I fully agree and they'll be a lot worse in fact.  

 

I was just reading another article this morning about how our WRs are finally above average starters.  I'm not sure how people come to that conclusion.  To start, Brown has started just over half of his 72 games in five seasons, he was really only a full-time starter last season for one or more reasons.  Either way, and I've laid this out before, but he's averaged 646 yards and 4.4 TDs/season, which is only slightly below what he got last season starting 15 games.  Was that above-average starting WR production?  If so, is is something to be so optimistic about?  Are those average starting WR stats much less above-average?  All I can do is look at the numbers.  So if some think that's average I can't say, but technically it's not average for starting WRs, much less above-average.  So again, not sure where this narrative comes from. 

 

Even worse for Beasley.  He's started 22 games out of  103, barely over 20%, so if that's the standard it's not true.  He's averaged 469 yards and 3.3 TDs/season, even fewer than Brown.  I mean is that average much less above average for a starting WR?  I don't see it, and again, even if it is in one or two ways, is that cause for such hope based simply on Brown & Beasley?  They'll both have to match their best seasons ever to render it so this season.  

 

Needless to say that I agree with you, we're subpart as you said with the WRs, we simply have a few more subpar WRs to choose from.  There's hope that Foster breaks out and sheds his injury concerns, but until that happens.  

 

And I fully agree with you, they didn't do nearly what they could have at the skills for Allen, or the OL.  IMO instead of focusing on the D as they did, Oliver in particular, they should have done more to help Allen.  

 

 

Just on the Beasley point the numbers are deceptive. He was Dallas's starting slot receiver. But starts are only categorised by who is on the field for the first offensive or defensive play. So if they line up in 21 personnel for the first play of the game Beasley isnt counter as a starter no matter how many snaps he plays after that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

They have everything to prove.  

 

Also, not sure that the TEs are worse, but again, I challenge narratives.  Knox hasn't caught a TD in his collegiate career.  He's yet another player that this staff has plucked that has serious injury issues.  You can't continue to grab guys that are oft hurt and think that for some unbeknownst reason they'll all of a sudden no longer have injury issues here.  Makes no sense to think like that, to the contrary in fact.  

 

But, if you meant with Kroft now out until the regular season, I'd agree with that.  And if Knox for whatever reason doesn't stay healthy and justify their faith in him, I fully agree and they'll be a lot worse in fact.  

 

I was just reading another article this morning about how our WRs are finally above average starters.  I'm not sure how people come to that conclusion.  To start, Brown has started just over half of his 72 games in five seasons, he was really only a full-time starter last season for one or more reasons.  Either way, and I've laid this out before, but he's averaged 646 yards and 4.4 TDs/season, which is only slightly below what he got last season starting 15 games.  Was that above-average starting WR production?  If so, is is something to be so optimistic about?  Are those average starting WR stats much less above-average?  All I can do is look at the numbers.  So if some think that's average I can't say, but technically it's not average for starting WRs, much less above-average.  So again, not sure where this narrative comes from. 

 

Even worse for Beasley.  He's started 22 games out of  103, barely over 20%, so if that's the standard it's not true.  He's averaged 469 yards and 3.3 TDs/season, even fewer than Brown.  I mean is that average much less above average for a starting WR?  I don't see it, and again, even if it is in one or two ways, is that cause for such hope based simply on Brown & Beasley?  They'll both have to match their best seasons ever to render it so this season.  

 

Needless to say that I agree with you, we're subpart as you said with the WRs, we simply have a few more subpar WRs to choose from.  There's hope that Foster breaks out and sheds his injury concerns, but until that happens.  

 

And I fully agree with you, they didn't do nearly what they could have at the skills for Allen, or the OL.  IMO instead of focusing on the D as they did, Oliver in particular, they should have done more to help Allen.  

 

Yea. They are really counting on Allen to improve in year 2 and raise the level of play of everyone else.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Yea. They are really counting on Allen to improve in year 2 and raise the level of play of everyone else.

 

Indeed, and on defense, given that they could have had an LT like Hilliard, they went with Oliver, so they're really counting on Oliver to improve the D too in Kyle's absence.  

 

I mean think about it, if Oliver doesn't do that, then there's no way this D is as good as last year's w/o Kyle, with Lorax at 36 and with Hughes aging, whom all pre-dated McBeane.  

 

But where will they be if Allen doesn't do that?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

Indeed, and on defense, given that they could have had an LT like Hilliard, they went with Oliver, so they're really counting on Oliver to improve the D too in Kyle's absence.  

 

I mean think about it, if Oliver doesn't do that, then there's no way this D is as good as last year's w/o Kyle, with Lorax at 36 and with Hughes aging, whom all pre-dated McBeane.  

 

But where will they be if Allen doesn't do that?  

Kyle was not good last year. Edmunds should be better. And even though I think he is terrible waste of money, Murphy might give them some pass rush. Lorax will be a situational DE most of the time. He won't play any of the nickel downs as a LB. He probably only sees the field as a two down SLB against two TE sets.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Kyle was not good last year. Edmunds should be better. And even though I think he is terrible waste of money, Murphy might give them some pass rush. Lorax will be a situational DE most of the time. He won't play any of the nickel downs as a LB. He probably only sees the field as a two down SLB against two TE sets.  

 

I thought that Kyle played pretty well given the circumstances.  I don't think that he was much worse than most of our defensive players.  Either way, to log 5 sacks, and not all agasint sorry teams and QBs, in his farewell season, that's an accomplishment.  

 

Love Edmunds, he will be better but he's still young, remember, he was the youngest player in the league last season.  Murphy was a waste of money and a contract.  Lorax will be 36 for whatever that means.  

 

Oliver's the wild-card in the D this season.  There's not a whole lot of reason for hope after him on D.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

Indeed, and on defense, given that they could have had an LT like Hilliard, they went with Oliver, so they're really counting on Oliver to improve the D too in Kyle's absence.  

 

I mean think about it, if Oliver doesn't do that, then there's no way this D is as good as last year's w/o Kyle, with Lorax at 36 and with Hughes aging, whom all pre-dated McBeane.  

 

But where will they be if Allen doesn't do that?  

 

Probably 6-10 or 7-9.  A lot is riding on Allen, and more than on Oliver, IMO.  Wouldn't be good for McD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get to the playoffs and win at least ONE playoff game which we haven't done since 1995 give him a 3 year extension. If we go to the Super Bowl, give him a 5 year extension. If we win the Super Bowl, give him a 10 year extension. If we have 6 wins or less especially if it's 4 games or less, then fire him 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

Probably 6-10 or 7-9.  A lot is riding on Allen, and more than on Oliver, IMO.  Wouldn't be good for McD.

 

No, it wouldn't be, I'm not sure how they can survive in their roles if Allen doesn't work out.  They won't be given another three years and after that Peterman debacle, people would really challenge their ability to even effectively address the QB situation. 

 

I can see us logging anywhere from 3 or 4 wins to maybe as many as 7 or 8 given the ease of the schedule and with some fortune in terms of injuries (going both ways) and circumstances otherwise.  The Pats have the second easiest schedule in the league, which means that after playing them twice ours is even easier.  The NFCE isn't exactly formidable, the AFCN is good, but Denver and Tennessee are not.   

 

The thing is that we typically split with the Fins and Jets, over the past four seasons we're a perfect .500 against them, under McD we're 5-3 with the extra win coming at Miami's expense.  So figure a split there again in every likelihood, dropping two against the Pats, figuring a split against the NFCE, and I'm thinking 1-3 vs. the AFCN.  That's 5-9 with games vs. Tennessee and Denver otherwise.  

 

The teams that I'd say are better than us are the Pats, Steelers, Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Dallas, and the Eagles.  Teams that I'd say are about where we are or worse are the Jets, Fins, Denver, Titans, Giants, and Skins.  Obviously you don't always beat those teams or lose to the former group.  

 

We'll see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

Indeed, and on defense, given that they could have had an LT like Hilliard, they went with Oliver, so they're really counting on Oliver to improve the D too in Kyle's absence.  

 

I mean think about it, if Oliver doesn't do that, then there's no way this D is as good as last year's w/o Kyle, with Lorax at 36 and with Hughes aging, whom all pre-dated McBeane.  

 

But where will they be if Allen doesn't do that?  

 

You mean Dillard. 

13 hours ago, Ronin said:

Oliver's the wild-card in the D this season.  There's not a whole lot of reason for hope after him on D.  

 

What about still having one of the best secondaries in the NFL? What about having young talent in Edmunds and Milano at linebacker? No reasons for optimism there? The ageing of the edge rushers - Hughes and Lorax is a legitimate concern, as is the lack of depth behind them, but beyond that there is a lot to like on defense. 

 

I don't disagree with you that a lot is riding on Josh. And if they turn out to have got the Josh Allen decision wrong it will ultimately get them fired (whether after this season or next) That is the NFL. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ronin said:

The teams that I'd say are better than us are the Pats, Steelers, Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Dallas, and the Eagles.  Teams that I'd say are about where we are or worse are the Jets, Fins, Denver, Titans, Giants, and Skins.  Obviously you don't always beat those teams or lose to the former group.  

 

We'll see.  

 

I am certain we will be better than the Bengals. I think they will be one of the worst teams in the NFL. I think we are probably better than the Ravens this year too (though Harbaugh is such a good coach he often gets more than he should out of that team). The Eagles are better than us but we get them at home and I think that is a 50-50 game. Pats x2 and then Steelers, Browns and Cowboys on the road are the ones I have circled as the 5 most likely losses. I think Bengals, Fish x2, Giants and Skins are the 5 most likely wins. Then the other games are the ones that are in the pot and will ultimately decide our fate. 

 

Of course it is never that easy. But that is the way I see the schedule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You mean Dillard. 

 

What about still having one of the best secondaries in the NFL? What about having young talent in Edmunds and Milano at linebacker? No reasons for optimism there? The ageing of the edge rushers - Hughes and Lorax is a legitimate concern, as is the lack of depth behind them, but beyond that there is a lot to like on defense. 

 

I don't disagree with you that a lot is riding on Josh. And if they turn out to have got the Josh Allen decision wrong it will ultimately get them fired (whether after this season or next) That is the NFL. 

 

 

LOL, yes, Dillard, I do that all the time.  I'm sure I'll keep doing it.  

 

Keep in mind that teams are still, unless something has changed, built from the lines outward.  A great secondary is good to have, but it's no replacement for an equally good front-7.  Otherwise, the players that you mention, A, were here last season so there's no change.  Sure, we can expect improvement form Edmunds, as I've chimed in, I fully expect Edmunds to be Kuechly-like in a couple of seasons and a premier MLB.  Milano, who knows, but if we had a dollar for every time we heard that a player was going to improve upon a rookie or soph year and didn't, ...   Those could very well be offset by dimishment in Lorax's and Hughes' play, we don't know, but it's fairly safe to say that that group overall isn't going to be a huge difference on its own.  We definitely need an infusion of talent and a pass rush.  Absolutely none of McBeane's players brought in have added to that signiifcantly and to levels that will make out pass-rush above-average much less stellar. 

 

Also, there's a whole lot of talk about Milano and how great he is, look, he's good, I'd put him at above-average, and he was a fantastic 5th-round pick, but let's not get ahead of ourselves, he's hardly Von Miller either.  A pleasant surprise but still, no premier or impact player.  In two seasons, 18 starts, he's got 1 sack, so he hasn't really been a boon to our pass-rush either.  He seems to be good in pass coverage however.  He's been a very pleasant surprise, but let's also see if he can keep it up.  Maybe he'll improve, maybe he'll stay the same, or perhaps he'll not keep it up.  We don't know.  

 

Either way, that core was here last season, we'll see how it develops.  But I'm not sure it's wise to assume that it's going to propel us to correct what was a 30th ranked Red Zone D and 18th ranked scoring D.  Do you?  

 

I'm optimistic in Edmunds and Milano, hugely so in Edmunds per above and possibly more so than anyone here, but not at all about Lorax who's been as inconsistent as can possibly be during his stint here.  I've pointed this out numerous times before, but Lorax came on with a bang for us logging 10 sacks in his first 9 games here, but after that he finished that season with 2.5 sacks in his last 7 games.  In '17 he posted 3 sacks in 16 games for 5.5 sacks in his last 23 games at the time.  He began last season with 1 sack in his first 5 games for 6.5 sacks in that stretch of 28 games.  He then had a stretch where he posted 5.5 sacks in 7 games again before finishing the season with 0 sacks in any of his last four games.  Inconsistency has been the operative term regarding him.  And remember, he was considering retirement last season, I'm not sure that there's much basis for optimism at the age of 36.  He's trending downard, not upward like Edmunds.  So is Hughes.  

 

As far as Hughes, if we're living in 2013 & 2014, yes, perhaps I'm optimistic, but we're not.  For a DE that's averaged a mere 5.5 sacks/season over the past four seasons, and with that as his primary role, I'm not sure I'd say I'm "optimistic."   He'll nail down one DE position with still a huge weakness at the other DE position, and he'll do it until his contract expires following the 2021 season.  

 

That's how I view it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am certain we will be better than the Bengals. I think they will be one of the worst teams in the NFL. I think we are probably better than the Ravens this year too (though Harbaugh is such a good coach he often gets more than he should out of that team). The Eagles are better than us but we get them at home and I think that is a 50-50 game. Pats x2 and then Steelers, Browns and Cowboys on the road are the ones I have circled as the 5 most likely losses. I think Bengals, Fish x2, Giants and Skins are the 5 most likely wins. Then the other games are the ones that are in the pot and will ultimately decide our fate. 

 

Of course it is never that easy. But that is the way I see the schedule. 

 

Yeah, who knows right now and we haven't studied that changes that they've all made either.  Some will be better than we think while others won't.  Which bring up something else, McDermott. 

 

Last season of the 6 games we won, I'd say that we were better than the Jets, Jags, and Fins but comparable to the Titans, Lions, and Vikes.  The best team we beat in terms of record was the Titans at 9-7 which was probably overachievement for them.  Unless you're a Mariotta believer they didn't have much better talent than we did, perhaps worse.  Their top-3 WRs were Corey Davis, Taywan Taylor, and Tajae Sharpe.  Hardly inspiring.  

 

On the flip side, we also lost to the Jets, the Fins, and Green Bay which wasn't good last season.  So you never know who we'll beat and who we won't.  But if we assume that we're capable of beating teams that finish with 9 wins or fewer, as we did last season, and using last season's records, we could win 12 games, it's an easy schedule.  Besides the Pats the only two teams on our schedule that won 10 or more games were Dallas and Baltimore, both at 10-6.  It couldn't possibly, literally, be any easier.  Only 5 of our opponents ranked above-average in sack production including Denver, Washington, and Philly, and only 6 ranked above-average in INT production including Miami, Washington, Giants, and Denver.  

 

Re: McD, keep in mind that we beat the Titans and Lions by merely a point and the Jags by only 3, all three of those games were home games.  We averaged 17 points in those three games.  

 

Who knows what's going to change this season, which is why IMO predicting record is among the most difficult things to do except for teams like the Pats.  

 

 

Edited by Ronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

LOL, yes, Dillard, I do that all the time.  I'm sure I'll keep doing it.  

 

Keep in mind that teams are still, unless something has changed, built from the lines outward.  A great secondary is good to have, but it's no replacement for an equally good front-7.  Otherwise, the players that you mention, A, were here last season so there's no change.  Sure, we can expect improvement form Edmunds, as I've chimed in, I fully expect Edmunds to be Kuechly-like in a couple of seasons and a premier MLB.  Milano, who knows, but if we had a dollar for every time we heard that a player was going to improve upon a rookie or soph year and didn't, ...   Those could very well be offset by dimishment in Lorax's and Hughes' play, we don't know, but it's fairly safe to say that that group overall isn't going to be a huge difference on its own.  We definitely need an infusion of talent and a pass rush.  Absolutely none of McBeane's players brought in have added to that signiifcantly and to levels that will make out pass-rush above-average much less stellar. 

 

Also, there's a whole lot of talk about Milano and how great he is, look, he's good, I'd put him at above-average, and he was a fantastic 5th-round pick, but let's not get ahead of ourselves, he's hardly Von Miller either.  A pleasant surprise but still, no premier or impact player.  In two seasons, 18 starts, he's got 1 sack, so he hasn't really been a boon to our pass-rush either.  He seems to be good in pass coverage however.  He's been a very pleasant surprise, but let's also see if he can keep it up.  Maybe he'll improve, maybe he'll stay the same, or perhaps he'll not keep it up.  We don't know.  

 

Either way, that core was here last season, we'll see how it develops.  But I'm not sure it's wise to assume that it's going to propel us to correct what was a 30th ranked Red Zone D and 18th ranked scoring D.  Do you?  

 

I'm optimistic in Edmunds and Milano, hugely so in Edmunds per above and possibly more so than anyone here, but not at all about Lorax who's been as inconsistent as can possibly be during his stint here.  I've pointed this out numerous times before, but Lorax came on with a bang for us logging 10 sacks in his first 9 games here, but after that he finished that season with 2.5 sacks in his last 7 games.  In '17 he posted 3 sacks in 16 games for 5.5 sacks in his last 23 games at the time.  He began last season with 1 sack in his first 5 games for 6.5 sacks in that stretch of 28 games.  He then had a stretch where he posted 5.5 sacks in 7 games again before finishing the season with 0 sacks in any of his last four games.  Inconsistency has been the operative term regarding him.  And remember, he was considering retirement last season, I'm not sure that there's much basis for optimism at the age of 36.  He's trending downard, not upward like Edmunds.  So is Hughes.  

 

As far as Hughes, if we're living in 2013 & 2014, yes, perhaps I'm optimistic, but we're not.  For a DE that's averaged a mere 5.5 sacks/season over the past four seasons, and with that as his primary role, I'm not sure I'd say I'm "optimistic."   He'll nail down one DE position with still a huge weakness at the other DE position, and he'll do it until his contract expires following the 2021 season.  

 

That's how I view it.  

 

So on the edge rushers I agree with you and have made this point all offseason. Lorax and Hughes are the Bills' two best edge rushers and they will be combined age if 67 when week 1 rolls round. That is a legitimate concern. For every Julius Peppers who remains productive well into his 30s there is a Mario Williams or Brian Orakpo who falls off a cliff in his early 30s. Though I have no doubts about the impact Ed Oliver will have. You do and it is fair to when a guy hasn't played a snap in the pros but I had him as basically the best player in the draft (well 1B with Bosa as 1A). 

 

That said the Bills D line has not been great the past two years either in terms of pass rush and yet for the most part (exclude the two games the retired Vontae Davis started - and by the way I was on here a year ago saying they shouldn't bank on him still being able to play) the secondary has been really good. I think that is because a) McDermott is a really good DB coach and b) Hyde and White are outstanding football players and Poyer is a very good player too. They have also added significant depth this offseason with Kevin Johnson and EJ Gaines. Plus Wallace in year two... that unit could be even better - despite the lack of rush. Because they are really talented and really well coached. That is a cause for optimism. 

 

At linebacker I think what Milano has put on tape in the NFL through two seasons would suggest he is better than "above average". If I have a concern about that unit it remains Edmunds's ability to master the fundamentals. I know he can do the spectacular I need to see more of the routine. But the talent level of those two alone is a reason for optimism. 

 

And let's say, for argument sake, that with mainly the same personal the defense is mainly the same as last year. Among the league leaders in pass defense, among the league leaders in yards and among the league leaders in yards per play and 3rd down. Even if it continues to not be as stout in the redzone as maybe it could and is middle of the pack in points it still comes down to me to Josh Allen. 

 

The Bills D was good enough in 6 wins last year. If they got good Quarterback play to support that they could win 9 or 10 games in my view without the defense needing to improve. 

 

So in short, I do see reason for optimism, both with the defense and for the Bills chances of being above .500 in 2019. But it comes down to Josh Allen. If he does not take a step this team wins 5 or 6 games again and the pressure on the regime would be immense. I am not sure in that scenario they survive. 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

Indeed, and on defense, given that they could have had an LT like Hilliard, they went with Oliver, so they're really counting on Oliver to improve the D too in Kyle's absence.  

 

I mean think about it, if Oliver doesn't do that, then there's no way this D is as good as last year's w/o Kyle, with Lorax at 36 and with Hughes aging, whom all pre-dated McBeane.  

 

But where will they be if Allen doesn't do that?  

This year is all about how much Allen improves..... or doesn't. It will be the deciding factor on if they are a playoff team or a another subpar one. I was hoping they'd do more to ensure that with additions at the reciever position.  

 

Even if the defense regresses a little bit but Allen takes a big step forward, they'll be fine. It's all about the QB..... my concern with the defense was their inability to stop the run at time last season.'

 

Jacksonville and NE ran the ball at will on them late in the year. It was hard to watch. Hopefully Edmunds and Harrison improve, Star has a better year and Milano comes back healthy. 

Edited by ScottLaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So on the edge rushers I agree with you and have made this point all offseason. Lorax and Hughes are the Bills' two best edge rushers and they will be combined age if 67 when week 1 rolls round. That is a legitimate concern. For every Julius Peppers who remains productive well into his 30s there is a Mario Williams or Brian Orakpo who falls off a cliff in his early 30s. Though I have no doubts about the impact Ed Oliver will have. You do and it is fair to when a guy hasn't played a snap in the pros but I had him as basically the best player in the draft (well 1B with Bosa as 1A). 

 

That said the Bills D line has not been great the past two years either in terms of pass rush and yet for the most part (exclude the two games the retired Vontae Davis started - and by the way I was on here a year ago saying they shouldn't bank on him still being able to play) the secondary has been really good. I think that is because a) McDermott is a really good DB coach and b) Hyde and White are outstanding football players and Poyer is a very good player too. They have also added significant depth this offseason with Kevin Johnson and EJ Gaines. Plus Wallace in year two... that unit could be even better - despite the lack of rush. Because they are really talented and really well coached. That is a cause for optimism. 

 

At linebacker I think what Milano has put on tape in the NFL through two seasons would suggest he is better than "above average". If I have a concern about that unit it remains Edmunds's ability to master the fundamentals. I know he can do the spectacular I need to see more of the routine. But the talent level of those two alone is a reason for optimism. 

 

And let's say, for argument sake, that with mainly the same personal the defense is mainly the same as last year. Among the league leaders in pass defense, among the league leaders in yards and among the league leaders in yards per play and 3rd down. Even if it continues to not be as stout in the redzone as maybe it could and is middle of the pack in points it still comes down to me to Josh Allen. 

 

The Bills D was good enough in 6 wins last year. If they got good Quarterback play to support that they could win 9 or 10 games in my view without the defense needing to improve. 

 

So in short, I do see reason for optimism, both with the defense and for the Bills chances of being above .500 in 2019. But it comes down to Josh Allen. If he does not take a step this team wins 5 or 6 games again and the pressure on the regime would be immense. I am not sure in that scenario they survive. 

 

 

That's fair and that's pretty much my position, except that I think you're overrating the impact of a stellar secondary w/o the associated pass-rush.  Other than that, and particularly in that this team, including McBeane, goes as Allen goes we're in full agreement.  

 

But as to the optimism, I guess I have as much optimism to hope for the same as last season on D, but no more, again, pending Oliver where we disagree, but that's a sizeable disagreement with you and others expecting greatness while I'm expecting Phillips to outplay Oliver.  

 

All we can do is wait and hope that Allen steps up as such and that I'm completely wrong on Oliver.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

This year is all about how much Allen improves..... or doesn't. It will be the deciding factor on if they are a playoff team or a another subpar one. I was hoping they'd do more to ensure that with additions at the reciever position.  

 

Even if the defense regresses a little bit but Allen takes a big step forward, they'll be fine. It's all about the QB..... my concern with the defense was their inability to stop the run at time last season.'

 

Jacksonville and NE ran the ball at will on them late in the year. It was hard to watch. Hopefully Edmunds and Harrison improve, Star has a better year and Milano comes back healthy. 

 

Yeah, again, agree on Allen. 

 

My big problem with the D is that they played very well against below-average teams while it didn't play well against above-average teams, it was anything but consistent.  Granted, better teams are more difficult to play against, but if a D is really that good then it'll play consistently all season long, which we did not do.  

 

As an example, we were #2 in yardage D and the Ravens were #1.  Yet, we were 18th in scoring D, which is more important, while they were 2nd in scoring.  The Bears were 3rd in yardage D and 1st in scoring D.  Both the Ravens and Bears were consistent, we were not.  

 

We allowed 20+ points in 11 games, the Ravens in 8 games, and the Bears in 6 games.  

 

No need to throw out stats, our pass D was better than the Bears or Ravens pass Ds.  

 

But our rushing D was nowhere near as good.  We allowed over 200 yards three times, neither the Bears or Ravens allowed a 200 yard rushing game.  we held opponents to under 100 rushing 8 times, the Ravens held teams to under 100 rushing in 11 of 17 games, the Bears in 13 of 17 games.  

 

The Bear rushing D was ranked 1st in yards, the Ravens 4th, us 16th.  

In yards-per-carry allowed, Ravens 3rd, Bears 4th, us 10th.  

In rushing TDs allowed, Bears 1st, Ravens 6th, us 25th.  

 

That's the problem with our D, it's weak up front.  That's why we were 6-10 and the Ravens were 10-6 and Chicago 12-4.  Neither team had a great passing O.  Bears 21st, Ravens 22nd.  In rushing O Ravens were 2nd, we were 9th, Bears were 11th.  So it wasn't their offenses that carried them much more than ours didn't.  It was their Ds, which again, were far more consistent.  

 

It all stems from the DL/Front-7.  The effect of a great secondary w/o the associated pressure up front is grossly overrated.  

 

The thing is that even in today's NFL rushing yards on a yard-for-yard basis are more valuable than passing yards, easily.  So despite the notion that it's passing that generates today's higher scoring games, teams that can run on you have a better chance of winning if they do.  It was true with all three teams.  Of the 6 games in which we allowed the most rushing yards we lost 5 of them, we beat Jax who sucked otherwise on offense.  Same for the Ravens, 5 of their worst 6, they beat Denver, who also sucked otherwise on offense.  In the Bears worst 4 they lost 3 and beat Detroit, also not good on offense otherwise last season.  

 

Here's the big difference between us and them, in the aforementioned games, we averaged 163 rushing against us, the Ravens averaged 123 against them, and the Bears averaged 129.  That's an enormous difference and in the other games the Ravens averaged 61.4, the Bears 61.6, us 75.3.  

 

Again, that's due to the lack of a solid DL, which is a more significant issue than most care to prefer it to be.  

 

Obviously wins/losses are more complex than merely one thing, but that's a big thing that contributed to the differences between us and those teams.  Offensively there were similarities as all three QBs ran significantly.  

 

In short, one needs to be able to shut down an opponent's passing game, which we were only able to do essentially against poor passing teams.  The only teams that we held below average passing yards that didn't run the ball down our throats (Indy 220, Pats 273) were below-average passing teams.  We cannot say the same thing about the Bears and Ravens who both held several top passing teams to well below-average passing yards w/o allowing bookoo rushing yards.  

 

Again, that can all be attributed tthe respective DLs.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Ronin said:

except that I think you're overrating the impact of a stellar secondary w/o the associated pass-rush.  

 

I don't think I am overrating it. I am saying the evidence from the tape over the past two years is that this is a secondary that can excel even without much front 4 pressure. That, I agree, is a rare thing but it has been the case and has helped us to wins both years including the 2017 playoff seasons where on 3 separate occasions the Bills basically won games on turnovers forced by the defensive backfield on opposing teams' final drive. We still need to improve the defensive line - of that there is no doubt. We disagree on Oliver, that's fine, but we agree we still need edge rush and better play out of our NT than we got out of Star last year. But I'm basing my view on what this secondary can do without associated pass rush on what they have already done without associated pass rush. And that is be one of the top defenses against the pass in the NFL. 

Edited by GunnerBill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

I don't think I am overrating it. I am saying the evidence from the tape over the past two years is that this is a secondary that can excel even without much front 4 pressure. That, I agree, is a rare thing but it has been the case and has helped us to wins both years including the 2017 playoff seasons where on 3 separate occasions the Bills basically won games on turnovers forced by the defensive backfield on opposing teams' final drive. We still need to improve the defensive line - of that there is no doubt. We disagree on Oliver, that's fine, but we agree we still need edge rush and better play out of our NT than we got out of Star last year. But I'm basing my view on what this secondary can do without associated pass rush on what they have already done without associated pass rush. And that is be one of the top defenses against the pass in the NFL. 

 

This is a very good discussion!  

 

Oliver will be what he is, either the answer or not the answer.  Not much to discuss until the season when we find out there.  

 

I'll address the bolded parts.  

 

Yes, the secondary can excel, no argument there, ours has, but only generally speaking, it has struggled against top passing teams and QBs.  But I wish that instead of continually pouring resources into an already excellent secondary that McBeane would focus on the other parts of the team more.  To me that means that they're A, in over their heads, and B, in McD's case, focusing, overly so, on what he's known because he's good at it.  The problem is that there's 80% other parts of the team that he's not as good at running.  

 

But if teams can run the ball down your throat pretty much at will, then that's a way around our excellent secondary to overcome it, and as everyone knows, that's how good OCs will take advantage of our D overall until the entire unit is corrected.  That is what in fact happened.  If that doesn't change this season then IMO McBeane's competencies need to be examined.  

 

That addresses the next part in bold.  A pass D is more than just a secondary, it's the very directly related ability to put pressure on opponents passers, which we are not good at.  

 

In pass D yardage we ranked 1st, but as I just explained, a good reason for that was because we ranked 16th in rush D yardage allowed.  Combined with the notion that against average-plus passing teams we shut no one down that didn't run the ball ridiculously well on us.  

 

We ranked 26th in sacks. 

We ranked 21st in QB hits. 

We ranked 17th in sack %.  

 

But again, also don't dismiss the notion that while yes, overall our pass D based upon the secondary was tops, we still didn't play well in that regard against above-average passing teams that didn't run all over us.  

 

That's not a good sign.  All it means is that as long as we play only below-average passing teams we're fine, our pass D is great.  But the moment we play passing teams that are above-average, we are not good.  That's not the mark of a playoff-competitive pass D or D, it's something else.  

 

Against the 6 above-average passing teams that we played, we lost 5 of those games. 

 

Against Indy they didn't need to throw because they ran for 220 yards.  Still, Luck posted one of his most efficient games of the season.  74% complete and 4 TDs on only 156 yards.  We logged no sacks.  

In the first NE game Brady threw for the 4th most yards he had all season.  

In the second NE game Brady didn't play well but he didn't have to since we allowed nearly 300 yards of rushing.

Against the Chargers Rivers ripped us to shreds on 85% completion, 256 yards and 3 TDs.  He posted similar games against defensively horrific Arizona and Oakland.  

Against Green Bay in what was considered a bad game for Rodgers, he posted his 5th highest yardage passing game in what was still a rout.  Again, it was a bad game for him.  

Even Cousins played a good game, 73% complete (40 or 55) for his 6th best passing yardage game on the season.  Yes, I realize that it was a blowout, but still, he had literally zero rushing support.  His RBs ran the ball 4 times for 12 yards.  Cook didn't play that game b/c he was injured.  Latavius Murray was no better than any of the garbage we had after Shady.  Cousins did all that by himself, literally.  

 

None of those 5 teams had above-average rushing games except for NE.  

 

To me that's highly problematic as a team attempting to cement itself as a playoff team.  It's masked because of the overall global stats.  It doesn't even approach showing that we can hang with playoff caliber teams, which is why we didn't beat any.  

 

In that sense, as I see it, you're overrating it.  We've learned this lesson as Bills fans in the past, both ways, that having a stellar secondary and building from that on in is not the way to build a team.  Our SB teams were top-notch front-7s with the secondaries being good but never great.  We almost never had top-notch talent in our secondaries.  They were good, good enough, but that was about it.  

 

A great secondary w/o a matching front-7 isn't going to help a team become a playoff caliber team and it's the wrong bass-ackwards way to create such a team.  It really is that simple.  

 

 

Edited by Ronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...