Taiwan Jones on About The Game Pod (Squib related)

[Big Blitz]

I don't know what to make of McDermott's "we just didn't execute" comments anymore.  

[Doc]

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I don’t see how you could make that comparison.  A pooch or squib kick with over a minute and twenty seconds left makes no sense while it makes perfect sense with 13 seconds left.  Especially with how poor our defense was playing against the best offense in the NFL.

 

The point is you shouldn't be able to move the ball 44 yards in 10 seconds.  The defensive calls were the problem. 

[Billsfan1972]

19 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

No, not likely.  KC would fall on the ball and give themselves up.  Or take a fair catch on a pooch kick.  Either way, no time goes off the clock.  Now, if they muff it, or somehow if the back thinks he has to run, yes, then maybe you get a few seconds, but that wasn't likely to happen.  

Yes but they'd be at the 10 yard line, not the 25.  However every analyst has claimed that you have to give yourself up and that takes 1-2 seconds off the clock on a squib.  

 

I doubt any returner is fair catching Bass' pooch kick at the 5-10 yard line.

Edited February 19, 2022 by Billsfan1972

[Shaw66]

12 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

 A pooch or squib kick ... makes perfect sense with 13 seconds left.  Especially with how poor our defense was playing against the best offense in the NFL.

I guess I don't understand what the magic is with a pooch or squib.   If it was an excellent technique for pinning the other team inside the 15, okay, I get it.  But if it's such an excellent technique, why don't teams use it all the time?  I think they don't use it all the time because it's unpredictable.   On a squib kick, the ball might be recovered on the 35, maybe on the 20, maybe on the 10.   Or it may go all the way to the end zone.   So, what your tell your cover team?  Converge on the 30?  No, maybe converge on the 20.   I think it's a terribly unpredictable play, and that's why it isn't used regularly as a kickoff technique.  What it does do is make it difficult for the receiving team to run a trick play, because they can't count on the ball coming to any particular player. 

 

A pooch kick, a high kick that definitely falls within the field of play makes more sense to me.  As someone pointed out, Bass has successfully kicked the ball short, and to one side, many times.   That's a much better way to kick it from the point of view of the cover team, because a pooch kick to the ten near the sideline allows the cover team to cut off the far side of the field, it forces the opponent to catch it (because the coverage team would be converging on a loose ball if they don't).   But it didn't seem the Bills called for a pooch kick - the coverage team were staying in their lanes and not converging on a point where they expected the ball to be.  

 

So, what exactly is the benefit of the pooch kick, anyway?

[newcam2012]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I guess I don't understand what the magic is with a pooch or squib.   If it was an excellent technique for pinning the other team inside the 15, okay, I get it.  But if it's such an excellent technique, why don't teams use it all the time?  I think they don't use it all the time because it's unpredictable.   On a squib kick, the ball might be recovered on the 35, maybe on the 20, maybe on the 10.   Or it may go all the way to the end zone.   So, what your tell your cover team?  Converge on the 30?  No, maybe converge on the 20.   I think it's a terribly unpredictable play, and that's why it isn't used regularly as a kickoff technique.  What it does do is make it difficult for the receiving team to run a trick play, because they can't count on the ball coming to any particular player. 

 

A pooch kick, a high kick that definitely falls within the field of play makes more sense to me.  As someone pointed out, Bass has successfully kicked the ball short, and to one side, many times.   That's a much better way to kick it from the point of view of the cover team, because a pooch kick to the ten near the sideline allows the cover team to cut off the far side of the field, it forces the opponent to catch it (because the coverage team would be converging on a loose ball if they don't).   But it didn't seem the Bills called for a pooch kick - the coverage team were staying in their lanes and not converging on a point where they expected the ball to be.  

 

So, what exactly is the benefit of the pooch kick, anyway?

The real issue that you didn't address was the clock. Top priority should have been taking precious seconds off the clock. A kick to the end zone obviously does nothing in this regard. A squib or pooch kick gave the Bills the best opportunity to take seconds off the clock. In that situation, it clearly called for a squib or pooch kick. Imho, you take the risk to execute the correct kick. Flat out kicking it into the end zone was the wrong call. Nevertheless, the Bill's defense still should have stopped the Chiefs. However, that doesn't negate the kicking error. In summary, the Bill's coaching staff gave the game away in a 13 second span. Sickening...

[Shaw66]

44 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

The real issue that you didn't address was the clock. Top priority should have been taking precious seconds off the clock. A kick to the end zone obviously does nothing in this regard. A squib or pooch kick gave the Bills the best opportunity to take seconds off the clock. In that situation, it clearly called for a squib or pooch kick. Imho, you take the risk to execute the correct kick. Flat out kicking it into the end zone was the wrong call. Nevertheless, the Bill's defense still should have stopped the Chiefs. However, that doesn't negate the kicking error. In summary, the Bill's coaching staff gave the game away in a 13 second span. Sickening...

Yes, the clock.  But a squib kick, which apparently what was called, really doesn't do much to the clock.  The clock doesn't start until the ball is touched by the receiving team.  The receiving team will do everything it can to handle the squib kick outside the 15, and they will immediately take a knee.   No time, or at most a second, will go off the clock.   They're only going to return a squib kick if the kick makes it inside the 10, and maybe not even then.  

 

A pooch kick is different, because the kicker can deliver it more or less where he wants.  But the replays make it pretty clear that a pooch kick wasn't called.   That would have gone toward a corner, the way the Bills always kick it, and the coverage team would have been running full speed with their lanes converging on that corner.   They weren't doing that.   They were in some sort of slow motion, prevent mode, covering all lanes (in part to protect against a reverse, a throw across the field, or other gadget.  

 

I don't know what the Bills were trying to do, but they didn't execute it properly.  Still, I don't see that it was a big problem.  The chances were good that even if they'd executed properly, KC would have had 12 or 13 seconds left to work with - maybe from deeper in their own territory, maybe not.  Maybe the Bills had a way to force KC to return the ball, which would have burned more time, but which also opens up the possibility of giving up a game ending touchdown if the execution is blown or if the Chiefs had a play the Bills weren't prepared for.   What the Bills got was nice, conservative, risk-free result - ball on the 25 with 13 seconds left.   

 

So, I still say the same thing - I don't see the benefit of a squib kick.  The Bills left themselves with an easy task - hold the Chiefs under 30 yards on two plays.  The squib kick wouldn't have left them much better off.  

[Billsfan1972]

48 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, the clock.  But a squib kick, which apparently what was called, really doesn't do much to the clock.  The clock doesn't start until the ball is touched by the receiving team.  The receiving team will do everything it can to handle the squib kick outside the 15, and they will immediately take a knee.   No time, or at most a second, will go off the clock.   They're only going to return a squib kick if the kick makes it inside the 10, and maybe not even then.  

 

A pooch kick is different, because the kicker can deliver it more or less where he wants.  But the replays make it pretty clear that a pooch kick wasn't called.   That would have gone toward a corner, the way the Bills always kick it, and the coverage team would have been running full speed with their lanes converging on that corner.   They weren't doing that.   They were in some sort of slow motion, prevent mode, covering all lanes (in part to protect against a reverse, a throw across the field, or other gadget.  

 

I don't know what the Bills were trying to do, but they didn't execute it properly.  Still, I don't see that it was a big problem.  The chances were good that even if they'd executed properly, KC would have had 12 or 13 seconds left to work with - maybe from deeper in their own territory, maybe not.  Maybe the Bills had a way to force KC to return the ball, which would have burned more time, but which also opens up the possibility of giving up a game ending touchdown if the execution is blown or if the Chiefs had a play the Bills weren't prepared for.   What the Bills got was nice, conservative, risk-free result - ball on the 25 with 13 seconds left.   

 

So, I still say the same thing - I don't see the benefit of a squib kick.  The Bills left themselves with an easy task - hold the Chiefs under 30 yards on two plays.  The squib kick wouldn't have left them much better off.  

And I too had a thread on that. Cincinnati did it versus Kansas City at the end of the first half and it did exactly what it was supposed to do and was fielded at the 5 and returned inside the 25 and 5 Seconds came off the clock.

 

Final 13 seconds were handled terribly by the coaching staff. End of story.

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

The point is you shouldn't be able to move the ball 44 yards in 10 seconds.  The defensive calls were the problem. 

Defense was gassed and Mahomes was on fire.  You have to understand the flow of the game at that point.  Even Romo on the call said “oooh I don’t like that” after Bass kicked it through the end zone because he knows we may have left them just enough time to get two plays off where you don’t have to throw a Hal Mary.  Terrible defensive play but the kickoff was the most egregious call in that game.

[newcam2012]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, the clock.  But a squib kick, which apparently what was called, really doesn't do much to the clock.  The clock doesn't start until the ball is touched by the receiving team.  The receiving team will do everything it can to handle the squib kick outside the 15, and they will immediately take a knee.   No time, or at most a second, will go off the clock.   They're only going to return a squib kick if the kick makes it inside the 10, and maybe not even then.  

 

A pooch kick is different, because the kicker can deliver it more or less where he wants.  But the replays make it pretty clear that a pooch kick wasn't called.   That would have gone toward a corner, the way the Bills always kick it, and the coverage team would have been running full speed with their lanes converging on that corner.   They weren't doing that.   They were in some sort of slow motion, prevent mode, covering all lanes (in part to protect against a reverse, a throw across the field, or other gadget.  

 

I don't know what the Bills were trying to do, but they didn't execute it properly.  Still, I don't see that it was a big problem.  The chances were good that even if they'd executed properly, KC would have had 12 or 13 seconds left to work with - maybe from deeper in their own territory, maybe not.  Maybe the Bills had a way to force KC to return the ball, which would have burned more time, but which also opens up the possibility of giving up a game ending touchdown if the execution is blown or if the Chiefs had a play the Bills weren't prepared for.   What the Bills got was nice, conservative, risk-free result - ball on the 25 with 13 seconds left.   

 

So, I still say the same thing - I don't see the benefit of a squib kick.  The Bills left themselves with an easy task - hold the Chiefs under 30 yards on two plays.  The squib kick wouldn't have left them much better off.  

Shaw I hear what you are saying. I think you really are missing the big picture and making some assumptions that are unfounded and incorrect. Again, I will say a squib or pooch kick was the right call because it gives the Bills a chance to burn the clock. Whether it would have or not is debatable. The right call wasn't to kick it in the end zone because it has no chance to tick the clock. It's really that simple. 

 

What happened after the kick is a separate issue. Obviously, the Bill's coaching staff and players blew it. That's being kind and I don't want to beat a dead horse.

 

It was terrible. I ask all Bills fans this. How comfortable were you when the Cheifs had the ball at their 25, 3 time outs, and 13 seconds? It gave Mahomes two plays to get into fg range. I honestly thought it would be like a 60 yard kick to tie the game. Tony Romo was right!

Edited February 19, 2022 by newcam2012

[Billsfan1972]

11 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

Shaw I hear what you are saying. I think you really are missing the big picture and making some assumptions that are unfounded and incorrect. Again, I will say a squib or pooch kick was the right call because it gives the Bills a chance to burn the clock. Whether it would have or not is debatable. The right call wasn't to kick it in the end zone because it has no chance to tick the clock. It's really that simple. 

 

What happened after the kick is a separate issue. Obviously, the Bill's coaching staff and players blew it. That's being kind and I don't want to beat a dead horse.

 

It was terrible. I ask all Bills fans this. How comfortable were you when the Cheifs had the ball at their 25, 3 time outs, and 13 seconds? It gave Mahomes two plays to get into fg range. I honestly thought it would be like a 60 yard kick to tie the game. Tony Romo was right!

And I was too as I explained to everyone at my house that a squib kick or a short kick was what was needed. I couldn't understand when the kick went to the end zone and was screaming at the call. And trust me I know Tony Romo or coach, but near the right call at the moment.😜

Edited February 19, 2022 by Billsfan1972

[newcam2012]

23 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

And I was too as I explained to everyone at my house that a squib kick or a short kick was what was needed. I couldn't understand when the kick went to the end zone and was screaming at the call. And trust me I know Tony Romo or coach, but near the right call at the moment.😜

I screamed NO!!!! when the kick went into the end zone. I knew at that point the game had a really really good chance of going into ot. I was besides myself that the Chiefs had such an easy fg attempt. I was expecting Butner to make a 60 yarder or so. 

26 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

And I was too as I explained to everyone at my house that a squib kick or a short kick was what was needed. I couldn't understand when the kick went to the end zone and was screaming at the call. And trust me I know Tony Romo or coach, but near the right call at the moment.😜

To not even attempt to burn the clock on the kick off is gross negligence. To have miscommunication at that point is inexcusable. 

[atlbillsfan1975]

14 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

I don't know what to make of McDermott's "we just didn't execute" comments anymore.  

McD had the play, squib kickoff. McD didn’t execute, walk over and tell Bass. 

[Ray Stonada]

Pooch kick was the right call, and probably was the call they made.

 

Bass is very good at it.

 

They would have had the ball at their own 20-30 yard line with 8-10 seconds on the clock.

 

Dammit.

 

 

 

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, newcam2012 said:

Shaw I hear what you are saying. I think you really are missing the big picture and making some assumptions that are unfounded and incorrect. Again, I will say a squib or pooch kick was the right call because it gives the Bills a chance to burn the clock. Whether it would have or not is debatable. The right call wasn't to kick it in the end zone because it has no chance to tick the clock. It's really that simple. 

 

What happened after the kick is a separate issue. Obviously, the Bill's coaching staff and players blew it. That's being kind and I don't want to beat a dead horse.

 

It was terrible. I ask all Bills fans this. How comfortable were you when the Cheifs had the ball at their 25, 3 time outs, and 13 seconds? It gave Mahomes two plays to get into fg range. I honestly thought it would be like a 60 yard kick to tie the game. Tony Romo was right!

Thanks. That's a good explanation.  Personally I don't agree that the possibility of burning time was worth the risk of the uncertainty that play brings with it. 

 

And I'm not really arguing that the squib was the right call.  What I'm saying is that the result of what actually happened, first down from the 25, wasn't some kind of disaster.  It wasn't a pick six, it wasn't a muffed punt or a 60 yard return.   Yes, it may have been a blown opportunity to end the game, but we will never know that.  What we know is that the Bills should have won the game with the Chiefs starting when and where they did.

 

It was a mistake without a serious consequence.  

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, newcam2012 said:

 

To not even attempt to burn the clock on the kick off is gross negligence. To have miscommunication at that point is inexcusable. 

That's a really good way to put it.  McD wasnt guilty of gross negligence.  He called the play and he communicated it the coordinator.  The coordinator failed to communicate with the players.  It was literally inexcusable.  McDermot could not excuse the failure and fired the coordinator who failed. 

[newcam2012]

32 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

That's a really good way to put it.  McD wasnt guilty of gross negligence.  He called the play and he communicated it the coordinator.  The coordinator failed to communicate with the players.  It was literally inexcusable.  McDermot could not excuse the failure and fired the coordinator who failed. 

I'd agree with that. Let's take it a step further following that rationale. How bout after the kick? Who called those defensive plays? Was it Frazier or did Coach McD take over? What were they thinking? What consequences should that person receive? Is it fair to say their defensive strategy blew the game? Is not like Mahomes and the Chiefs won on a fluke play. They won as a  direct result of the defensive incompetence. Curious to hear what you have to say. Thanks

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, newcam2012 said:

I'd agree with that. Let's take it a step further following that rationale. How bout after the kick? Who called those defensive plays? Was it Frazier or did Coach McD take over? What were they thinking? What consequences should that person receive? Is it fair to say their defensive strategy blew the game? Is not like Mahomes and the Chiefs won on a fluke play. They won as a  direct result of the defensive incompetence. Curious to hear what you have to say. Thanks

Wow!  That's a much more interesting question.   As I've said, I just can't get upset, in terms of how the game played out, with the non-squib quick.  Yes, as you said, it was a chance to win the game on the kickoff, and that's a communication failure is inexcusable.  The plays that determined the outcome were the next three (I include the field goal, because it was an opportunity to make a play, and no one did.  In fact, I don't recall being impressed by any attempts to block place kicks this season.) 

 

I think the bigger failure, the more complicated failure, happened on the first two plays after the kickoff.  

 

I don't know enough about defense, and I don't remember the plays well enough to be able to critique intelligently what they did and should have done.  I know a few things.

 

Someone here once said about the defense they ran was that they dropped their two best defenders so deep that they were able to be factors in the play as it unfolded.  

 

I heard Sean Payton say the Bills DBs were defending the sideline, to stop quick outs and clock stoppages.   But the Chiefs had time outs - they clearly had the whole field to attack.  There was no reason to defend the sidelines, and that opened the middle, even more.  Think of it - your DBs tethered to the sideline and your safety 30 yards downfield.  

 

Someone suggested holding Hill and/or Kelce at the line of scrimmage on the first play.   The play runs out, Mahomes' has one key guy subtracted from his attack, and he burns time trying improvise the next best choice.  Maybe you blanket the other guys and Mahomes burns 6 or 7 seconds, maybe ends up throwing incomplete to get out of the down.  Bills take the five-yard penalty.  

 

Those are just random, serious questions to be answered.  Maybe there are answers, but I doubt it, not for all of them, especially when you include more specific questions that others can suggest.   

 

Either McDermott delegated all that authority to Frazier, and I doubt that, or the defensive decisions were joint between Frazier and McDermott or even dictated by McDermott.   Had to be one or the other.  I don't think you can conclude anything other than that they underperformed expectations.   They didn't have the strategies or hadn't prepared their defense well enough to execute two plays and hold the offense under 15 yards per play.   

 

So, what's McDermott's response?   I think however he thinks about it, he has to have less confidence now in Frazier, and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't secretly hoping Frazier would get a job somewhere.  McDermott can't very well fire Frazier, especially not in the current racial climate in the NFL.   And it's not that he wants to fire him because of what happened, but I'd guess that he would like a more creative, maybe younger, guy in that role, a guy who's not quite so passive.  And McDermott simply doesn't have the time to get seriously involved in running the defense.   His system demands that he be free from day-to-day D coordinator stuff.  

 

All McDermott can do, I think, is work hard with Frazier to develop goals for Frazier to hit. I don't know goals they should be, or why they weren't goals before now.   I think one goal, one deliverable, would be a revamped strategy for end-of-game situations.  They need a defense that can attack when necessary, that can truly take a player out of a play.  What they seem to have, the ultra-prevent styles that show up every once in a while, has two problems:  they're passive to excess, and they're too predictable.  Too predictable in that all teams know how to attack prevent defenses, and when you're playing the Chiefs or the Rams or the Bengals or the 49ers or the Packers and some others, they're throwing a receiver at you who will kill you in all that space you leave open.   The Bills have to be able to do something better than "keeping the play in front of you."   

 

Was being unprepared to do better a fireable offense.   I think it could be considered fireable insofar as the defensive coordinator is concerned, but as I said, I can't imagine the Bills firing Frazier now.   They wouldn't want the political heat, and McDermott's too loyal, anyway.  Fireable for the HC?  Well, yes, if you had a head coach with a mediocre track record, you might say "damn! of all the other things you haven't really changed around here, now there's this."  But with McDermott's track record, and with his attitude, you have a high level of confidence that issues like the 13 seconds will not continue to be problems.   

 

That's why I think that all they can do about the defense is move on with the guys they have, try to learn from it, and get better.  

 

 

 

 

[newcam2012]

32 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Wow!  That's a much more interesting question.   As I've said, I just can't get upset, in terms of how the game played out, with the non-squib quick.  Yes, as you said, it was a chance to win the game on the kickoff, and that's a communication failure is inexcusable.  The plays that determined the outcome were the next three (I include the field goal, because it was an opportunity to make a play, and no one did.  In fact, I don't recall being impressed by any attempts to block place kicks this season.) 

 

I think the bigger failure, the more complicated failure, happened on the first two plays after the kickoff.  

 

I don't know enough about defense, and I don't remember the plays well enough to be able to critique intelligently what they did and should have done.  I know a few things.

 

Someone here once said about the defense they ran was that they dropped their two best defenders so deep that they were able to be factors in the play as it unfolded.  

 

I heard Sean Payton say the Bills DBs were defending the sideline, to stop quick outs and clock stoppages.   But the Chiefs had time outs - they clearly had the whole field to attack.  There was no reason to defend the sidelines, and that opened the middle, even more.  Think of it - your DBs tethered to the sideline and your safety 30 yards downfield.  

 

Someone suggested holding Hill and/or Kelce at the line of scrimmage on the first play.   The play runs out, Mahomes' has one key guy subtracted from his attack, and he burns time trying improvise the next best choice.  Maybe you blanket the other guys and Mahomes burns 6 or 7 seconds, maybe ends up throwing incomplete to get out of the down.  Bills take the five-yard penalty.  

 

Those are just random, serious questions to be answered.  Maybe there are answers, but I doubt it, not for all of them, especially when you include more specific questions that others can suggest.   

 

Either McDermott delegated all that authority to Frazier, and I doubt that, or the defensive decisions were joint between Frazier and McDermott or even dictated by McDermott.   Had to be one or the other.  I don't think you can conclude anything other than that they underperformed expectations.   They didn't have the strategies or hadn't prepared their defense well enough to execute two plays and hold the offense under 15 yards per play.   

 

So, what's McDermott's response?   I think however he thinks about it, he has to have less confidence now in Frazier, and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't secretly hoping Frazier would get a job somewhere.  McDermott can't very well fire Frazier, especially not in the current racial climate in the NFL.   And it's not that he wants to fire him because of what happened, but I'd guess that he would like a more creative, maybe younger, guy in that role, a guy who's not quite so passive.  And McDermott simply doesn't have the time to get seriously involved in running the defense.   His system demands that he be free from day-to-day D coordinator stuff.  

 

All McDermott can do, I think, is work hard with Frazier to develop goals for Frazier to hit. I don't know goals they should be, or why they weren't goals before now.   I think one goal, one deliverable, would be a revamped strategy for end-of-game situations.  They need a defense that can attack when necessary, that can truly take a player out of a play.  What they seem to have, the ultra-prevent styles that show up every once in a while, has two problems:  they're passive to excess, and they're too predictable.  Too predictable in that all teams know how to attack prevent defenses, and when you're playing the Chiefs or the Rams or the Bengals or the 49ers or the Packers and some others, they're throwing a receiver at you who will kill you in all that space you leave open.   The Bills have to be able to do something better than "keeping the play in front of you."   

 

Was being unprepared to do better a fireable offense.   I think it could be considered fireable insofar as the defensive coordinator is concerned, but as I said, I can't imagine the Bills firing Frazier now.   They wouldn't want the political heat, and McDermott's too loyal, anyway.  Fireable for the HC?  Well, yes, if you had a head coach with a mediocre track record, you might say "damn! of all the other things you haven't really changed around here, now there's this."  But with McDermott's track record, and with his attitude, you have a high level of confidence that issues like the 13 seconds will not continue to be problems.   

 

That's why I think that all they can do about the defense is move on with the guys they have, try to learn from it, and get better.  

 

 

 

 

Love your post. It's upfront, honest, and realistic. I don't agree with every point but that's not the point. Lol

 

I contend that Coach McD took over the play calling. I don't believe for a min he let Frazier make the calls. Of course, I have no proof. That's my guess as to why Frazier's head wasn't on the chopping block. Additionally, the Bills called timeouts before each play. They had the time to call the best defensive plays. First play, Bills players 10 to 15 yards off the line of scrimmage; thus giving them a free 20 yards. Second play, Kelce free release off the line for an easy catch and run. WTF! Coach McD called the plays. He had to be directly involved in those calls. No other way to put it. In short, he blew the game in 13 seconds. No one will convince me otherwise. Is it a fireable offense? Yes and no. You bring up a great point on coach McD record and attitude. I'm not one calling for a new head coach. However, his ineptitude in that 13 seconds will remain with me forever. Similar to wide right and the Tenn miracle. 

 

I'm not a big fan of the Frazier defense. It clearly is a bend but don't break scheme. I think it's way less effective vs better teams. I for one never believed the Bills defense was deserving of the number 1 NFL defense. I believe most Bills fans thought similiarly. The defense didn't get the stops.

 

We can only hope as you said the Bill's improve from here on out. Some changes and additions will be needed. Thus far, Beane and company have built one of the better teams in the NFL. A healthy Allen means the Bills should be in line for another super bowl run. Please please please we fans want that Lombardi trophy and the parade in Bflo. 

[Shaw66]

17 hours ago, newcam2012 said:

Love your post. It's upfront, honest, and realistic. I don't agree with every point but that's not the point. Lol

 

I contend that Coach McD took over the play calling. I don't believe for a min he let Frazier make the calls. Of course, I have no proof. That's my guess as to why Frazier's head wasn't on the chopping block. Additionally, the Bills called timeouts before each play. They had the time to call the best defensive plays. First play, Bills players 10 to 15 yards off the line of scrimmage; thus giving them a free 20 yards. Second play, Kelce free release off the line for an easy catch and run. WTF! Coach McD called the plays. He had to be directly involved in those calls. No other way to put it. In short, he blew the game in 13 seconds. No one will convince me otherwise. Is it a fireable offense? Yes and no. You bring up a great point on coach McD record and attitude. I'm not one calling for a new head coach. However, his ineptitude in that 13 seconds will remain with me forever. Similar to wide right and the Tenn miracle. 

 

I'm not a big fan of the Frazier defense. It clearly is a bend but don't break scheme. I think it's way less effective vs better teams. I for one never believed the Bills defense was deserving of the number 1 NFL defense. I believe most Bills fans thought similiarly. The defense didn't get the stops.

 

We can only hope as you said the Bill's improve from here on out. Some changes and additions will be needed. Thus far, Beane and company have built one of the better teams in the NFL. A healthy Allen means the Bills should be in line for another super bowl run. Please please please we fans want that Lombardi trophy and the parade in Bflo. 

Hey, Newcam, I'm really enjoying this discussion.  You raise really good points. 

 

I won't argue with that McDermott was completely in charge of the defense in those moments.   As I said, I think he was either calling the shots exclusively or in conjunction with Frazier.   Either way, McDermott's fingerprints were on the decision making.  

 

An important thing we don't know, damnable in either case, is whether (1) this defensive scheme had better plays to call than were called - in which case McDermott is culpable for not having called the better plays, or (2) they didn't have in place any more suitable defensive formations and approaches, in which case Frazier is culpable for not having put them in place and McDermott is culpable for not having identified that weakness and insisted that Frazier develop some other approaches.   Damnable in either case.  

 

Your comments remind of two points I've made lately.   One is that I don't like the defensive style, either.   I mean, I get it, it's designed to be a defense that serves you well, week in and week out, as the type of team you play changes, and it's designed to keep you in games by keeping the score down.   It works very well.   And it often comes through with big stops when needed - there are lots of examples.   It doesn't come through every time, no defense does.   What I don't like about it - and I think this is McDermott, not simply Frazier, is the bend-don't-break nature of the defense does lead to complementary football when you have an explosive offense.   With this offense, you want a defense that gets the ball back to the offense quickly.   You do that with takeaways and three and outs.  You also do it by giving up touchdowns - I know that's odd, but it's true.   Which offense, high scoring or low scoring, makes it more imperative that you give up few points?   A low scoring offense.   Worst combination for a team is an offense that can't score and a defense that gives up scores.   But if you have an offense that scores a lot, you can afford to give up more points, especially if in the process of risking a quick score, you're increasing your chances of taking the ball away.    Look at the Chiefs game - if the defense hadn't let the Chiefs score as soon as they did in the final two minutes, Josh wouldn't have had time to lead the game-winning drive.  

 

That tells me that the Bills need a more aggressive defense.   Maybe better put, they need a defense that can do what this defense does over the long term - limit yards and points, but that ALSO takes some risks to make big plays.  It needs to be more unpredictable, and part of being unpredictable is threatening to attack the QB with any player on your defense.    Dropping your two safeties so deep, two or your best playmakers, seriously limits your ability to make a play on defense.   You said, essentially, that not squib kicking cost the Bills an opportunity to win the game (by running clock, by pinning them deep, or even by maybe getting a turnover on the kickoff).   Well, playing prevent defense also costs you opportunities to win the game right there.   The Bills need a defense that can and does play more aggressively.   Maybe it means they need a high-level, stud edge rusher - he alone would be a threat to make plays.    But they need to be willing to blitz and make it work, and they need to be willing to rush 3 or even 2 and make that work.  

 

I hope McDermott sees that and recognizes that his process hasn't led him yet to develop a defense that meshes better with this offense.   I trust that he sees it and will work on it.   In any case, the Bills missed an opportunity because he hadn't done enough to have the team prepared to play those 13 seconds in anything other than ultra-prevent mode. 

 

The other point is that you say you will remember this right along with Wide Right and the Music City Miracle, and I will too.   And I'd throw in the Monday night loss to the Cowboys.   And the loss to the Cardinals on the Hail Mary is almost up there, too.   I get that.   But McDermott reminded us a few weeks ago that beating the Pats in the playoffs wasn't as big a deal for him and the players as it was for the fans.   There's a bit of that here, too.   I mean, sure, the players are devastated by this loss - it's a horrible loss for a player to go through, given the months of hard work and struggle, only to lose because you and your team completely blew it in the end.   But only some of those players lost to the Cardinals, only a few of them lost to the Texans in overtime, and none of them lost the Cowboys, Titans, or Giants in those epic collapses.  And they've had a lot of successes.  They don't think of this loss as just one more episode in the life-long lament of Buffalo Bills fans.   So, for the coaches and players, it's very much about getting over the short-term pain and then doing the work to have some confidence that you won't do that again.  It's about learning how to win, and this game has taught them all that they have more to learn.   That's exactly the kind of challenge that drives McDermott, which is why I wouldn't think of firing him.   Under McDermott, this team is going to get better - he will not permit anything else. 

[Mat68]

I feel like instead of a squib they would have done a high kick that lands between the 10 and 5.  I think either Bass got to much off it or wasnt told.  

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Mat68 said:

I feel like instead of a squib they would have done a high kick that lands between the 10 and 5.  I think either Bass got to much off it or wasnt told.  

I think it's a sure thing that it was a called squib and no one told Bass.   The coverage team was in some kind of prevent mode - they weren't running down the field as fast as possible, like they usually do.  If it had been a high kick to the 10, we've seen them do that, and the coverage team runs hard AND they squeeze the play into the corner, so the guys on the far wing are curling in toward the opposite pylon.  Nobody was doing that, either.  They were getting themselves into position to stop whatever might happen - bad bounce, reverse or some other gadget, whatever.   

 

Bass was the only guy on the kickoff team who didn't know what the play was.  

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think it's a sure thing that it was a called squib and no one told Bass.   The coverage team was in some kind of prevent mode - they weren't running down the field as fast as possible, like they usually do.  If it had been a high kick to the 10, we've seen them do that, and the coverage team runs hard AND they squeeze the play into the corner, so the guys on the far wing are curling in toward the opposite pylon.  Nobody was doing that, either.  They were getting themselves into position to stop whatever might happen - bad bounce, reverse or some other gadget, whatever.   

 

Bass was the only guy on the kickoff team who didn't know what the play was.  

I don't know if you read Buscalia's take on the Athletic about the kickoff given it's a subscription site.  Here's what he had to say on the kickoff and nothing that's come out since then makes me think he's off base in his opinion of what happened....

 

When kicker Tyler Bass booted the ball, the right side of the Bills’ kickoff coverage unit immediately began sprinting to their left. Given those first steps, it was clear the call was to direct the ball to the left side. From there, after the coverage unit realized the ball had traveled through the end zone, there were a couple of unusual reactions from core special teams players.

 

The first was from safety Jaquan Johnson, who as the outer-most coverage player primarily hangs back a bit if the returner gets through the first line of defense. In the middle of his run, Johnson immediately put his arms out as if to signal confusion for why the kickoff went through the end zone. He wasn’t the only one.

 

Cornerback Siran Neal, who has played almost every core-four special teams snap this season, had the same reaction as Johnson only a few steps later. Neal looked like he was trying to figure out what had happened.

 

 

Then one second later, Johnson and Neal both had their arms out in confusion, with Johnson looking toward Bass and Neal looking toward the sideline. Given these reactions, this must be part of the “execution” McDermott was referring to on Tuesday.

 

A touchback made little sense, given the situation. They wanted to take time off the clock without Patrick Mahomes, Tyreek Hill and Travis Kelce on the field.

According to both Football Outsider’s DVOA metrics and Rick Gosselin’s annual special teams rankings, they also boasted the third-best kickoff coverage unit this season.

 

The Bills have a kicker they trust to leave the ball short in clutch situations on kickoffs and have utilized it all season. With all the visual clues of the kickoff, it all points to them calling for an angled kick that landed just shy the goal line. It either would have made the returner waste time by fielding the ball, sacrifice field position with a fair catch, or make a quick run out of bounds to accomplish both. We still don’t know if it was an operator error by Bass, or if coaches didn’t correctly communicate the call to him, but all signs point to the Bills wanting something other than a touchback.

 

In my opinion, that was the most significant misstep of the three plays, because any different outcome would have dramatically altered the Chiefs’ approach when the offense took the field. Had the Chiefs either started from the 10 yard line or been left with only eight seconds of clock, they likely would have been trying desperation heaves with the prevent defense being far more acceptable.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Doc Brown

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't know if you read Buscalia's take on the Athletic about the kickoff given it's a subscription site.  Here's what he had to say on the kickoff and nothing that's come out since then makes me think he's off base in his opinion of what happened....

 

When kicker Tyler Bass booted the ball, the right side of the Bills’ kickoff coverage unit immediately began sprinting to their left. Given those first steps, it was clear the call was to direct the ball to the left side. From there, after the coverage unit realized the ball had traveled through the end zone, there were a couple of unusual reactions from core special teams players.

 

The first was from safety Jaquan Johnson, who as the outer-most coverage player primarily hangs back a bit if the returner gets through the first line of defense. In the middle of his run, Johnson immediately put his arms out as if to signal confusion for why the kickoff went through the end zone. He wasn’t the only one.

 

Cornerback Siran Neal, who has played almost every core-four special teams snap this season, had the same reaction as Johnson only a few steps later. Neal looked like he was trying to figure out what had happened.

 

 

Then one second later, Johnson and Neal both had their arms out in confusion, with Johnson looking toward Bass and Neal looking toward the sideline. Given these reactions, this must be part of the “execution” McDermott was referring to on Tuesday.

 

A touchback made little sense, given the situation. They wanted to take time off the clock without Patrick Mahomes, Tyreek Hill and Travis Kelce on the field.

According to both Football Outsider’s DVOA metrics and Rick Gosselin’s annual special teams rankings, they also boasted the third-best kickoff coverage unit this season.

 

The Bills have a kicker they trust to leave the ball short in clutch situations on kickoffs and have utilized it all season. With all the visual clues of the kickoff, it all points to them calling for an angled kick that landed just shy the goal line. It either would have made the returner waste time by fielding the ball, sacrifice field position with a fair catch, or make a quick run out of bounds to accomplish both. We still don’t know if it was an operator error by Bass, or if coaches didn’t correctly communicate the call to him, but all signs point to the Bills wanting something other than a touchback.

 

In my opinion, that was the most significant misstep of the three plays, because any different outcome would have dramatically altered the Chiefs’ approach when the offense took the field. Had the Chiefs either started from the 10 yard line or been left with only eight seconds of clock, they likely would have been trying desperation heaves with the prevent defense being far more acceptable.

That's great.  I never saw that.  Thanks.   The best detailed description I've heard of the play, and I won't argue with him.   

 

I said somewhere here that Bass was the only guy on the kicking who didn't know what the play was.  

 

Still, I don't think the mistake mattered.  With 13 seconds left and the ball at the 25, Bills had a 97% chance of winning.   What would the percentage have been if they'd forced the Chiefs to, say, the 12 yard line?   98%?  The win percentage dropped much more than 1% after the first play from scrimmage, and also on the second play from scrimmage.  That's why I think the two offensive plays the Chiefs ran were much more important.   

[Doc Brown]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

That's great.  I never saw that.  Thanks.   The best detailed description I've heard of the play, and I won't argue with him.   

 

I said somewhere here that Bass was the only guy on the kicking who didn't know what the play was.  

 

Still, I don't think the mistake mattered.  With 13 seconds left and the ball at the 25, Bills had a 97% chance of winning.   What would the percentage have been if they'd forced the Chiefs to, say, the 12 yard line?   98%?  The win percentage dropped much more than 1% after the first play from scrimmage, and also on the second play from scrimmage.  That's why I think the two offensive plays the Chiefs ran were much more important.   

I don't really pay attention to percentages as they don't take into account the other team has three freaks in Mahomes, Kelce, and Hill.  I'm guessing you're assuming the Chiefs would've fair caught it at the 12.  I would've liked them to force them to execute that.  It took them 11 seconds to go 44 yards so if they started at the 12 they would've gotten to our 46 yard line setting up a 62 yard field goal.  Odds are from the 12 though they would've tried to get to about the 50 and then do a Hal Mary on the final play.

[LABILLBACKER]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Hey, Newcam, I'm really enjoying this discussion.  You raise really good points. 

 

I won't argue with that McDermott was completely in charge of the defense in those moments.   As I said, I think he was either calling the shots exclusively or in conjunction with Frazier.   Either way, McDermott's fingerprints were on the decision making.  

 

An important thing we don't know, damnable in either case, is whether (1) this defensive scheme had better plays to call than were called - in which case McDermott is culpable for not having called the better plays, or (2) they didn't have in place any more suitable defensive formations and approaches, in which case Frazier is culpable for not having put them in place and McDermott is culpable for not having identified that weakness and insisted that Frazier develop some other approaches.   Damnable in either case.  

 

Your comments remind of two points I've made lately.   One is that I don't like the defensive style, either.   I mean, I get it, it's designed to be a defense that serves you well, week in and week out, as the type of team you play changes, and it's designed to keep you in games by keeping the score down.   It works very well.   And it often comes through with big stops when needed - there are lots of examples.   It doesn't come through every time, no defense does.   What I don't like about it - and I think this is McDermott, not simply Frazier, is the bend-don't-break nature of the defense does lead to complementary football when you have an explosive offense.   With this offense, you want a defense that gets the ball back to the offense quickly.   You do that with takeaways and three and outs.  You also do it by giving up touchdowns - I know that's odd, but it's true.   Which offense, high scoring or low scoring, makes it more imperative that you give up few points?   A low scoring offense.   Worst combination for a team is an offense that can't score and a defense that gives up scores.   But if you have an offense that scores a lot, you can afford to give up more points, especially if in the process of risking a quick score, you're increasing your chances of taking the ball away.    Look at the Chiefs game - if the defense hadn't let the Chiefs score as soon as they did in the final two minutes, Josh wouldn't have had time to lead the game-winning drive.  

 

That tells me that the Bills need a more aggressive defense.   Maybe better put, they need a defense that can do what this defense does over the long term - limit yards and points, but that ALSO takes some risks to make big plays.  It needs to be more unpredictable, and part of being unpredictable is threatening to attack the QB with any player on your defense.    Dropping your two safeties so deep, two or your best playmakers, seriously limits your ability to make a play on defense.   You said, essentially, that not squib kicking cost the Bills an opportunity to win the game (by running clock, by pinning them deep, or even by maybe getting a turnover on the kickoff).   Well, playing prevent defense also costs you opportunities to win the game right there.   The Bills need a defense that can and does play more aggressively.   Maybe it means they need a high-level, stud edge rusher - he alone would be a threat to make plays.    But they need to be willing to blitz and make it work, and they need to be willing to rush 3 or even 2 and make that work.  

 

I hope McDermott sees that and recognizes that his process hasn't led him yet to develop a defense that meshes better with this offense.   I trust that he sees it and will work on it.   In any case, the Bills missed an opportunity because he hadn't done enough to have the team prepared to play those 13 seconds in anything other than ultra-prevent mode. 

 

The other point is that you say you will remember this right along with Wide Right and the Music City Miracle, and I will too.   And I'd throw in the Monday night loss to the Cowboys.   And the loss to the Cardinals on the Hail Mary is almost up there, too.   I get that.   But McDermott reminded us a few weeks ago that beating the Pats in the playoffs wasn't as big a deal for him and the players as it was for the fans.   There's a bit of that here, too.   I mean, sure, the players are devastated by this loss - it's a horrible loss for a player to go through, given the months of hard work and struggle, only to lose because you and your team completely blew it in the end.   But only some of those players lost to the Cardinals, only a few of them lost to the Texans in overtime, and none of them lost the Cowboys, Titans, or Giants in those epic collapses.  And they've had a lot of successes.  They don't think of this loss as just one more episode in the life-long lament of Buffalo Bills fans.   So, for the coaches and players, it's very much about getting over the short-term pain and then doing the work to have some confidence that you won't do that again.  It's about learning how to win, and this game has taught them all that they have more to learn.   That's exactly the kind of challenge that drives McDermott, which is why I wouldn't think of firing him.   Under McDermott, this team is going to get better - he will not permit anything else. 

You and newcam are both right. Sean had full control of those last 2 defensive calls. He decided to go full prevent and it failed. I guess the one factor that will drive me crazy for years is if he's such a micromanager type, which I think most will agree he is. Why didn't he take charge on that kickoff? Why didn't he gather his entire ST unit ( like BB would do) and tell them and Bass exactly what he wanted?  And not risk a Farwell miscommunication.  That's where the game was lost. Bass had successfully kicked that pop up to the 10 several times this season. I don't want McD fired. But these in game struggles cannot be ignored. 

[Billsfan1972]

21 hours ago, newcam2012 said:

Love your post. It's upfront, honest, and realistic. I don't agree with every point but that's not the point. Lol

 

I contend that Coach McD took over the play calling. I don't believe for a min he let Frazier make the calls. Of course, I have no proof. That's my guess as to why Frazier's head wasn't on the chopping block. Additionally, the Bills called timeouts before each play. They had the time to call the best defensive plays. First play, Bills players 10 to 15 yards off the line of scrimmage; thus giving them a free 20 yards. Second play, Kelce free release off the line for an easy catch and run. WTF! Coach McD called the plays. He had to be directly involved in those calls. No other way to put it. In short, he blew the game in 13 seconds. No one will convince me otherwise. Is it a fireable offense? Yes and no. You bring up a great point on coach McD record and attitude. I'm not one calling for a new head coach. However, his ineptitude in that 13 seconds will remain with me forever. Similar to wide right and the Tenn miracle. 

 

I'm not a big fan of the Frazier defense. It clearly is a bend but don't break scheme. I think it's way less effective vs better teams. I for one never believed the Bills defense was deserving of the number 1 NFL defense. I believe most Bills fans thought similiarly. The defense didn't get the stops.

 

We can only hope as you said the Bill's improve from here on out. Some changes and additions will be needed. Thus far, Beane and company have built one of the better teams in the NFL. A healthy Allen means the Bills should be in line for another super bowl run. Please please please we fans want that Lombardi trophy and the parade in Bflo. 

I think Shaw66 is great, just disagree with his blinders when it comes to McD.  

 

Look the Bills will never get those 13 seconds back.  Every game one can second guess coaches calls and plays throughout the game, but one thing where there is no debate, is that coaches made bad call over bad call in those 13 seconds.  Start with the kick.  How the call to kick it short could have been missed (if it was) seems inconceivable.  Shouldn't everyone huddle before the kickoff (like they do every play)?

 

I watched the last two plays and the defense was just atrocious.  Shaw says the DB was 30 yards down field on the Kelce pass (actually it was 40 yards!!!).  They were protecting the sidelines and coverage was beyond soft.

 

If I was a fan of KC vs. Bills and they lost, I've had been so upset about that 3rd & 1, from the 10, where they had the TE under center and resulted in a FG, instead of a TD. But that was just a call during the game, of which there are many.

 

Forget complaining about the KC defense, which we all can do.  Was it bad, or did the Bills make great plays and Allen put the team on his shoulders?

 

Vs. Cincy they just botched everything from the end of the first half through OT.

 

In the SB, McVay made the gutsiest & right call on 4th & 1 from their 34 yard line (we know McD would have kicked and trusted the defense). 

 

But then there were calls throughout the game, one can scratch their heads about.  Same with Cincy.

 

But this is all about a massive failure over the final 13 seconds, because KC was gifted 43 yards on those final 2 plays.

 

 

 

            

Edited February 20, 2022 by Billsfan1972

[Billsfan1972]

33 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

You and newcam are both right. Sean had full control of those last 2 defensive calls. He decided to go full prevent and it failed. I guess the one factor that will drive me crazy for years is if he's such a micromanager type, which I think most will agree he is. Why didn't he take charge on that kickoff? Why didn't he gather his entire ST unit ( like BB would do) and tell them and Bass exactly what he wanted?  And not risk a Farwell miscommunication.  That's where the game was lost. Bass had successfully kicked that pop up to the 10 several times this season. I don't want McD fired. But these in game struggles cannot be ignored. 

Exactly.  The pop up was successful throughout the season and no way is it being fair caught at the 8 yard line.  The Athletic article pretty much says they were doing the directional pop up.

 

Every time it was done, Bass did a 3 yard approach (like a FG).  As soon as he was 7 yards deep on his approach it was obvious it was going through the endzone. 

[Shaw66]

8 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

 

Every time it was done, Bass did a 3 yard approach (like a FG).  As soon as he was 7 yards deep on his approach it was obvious it was going through the endzone. 

Which is another legitimate question someone asked.  Shouldn't Farwell or McDermott have seen that and called time out?  The best of what you said above is that this was, all things considered, a massive failure.  The whole philosophy after the kick was "let's do everything we can to avoid making a mistake," and by taking that attitude they (the coaching staff) made a lot of mistakes.  

[LABILLBACKER]

23 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Exactly.  The pop up was successful throughout the season and no way is it being fair caught at the 8 yard line.  The Athletic article pretty much says they were doing the directional pop up.

 

Every time it was done, Bass did a 3 yard approach (like a FG).  As soon as he was 7 yards deep on his approach it was obvious it was going through the endzone. 

The pop up was successful throughout the season. Several times we held the return inside the 25. Even if Hardman fair catches it around the 10-12, it would've brought the Hail Mary into play.  I'm literally floored that a micro manager like Sean in a high leverage moment doesn't call the entire ST and stare at Bass what he wants done.  And I don't buy this 97% chance stuff. At the 25 with plenty of timeouts, the Chiefs had a higher than 3% chance to get into fg range. Especially with our idiotic strategy of covering sidelines and rushing 4.  You only cover sidelines if your opponent is out of timeouts. 

[LABILLBACKER]

20 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Which is another legitimate question someone asked.  Shouldn't Farwell or McDermott have seen that and called time out?  The best of what you said above is that this was, all things considered, a massive failure.  The whole philosophy after the kick was "let's do everything we can to avoid making a mistake," and by taking that attitude they (the coaching staff) made a lot of mistakes.  

How many "learn from my mistakes" coupons does Sean get. He's an utterly great coach in so many areas. But in game strategy isn't one of them. 

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

I'm literally floored that a micro manager like Sean in a high leverage moment doesn't call the entire ST and stare at Bass what he wants done.  

I'm not surprised at all.  McDermott is 100% committed to the process.   At the core of the process is that everyone takes responsibility for what he's supposed to do.   In return, he's given responsibility - he's not second guessed, and no one does his job for him.   And the entire operation is based on the notion that I can do my job better if I have confidence that the guy next to me is equally committed to doing his job.   If he's doing his job, I can concentrate on mine. 

 

McDermott believes that when everyone is properly engaged in the process, each remains free to do his job.   And, as I've said before, McDermott had a job to do at the moment the kickoff team was huddling - it was to be giving Frazier guidance about what he wanted to see on defense (or, if others are right, just flat out making the defensive calls).   

 

You're describing Pete Carroll, frantically running the sidelines, grabbing players, and telling them things.   McDermott doesn't do that because it would undermine the process.  

[Billsfan1972]

25 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Which is another legitimate question someone asked.  Shouldn't Farwell or McDermott have seen that and called time out?  The best of what you said above is that this was, all things considered, a massive failure.  The whole philosophy after the kick was "let's do everything we can to avoid making a mistake," and by taking that attitude they (the coaching staff) made a lot of mistakes.  

I did a whole thread on that and then reviewed every kick in that game and Bass did the same thing, with the intent each and every time being a touchback (one was returned as Bass did miss it slightly).

[Shaw66]

Just now, LABILLBACKER said:

How many "learn from my mistakes" coupons does Sean get. He's an utterly great coach in so many areas. But in game strategy isn't one of them. 

Well, I don't know how many big "learn from my mistakes" coupons he's cashed.   Every team loses games, and at the end of the day a lot of the losses are due to mistakes the coaches made, either during the week or during the game.   And in games decided in the last two minutes, there are mistakes on both sides.   They're all learning, all the time. 

 

So, although I don't know how many coupons he's cashed (not many, I don't think), he's certainly not at the limit.   He's not losing games left and right with bad judgments on the field.   And his overall record is excellent. 

 

And, most importantly, he's young.   He's going to be a much, much smarter coach ten years from now.  His expertise will grow a lot.   And he's very self-directed about his growth.  He examines his failures, determines the causes, and puts a program in place to correct them.   That's part of the process, and he's committed to it.  

 

Reid had growing pains.  Belichick.  McVay has made big mistakes.  McDermott looks very much like a keeper, and until it's certifiable that he can't win big games, the Bills shouldn't let him go.  

[LABILLBACKER]

15 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm not surprised at all.  McDermott is 100% committed to the process.   At the core of the process is that everyone takes responsibility for what he's supposed to do.   In return, he's given responsibility - he's not second guessed, and no one does his job for him.   And the entire operation is based on the notion that I can do my job better if I have confidence that the guy next to me is equally committed to doing his job.   If he's doing his job, I can concentrate on mine. 

 

McDermott believes that when everyone is properly engaged in the process, each remains free to do his job.   And, as I've said before, McDermott had a job to do at the moment the kickoff team was huddling - it was to be giving Frazier guidance about what he wanted to see on defense (or, if others are right, just flat out making the defensive calls).   

 

You're describing Pete Carroll, frantically running the sidelines, grabbing players, and telling them things.   McDermott doesn't do that because it would undermine the process.  

Well as we saw as clear as day somewhere communication got lost in the process. And Pete's got a national championship ring and a SB ring.  I guarantee you he won't rely on his assistants to screw it up again, especially that late in the game. 

[LABILLBACKER]

16 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, I don't know how many big "learn from my mistakes" coupons he's cashed.   Every team loses games, and at the end of the day a lot of the losses are due to mistakes the coaches made, either during the week or during the game.   And in games decided in the last two minutes, there are mistakes on both sides.   They're all learning, all the time. 

 

So, although I don't know how many coupons he's cashed (not many, I don't think), he's certainly not at the limit.   He's not losing games left and right with bad judgments on the field.   And his overall record is excellent. 

 

And, most importantly, he's young.   He's going to be a much, much smarter coach ten years from now.  His expertise will grow a lot.   And he's very self-directed about his growth.  He examines his failures, determines the causes, and puts a program in place to correct them.   That's part of the process, and he's committed to it.  

 

Reid had growing pains.  Belichick.  McVay has made big mistakes.  McDermott looks very much like a keeper, and until it's certifiable that he can't win big games, the Bills shouldn't let him go.  

I hope you're right Shaw.  I'd be lying if I didn't see a little Marty Shottenheimer here. Great regular season coach (.610) but struggled in the playoffs. All 7 of our loses this season were 1 possession, end of the game, high leverage situations. Hope he figures it out?

[Shaw66]

15 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

 I guarantee you he won't rely on his assistants to screw it up again, especially that late in the game. 

Oh, I think he will.   This is a teaching moment.    He's not going to change his style because Farwell made a mistake.   He's going to use Farwell's mistake to show people why it is so important to master all of the details of your job. 

[Shaw66]

9 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

I hope you're right Shaw.  I'd be lying if I didn't see a little Marty Shottenheimer here. Great regular season coach (.610) but struggled in the playoffs. All 7 of our loses this season were 1 possession, end of the game, high leverage situations. Hope he figures it out?

Well, I don't know if I'm right.  I'm just analyzing how you make the decision about the head coach of the Bills.   I think it's a no brainer. 

 

I often say that it's a mistake to give up on talent too early.   In McD's case, the downside of his staying too long is that he's Schottenheimer.   The upside is that he's Reid, or maybe even Belichick.   

 

The chances of getting a better head coach than McDermott are slim.   I wouldn't be willing to trade him head up for anyone.   Maybe McVay.  Not sure about the guy in SF.   Belichick and Reid are too old.   What are you gonna do, fire McD and hire Bienemy?   Who'd take that risk.  Are you ready to trade even up for the guy in Cincinnati?  I mean, really, I'm riding McD until he's proved conclusively he's Schottenheimer. 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Shaw66

[Billsfan1972]

th

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Oh, I think he will.   This is a teaching moment.    He's not going to change his style because Farwell made a mistake.   He's going to use Farwell's mistake to show people why it is so important to master all of the details of your job. 

So were the other 6 times in 2021 and let's not forget the Houston WC game.

 

He's cashed in a # imo.

 

And please no more references to "the process"😜 .

Edited February 20, 2022 by Billsfan1972

[Brand J]

Could you imagine if the kick was a squib or a pop up and was miraculously returned to the Chief’s side of the field (or worst, a TD)? We all might be saying how dumb it was not to boot it through the EZ and play 13 seconds of defense. I see the argument for both sides and support whichever decision, but it was the 2 defensive play calls that I felt had no defense or counter-argument. Those vex me more than the kick.

[Doc]

Has Bass been asked about the kickoff?  All throughout the season, he tried different types of KOs.  On arguably the most important KO of the season, I can't believe that he just took it upon himself to boot it out of the endzone without asking/being told.