Bills Offensive Coordinator Interviews have started according to Jeremy Fowler

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

1 minute ago, BananaB said:

More I think about it the more I want McDaniels. Guy is proven, he even had McCorkle looking like a decent QB. He also won’t be poached for a HC job any time soon. 

I...don't know. My first reaction was "hell no".  But that's my personal dislike from time with the Pats and his HC runs. 

 

But we have effectively been running a form of the Pats offense under Brady (albeit not as well) and there are rife examples of guys who are excellent coordinators who just cannot handle running a full team. After due consideration I would not hate him interviewing.

[Billever76]

10 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

That is a 100% guess. 

Read the tea leaves 🍃 

[JMM]

Reports are that Brady interviewed yesterday.  Tee Martin I would expect next. He interviewed last time, plus he will satisfy the Rooney rule. If they don't interview anyone else then we know they are not real serious and are just going to give the title to Brady. Hopefully they will not do that. This is a critical hire. 

[SoonerBillsFan]

I agree McDaniels sucked as a HC,but ad a pure OC, his resume is pretty damn good.  I hope they take a serious look at him.

[Low Positive]

I think that some of you people want to make the team as miserable playing games as you are watching them. You need a surrogate yeller.

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, JMM said:

Reports are that Brady interviewed yesterday.  Tee Martin I would expect next. He interviewed last time, plus he will satisfy the Rooney rule. If they don't interview anyone else then we know they are not real serious and are just going to give the title to Brady. Hopefully they will not do that. This is a critical hire. 

 

Tee is a legit OC candidate. But I am not sold on him here given where we are. Too big of a gamble to roll with a guy who has never called plays. 

[LLCoolCy]

The interviews are starting. 

 

Edited January 26 by LLCoolCy

[hondo in seattle]

This is part of the problem -  The NFL's offensive minds fall into three tiers:

 

Tier One.  Geniuses and Supposed Geniuses.  Owners tend to like offensive coaches so the Tier One guys are already running teams as Head Coaches.  

 

Tier Two.  Near Geniuses and Up-And-Comers.  These guys are already employed as OCs.  

 

Tier Three.  Everyone else.  This is the group McD has to pick through.  Either we stick with Brady as our OC or choose another Tier Three guy.  Some might say Brady is a Tier Two guy but I'm unconvinced.  

 

[Royale with Cheese]

21 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:

I hope they interview: 

 

Joe Brady

Kliff Kingsbury

Kellen Moore

Arthur Smith

Zac Robinson

Brian Johnson

Mike LaFluer

 

Kingsbury would be my top choice. If you want change, you take a demanding prick and put him in the building. He is not a yes man. 

 

I actually agree about Kingsbury.  He seems like he could be a great coach in a solid structure/tight ship like McDermott seems to run.  

Running the whole operation or being in charge doesn't seem like it's his strength.  His strength seems to be in design and creativity.  

 

When I say tight ship, not meaning McDermott will interject into this offense.  I think McDermott would allow Kingsbury to do what he needs to do. 

Tight ship as in the operations and processes inside the team, not all X's and O's.  

 

I also think personality wise, Kingsbury and Allen would get along well. 

[MrEpsYtown]

3 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I actually agree about Kingsbury.  He seems like he could be a great coach in a solid structure/tight ship like McDermott seems to run.  

Running the whole operation or being in charge doesn't seem like it's his strength.  His strength seems to be in design and creativity.  

 

When I say tight ship, not meaning McDermott will interject into this offense.  I think McDermott would allow Kingsbury to do what he needs to do. 

Tight ship as in the operations and processes inside the team, not all X's and O's.  

 

I also think personality wise, Kingsbury and Allen would get along well. 

 

I 100% agree. McDermott excels at some of the stuff that Kliff seems to lack. This situation allows Kliff to just deal with the offense and let McDermott continue to handle all the big stuff. 

[Warriorspikes51]

1 hour ago, BananaB said:

More I think about it the more I want McDaniels. Guy is proven, he even had McCorkle looking like a decent QB. He also won’t be poached for a HC job any time soon. 

 

Except players seem to hate him 

[JohnBonhamRocks]

3 hours ago, Back2Buff said:

 

There was no turn around on the offense with him as coach.  The offense struggled just as much, if not more.  There were games where they had turnover luck that greatly benefited them.

 

Really the only difference was Allen running more, which is that something you really want for 17 games in a season?

 

Go back and read about all the issues Brady had in Carolina, he sounds awfully familiar.

 

There's nothing complex about Brady's scheme. It's very basic, which is why he struggled to have positive results. In this league, you can't be predictable. You have to throw in a bunch of motions, double moves, RPO's, rub routes, and present the defense with some eye candy pre-snap. From what I can tell, 90% of the motions are just to expose if the defense is in man or zone coverage. There are very few motions into routes, blocks, or once again, eye candy.

 

That quote about, is exactly what we seen with the Bills.  The Bills added more motion, but it was literally just what was described above.  Look at the motion that Miami runs, vs the motion that Brady ran.

 

Read some of these responses from Carolina fans.  This is the same things that we seen in his short time here.  It's really concerning.

 

Fan POV

 

Joe Brady is/was the guy who ran the same 5 plays on Madden against the A.I. and impressed his friends.

Then he went online and everyone else knew how to stop those plays.

 

How many times are we going to see the WR screen?

 

This is so true. He was also terrible at making adjustments, our 3rd quarter scoring being a prime example. Overall, I think he was decent at play & scheme design, but could never put it into action for longer than a few drives

 

The second halfs were terrible under Brady.  1st KC game, 14 in 1st/6 in 2nd.  LA game, 14 in 1st/10 in 2nd.  7 points in 2nd half vs NE.  10 points in 2nd half vs Pitt.  7 points in 2nd half vs KC.

 

 

His scheme was pretty chaotic and bad overall. There were multiple plays where receivers end up in the same spot once the route develops. Even his short yardage play is terrible.

I honestly can't say what I think his strength was overall because nothing about him was amazing. As I mentioned in another post, his play designs rely on having physically dominant talent and once you get to the NFL--everyone is kind of on a level playing field.

 

Didn't we have WR running into each other vs KC.  Being physically dominant sounds familiar with the Dallas game.

 

Often looked like the opponents knew what play was coming. Seemed like play calling tended not to be balanced it would be all screens or no screens, All runs or no runs etc. There were things that felt like strengths from a fans perspective that we almost didn’t use at all at times like short routes to CMC and runs with Cam. No offensive player has really shown improvement while the defensive players seem to work on their weaknesses. Maybe it’s our lack of understanding of the complexity but from my perspective it’s hard to find something that it appears he excelled at. The main defense is just that our offensive players are not good.

 

This hits home big time.

First let me say I think a thorough OC search needs to be conducted and Brady is by no means a lock.

 

However, you did not address the 3-4 major drops in the KC playoff game. Cook, Sherfield (x2), and Diggs. If 1-2 of those are caught, then we very possibly win and I think the narrative today would be more “hope we don’t lose Brady!”

 

You also did not address that we went 7-2 with Brady and easily could have won both our losses.

 

The major uptick for me was how much better the running attack became with Brady. Maybe I am biased because I attended the Cowboys game, but seeing us pound a playoff team (paper tiger or not) into submission by just running it down their throats was a welcome new dimension under Brady this season.
 

I think the OL, Cook, and Shakir really took a step forward, and Allen looked more himself, after Brady took the reins. 
 

One more point: Haven’t many of us been pounding the table for more screens for what seems like since Gailey left? I know I have been. Not going to complain too much about plays that get the ball in Diggs hands.

 

Edit: I think your best point is about our low scoring second halves. That is concerning as I want an OC who adapts scheme to opponent during prep and in-game.

Edited January 26 by JohnBonhamRocks

[hondo in seattle]

3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

I'm going to reserve judgement about how good he actually is until I see him with a full year as a OC. As I've said before, and will say again: we did not see Brady install an offense this year. What he saw him do was call better situational plays from Ken Dorsey's and introduce a few Shanahan inspired wrinkles. Dorsey's scheme in turn was heavily inspired by what Daboll had done.

 

While I suspect that Brady will use similar verbiage that the players are familiar with, you definitely saw differences: far more run heavy that what Daboll and Dorsey did. All used motion, but Brady seemed focused on it as a way to diagnose defenses rather than the high speed attack Miami uses.

 

So I can't really say how he is overall as an OC. Maybe he pooped the bed in his interview when asked how he would change the offense and we get blown away by another candidate. All I know is that he called a hell of a better offense since anyone since Daboll. Maybe better than Daboll.

 

Having never played/coached in the NFL and not deeply knowing Brady, I'm not sure how much the offseason will benefit Brady.  

 

From what I understand, every team in the NFL runs some variation of the Erhardt-Perkins or West Coast offense.  We've been running the E-P which seems the best fit for Josh.  So Brady probably won't change the base offense though he can add some wrinkles. Does he have the intellect and creativity to add the right wrinkles?   

 

Also, I've heard commentary that our receivers don't run precise routes.  That has nothing to do with system and everything to do with coaching and execution.  Is Brady going to fix execution?   (Why didn't he fix it this year?) 

 

I don't know the answers.  But in his partial-season tryout as an OC, I did see Brady spread the ball around better than Dorsey.  I didn't see an enhanced ability to get receivers open and that concerns me.  Josh played well against the Chiefs but only threw for 186 yards because his wideouts were blanketed.  That's a WR talent issue but it's also an OC issue.  If Andy Reid or Kyle Shanahan were our OC, Josh would have thrown for 300 despite KC's good CBs.  

 

 

 

[nbbillsfan]

Until we figure out how to play competent defense in the playoffs, none of this matters.

[Low Positive]

45 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

This is part of the problem -  The NFL's offensive minds fall into three tiers:

 

Tier One.  Geniuses and Supposed Geniuses.  Owners tend to like offensive coaches so the Tier One guys are already running teams as Head Coaches.  

 

Tier Two.  Near Geniuses and Up-And-Comers.  These guys are already employed as OCs.  

 

Tier Three.  Everyone else.  This is the group McD has to pick through.  Either we stick with Brady as our OC or choose another Tier Three guy.  Some might say Brady is a Tier Two guy but I'm unconvinced.  

 

But every tier 1 guy starts off as a position coach somewhere. The trick is to identify them early.

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

As you know I agree totally that the Bills need an outside receiver who can get vertical and gives them a more explosive element. That said their YAC numbers were much better this year. I think @Shaw66 said they were 6th in the league. That has been a problem other seasons, but actually by design when you are so small ball the YAC comes. 

 

The point about small ball is a good one.   Bills intentionally developed the short passing game this season, and it naturally leads to more YAC. 

 

And I've been meaning to come back to my earlier post.  I don't pay much attention to YAC, and all I did was go grab the stat and post it.  I looked again later, and although the Allen was, in fact, 6th in YAC, he was 19th in YAC per completion, which is probably the more relevant stat.  So, even though is YAC improve considerably, given the number of passes he completed, he still wasn't generating a lot fo YAC. 

 

Having said that, I don't care about YAC.   Coaches do, in some sense, but I think it's one of those stats that is illuminating about some aspects of a guy's game, what matters is completions and yards and touchdowns.   If Allen improves his YAC per completion to top 10, it's still going to be only maybe 300 more yards per season.   That's nice, of course, but that's not what will make the difference between what we got this season and what we all want.  300 yards is 300 yards, and if they get 300 more yards more from the receivers and not one more yard of YAC, it's the same 300 yards.   Or 300 yards from special teams.  Or 300 yards in INT returns.   

 

YAC's a detail. 

[Monty98]

49 minutes ago, JohnBonhamRocks said:

First let me say I think a thorough OC search needs to be conducted and Brady is by no means a lock.

 

However, you did not address the 3-4 major drops in the KC playoff game. Cook, Sherfield (x2), and Diggs. If 1-2 of those are caught, then we very possibly win and I think the narrative today would be more “hope we don’t lose Brady!”

 

You also did not address that we went 7-2 with Brady and easily could have won both our losses.

 

The major uptick for me was how much better the running attack became with Brady. Maybe I am biased because I attended the Cowboys game, but seeing us pound a playoff team (paper tiger or not) into submission by just running it down their throats was a welcome new dimension under Brady this season.
 

I think the OL, Cook, and Shakir really took a step forward, and Allen looked more himself, after Brady took the reins. 
 

One more point: Haven’t many of us been pounding the table for more screens for what seems like since Gailey left? I know I have been. Not going to complain too much about plays that get the ball in Diggs hands.

 

Edit: I think your best point is about our low scoring second halves. That is concerning as I want an OC who adapts scheme to opponent during prep and in-game.

Just want to address this, yes screens are great CAN WE RUN A SLIP SCREEN GO TO A BACK THOUGH?! I get bubbles to get Shakir or Diggs in space but like how many times would a RB slip screen or a TE screen been effective against a blitz?

[Scott7975]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

As you know I agree totally that the Bills need an outside receiver who can get vertical and gives them a more explosive element. That said their YAC numbers were much better this year. I think @Shaw66 said they were 6th in the league. That has been a problem other seasons, but actually by design when you are so small ball the YAC comes. 

 

Absolutely they were better.  This was mostly Shakir and Cook.  Very rare was a big chunk play from YAC though, which is more of what I was referring to.

[MrEpsYtown]

6 minutes ago, Monty98 said:

Just want to address this, yes screens are great CAN WE RUN A SLIP SCREEN GO TO A BACK THOUGH?! I get bubbles to get Shakir or Diggs in space but like how many times would a RB slip screen or a TE screen been effective against a blitz?

 

One of the issues with slip screens to backs is Josh Allen, and not in a negative way. A lot of times there is a spy on Josh, so some guy just hanging around the line of scrimmage waiting and spying. That takes away the slip-screen game as well, even in blitzing scenarios. Just my 2 cents on it. 

[Buckets]

23 hours ago, GETTOTHE50 said:

Brady did a fine job considering the circumstances. He developed the run game and established a bonafide threat with Cook. 
 

Im ok with him for one more year.

Yeah, let's kick some more tires like we did with Dorsey we got a lot of time to find the guy we need to get this offense in high gear.

[Monty98]

1 minute ago, MrEpsYtown said:

 

One of the issues with slip screens to backs is Josh Allen, and not in a negative way. A lot of times there is a spy on Josh, so some guy just hanging around the line of scrimmage waiting and spying. That takes away the slip-screen game as well, even in blitzing scenarios. Just my 2 cents on it. 

Fair, but then do a throw back screen, lots of teams will do that vs a spy, roll a QB away, stop and dump. Best part is, you can run it off a QB sweep look, you can run it off a sprint out look, even a play action boot look. All of those get the spy moving.

[BigDingus]

23 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:

I hope they interview: 

 

Joe Brady

Kliff Kingsbury

Kellen Moore

Arthur Smith

Zac Robinson

Brian Johnson

Mike LaFluer

 

Kingsbury would be my top choice. If you want change, you take a demanding prick and put him in the building. He is not a yes man. 

 

Please no, not as an OC.

 

I closely followed every step of Kingsbury's career (being a Texas Tech guy myself), but I don't have any confidence in his play calling abilities. 

 

He was instrumental in helping some prominent college QBs take that next step, but he shouldn't be calling an NFL offense. 

 

it would be cool to have him as the new QBs coach working closely with Josh, but he'd be even more one-dimensional than Dorsey calling plays.

 

I can see it now...Air raid/spread college offense, going 5 wide, passing nonstop & getting asking Josh to chuck 40 attempts per game.

[beer can shower]

20 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

I think the failure bar is very high for McD as well. 
 

I can see a situation where the OC we hire this year will be the HC we look to hire next year. 

 

Do you  honestly think McDermott will hire anyone that  would have a chance to "shine" and be his possible successor?

 

20 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

One low key interesting storyline to the OC/DC search.

 

McD may be hiring his successor, could that impact who he hires? Frank Reich and Eric Washington aren’t replacing him…

 

Geez, I certainly would think so.  Read above 👆

 

[Livinginthepast]

I would be shocked if Brady isnt acclaimed as the OC. He did pretty well under the circumstances and its the safest hire for Beane where Mcd will not feel a bit of pressure.  Whoever gets the job has to get our offense to the level of where it should be, Dabol got us close to it but Dorsey went backwards. 

[Shaw66]

13 minutes ago, Livinginthepast said:

I would be shocked if Brady isnt acclaimed as the OC. He did pretty well under the circumstances and its the safest hire for Beane where Mcd will not feel a bit of pressure.  Whoever gets the job has to get our offense to the level of where it should be, Dabol got us close to it but Dorsey went backwards. 

I love how so many people here think they can psychoanalyze McBeane.  Why will McBeane make the decision that puts them in under the least pressure?   Don't people understand how badly McDermott and Beane want to win?   They tell us all the time - they want to win.  They are among the most competitive people in the world.   They aren't going to make decisions to protect their jobs.   They both already have made enough money so that they can retire if they get fired.  

 

Now, what IS true about McDermott is that he likes to hire from within.   He likes to take guys who have succeeded in their current jobs and promote them.  It's a tried and true organizational technique.   People want to work for a boss who has a track record of promoting from within.   So there IS a bias that McDermott has shown for people already on his staff.  But, ...

 

... as I said earlier in this thread, I thought McDermott gave Brady less than a ringing endorsement in his press conference earlier this week.  Brady was the natural choice as the interim guy, but now McDermott has seen him for half a season, and McDermott will evaluate him (actually, already has evaluated him).  If McDermott thinks he can do better with someone else, he'll make the move.  

 

 

[Cash]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

The point about small ball is a good one.   Bills intentionally developed the short passing game this season, and it naturally leads to more YAC. 

 

And I've been meaning to come back to my earlier post.  I don't pay much attention to YAC, and all I did was go grab the stat and post it.  I looked again later, and although the Allen was, in fact, 6th in YAC, he was 19th in YAC per completion, which is probably the more relevant stat.  So, even though is YAC improve considerably, given the number of passes he completed, he still wasn't generating a lot fo YAC. 

 

Having said that, I don't care about YAC.   Coaches do, in some sense, but I think it's one of those stats that is illuminating about some aspects of a guy's game, what matters is completions and yards and touchdowns.   If Allen improves his YAC per completion to top 10, it's still going to be only maybe 300 more yards per season.   That's nice, of course, but that's not what will make the difference between what we got this season and what we all want.  300 yards is 300 yards, and if they get 300 more yards more from the receivers and not one more yard of YAC, it's the same 300 yards.   Or 300 yards from special teams.  Or 300 yards in INT returns.   

 

YAC's a detail. 

 

My thoughts:

1. I prefer RAC (run after catch) to YAC (yards after catch).  No beef with anyone who disagrees; just personal preference.
2. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I would expect that our RAC numbers look very different under Dorsey vs under Brady.  My guess is we were somewhere around 28th in RAC/completion under Dorsey, and probably close to 10th under Brady.  Shakir especially starting getting some great RAC once Brady took over.
3. Like Shaw says, what matters is yards & TDs.  A throw into the endzone, by definition, can't get any RAC.  But no coach, player, or fan would ever think it's bad to complete a pass in the endzone if you're trying to score.
4. I think a lot of RAC is scheme dependent (see #2).  Both in terms of what plays are called and how they're designed.  An offense with a lot of screens, crossers, and swing passes is going to get more RAC than one that mostly throws hitches and deep outs.  Obviously there's a player component as well - ball placement by the QB makes a difference, and skill players who are fast and/or can make a guy miss, etc.
5. So what?  So RAC is only important when it's important.  By which I mean overall numbers don't tell you much of a story.  What the coaching staff should be (and probably is) doing is looking at plays where we could or should have gotten signficant RAC, and determining why we got it or why we didn't.

[hondo in seattle]

5 hours ago, extrahammer said:

Instead of JUST landing with Brady, why not hire a team of offensive experts? Like an offensive board of directors for Brady to report to. 

 

I think you need one guy in charge as OC so there's no confusion among the position coaches or players about who to listen to.  

But I'm absolutely in favor of creating an offensive brain trust.  We already have some former OCs on staff.  I would love a few more smart guys - coaches who know how to scheme a passing game and can help Brady fine-tune his craft.  

 

I'd love it if Brady spent some time in the offseason with people like Gruden, Kurt Warner, etc., and picked their brains.  

[Figster]

10 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I think you need one guy in charge as OC so there's no confusion among the position coaches or players about who to listen to.  

But I'm absolutely in favor of creating an offensive brain trust.  We already have some former OCs on staff.  I would love a few more smart guys - coaches who know how to scheme a passing game and can help Brady fine-tune his craft.  

 

I'd love it if Brady spent some time in the offseason with people like Gruden, Kurt Warner, etc., and picked their brains.  

The WR position lost its importance in the Brady Offense IMO. The shift from the original Daboll high powered WR passing attack is clearly evident. Allen is being used like a RB again to make the Brady O work. So why would we expect anything different after an off season. If anythying Allens cannon of a throwing arm will be used even less. 

 

Joe Brady did a great job taking over the OC position. I'm just not sure he's the answer long term.

 

Brain trust you say?. Pick someone thats got Buffalo Bills football drilled into it already. 

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick.... 

[Shaw66]

54 minutes ago, Cash said:

 

My thoughts:

1. I prefer RAC (run after catch) to YAC (yards after catch).  No beef with anyone who disagrees; just personal preference.
2. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I would expect that our RAC numbers look very different under Dorsey vs under Brady.  My guess is we were somewhere around 28th in RAC/completion under Dorsey, and probably close to 10th under Brady.  Shakir especially starting getting some great RAC once Brady took over.
3. Like Shaw says, what matters is yards & TDs.  A throw into the endzone, by definition, can't get any RAC.  But no coach, player, or fan would ever think it's bad to complete a pass in the endzone if you're trying to score.
4. I think a lot of RAC is scheme dependent (see #2).  Both in terms of what plays are called and how they're designed.  An offense with a lot of screens, crossers, and swing passes is going to get more RAC than one that mostly throws hitches and deep outs.  Obviously there's a player component as well - ball placement by the QB makes a difference, and skill players who are fast and/or can make a guy miss, etc.
5. So what?  So RAC is only important when it's important.  By which I mean overall numbers don't tell you much of a story.  What the coaching staff should be (and probably is) doing is looking at plays where we could or should have gotten signficant RAC, and determining why we got it or why we didn't.

Good stuff.  I agree. 

 

Especially as to #4.  If I have Kittle, Samuel, and McCaffrey, I'm designing my offense to get the ball to those guys in open space.  Every player is different.  Diggs is shifty, but he really isn't a productive open-field runner.  Nor was Davis.  Nor Knox.  So, if those are my broken field runners, I'm not worried about getting them the ball so they can run.  It just isn't a priority in my offense.   

 

Which means that #5 is correct, too.  It's important when it's important, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.  

 

I've said this before, but I'll say it again.  There's a reason some stats are more important than others.   Completion percentage, for example, is more important than RAC or YAC.   How do I know?  Because completion percentage is more predictive of a good passing offense than RAC or YAC.  RAC and YAC may be valuable to coaches trying to evaluate players, to evaluate offensive strategy, etc., but it isn't predictive of overall offensive excellence.   It's like the debate that went on for a few years about Taylor not throwing over the middle enough.   It was interesting data, but if he'd suddenly started completing two more passes a game over the middle, he wasn't going to suddenly become a star quarterback.  All that data showed was that there was an area of the field that he was, relatively speaking, neglecting.  Or like people saying the Bills need a better #2 receiver.   Unless you have two first-round picks at wide receiver, you just aren't going to get 1000 yards out of you number 2, and two first-round picks is not sustainable.  So talking about that as though that's the fix to the offense, or talking about YAC, or talking about throwing more over the middle is focusing on the wrong stuff.  

 

The Bills have a really good offense (it actually had a bit of an off-year this season).   The objective is to improve it, but it really needs only marginal improvement.   Those improvements could come from many different sources.  Fixating on these narrow data points isn't what will make the team better. 

[Warriorspikes51]

Can we please interview around half a dozen people?   I mean maybe it's Brady....but at least take a long look 

Is there any innovative young college mind out there?  Sign me up for that.   

[Billschinatown]

I hope the new OC has say. I have a feeling Puca would have not seen the field because of his rookie status. Other than Dalton this has been an irritating pattern under McDermott.

[Warriorspikes51]

1 minute ago, Billschinatown said:

I hope the new OC has say. I have a feeling Puca would have not seen the field because of his rookie status. Other than Dalton this has been an irritating pattern under McDermott.

even with Kincaid, he wasn't really used until what... week 7-8? 

[Billschinatown]

1 hour ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

even with Kincaid, he wasn't really used until what... week 7-8? 

We're saving them for next year's playoff exit. 

[JohnBonhamRocks]

10 hours ago, Monty98 said:

Just want to address this, yes screens are great CAN WE RUN A SLIP SCREEN GO TO A BACK THOUGH?! I get bubbles to get Shakir or Diggs in space but like how many times would a RB slip screen or a TE screen been effective against a blitz?

I feel like I recall a few to TEs but yeah especially with Cook. I think what they do with him instead is just that delayed fake block the  middle curl route thing, but it is not a screen.

[Cash]

8 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Good stuff.  I agree. 

 

Especially as to #4.  If I have Kittle, Samuel, and McCaffrey, I'm designing my offense to get the ball to those guys in open space.  Every player is different.  Diggs is shifty, but he really isn't a productive open-field runner.  Nor was Davis.  Nor Knox.  So, if those are my broken field runners, I'm not worried about getting them the ball so they can run.  It just isn't a priority in my offense.   

 

Which means that #5 is correct, too.  It's important when it's important, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.  

 

I've said this before, but I'll say it again.  There's a reason some stats are more important than others.   Completion percentage, for example, is more important than RAC or YAC.   How do I know?  Because completion percentage is more predictive of a good passing offense than RAC or YAC.  RAC and YAC may be valuable to coaches trying to evaluate players, to evaluate offensive strategy, etc., but it isn't predictive of overall offensive excellence.   It's like the debate that went on for a few years about Taylor not throwing over the middle enough.   It was interesting data, but if he'd suddenly started completing two more passes a game over the middle, he wasn't going to suddenly become a star quarterback.  All that data showed was that there was an area of the field that he was, relatively speaking, neglecting.  Or like people saying the Bills need a better #2 receiver.   Unless you have two first-round picks at wide receiver, you just aren't going to get 1000 yards out of you number 2, and two first-round picks is not sustainable.  So talking about that as though that's the fix to the offense, or talking about YAC, or talking about throwing more over the middle is focusing on the wrong stuff.  

 

The Bills have a really good offense (it actually had a bit of an off-year this season).   The objective is to improve it, but it really needs only marginal improvement.   Those improvements could come from many different sources.  Fixating on these narrow data points isn't what will make the team better. 

Where I think it matters is for big games against elite teams with top-end coaches (like the Chiefs or Bengals). Those teams have a tendency of being able to force teams into doing what they’re worst at. That could mean giving up completions underneath and daring our guys into making one of their guys miss. If we don’t have anyone who can break or evade a tackle, or don’t have a QB who can place the ball accurately enough, that could be a problem. Maybe there’s other ways to beat that kind of defense; I don’t know. 

[Monty98]

2 hours ago, JohnBonhamRocks said:

I feel like I recall a few to TEs but yeah especially with Cook. I think what they do with him instead is just that delayed fake block the  middle curl route thing, but it is not a screen.

It's just there for us to take and we seem to think it's like off limits to use a RB screen. It just makes teams think about blitzing us, can add an extra half second

[GunnerBill]

11 hours ago, Figster said:

The WR position lost its importance in the Brady Offense IMO. The shift from the original Daboll high powered WR passing attack is clearly evident. Allen is being used like a RB again to make the Brady O work. So why would we expect anything different after an off season. If anythying Allens cannon of a throwing arm will be used even less. 

 

Joe Brady did a great job taking over the OC position. I'm just not sure he's the answer long term.

 

Brain trust you say?. Pick someone thats got Buffalo Bills football drilled into it already. 

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick.... 

 

Two counters to this:

 

1. They ran more because that was their best way of moving the ball. Dorsey had stuck with the desire to pass downfield and be explosive and it was very inefficient with the players we have. Our most reliable offensive weapons second half of the year were Cook (running back), Kincaid (tight end) and Shakir (shifty slot). Relying on those guys will make you a small ball offense but they were our best chance to move the sticks.

 

2. They ALWAYS run Josh more later in the year. That is a pattern over 3 years and 3 coordinators now. They put a lid on Josh's running the first 10 games. But when the season is on the line down the stretch his carries rachet up again. I crunched the numbers on that at Christmas.

[Doc Brown]

12 hours ago, Billschinatown said:

I hope the new OC has say. I have a feeling Puca would have not seen the field because of his rookie status. Other than Dalton this has been an irritating pattern under McDermott.

Besides Edmunds, Oliver, White, Dawkins, Ford, Singletary, Knox, Epenesa, Moss, Bass, Rousseau, Benford, Cook, Kincaid, and Torrence you are correct.

[GunnerBill]

13 hours ago, Billschinatown said:

I hope the new OC has say. I have a feeling Puca would have not seen the field because of his rookie status. Other than Dalton this has been an irritating pattern under McDermott.

 

The guys who are good start early. Tre White. Tremaine Edmunds. Josh Allen. Ed Oliver. Greg Rousseau. Taron Johnson. Dawson Knox. Dalton Kincaid. O'Cyrus Torrence. Christian Benford.

 

Then the likes of James Cook, Dion Dawkind and Matt Milano came on late in their rookie years. 

 

The guys that don't play early are the guys who are not ready to play.

Edited January 27 by GunnerBill

[Figster]

12 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Two counters to this:

 

1. They ran more because that was their best way of moving the ball. Dorsey had stuck with the desire to pass downfield and be explosive and it was very inefficient with the players we have. Our most reliable offensive weapons second half of the year were Cook (running back), Kincaid (tight end) and Shakir (shifty slot). Relying on those guys will make you a small ball offense but they were our best chance to move the sticks.

 

2. They ALWAYS run Josh more later in the year. That is a pattern over 3 years and 3 coordinators now. They put a lid on Josh's running the first 10 games. But when the season is on the line down the stretch his carries rachet up again. I crunched the numbers on that at Christmas.

Brady > Dorsey and its not even close. Daboll on the other hand was very good moving the football with a vertical passing game. Ideally an O that can do both allowing one to compliment the other becomes very hard to defend IMO.

 

The brain trust game plan by committee is not a bad idea IMO. Brady stays OC with say Ryan Fitzpatrick as a consultant/ good example to sprinkle a vertical passing game into the O works for me.

 

Use Diggs like S J was used back in the day under Chan Gailey...