A Different Vibe from McDermott

[DrDawkinstein]

8 minutes ago, boyst said:

You forgot dennison, 

 

Good mention,  but I counted him. I was counting the changes in OCs. So change to Dabol covered that.

 

As much as I'd like to forget Dennison, we cant  Tough to bash the guy. McD lost out on his first 3-4 OC choices and Dennison came into a job he knew he only had for a year, with a lot of work cut out for them.

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, Avisan said:

New culture, new schemes, new player preferences, etc.

 

Many coaches like having increased control over personnel decisions, too. That was reported to be a factor for Vrabel after his Tennessee stint, for example.

 

Josh Allen would remain constant, which obviously helps, but in every other way it would likely be starting over.  The QB is a huge part of the equation, but it isn't the only thing, and very recently we saw how wrong things can go even with our unicorn under center with Dorsey as OC.

 

Coaching changes bring large organizational and roster shifts.  Starting over is a pretty accurate way to describe it.

So we are down to start over again on offense and risk another Dorsey when Brady gets an HC job but not down to start over on defense?

[Buffalo Boy]

9 minutes ago, FireChans said:

So we are down to start over again on offense and risk another Dorsey when Brady gets an HC job but not down to start over on defense?

It’s because the success the O has ( which, in large part, is Josh able to polish turds even to a high sheen/ Dorsey) allows them to move on while we are stuck with a crappy playoff D because it is a failed system 

[Avisan]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

We've "started over" 3 times on Offense now with the change to Daboll, then Dorsey, then Brady. Won the division and made the playoffs each time. We're about to lose Brady and will be forced to "start over" there again as well.

 

So all you're really telling me is we might have to start over on Defense. And that is just further selling the idea to most of us, since it's been the Defense that weighs us down.

 

You guys have only convinced me more that we should be ready to move on from McD when the Defense lets us down again this year. Start thinking of your excuses now. 

Gee, I wonder if having a stable, high-quality head coach has anything to do with our sustained success and consistency?

 

Changing coordinators is not the same as changing the person establishing the culture and vision, assembling a staff, guiding player development strategies, etc.

 

While McDermott gives his coordinators a lot of autonomy, they ultimately still report to him when it comes to approach, preparation, and strategies.  He has developed and promoted within the system to help maintain consistency, while bringing in outside perspectives to help shore up areas of weakness.  It has worked very well to this point. Changing head coaches means the whole thing goes, and the bar is VERY high for trying to find an upgrade based on the sustained success the Bills have enjoyed.

[DrDawkinstein]

11 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Gee, I wonder if having a stable, high-quality head coach has anything to do with our sustained success and consistency?

 

 

A little something, but it's mostly Josh.

12 minutes ago, Avisan said:

While McDermott gives his coordinators a lot of autonomy, they ultimately still report to him when it comes to approach, preparation, and strategies.  He has developed and promoted within the system to help maintain consistency, while bringing in outside perspectives to help shore up areas of weakness.  It has worked very well to this point. Changing head coaches means the whole thing goes, and the bar is VERY high for trying to find an upgrade based on the sustained success the Bills have enjoyed.

 

That's the problem.

 

And as you argue against yourself, the Offense has survived a few major scheme changes. And has actually thrived and IMPROVED with the changes.

 

The issue is our D. And to your point, McD will only promote from within and run the same scheme over and over that has been proven to fail in the playoffs.

 

The offense is already set to change again when we lose Brady this offseason. You're worried about changing the Defense?

[Avisan]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo Boy said:

It’s because the success the O has ( which, in large part, is Josh able to polish turds even to a high sheen/ Dorsey) allows them to move on while we are stuck with a crappy playoff D because it is a failed system 

It's important to note with Dorsey that we scored well in EPA/play and iirc some other advanced metrics.  It's not as though the offense was a tire fire.  It was, however, very boom or bust and it amplified Josh's worst hero ball impulses.  It wasn't a good fit.

4 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

The offense is already set to change again when we lose Brady this offseason. You're worried about changing the Defense?

Why would I not be?  The defense has ranked very highly every season under Frazier, McDermott, and Babich.  I think we have had talent issues more so than scheme issues on defense.  A defense is often only as strong as its weakest link and we had some serious matchup talent issues in all of our exits vs. the Chiefs.

[FireChans]

19 minutes ago, Avisan said:

It's important to note with Dorsey that we scored well in EPA/play and iirc some other advanced metrics.  It's not as though the offense was a tire fire.  It was, however, very boom or bust and it amplified Josh's worst hero ball impulses.  It wasn't a good fit.

Why would I not be?  The defense has ranked very highly every season under Frazier, McDermott, and Babich.  I think we have had talent issues more so than scheme issues on defense.  A defense is often only as strong as its weakest link and we had some serious matchup talent issues in all of our exits vs. the Chiefs.

The defense did not rank highly last year.

[Avisan]

21 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The defense did not rank highly last year.

11th in scoring, 3rd-most takeaways.  Significant 3rd down struggles, and middle of the pack in yards allowed but given the personnel deficiencies in the back seven I think it overperformed its talent.

[FireChans]

47 minutes ago, Avisan said:

11th in scoring, 3rd-most takeaways.  Significant 3rd down struggles, and middle of the pack in yards allowed but given the personnel deficiencies in the back seven I think it overperformed its talent.

Yeah you said they ranked really highly. They didn’t.

 

26th in yards per drive

18th in points per drive.

29 in third down %.
 

They ranked highly in forcing turnovers and were otherwise below average to bad.

[DuckyBoys]

they couldn't get off the field on 3rd down which means the small defense got worn down  Better draft more middling d linemen next year

[Avisan]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Yeah you said they ranked really highly. They didn’t.

 

26th in yards per drive

18th in points per drive.

29 in third down %.
 

They ranked highly in forcing turnovers and were otherwise below average to bad.

My bad, one season where they were just outside the Top 10 for points allowed.  So one season where they were merely "good" instead of "very good" at their primary job.

 

FWIW, the dynasty Patriots regularly fielded defenses that were average or worse in most metrics other than points allowed and/or turnovers.

[FireChans]

32 minutes ago, Avisan said:

My bad, one season where they were just outside the Top 10 for points allowed.  So one season where they were merely "good" instead of "very good" at their primary job.

 

FWIW, the dynasty Patriots regularly fielded defenses that were average or worse in most metrics other than points allowed and/or turnovers.

They weren’t good.

 

they were 18th in points per drive. They were below average.

 

Thats true about the Pats dynasty. How many rings did they have by then?

[LarryMadman]

44 minutes ago, Avisan said:

My bad, one season where they were just outside the Top 10 for points allowed.  So one season where they were merely "good" instead of "very good" at their primary job.

 

FWIW, the dynasty Patriots regularly fielded defenses that were average or worse in most metrics other than points allowed and/or turnovers.

Playoff defense?

[GoBills808]

1 hour ago, Avisan said:

My bad, one season where they were just outside the Top 10 for points allowed.  So one season where they were merely "good" instead of "very good" at their primary job.

 

FWIW, the dynasty Patriots regularly fielded defenses that were average or worse in most metrics other than points allowed and/or turnovers.

what if i told you that very good regular season defense turns into an incredibly bad postseason defense every single yr

 

does that change things for you or nah

[Avisan]

30 minutes ago, FireChans said:

They weren’t good.

 

they were 18th in points per drive. They were below average.

 

Thats true about the Pats dynasty. How many rings did they have by then?

I need to see a source on that stat.  I question its accuracy.  The Bills were 11th best both in points allowed per game and opponent points allowed per play.  They were 17th in opponent plays per game, so perfectly middle of the road there.    Hard to come up with how they end up at 18th per drive without contradicting with at least one of those other data points.

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, Avisan said:

I need to see a source on that stat.  I question its accuracy.  The Bills were 11th best both in points allowed per game and opponent points allowed per play.  They were 17th in opponent plays per game, so perfectly middle of the road there.    Hard to come up with how they end up at 18th per drive without contradicting with at least one of those other data points.

Ask and you shall receive.

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/2024.htm

 

They were benefitting from a historically efficient offense and their forced TOs

 

25th in time per drive

23rd in plays per drive

26th in yards per drive

18th in points per drive.

 

if they weren’t 1st in TOs, they would probably have been up there for one of the worst defenses in the league last year.

[GoBills808]

10 minutes ago, Avisan said:

I need to see a source on that stat.  I question its accuracy.  The Bills were 11th best both in points allowed per game and opponent points allowed per play.  They were 17th in opponent plays per game, so perfectly middle of the road there.    Hard to come up with how they end up at 18th per drive without contradicting with at least one of those other data points.

you kind of answered yourself earlier w the brady era pats lol

 

really efficient offenses can impact certain defensive metrics

[Avisan]

30 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Ask and you shall receive.

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/2024.htm

 

They were benefitting from a historically efficient offense and their forced TOs

 

25th in time per drive

23rd in plays per drive

26th in yards per drive

18th in points per drive.

 

if they weren’t 1st in TOs, they would probably have been up there for one of the worst defenses in the league last year.

Odd.  All of that is really difficult to square with other stats, the only way this makes any sense is if Bills games had ~25% fewer drives per game than the average NFL game.  I guess that's possible, but with the Bills having an extremely middle of the pack time of possession ratio that doesn't make much sense.  Been having trouble finding anything that tracks number of possessions per team, either per season or per game, and manually counting up # of possessions would be a huge PITA so I haven't done that, but that may be the only one to square the circle, here.

[FireChans]

6 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Odd.  All of that is really difficult to square with other stats, the only way this makes any sense is if Bills games had ~25% fewer drives per game than the average NFL game.  I guess that's possible, but with the Bills having an extremely middle of the pack time of possession ratio that doesn't make much sense.  Been having trouble finding anything that tracks number of possessions per team, either per season or per game, and manually counting up # of possessions would be a huge PITA so I haven't done that, but that may be the only one to square the circle, here.

They did.

 

They ran the ball a ton, played ball control, and basically never turned it over

 

Hence why the gross numbers make the defense look better than bad, when they really were bad. 

 

The Bills ran 1025 offensive plays. League average was 1056. 

 

The Bills were bottom 4 in drives against per game. 

[Avisan]

16 minutes ago, FireChans said:

They did.

 

They ran the ball a ton, played ball control, and basically never turned it over

 

Hence why the gross numbers make the defense look better than bad, when they really were bad. 

 

The Bills ran 1025 offensive plays. League average was 1056. 

 

The Bills were bottom 4 in drives against per game. 

That makes sense.  It makes their takeaway count truly wild, too.  Opponent turnover on 17.5% of drives is an absurd rate.

 

Funny that we turned into such a feast or famine defense, but it does make sense based on the bodies we had available and with our offense grinding teams down.  One big mistake was fatal for most opponents.