What does "Complementary Football" mean in Bills Coachspeak?

[Scott7975]

It means the offense scores and the defense makes stops. If one isn’t doing that then it’s not complementary football. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Scott7975

[Lost]

9 minutes ago, MJS said:

Ultimately, it all just comes down to not making mistakes. Penalties, dropped coverages, dropped passes, poor execution, and bad playcalling all contribute to making it harder for everyone else to do their jobs and produce wins. If you eliminate the mental errors, you'll probably have great complementary football.

 

For how much McDermott preaches complimentary football.   We're F'ing terrible at it.  

[Chaos]

18 minutes ago, Lost said:

 

For how much McDermott preaches complimentary football.   We're F'ing terrible at it.  

This much is clear. That is why the original question is what does this coach mean when he is talking about it. 

[bmur66]

Nice catch!

Thank you

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, The Jokeman said:

But he won because his new team defense killed Mahomes. 

They did.

 

they also won because he was throwing to Gronk, Evans, Godwin and AB. 

[Jimmy Harris 69]

The team is the poster child of inconsistency on offense special teams, and defense. The return game keyed a win against Tampa. It did enough to win Houston. The offense countered with sloppy turnover play led by our sugar rush Josh. (Running backwards like 1968 jack kemp). The defense kept us in the game though they made Davis Mills look like Danny Jones at times. The game plan was flawed as it did not counter the big rush against Allen.  Brady and McDermott failed in big moments. This team looks badly coached and lacking in talent. I’m starting to think our scouting dept needs an overhaul. Something tells me this is not complementary football. 

[BuffaloBillsGospel2014]

11 hours ago, Chaos said:

I generally understand the concept of complimentary football, trying to harmonize offense , defense and special teams strategizes to create synergies greater than the sum of the parts.  My personal observation is we try to manage the offensive cadence to compensate for problems on the defensive side of the ball, in a way that meaningfully reduces the sum of the parts. 

But my question is what does the coach really mean when he says "we need to play complimentary football". Is he saying 1) as head coach, I am not doing a good job of getting the units working together or 2) the units are not properly executing my complimentary game plan or 3) something else ? 

 

Some boomer talk for outdated football. 

[Mikie2times]

For this team, I thought the vision of complimentary football was better in the first build.
 

I’m happy we want a more consistent running game, but the entire defensive system is meant for defending the pass. We have barely cared at any point over fortifying our run defense. So to me, complimentary would be less ball control, developing an offense that is more dangerous and explosive enough to more routinely force teams to be one dimensional on offense, and into more passing situations. Which we saw a lot in the first build. Which is what our defense is designed for. 
 

We seem to run counter this, shortening the game, trying to win low possession games, higher variance events like turnover margin. Which has not gone well this year. 
 

We have the foundation to really build an elite offense, yet even if we did, it seems like we want to focus on being ball control. I really don’t get it to be honest. This team has lost its way from my perspective.