The bad and the ugly Buffalo edition

[Jeremy408]

2 minutes ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

No doubt YN can get after the QB and I liked him as a pass rusher but we most certainly needed a more well rounded, every down edge rusher.  Jones frightened me based on his age and potential regression but the year before he arrived here he showed he still had some juice with 41 tackles and 10.5 sacks.  That was clearly his last year of top production.  

They are absolutely plugging holes that they have created and is another reason why they are incompetent.

 Yeah but I problem isn't run stuffing defensive end is the fact that no one can rush the quarterback outside of Crosby(we were able to do in 2021)

[NickButera]

13 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

Well that's more of my thing: you get rid of the Yannick Ngawuoe(who will say whatever you want to say about his ability to stop the run he's never had less than eight sacks in a season) to pay chandler Jones who turns out to be washed and then we draft somebody number seven overall

You pay Waller then you trade him. Then draft a TE in the second round(trading up to do so

You pay Renfrow then sign a receiver for almost as much as he's getting paid and draft a receiver in the third round(with the pick that you got from waller)

It just seems that they are plugging up holes that they create

Yea I've noticed a lot of this also. Growth is impossible in this scenario. Add in we cut Carr to add Jimmy. In the business world I'd be fired for this. 

[Jeremy408]

4 minutes ago, NickButera said:

Yea I've noticed a lot of this also. Growth is impossible in this scenario. Add in we cut Carr to add Jimmy. In the business world I'd be fired for this. 

And sure don't get me wrong I understand the excuse that would be made in terms of like they have to get their guys for their scheme. Problem is they are guys and their scheme are not working. 

[MrOaktown_56]

Yuck. Renfrow is definitely not washed this is horrific.

[Frankie2Gunz]

19 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

 Yeah but I problem isn't run stuffing defensive end is the fact that no one can rush the quarterback outside of Crosby(we were able to do in 2021)

Our run D has been atrocious for a long time as well. I’m not talking about a run stuffing DE rather someone who can rush the passer at an elite level but also be able to play the run as well. YN is a liability in the run game which is one reason why he has bounced around so much. Our biggest need is a 3T who can get after the passer from the inside and be stout against the run as well. That will help maxx tremendously! 

[Jeremy408]

3 minutes ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

Our run D has been atrocious for a long time as well. I’m not talking about a run stuffing DE rather someone who can rush the passer at an elite level but also be able to play the run as well. YN is a liability in the run game which is one reason why he has bounced around so much. Our biggest need is a 3T who can get after the passer from the inside and be stout against the run as well. That will help maxx tremendously! 

My thing is someone who can rush the passer is way more difficult to find that or run stuff or who we could usually find in like the fifth round of drafts if you know how to evaluate. GM's always know how to find the run stuffing edge players that you don't have to use high draft capital for

[Frankie2Gunz]

15 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

My thing is someone who can rush the passer is way more difficult to find that or run stuff or who we could usually find in like the fifth round of drafts if you know how to evaluate. GM's always know how to find the run stuffing edge players that you don't have to use high draft capital for

I get what you're saying and YN is a good situational pass rusher but not an every down one.  There are elite edge rushers who are also stout against the run.  Someone who is more well balanced would be a better fit was my point.  Sign me up all dy for a 12+ sack guy who can stop the run.  When we draft an edge rusher within the top 10 picks in a draft Miles Garrett, Nick Bosa, Danielle Hunter is what we should expect.

[G]

We are who we thought we are!!!

What I found disappointing was our first series other than the 1st play we looked really good. March down the field, get the TD and stop their offense. So we could hang as long as we never make mistakes. Once we lost momo we never got it back and that's the problem with 'small ball' is the big plays are easily defended when you're coming back from behind. Also with no defense stops it's impossible to stay close and try to win it in the end. 

So moving forward we just have to not make mistakes (turnovers or holding calls) and we will have a chance. Once down by two scores and we're in trouble. As a 'hater' I don't have a problem with any of this. We aren't good enough to beat a good team without them making mistakes and we're not bad enough to 'quit' so.... probably 8 win team instead of 6. An above average offense at times with a defense that bends until it breaks that can stop other middle of the road teams. Doubt we get a shot at a QB the next two years as I see nothing changing. Zona might have two top 5 picks and if so Mark should override and go HARD for a QB. It's his team and if the staff doesn't like it, TOO BAD!

[ronjon1990]

33 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

And sure don't get me wrong I understand the excuse that would be made in terms of like they have to get their guys for their scheme. Problem is they are guys and their scheme are not working. 

Friendly reminder that Josh McDaniels was the genius HC that used a 1st round pick on Tim Tebow and Zeigler was a scout for that team. 

Friendly reminder that the Patriots haven't been particularly good at drafting in a long time- seriously, go back and look at the picks they took while Zeigler had his FO gig there- it's bad, yet arguably maybe a bit better now that he's gone. And the FA signings during that span are underwhelming. It's sooo clear just how much Tom Brady carried that franchise kicking and screaming. 

Now, I can't read minds. I'm not Miss Cleo. I cannot pinpoint exactly what their vision is. But I can 100% look back at Josh’s body of work as a HC, which for those who tend to forget is what we hired him to be, and Zeigler's body of work in the FO, and say I have absolutely no clue why they made so many bad moves and why anyone would look at it and go "That's what we need!"  

The fact they were known commodities just means we have a body of work to review. And theirs, whatever that vision is, is bad. Whatever lesson they took away from New England, it wasn't good. And a ton of our moves are pretty reminiscent of that- or as BP would say, the Patriot Way- and without Tom Brady, who proved how good he was away from the Patriot Way, it's not a good or particularly successful model.

The Patriots were middling prior to the rise of Tom Brady. They 100% benefitted by the rest of their division being absolute garbage through the 2000's and 2010's. Without Tom, they've been in steady decline. Tom was clearly the X factor there. Bill Belichick looks nowhere close to the genius he was assumed to be without Tom and the Patriot Way looks like a failing model. 

You can't just handwave away the success the franchise had over the last 20 years. That's true. But it's fair to look back and wonder how the heck they were able to sustain it with bad drafting skills mediocre FA's and conclude that the Hall of Fame record setting QB that went to a whole new system and didn't miss a single beat had a much bigger impact than previously presumed, while the coaching and FO decisions concurrent with that QB had a much smaller impact. 

It makes the Belichick coaching tree's relative failures make sense. The Lions and Dolphins and Giants etc weren't making horrid picks, per say, but they weren't particularly good at drafting or building rosters and installing a true vision. Go figure the most successful acolyte- Bill O- just happened to be the one who lucked into a superstar QB for a time, and even that was a tumultuous ****show. 

And even now, watching the Patriots, it's painfully obvious they're not particularly well-run. Patricia as OC last year? Bad drafting? Lackluster FA signings. The rings are there in Foxboro. Those can't be taken away, and Bill Belichick is going to ultimately retire as the unquestioned best HC in NFL history. But I can't help but look at the Pats sans Brady and wonder just how true that image of Belichick is at its core. 

All this to say yeah, you're spot on. They have their guys and their vision- what exactly does that seek to emulate? Does it even work? We have a prototype of their vision, and without the best QB ever, it's not that good. Does it even really work? 

I wish the Pats had landed Rodgers or some other Hall bound QB when Brady left- some proven commodity of high quality. It would have been interesting to see if the Patriot Way missed a beat with another HoF QB the same way it has with Cam and Mac and Zappe and whatever else they've trotted out over the last few years. 

What does that mean for us? Well, it makes me wonder if there's any hope outside of an All-Timer QB to ever be better than barely above adequate the same way the Pats without Brady have been.

Compare that with Andy Reid and his crew. Mahomes put them over the top. But the Chiefs were a legitimate contender with Alex Smith- not a favorite, maybe, but a legitimate contender nonetheless. 

Or the 9ers with Harbaugh. They were built to contend with Smith and then with Kaepernick, and largely did so until behind the scenes issues derailed the whole thing. 

Or the Ravens with the other Harbaugh- built to contend whether Flacco or Lamar. 

The Cowboys have their issues, but they have contended with Romo and with Prescott. 

The Seahawks have proven to be competitive with a bench warmer QB. 

There are successful models out there that have operated successfully without a QB largely accepted as the best to ever do it. That have been solid contenders, at least most of the time, with QB play above average but far from league leading. 

Is it really a stretch to say KC with Smith is better than NE without Brady? No. 

Is it a stretch to say the 9ers with Smith or Kaep were better than New England without Brady? No. 

The consistency of Baltimore and Dallas? Seattle with a 1st round bust QB? 

That's my concern with McDaniels and Zeigler. The product they're emulating is reliant on an outlier QB to be competitive at even just a baseline. But even more- it was reliant on an outlier QB known for hometown discounts. Say we drafted Caleb Williams and he was really that guy on the field and lo and behold McDaniels and Zeigler start having some success as Williams pulls the team along. Does he strike you as Brady-like? Does anyone here really want to fool themselves into thinking Caleb Williams is ever going to not want to be the highest paid QB in the league at first opportunity? Do we trust that once paid he sticks to a religious-like devotion to the game the way Brady did?

I don't. I think we'd get a handful of years on his rookie deal and be back in the basement soon thereafter, because the rest of the roster, the system, the Way, is too reliant on that guy level of play at a reduced cost. So, what then? Suffer with 4-5 years of bad football again, trade our overpriced stud QB, and start hoping we hit the QB lotto jackpot again before 2045? I think at best that's what McDaniels and Zeigler's vision can actually offer. It's what they know. And we've been saying it's not something one simply replicates to success. Houston was close, sort of, but does anyone think Houston with Bil Ol and Watson was going anywhere? That was a broken mess that was never going to last. The Patriots without Tom look like a ticking time bomb. And I think that's what we're trying to replicate in Las Vegas. It's fool's gold. A unicorn. It's many things, but a realistic, sustainable, long term model for consistent success it is not. 

 

[bucksavage1]

1 hour ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Yuck. Renfrow is definitely not washed this is horrific.

https://x.com/TheMarcJohnNFL/status/1703963061005222135?s=20

 

 

This one too. Jimmy gotta see the field better. Big plays are there. If he keeps missing these plays AOC will be in

[MrOaktown_56]

2 hours ago, bucksavage1 said:

https://x.com/TheMarcJohnNFL/status/1703963061005222135?s=20

 

 

This one too. Jimmy gotta see the field better. Big plays are there. If he keeps missing these plays AOC will be in

LIke I said I'd be happy to see AOC rn

[Nightmare]

Yannick Ngakoue is a very one dimensional player, and that’s why he’s has had 6 teams in his last 5 years in the league. Teams get wowed by the sack numbers but then they see him play and decide they can do better.

While trading him for Ya-Sin and replacing him with Jones were both the wrong answer, YN definitely wasn’t either and I have no issue that we moved on from him.

[big_palooka]

6 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

Friendly reminder that Josh McDaniels was the genius HC that used a 1st round pick on Tim Tebow and Zeigler was a scout for that team. 

Friendly reminder that the Patriots haven't been particularly good at drafting in a long time- seriously, go back and look at the picks they took while Zeigler had his FO gig there- it's bad, yet arguably maybe a bit better now that he's gone. And the FA signings during that span are underwhelming. It's sooo clear just how much Tom Brady carried that franchise kicking and screaming. 

Now, I can't read minds. I'm not Miss Cleo. I cannot pinpoint exactly what their vision is. But I can 100% look back at Josh’s body of work as a HC, which for those who tend to forget is what we hired him to be, and Zeigler's body of work in the FO, and say I have absolutely no clue why they made so many bad moves and why anyone would look at it and go "That's what we need!"  

The fact they were known commodities just means we have a body of work to review. And theirs, whatever that vision is, is bad. Whatever lesson they took away from New England, it wasn't good. And a ton of our moves are pretty reminiscent of that- or as BP would say, the Patriot Way- and without Tom Brady, who proved how good he was away from the Patriot Way, it's not a good or particularly successful model.

The Patriots were middling prior to the rise of Tom Brady. They 100% benefitted by the rest of their division being absolute garbage through the 2000's and 2010's. Without Tom, they've been in steady decline. Tom was clearly the X factor there. Bill Belichick looks nowhere close to the genius he was assumed to be without Tom and the Patriot Way looks like a failing model. 

You can't just handwave away the success the franchise had over the last 20 years. That's true. But it's fair to look back and wonder how the heck they were able to sustain it with bad drafting skills mediocre FA's and conclude that the Hall of Fame record setting QB that went to a whole new system and didn't miss a single beat had a much bigger impact than previously presumed, while the coaching and FO decisions concurrent with that QB had a much smaller impact. 

It makes the Belichick coaching tree's relative failures make sense. The Lions and Dolphins and Giants etc weren't making horrid picks, per say, but they weren't particularly good at drafting or building rosters and installing a true vision. Go figure the most successful acolyte- Bill O- just happened to be the one who lucked into a superstar QB for a time, and even that was a tumultuous ****show. 

And even now, watching the Patriots, it's painfully obvious they're not particularly well-run. Patricia as OC last year? Bad drafting? Lackluster FA signings. The rings are there in Foxboro. Those can't be taken away, and Bill Belichick is going to ultimately retire as the unquestioned best HC in NFL history. But I can't help but look at the Pats sans Brady and wonder just how true that image of Belichick is at its core. 

All this to say yeah, you're spot on. They have their guys and their vision- what exactly does that seek to emulate? Does it even work? We have a prototype of their vision, and without the best QB ever, it's not that good. Does it even really work? 

I wish the Pats had landed Rodgers or some other Hall bound QB when Brady left- some proven commodity of high quality. It would have been interesting to see if the Patriot Way missed a beat with another HoF QB the same way it has with Cam and Mac and Zappe and whatever else they've trotted out over the last few years. 

What does that mean for us? Well, it makes me wonder if there's any hope outside of an All-Timer QB to ever be better than barely above adequate the same way the Pats without Brady have been.

Compare that with Andy Reid and his crew. Mahomes put them over the top. But the Chiefs were a legitimate contender with Alex Smith- not a favorite, maybe, but a legitimate contender nonetheless. 

Or the 9ers with Harbaugh. They were built to contend with Smith and then with Kaepernick, and largely did so until behind the scenes issues derailed the whole thing. 

Or the Ravens with the other Harbaugh- built to contend whether Flacco or Lamar. 

The Cowboys have their issues, but they have contended with Romo and with Prescott. 

The Seahawks have proven to be competitive with a bench warmer QB. 

There are successful models out there that have operated successfully without a QB largely accepted as the best to ever do it. That have been solid contenders, at least most of the time, with QB play above average but far from league leading. 

Is it really a stretch to say KC with Smith is better than NE without Brady? No. 

Is it a stretch to say the 9ers with Smith or Kaep were better than New England without Brady? No. 

The consistency of Baltimore and Dallas? Seattle with a 1st round bust QB? 

That's my concern with McDaniels and Zeigler. The product they're emulating is reliant on an outlier QB to be competitive at even just a baseline. But even more- it was reliant on an outlier QB known for hometown discounts. Say we drafted Caleb Williams and he was really that guy on the field and lo and behold McDaniels and Zeigler start having some success as Williams pulls the team along. Does he strike you as Brady-like? Does anyone here really want to fool themselves into thinking Caleb Williams is ever going to not want to be the highest paid QB in the league at first opportunity? Do we trust that once paid he sticks to a religious-like devotion to the game the way Brady did?

I don't. I think we'd get a handful of years on his rookie deal and be back in the basement soon thereafter, because the rest of the roster, the system, the Way, is too reliant on that guy level of play at a reduced cost. So, what then? Suffer with 4-5 years of bad football again, trade our overpriced stud QB, and start hoping we hit the QB lotto jackpot again before 2045? I think at best that's what McDaniels and Zeigler's vision can actually offer. It's what they know. And we've been saying it's not something one simply replicates to success. Houston was close, sort of, but does anyone think Houston with Bil Ol and Watson was going anywhere? That was a broken mess that was never going to last. The Patriots without Tom look like a ticking time bomb. And I think that's what we're trying to replicate in Las Vegas. It's fool's gold. A unicorn. It's many things, but a realistic, sustainable, long term model for consistent success it is not. 

 

You basically hit the nail on the head while trying to say something else here. 

Bottom line.... franchises are only as good as their QBs. They make or break coaches and organizations. QBs are the difference in being a consistent playoff performing or struggling franchises.

The reason the AFC East was down for decades of Pats dominance. The Pats had the QB. Dolphins could never replace Dan Marino. The Bills, Jim Kelly. Now both have franchise guys. The Jets are still trying to replace Joe Namath. 

The teams that have the elite signal callers will flourish. They will consistently make the playoffs and have a shot at winning it all. 

Also, their coaching staffs will flourish and get jobs elsewhere. But without a QB, they typically crash and burn. You see it with the Patriot guys. Andy Reids guys over the years. Then you have the McVey and Shannahan guys. Success in GB, Cincy, Miami where they landed QBs. Saleh struggling with the Jets. 

And average QBs only get you average results. Dak in Dallas as example. 

To elevate the franchise, you have to land a franchise QB. The Raiders had Carr and he took the team to respectable a few years. But he was another in a long line of Chad Pennington's and Andy Dalton's. Until the Raiders get that dude, the franchise will not change. 

The Raiders are the Bills before Allen. The Bengals before Burrow. A down franchise in need of LIFE at the QB spot. The rest will fall in line if you have that piece. 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by big_palooka

[Jeremy408]

6 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

Compare that with Andy Reid and his crew. Mahomes put them over the top. But the Chiefs were a legitimate contender with Alex Smith- not a favorite, maybe, but a legitimate contender nonetheless. 

Or the 9ers with Harbaugh. They were built to contend with Smith and then with Kaepernick, and largely did so until behind the scenes issues derailed the whole thing. 

Or the Ravens with the other Harbaugh- built to contend whether Flacco or Lamar. 

The Cowboys have their issues, but they have contended with Romo and with Prescott. 

The Seahawks have proven to be competitive with a bench warmer QB. 

Or what about Doug Pederson he's turned 2 franchises around.

But yeah, rightly analyzed: they were brought here on the premise that the patriot way works outside of NE. Now it turns out that the patriot way doesn't work in NE.

[ronjon1990]

44 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

You basically hit the nail on the head while trying to say something else here. 

Bottom line.... franchises are only as good as their QBs. They make or break coaches and organizations. QBs are the difference in being a consistent playoff performing or struggling franchises.

The reason the AFC East was down for decades of Pats dominance. The Pats had the QB. Dolphins could never replace Dan Marino. The Bills, Jim Kelly. Now both have franchise guys. The Jets are still trying to replace Joe Namath. 

The teams that have the elite signal callers will flourish. They will consistently make the playoffs and have a shot at winning it all. 

Also, their coaching staffs will flourish and get jobs elsewhere. But without a QB, they typically crash and burn. You see it with the Patriot guys. Andy Reids guys over the years. Then you have the McVey and Shannahan guys. Success in GB, Cincy, Miami where they landed QBs. Saleh struggling with the Jets. 

And average QBs only get you average results. Dak in Dallas as example. 

To elevate the franchise, you have to land a franchise QB. The Raiders had Carr and he took the team to respectable a few years. But he was another in a long line of Chad Pennington's and Andy Dalton's. Until the Raiders get that dude, the franchise will not change. 

The Raiders are the Bills before Allen. The Bengals before Burrow. A down franchise in need of LIFE at the QB spot. The rest will fall in line if you have that piece. 

 

Only to a degree. 

Bad coaching staffs fail with greatQBs all the time- Bill O with Watson. 

Good staffs win with good QBs- McVay went to SBs with Goff and Stafford. 

But good job trying to keep pushing the "Wins are a QB stat, Joshy Daddy just needs his elite QB and he'll show app you haters!" narrative. 

A- for creativity, for sure.