Thurman#1

Um, no. Regressed last game? Yeah. Regressed over the past four games or so? Fair enough. But levelled out would imply he can't be better this year. And he can, he absolutely can. By no means is "levelled out" the best we can say. This could easily be "had a down month" or "had a momentary slide." The story's only part written, with more than half this season left, and years beyond that besides.

Bills have a good roster. Last year too. It's ridiculous to say he doesn't have that much around him. We had an excellent OL and RB and very good TEs till injuries and not being on the same page with Josh cost Kincaid a good year. Is Josh a big part of that roster? Yeah, absolutely. But saying he's got not all that much around him is fairly ridiculous. Even the defense, having a real down year last year, caused a ton of turnovers and came together pretty well at the end of the year and into the playoffs till the rash of injuries that last week or two. Having said that, I think Josh is having a down period, and I do fully expect him start hitting on all cylinders again, even if it doesn't happen this year.

Using this method, Brady and the Pats would have been graded as declining in most of the middle ten seasons of the Brady & Belichick era. In 2009, they started 7-5 and it was clearly the beginning of the end, till it wasn't. In 2011, they started 5-3 and people said it was over, till it wasn't. The 2012 Pats started 3-3, so clearly they were on the downside, except they weren't, going 12-4 that year. In 2013, they were 7-3. Same with Peyton Manning and the Colts in the middle of his career. The 2002 Colts started 3-4. Clearly they were on the descent, except they weren't. The 2004 Colts were 4-3, until they went 12-4. Again, they obviously were descending, until they weren't. The Bills are 6 - 3. That's still an excellent record. No particular reason to think they're declining besides recency bias. They sure didn't look like they were declining after Chiefs week. Your ascending group does look like they're ascending. The great likelihood is that roughly two of the four will be genuine competitors over the next few years and the other two will have problems. Houston, for instance, looked very recently like they were on the upswing. Now, not so much. You're likely to have hit on two or so in most of your categories. But what we know is that most teams can't be understood completely till weeks probably 10 - 13, when things get clearer. We're reaching that, but it's only starting to clear up, it's not there yet. What we further know is that some of the teams that genuinely ascended this year will regress. The Bills certainly did look awful this week. It'd be hard to argue with that. You're resting your opinion too much on recent events and reactions to them.

That's a beautiful dalmatian there. Dawg on, brother!! To repeat, since you already saw this before I edited it: Oh, and Shakir is being target a good eight yards further across the field. He is almost in front of the defender, who at that angle is a ton closer to Khalil than he is to Coleman on the other play. Khalil is on the left hash, with the defender around two yards left of the hash. On Coleman's play, though, Keon is a good two yards outside of the right hash, while the defender is on the left hash. The hashes are 18 and a half feet apart, and the defender is also five yards downfield. Keon is going to have a lot more time than Shakir got. More, Shakir has been forced to flatten his route, he's got a Bills crosser a yard or two downfield of him. Coleman ... um ... does not. Sorry, your idea that these two plays are comparable in this way is just ridiculous.

Yes, yes you are. Heh heh. 😄 I like the GIF.

I see, so a different pass to a different guy on a different play says more about a play than just watching the actual play does? Living in NeverNeverLand must be nice, dude. You're right I don't have to take your word for it. I just look at the actual play. His feet, in your freeze-frame, are equally as far downfield. That does not happen when a guy is running sideways. When a guy is running sideways, if he's running left and his left foot lands on the 30, his right foot will land 8 - 12 inches downfield. If he's running directly cross the field the same thing will happen all the way across. But that's not what's happening. He's running left and his left foot is just as far downfield as his right. That shows that he's running at an angle ... upfield. Shakir's feet on the other hand are not both on the ground, but they indeed look as if when they both are, that bowlegged as he is he'll still have his right leg further downfield than his left. Oh, and Shakir is being target a good eight yards further across the field. He is almost in front of the defender, who at that angle is a ton closer to Khalil than he is to Coleman on the other play. Khalil is on the left hash, with the defender around two yards left of the hash. On Coleman's play, though, Keon is a good two yards outside of the right hash, while the defender is on the left hash. The hashes are 18 and a half feet apart, and the defender is also five yards downfield. Keon is going to have a lot more time than Shakir got. More, Shakir has been forced to flatten his route, he's got a Bills crosser a yard or two downfield of him. Coleman ... um ... does not. Sorry, your idea that these two plays are comparable in this way is just dumb.

If you have an agenda against bad takes, your agenda should preclude your from making this post. Keon simply isn't going horizontal here, you can see that as the play continues, and that's factual, not opinion. His left foot is as far downfield as his right foot in this freeze-frame. Which does not happen if he were going sideways, it only happens if he is pointed at an angle downfield. If Josh gets him the ball at that moment, Coleman catches it and has one or two steps before being tackled and falling forward. Yes, he'll be hit quickly. But it's probably a five yard gain. Early in the season when the offense was humming, Josh was taking those short gains and extending drives. Not so much now. And while that's certainly not the whole reason for it, it's legitimately a part of it.

Neither of those throws would have had to be "miraculous". Good, accurate throws? Yeah. Which is what you expect from elite NFL QBs. In the first, Keon has stacked the guy. Not completely, but effectively, and he's blocked the DB from the whole inside of the field. That's what you want the WR to do. QBs are expected to make throws when the WR stacks the DB, and particularly when you can lead him inside and away from the DB. If Josh throws that not outside, and not straight downfield, but instead over close to the numbers, it's not that difficult a throw, and it's a high percentage chance at a completion. The second was a harder throw, requiring about two to eight feet more distance and even better if he'd put it about a yard or two further outside. Yes, this did require a very good throw. Far from "miraculous," though. Josh makes throws that accurate all the time. Josh and Kincaid for whatever reason just seemed out of phase last year. This year they're reading each others' minds. This seems like a bit of the same problem with Coleman this year.

Well, if "it all" you mean that McDermott says that every player out there has moments like that, and that that does include Coleman, then yeah, that does indeed say it all. To repeat McDermott's exact words .... "There are times just like any player or any performer where it is exactly where it needs to be, and there are times where when it's not, and then we have to address it." So yeah, he does have moments like that. Like every player. Perfection is unattainable. The question is whether Keon is doing this at a higher than normal, concerning percentage of the time. He certainly has, as his benchings attest. But McDermott doesn't address whether that is still a problem. I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying we don't know, and certainly not from McDermott's words here.

Brandon Beane and Sean McDermott, please.

Um, yes, yes I do. That's what the evidence all shows. Oh, and as for Josh having to say this because he's supportive, please stop with this nonsense. This is the whole deal where people assume any opinion from a star is a lie because the listener doesn't agree with the star. It's just nonsense. The argument goes like this: "He's a teammate, so he has to say something like this. Plus he's disagreeing with me here, so he must be lying." This line of argument, that a fan knows what he really meant and that the fan is a better barometer of what Allen meant than Allen is, it's crap. As a supportive teammate, Allen DID NOT NEED to lie. He just didn't. Off the top of my head, here are ten texts/tweets he could have sent without lying that would have completely filled the bill: Yeah, excited to work with you, Keon! Keon Coleman!! We're gonna put up some serious yards! Psyched!!! Really looking forward to throwing to you, Keon Coleman!! Alright!!!!! Yeah, baby!! See you at camp, Keon! Hey, my new best friend, Keon Coleman!! Keon, this is going to be great!!! Oh, yeah!!! Keon Coleman!! Keon is a big guy!! This will be fun!!! KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEON!!!!!!!!! Looking forward to giving 110% with you, buddy!!! All of those would have been just fine, without lying. This is always the (dumb) argument, that he had to lie to be a good teammate. And it's total bushwah!!! There's a reason he said "You're the guy I wanted." The reason is that he's the guy he wanted. Again, he didn't have to say that. Could've gone a million different ways with no problem. Brandon Beane: "Josh is crazy about the draft process. If I get a call from Josh in the offseason, it's usually him seeing somebody on a highlight, running into somebody, throwing with somebody -- just something to ask me what I think about this guy. He called me at the Senior Bowl (asking) what do I think about a couple of guys there. So he loves it. "He's been in the building the last couple of weeks now that the offseason program's started. So we did give him some guys, we said, 'Hey, sit back with the coaches, y'all watch them together and talk about how you'd use them. I'd like to hear what you see.' And he liked a lot of the guys, he really did. But Keon was one -- I know he liked him a lot, too. And Josh and I didn't speak on Thursday, really. Maybe he stopped by that morning. But that next day, Friday morning, he FaceTimed me. Actually, I was still at home before I headed in here. And he was like, 'What are you thinking?' And I said, 'Well, barring somebody blowing me away, I'm going to take Keon.' And he was pretty pumped." https://www.nfl.com/news/bills-gm-brandon-beane-josh-allen-pretty-pumped-we-drafted-wr-keon-coleman Along with everything else there, he says Keon was one of the guys the coaches specifically showed film of to Josh. And that they knew Josh liked him a lot. And folks are trying to argue that Josh wasn't very likely to have formed opinions of 1st round WR prospects, knowing that was one of the most likely ways for them to go? And again the guy who said he had a source that the Bills were going Coleman (Jordan Schultz) didn't just say that they were picking him, he said that he was Allen's favorite left in the draft.

Ladd wasn't a consideration. They've already got his skills on the team with Shakir. Lots of fans wanted him, and for obvious reasons, but the Bills didn't really have needs there. But yes, Allen said it after the draft, that he'd watched a lot of tape on round one guys that year. And that he'd really liked Coleman a lot. Anyway, this isn't where Allen talked about when he'd watched, but here Josh talks about what he'd liked about Coleman's college tape specifically.

Nah. It's starting to get to be time where you can say he's not looking good. But way too early for final opinions. That's just ridiculous. Hell, Allen missed him when he was open downfield long twice this game. The text that makes your point here is Skurski's. And he edited out some of the most important parts of McDermott's comments specifically to make it look like he was saying something he wasn't quite. Here's the Skurski quote you used, in blue, and what he left out from McDermott in red: "He knows if I'm not satisfied (about it). Just like any player.... It's fair that you're asking about it. I promise you, it gets addressed when it isn't where it needs to be. There are times just like any player or any performer where it is exactly where it needs to be, and there are times where when it's not, and then we have to address it, to get it hopefully where it needs to be. So it's addressed. It's been good at times and other times it can improve for sure." Leaving out the bit about "just like any player," included there TWICE, is misleading of Skurski. Does this refer mostly to whatever he was benched for a couple of weeks ago? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's basically impossible to tell from what we see here.

That's my thought as well. Chiefs would beat them. Not booking it. Not even buying it. I give the Pats a 25% chance at the division and a 25% chance in their first playoff game, whoever it's against.

No problem, man. Yeah, I try never to rely on A.I. I see them making so many mistakes, with bland confidence. Have a good day.