Thurman#1

Daniel Jones' bad performance might've had something to do with the fact it's mostly Cody Fords and Bobby Harts in front of him. I think he's got a chance to be pretty good.

Nope. The reason players do this is because it's nearly always the right move. And who says he'd have been the long term backup here. Pure guesswork. Go with the team that wants you more.

It was 149 yards, not 200, but you're right in principle.

He gets his share of the blame, just as he does his share of the credit. Looks to me like he sometimes makes the OL look terrific with great pocket movement and escapes, and other times doesn't help them at all when he holds on and looks for the long ball when there's an open short route available to him that he should go for in the design of the play.

He might easily have gotten us a few extra yards more than Devin and Moss behind this OL. Maybe. But with his salary on our current cap, we'd be around $2M over the cap. Yup. And Singletary has significantly fewer carries.

Who cares? I mean, really, who cares? Going 3-3 the rest of the way would mean they are a bad team. It's pretty close to a worst-case scenario. If they are that bad, they will not be a realistic competitor for the Super Bowl. And if they're not Super Bowl competitors, I don't care much about what they do this year. That's the goal I look for each year. Haven't seen it for more than 20 years until it happened last year. This year I still think it's realistic. The real question would be something more like whether they are good enough to lose only one more game? If they lose one, they'll be legit contenders. If they lose two, maybe they'll still have a shot. Right now one or two would be the best guess. If they lose three it'll show they aren't good enough at the time of year they need to be peaking. Yeah. More like looking wildly pessimistically. Still there is a chance we're just not good enough. We haven't proved enough yet. That's why each of these next few games will be big in its own right.

Yeah, no-shows against the Colts. Star and Edmunds. Total no-shows, it was like they weren't even on the field. Oh, wait, they didn't actually play. No wonder they were no-shows. As for the Titans, they had that one long long run, but except for that one play, which appeared to be greatly due to Hyde taking a bad angle, the Bills were actually pretty decent against the run. Not great, certainly, and you can't just pretend that the big play didn't happen. But you absolutely can say that for most of the game they were not destroyed by the run. They were certainly not no-shows.

He'd done well. But no he doesn't transform the offense. Teams didn't have film on him in this offense. That makes you a lot harder to prepare for. As they get film, they'll see tendencies and know how to defense him. He's a good player, but transforming the offense is a major overstatement.

No question, the Titans losing Henry and the Texans losing Watson are bigger losses. And those teams aren't going to the Super Bowl this year because of those losses. Yes, other teams have suffered worse injuries or losses. Those teams are now out of realistic contention. Losing Tre is big, a really big blow to our chances. It doesn't mean the season's over. But it hurts our chances. Let's deal with that and move on.

It's really not valid. What he argued, what I was disagreeing with, was him saying that we're not running and that's the problem. It's not. We're running at virtually the same percentage as we did last year. That percentage of runs can be taken and still have a tremendously successful and efficient offense. As we ourselves proved lat year. And of course we made the decision to live and die with Allen. Every team with an elite QB makes the same decision. Look at KC and Mahomes. KC runs less than we do and they're running about the same rate for the last three games as they did for the whole season. GB about 3% more, the Chargers less. Tampa Bay a lot less, LA about the same. I'd argue for a cash-strapped team with other needs such as pass rusher, we did what we could by bringing in Brown. I'd hoped for a guard in the draft, but again, OL wasn't their only need and in fact, it didn't appear to be a big need last year. And the problem in the KC playoff game last year wasn't a problem running the ball. We had 129 yards in rushing on 18 carries, most of which was Josh, but everyone else went 11 for 41, which certainly isn't great but it's not awful either. People didn't come out of that game saying, "The problem was our run game." They were howling, correctly about the rush on Allen and the defense not being able to stop the Chiefs and Mahomes being able set up a tea table and toast biscuits while he surveyed the field. Defending DrPJax in any way is pretty bizarre. The guy has already declared this as a wasted year, which is just plain nuts at this point. This team right now could miss the playoffs. Or win the Super Bowl. No way to know yet. If we do have a lousy rest of the year, not being able to run will be a smallish part of it. And if the OL ever gets healthy again, which really could happen, they could easily turn the run game to decent and solid. The OL is most of the problem, IMO, and missing two guys, which forces us to play Ford and Boettger and play Williams out of position is a major part of that. Not that I don't want them to grab a guard somewhere for next year. I do.

He fell to third QB picked. And the #2 team had a 40 year old QB on his last legs and chose Saquon over Josh. That means before the Bills took him three teams desperate for a great QB passed him by. And that's not counting the Broncos either, who refused to trade back with the Bills and turned down Allen for Chubb when under center they were having a three-way battle between Trevor Siemian, Brock Osweiler and Paxton Lynch. Even at the time it was clear there wasn't a single sure thing or even a likely franchise guy among them. Only the Colts, not knowing that Luck was going to retire, had good reason to go after anyone but Allen. And you may certainly be right that Allen would have succeeded in about 30/32 other teams. Or you might be wrong. I think you're wrong. Teams can poison QBs, they can destroy them, they can kill their confidence, they can do a crap job with the OL and have them beaten to death, they can coach them poorly. It happens plenty, I believe. David Carr is the classic example, but I think it's very arguable that the Jets took a guy who might have been somebody in Darnold and neutered him with crappy decisions, crappy coaching and crappy personnel acquisition. It's easy to forget with how excellent Allen is now, but he had to make a ton of progress. The Bills did everything right around him. There's a reason people are using the Bills as a model now when they talk about how to develop, build around and support a new QB. They've done a sensational job of it. Without that excellent job, there's no telling what would have happened. Not that I'm arguing that only the Bills could have done it. There are other good smart teams. But I absolutely believe that 30/32 is a wild exaggeration, just as misdirected as you think I was. Which I would argue, by the way. You said that I said, "few wanted him." I didn't say that. I said, "many didn't." I think that's very legit, myself. Now, if you took it as my saying that many didn't at any cost, well, certainly that would have been wrong. But early? There were indeed many who didn't. I can quickly name five. How many would have drafted Allen in the top 20? Three? Four? Five? Not many more, I would argue.

A dome doesn't run or stop the run, correct. The return of Lotulelei and Edmunds on the other hand, stand a pretty good chance of stopping the run much better, and the return of Spencer Brown and Feliciano stand a chance of helping us run better. Not to mention not facing any other OLs as good as Indy's, and probably beyond that not facing a team so willing to break their tendencies so well as the Colts did in suddenly going heavy with traps and whams. The Bills aren't who we saw against the Colts. The Bills are who we've seen all season. Some good games and some bad games, and not playing well right now but with certainly a chance to figure things out and start playing better the way the Chiefs appear to have done. And it's nonsense that we've suddenly stopped running and that's the problem, which can thus be blamed on the OC. Nonsense. This year we've run on 39.9% of plays. Last year (and we were pretty good last year) we ran on 40.8%. That difference is statistically insignificant. Mine was to illustrate Beane and McDermott's importance to Allen. Which I think is underestimated.

If you want to say that Beane and McDermott owe a ton to Allen you should also point out that Allen owes a ton to them as well. They picked him, loving him when many didn't. They planned to sit him his first year, though it proved impossible. The year they expected to play him, they brought in a ton of FA OLs and built a solid unit in front of him and then last year brought in a top-flight group of WRs. Allen has been in an excellent situation, and that's down to Beane and McDermott.

Reasonable post, but I think it's worthwhile to point out that two guys, Daryl Williams and Dawkins, have experienced major and completely unpredictable regressions this year from last year. Last year's OL was pretty good. Certainly not great, but really pretty good. I don't think there was any way for Beane or anyone to know that Williams, who really played well at RT last year, would prove this year to be poor at the same position. Or that Dawkins would get Covid and go from probably a top seven or so in the league LT to a slightly above average LT. If Dawkins and Williams were simply playing at the same level they achieved last year, what would things have looked like with Spencer Brown coming in and being as good as he has been? Could've been a really good line. I don't see this as a miscalculation. More of an unpredictable problem. Behind that functioning OL, these RBs would have been just fine. Not great. Not game-breakers. But just fine. As for other teams upgrading, first they probably didn't have unexplainable and unpredictable regressions at key positions, and they also were probably in better position with the salary cap than the Bills were. The Covid cap fall was also not predictable, and it hit the Bills worse than most other teams. That's why some of those other teams did better. They had more to work with under the cap.

Again, Daryl Williams was playing out of position, Cody Ford was in and Boettger too, and Spencer Brown was out with Covid. Not that that means that now everything is hunky-dory. We've got some issues. But when we have the top five guys on the OL, we are a lot better than the group we put out there against the Colts.

Carson Palmer was a top-flight NFL QB. And he's not talking like the GOAT. What are you talking about? He's talking like an NFL commentator. Hunh? USC? What? Did you paste the wrong thing or something?

Agree with all of this except for your last paragraph. Roster decisions are not and should not be driven by talent. They've made it wildly clear that they choose and keep guys based on locker room considerations and availability as well. As they should. They've made their share of Dareus decisions. And the issues we're discussing have on-field effects.

Nope. Not once they miss games. Totally. If a guy makes the personal choice, which is not illegal, to miss a few practices to get drunk, he wouldn't be upset at all. Sorry, that's nonsense. Sorry, this too is nonsense. Personal choice is infinitely more complicated than that. Do I have the personal choice to grab a gun, walk into your house and kill your family? Steal all your money? Hey, it's my personal choice, my freedom. Of course I don't have that choice. Nor would I do anything like that, ever. Personal choice already has massive limitations. And while we do have the legal choice here, there are consequences, including the real possibility of being physically and morally responsible for causing the deaths of other people. Somehow the personal choice and freedom crowd doesn't want to talk about that. As for judging, it's McDermott's job to judge. And then to take away the jobs of some of those he's judged, based precisely on those judgments. And while some of those judgments are based on how well a guy plays football, not all of them are. It's well beyond that. He's got to look at availability, how a guy's character will affect the locker room, on and on with non-football judgments as well as those that are purely based on on-field performance. If he didn't judge constantly, he couldn't be a coach. He's got to judge, constantly, what's better for his team, and whether the benefits of having this guy here is worth the costs. And I have yet to meet the human being, faith-based or not, who doesn't judge and react. Struggle not to? Sure. Work hard not to judge? Sure, met plenty of those. Actually manage not to judge? Please.

This is typical after-a-loss nonsense. One team has a guy like that and the internet thinks it sounds good and so every team needs the same thing. It's exactly the same thing as calls for screaming and complaints about being soft and whining about a lack of aggression and whinging about not having a Ray Lewis or whatever other player comes to mind, or needing bickering like the bickering Bills. It sounds like it makes sense, but it doesn't. Plenty of great teams don't have guys like that. And plenty do. Every great team has leadership. But great leadership comes in a million different flavors. Some loud, some quiet. Some by example. The problem with the Bills isn't a lack of screaming or getting in people's faces. It's getting Edmunds and Lotulelei and Feliciano and Spencer Brown healthy again. It's adapting to the new defensive tactics that the whole league is now using on Mahomes and Allen and those like them. It's Allen learning to take the high-percentage shorter pass over the low-percentage longer ball a lot of the time until it forces teams to start defending tougher on the short game. It's cutting down the penalties. It's adjustments, playing smarter, getting healthy, better coaching and better execution, just as it usually is. And in the long run, adjusting the schemes and getting guys who better fit the new schemes and needs. The awesome thing about these dumb ideas is that they can be put into a sentence or two and it sounds all macho. When the actual solution is usually a ton of details and small changes and adaptations and improvements, and it doesn't sound particularly macho.

Nobody's ignoring the play fake. Which is part of the reason we didn't run all that well. They're reacting to it. But they are then covering well deep, and without Spencer Brown, which then puts Williams back at a position he's just not playing well at this year, and without Feliciano, this OL just isn't getting it done. When Brown and Feliciano get back, look for quite a bit of improvement. That's how it's worked so far this year. I noticed you said Feliciano is out for the year. Is that right? Did I miss something? I thought he was out for three weeks. I know this very recent Buffalo News story (42 minutes old as I write this) has him eligible to return now, and coming back. --------------- “'I feel really good. If it wasn’t a short week, I think there would be a good chance that I would be able to get in,' he said Monday. 'But also, we’ll see how it goes. Not counting anything out.' "Coach Sean McDermott said Monday the team is 'just going to wait and see, and see how it goes the next day or two here' before making a decision. Feliciano did not practice Monday, and with the short week, it is unlikely he’ll be back for Thursday’s game against the Saints. During his stretch on injured reserve, he’s had a different vantage point of his position group." --------------- https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/bills-guard-jon-feliciano-gives-back-for-thanksgiving-while-still-on-injured-reserve/article_28afd9d4-4c03-11ec-aac6-cf1954d50b7e.html Feliciano's not terrific, but the starting five have played much better than when replacements have to step in. And while I agree with you on how awful and how gigantic the McKenzie play was in this game, I think you pushed the argument a bit when you list only 4 TDs as positive difference-makers. Returns that go beyond about the 40 yard line make a major difference in likelihood of scoring and momentum change. And there have been a lot more than 4 excellent long returns this year in the NFL. Agree, though, that that play was inexcusable, just awful. As dangerous as he is, this has to make them think about how they are using McKenzie. Good post, on an awful game.

Different isn't always good. This is one of those cases. Not especially. You don't hear anyone talking kumquats right now either. They're not talking process now because nobody's asking them right now how they do it. They still do talk about stuff that is essentially the process when asked, stuff like the 24 hour rule, stuff like one game at a time, stuff like getting better every day. They do that because it's the best way to get better. It's not going to lead to perfection, or undefeated seasons. But working as hard as possible to get better is what they should be doing. They will.

I love them too. And you ain't wrong about the pitchforks. But I'd argue that their "standing pat", which they didn't do but many seem to want to put it that way, would have worked if everyone had just played as well this year as they did last. I don't think there is any way for Beane and McDermott to reasonably guess that Daryl Williams, who played so very well last year would for some reason play much worse at tackle this year. How could they predict that? Or predict that Dawkins, who was a top 7 or 8 LT last year would catch COVID and see his performance radically degrade? That Cole Beasley would maybe get injured more and play worse should have been more predictable at his age, and may be why they picked Stevenson and re-signed McKenzie. But it's still hurt. Just bringing Knox back hasn't caused major problems. He's mostly been terrific. Put those two OLs at their last year's level and IMO this offense looks a ton better than it has. More, the two really awful days, the Jags and Colts games, were when we didn't have Spencer Brown. And the matchup advantage the Colts have against us was multiplied with Lotulelei and Edmunds out. Having said that, we have problems. Teams have figured out how to defense us, and we have to do what the Chiefs did and figure out how to adapt and counter. Josh has to learn to love the short game. We have to get another Lotulelei-type physical monster in there for when he platoons out. A few other things too. Like why so many damn penalties? We had a bunch last year too, but not to this level, and it didn't hurt us as much.

Indeed. It's a waste of time being here at this point. Think I'll go for a jog and do some work. After a game like this there's a lot of emotion flying around, reasonably. But instead of talking about what the problems really are, people go nuts and take the kneejerk route towards identifying a scapegoat.

Yup. Imagine if he and Moss had a line like Indy's in front of them. They'd be building a state of Zach and Devin.

You recommended it, and it was Stephen A., so I figured it'd be off the rails, and that's right. A shred or two of sense, no real over-riding point or idea and lots of empty shouting and overreaction. Basically a waste of time. Blame goes to me for even considering for a moment it might be worth watching.