Thurman#1

Yes, you're correct, you can indeed win without a good defense. How did it work out for the Bills? Not as well as it worked out for the Chiefs a couple of years and the, Rams etc. The fact that it worked out for some teams but not for the Bills -- well, it only proves that it didn't work out for the Bills. And the Bills had really good defenses several of those years, actually. Some of those years they had serious waves of injuries around the playoffs, and other times they were good but not good enough to stop the Chiefs in the playoffs with Mahomes playing at absolutely historic levels. You can argue this D is the worst. But they're getting better, particularly at passing defense. When Bosa gets the cast off, when and if Oliver comes back and when Dorian gets better at the role he's already playing pretty well this past week at pass rush schemes, we could easily get a lot better. When TJ and DaQuan get not just able to play but back at previous levels. It's a shame Hoecht is out, it really is. But there's every chance we'll be a lot better. We were awful against Miami. But not so awful against Tampa and pretty dang solid against KC. They absolutely have a shot. That simply isn't a question. Again, Vegas has them as the third most likely winner. That's likely a bit optimistic. But not much. They're 7-3, and beating the good teams.

Yup, And no other teams with great QBs are like that ... except all of them. When the great QB has a bad game, yeah, the team's not real likely to win. That's kinda the NFL. I mean, you're right, that's how we look. But I mean, when Mahomes had a bad game, the Eagles win the Super Bowl last year and the AFC championship against the Bengals about three years ago. Yeah, fair enough, big ask. But it could happen, Ed playing near how he did before. Or not. And no, Shaq was playing significantly better than average, he was playing well.

Punters are players. Possible that's inconvenient for your argument, but it has the advantage that it's true. And guys who are on different teams ... are on teams because they're better than the millions who would like to be on teams but aren't good enough. Plenty of guys leave one team for another for many different reasons that don't necessarily include quality. Look at Gabe Davis. He got a contract we didn't want to match but he's still plenty good enough to be in the league. You're talking about a 5th and two 6ths. Them being still in the league 6 or 7 years down the road absolutely does show something, it's not even a question. I get it. When you want to throw guys out who don't fit your opinion, if you're the type that does that, any reason will do. It's something to say. Doesn't make it a good argument, but it's at least something to throw against the wall and see if it sticks.

Yeah, um, no. No, it wouldn't. His answer works perfectly fine, and to assume it shows an issue says more about you and your feelings on this than it does about McDermott. Where does it say, "every," you ask? It says, "like any player." That's where "every" comes from though he used a synonym. "He has times, just like any player." Clearly he's having problems making it to meetings. Which is unbelievable immaturity. I'm a lot less likely to support Keon now, but what McDermott said simply did not imply that he had bigger problems on the field than most.

Passer rating is not dependent on quality. I have gotten quite a bit more confident in the pass defense over the past month or so.

Glad someone said this about Poyer. He's not as fast as he used to be, but he's looking pretty solid and his understanding get him started a step early. Don't expect him here next year unless it's as a coach or a de facto coach on the practice squad. Hancock is sure athletic enough. Will he get it? I hope so. I like this safety group. A lot more than I did a month ago.

You can't. Overall he does pretty well there, and much better in the draft overall, which is how this should be looked at. Certainly two major failures in Cody Ford and Basham. But if you're looking at all early draft picks over 7 or 8 years, you'll find pretty much every team has several poor picks. It's how things go. Look at the Chiefs, who in the top two rounds over the last seven years have picked Felix Audike-Uzomah, Skyy Moore, Willie Gay Jr., Mecole Hardman and Juan Thornhill, all in the 2nd round, and you can throw in Edwards-Helaire in the 1st. Even in the first round, success rates run at around 50%, and it's lower later in the draft where we generally end up. Wanna look at how a GM does in the draft? Simple, look at how he does in the draft. Not some part of the draft that can be separated to further some narrative or other. The draft. That's what you look at if you want to find out how someone drafts.

Yup, the Bills are ranked #3 in Vegas in terms of odds of winning the SB right now. IMO that's a bit high with how they've played recently, but it's arguable and in fact reasonable.

Yeah, we absolutely are. More, it's hard to know whether that defense will be the one we go into the playoffs with. If Ed Oliver gets back and Shaq Thompson, and our younger guys continue developing, we could easily be a lot better. And having a really good defense is a huge factor. But let's not pretend you can't win without one. KC in 2022 were the 16th ranked defense, and got a Lombardi. The Rams were 17th in 2021. It happens. We came about 6 inches away from the Super Bowl last year, with a defense that was probably not as good.

Defense too.

No, no Rutgers does not, not even slightly close. Bills should be ranked 6 - 8 right now, probably. Some weeks they look awful, some very good. But they have a history of cutting down the variability later in the season.

Nah, we deserved that game.

Talk to me after Week 16.

Got nothing to do with balls. It's got to do with whether or not he can grow up and develop and get better or not. There's still a chance. That chance appears to be decreasing, and not slowly. But it's still likely there. If they think it isn't, they'll cut him.

Yeah, and Hawes, Strong, Deone Walker, Cole Bishop who looks like he's turned the corner, Kincaid, Torrence, Cook, Bernard, Shakir, Benford, Rousseau, Brown, Gabe Davis, Dane Jackson, Ed Oliver, Dawson Knox, .... Oh, wait, those run counter to your silly narrative? Oh, sorry about that. Teams make bad picks. Every single team, without exception. Even in the first round. Bottom line, though is that teams need to be ranked by their complete draft record, not picking out this round and that round. And while it's still way way way early, Hairston looks good.

So, "there's a high chance that," translated to normal language, means "I think this should happen." Got it. It's certainly a possibility, I guess. IMO Shakir and Palmer and Coleman will still be here, at a minimum. But it's certainly within the range of possibility that you're right.

Just want to point out that this is NOT what people on this board were saying about Davis after about his third year.

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.