Thurman#1

There are many reasons to request an interview with a potential candidate for a job. One is that you have legitimate interest in having him possibly fill the job. But there are others. Maybe you want to ask him questions about his current position, or how he's handling it, or how his current organization is functioning. Another might be that you want to vet him for a position down the road and let him know of your long-term interest in his career. There are plenty of others. This is so early in Dorsey's OC term it seems weird that they would think of him as a legit HC candidate. HC positions are mostly about executive functioning, which Dorsey hasn't showed much of yet. I suppose it's possible they want him, but seems more likely to me they want to ask him some questions about something or possibly just vet him for down-the-line positions.

Yeah, 3 of 10 is not good. But let's not pretend that any receiver's catch percentage is totally on him. It's on him, on the QB and on the defense. 1st 12:07 INC Should've had it but the ball was well behind him, for no reason. 1st 3:36 INC Should've been caught 1st 3:32 COMP 1st 2:04 INC Gabe was wide open, Josh didn't get it over Tavai and it was tipped away with Gabe having no chance 1st 0:39 COMP, a crucial one on 3rd and 7 2nd 0:38 INC Gabe Open in the end zone but LB coming from the other side, far overthrown or thrown away 2nd 0:14 INT Allen hit as he threw, ball came nowhere near Gabe, he appeared open, though he was almost out of the frame 3rd 4:37 INC Couldn't see it, the Game Pass film skipped and Nance said, "off the hands of Gabe Davis", dunno what happened. 4th 11:36 COMP 4th 3:47 INC the long one where the defender was very close but Josh hit him, just a bad play by Gabe in the end zone This wasn't a good game, but three of those ten came nowhere near him and one was thrown hard and behind him and was a hard ball to catch though he should've caught it. Three completions, two bad incompletions and one I won't know till we get the All-22. Three of ten paints a picture that is far worse than Gabe deserves.

Correct. Davis's career catch percentage (though I doubt they've included this game yet) is significantly over 50%.

The correct answer is that it will depend largely on how he plays next year, and while many assume we know how that will be, we don't. We can guess, but we don't know. Sometimes guesses work out and sometimes they don't. It will also depend on what kind of numbers he demands. Before the year it looked like he might be one of our top priorities over the next couple of years. With the way he played this year he no longer looks like that much of a priority. If he plays better in the future, he will get more money and he'll have more leverage. If he levels off at his current level he won't get a ton of money, here or elsewhere. WR is very likely to be one of the three or four areas they might be willing to use a higher pick on this year. Probably they might bring in a good solid WR the way Polian brought in Bill Brooks.

Nonsense. Of course you do, in the right situation. This isn't the right situation, of course. We've got a lot to play for. But plenty of teams have given up on the last game and won Super Bowls. Most recently the 2014 Pats who lost to us 17-9 with Garoppolo replacing Brady at halftime. Plenty of other examples as well.

It was smart as hell. Made it much harder for the D to quickly diagnose how they were lined up. Extremely smart. It was a TD, though it was called back. It left basically the whole Chiefs OL standing in front of Toney. The LB who was playing contain kept that responsibility, stayed in place and almost made the play, but the blocker who just kept him from wrapping Toney up had nobody else to worry about. After that it was like 6 on 3. When I stopped the video looking at the right side of the field as Mahomes throws it back, there are three Chiefs to the right of the right hashmark and seven Raiders. And the play is going back to the right side. Smart as hell. The Raiders were lucky a phantom holding penalty got called. Looked to me like they were trying but just simply not even close to good enough. You have an excellent point about the fan base. Very true.

I'm sure the Chiefs would find that totally fair, except not. EtNovad. Not sure if that was Autocorrect working on your post, but it's a small mistake.

The only off the field issue appears to be that at this point they'd rather him be off the field when they play zone, which is most of the time. He essentially did not play zone in college. Next year hopefully he'll have figured it out. As of now, though, he's pretty good at man and less so in zone, though seems to be improving. And that improvement is good news. Thanks to those looking at the actual facts in terms of snaps rather than just going with their narratives.

That is objectively ridiculous. Power rankings are subjective undertakings.

Any one of four teams as #1 is a legit opinion. Maybe even five. The Bills are certainly one of those teams. Probably top two or three.

Nope, you appear not to understand the meaning of ad hominem. That wasn't ad hominem. It was based directly on your process and your words. That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem means saying it must be wrong because it's Einstein. I didn't say that at all. I said look at this gigantic mess from Einstein. His lack of logic, lack of responsiveness and apparent lack (still) of listening to the actual quotes from Levi in that interview say some sad and pitiful things about him, don't they? That's not ad hominem. It's the result of how you went about this whole thread. At long long long long last you've finally posted a link. At least that's a tiny step in the right direction. But now that you have after an excruciating attempt to delay and pretend, posted it, it's clear why you didn't want to do so. First, about the article, it's a good one. Dunne is an absolutely excellent writer. And Levi, as he always does, comes across as classy, as accountable, and also as really smart and hard-working. I didn't know that about him losing his father to ALS in college. Jeez, that's sad, and it makes your root for him even more. I can't even imagine that. And the reset of the story about his charity endeavors also really hits home. Just a hell of a good man. I already really liked him, and now I'll root for him every Sunday except against the Bills. But you have the same problem now that you did before you posted this. Levi never says what you say he did. The reason you couldn't highlight in orange any of Levi's words beyond, "Yeah," is obvious here. You say that the information comes "directly from Wallace with quotes from Wallace." Well, yeah, it has quotes from Wallace. But no, the 13 seconds info there comes from Dunne, without any evidence in this article that backs you up at all. The closest he comes is for Dunne - not Levi - to say, "He thought his position was sound." "Thought." Past tense. Not present. Because that's not what he thinks today. Dunne says that Wallace "did not go rogue." As if anyone says he went rogue. But there was failure in communication within the framework of the play, and Wallace just admits it, here and in the podcast video you seem so unwilling to look at, for obvious reasons. Dunne says: "He thought his position was sound. After all, this is how the play was designed. In retrospect, however, Wallace wishes he would've turned his head around and noticed that safety Jorday Poyer was lined up so far back. If he did that, he would've adjusted his alignment. Instead, for a split-second, he admits the two friends took their four years of communication for granted and were not on the same page. " 'Rarely,' he adds, 'do me and Poyer ever bust.' " Pretty clear here what Wallace thinks, and it's not that the play was the problem. He goes on to talk further about the problem in the next paragraph, saying "It was in the gameplan," but, as Dunne says, "[Wallace] puts it on the players to realize KC only needed a field goal and believes guys were too caught up in the emotion of the offense scoring a touchdown." Exactly. Dunne goes on to go just that bit further: "What stung most was that players felt like they let each other down." And his evidence for that is the Wallace quote, "The 11 guys on that field let each other down." Precisely. I'll always be a Wallace fan. Great article too. I'm thinking right now of looking up his foundation and contributing. Sounds like it does spectacular work. But Wallace knows, and he said it. Both here and in the video. EDIT: I sent $50. Felt good.

Does Einstein crack you up, or what? This is so hilarious I just can't help pointing out what a shambles it is. Does the poor sap even know who he is quoting there? The only three links he posts are incomplete, unable to be duplicated (how convenient ...). Not links, in other words. They're actually semi-links, only partially there. He actually posted about half of a link to his own google search and two other semi-links, not whole and thus unable to be followed, to pages somewhere in TBD. Like that proves anything. And then he keeps posting the same link-less copy, the gray stuff he highlighted in orange, without the slightest apparent clue who wrote it. Did you notice that? There's no author. I seriously suspect he might have written it himself. If not him, though, apparently someone who apparently typed his opinion and is thus to be taken seriously. Einstein doesn't even appear to know that the stuff he highlighted in orange is almost 100% not Wallace. I mean, the education system these days is bad, but I'd argue the great majority of it would flunk work that bad. He has a couple hundred words there, and he highlighted 50 of the words. 49 of the 50 words there are the unknown writer's. He has orange-highlighted one word that Wallace said, the word, "Yeah." And he thinks he made a point that supersedes my own transcript of what Wallace actually said in the video. The two disagree, and he thinks Wallace's own words hold less weight. If he's a troll it wouldn't be all that funny, but I actually have a feeling that he really believes it. It's a tire fire in progress where the tires are going, "No, it's clearly not hot, I saw on the internet somewhere that the temperature was just fine. He could check Wallace's own words. But he won't. Fascinating to me.

You're so right. * sigh *

Folks, see what Einstein did here? He yet again repeated his own summary of one sentence that Wallace said, all the while ignoring the rest because it doesn't suit his narrative. He ignored part of the direct translation that I posted which showed where he is wrong. Which is what someone who is an absolute slave to confirmation bias would do. Even his google search, "... admits he played assignment incorrectly" is a drastic result of his own confirmation bias, and will therefore produce results twisted by Einstein's own perceptions. The search which would have helped him, then and now, is - to boringly repeat - "Levi Wallace 13 seconds." This one doesn't enforce his own beliefs on the search. The one he used does. Again, he's the one ignoring what Wallace said. I'm transcribing it. Gotta be impressed by someone willing to double down on dumbness. The article doesn't say what he apparently thinks it does. The article says that if he had looked at Poyer's depth, he would have played it differently. In other words, he had some freedom within the play, as does Poyer, and they have worked extensively on working together within that play, but because he didn't check Poyer's depth he stayed further outside than he should have. Right play. Bad communication by the players within the play allowed a result that they would have avoided if they had communicated better. But Einstein was and appears to still be too full of communication bias to look any further by, say, looking at all of Wallace's words. He found what he wanted to hear and didn't bother to check any further. Typical. And revealing of his motives.

Can? Absolutely yes. Without question. Will? Dunno. It definitely makes it quite a bit harder. They'll have a real chance, a good chance. But it gets harder.

Disagree. But it's possible. Tyrod was not on an upward trend. Jones is.

Yup. You're nice enough to do his googling for him and then you see the weird interpretations that follow.

That shaded bit is nonsense. Wallace did this interview long after he was a Pittsburgh Steeler. The interviewer even asks if it's OK to ask about this. And again, no. He wasn't too deep. He specifically said he was too far outside. Yes, he should have looked at Poyer's depth, but didn't. No, that does not automatically mean that he was adjusting his own depth. He was defending mostly the outside, as the film shows. Poyer was way too deep to cover the inside on that play, he was covering only against a Hail Mary. "We have to defend outside, and we have to defend that little bang route that he ran." He says that if he'd known Poyer was that deep, he "would have scooted in or I'd have pressed it." And, when you google "Levi Wallace 13 seconds", it's like seven of the first ten links to come up. Google is your friend.

Showing bump and bailing tells the same thing that showing bump and bumping does. Unless you're bailing way before the snap, and if you're doing that, why bother.

Levi said when admitting what happened that it was the right call and if played right would have been stopped for a short gain.

It's another reason they don't do it often at all. QBs can read it. The Bills don't like to give more pre-snap info than they have to.

They're dysfunctional mostly because they haven't got a QB. Saleh is a good coach. Yeah they look awful now, but I think QBs will absolutely look there as a real option for next year. Fair enough, but how did it work out with Seattle? They developed the guy they brought in as a backup but it's still about getting a good veteran QB onto a solid team. If the Titans hadn't gotten rid of AJ Brown, they'd still be looking damn good after making that move.

First round early. OGs / Cs in the first 15 or even 20 are relative rarities. After that they're as common as OTs. Most first-round OTs are gone by the time we draft these days. At pick #20 or afterwards, only five OTs have gone in the past five years. Five OTs and five INT OLs. Late in the round, Cs / Gs are just as common. 3 OGs in the first last year, and a C besides. One INT OL the year before. One the year before that, two in 2019 and three the year before that. I think only Quenton Nelson in the top ten, most (all?) of the rest starting at #14. Yes, certainly most OLs that go in the first should be tackles, and most of those left tackles. But there's a reason a year hasn't gone by without an INT OL being taken in the first. And those OLs tend to be good picks as well. IMO we're not going to be picking top 20 for the next several years. Might as well start thinking the way people drafting where we're going to be drafting should.

I spent the entire offseason trying to psychically influence Beane towards strong consideration of Zion Johnson or Kenyon Green in the first. They were both gone, but there were guys I liked later, like Parham and Lecitus Smith. Finally it was nobody till Tenuta. The more I see of Beane the more it looks to me like maybe he figures OL is the area where he thinks a wildly mobile QB can slow the pass rush enough that he just doesn't want to spend high picks there. With Belichick it tended to be WRs and CBs and OLs, he'd occasionally grab one high, but not nearly as often as I'd expect. He'd tend to use his higher picks on DLs, TEs, LBs, etc. Belichick had Scarnecchia to coach up the OL for him, and this Bills OL seems to play better as a group, particularly late in the season, than you'd maybe expect from looking at the individuals. Is he going to make a further pattern of filling in with mid-level FAs and mid-level picks at the OL? I'm not sure I like that idea, as Allen is our one irreplaceable necessity going forward. I'd like to see them address OL more seriously. But you can't really use your biggest resources everywhere. There aren't enough to go around.

It isn't difficult, now, to have won six games. At the time it was. Now ... it no longer affects the difficulty of what they have to do. Five straight. And they can still win the SB even if they don't win one or both of the next two, though they'd probably get an extra game that way.