Thurman#1

It was just turning from 0:10 to 0:09 when he went down. He got his knee off the ground at 0:08. He ran towards the middle of the field and at 0:05, he threw it to the ref. At 0:04, the ref had it, but he was about halfway between the numbers and the hashes., and the Bills were still moving and couldn't know where to line up since the ball was still in the ref's hand. He moved quickly through a group of players and put it down at 0:01. Just not enough time. Sometimes 0:09 is enough, but McKenzie was way over by the sidelines and had a crowd to get through. Yeah, that was a killer.

Saw on Buffalo Plus that thermometers on the field were reading 120. That's insane!! But yeah, players gotta execute. This was a team loss. Plenty of blame to go around and a bunch of very weird bounces and such besides.

The measurable objective criteria you're most likely referring to are often either small potatoes, mostly old info. Am I wrong? Here's measurable objective criteria, his teams win more than they lose. They've gotten better. And not by a little. And you're right I'm focused on the big picture. That's where everyone should focus, IMO. I wouldn't mind if they got someone in to take over challenges. But that's the old info. He started out doing pretty badly in challenges and he's been fine the last year or two. Um, yeah. And sometimes factoring in the excuses is what gives you the right viewpoint. The Bills shouldn't be saying this, it's not the productive way for the people in the action to look at things. But we're not players, we can look at things realistically. And the injuries and in particular the heat problems had a massive impact on this game, the way the wind did in the first Pats game last year.

Um, yeah, fair enough. Just in your OP you called a bunch of things indefensible that are very defensible, and dug deep into scapegoat territory by blaming McDermott for several things that he's not particularly to blame for. He's far from perfect, as I'm sure he'd tell you. Needs to keep improving as I'm sure he'd agree. But he's one of the best coaches in the league.

The thinking. Knee-jerk, lazy, find the scapegoat and blame him as loud as you can thinking.

Says the man on a day when Belichick used a timeout at 10:00 in the 2nd corner for no tactical reason. Plenty of times TOs are used for great reasons that fans aren't privy to. Sometimes not. Spending a timeout can cause problems down the road. Or not. Plenty of times the problem at hand is as bad or worse than what will come up down the road. McDermott's fine about TOs. Not a big problem of his.

That is correct, which is unusual for someone who started such a lazy and ridiculous thread. McDermott being good is what makes McDermott being good. It's more complex than that, of course, and I expressed it as it's own logical fallacy. But the point is true. The reason people say in overwhelming numbers that McDermott is good is that he does good things for the team, things good coaches do. In far larger numbers than the bad things he does. No coach is perfect. McDermott is one of the best in the league. I haven't been here after the game till just now, so many people have already probably said this and things like it. But down the road this game will almost surely be seen as this year's version of the first Pats game last year when the conditions had a far out-sized effect on the game and made it a bizarre outlier.

This is a dumb thread. Coaching wasn't the problem.

Neither was the slightest bit of a problem. The problems happened on the field with the heat and the cramping, the injuries and the missed opportunities. Dorsey was in the coaches box, probably feeling the cameras would be elsewhere. Who cares?

Nonsense that this was "completely ignored." We drafted Jaquan Johnson in the 6th. And Damar Hamlin in the 6th I mean, maybe we could have thrown a bit more into it. I mean, they could have drafted a 5th rounder instead of a 6th. A 5th rounder like Micah Hyde, maybe. Or a 7th rounder like Poyer. You don't like these new guys. Fair enough. But they didn't ignore the position. They just appear to have a very different view than you do about how good the backups are. We'll see who's right as the youngsters start to get some experience.

What are you talking about? He didn't mention a thing about who would replace him. Yes, of course he said it "will hit [the Bills] a bit harder than most." Because he's one of our best and most important players not to mention best leaders and most liked, this will indeed be tough on them. Where in the world is the big problem with that? Not to mention that as was noted, this is an injury with an uncertain recovery like the one that forced Aaron Williams into very early retirement.

Massive is really overstating it. The 40 times are quite different. But a lot of their other numbers are not that different. Micah Broad jump 10'01" Jaquan Broad jump 10'01" Micah Vertical Jump 33 3/8 Jaquan Vertical Jump 33 3/4 Micah 40 yard dash 10 yard split 1.65 (ET) and 1.59 (HH) Jaquan 40 yard dash 10 yard split 1.63 (ET) and 1.57 (HH) Micah 40 yard dash 20 yard split 2.70 (ET) and 2.55 (HH) Jaquan 40 yard dash 20 yard split 2.69 (ET) and 2.59 (HH) Micah 20 yard shuttle 4.20 Jaquan 20 yard shuttle 4.18 Micah 225 Bench Press Reps: 12 Jaquan 225 Bench Press Reps: 18 Micah 3-cone 6.78 Combine and 6.67 Pro day Jaquan 3-cone 7.20 Pro day https://draftscout.com/dsprofile.php?PlayerId=1003103&DraftYear=2019 https://draftscout.com/dsprofile.php?PlayerId=94008&DraftYear=2013 Again, "massive" is really an overstatement.

Because he's one of their better players. Because it's a season ender. Because he's arguably one of the most important ... say seven players on this team. Why wouldn't it hit hard?

Less like asking your dog to sing. More like putting your dog onto a giant checkerboard where 55% of the squares say YES and 45% say NO and waiting for him to poo about 70 times and asking the owner whether he'd like to bet his kid's college scholarship money on only two or three of those events and you can't predict in advance which one of those events he'll be betting on, the first, the twenty-third or the 67th. It's too opaque. Sounds very good at first, but unless you know which ones of those events will be important and which won't, you'd like to make sure that you don't take the riskier choice. A wildly obvious example: your team scores on the last play of the game to tie. Are you going to go for two, knowing that taking that choice every time over the course of the season will be extremely likely to raise the number of total points you'll score over the course of the season? Or would you go for two with no time left and down by one? Again, doing this every time over the course of the season means you're virtually guaranteed to raise the number of overall points you'll score. It depends on the circumstances each individual time, and at the beginning of games you haven't a clue which points you might miss might be wildly unimportant or completely irrelevant to your win percentage.

The problem is that assuming that you manage over 50% of them, you've maximized expected points over the season. But NOT worked towards maximizing wins within the same period. The problem with this is that by going for two consistently and racking up three or four, hell, say eight extra points per season you may (or may not) lose a game or two as a result. In exchange for the overall extra points, you give up on the extremely predictable nature of those points. Say we played last season over again with the exact same results, except that we went for two and got five extra points, how many extra wins would that have brought us? The correct answer is that there's no way of knowing. Say we got one extra point in eight games, none of which were anywhere near close. We got eight extra points and zero extra wins. Then we get two fewer points in one game, scoring four TDs, going one out of four in two point conversions and losing the game 28 - 27? We got six extra points on the season and lost an extra game as a result. Extra points over the course of a season don't mean much. What matters is extra or fewer points in close games. You don't know in which games those points will be absolutely crucial.

And as Joe B pointed out this week, it was a lot more the fault of the line than the RBs when we have had running problems this year. Not surprising, really, considering how little time they had working together this offseason and camp. Lots of injuries and problems and they had very little continuity. If it the line starts to gel this year, it is likely to take some time.

Sorry, man, that's just wrong. Being light and breathable is fine, it's the best they can do. But blue gets hotter than white, and not by a little. Which has an effect on human beings. All of them. On hot days it's huge, and has a major effect. Does that mean the Bills will lose? No, of course it doesn't, but it's a big disadvantage, same as having the Fins up here when it's really cold has a big advantage for us.

Yes, they're very smart. No, they don't give a crap about who wins or loses and are not especially good at picking that. What they're really good at picking and predicting is how their bettors will bet. They don't get anywhere near 99.9% right on who will win.

Nah. Winning doesn't necessarily mean you're a better team. It just doesn't. Were the Bills worse than the Jags last year? No. Were they worse on the day? Yup, there's no arguing that, but they were a much much better team. The Fins will have to show much more over time to be considered a better team, even if they win.

Dolphins wanted them in those blue tops. Hotter in the sun. The white pants/helmets will be a bit cooler. Won't be a huge factor, but it will have an effect.

It's rude. More so depending who's behind you. If it's a kid or a very short woman or someone who has physical problems with standing up (and you often simply don't know about that) you're basically destroying the value of that person's ticket.

Ah, I see. Your earlier statement seemed bizarre, but with clarification makes perfect sense. Very much agreed that he's likely to get much more time as the year moves around. I think after mid-season makes sense. That's the way it tends to go under McDermott for rookies, with occasional exceptions.

Heh heh heh.

No, that's not right. Engaged or not, if he's downfield before the pass is thrown it's a penalty. The rule is to prevent confusion for the defense, so they don't see lots of guys downfield that they think they have to cover. It's got nothing to do with blocking. Though officially they should call this penalty quickly, it's almost never actually called until someone is five or more yards downfield. You can see from the Cover1 footage that Brown stays within about 3 yards of the LOS until well after the ball is thrown.

Again, those studies do not show the impact of shortened careers. Looking at a career like RGIII's, those studies generally say that he only missed a few games to injury. Which really misrepresents the effects that the pounding he took over the years has had on him. (Granted, bad coaching may also have shortened his career, but he's 30 and out of football. Same with Cam. Just not very good after age 29. Look at Vick. Stupidity in picking a hobby certainly had a major effect on him, but he had an excellent year at age 30 and was never the same after that. Again, the reason they take place more there is simply that they spend more time there, all of them do. It's like arguing that between the goal line and the 10 yard line is really very safe because most football injuries don't take place there. True. But doesn't show what anyone making the argument thinks it does. Indeed, happy hunting. See you around.