Thurman#1

Most seem to think it's not all that mysterious, from what I hear people like Cover1, Buscaglia and others saying. Elam's not there yet with zone coverage, is what most think. And we're primarily a zone team, though our frequency changes game to game. In man, Elam seems to already be the best of the group behind White, most likely. But he needs work on zone. Is anyone saying much different? He doesn't draft for need, as he's made clear. But he does drop guys if they aren't fits or at positions of need. That effectively lifts guys at positions of need a bit higher. And if there are several guys very very closely evaluated he absolutely goes with the guy at the position of need. Pretty much everyone does. But he does not reach for need. It's a core principle for him. He believes it's bad for the team. I'd argue he's correct about that. We were drafting CB in the first round if there was a good one there for us. There was, in their opinion. We'll see down the line how correct they were.

What's sad? Oh, you're talking about your own opinion? Yeah, wouldn't have expected that of you, but nice call. And if you call that piling on, you live a sad and sheltered life. What I said there are facts. Does that sound familiar by the way? The difference being you used facts to draw unwarranted inferences. And I pointed out that the facts didn't show what you thought they did.

Yeah. Thing is, this artificial stat isn't a measure of coaching success. it's a measure of team success. As is any look at any type of wins. The key to this is that the length is being artificially adjusted to the length of the coach's service. This measure will unfairly punish teams who have their coach go through a rebuild. Teams with coaches brought in to turn around a crap team are punished. Regardless of whether or not they successfully did turn around that team, they're punished for the years of the rebuild while teams with coaches brought into a situation built for quick success in a reload, such as LaFleur, are unfairly rewarded. It also unfairly rewards coaches with long terms, as there's only one year it looks at where there's one bye. All the rest have two. By this measure, the great Barry Switzer would be seen as the third-best NFL coach on the list. If he'd been looked at after his first two years he'd have been seen as far beyond any coach on the list and one of the greatest of all time, with a 3.5. Perhaps even the greatest of all time, without going through every coach. (Spoiler alert for those who don't remember Barry. He was not a great coach. He was a coach given a great team at the beginning of his term.) Again, it's a measure of team success, not coaching. And a weird measure, at that. Coaching certainly has an effect on team success. So do many other things.

It gets sad, and clueless, doesn't it? I'm guessing next comes a study of hair length as an objective measure of success, with long hair better, followed by frequency of clapping as an objective measure of failure.

... who are telling it the way it is.

Charles Grodin was an absolute national treasure!!!

He's one of the best in the league and everybody knows it but a small group of desperate Bills fans. Yeah, that's right. He hasn't won a Super Bowl. Neither had Andy Reid, until he did. Neither had Bill Belichick, until he did. I could go on and on and on. He is a terrific coach. He still has something to prove, as does nearly everyone. Look at Belichick now. Many think he's getting close to being on the hot seat.

I hate the idea of expanding. But I also hate that one team gets such a huge advantage. Honestly, six in each conference was the way to go. But they've already left that behind for more money.

As he should. He's been great here, just terrific. He'll be hard to replace. Not impossible, but he has been a terrific fit. Good for him!!!! EDIT: People think the 0:13 thing is going to hurt him? That's nuts. Being beaten by Mahomes playing at his absolute best isn't something teams blame defenses for, anymore than is being beaten by Allen. A player has already admitted the right call was made and he played the wrong spacing, creating the big play. Won't hurt Frazier at all. His age might.

Yeah, this is nonsense. It will absolutely hurt. And Jerry Hughes? I snorted involuntarily as I read that. Hughes is very good. Miller is still playing great.

Milano didn't play that game, nor did Poyer. That left Terrel Bernard and Jaquan Johnson playing. I think the Bills defense will be quite a bit better this week. Haven't gotten a sense yet as far as how well Tre is playing. Is he back to what he was? Or will that take till next season? I haven't had time to watch the All-22 on him the past couple of weeks.

I don't see exactly what you're talking about there. You say, "But Allen doesn't just 'jump into a pile of defenders.'" But that's not what Kubiak said. The "just" there is yours, not his. Yeah, he didn't just jump into a pile of defenders. But he did jump into a pile of defenders, which is what Kubiak said. Nor was he being the slightest bit insulting about Allen's performance on the play. Complimentary if anything, except perhaps implying worry about Allen's injury risk on the play with his word choice. I worried about it too at that time. He absolutely did jump up over McCourty who then had an opportunity to bring him down with some real impact. I'm with you about the injury risk. I wish he'd stop, but he just keeps doing these things. Kubiak was complimentary from the beginning about Allen, with good reason of course. I always enjoy his articles. He breaks things down very well. And you're right that was an interesting note about the route coming from film study. I wish he'd been a bit more detailed about what he's seen, but even so it was good stuff. Thanks.

True. But it's also true that there's never in league history been a team doing 3 games in 12 days without a single game at home. This was a very difficult stretch. And yet they won all three.

This is just dumb. And not a little bit. This isn't about culture or player commitment. Both teams have terrific culture and extreme commitment. The Bills are coming off three away games in 12 days. They need rest more than anything else. And they won those three games. They are rewarding themselves. With rest. For those who are going home, that's not something they do every week, it's a nine-day week. The Chiefs are coming off a loss. This is their equivalent of running laps after screwing up. They are on a seven day week and don't have time to go home if they wanted to. They are also less exhausted, coming off three games in 15 days, only two of which were away. Do you know how many Bills come in to do rehab or lift weights on Mondays of seven-day weeks? Yeah, didn't think so. Genuinely, a clueless knee-jerk dumb take. If we were coming off a horrible loss or something, takes this awful would be ever so slightly understandable. But we are not.

That is the question. After signing Von Miller we left ourselves to two or three years of cap shenanigans. Not too many, they won't be like the Saints or anything, but making that move meant either really serious cuts or more than their usual shenanigans. It's why if any of the guys who are question marks insist on max market value (a reasonable thing, really) they are not likely to be kept. IMO Tremaine loves it here and will not insist on max. But will the discount he is willing to give be enough? IMO it will. But really we'll have to see.

Perhaps if it were only my eyes. But it's not. Cover1 says this, Joe B does, the announcers who've weighed in agreed. Everyone, really. It's the consensus. And frankly, it only makes sense. With a line that was below average, we wouldn't be as good as this offense is. It just wouldn't make sense. Even Allen gets worse when rushed consistently. And early in the year when they were having problems, the RBs weren't going anywhere. Now they are. There's several reasons for that but the main one is that the OL just plain is not below average, though at the beginning of the season calling them that might have been fair.

Bills o-line is slightly above average at this point. The D would be a lot worse without him. You only have to look at how they've played when he's not here. That's not something that only started this yearl

You can if it's the best thing for the offense. You can if it maximizes the effectiveness of the offense. You can and you should, in that case. In some games I would guess it would be different. But his money isn't for catches. It's for doing whatever he can do to make the offense function better on each play. Sometimes that will be blocking. No. Lee Smith's blocking and effectiveness is greatly affected by the fact that there's only one thing he can do really well. The fact that the D has to respect Dawson's pass catching ability is an extra weapon even when he's just blocking. He could always block for a second and then just go. You don't have that threat with Lee Smith. He's being paid for the whole package. Which absolutely includes his blocking abilities.

I know. Many here have made it clear that he should be on the hot seat if he doesn't win the SB.

I think it is treated the same as any other catch. Any catch completed in bounds is complete and any catch completed out of bounds is considered incomplete.

No, a loose ball is what any pass is called till it is ruled incomplete or possession is secured by the catch being finished. "ARTICLE 4. LOOSE BALL "A Loose Ball is a live ball that is not in player possession, i.e., any ball that has been kicked, passed, or fumbled. A Loose Ball is considered to be in possession of the team (offense) whose player kicked, passed, or fumbled it. It is a Loose Ball until a player secures possession or until the ball becomes dead. If it has not yet struck the ground, a Loose Ball is In Flight."

You're right. I'm wrong. Sorry. I was looking at an old rulebook, I find. Sorry!!! Thanks for the correction. Removing the post. However, saying that what Poyer did was taking a step is not clear at all. It could just as easily be called hitting the ground with your foot as you fall, a reflexive attempt to avoid falling, or something else along those lines. IMO not clearly and definitively a football move by any means.

You might think he had possession in bounds. According to the rules, he didn't satisfy the requirements for that from what I see. There are two rules involved: Item 3: Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his boty, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession. Your foot hit the ground a third time inbounds as you fall, IMO, does not fit the "act common to the game" idea. It's not juking, changing direction, reaching the ball forward towards an area that would reward him in the context of the game or whatever. It's just part of falling, generally.

Is it not a catch, you ask? Dunno. Depends whether he made a football move and finished the catch inbounds or if it moved when he hit the ground. If the guy made the catch but hadn't completed the catch and his teammate swatted it out that would make him the stupidest teammate in the world, in bounds or out of bounds. If he completed the catch and then went out of bounds, it's a catch and the teammate slaps it out it's a catch. If he didn't complete the catch and went out of bounds, it's not a catch. The swat doesn't matter if he goes out of bounds first. Poyer had not completed the catch till OOB.

It moved when he was out of bounds. Only after that he got control. If he'd been in bounds, it would have been a catch if it didn't hit the ground. The comparison to a spike doesn't hold water. Reaching to cross the plane is a football move, proving possession. Poyer didn't make a football move so he hadn't showed possession when the ball moved when he was already out of bounds.