Thurman#1

Well, if Hell No is the answer to the question, then it was a dumb question. You're the one who asked it. You said, "Are you sure?" after he said, "Sean brought him Allen and a winning culture. That's a fact. Sean brought him Beane, and the two of them brought him Allen. The correct answer is yes, unless your "are you sure" was twisting his words to pretend that he meant that Beane and nobody else brought him Allen. And if that's what you asked, it was a dumb question. Nobody with the slightest bit of sense is saying that McDermott was the only person made that decision. Everyone with the slightest bit of sense, particularly after reading that article knows Sean was behind it, that Sean knew he wasn't ready to pick a QB the year before with the limited time he had available after having to spend so much time that year that laying the foundation for the whole team. (And Sean has never said this, nor would he, but why would he trust Whaley to choose a QB when Whaley had been so wildly in EJ Manuel's corner the previous time that he was tasked with QB choice. So Sean traded and got an extra 1st the next year. Without that, probably no Josh Allen. He then brought in Beane, who clearly he trusts. So teh answer to that question, unless it's the genuinely stupid variation of that question, is Absolutely Yes.

Yeah, per play has the same vital importance as EP. Very little. Points and yards are what result in wins and field position gains and losses. Points and yards. Plenty of other stats can give you some interesting niche data that has some interesting niche meaning. It's not without meaning. But it has far less meaning than points and yards. Want to look at productivity? Yards. And points. Wanna see who ran a higher percentage of the time? Check out who who got higher yards per play. It's usually them. It's not all that specific to productivity to have higher yards per play. What is? Points. And yards. Could you show me where I said "these were all back and forth shootouts"? Or anything really like it? I don't believe I did. I said that scoring a bunch of points in the playoffs against the Chiefs is overall a good way to make sure that the KC offense also scores a bunch of points. The Bills have, I would guess, averaged more points than anyone else, and the Chiefs feel very reasonably that a team with Josh Allen can score a lot and it keeps them on their toes. And their 75% win percentage when the opponent scores more than 30 in the playoffs in the Mahomes era shows that's correct. IMO that year the Chiefs saw the Bills as a serious threat, even though the offense just wasn't good enough that year in the playoffs. But the Bills had not just beaten them in the regular season but held them to 17 offensive points. I think their offense took that personally. And dude, how many times do I have to say this before you get it? Another dozen? Yeah, they scored a lot against the Bills, yeah their offense played well against the Bills. We all get it. You can produce stats that show they didn't do as well against other teams. Remind me, did they beat the Dolphins when they got 5.5 whatevers? Yeah? Exactly. Did they beat the Ravens who yadda yadda? Yeah? Exactly. Their offense has mostly scored what they need to score to win. They tend to relax when not pushed, when they feel safe. For whatever reason, that's their personality. That's their recent history. If your team doesn't score much, then not every time but more often than expected they won't perform like an offensive machine, they'll just score enough to win. You say three of their best were against the Bills? First, that's YPP, a dumb measure. And second, as I've said the Bills have pushed them hard more often than most teams. They tend to score more when that happens. Your data does not refute my point, in any way. The Chiefs have been better against the Bills ... and against anyone who scores a lot against them and scares them. When the Niners only scored 22, the Chiefs only scored enough to win, 25. On the other hand, when Houston got up 24-7 early in the 2nd Q, they saw them as a threat and turned on the afterburners. When Philly got 35 the Chiefs got what they needed, 38. Again, they have freakishly won 3/4 games when the opponent scores more than 30. That flies in the face of normal results. It speaks to the fact that they are not a normal team.

Wouldn't go that far, Bill. This is IMO a good defense, especially as they get healthier. But not as good, certainly. How much less will have me on the end of my seat. But you're right that there isn't a firm connection. The Chiefs also don't seem to be the same team this year that they were in the past, though the last game looked pretty good. And Josh seems to be even better than he's been. Ought to be an interesting post-season. I'm exhilarated but terrified. Same as every year, really.

Thanks, GoBills808. Couldn't manage any words that would actually impact my points, could you? Fair enough to limit yourself to a smile. That's a nice compliment.

Sorry, man, but you are wrong. There's a reason I said the phrase you bolded, "What would the odds be against any other defense in the league? Yup, also pretty high." It's simply true. Your attempt to use a bunch of stats didn't even address my point, much less successfully disprove it. I was saying that IF other teams had scored high, the odds are the Chiefs would have scored higher. To (poorly) attempt to rebut me you produced games where teams DID NOT score high. It's not clear whether you missed my point or are just trying to shoehorn evidence into an argument that they don't fit. But your evidence doesn't go towards what I said. It just doesn't. What is the average win percentage through the whole league, when your opponent scores 30 or more? Damn low, is what it is. Now as for games where the opponent actually DID score high in the playoffs against the Chiefs ... in the Mahomes era, in the playoffs, the Chiefs are 3/4 in games where their opponent scores 30 or more. That is absolutely nuts. It's sensational. And it speaks to the fact that when the other team scores big, the Chiefs have done better - way way better - at putting their pedal to the metal and responding than most teams can manage. That is a fact. Oh, and your argument that the Chiefs offense played their best postseason game against the Bills in 2023 is at best very questionable and frankly approaches nuts. What is your insistence on using EP? EP is excellent at picking out future odds. And poor at examining the past. The Chiefs put up 409 yards and 26 points against the Fins and 455 yards and 25 points against the 9ers in those same playoffs. Compared to the 355 yards and 27 they managed against the Bills it's clear that was certainly not their best. And again, those teams did NOT hold the Chiefs feet to the fire, score a ton of points and force them to score late to win. And unfortunately, neither did the Bills last year. The Bills last three offensive drives were turnover on downs, punt and missed FG. That was at least as much to blame for that loss as the D was. Zero points on their last three drives, gave the ball to the Chiefs at the Bills 32 which the D did a terrific job getting a turnover on, and then the Missed FG on the drive they couldn't maintain. Ordinarily the Bills offense is good enough to keep drives going in cases like that. Not that day. That was every bit as much to blame as the defense. The offense wasn't good enough to put the Chiefs under pressure again there at the end, due to Diggs' drop, a couple of bad decisions by Allen, a few small problems here and there despite a lucky fumble recovery by Spencer Brown on that Allen fumble. Just not good enough.

Yes, you're repeating yourself. But what you've got there at the bottom is reasonable. But very far from strong. Which is why it's reasonable. You don't think that argument bears out. Well, I certainly can't prove that you're wrong. You can't prove me wrong either. But three out of four SB wins is a very very strong indicator that the Chiefs offense kept doing, again and again, just what it needed to win. And no, I am not saying that they bring their best offensive game only against the Bills. I'm saying they bring their best offensive game mostly only to any team that forces them to do so. The Eagles in the Super Bowl, for instance, scored 35 points. That forced the Chiefs to do what? Put up 38 and win the game. The Texans scored 31 and the Chiefs absolutely wiped them out. They don't manage this perfectly, they do lose a playoff game every once in a while. They lost the Super Bowl to a team that scored 31 if I remember correctly. But less than any other playoff team the past few years. And that is their M.O. They do seem to take it up a notch when pushed. Um, they DID win the game. They did do what they needed to do. You're right that he had plenty of incentive to dial it in. Which he did.

They trailed by 20 - 10 in the game vs. the 49ers, right? And then didn't they do enough to catch up and win? Exactly as history says they will do. Did I say that KC doesn't go to OT? Or did I say that they have consistently done enough to win and not much more? And did they? Did they get behind and quickly come back, doing what they needed to do? The Chiefs offense did just what they needed to do to win, not much more. Which is their tendency. Which is my point. Mahomes had a rough game with some bad decisions in that 2021 season game that they lost. And the Cincy defense played very well. In both games. That shouldn't be questioned. but I watched that game as you probably did, and Mahomes was not so good. Not so much this year - which gives me hope - but over the past few years if an opponent wanted KC's offense to get potent and start scoring, all they needed to do was have their own offense start putting up points. The Bills have been the best at scaring the Chiefs. And by the way, the one problem the Bills D has had over the past few years is an inability to rush well. When they brought in Von before the injury it looked like they were going to be able to hassle Mahomes enough to knock him off his game. Unfortunately Von got injured and while he seems better, he is not the same as he was. This is a very legitimate concern about this D, that they don't have that one guy with a jet-assisted get-off. Makes it hard to defend against great QBs. Nope, that would be your logic. But go ahead, find a place where I said that.

Really? OK, sorry, let me point out what I think is the logical flaw there. You are assuming that if one thing changed in those games that everything else would have stayed the same. Which isn't a reasonable assumption. Again, the Chiefs offense seems to do just what they need to do to win. If the other team doesn't score much, the Chiefs often don't score much either. If the other team does score a lot, it seems to light a fire under Mahomes' butt and he performs better, again doing what it takes to win. That's how they've looked mostly for years now.

Ray is dead. So those appear to be more hallucinations. Did the hallucination say why Mahomes plays best vs. Buffalo? Did they say that it might well be because the Chiefs play their best when behind or under pressure? And that the Bills offense does that better than nearly any other? Because that is the pretty clear (and IMO reasonable) view of the Chiefs offense. They have turned it on when they needed it.

Then your numbers don't show what you think they do. What you have there are QB stats. They are not team stats. You're also apparently misunderstanding my point. I don't believe I every said anything like, "if we forced an INT or multiple INT's [sic] or reduced a completion % by 8 points, that it just wouldn't matter."

Nobody can have an intelligent response to this. What, precisely, do those numbers represent? And what, specifically, do you feel that these numbers show?

Yup. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/1167351/2019/08/29/is-your-guy-ready-for-the-league-inside-the-bills-decisions-meetings-and-scouting-trips-that-led-to-josh-allen/ "Beane knew this decision would define him as a general manager, so he meticulously laid out a plan. He and assistant general manager Joe Schoen studied the prospects extensively on film in August and made plans to see them live that fall. They saw Louisville’s Lamar Jackson play against N.C. State. They schmoozed their way onto the field at USC to watch Sam Darnold and Josh Rosen go head to head from the sideline. Beane relayed his findings to McDermott throughout the fall. 'He would go out and scout and come back, and there’s not a lot of GMs that do that,” McDermott said. “Some do, some don’t. He goes out, which I like. I appreciate that. It makes it harder on us during the week sometimes because we can’t do sitdown face to face. That said, player acquisition and knowing who’s out there is important.' "McDermott knew he needed to start scouting quarterbacks earlier than he had the previous year. When the Bills flew to Atlanta for their Week 4 upset win over the Falcons, McDermott spent the time in the air watching film of Allen. “'First thing that jumps off the film is how big he is, and you think about our weather here that we get and how much we needed a guy that you didn’t question the arm strength as the top guy,' McDermott said. "With Beane scouting live and McDermott watching tape, the Bills’ brain trust started to formulate baseline opinions on the quarterbacks. Neither one had overseen the process of scouting and drafting a quarterback, but they drew on their prior experiences to know what they wanted in their franchise guy. Beane had been around for Cam Newton and Jake Delhomme in Carolina. McDermott saw Newton and Donovan McNabb when he was in Philadelphia." And then from the Senior Bowl: “It’s a little intimidating, walking into a room with unknown coaches, unknown faces and them sitting down expecting you, getting ready to drill you with questions,” Allen said. “They have video up. That part was just the most nerve-racking part. Everyone else was just kind of meeting in the hotel where we were at with everybody, nothing crazy. I remember walking into that room and greeting coach McDermott first and then everybody else. It was definitely an eye-opening experience.“ And then from their visit to Laramie: "The next morning, Daboll put Allen through a workout. “'We threw a lot of footballs that day,' Allen recalled. "With every pass, Allen had the owner of the Bills standing by filming. “'That’s the coolest part about it,' Allen said. 'As I was going through drills, Mr. Pegula was filming me on his phone, like in my face as I was dropping back, going through all of these progressions. It was awesome to know the owners of the Buffalo Bills are very hands-on and very active in what they want to really accomplish with their franchise here.' "While Allen was going through a strong workout, Schoen got an alert on his phone. The New York Jets had traded the No. 6 pick and two second-round picks to the Colts to move up three spots to the No. 3 pick. “'We’re all like, "Oh man how is this going to work out?” 'McDermott said. 'He had a really good workout and it’s one of those deals where you leave that workout, it’s like leaving the store and you’re saying, "That’s a really cool whatever," but you’re leaving saying, "I don’t know if I can get that.’ It’s kind of bittersweet, like what did we come out here for?” Did McDermott make the decision? Hell, no. That's Beane's job. But was McDermott involved in the decision? Absolutely yes.

What are the odds the Chiefs have their best offensive game in the postseason vs the Bills in the AFCCG? Yeah, pretty high. What would the odds be against any other defense in the league? Yup, also pretty high. When playing well, the Chiefs seem to become almost unstoppable, at least in the postseason. Same with the Bills under Allen. Both guys, aided by the rules that make QBing and route-running easier have been almost eerie in their ability to be spectacularly productive. Mahomes slightly more so than Allan. That ... is what has happened. Yeah, I'm not arguing that the Chiefs have been sensational on offense in the playoffs recently. Have you seen me arguing that? If you had, you ought to really let me have it. But let's be honest, you haven't. I haven't made that argument. So don't act like I have. It's intellectually dishonest. As for all those other teams "not letting them play one of their best offensive games" against the Chiefs in the playoffs, yeah, I remember all of those games where other teams had the Chiefs down by less than a score and the Chiefs offense had the ball at the end and were coming down the field and those other defenses rose up, stomped the Chiefs and knocked them out of the playoffs. Yeah, I remember well, there was the .... the ... um, the ... er, um. Give me a few weeks on that. Three Super Bowl championships tell you. This Chiefs offense has done what they needed when they needed it. Nobody has stopped them when they were playing well. Pretending it's only the Bills says more about you than about other teams. The only team that stopped 'em was the Bengals that one year, and honestly that looked more like Cincy lucked into Mahomes just having a terrible game. Oh, and the Bills defense against the Bengals was pretty bad. So was the Bills offense, including Allen. So was the STs. The whole team appeared absolutely emotionally devastated a And that's not even mentioning the swatch of injuries to our defense in two of those years, specifically to the best players on our defense. When it's a fact, it's not an excuse, it's a justification.

Yeah, it's really sad how the Bills can't seem to stop the Chiefs offense and all those other teams do. For instance, there's the ... um ... all those teams that stopped them consistently when they needed a successful drive to win ... um ... the uh ... the uh. Hmm, it's almost as if they won those SBs for good reason.

Everyone else we've played in the playoffs after the team came together in 2020. That's who. Including the Colts, who we held to 24 points though they were averaging 28.2 PPG for the season. And again, it was the defense who salted that game away. Up three, the Bills got the ball back with 6:13 to go in the 4th Q, and a chance to ice it. But Indy forced 'em to punt. The Colts got the ball back with 2:30 left on the clock, a ton of time left to go when you only need a field goal to tie. But the defense absolutely throttled them, finally leading them to have to go for a hail mary on 4th and 11 from the Buffalo 47 with 0:04 left on the clock. Lost the ball on downs as time ran out. Oh, and defensive EPA is as much on the offense and the STs as the D. It's highly affected by field position when you get the ball. Not to mention that Expected Points matter a whole hell of a lot less than the actual ones. Which again, amounted to 24 for Indy, significantly below their season average.

Yeah, OK, though not sure how that disagrees with anything I said. Again, when the Chiefs are playing really well, they can beat pretty much any defense., or at least in past years Same with our offense.

We really haven't. In fact we've had very good regular season defenses - borderline elite? Well, maybe - produce very good results in the postseason until they ran up against the Kansas City Chiefs. Who have won a number of SB titles mostly because nobody could stop their offense when it was firing on all cylinders. Though the Chiefs defense was also pretty good. Except when they ran up against the Bills who kinda ripped them apart as well. If we'd won the coin flip in the 13 seconds game, we would have won the game. They couldn't stop us. The two are somewhat mirror images, with the Chiefs being a bit better, damn it. There is the one other game, the Bengals game, but our whole team played listless, both offense and defense. They looked to me like they were simply emotionally emptied by the Hamlin thing, the home game being moved, the mass shooter, Knox's brother dying, the dozens killed in the blizzards, and so on. If you want to include that game, fair enough, go ahead, but include the offense also. As for how confident I am ... reasonably. Not without reservations, but reasonably confident that if the offense plays well the defense if they're healthy can do enough to keep us in a game with anyone.

Yeah, he's very good. Nah, gotta disagree, "everybody eats" work fine. We scored a lot. Including many plays that didn't involve Cooper. Coop was in 31% of our offensive snaps. We did fine with and without him, same as it's been since he got here. We're apparently better with him. But everybody eats works, if your QB is Josh Allen and you've got our personnel. I'm sure they'll be open to bringing him back, but it'll depend on money, contract, situation and so on. I'd like to see it, myself, if they can work it out.

Not surprised you don't have the energy. It's tough being that wrong that consistently. And it must be irritating too, you're a smart guy, you're not usually this wrong, particularly so obviously. I mean, you got all macho and said you "did the work and checked the facts," but what you really meant was that you did a deep dive on how Cooper's numbers could be made to look bad. Without bothering to show any comparisons of the numbers to anyone else's, except if I remember correctly, a very very quick overall Amari Cooper and JaMarr Chase. And that's a stupid comparison from instant one. Cooper was never in Chase's league. Of course Cooper is going to have more unproductive games; Cooper gets many fewer targets and has DeSean Watson and Jacoby Brissett throwing to him rather than Joe Burrow the last four years. Clearly the comparisons you were making were the wrong ones, comparing Cooper to true #1s. Which is dumb. They get far more targets than Cooper has and that's the reason they have fewer unproductive games. You also got so weirdly twisted up about this that you have to make dumb arguments like saying that Cooper's Under 30 and Under 40 numbers are "a little worse" than Deebo's (in reality Cooper's numbers were 1% higher at Under 40 and 1% lower at Under 30). That isn't lower. It's the same. Same with Sutton and Pickens, the differences are 1% or 2% different, statistically completely insignificant. Your rabid opinions on this force you to pretend there are differences there. The point is obvious. When you compare Cooper to his peers as you should, all of them have very similar numbers, Cooper's 35% and 28% to Sutton's 35% and 26% and also Cooper's 35% and 28% to Pickens' 34% and 26%. Virtually the same. Right around the top of the bell curve, very close. Because, simply, that's how stats work for guys who are much the same type of player with roughly the same opportunities.

Great stuff. Glad you had a wonderful time!!!!

He really isn't conservative, dude. The stats speak to that, he's statistically top ten most aggressive at going for 1sts on 4th down for instance. He certainly was conservative his first couple of years. But he's changed.

First, those might have been blunders. Or might not. Hard to know what would have happened if they'd done something different. But let's say they are blunders, 100%, for argument's sake. Did he have some good calls in the rest of the game? Was everyone else on our team perfect? You can pick two or three plays out of a loss and blame it on virtually anyone. There'll be drops, there'll be plays Allen missed his guy or went to the wrong guy, missed tackles, a fumble ... it goes on and on. Blaming it all on McDermott with that little causation just speaks to not liking the guy. There are legit arguments against some of his decisions. But there are also terrific calls, and folks on your side don't mention those. Oh, and I think we've got a really good shot at beating the Ravens. Particularly at home. I'm with you in that I'd rather see any team other than KC and then the Ravens. But we can beat any team this year. Also we could lose, particularly to KC, the Ravens and maybe the Bengals if Burrow is on a heater.

Agreed with virtually all of this, Bill, until the last couple of sentences. I could be wrong of course, but I don't think Amari gets anywhere near $26M from anyone at his age and with his production this year. Now, if he absolutely destroys the playoffs, I'll be forced to eat my hat on this, but my guess is more like $18M - maybe $20M as his ceiling (excepting one of those wildly high unguaranteed years at the end of the contract that he'll never actually be on the roster for). Again, I could be wrong, but that's my guess.

More like I proved you don't know how stats work. Or more strictly, you proved it, not me. Oh, and you're dead right when you say that comparing Andre Reed is not fair because he came from a different era. Quite right. Which is why I said the exact same thing before you did. Do you actually read the posts you respond to? As for the six guys in my main comparison, though, you're dead wrong, and very obviously. Here's how the comparisons look. DeVonta's numbers are slightly better than Cooper's, but close. Both are in the center of the bell curve. Yes, DK's numbers, as I said, are a lot better. Very impressive. That's a very significant difference. Which is why I said so in my post. You say he's much better as if you're proving me wrong, when you're only agreeing with me. Again, it's as if you don't even read most of the post before you respond. Aiyuk is also better, but the difference is not large. They both fit right into the fat part of the bell curve, around 27 - 36%. You say that Deebo is used differently, and I have to admire you on that one. Excellent red herring. That's a sweet little diversion tactic, a really nice little straw man. In the passing game, they're used much the same, and in fact make an excellent comparison. Their pass yards per year are almost exactly the same, to the yard. Comparing a guy who puts up about 797 yard per year in the pass game over his career to a different guy who puts up 798 yards per year ... well, it's an excellent comparison. Duh. Now, if you threw running stats in, yeah, it would be a horrible comparison. But I didn't do that. In the passing game, they're an extremely sensible comparison. Deebo has 34% to Amari's 35% of Under 40, and 29% (higher) to Amari's 28% in Under 30. So when you say So when you say that Deebo is "a little better than Cooper," at having fewer games of lesser impact in the pass game, that is what we in the business call "wrong." Or at the absolute best, very misleading. In the real world, outside your fervid little imagination, when a guy is 1% higher at one of the two stats, and 1% lower at the other, that is virtually the same. The differences are statistically insignificant. To pretend otherwise says far more about your desperation to be right about this than it does about what the numbers actually say. Like Deebo, Courtland Sutton and George Pickens are also virtually the same as Cooper, the difference is statistically insignificant. Cooper's 35% and 28% to Sutton's 35% and 26% Cooper's 35% and 28% to Pickens& 34% and 26%. Statistically insignificant differences.

I always enjoyed it when announcers referred to guys I'd never seen like Y.A. Tittle or Otto Graham. I'd go read about them and I'd feel like I had some sense of their style. Always made me feel like I was getting deeper into the world of football. Oh, and I like Harlan. Last time I saw Jim Brown he was threatening to mount a comeback in his sixties. And he looked tough and capable enough even then that it almost seemed like he still had a shot.