Thurman#1

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.

Well, of course it's a pointless exercise because the coaches do what they want. Same with fans complaining about absolutely anything teams do. And yet people do complain and tell their opinions here. Some might say that's the whole point of being here. And I don't see how anyone could say conclusively that a QB in the pocket is in a more vulnerable situation than a QB running, excepting of course QBs who slide. QBs running into contact as Josh often does are often facing collisions that are more opposing in direction.

That couldn't be because they pass way more than they run, could it? I mean Allen has thrown 2030 passes in his career and 432 rushes. Of course most injuries take place there. It's where they spend the great majority of their time. People keep saying that as if it was a good argument for restricting the amount of runs. It's not. Also, it's a mis-statement of what the studies have actually shown. The question shouldn't be where more people are injured. It should be do people get injured at a higher percentage when they pass than when they run. And none of the studies has said that. It should further be does running a lot tend to lead to fewer healthy career years. That also has not been demonstrated, either way.

Less a rescue than a guy committing himself to be better. But I'd read it yesterday and totally agree that it was an interesting and revealing article.

Hell, yeah. Coaching is very important, but not as important as having a great roster and in particular a great QB. Being a crappy coach is capable of torpedoing even a great lineup, though. And while Belichick may not necessarily be the best of all time, he's one of a small group with a possible claim to that title.

Not so. Crowder played about 1/4 of his snaps outside with the Jets. No reason to think Crowder won't play some outside WR. My guess is that if David indeed doesn't play - he might play - we'll see a whole bunch of folks playing outside, varying for different situations and personnel looks. My guess is we see Crowder, McKenzie and Kumerow at different times, with Shakir figuring in more and more as the season progresses. We'll see. But there's no reason to think they won't play Crowder outside.

"... desire to win at no cost ..."?

The point is that both Cam and Big Ben were almost certainly worn down and physically effected by the cumulative effect of the pummelling they took. Cam much more so, but both of them really. We can't pretend that it was only hits that cause immediate serious injury that matter. It is very much not. Oh, and while Ben was never a smooth quick runner, he was much more mobile at the beginning of his career than the end.

The 1st week is always crazy, but this one was exceptional. 60.5% of the entries in my pool are out. My pool has a post first week buyback that I planned to use. I picked the worst team I could find, so I'd have a better team left in the later weeks. I picked the Texans. And in the 3rd quarter it looked like they were going to win, so I wouldn't have to pay but had still picked a crap team. Then the damn Colts forced a tie. Shoot! Not the worst result, but I do have to pay to re-enter.

He said he looked like, not he is like. From what I can see with a quick look at the play-by-play, in the Bills first seven drives, he'd run once. He did look like Brady there. You're certainly right that overall Brady's not a great comparison because of Allen's running ability. But in that part of that game I was thinking much the same thing. Short, surgical passes, and he was killing them.

Collinsworth is an excellent announcer. Of course he gushed over that performance. Announcers are supposed to be even-handed. That's what he's done about the Bills and Allen. Over the past two years he's been very positive, throwing in a question or two for balance. This week was such a great performance there really wasn't a need for any balance. It was simply terrific. I didn't see him eating any crow, nor had he done anything to have to. Doesn't mean you have to like him, or agree with his opinions, but he's an excellent announcer and all of his emmy awards speak to that.