Thurman#1

"The Patriots game?" you ask? Glad I could help. Yes, the Patriots game. How did the Pats score their first TD? Remind me. Wait, wasn't it a long run? Oh, yeah, it was. So, what would the score have been if they had stopped that run? 10-7, Bills, right? So, yes, the Patriots game. And I didn't say anything about "the main reason they lost." I said, "Problems with run defense was a major factor in two or three losses this year." The reason I said that ... was that problems with run defense was a major factor in two or three losses this year. And yeah, I can see how the "big space eater makes Edmunds better" theory might be tiresome for someone who doesn't like Edmunds. Still true, though. All you have to do is go back to Ray Lewis and remember how about halfway through his career people said he'd regressed badly and simply wasn't the guy he'd been. Wackily, it was just after Siragusa left, and coincidentally it was just when they replaced that one space-eating DT with another, Ngata, that Ray suddenly became all-world again after he wasn't fighting through Gs and Cs coming right through the middle at him every play. Space eaters help LBs to run free, and that's how McDermott's defense is designed. Yup, people find plenty of really smart, true things tiresome. I get that. My kid finds it tiresome when I say, "Look both ways before you walk." My wife finds it tiresome when I say, "We can't spend more than we make." Tiresome but still words to live by.

Please. You can act like we've ignored the offense. It's still not true. You can act like the only way we can address the offense is with our first round pick. Not true, though.

You ask how their inability to stop the run caused them to lose to KC? And you're really not sure of the answer? Problems with run defense was a major factor in two or three losses this year.. The First Pats game, the Colts, probably one or two more. We win even one of those games and we play the Chiefs in Buffalo. That's how our inability to stop the run caused us to lose to KC in the divisional round. Not that I'd mind WR, OL or CB. Or pass rusher. Not a bit. But a great space-eater instantly makes Oliver and Edmunds better as well. Star's availability issues are real and had consequences. He wasn't the same guy after Covid. IMO they'll absolutely consider this if Davis is still on the board when we pick.

That's the kind of guy they have there historically. Fans don't love it, but McDermott has always had an eight-guy platoon system. And his front seven is light and the way he wants to get away with that is to have that one guy in the middle who's absolutely huge at 1-tech and is generally a 2-down guy. That's the McDermott system. Don't know whether they will or would take Davis, of course, but he's absolutely just the Bills type.

Agreed. Wins is a team stat. How the QB plays, QB stats basically, that's how you judge the QB. Or how you do it with stats anyway. Rodgers has played three out of 22 playoff games with a QB rating below 90. He's been very good in the playoffs.

Defender was not tied up with a receiver. I mean deep in the end zone, that guy might have been, but shallow and just slightly outside Rodgers a receiver was doubled and the one guy was outside him and not tied up. He could easily have fired off outside. And it was Delaney, a CB. He'd have had an excellent chance of catching up to him. He was actually about two steps outside of Rodgers as Rodgers threw. Just went and looked on Game pass. Delaney would have had an excellent shot at making the play. He runs a 4.46 40. I don't like Rodgers. He's a jackass. But he was presented with two very very tough options.

2021: 4 offense, 4 defense 2020: 4 offense, 2 defense, 1 STs 2019: 4 and 4 2018: 4 and 4 That's how it's gone for the Bills in the draft. And that's how you'd expect for a team that is primarily a BPA drafting team. FA is different. That's where you pick your position of need and go find somebody. I get that you didn't really expect all offense. But I think they'll be about half and half, as they generally are.

Yeah, Derrick Henry now might not. But Derrick Henry as a rookie absolutely was. I'm with you, though, draft mid- to late-rounders fairly regularly.

Every year I'm with him. Sooner or later I end up supporting one guy or other, but IMO that's the right answer. BPA at a position of need.

Yup. Particularly on a team that is going to have a limited number of runs, RB isn't a position you should spend too many resources on. Is he the long-term solution? Over 5 - 8 years, who knows. Maybe. Over 2 or 3 years, yeah, he very likely is. Upgrade? Yes. They should be looking to upgrade RB2 and RB3, both from inside and outside of the roster. If they somehow cheaply find an upgrade for Singletary in later rounds somehow ... fantastic. This also. Very much.

You people are genuinely sad. There is no thread you won't thread-nap in pursuit of the desperate urge to express a stupid opinion. It's like watching those sovereign citizen videos on youtube.

Saquon's $7.2M this coming year. Good player. But in our cap situation, I think he'd be a no thanks. Bradberry is about twice that. I'd give maybe a 3rd for Toney. Maybe. Maybe a 4th. If that wasn't enough to get him, I'd live with that. Availability is a serious concern with the guy. He only played in ten games last year. I wouldn't consider a 2nd for a moment.

The Russian mafia? In Boulder Colorado? Seriously? More likely drug paranoia. Jeez, what a shame.

YAC is not a receiver stat. It's a receiver / QB / route stat. All of those have a major effect. Let's not pretend it's only about the guy who is catching the ball. And in our case, not a hugely important stat. The bottom line is simply this ... how many yards are picked up on each pass? Doesn't really matter how much of it is air yards and how much YAC. The point is how many yards are gained. Our offense is really effective and productive, particularly in the passing game. That's the key thing. Teams that run a lot of screens get more YAC in general. Same with bubbles. We don't throw a lot of those. Same with bombs and sidelines that are NOT back shoulders. Near the end of the year Allen had a few bombs that weren't back shoulders, but early he was over-throwing long balls. Much better to have Allen throw back shoulders or float it more so the receiver lets the DB back in the play but gets the long long completion. This isn't a problem. It'd be good to get more but as long as the pass game is working as extremely well as it is, it's a secondary issue. We're 11th in yards per completion. That's solid. Last year, 10th. Our pass game is extremely effective. That's the important thing. If we get more YAC, that'd be fine, but it's far from crucial. EDIT: I see everyone's already said it better than I did. Great.

Yeah, I guess we are talking about you a bit. There's a guy down the street who I generally talk about dog dirt a lot with, because there's one area where we see a lot of it.

Is there such a thing as a crusade for the sad?

Correct. Too sad and pitiful to be taken seriously. Your answer is precisely the sort of thing that pwned people say.

Efficiency only in pure numeric terms. Which absolutely do not tell the whole picture. Anyone who thinks they do is frankly clueless. Actual real-world efficiency is complex. Just one example is that a player's year to year stats might drop, and yet if all stats round the league dropped the guy's ranking might rise from, say #8 to #1. Did he become more efficient? A dullard would say that he did and that it's not arguable. A person with a clue would say, "Well, it's complex." Because it is. More, anyone who thinks that the purely numeric statistics for QBs are not affected by the OL, the WRs, the TE, the weather, the coaching and on and on is also absolutely gagging and champing for a clue.

No. You can't say those stats are worse therefore he was worse. You can say something along the lines of "in terms of completion percentage, TD%, INT% and YPA, he had a worse year." And myself, I'd agree it was a worse year. But not by a whole lot. An awful lot of how good he was last year was about how surprising he was and how surprised other teams were. They had no idea how to deal with him, none. This year they knew who he was and had some good ideas on how to stop him. More, defenses finally figured out how to begin stopping Allen, Mahomes and the rest of the high-fliers. For the last four years or so nobody could stop Mahomes. This year, he had major problems. Teams figured out how to use the cover 2 shell and long completions dropped like a stone. Both Allen and Mahomes had nearly exactly timed major statistical drops, and nearly exactly timed recoveries as they adapted. Maybe it's not that he is less efficient than it is that he's in a tougher environment. Stats absolutely do tell a story. They are useful in understanding what's happening. They do not tell the whole story.

What utter crap. Where are all these other malcontents forcing their way off the team? You're so full of it on this issue it's dampening the chair cushions.

I suppose anything's possible, but outside of getting draft capital to bring in a QB the year Allen was available, their tradeups have been trading away later picks to move up just a bit for a guy who seems to be falling. That's the kind of trade I would expect. And like. With the limited cap money available this year even after they let some guys go and do a few re-negotiations, they're going to need every guy who can fill even a smaller role from this draft that they can find. I can't imagine them trading away anything higher than a 5th, and probably just 6ths or 7ths.

In the 1st, I'd welcome either of your suggestions, a corner or a pass rusher. Or a G/C, a WR or a space eating DT. Based on BPA.

The Jags wouldn't. We'd be nuts to do it. That is very far from the truth. It's an opinion, and frankly a pretty stupid one.

No such thing.

Yes to Kromer. But I don't think it's clear that "they" messed up OG. We don't know what happened. Could easily have been him who messed up. Who knows? Things do add up. But we're far from understanding that Singletary then Moss was a mistake. We'll see. It could be, and it could be not. And I'm not sure, but spending so much on many OLs I think is going to be a pattern, something they do regularly to make sure they have a lot of depth just in case.