Thurman#1

Thank goodness you posted this. It came at just the right moment. The Texans are my second team and until you said this I was starting to get a bit worried about Davis Mills.

The casuals go to Super Bowl parties anyway. The teams don't matter, it's the occasion. And the small extra $$$ they gained by doing this are vastly dwarfed by the year-on-year-on-year profits they would be risking. It simply does not make sense.

Be afraid of the Bills not playing well enough. If we loses, that'll be why. They are extremely, wildly far-fetched. You're saying it's not far-fetched for the NFL to risk it's multi-billion dollar industry for like a ten or twenty percent bump in ratings? If that? Ratings are huge on the SB no matter who plays. Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs! It would be absolutely nuts to even think about it. What the owners want is stability over the decades. This would be a pretty sure way to avoid that for a miniscule possible gain.

Nah. It's of legit interest. He's got a source. It's completely reasonable. If he thought the source was good, there isn't a reporter around who wouldn't go with that story. And for good reason. If you want to say some of what the Bucs appear to be doing may be chickenshit, I won't argue, certainly until we get a better sense of how the deliberations turn out anyway.

A mauling can't be determined only by yards. The defense absolutely had a horrible game against Tennessee. There are no reasonable justifications. Same with the Colts. Yes, the D got their butts kicked. And I'd argue that the narrative on the Bills isn't that they've been proven soft. It's that it's a legit question to ask if they can be shown soft by a tough team with a real run game. Especially in games when the Bills offense doesn't score a lot, leaving opponents feeling they can take their time and run as much as they like. The weather hurts our offense more than any other unit on the field today if it's bad. Nobody's assuming we're afraid. But we're absolutely on alert and know we'll have to give our best effort.

Yeah, if the league were actually considering expanding to 40 teams and a source you trusted told you that, it would be the same type of report. Since they're not considering it, and I don't think a trusted source told him that, no, not the same at all.

????? One that reports on what is happening? The kind you write when a league source tells you something is happening? The kind in which words are used? Yeah, if the league were actually considering expanding to 40 teams and a source you trusted told you that, it would be the same type of report. Since they're not considering it, and I don't think a trusted source told him that, no, not the same at all. I'd cut him without any lengthy consideration. Particularly with Arians immuno-compromised. He'd be gone even knowing it would hurt my chances to repeat.

He also said it was never a passing league. So what can you expect? It is absolutely a passing league, but as usual it's cyclical and right now running is getting a bit of an awakening at least. Still a passing league, but as Ds more and more use nickel and dime and thus the D gets faster but lighter we're seeing run frequency increase. It won't get anywhere near 50%, but expect offenses to do their best to punish the light Ds that have mostly taken over. What we need is an improvement on the OL. I have little doubt we'll see Beane working on that during the offseason.

I don't think so. You could see he was a good system QB, a good game manager. You couldn't see greatness for four or five years.

I don't think the media has "already crowned him a franchise QB." Not at all. More that they're comparing him to Brady in his first few years, when he needed to be schemed around and have the system help him. The comparisons are more to Brady before he became a franchise QB. IMO they're more talking about how well the Pats are playing as a team, how well they are putting Jones in places where he can be helped while still limiting what they expect him to do, and how his limitations are not yet holding him back much. And I certainly disagree that he came in at his ceiling. He's been improving every week. They're expanding what they game plan for him as he gets better and learns. Is his ceiling lower than guys like Allen? Absolutely. But is he at his ceiling? No. Nor was Mayfield at his ceiling his first year. His INT percentage, for one thing, has consistently dropped. He's gotten better. Thank goodness the team is having some kind of drama every week. I haven't figured it out, maybe Mayfield is one of the main causes, but I'm not convinced of that yet.

Nope, that's not the question. No more than to be rich or poor is the question. It's way more complicated than that. Rich is better, right? Except if it means spending your whole life getting money and dying unloved and unlaughing. The system is way more complicated. Pretending it's an easy simple question is only one more way to deceive yourself All things being equal, sure you'd rather have a good running back than a not so good running back. Duh. Thing is, that's also true at every position. It's better to have a good DE than a not so good DE, a good punter than a not so good punter, a good long snapper than a not so good one. you don't have unlimited money to make it happen at every position. Nor unlimited draft picks. The actual question is this: Is it worth the compromises at other positions, the resources you will have to give up, the high draft pick you will have to use which will prevent you from selecting a pass rusher instead or a cornerback or whatever. Is it worth the probably $6 -$8M it'll cost you to bring in an FA RB who's good. Is it worth what you have to give up. Is it worth giving up what you have to give up to upgrade your RB from not so good to good? Oh, and Victory Formation is right above to say that Singletary is probably good right now, and actually he's excellent at pass blocking, a wildly important RB responsibility in our scheme. And while there are certainly exceptions, RB is one of the positions it's generally better to skimp on. The top eight RBs, all receiving $12M or more are McCaffrey, Elliott, Kamara, Cook, Henry, Nick Chubb, Joe Mixon and Aaron Jones. See any Super Bowl champs there? Great RBs behind poor OLs aren't generally that productive. Whereas average RBs behind good OLs can be very productive, and the OL is important on every play, the good RB not so much so.

The soccer players who were mostly unsymptomatic or had mild symptoms? When the new variant was developed precisely in a country with very low vaccination rates, which are said to be the most likely facilitator in the development of new variants? Yup. I certainly can blame them. I can't understand those who don't.

Of course. The guy's excellent. Some people don't like his voice, but whatever. Fair enough to have a personal preference but Collinsworth consistently comes in second behind Romo in the surveys. He's simply good.

A dome would cost in the area of $2B extra. Ain't happening.

Daniel Jones' bad performance might've had something to do with the fact it's mostly Cody Fords and Bobby Harts in front of him. I think he's got a chance to be pretty good.

Nope. The reason players do this is because it's nearly always the right move. And who says he'd have been the long term backup here. Pure guesswork. Go with the team that wants you more.

It was 149 yards, not 200, but you're right in principle.

He might easily have gotten us a few extra yards more than Devin and Moss behind this OL. Maybe. But with his salary on our current cap, we'd be around $2M over the cap. Yup. And Singletary has significantly fewer carries.

Yeah, no-shows against the Colts. Star and Edmunds. Total no-shows, it was like they weren't even on the field. Oh, wait, they didn't actually play. No wonder they were no-shows. As for the Titans, they had that one long long run, but except for that one play, which appeared to be greatly due to Hyde taking a bad angle, the Bills were actually pretty decent against the run. Not great, certainly, and you can't just pretend that the big play didn't happen. But you absolutely can say that for most of the game they were not destroyed by the run. They were certainly not no-shows.

He'd done well. But no he doesn't transform the offense. Teams didn't have film on him in this offense. That makes you a lot harder to prepare for. As they get film, they'll see tendencies and know how to defense him. He's a good player, but transforming the offense is a major overstatement.

No question, the Titans losing Henry and the Texans losing Watson are bigger losses. And those teams aren't going to the Super Bowl this year because of those losses. Yes, other teams have suffered worse injuries or losses. Those teams are now out of realistic contention. Losing Tre is big, a really big blow to our chances. It doesn't mean the season's over. But it hurts our chances. Let's deal with that and move on.

It's really not valid. What he argued, what I was disagreeing with, was him saying that we're not running and that's the problem. It's not. We're running at virtually the same percentage as we did last year. That percentage of runs can be taken and still have a tremendously successful and efficient offense. As we ourselves proved lat year. And of course we made the decision to live and die with Allen. Every team with an elite QB makes the same decision. Look at KC and Mahomes. KC runs less than we do and they're running about the same rate for the last three games as they did for the whole season. GB about 3% more, the Chargers less. Tampa Bay a lot less, LA about the same. I'd argue for a cash-strapped team with other needs such as pass rusher, we did what we could by bringing in Brown. I'd hoped for a guard in the draft, but again, OL wasn't their only need and in fact, it didn't appear to be a big need last year. And the problem in the KC playoff game last year wasn't a problem running the ball. We had 129 yards in rushing on 18 carries, most of which was Josh, but everyone else went 11 for 41, which certainly isn't great but it's not awful either. People didn't come out of that game saying, "The problem was our run game." They were howling, correctly about the rush on Allen and the defense not being able to stop the Chiefs and Mahomes being able set up a tea table and toast biscuits while he surveyed the field. Defending DrPJax in any way is pretty bizarre. The guy has already declared this as a wasted year, which is just plain nuts at this point. This team right now could miss the playoffs. Or win the Super Bowl. No way to know yet. If we do have a lousy rest of the year, not being able to run will be a smallish part of it. And if the OL ever gets healthy again, which really could happen, they could easily turn the run game to decent and solid. The OL is most of the problem, IMO, and missing two guys, which forces us to play Ford and Boettger and play Williams out of position is a major part of that. Not that I don't want them to grab a guard somewhere for next year. I do.

He fell to third QB picked. And the #2 team had a 40 year old QB on his last legs and chose Saquon over Josh. That means before the Bills took him three teams desperate for a great QB passed him by. And that's not counting the Broncos either, who refused to trade back with the Bills and turned down Allen for Chubb when under center they were having a three-way battle between Trevor Siemian, Brock Osweiler and Paxton Lynch. Even at the time it was clear there wasn't a single sure thing or even a likely franchise guy among them. Only the Colts, not knowing that Luck was going to retire, had good reason to go after anyone but Allen. And you may certainly be right that Allen would have succeeded in about 30/32 other teams. Or you might be wrong. I think you're wrong. Teams can poison QBs, they can destroy them, they can kill their confidence, they can do a crap job with the OL and have them beaten to death, they can coach them poorly. It happens plenty, I believe. David Carr is the classic example, but I think it's very arguable that the Jets took a guy who might have been somebody in Darnold and neutered him with crappy decisions, crappy coaching and crappy personnel acquisition. It's easy to forget with how excellent Allen is now, but he had to make a ton of progress. The Bills did everything right around him. There's a reason people are using the Bills as a model now when they talk about how to develop, build around and support a new QB. They've done a sensational job of it. Without that excellent job, there's no telling what would have happened. Not that I'm arguing that only the Bills could have done it. There are other good smart teams. But I absolutely believe that 30/32 is a wild exaggeration, just as misdirected as you think I was. Which I would argue, by the way. You said that I said, "few wanted him." I didn't say that. I said, "many didn't." I think that's very legit, myself. Now, if you took it as my saying that many didn't at any cost, well, certainly that would have been wrong. But early? There were indeed many who didn't. I can quickly name five. How many would have drafted Allen in the top 20? Three? Four? Five? Not many more, I would argue.

A dome doesn't run or stop the run, correct. The return of Lotulelei and Edmunds on the other hand, stand a pretty good chance of stopping the run much better, and the return of Spencer Brown and Feliciano stand a chance of helping us run better. Not to mention not facing any other OLs as good as Indy's, and probably beyond that not facing a team so willing to break their tendencies so well as the Colts did in suddenly going heavy with traps and whams. The Bills aren't who we saw against the Colts. The Bills are who we've seen all season. Some good games and some bad games, and not playing well right now but with certainly a chance to figure things out and start playing better the way the Chiefs appear to have done. And it's nonsense that we've suddenly stopped running and that's the problem, which can thus be blamed on the OC. Nonsense. This year we've run on 39.9% of plays. Last year (and we were pretty good last year) we ran on 40.8%. That difference is statistically insignificant. Mine was to illustrate Beane and McDermott's importance to Allen. Which I think is underestimated.

If you want to say that Beane and McDermott owe a ton to Allen you should also point out that Allen owes a ton to them as well. They picked him, loving him when many didn't. They planned to sit him his first year, though it proved impossible. The year they expected to play him, they brought in a ton of FA OLs and built a solid unit in front of him and then last year brought in a top-flight group of WRs. Allen has been in an excellent situation, and that's down to Beane and McDermott.