Thurman#1

Reasonable post, but I think it's worthwhile to point out that two guys, Daryl Williams and Dawkins, have experienced major and completely unpredictable regressions this year from last year. Last year's OL was pretty good. Certainly not great, but really pretty good. I don't think there was any way for Beane or anyone to know that Williams, who really played well at RT last year, would prove this year to be poor at the same position. Or that Dawkins would get Covid and go from probably a top seven or so in the league LT to a slightly above average LT. If Dawkins and Williams were simply playing at the same level they achieved last year, what would things have looked like with Spencer Brown coming in and being as good as he has been? Could've been a really good line. I don't see this as a miscalculation. More of an unpredictable problem. Behind that functioning OL, these RBs would have been just fine. Not great. Not game-breakers. But just fine. As for other teams upgrading, first they probably didn't have unexplainable and unpredictable regressions at key positions, and they also were probably in better position with the salary cap than the Bills were. The Covid cap fall was also not predictable, and it hit the Bills worse than most other teams. That's why some of those other teams did better. They had more to work with under the cap.

Again, Daryl Williams was playing out of position, Cody Ford was in and Boettger too, and Spencer Brown was out with Covid. Not that that means that now everything is hunky-dory. We've got some issues. But when we have the top five guys on the OL, we are a lot better than the group we put out there against the Colts.

Carson Palmer was a top-flight NFL QB. And he's not talking like the GOAT. What are you talking about? He's talking like an NFL commentator. Hunh? USC? What? Did you paste the wrong thing or something?

This is typical after-a-loss nonsense. One team has a guy like that and the internet thinks it sounds good and so every team needs the same thing. It's exactly the same thing as calls for screaming and complaints about being soft and whining about a lack of aggression and whinging about not having a Ray Lewis or whatever other player comes to mind, or needing bickering like the bickering Bills. It sounds like it makes sense, but it doesn't. Plenty of great teams don't have guys like that. And plenty do. Every great team has leadership. But great leadership comes in a million different flavors. Some loud, some quiet. Some by example. The problem with the Bills isn't a lack of screaming or getting in people's faces. It's getting Edmunds and Lotulelei and Feliciano and Spencer Brown healthy again. It's adapting to the new defensive tactics that the whole league is now using on Mahomes and Allen and those like them. It's Allen learning to take the high-percentage shorter pass over the low-percentage longer ball a lot of the time until it forces teams to start defending tougher on the short game. It's cutting down the penalties. It's adjustments, playing smarter, getting healthy, better coaching and better execution, just as it usually is. And in the long run, adjusting the schemes and getting guys who better fit the new schemes and needs. The awesome thing about these dumb ideas is that they can be put into a sentence or two and it sounds all macho. When the actual solution is usually a ton of details and small changes and adaptations and improvements, and it doesn't sound particularly macho.

Nobody's ignoring the play fake. Which is part of the reason we didn't run all that well. They're reacting to it. But they are then covering well deep, and without Spencer Brown, which then puts Williams back at a position he's just not playing well at this year, and without Feliciano, this OL just isn't getting it done. When Brown and Feliciano get back, look for quite a bit of improvement. That's how it's worked so far this year. I noticed you said Feliciano is out for the year. Is that right? Did I miss something? I thought he was out for three weeks. I know this very recent Buffalo News story (42 minutes old as I write this) has him eligible to return now, and coming back. --------------- “'I feel really good. If it wasn’t a short week, I think there would be a good chance that I would be able to get in,' he said Monday. 'But also, we’ll see how it goes. Not counting anything out.' "Coach Sean McDermott said Monday the team is 'just going to wait and see, and see how it goes the next day or two here' before making a decision. Feliciano did not practice Monday, and with the short week, it is unlikely he’ll be back for Thursday’s game against the Saints. During his stretch on injured reserve, he’s had a different vantage point of his position group." --------------- https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/bills-guard-jon-feliciano-gives-back-for-thanksgiving-while-still-on-injured-reserve/article_28afd9d4-4c03-11ec-aac6-cf1954d50b7e.html Feliciano's not terrific, but the starting five have played much better than when replacements have to step in. And while I agree with you on how awful and how gigantic the McKenzie play was in this game, I think you pushed the argument a bit when you list only 4 TDs as positive difference-makers. Returns that go beyond about the 40 yard line make a major difference in likelihood of scoring and momentum change. And there have been a lot more than 4 excellent long returns this year in the NFL. Agree, though, that that play was inexcusable, just awful. As dangerous as he is, this has to make them think about how they are using McKenzie. Good post, on an awful game.

Different isn't always good. This is one of those cases. Not especially. You don't hear anyone talking kumquats right now either. They're not talking process now because nobody's asking them right now how they do it. They still do talk about stuff that is essentially the process when asked, stuff like the 24 hour rule, stuff like one game at a time, stuff like getting better every day. They do that because it's the best way to get better. It's not going to lead to perfection, or undefeated seasons. But working as hard as possible to get better is what they should be doing. They will.

I love them too. And you ain't wrong about the pitchforks. But I'd argue that their "standing pat", which they didn't do but many seem to want to put it that way, would have worked if everyone had just played as well this year as they did last. I don't think there is any way for Beane and McDermott to reasonably guess that Daryl Williams, who played so very well last year would for some reason play much worse at tackle this year. How could they predict that? Or predict that Dawkins, who was a top 7 or 8 LT last year would catch COVID and see his performance radically degrade? That Cole Beasley would maybe get injured more and play worse should have been more predictable at his age, and may be why they picked Stevenson and re-signed McKenzie. But it's still hurt. Just bringing Knox back hasn't caused major problems. He's mostly been terrific. Put those two OLs at their last year's level and IMO this offense looks a ton better than it has. More, the two really awful days, the Jags and Colts games, were when we didn't have Spencer Brown. And the matchup advantage the Colts have against us was multiplied with Lotulelei and Edmunds out. Having said that, we have problems. Teams have figured out how to defense us, and we have to do what the Chiefs did and figure out how to adapt and counter. Josh has to learn to love the short game. We have to get another Lotulelei-type physical monster in there for when he platoons out. A few other things too. Like why so many damn penalties? We had a bunch last year too, but not to this level, and it didn't hurt us as much.

Indeed. It's a waste of time being here at this point. Think I'll go for a jog and do some work. After a game like this there's a lot of emotion flying around, reasonably. But instead of talking about what the problems really are, people go nuts and take the kneejerk route towards identifying a scapegoat.

Yup. Imagine if he and Moss had a line like Indy's in front of them. They'd be building a state of Zach and Devin.

You recommended it, and it was Stephen A., so I figured it'd be off the rails, and that's right. A shred or two of sense, no real over-riding point or idea and lots of empty shouting and overreaction. Basically a waste of time. Blame goes to me for even considering for a moment it might be worth watching.

This post - Joke

After this post, you're officially one of the worst posters here. He's a fine drafter and he was still in Carolina during this draft. They don't need a true #1 RB. They have other needs at other positions they value more. So far Moss and Singletary are performing at about the level he drafted them at, behind a bad interior OL. Kouandjio was drafted in 2014. That was the Whaley era.

Real answer: None. Yet. You have to either be cut or be given three years to try to achieve your potential. It takes that long to carefully judge. Knee-jerk decisions are wrong at a higher rate. Three years. After that you can legitimately be called a bust, though history shows that a few players can figure things out even after that. As for people who look headed towards being busts, Ford leads the list. Phillips is OK for a 3rd, more of a mild disappointment who may or may not get back to what he was becoming before the injury. RBs aren't judged by speed. It's more complicated than that. Moss is faster than A. J. Dillon, who so far appears to be a good back. Behind a better interior line, Moss might easily look a ton better. Ford is about it so far. He could still turn it around, but that's not the most likely outcome at this point.

Our D is having a terrific year. Losing Zimmer and then Star has hurt quite a bit. The DL has been up and down but mostly up. There are a few guys who we should work on upgrading, Butler particularly. But the problem isn't the platooning. Yes, it was an awful game. No, it was not all on the DL, not even close.

Um, those were indeed a few of the things people said. But there were a million more. We needed to re-sign Milano. We did. We need to get rid of Lotulelei. Thank goodness we didn't. We shouldn't pick up Edmunds' option. Again, this was nuts, and doing it was not just an easy decision but has turned out to be a great move. Morse sucks and we need to start getting rid of him. We need to move Edmunds outside, we need to move Dawkins to guard ... the nutsiness went on and on and on. And lots of other real needs were addressed by the FO. There were indeed, as you say, some good thoughts that looked reasonable at the time and now. Thing is, we have limited resources. Of course we could have used upgrades at many places. So could every team. But that's not how it works. You can't do everything you want, especially when you've been undercut by the salary cap drop due to COVID.

Thinking that you've been shown to be right because they did something you don't like and then they lost doesn't make sense ... you've failed to indicate correlation. Seems to me just as likely or probably more so to be about not having Lotulelei and Edmunds, and about the offense and the STs also having a crappy day and putting us way behind.

We got dominated by the Skins and the Cowboys the first time. The other two were good tough games on both sides, decided by a few big plays. In the second Cowboys game, a Thurman fumble run back for a TD and a bad Kelly INT at a crucial moment was most of the difference. And we're significantly less soft and we're just plain better if Lotulelei, Edmunds and Spencer Brown were playing.

This.

That wasn't the problem. Not even close. Excluding Allen, our RBs went 10 carries for 73 yards. When we have run problems it's almost always the OL that is responsible for most of it. With Brown and Feliciano out the OL was really hurting, though they weren't as awful as they were against the Jags. A few of many of the real causes were: 1) Not good enough through the middle on D without Lotulelei and Edmunds 2) Not good enough on OL without Spencer Brown. 3) Allen didn't play well enough, including losing his cool near the end 4) Far too many penalties 5) McKenzie's fumble 6) Some drops 7) We have better personnel than Indy, particularly when healthy, but they match up with us extremely well 08) There's been a revolution on defense in handling high-flying passing attacks using two-high. Teams are learning how to make it really hard for guys like Mahomes and Allen. We need to adapt. It won't be easy. I mean, it wouldn't have hurt to be better at running the ball. But that wasn't a top ten problem today. I like what Tompsett said on Cover1 today. "They built for the past on both sides of the ball." They built a gap run OL in a league that's suddenly going zone rush. And they built a small but athletic DL in a league that is suddenly - mostly due to the two-high revolution is rewarding teams with physical OLs because there are so many small but athletic DL groups.

Frankly, that is absolute bull picky. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. And what I did is anything but splitting hairs. Not even remotely. What it is is a common and obvious rule for discussion, a rule that makes for infinitely better, smarter, clearer discussion, and that rule is ... If you're going to attack what a guy says ... then attack what he says. Don't attack what he did not say. Don't remove parts of his argument and then attack the fact that without the parts you removed his arguments make no sense. And that's what you did here, Hap. Don't distort the argument and then attack the distortions. Don't twist the argument and then attack the fact that it's twisted. This is simple common sense. This guy didn't say what you said he did. So you misrepresented his argument and then argued that he's wrong in presenting an argument that in fact was created by you, not him. You created a straw man. It happens consistently on these forums. And it is destructive to reasonable discussion. Disagreeing with somebody and saying it ... totally reasonable. Misrepresenting what he said ... completely unreasonable. Degrades discussion.

Oh, please. It's not too fine in any way, Hap, and I know you know it. He put in a bunch of qualifiers and you chose to ignore them. That's not defensible. Again, there's a lot there to disagree with but he did not say what you tried to represent him as saying.

Come on, Hap, disagreeing with him makes total sense, but at least correctly represent what he's saying. You say, "Intangibles and from the neck up 'the greatest we've EVER seen from a quarterback'"? But that's not what he said. He said, "Mac Jones has some stuff in him, some intangibles, that I think are maybe the greatest we've EVER seen from a quarterback. ... From neck up, I don't know if we've ever seen a rookie that is better." There's still a lot there to disagree with. But let's not distort the message as so many do on here before they attack some point. Let's also not pretend that ESPN is pushing this. It's just some guy on ESPN. They do explain it on the site, in exhaustive detail. And what it's useful for and what it's not so useful for. I agree that opaque stats make me wonder too. I still don't think much of ESPN's QB stat, QBR, for just that reason. And DVOA does say that the Bills opponents are weak. Could anyone disagree? It also has the Bills as the #1 team in DVOA. And DVOA adjusts for strength of opponent. Certainly Schatz was wrong about Allen. He has admitted it.

As the season passes, he starts to work longer passes. For a rookie he's doing really well. Most rookies start with a bit of a Captain Checkdown mentality, if they're smart. Jones isn't giving up the longer targets for short ones less and less. As the season passes, he starts to work longer passes. For a rookie he's doing really well. Most rookies start with a bit of a Captain Checkdown mentality, if they're smart. Jones isn't giving up the longer targets for short ones less and less.

Nonsense. He's smart, he's on target, he's thoughtful, and he's not a sock puppet for the NFL. He's damn good. Not that he avoids controversy. Why would anyone. Nobody on this board does. But he approaches them reasonably.

Of course they'd inquire. They inquired about Antonio Brown. Beane is a fiend for doing his due diligence. OBJ would have added something. The question is whether it would have been worth doing what they'd have to do to get him here and keep him here. 95% chance or higher that it would not be worth it. Yeah, I was shocked. You never see WRs in their first five or six days with a new team have problems in communication with their QB. It's always perfect from the first throw.