Thurman#1

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.

That's fine that you're for moving on. That wouldn't have been the right way, it would have been your way. We'll know what would have worked out better after we see how his time here ends. And yes, you can re-structure. But no, this is where the nonsense comes in, in no way does the team have the leverage right now. Neither side has much more leverage right now. But Star's agents know that the Bills don't want to cut him now with the cap consequences being wnat they are. Also complete nonsense that he's not making pretty good money if the Bills cut him. He was kicking butt last year till he caught Covid, playing excellent football. He could very easily get picked up for good money. There's simply no way to know, but it's very possible. And wow, you're really on fire today with the macho but ridiculous stuff, dude. Wow, I'm so impressed by your sheer masculine power and smarts. You're saying incentives are supposed to make a guy want to do things? Wow, so brilliant. I guess that's why nobody ever turns down incentives. Yeah, thing is you didn't say anything about incentives purpose being to incentivize. If you had, nobody would have disagreed. He's already got an incentive clause and yet we saw what happened last year. They can't change his contract no matter how tough some internet fan tries to sound. If he wants to come and earn the incentives, he will, and if he doesn't, he won't, and again he came in in terrific shape last year.

An awful lot of the time when people "read between the lines, the actual meaning is that they're letting their confirmation bias twist the data the way they wish it would be. Agreed they'd rather he got vaccinated. And agreed that they believe that Covid caused him problems when he came back, as it did with Dawkins. That didn't indicate they were unhappy with Dawkins' on-field performance when it was not Covid-affected, nor does it mean that here. Their discussion of him before Covid were absolutely ringing endorsements. Without question. You can say that they will "certainly move on from him this season." It is built on a foundation of utter and pure guesswork based on confirmation bias and has the logical certainty of a gambling addict saying the next roll of the roulette wheel will "definitely" come up 17 because he can feel it. It could go either way.

It's the Texans. They're looking for someone they can let go in a couple of years for their real candidate. Or to put it another way, "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown."

Sounds very macho and tough of you. But again, Hapless pointed out the problem with that and while you blustered a bit here, you didn't counter the problem, which is not your fault because there is no way to counter it. Hap's right. He's not paid to be at voluntary OTAs. He's paid if he is at voluntary OTAs. It's not required, it's incentivized. That's how workout bonuses work no matter how macho people talk. Cut him or keep him. Whichever. But there's no way to change his contract or make new conditions. He can come or not. It'll depend on what he wants, as it's voluntary. He's had a $250K work out bonus every year. If he doesn't come they won't pay, and if he comes they'll pay. It's in the contract, and that's the end of it. And while he didn't come to OTAs last year there's one thing we can be sure of, and that's that it didn't affect his fitness one bit. He was in terrific shape. I understand, but I think you're not fully spelling out the choice. To me, it's more like one impact guy like Jones and a bunch of mild holes in the roster vs. a bunch of average-ish players. Those mid-to-low level FAs are filling holes. Well, we'll see.

That's not even a particularly solid guess. Wouldn't mind if they cut him but it could very easily go either way.

Well above average player at what he does, space eating historically and even more now that he's lost weight. Decent contract based on how badly someone to fill that role is needed in McDermott's defense. Particularly how our run stats are noticeably significantly better with Star and worse without him. Year by year it stands out. Having said that, this year availability has become a serious concern, and after Covid he just wasn't what he had been. Before getting Covid he looked to be here for two more years. Now even this year is no sure thing. Is there some sort of reason for cutting Beasley twice? Do we save more that way? Don't see us getting anywhere near Jones. We could sure use him but it's just not reasonable with our cap strictures. We can make some space, but we won't be using nearly all of it for one guy. It'll almost surely be several.

I didn't argue it happens that way every time. Just that on average that is how teams should be judged, particularly when you're only judging based on the first year of the draft class. It's harder to get snaps as a rookie on a team with a roster that's already good. And it's easier to get players who can contribute early when you're drafting earlier in each round. I also didn't argue that some teams don't do well at drafting, even late. Just that it's harder to draft well late and that later picks might well need more time and development. And if you do do well late you deserve more credit for it than teams doing well drafting early. So for example, you're right that the Steelers drafted well all those years (not so consistently lately, though 2017 was pretty sensational, but they were the gold standard for a long time). But how much of that happened as rookies. The Steelers are famous for doing a terrific job of developing them and working them in, but for not getting a lot of use out of more than a handful of rookies.

It's not a baseless argument, so much as it is an argument that's inconvenient for you. It's in fact a completely sensible argument. For instance, Deion Sanders didn't get many INTS anymore late in his career. He wasn't making the splash plays anymore. By your logic that would mean he sucked. In fact, it meant nobody was throwing near him much. He was incredibly effective precisely because he stopped offensive plays from happening. Players absolutely should get a ton of credit for preventing impact plays that don't happen. It's hard to quantify, but it's still a thing. And on Addison, you're right. Clearly, you don't know you're right, but you are. A guy who forces a QB off the spot, even without making a sack, is making a good play, lowering the offense's chances. Addison doesn't do that nearly so often as we'd like, but yes, when he does he's absolutely making a big play. I'd agree with you as far as Tremaine isn't great at rushing the passer. But arguing that he does rush the passer a lot is utter nonsense. No he doesn't. It happens occasionally but far from often. And I already addressed the Tillman technique in the original post. Bills defenders are taught to go after the balls situationally. If you're the first guy, you generally need to get him down. If you're coming head-on the Tillman technique won't really work. It works well when you're coming from behind or from the side and he doesn't see you, and also when you're the second or third guy and he's already going down. Edmunds is generally very visible and is either the first guy or easy to see. Would I like to see him get more? Sure. The sad thing here is is that you can't realize that while a few of your arguments make some real sense, that your dislike for the guy means you're desperately subject to confirmation bias and will throw in any argument including plenty that make no sense. They love him. Beane said exactly those words in the final PC this year. It's not a sure thing, particularly if he insists on getting all the money he possibly can. If he wants $16 or $17M, he'll probably get it, and not in Buffalo. But folks don't want to admit this but the odds on Tremaine being here a long time are pretty damn good. I mean, you really feel that Beane's body language shows that he doesn't like Tremaine. Good lord! That's so far into confirmation bias it's pathetic.

I think this is all fair. IMO he could maybe get that much if he's lucky. I would guess not, but it wouldn't shock me. $6 - $7M would be my guess if he goes for the best offer. I think he's a solid #2, helped by scheme and personnel around him.

Opinion, Ian.

Which trend? The one where if you ignore all the good things and only look at the bad things, that things look pretty bad? That's not a trend. It's the result of partial information leaving only a partial picture. By using this methodology, finding three bad games in two years, we can conclusively prove that for the 2000 Ravens "things look pretty bad" on defense. I mean, within two years they allowed 35 points to a 9-7 Chiefs squad, 31 points to the 4-12 Bengals and 36 points to the 7-9 Jags. They must suck. I mean, sure, most consider them one of the greatest Ds in history, but still, having three bad games apparently proves you're no good. Same with the '85 Bears. Having allowed, in their championship year and the one before, 38 points to the Dolphins, 28 points to the 2-14 Bucs, 44 points to the Bears, 38 to the Cardinals and 29 to the Rams, they must bite also. No, I'm not saying that the Bills D this year ranks with those Ds. But I am pointing out that even the absolute best defenses have bad games. That's the way it works.

It's arguable either way. DVOA adjusts for strength of schedule, and they had the Bills #1. Top five, anyway.

Yeah, like check the Saints. They just lost one of the better coaches in football because he doesn't want to deal with the cap consequences of what they've done. Yes, it can be done. No, it's generally not a great idea. There are consequences. It's like saying, "Hey, you can buy any car you want. Just put get enough credit cards and do it." Yeah, you can do it. No, you generally shouldn't. And luckily, Beane has shown he's not that kind of guy. They'll get some money available, from cutting and re-structuring. They'll do it smart, so they don't kill our cap for the next few years.

Um, no. But they will have to work on improvement and prove it all over again, as teams do every year.

The top two rounds the past 2 drafts? First, he traded away the 1st round pick that year for Diggs. No first rounder makes it hard for a draft to show immediate big returns, and Diggs of course has been terrific. Basically you're talking about three players (outside of Diggs), two of whom are rookies, and all of whom are way too young to fully judge. 2020 2nd: Epenesa Not enough so far, but he's flashed and it's too early to know 2021 1st: Rousseau. For how much he's played, and the fact that he's a rookie, looks good so far. 2021 2nd: Basham. Hard to even comment, really. Showed flashes, but not enough, but the numbers game kept him off the field. No way to begin to judge, really. Only other top two round picks for Beane have been: Oliver: looks terrific. Ford: looks awful Allen: looks insanely good Edmunds: looks good Overall that's good.

Yup, thought so. Your comment on what Beane said about Edmunds was an excellent example of confirmation bias. This above is what you thought, so it's what you heard. Thing is, it's not what he said. Not even slightly close, actually. You claimed, "When asked in his season ending presser about Edmunds, Beane essentially said he 'does a great job with the play calls and getting everyone lined up.” That was his biggest praise. He didn’t sound at all like a GM who was ready to sign Edmunds to a long term extension." Yeah, that is one absolutely terrible summary or paraphrase or whatever you want to call it. That was very very far from "essentially" what Beane said. And it was also far from his biggest praise. He certainly did say some things about that, but I took down every word, took out the you knows and the agains and the uhs and ahs. I put every word outside of those. Please feel free to check. Having done that, I thought I'd put the stuff you referred to in black and the stuff that somehow slipped past you in red. It's not all great. He threw in some caveats. But in no way can it be said with any degree of reason that he "essentially said 'he does a great job with the play calls and getting everyone lined up.'" Beane said, "I thought Tremaine did a really good job again. His leadership, you know Tremaine is a quieter guy if you compare him to Josh, they're both the quarterbacks of their side of the ball. Tremaine is naturally quieter, more lead-by-example, but when he speaks, guys do listen. And I think year by year he's more comfortable being that guy, being that alpha even though maybe it's not innately natural to him. You know, Tremaine has done some really good things. I thought his physicality improved this year. You know, taking on, getting off blocks, I thought all that improved. There's still things that he wants to get better at. And we think going into next year, he's a young player still, but going into year 5 we think he'll be even better." Then he talked for a while about Oliver and continued about Edmunds, "I think as a young player, some things come faster to others. I think Tremaine has definitely improved his awareness, his instinct of what to see. Like anything, Sal, sometimes you face an offense that does a lot more, I was talking about Isaiah McKenzie or, some offenses you face ... Listen, I got two indicators, and then go. But you've got to remember too, he's also the quarterback of the defense, he's calling, he's checking, he's doing a lot pre-snap to get us lined up. It's a hard job, in the sense of, it's like Josh has gotta make sure of all these things, and he's got to go execute it. I appreciate where you're coming from. I think Tremaine does a lot with the whole operation that doesn't get noticed because maybe he didn't quite get through the B gap in time to make the play or he was late. He's a heck of an athlete. He's improved his pass concepts. Again, this was all new for him, coming to middle linebacker. And I think if you look at where he's at every year I think he has improved a little bit each year to where he's at. He'll be the first to tell you that there's plays that he wants back, that, 'Man, I should've seen that quicker or I should've reacted quicker, I should've been more physical, or I should've got my eyes around to find the receiver in whatever pass play it was,' but he helps us in a lot of ways that sometimes don't necessarily get picked up by Joe Fan or whoever." He talked about physical improvement, mental improvement, how his job is tougher than most think, how he's improving each year, leadership, and more. So that summary was totally unfair. Asked about a contract extension for him this off-season, Beane said, "We'll look at all that. The cap is what I ... the first thing I've got to do is make sure we can operate and what moves are going to have to be made, whether it's a pay cut, we did that with some guys, cap releases, so I'll kinda do all that first but, you know, love Tremaine and I'm sure at the right time we would consider anything, but I really don't usually do that at this time of year. We'll just kind of see how it goes, see what holes we fill and probably table that for now." You left out the "love Tremaine" thing somehow. Beane doesn't say that a lot. Did seem to say they wouldn't make a new contract this time of year. But in no way he say anything that could be taken as saying they're not very interested in signing him to a long-term contract. Just that it did indeed sound like this may not be the right time. This wasn't boiler-plate praise. It wasn't "he gives 110%," or "the linebacker group shows up and works hard every day." It was extensive, specific and way beyond what you suggested. Again, great example of confirmation bias.