Thurman#1

You're right up there in the running for goal post shifting. You originally said, "Average winning %’s of teams with exceptional QB play supports our record independently of other variables. Those teams post +65% winning %’s historically. " Then you yank out your numbers and what do they prove? They prove that YOU think QBR shows "exceptional QB play." They prove that you think the particular number for "exceptional" QB play is 65%. By that measure 10 QBs were "exceptional," this year including Kyler Murray and Brock Purdy. You believe with QBR - your measure for "exceptional," that Brock Purdy was the most exceptional QB in the league and Dak Prescott was #2 in 2023.. QBR is at best questionable and one particular look at a very complicated picture. You have attempted to prove that "Average winning %'s of teams with exceptional QB play supports our record (um, what? Are you using A.I. or something?) independently of other variables. Those teams post +65% winning %'s historically." But you haven't. Put it in words that your stats actually reflect and here's what you've proven: You've proven there's one stat that shows that in the years when a QB has certain score in that stat (but not necessarily in other years for that QB) that there is some correlation with wins. That's it. And while it's something, it's not much and it certainly doesn't prove what you said. The reason I called you out was that your wording was so ridiculous. There's no such thing as a perfect measure for "exceptional QB play," and you didn:t mention any way of deciding what it was. Now we know that you were referring to QBR, a flawed stat, and to specific years, not careers,

Ipso facto, um, nothing. Not the best? Certainly arguable. But "second-rate". Everyone else on the roster and the coaching staff? Um, you've ipsoed not a single facto there that supports your dumb conclusion.

OK, thanks. Now I know you understand. Glad to hear it . Thanks also for moving the goalposts. Yet again. Nobody has argued, that I have noticed, that we have lots of guys better than Allen. We're arguing the stupid part of your argument. You claimed that because none of our roster are as good as Josh Allen, that that means the roster is "of mediocre or inferior quality." Substandard is another one that comes up often. And that is beyond stupid. Are you arguing that other rosters that are just packed with guys who are better than Josh Allen? Because again, contending that is totally and sadly idiotic. If a team that doesn't have anyone as good as Allen is second-rate, there isn't a team that is NOT second-rate. Allen won the MVP. You asked whether anyone on the Bills other than Josh is top two at their position. (The answer is that Taron Johnson and a healthy Matt Milano probably are.) But even assuming we don't have anyone other than Josh, using that as evidence that everyone except Josh is sub-standard meets no standard of logic whatsoever. You asked whether the entire Bills roster is top 2 in talent. Then you use your negative answer as - again - evidence that everyone on the Bills is substandard. Again, this doesn't have the slightest value in showing that. Then you said, "So they are legitimately all second-rate, relatively. Except for Josh." This is spectacularly stupid stuff.

Um, yes, that's my point. They often don't align with each other. And there are structural precepts in making each that work against the Bills. Small-market teams do less well. They are individual awards, which works against the Bills because our units work better than the individuals looked at one-by-one. I love how you picked that stat out of the air. What were you thinking? Something like this? Completely unmeasureable? Check! Disagreement on what "exceptional QB play" is? Check! Yup, there's no way to actually measure it, so ... 65%!!!! No, wait, 65.2% sounds more authorative, um, no it would sound as if I was pulling it out of my hat. Well, we agree 100% there. Claiming all of it is excellent really is off base. Just quick, though, could you point out where I said all of it is excellent? Just real quick? But a C+ roster, even with Josh, simply doesn't get us where we are. Just doesn't happen. Might we win our awful division with a C+ roster and Josh? Yeah, maybe. I mean, 9 games wins that division clean last year, 8 if you get the tie-breakers. So sure, they would be competitive for the division. But would they win 13 games? Like hell. Destroy the Broncos in the playoffs? Nope. Beat 'em? Well, that's possible, but 31-7? Just wouldn't happen. Beat the Ravens? My ass. Play right with the Chiefs? Hell, no. League average? Please Yeah, the defense had a down year. They've been excellent for years. Losing Poyer and Hyde and having Milano and Bernard miss big pieces of the season greatly hurt. When they were both in and playing better the D started to look pretty solid. Put someone like Cousins in our offense and they still play very well. Not as well as they did with Josh, of course, but this OL has been terrific, as has the running game. Well inside the top 10, pretty likely. Of course McDermott's record without Josh is under .500. That's because the huge majority of his games without Josh were in the first two years of his term, when we were rebuilding. The first two years of a rebuild always suck. When you find lists, McDermott's virtually always between 6th and 8th. That's not a B. It's a B+ / A-. Is that what you know? 8 year olds needing a trophy? Fine. I know that there is a big group of folks on here who always need scapegoats, but even when Josh doesn't play well he's always on the list. And I know that coaches are always the easiest scapegoats, coaches and assistants. Even when a team that was supposed to be having a down year instead plays extremely well instead and probably makes the Super Bowl if the refs just mark the ball better on one play, or for that matter if Josh isn't absolutely terrible on the first couple of drives. But no, this group must have scapegoats and we're obviously not a good team despite overachieving. Does Josh make everyone around him better? Sure. Absolutely. So does the whole excellent offensive line, one of the absolute best in the game. So does Cook. So does Ty Johnson. So does Dalton Kincaid, when healthy. So does Shakir. So does Benford. So does Taron Johnson. So do both LBs when healthy, Bernard and Milano. So does Ed Oliver, though not often enough, dang it. So does Rousseau. Is QB the most important position in the game, and the one that has the biggest ability to affect outcomes? Yup. We're lucky to have Josh. We're also lucky to have a bunch of other good players. Wanna see a terrific QB on a roster that's a C+ otherwise? Check out Matt Stafford's career in Detroit. Put him in a good organization and he's competitive. And this Bills team is far far closer to Stafford on the Rams than Stafford on the Lions.

I certainly agree with you there, that was the right play for you. I don't "want to say that doesn't qualify for the definition of 'second rate.'" I'm pointing out the fact that you've either completely mis-used the word or hold views on how bad the Bills are that are completely bughouse. I suspect you haven't gone and checked the actual meaning of that phrase. Applying it to the Bills would be stupid. It's smart that you backed away, though the smarter play yet would simply be to simply say something like, "Yeah, I used the wrong word," and going on to whatever the next battle is. But I'm aware that some people have a really hard time doing that. Yeah, Josh is the best we have. But that doesn't even begin to support, or even be relevant to whether the entire rest of the team is "second-rate." Which again, they are not. The idea is dumb.

You're right, you didn't accuse me of calling you dumb. You accused me of personal insults. "Ever notice the how the pro McD posters are so intolerant of other opinions they go to personal insults? They can’t just talk about the subject. Not just you, several of you." You said that. In reply to my post. So, could you show me one of those? POINT OUT ONE PLACE WHERE I PERSONALLY INSULTED YOU!! My view is without nuance? Well, yeah, sometimes that's how the world works. FireChans said everyone on the Bills, coaches and players is second-rate, except Josh. There's no nuance needed there. He was wrong. And teams that are second-rate everywhere except one guy don't make the AFC championship and almost win. I told him him to check the dictionary for what "second-rate" means. And he disappeared. But you stepped right in, attempting to prove that everyone on the Bills was second-rate except Josh. You say I didn't provide evidence? You don't need a ton of evidence when someone is so obviously wrong. Perhaps you too need to check the dictionary on what second-rate means. In plenty of other threads when people have a reasonable argument you'll see me introducing a ton of evidence. But why bother with evidence when someone wants to argue that the whole organization except Josh is "second-rate." The idea is ludicrous. Pointing out their record, both for last year and for the last bunch of years is plenty of evidence to completely make the case. It's a dumb idea.

Narratives are not allowed to be negative towards Allen. Or positive towards McDermott. Occasionally they are allowed to say a nice thing or two about Beane. Short of trading for both Tee Higgins and Ja'Marr Chase, the "they aren't helping Allen enough" one will always be here among that one certain group that keeps quiet during win streaks and shouts their happiness at being "right" to the skies after a loss.

He's improved at blocking. He now does it decently. He is not a road grading guy, and never will be, but he has gotten better at getting in his guy's way and stopping him from getting where he's going. But yeah, he seems to have been injured. Here's a bit of evidence: https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/matthew-berry/news/matthew-berrys-25-most-interesting-things-he-heard-at-2025-nfl-combine The relevant part: "22. I talked with a Bills source who told me Dalton Kincaid’s lack of production last year was because he was a lot more injured than folks realized. 'He’s gonna be a sleeper next year, trust me,' I was told. What about Amari Cooper, I asked? A shrug. 'He might be done.' The implication to me being that Cooper’s days as an elite WR1 might be over, not that he would be leaving Buffalo. I still expect that if anyone would be the focal point of the Bills’ passing offense, it would have to be Khalil Shakir."

Again, I didn't call you dumb. POINT OUT ONE PLACE WHERE I CALLED YOU DUMB!!!! Just one!!! I called your ideas dumb. Not all of your ideas. Just the dumb ones. Some of your ideas I disagree with, but they're not dumb. I often disagree with those, but don't call them dumb. But the dumb ideas, I do call out. Now, you keep saying "poster dumb," as you did above. Again, that's not me. Is it something you yourself are saying about yourself?

Done, barring a couple of cheaper journeyman types, I think. Probably some movement after training camp too, but probably not anyone expensive.

I see that nobody has mentioned this before, with the exception of me, very quickly. They've done academic studies on this, whether it's better to make big trades up, giving away lots of high picks. It isn't. Massey & Thaler The Loser's Curse That's the most well-known, but there are plenty more. And every single one comes to the same conclusion. To increase your chances of success, do NOT trade up so much that you have to give up premium assets. Ideally, trade back. More picks tends to have better results. You can succeed occasionally. But the odds are very far against you.

Atlanta absolutely did have a terrific team. They went 13-3 the year before the offseason they made the Julio Jones trade. They bought into the whole "we're one player away" thing. Thought all they needed was one WR. There's a reason Brandon Beane keeps saying "You're never one player away." The reason being it's true. It's never one guy. It's a whole bunch of guys working together.

2023 and 2024 were years when we had swathes of defensive injuries (2023) and many defensive injuries in the defensive backfield that left us a shell back there. 2021 and 2022 were notable for very few injuries. And for having both Poyer and Hyde out there and not yet regressing. But yeah, you're right about the changes in coaches. I wonder how much of that is Babich having a voice and wanting guys he knew.

First, hunh??? I guess you're using a phone but it's genuinely not quite clear. As for wanting to talk about whether getting an elite talent is better than, um, not getting an elite talent ... this doesn't seem like a new or particularly interesting thought to me. I've certainly thought it. I think that everything equal we'd all agree. But things are almost never equal. It doesn't seem to me worth starting a thread over. Anyway, Massey and Thaler is the most famous study pointing this out but every study on the subject has shown the same thing. Which is that if they want to improve your chances of better outcomes, your favorite teams should NOT use valuable high-level picks to move up in the draft. In fact, trading back generally increases the value of your output. Oh, and remind me, how many Lombardi trophies did teams with Julio Jones on them win? We'll never know how many they would have won if they had used those picks rather than trading them. But it's certainly possijble it might have been more than zero.

Because Rasul Douglas. Because Connor McGovern. Because Jordan Poyer and Micah Hyde. Again, there's more. Because Mack Hollins who was a big part of our success this year even though he's gone. Because Curtis Samuel scored a playoff TD against the Chiefs. Jordan Phillips had a huge play late in the Chiefs game that kept them out of the end zone. Even though they're not thrilling, every team needs depth and backups and if they're weak at one position they can use a journeyman as a starter if he's better than the best guy they have. And because of that annoying "nobody is perfect" thing, while you get guys like Mack Hollins and Rasul Douglas and Connor McGovern and David Edwards, you will also get some who don't work out. There isn't a roster in the league that has more than about 20% - 30% excellent players. And yet the other players can and do make plays at crucial moments that can put win a game or put you in the playoffs. Yes. And what SoTier said as well.

Poona had an excellent year in Seattle. Leonard Floyd. Mitch Morse. There are others. Most of any roster is composed of backups, depth and JAGs and practice squad guys. Why should free agency be different? In fact, it shouldn't.

This is a new thought.

Interesting choices in the poll. One flat mediocre, two bad and one good. And other. Hmm.

Yeah, CB or DE in the first is my best guess also, with DT in the 2nd. But everything can and will change as the board develops. But that's what they'd consider the best scenario, I believe. I do like Grant, though. But he's one of the guys who'll be buffeted by the winds of the pick order.

Buffalo did pay that dead money for Diggs. Know how much the cap hits for the other WRs was last year? $9,595,137. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/position/_/year/2024/position/wr/status/active-reserve Bills WR cap money $40.6M Chase and Higgins AAV total $80M The Bills are not a good argument for saying that Cincy will be OK spending $80M on two receivers. And yeah, I get that the cap situation in Cincy is more complex than just those adding the AAVs of Chase and Higgins. Still the Bills don't support the idea that what Cincy did can work. It certainly is possible it might work, though I doubt it, but the Bills situation last year was greatly different.

Frazier quit. Those who disagree have nothing but their own perceptions to back that up. There's never been a single fact from inside that supports it. But yes, the Bengals had a playoff schedule that was an absolute gift for the first two games. And Mahomes had a terrible game in the AFC Championship. Was the Bengals D part of that? Yeah, but Mahomes was missing passes he usually makes, a bunch of them.

Greatly disagree with what you say would happen if we switched QBs. IMO you put Burrow in here and we maybe lose 1 or 2 more games than we did. I don't think Burrow has been the problem in Cincy, except of course the year he was injured. He's on a relatively poor roster. He's damn good. Not as good as Josh, but damn good. And if you put Josh in that Cincy lineup they win 1 or 2 more games. Their offense is not their problem, 6th in the league in scoring and 9th in yards last year, while we were 2nd in scoring and 10th in yards. I do agree, though, that signing both these two WRs is not a good move. IMO they should have re-signed Chase and let Higgins go, and take the comp pick. And worked on the OL and the defense.

Yeah, and since football is only a three-person game, the Bengals will doubtless win every Super Bowl out there. Oh, wait, you mean there are more than three on the field? Josh isn't taking Shakir and Palmer. He's taking the whole roster. Which is superior to the Bengals. The Bengals had Chase and Higgins last year. How many playoff games did they win?

You're acting as if the numbers you have gathered are objective proof of how good the roster is. They are not. All of them are subjective, All Pro, Pro Bowl and Top 100. They're all votes, all of them. As such, they're subjective, a compilation of opinions. And there are some obvious problems with the results. Just one example is that according to the Top 100 list, 15 of the top 100 players in the league are QBs. That's absurd. Especially as according to the last top 100 list, Aaron Rodgers is a top 100 player. This came before the 2024 season, but he hasn't been a top 100 guy in several years. But he's a QB and he's famous. 20 of the top 100 list are WRs. Again, absurd. In contrast, 2 of the top 100 are guards, 7 are OTs and 0 are centers. In other words, 9 OLs are among the top 100 best players, while 15 QBs make it, including Aaron Rodgers, Tua Tagovailoa, Kirk Cousins, Brock Purdy and Dak Prescott. Not only that, but only 4 CBs made it. It's about fame and about positional value rather than about being great players. So if you've got a damn good OL, as we do, you're not likely to come out of it seeing results in the top 100, particularly if people can say that your QB's few sacks come from running away well. And Pro Bowls and All Pro at least try to include all positions, but there are still major flaws. Very rarely do slot corners get named at CB, for example. Taron Johnson's never made a Pro Bowl, for instance. Ridiculous, but true. All of those stats are swayed by fame and recognition. Super Bowl winning teams will always be over-represented the next year. More, teams that have great units, particularly great OLs will often not get rewarded commensurately. Games are won in the trenches, but glory, fame and individual honors not so much. And teams with an "everybody eats" strategy will be hurt by that in all of these measures even if they are one of the absolute best and most productive offenses in the league. No stars equals no mentions on your measurements here. Bottom line, it's Josh Allen. And Sean McDermott. And Brandon Beane. All doing their jobs very well. McDermott gets them to play well as a team despite a relative lack of glory for many. And Beane brings in guys who will thrive in that kind of environment despite having to deal with extremely low draft picks year after year and the QB's second contract taking up a very high percentage of the team's cap. Despite Josh's willingness to take less than he is actually worth, he's still really expensive.

A holdout? In his FOURTH year? That's not going to happen. In his fifth, if they tag him? Yeah, maybe. And the Bills have him if you look at it differently. They could extend him this offseason or during the year. If they don't and he gets a serious injury, he'd lose out on a lot of money. There's no big rush. IMO it'll happen reasonably soon, without friction. He easily could. As Gunner pointed out, he's good in man too. He's just good. The question is the concussions.