Thurman#1

Yeah. But for those who would rather see Allen running a bit less, this might see him doing it more. Hopefuly he slides more. He's been pretty good overall at doing that Interesting article, OP.

This is my best guess as well. I think they'd love to get Douglas back, but there'll be a ceiling they're not willing to go beyond. And Douglas might be able (and willing) to get more elsewhere. Douglas is 30 and generally even fairly big contracts for CBs over 30 (he'll be 31 when the season starts) don't turn out too good too often. He's really been an excellent pickup, so I think they'll hope but will have a ceiling and will tell him if he can get more elsewhere they'll thank him for his Bills service. Guy's been great.

Dummy is pacifier? Got it now. Thanks. He confused me too with that one.

Yup, this. Sure they need him to run the ball. At times. Any team with a QB who can run needs him to run at times. Absolutely any team at all. Pass plays don't turn out as drawn up 100% of the time, for any team at any time, that's just football. The offensive line doesn't protect perfectly 100% of the time ... on any team at any time. Of course they need him to run sometimes. EVERY team with a QB who can run does. Every single one. But the pass game has been good this year, even before they brought in Cooper, and even when both he and Keon are out of the lineup.

Yeah, loved this.

Not a huge deal. Yes, it's over the line.

"My sources is I've played violent sports and been concussed," you say. Wow, great point!!! By that logic, around 20 million or so Americans who've played violent sports and been concussed (which would include me) know better than the doctors who actually went through this thing called medical school and then put in years of practice. And then examined Josh Allen. Sheer dumbosity. Hard to believe. What you've got there is an uniformed guess. And nothing but that. Pure confirmation bias.

Nonsense. Allen didn't "need" to run the ball 12 times. As I already pointed out, that's what he does against KC. He had a bunch of called runs in that game an he was happy to take off several other times. He loves it. He does it against KC every time. Here's the proof, from about 15 posts back: He didn't "need to run the ball 12 times in a game." The idea's dumb. This is what he does against KC, and in big games generally. And there's absolutely zero reason to think that, as you said, "the defense has confused him" on that big play. Zero. They did drop into zone but as Josh said, when that happens he has to make a play, which is what any QB would have to do. "Make a play," can be throwing a pass or running. What actually happened is that Chris Jones puts his head inside of Torrance, allowing Torrance to block him inside, while Karlaftis at DE has totally given up the edge and rushed deep and wide leaving a very large, well-blocked hole in front of Allen that he's already headed towards. Give Allen a huge opening like that on a 4th and two and he'll take it. He loves taking things into his own hands, as well he should. Once he's through that massive hole there are two Chiefs on the right side who have a slight chance to reach him before he gets the first down and each is covering a receiver he'd leave open if he went all-out to tackle Josh. Once through that big hole Josh is either going to have a receiver alone or enough space to get the 1st by run pretty easily. Zero reason to think he was confused. He diagnosed it well and handled the situation perfectly. If Karlaftis had better stayed in his lane Josh might have had to do something different, maybe stayed back and thrown, probably to Samuel, but we'll never know for sure, as the receivers and coverage guys see Josh breaking free and react, changing the look of the play. As for your ridiculous argument that, "McDermott wasn't saying he'd see this movie before in reference to Bass missing a kick at the end of the game," yes, you're right, it's not about that. Nor did I say that it was, or anything like it. Gotta give you credit there, you didn't move the goal posts. Instead you created a straw man, saying I said something I never did. If only straw men were more logically sound than moved goal posts. Yes, you're right that "the objective was to put the game out of reach with a TD or running the clock out." Duh. The alternative was to kick the field goal. McDermott chose to go for it because he felt it was the option that gave him the best chance of success. Yet again, your original statement was that, "If he doesn't get that first down/TD at the end they lose and we all know it." That statement is what I said was categorically wrong. And you haven't once defended it, (not that it's defensible), instead going on about how Josh was confused and he had to run the ball 12 times and various other attempts at moving the goal posts. The fact is that the Bills stopped Mahomes on drives inside the 2-minute warning with the Bills up by four or less points to win the last two times we played them during the season, as I pointed out before.

Moving the goalposts isn't just a habit with you, is it? It's apparently more of a lifestyle. And you're doing it again here for the milliontyleventh time. Twice in one post. It's sad that I have to remind you what you said, but clearly I do. You said: That's what I disagreed with. Because it was pretty obviously treating a pretty dumb opinion as a fact. None of what you posted here is even slightly relevant to whether or not "we all know" that if Allen hadn't scored a TD on that play we'd have lost. McDermott did say he "had seen that movie before." But that only means that he thought going for it on 4th and two at the KC 26 with a two point lead was a better idea than kicking the field goal. That it enhanced their chances of winning. NOT that "if he doesn't get that first down/TD at the end they lose and we know it." Again, your interpretation here is dumb. And you didn't say just that he was taking a beating. Nobody would argue that. Every QB does. It's part of the game. You tried to say that this year was different. That was (DUH!) what I disagreed with, and as usual you moved the goalposts and then ignored my actual point. What you actually said was this: Dumb. He's not taking more of a beating this season. Less, if anything. He's getting the ball out faster, taking fewer hits in the pocket, and he's running about as much as he consistently has. He's not being more chaotic this year than he has in the past. Again, less if anything. He's taking what the defense gives him a lot more than he has in the past. The passing game is in damn good shape, particularly for a unit dealing with so many injuries to receivers (Keon, Amari) and Kincaid as well.

He really is looking impressive. I liked him but thought he was more of a slot guy which the Bills already had covered. Looking like a great pick for the Chargers. At the time, if I remember correctly, I liked Legette best, and Worthy next. Thought the Bills were going to go for a separation guy, and that McConkey and Keon would not be considered fits. With hindsight, Keon and McConkey look best. So far anyway.

Jeez. Couldn't happen to a nicer team. Hope Woody doesn't get appointed anywhere. He should stay with the Jets.

Yeah, let's also get rid of Italian gangs who yadda yadda. And Russian gangs who yadda yadda. And poverty. It should all be easy. It appears that this is reality right now. Adapting to reality is the very opposite of unnecessary.

100% disagree. And it'd be higher it more than 100% was a logical thing. Him making it a TD was absolutely fantastic viewing. But if we had simply made two yards and a first down there, in any way, we were still almost certainly going to win it. And even if we hadn't converted we'd have stood a realistic chance. This ain't your Dad's Kansas City Chiefs. And even if it WAS your Dad's Kansas City Chiefs, look at least year's Chiefs game on December 10th. The game is tied 17 - 17 till the Bills kick an FG with 1:57 left in the game. The Chiefs get the ball on the 25, with 1:54 left in the game ... ... and turn it over on downs on their own 46 yard line with 0:55 still left. Or the year before on Oct. 16th when we score a TD to put us up four and kick off to the Chiefs with 1:04 left and Taron intercepts Mahomes to seal the game. "They lose and we know it," is utter crap. Nobody knows anything of the sort. What we now know is that you yourself are absolutely convinced of it. But that's very very far indeed from everyone knowing something. Oh, and it's nonsense that "the guy has taken a beating this season ." Fewer sacks than ever. And his runs over the first eleven games of each season looks like this: 2021: 64 2022: 75 2023: 59 2024: 67 Again, your confirmation bias is showing. You want to think bad things about the passing game. So you see bad things about the passing game regardless of what the facts show. He's right in where he usually is at this time of year. And by the way, he always runs more in big games. He can't suppress his competitive juices. This is what Josh's runs against KC actually looks like over the years: 2021 11 carries 2022 12 carries 2023 10 carries 2024 12 carries You see 12 carries this year and your confirmation bias leads you to blame the receivers. That's on you. This isn't Josh trying to compensate. 12 runs against KC is just Josh being Josh.

Sorry, man, it's a dumb argument. They were extremely productive in the pass game in both of those games. Again, they averaged 271 YPG over those two games. And again, if extended over the whole season, that YPG would lead the entire league. That's pretty much the definition of productivity. You appear to argue that because Josh had what you call, "an unsustainable 10 rushing attempts," in the KC game that the passing game was bad. That argument is both irrelevant and again, dumb. I was replying to your apparently straight-faced argument that "statistically, the passing game the past two weeks with Coleman out and Cooper limited has not been good." Much as you might wish you hadn't said that, you did, and it's what I was replying to. There's probably a thread out there where your concern about how much Josh ran would fit. But it does not in the slightest defend your original poor statement there. You argue that they threw a lot of passes in the Chiefs game and that somehow makes the fact that they were extremely productive not count? Again, that's just dumb. You yourself were recently arguing that Josh has been throwing short when that's what the defense was giving him, and that it's been working really well for him and for this team. And you were correct in saying that. That's what happened. Lots of short productive completions that extended drives, converted third downs and ultimately was the leading factor in them putting up the only 30 point game anyone's managed against the Chiefs this year. You're right that the conditions against KC were really nice. But the idea that we should discount an excellent passing outing because the conditions were nice ... it's just bad thinking. Sorry, your main line of argument here is irrelevant to what you're trying to prove in the post that I replied to. The passing game this year has been very productive. Might it have been better with better receivers? Yeah, sure. But with our WRs it's gotten better as the year went on as Josh and Brady learned what each guy could do, what they could do together, and what defenses would try against them, and clearly their adaptations have been very successful. Was Cooper's arrival a factor? Yeah, and hopefully it'll be more so as he gets healthy and they . But have they done just about as well without Coop on the field as with him? Yeah, pretty damn close, even with Keon injured and out for both of those games. And to repeat, yes, Josh threw three INTs in those two games. One came as a result of his shoulder being hit as he threw. One was a bad throw by Josh. And the third was a communication problem between Josh and Dawson Knox, who is, again, not a wide receiver. Your attempt to put those INTs on the receivers is just more evidence of your confirmation bias. You don't like the receivers group, so everything is their fault. Actual logic, though, does not work that way. The offense put up thirty-burgers against both of those teams and an awful lot of it in both cases was that the passing game as a whole was in both games good enough to overcome Josh's INTs. They kept drives going, they converted 3rd downs, bottom line they got it done.

Had to look it up after I read this. Seemed genuine to me, if pained.

Statistically, the passing game hasn't been good the last two weeks, you say? At the very best, that's deeply questionable. Not to mention that your idea here of laying all the blame for any passing game problems on the receivers is excellent evidence that you're nursing a severe case of confirmation bias. The blame (and the credit) for the passing game goes to the receivers ... and the tight ends, and the RBs, and the QB and the OL. It's a team game. Pretending all of it's on the WRs says an awful lot more on you and some deeply flawed logic you want to cling to than it does about the WRs. In any case, we averaged 271 yards per game passing in those two games. Know where averaging 271 yards passing would rank a team this year? Numero uno. Our completion percentage in those games was around league average and almost exactly the same as our completion percentage for the whole season. We racked up 262 pass yards against KC. Can you name another team that did better against the Chiefs? Oh, yeah, one, the Ravens managed to eke out five more passing yards than we did against that Chiefs D. Aren't the Ravens throwing the ball pretty well this year? We put up 30 points against KC, despite them basically shutting down our running backs. Cook went 9 for 20, Ty Johnson 5 for 18, and Ray Davis 5 for 11. Yet we put up 30 points. Our passing game got the job done at a high level against the very tough KC defense. Josh's running too, but the pass game worked very well. And yeah, you can say that we threw three INTs in those two games, but one of the three was from Josh getting hit in the shoulder as he threw, the second against Indy was a bad throw, and the INT against KC was on some kind of communication problem on a throw to Knox (who is not a receiver). That's not on the receivers.

That's the thing, we heard all about how awful this unit was from some on here, and they weren't. They never were. They definitely took a step back from last year. But with Josh throwing to them from behind an excellent OL, they looked to many of us like they might be a nice, functional unit even without a #1, especially in the second half if Coleman started to figure things out and Keon kept developing. And that's just what has happened. Picking up Cooper makes them even better, it was a great move, but they were and are a nice little group even when Coop is off the field.

Ironic? No, not at all. Sad? Yeah. Hope he recovers soon.

I was thinking the same thing, Bill. For whatever reason, he seems to have gotten it together this year. His mental game, all of it. He seems a different guy this year from the guy he was on the Bussin' with the Boys podcast a year or two back. This year, though, he's more impressive than ever. I've always put him as maybe second-best in the league. This year he might be taking a step up.

First, two dynasties after 2000 is just about what you'd expect. It's rare at much the same as the historical rate. One every ten to twelve years or so, though it depends exactly how you define a dynasty. Second, you say, "I didn’t think we’d ever see anything like what the Patriots did. That kind of sustained dominance, stretching across multiple decades, felt like it would never happen again. It seemed like something that couldn’t be replicated. Yet here we are, with Kansas City chasing a potential three-peat." Um, here we aren't.They're way way short of what New England did. They're much more in line with most of the other dynasties. And after five years or so, many of those dynasties looked like they had a good chance to keep on going. Most of them didn't. KC won't be ranked with NE until and unless they run off at least three or four more titles.

Yeah, looks even worse now than it did at the time. And I thought it was pretty bad at the time. If Eli had been young, maybe, but he was ancient and creaky.

As usual, you've loaded the goal posts onto a giant U-Haul and are happily moving them wherever you feel like. Not surprising, that's your constant M.O. But it's still poor logic, poor argumentative skills. You didn't challenge whether that route was his specialty in the post I referred to. It's not him pulling anything out of his ass. It's you. That's what you are doing here ... precisely. If you want to challenge that that route is his specialty, go ahead. Do it. But you didn't. Never said a word about it. And if your point was indeed that Allen been 1-11 of throws of that depth and field location and that that quashed the possibility that he was good on the one particular route, well, why would anyone make a point as obviously dumb and illogical. Of course it doesn't quash that point. If he was 1-11 on all throws to that distance ... you still need to show what he was throwing on that particular route. On that specific route ... was he 1 of 11 on skinny posts? No, obviously not. So what was he? 1 for 4? 1 for 1? 0 for 0? You didn't bother looking. You have no idea. That number has zero probative value on what you're trying to show. Was he 0 for 2 when on one his arm had been hit when he threw and on the other the receiver fell down before he got near the ball? Sorry, man, I addressed it because it was dumb and it is still dumb. Using numbrs from a set with many elements to prove something about a few elements of a set without then examining the numbers about the specific elements doesn't prove anything. Except laziness. It's like saying that jellyfish populations must be going down because fish populations are going down overall. Simply poor logic. Again, your overall point about how very effective an offense taking short balls when that's what the defense is giving ... that point was - and is - right on target. As for the specific play you're talking about ... honestly I'm too unmotivated to go back and look. Why should I? It's not what I confronted you about. I never addressed the individual play. You're moving the goal posts again. Go talk to him about it if you need to. I confronted you about your poor move in thinking examining a big dataset and thinking that overall trend about the whole set showed much about a few individual elements. It doesn't. The idea's dumb. But I want to say yet again since this post now looks very negative, you're exactly right on the overall thrust of your argument. Having Allen work short - even a lot - can be extremely effective.

First, he's not ruined. These things take time. But the Bears might be delaying his development. Ideally you don't want scheme switches for a rookie. You want to keep him on one path so what he has learned is of further use to him. They should have sat him for a year. But that takes organizational will-power and a ton of it.

EPA is completely legit, makes a ton of sense. Does an excellent job of showing how dangerous / non-threatening a given situation is. Does it correctly predict the immediate future each time? No. Nothing does. While you're right that he was exaggerating, your stat doesn't address his specific claim in the post you highlighted. He's talking about that specific route, the high redzone skinny post. You're including all throws over 20 yards. Which includes such throws as 50 yarders and more. You can't include all those non-high-redzone-skinny-posts, some open and some not, some from a clear pocket and some under great pressure, first down throws and third-and-longs, and pretend you're speaking to his claims about high redzone skinny posts with that stat. You are very much not. Having said that, your overall point about choking out offenses with high percentage throws is a very good one. It's efficient and with guys who are good at YAC - and we have several these days - it can lead to major big plays such as Davis' sixty-three yard TD catch that hit him two yards behind the LOS. QBs these days are are in a totally different environment than they were three and four years ago. The move by defenses to two high shells has made long passes more dangerous and short ones safer and easier. Forcing safeties to move forward through grinding out long drives on productive plays will eventually make safer long passes again available. If we keep scoring 30 points with conservative but productive drives, we're going to win most of our games. Hell, KC has scored 30 points this year in exactly one game.

No, not at all. First the Bills had a contract with protections. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2018/9/17/17869020/buffalo-bills-can-recoup-nearly-all-vontae-davis-contract-money-following-retirement-signing-bonus He also went right up to the FO within a few days and wrote them a check returning nearly all the money he'd been paid. Vontae played extremely fair with the Bills on this. It was an extremely weird story but was not a ripoff.