Thurman#1

It's a good question. IMO they saw the Green Bay game and now think Josh isn't going to undergo major regression. And they buy into the fact that our DL can rush the passer much better this year than they did last year. And since that was the main reason we had trouble with KC last year I think, they have some faith we might do better against them. There is surely more to it than that, but I think those are the main two reasons, I think.

Really really doubt that. Especially early in the year I don't see him getting anywhere near a majority. I guess we'll see.

Terrific. Thanks.

And to go back on point since this was taken so far out into left field, with me sharing the blame .... As for how important point difference is ... it's important sometimes. The 2015 SB Champion Broncos had a point differential below 4. So did the 2012 Super Bowl Champion Ravens. The 2011 Super Bowl Champion Giants actually had a negative point differential. The 2007 Super Bowl Champion Giants had a point differential below three points. The 2006 Super Bowl Champion Mannings, um, I mean the Colts had one of 4.2 points. So that's far from a majority, but most stats that measure both offense and defense are going to look good for nearly all Lombardi winners.

I totally understand, dude. Nothing to say which can make your point, so you pretend you got me angry. Got it. And if it works for you, you go, boy!! Very true. I'm certainly not always right. I make my share of mistakes, and probably more. But there really were 4 or 5 games last year where the offense wasn't good. That's all I was saying, and it's really pretty obvious. But I kept getting arguments.

Again, if therapy and pretending I'm furious works for you, go ahead. Whatever works for you is fine. But you're kidding yourself if you think you're worth getting angry about. Yeah, I'm consistent about pointing out bad logic. Got nothing to do with anger, though. OK, so DVOA has us down for four games that were below average, right? KC, Arizona, Tennessee and the Jets? And you're trying to pretend that supports your argument? Yeah, that won't really work out for you when you started out saying "To be clear: the 'context' here is the defense - the offense did its job every week except against KC, basically." You've backed off that and now here's another obvious bad game being pointed out to you. One of the ones I already told you about, by the way. Of course the Jets game was bad, by any standard. The Bills offense managed 18 points on 6 field goals, couldn't score even one TD against a team that averaged allowing 28.6 ppg. On the face of it, just plain bad. The first Pats game wasn't good either. Nor the Steelers game, really, where the offense rang up 19 points and gave the ball away twice. Well, point's been made at this point, whether you see it or not. Your beloved Football Outsiders lists four negative games for the offense, so they agree with me as well.

id I called it weasel language because that's what it is. You're not exactly opaque here, dude. You didn't include under 1% because there are one or two or three more Bills offensive games there. And yeah, you keep hiding the ball and people will keep pointing it out to you. You brought up DVOA, not me. You keep telling me I should use it, and that it only took you five seconds to find the page. When I point out the obvious, that the reason it took you five seconds to find it is that you paid, you change the grounds of your argument yet again. No mention that you were wrong. So yeah, you keep switching the grounds, and I keep pointing out where you're wrong, and you keep running on to the next point. It ain't me "hiding the ball," dude. It's you. You're the one who has a subscription, not me. And yet for some weird reason you're not telling how many Bills games are between 0 and -0.1%. Hard to figure the reason for that. For around the 5th time, we're talking about an offense that scored less than 20 points four times this season if you do NOT include the playoff game against the Ravens. Of course they had some games that were not very good, regardless of whether you are willing to admit it or not. The amusement is beginning to wear off for me. At some point soon I'll just let what you've written speak for itself. Youre absolute inability to make your point says volumes. And if therapy works wonders for you, I say that's terrific. Best of luck to you with that, sincerely. Regardless of that, the offense was good but there were several games where they were not. (The Jets game where they managed 18 points on 6 field goals, couldn't score even one TD against a team that averaged allowing 28.6 ppg, for instance.) Pretty sure if you asked Josh Allen about that, he wouldn't disagree for a second.

Yeah, sorry dude, I don't pay. The reason it took you about five seconds is that you clearly do. What I get is a thing that shows the top five teams, the rest of the data greyed out, and a "Please subscribe" message. And even without the link I notice weasel language in your post ... "there were three games last year with a negative offensive DVOA of more than -1%," you say. Negative DVOAs mean below-average performance. How many games will there be where the offensive DVOA is negative, and thus, below average, while still not meeting your arbitrary threshhold of -1.0%, I wonder? And whether the offense is "dragged down by negative rushing offense DVOA" is beside the point. For like the fifth time, you said, "To be clear: the 'context' here is the defense - the offense did its job every week except against KC, basically. So the issue was the defense letting the other team keep the game close." You didn't say that the offense did it's job every week except when the rushing offense posted negative DVOA. That's what you did NOT say. I'm glad you've figured out that the Tennessee and Arizona games were not good for the offense. I actually would not include the Arizona game, but if you want to, fair enough. There were two or three others ... very possibly all those where they ran up a negative offensive DVOA, whether it is below 1% or not.

Link?

I don't need them. You are the one who originally brought them up, not me. If you feel that they disprove what I am saying, please feel free to post them. More, they don't post single game stats there for those who aren't paying. I am not paying them, though I think their stuff is very good and I have considered it. If you have paid, and if you feel that the single week numbers would help your case, do feel free to post them. My argument is made successfully without them. The offense was not good in several games. It's clear. For around the third time, we are talking about an offense that scored less than 20 points four times, not including the Ravens playoff game. You're the one who brought up DVOA, not me. And yet you only referred to the season-long numbers and I have said over and over that the offense was indeed good when looked at over the course of the season.

And again ... As for how important point difference is ... it's important sometimes. The 2015 SB Champion Broncos had a point differential below 4. So did the 2012 Super Bowl Champion Ravens. The 2011 Super Bowl Champion Giants actually had a negative point differential. The 2007 Super Bowl Champion Giants had a point differential below three points. The 2006 Super Bowl Champion Mannings, um, I mean the Colts had one of 4.2 points. So that's far from a majority, but most stats that measure both offense and defense are going to look good for nearly all Lombardi winners.

Dude, please. The reason you gave me the overall numbers not the per-week numbers is pretty obvious. "By and large," you say they did their job. Yeah, "by and large," meaning sometimes yes and sometimes no, more yes than no.. Yeah, exactly. Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't. Over the course of the season they did well - as I have repeatedly said - but in several games they certainly did not. The weeks they didn't were the ones I mentioned before. Again, you said, "To be clear: the 'context' here is the defense - the offense did its job every week except against KC, basically. So the issue was the defense letting the other team keep the game close." That is what I responded to, and it is not so. The offense was outright poor against the Titans, scoring 16 and putting up three turnovers. That's probably the best example, but they didn't play well in several games, and I've already pointed out which ones, but it's not hard to find for an offense that put up less than 20 points four times (again, against the Steelers, seven points came from Taron Johnson's pick-six). For what is now around the third or fourth time, yes, the offense was good overall. No, not every week except KC. Not even especially close.

Yeah, but I wasn't arguing that they didn't do their job overall. You said they did their every week though you excepted the KC game. I'm arguing that; it makes no sense to me. And DVOA doesn't speak to that. It looks at the whole season together. You said, "To be clear: the “'context' here is the defense - the offense did its job every week except against KC, basically. So the issue was the defense letting the other team keep the game close." And that wasn't so. The offense had some games where they had problems, including two games we won because the defense did a terrific job. Our 18-10 win against the Jets was a much better job by the defense than the offense. Scoring 18 against last year's Jets was not a good job, but holding even the Jets to 10 points is good defense. Scoring 24 against last year's Pats was OK, but holding those same Pats to 21, including that final Zimmer turnover was good defense. The D holding the Chargers to 17, the Pats to 21 and 9 in those two games, the Ravens to 3 in the playoffs, the Raiders to The offense didn't play particularly well - as I said - in several games Did they do their job when they scored 16 against the Titans? 18 against the Jets in Week7? 24 against the Pats? 19 against the Steelers (the other seven points came on Taron Johnson's pick-six)? 10 against the Ravens in the playoffs (the other seven points came on Taron Johnson's other pick-six)? And again, as I said, they certainly were better than the defense. It isn't even a question. They were very good overall. But you said they did their job in every game except the Chiefs. I don't see how anyone could say they did their job in that Titans game. And they weren't good in two or three others either.

Thought you meant moral values.

You may well be right that cost is the sticking point for the NFL, but $100 mill divided by 32 teams is worth it if it greatly cuts the possibility of having games cancelled. If they were smart, they would do it.

I don't agree at all. "The offense did it's job every week except against KC, basically," you say? Did they do their job when they scored 16 against the Titans? 18 against the Jets in Week7? 24 against the Pats? 19 against the Steelers (the other seven points came on Taron Johnson's pick-six)? 10 against the Ravens in the playoffs (the other seven points came on Taron Johnson's other pick-six)? Certainly the offense was better than the defense last year, but that's far from saying the O were good every game. As for how important point difference is ... it's important sometimes. The 2015 SB Champion Broncos had a point differential below 4. So did the 2012 Super Bowl Champion Ravens. The 2011 Super Bowl Champion Giants actually had a negative point differential. The 2007 Super Bowl Champion Giants had a point differential below three points. The 2006 Super Bowl Champion Mannings, um, I mean the Colts had one of 4.2 points. So that's far from a majority, but most stats that measure both offense and defense are going to look good for nearly all Lombardi winners.

Wentz was bad last year. He was also really really good a couple of years ago under Reich. You're convinced you know what he is. You shouldn't be. We don't know. We don't even have a really solid idea. Obviously I don't think 5-0 is likely. But if Wentz is back playing at a level closer to his past performances, it's not out of reach.

Expectations? We should expect them to be pretty good barring injuries. My guess? 13 or 14 wins, which is probably around the center of the bell curve of predictions for this group.

Oh, fringe contender for the championship? That's pessimistic, but not completely nuts. Fringe contender in the AFC would be completely nuts. Most reporters and pundits in the mainstream media are straightforward with their opinions. Wright seems to be an exception, either deep down biased against the Bills or trolling for effect. This is less bizarre than many of his Bills-related opinions.

Fine, make it your life savings instead, and imagine that you do bet. Would you be willing to bet that this guy is so stupid/uninformed or whatever that he's clearly wrong so you'd hop that plane and make that bet? Of course wouldn't, if you're sane. Because he might be right. I think he's wrong, personally, if I had to guess, but he could be right.

He's a writer. A lot. Glad I could help. Do you feel those questions were worthwhile in clearing anything at all up? If my answers aren't enough for you, would you be willing to go to Vegas and bet the mortgage that he's wrong?

SI isn't a person. It doesn't have one opinion. It's many people with many opinions. And while we may have to go back two or three years because Allen surprised so much last year, it just would not be so difficult to find some. They don't have anything against us. They don't really care. Oh, and I'd argue Belichick did a fine job of coaching last year in getting that roster to seven wins. The biggest part of that dynasty was Brady, IMO, but that doesn't mean Belichick isn't damn good. He is.

Jeez. There's nothing insulting, borderline or not, about having a different opinion. I think they're wrong, but whatever.

I agree that it wasn't 100% clear, Gunner, which is why I said that I read it the way Skurski does. But Jay is closer to the situation than we are. He may have cleared this up, rather than just "taking it," as you say. Or he may not have. Dunno, obviously. But what Brandon said indicates to me that the whole QB room is vaccinated. It doesn't prove it, that's very true. But it's likely. A room with one unvaccinated guy is much more likely to have issues which would require contact tracing, break-throughs and other problems which would make keeping one QB separated a much more necessary play.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned what I took from this PC. It is yet another hint that Allen has probably been vaccinated. Here's Jay Skurski's transcription of a bit of the conference, and Skurski read this the same way I did. It's from his mailbag. "Michael Lenhard asks: With Jake Fromm and Davis Webb on the practice squad and the Delta variant wreaking havoc, will the Bills use a philosophy like last year and separate a quarterback? If so, will it be Fromm again and why? "Jay: Brandon Beane was asked that this week and said that is currently not the plan. 'We don't plan to do that right now with the way the rules are,' he said. 'We feel confident that (Allen’s) not going to get ruled out for contact tracing or anything like that. Never say never. It’s ever evolving with this virus, but I don't think that would be our plan to start the season.'” I don't think they'd be that confident if they didn't know Allen was vaccinated.