Thurman#1

We've got a running game. Singletary's running up 5.2 YPG and Moss 3.9, which includes a lot of third-and-one type carries. That's not even including Allen. Give me home field, thanks.

Way way way too early to say this. IMO if he stays healthy and either the Jets re-jigger their front office to make it decent or he ends up on another team, he could be very very good.

Sweeney's hands: "Hands - Showcases soft, natural and reliable hands. Greets the football with proper technique and hauls it in cleanly. Capable of extending in any direction and plucking it. Does well to hang on through traffic. Catching the football looks easy for him. " https://thedraftnetwork.com/player/tommy-sweeney "Strengths: "Reliable hands" https://www.nfl.com/prospects/tommy-sweeney/32005357-4539-3041-578e-743d87b9a544 "—Sure-handed player with limited drops after some struggles early in his career." https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2824112-tommy-sweeney-nfl-draft-2019-scouting-report-for-buffalo-bills-pick Hands have not been considered any kind of problem for him, as these pre-draft evals show. Athleticism is a different story, and he wasn't considered an especially good blocker, though he's willing and has since improved.

Even before Knox was Knox they were more efficient and effective last year in 11 formations. IMO we'll see more of Sweeney and Gilliam. We'll see.

Look around the league. When you find bone-headed fans continuously finding a scapegoat, you'll see just as many "he's actually good" threads. The reason being he's actually good and yet many don't want to see it, weirdly. Lotulelei, another good player weirdly singled out consistently as a whipping boy by folks who don't quite it, rivals him. He has made strides. But the rest of your post is just plain wrong. Turner absolutely did say earlier on that Edmunds could get even better. And not just once. What you haven't liked is that Turner has said again and again even before this that Tremaine was playing very well even before the improvement. So, yeah, he has indeed made strides. From very good to even better. Which is great to see. Still not elite, and probably still hasn't maxed out his potential - not surprising for a 23 year-old getting towards the middle of his fourth year - but it's still great to see that he's gotten even better. But he has always fitted the scheme and done well at what they ask him to do. It's why he's been the captain so long and why they picked up his $13M option last year even before he picked up his play even further this year.

The American media is the worst source on the planet. Barring all the others, that is. Oh, except Facebook sources. They're gold. Believe everything they say.

Norwell's way too expensive. I'd love to get him if he wasn't. The problem is very little money, this year and next year as well. We're decent everywhere. For an upgrade we'd need someone actually good, and they're generally either highly compensated or greatly valued for being a bargain. I don't see any major moves. Guard and CB if we do, but I just don't see it. We've got a good line, but a couple of guys in the interior are only decent. It'd be lovely to upgrade that. But there's tremendous demand and not a lot of supply for good OLs. I saw Cover1 point out the other day that Bobby Hart was just signed off our practice squad by Tennessee. That tells you the relationship between OL supply and OL demand right now.

Yardage totals don't prove that our outlets aren't a threat. All it proves is that we're not throwing to the RBs. Doesn't show why. Maybe Josh just wants to throw to TEs or WRs instead, as a preference. Singletary has only been targeted 18 times. He's been open one whole hell of a lot more than that. Same with Moss who's been targeted 14 times. Again, open much much more often than that. If we get an RB who's a terrific pass catcher, what will likely happen is that we'll have an RB who is a terrific pass catcher not being targeted much.

Great points. I'm not sure I agree with your second paragraph. I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as looking at just ability/size. There's far more to it. But you're dead on that development is a huge issue in this, and that their development process seems to be working really well right now under McDermott, and with the commitment to bring in great locker room guys in FA and trades.

There are a few nutballs out there. Always. On any subject. So far his drafting record has been very good. Not great but very good. Particularly if you throw out the 2017 draft when Beane wasn't here yet, we've only had one draft class that has been here three years and can thus be properly evaluated. And that class was terrific, though they had an advantage from having so many extra picks acquired in the search to find a QB allowing tradeups. The next year, even with Ford not looking good right now, is a good class, with Oliver and Knox looking like good and great picks, Singletary looking like a solid third-rounder and Jaquan Johnson, Darryl Johnson and Tommy Sweeney all looking like real bargains. And we hae only seen two years out of those guys, there's still meat on the bone. Same with more recent classes.

Yup. No tomato cans in the playoffs. When the Jets, Jags and Texans play at home they're still likely to lose. Yes. That. It makes a real, perceptible, very statistically significant difference.

True. They might not ever have a better chance than this year. There is no particular reason to think that's true, but as with most things, it's possible. We might not ever have a better chance than this year. One way to greatly increase the chances that that comes true and we don't ever have a better chance ... is to ***** up the cap. Luckily, Beane knows this even if many fans don't.

Righyt before that play he told them to stay in their lanes and he told them to watch for a trick play or a lateral. It wasn't his fault.

Yeah, the wife's cutting onions. Really a great player.

Yes, Scott. That's correct. This is not a one-year window. We could compete for championships for a decade ... if we don't do anything too stupid with the cap.

RB isn't a big need. G/CB would be great. If we get a good pass rusher, it will probably be from developing him rather than trading for him. Cap is an issue. Yeah, we could fit someone by kicking cans, but they are already down to $15M next year. They don't need to lower that figure any.

You can't reasonably blame him for changing a W to an L. There were plays made by about every guy on the team that could have turned things around, which is how it generally is in a loss. He's been a really good pickup. The reason he's jumped ahead of those guys is that he's better. Upgrading a position is a good thing. It's confusing. He was a beast at RT last year, but he just wasn't playing all that well there this year.

The answer to that question would be, "Really good." People put up poor arguments criticizing good people, good things and good play all the time. Scapegoating is a common human behavior. This is the internet. The fact that people have picked some guy to scapegoat says nothing about that player. Good and bad players have both been scapegoated a million times on the internet and just in life. What says something about that football player are things like how well he plays, how many pro bowls he makes, whether his team picks up his 5th year option, what kind of contract he eventually gets, whether his teammates/coaches make him a captain, things like that.

You're cracking me up, seriously. There's been a ton of football talk in what I said. And if you were in your backyard telling me to stay out or what to do there, I'd really pay attention. But this is a public forum. Not your backyard. If you don't like that, I'd suggest you don't post. If I went to a public park and some doofus said I wasn't welcome there according to him, I'd give his point zero attention. You're making the same argument. You're trying to make conclusions based on incomplete information. And then telling me that when I look at the All-22 and therefore have all of what you only have part of, that my conclusions don't make sense. This is a ridiculous argument, completely specious. And by the way, pointing out the shortcomings in your method is not an ad hominem argument. It might feel like one, but it is not a personal attack. In the posts above I've never attacked you. I've questioned your method and disagreed with some of your conclusions. That's not ad hominem. Whereas what you have here, including the quote from the great John Cleese, is in large part an ad hominem attack.

I see this seems to be the thread designated for straw man arguments. So rather than answer, let me just point out where you did that. Could you just quickly point out in my post where I said that "on 4th and 1 the Bills don't setup a defense to defend it"? Once you point out where I made this argument, we can continue our discussion..

Yeah, um, if you want to help the OP keep something on topic, that's great. But if you want to leave a message for him, maybe next time don't put it in a reply to a post by me. And I guess since you're apparently operating under the impression that a defense that has subbed out an LB for a 345 pound extra NT and greatly compressed their formation filling each of the central three gaps with a run stuffer, that that defense is not very well-prepared for a QB sneak, you're right, we probably have nothing further to discuss. And yet ... you've missed the point again. Nobody is trying to say that no team is ever prepared for a QB sneak on fourth and short. So you're using a strawman argument. The argument you're pretending I used is indeed nonsensical. Unfortunately, I never said that no teams were prepared. Unfortunately for people making your argument, my argument makes a ton of sense. Yes, there are plenty of times, a majority in fact, when defenses facing 4th and shorts don't prepare for sneaks anywhere near as well as the Titans did on that play. In fact, on around 60 -70% of Allen's successful sneaks for the Bills, the defense left one of the 1-gaps on either side of the center unmanned. One of those gaps is unmanned in ordinary defensive alignments. On very few ordinary football plays do you see teams line up with two 1-techs. And yet that is exactly what the Titans did. The main reason sneaks are successful at a high rate is that an awful lot of them are run with no defender directly in the one of the center-guard gaps. The Titans said, "We're not going to let you run a sneak, we're willing to weaken our defense elsewhere to make sure you don't run a sneak successfully." And the Bills ran a sneak anyway. It was a low-percentage play, far lower than most sneaks run against more unprepared personnel groups and alignments.

Oh, please. This argument is complete nonsense. The old "we don't know what his assignment is on any play, so you can't grade him well" pile of phlegm. That's nonsense. First of all, if nobody can grade a guy, then why are you doing it? In this thread, or anywhere? Your entire thread here is based on the methodology you decided on and implemented and are now trying to back up and criticize, which is watching film and drawing conclusions. Of course you can grade a guy, and extremely effectively, watching tape. Yes, there will be a few plays where you're not sure. But yes most of it is very very obvious. Not before the fact, of course. That's why coaches get paid a lot of money, the other parts of their job are much much harder than watching tape and figuring out what it shows. The problem isn't that you can't watch film and figure out what the player was supposed to do. You can. With high degree of accuracy. The problem is that you're trying to do that on a lot of plays where you can't see the guy for large amounts of the play. A problem I don't have. You're basing your conclusions on incomplete information. I'm not. You say that if I don't like your posts, I shouldn't read 'em. Yeah, well, how about if you don't like people making legitimate criticisms of your posts maybe you shouldn't write them. Your methodology has a major flaw, one you acknowledge. When you post here, accept that some will criticize. Unfortunately, some might have excellent points. Because of the limitations you've chosen to work under, you're working with incomplete information. I only looked at one play, your first haterz play, and your take didn't make sense. I'm sure you get it right on some plays too. But going a clear 0 for 1 on the first one said enough for me.

I've made it very clear, again and again what I'm saying. Including in this thread. But to repeat for the thousandth time ... I'm saying - correctly - that every 1 yard sneak is different. That depending on how the defense is set up - and other aspects of the situation - that the chances of success are either low, medium or high. And that since that defense was specifically set up to stop a quarterback sneak, with players who were excellent choices for stopping the sneak deployed in a manner well-calculated to stop the QB sneak that yes, absolutely ... ... in that situation, yes, the QB sneak for less than a yard was a low percentage play. There are indeed some situations where a QB sneak is a high percentage play. This was not one of those situations. As for giving me a video labelled "Edmunds" with no other idea what you think it shows, I've already watched the game, and then gone through it on All-22 as well. So unless you have something you'd like to say, don't bother sending me gift videos, as I get plenty in spam and don't watch them either.

Sure, if we'd RPO'd, there would have been eejits with a problem with that. Any failure would be questioned by some, whether it was a failure at a venture with a low chance of success or a high chance of success. Yeah, the difference isn't always easy to notice for everyone. Beside the point, though. Whether or not people squawk, it's still the smarter thing to take a smart risk than a dumb one, a high percentage chance over a low-percentage chance. And yeah sure, you can say the left side of the OL failed if you want to. But they failed at a task you shouldn't reasonably ask them to try. You can say a guy failed because he couldn't bench press 2000 pounds. Yeah, he failed. Shouldn't have been asked to try, though. They were set a task with a very low possibility of success compared to other smarter options. If on a 4th and one we took out Milano, replaced him with Harrison Phillips and then put Phillips between the LT and the LG, Lotulelei between the LG and the C and Zimmer in the gap between the RG and the C, leaving the outsidewe'd be thrilled to see them running a QB sneak instead of seeing them attacking the weaknesses we'd created outside the tackles and behind the lines. And Philllips isn't a 345 pound run stopping NT like Naquan Jones is.

That. For instance, on the first play he calls a haterz play, Edmunds is off-screen, then comes running in to make the play on the short pass through the middle for a 10 yard gain and a first down. He calls it a haterz play, but it's simply that Edmunds' job wasn't there. You can see it on the All-22 Two guys went out for passes on the offensive right side, one crossing in front of Edmunds and going over there. Edmunds follows him fairly far to the right. But he was the right guy to cover. If Edmunds hadn't covered him, nobody else did either and he'd have been wide open and the gain would have been longer. The Titans sneak an RB around the other side of the formation and into the middle as a safety valve, and he gets the ball two yards past the LOS. Edmunds has a ton of ground to cover, but cover it he does and he comes back and makes the tackle. It's a good play, helping force them to go to the safety valve and then covering a lot of ground to make the tackle. Haters might indeed complain but they'd be missing the point. I didn't even look at any of the other haterz plays when this one turned out as I'd suspected. Some of those plays might well have been something he could have done better, but when the first one had him doing a fine job with his assignment, I didn't bother to look at the others.