Thurman#1

No. In McDermott's scheme, the LB absolutely does need someone up front to eat blocks. That's why McDermott has guys like Star up front wherever he's been, and why he brought Star to Buffalo. It's why he had Star and guys like him in front of Kuechly.

Another great player would surely help. And I can definitely see them drafting someone next year to replace Star. But the last year we had Star we were an elite defense. His first year here, the year before that, a very good defense. But particularly for a week, we'll be fine.

We're better against the run with him, but their OL this year is anything but intimidating. We ought to be OK for this game.

Utter nonsense.

Well, unsurprisingly, in my opinion it was indeed. It's a defensible opinion. The teams that kept the KC offense less potent last year all had the same M.O. They pressured him successfully. The WRs "got manhandled" because they were all injured. And the teams that rushed Mahomes well by and large were able to keep their speedy recievers covered for the time it takes to rush well. Just not for three, four, five seconds. He had a ton of time to sit back there against us. It wasn't the only problem we had but yeah, I think it was the worst. And I believe the national media saw those two things and it changed their minds in the preseason. Nobody in the media believed our rookie DEs would pressure well the first year, or that Epenesa would be much better either. Then they saw in the preseason that we were damn good at pressure. And there was some residual doubt that Allen might regress. And they saw last week that he very much didn't. It's not proven he can keep it up, but they saw that he looked like he might have even gotten better.

He was very good. Smart and a good writer. Good luck to him. It's kind of the opposite of Rodak, the difference being that the Pats fans won't care that he came from Buffalo, whereas Bills fans were so owned by the Pats for so long they never forgot where he came from.

His argument was that mediocre was living up to expectations. It's not. As I've said a bunch of times in this thread, yes, over the course of the year they were a very good offense. He 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're trying to look at mediocre performance on one day through the lens of their overall very good season. He has consistently tried to argue that he was right, that they did their job every week except KC. NOT just that they did their job looked at in the context of the season.

Very much agreed that everything should be looked at individually. But saying that they really did well against the Steelers because even though they were really awful in the first half, they were pretty solid in the second half ... that doesn't make sense. Agree that that last drive was really nice. I loved it. But that doesn't mean that they performed well on offense. Would I expect them to perform it's best? No. But to perform well? Yeah. Allen has had a number of games where he's thrown well in bad conditions, and the whole Bills offense has also. Those weren't awful conditions, just not very good. Not counting the final kneel-down and the halftime kneel-down, they had eight drives, and five of those went for five plays or less. They weren't awful by any means. But they also weren't good. Come on, man, in that Jets game the offense was not good. And you can't use a pre-snap penalty as an excuse. Who committed the penalty? The Bills offense. It was their fault. Same with Kroft's almost-TD. The reason he finally fell down was that Allen had like 20 yards available to his inside, but instead threw it outside and high right next to the sideline, forcing him to attempt some unusual balancing steps to stay inbounds. Bad luck is sometimes a factor but those were both cases of the Bills having the results of their actions hurt them. They killed themselves with penalties, and that's not luck, it's bad performance. They went 3 for 11 on 3rd downs. They didn't score a single TD despite good field position, starting one drive in Jets territory and two beyond their own 40. The Jets didn't have any other game this year where the opposing offense scored less than two TDs. And in only two games was it less than three TDs. "... with regards to predicting future success or lack of ..." you say? Well with those words, I'd have to agree. I haven't expressed any concern about future success with the offense. I made it clear that I think overall they're very good. I have been responding to a somewhat nutty statement he made. He 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's nonsense. Yeah, the offense was better than the defense, though the defense really improved the last half of the year. But arguing that there was only one game where the offense didn't do its job doesn't make sense. They had some problems in several games, though again, overall they were certainly very good. Permit me to drastically disagree about the Titans game. That was dreadful. Just went back and watched the whole thing a few days ago as I slowly work through last season. It was awful. On both offense and defense. But the offense absolutely killed themselves with penalties, two INTs and a lost fumble. They couldn't get out of their own way. Agree that the schedule change sucked and may have had an effect. That's not an acceptable excuse. Agreed that the Chargers game was another one with some problems.

No. I get why you want to establish a random cut-off in a place where you can ignore a negative Bills performance and pretend it never happened. We all get it. Couldn't be clearer. Unfortunately, that's not how stats work, that you can randomly eliminate them because you feel like it. What you've got there is a negative DVOA performance. And 0% in DVOA isn't "doing what it's supposed to do," as you say here. Nice spin there. In real life, mediocre performance isn't "doing what you are supposed to do." Your boss isn't going to come into the office and say, "Hey nice going, Coach Tuesday, half the people in the world could do better than you are doing. Great stuff!!! You're doing what you're supposed to do." You don't get to randomly decide which numbers you'll ignore after checking out how you can gerrymander a way to exclude a game or two that you don't want to think about. You either use DVOA ... or you don't. If you don't, that's fine. If you do, you face up to the consequences of doing so. The consequences of basing your argument entirely on DVOA (while desperately trying to avoid anyone noticing that the offense scored less than twenty points in four games), the system you love so much, is that according to that system, the Bills had four games where they were below average, sub-mediocre. Football Outsiders don't say anything about a 1% cutoff. They don't attach any importance whatsoever to that. That's entirely your own made-up little attempt to justify leaving out the game that is inconvenient for your argument.

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.