Thurman#1

You're right that the play reached Rivers - where it reached him - because he back-pedaled. If he hadn't back-pedaled, the rush would have reached him much earlier. Sorry, man, that pocket was not clear up the middle, it simply wasn't. Butler and Addison pushed their guys back into Rivers. They didn't run the hoop and meet at the QB. They bull-rushed on the outside shoulder. If Rivers hadn't backed up, the blockers would have stepped on his legs two or three yards earlier. There was about half a yard between the two OLs at Rivers' original depth. He'd have almost certainly been constricted and swallowed up. If it had been maybe a five-step drop from center, then yeah, there was room to step up, but this was a slow-developing play. He was in shotgun and the design had him dropping to the 12 yard line at least. But the DLs had pushed the pocket to about the ten, and though they were stopped there, the DEs had beaten their guys by about the 12 or 13. The space available was too small to reach between the two DEs. Hughes and Butler were running a stunt and the pocket was narrow and unpredictable-looking early in the play. Pittman took forever to run the pattern ... he was outside in trips, took a step forward and stopped to cut under the other two then ran sideways under the LBs. By the time Rivers hit the 13 yard line, Pittman hadn't even reached the hashes on the right side, much less the middle of the field, and he was running right towards Milano. Hadn't even reached Milano when Rivers had to throw it. Instead he at least got the ball away, though not from where he'd have liked. He had to feather it way over the top and try to give Pittman a chance to run under it. The Bills had it well-defended. It's not only your spelling that is just so wrong on this.

It's not like you only have two choices, and those two are keep them on the roster or never see them again. Fans worry so much about how your 5th, 6th, and 7th rounders if you cut them, other teams will put them on the roster and while it happens, it's rare. If you can't fit them on the roster you can still generally put them on your practice squad and still develop them, particularly with the new rules. There are plenty of spots to make drafting and keeping seven guys work. More even. Practice squad spots are a legit option.

Yes, you're right about this. The defense attributed to Whaley was mostly actually brought in under Nix. Whaley was part of the brain trust at that point, but the buck stopped with Nix.

It was nonsense the last time you printed, word for word, this same comment. Still nonsense. In fact, that reciever was about a half a step open, and hadn't fully come across the field into his open space when the pressure reached Rivers. He had to work through the trash in the middle of the field. And Butler and Addison were both less than a step from Rivers when he let it go. Neither guy had gone wide, they both ran through their OL's outside shoulder. There wasn't room for Rivers to do much of anything else. It was a damn good play by the Bills defense, forcing Rivers back off his spot and making the play tougher than it would have been if they'd been able to protect Rivers better. Rivers had to throw it an instant before he wanted to, and that threw off the timing.

In this scenario, you're the sloth. The one we were physically unable to replace, particularly that late in the process. The planet theory guy. So, that's your new benchmark for a good defense? One that's able to wax the Chiefs offense? Could you real quick write up a list of 7 or 8 defenses that were good by that measure? And it sure ain't like our offense waxed the Chiefs defense, is it? By your definition, the offense must also suck.

Thing is, when he's right, he's right. Just read my post again. It was correct then and correct now. Tre and Milano are the two best. Beyond that there's a bunch of good guys without much between them. The other two brought in before Beane got here to help are among that group, a group of older guys who play very well in the scheme and a group of younger guys who look like they're still developing, also helped out by the scheme. But leaving Oliver and our two-time Pro bowler out shows what nearly most people answering this thread are telling you ... your evaluations are clearly off.

Agreed. If you read the Athletic article the other day on the Eagles, titled "Paranoia, mismanagement and office politics: Inside the Eagles' downfall under Jeffrey Lurie, Howie Roseman," they make a very good case that this is a seriously dysfunctional organization. https://theathletic.com/2506187/2021/04/12/paranoia-mismanagement-and-office-politics-inside-the-eagles-downfall-under-jeffrey-lurie-howie-roseman/ That doesn't totally let Wentz off the hook, but even good QBs rely on good relationships with coaches, environments and management, particularly as they develop. I mean, look at Watson, look at Russell Wilson, look at Tannehill. IMO it's not coincidence Wentz was at his best when Frank Reich was working with him.

Yeah, but how many HOFers come from one draft slot isn't predictive of how likely you are to get one at that slot in one year. From what I can find, the lowest draft pick to be enshrined came at #321. Roosevelt Brown. One at #245, one at #232. You can get 'em anywhere. https://hofexperiences.com/blog/lowest-draft-picks-pro-football-hall-of-fame It could happen. The odds are strongly against it, but they're strongly against it in any one year no matter where you're drafting. Even at #1 your odds are, what?, 20%? 30%? Terry Bradshaw, Jim Plunkett, Walt Patulski, John Matuszak, Too Tall Jones, Steve Bartkowski, Lee Roy Selmon, Ricky Bell, Earl Campbell, Tom Cousineau, Bills Sims, George Rogers, Kenneth Sim, John Elway, Irving Friar, Bruce Smith, Bo Jackson, Vinny Testaverde, Aundray Bruce, Troy Aikman and Jeff George are all the #1s from the 70s and 80s. (Later and many of them we still don't know if they'll make it to the HOF.) Is it as high as 40%? I'm too lazy to look but there are at least 15 of the 20 who aren't in the HOF of that group. The draft isn't supposed to be predictable. That's the joy of it. It's watching the process and figuring out how your front office thinks that makes it so much fun.

Me too. It's harder to predict, but I don't mind that. Really looking forward to it.

Very true. Equally true that we got quite a bit better running the ball as the season went along. First six games we ran for 92 YPG. And 3.81 YPC. Last ten games 117 YPG. And 4.40 YPA That is major improvement. Defending the run: First six games we allowed 131 YPG. And 4.58 YPC. Last ten games we allowed 112.6 YPG. And 4.65 YPC. That's improvement on a per game basis. The YPC got worse, though the difference is probably statistically insignificant. Being in nickel a lot undoubtedly affects that. Getting Lotulelei back should also really help with run defense, but certainly they can't look at that and say, "Well, Star's coming back, so we don't need to do anything else." That needs attention, and they're giving it attention.

I do notice something. I notice the list is fairly arbitrary. After Tre and Milano we've got a lot of pretty good guys who would be grouped pretty close together. He does.

They don't do an excellent job of identifying talent that will succeed. They do a pretty decent job. If they did an excellent job, a lot more than 60 - 70% of NFL starters would be selected within the top 3 rounds. And it's not that GMs are dumb. It's just that attaining success in the NFL happens in a wildly complex system with variables that approach being infinite. It's not as easily predictable as people make it out to be. Even if you look at just the top ten picks in each year, you'll find many guys who don't produce anywhere near the value you would expect from someone drafted that early. As for the Mahomes trade, QBs are the exception to the don't use big capital to trade up rule. They're so important to team success and you're so unlikely to succeed without one that taking a huge risk to get one is a reasonable gamble. The same can't be said about other positions. Again, take a look at Massey-Thaler. One study is called "Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League," and another is called "The Loser's Curse: Decision Making and Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft." "Top draft picks are significantly overvalued in a manner that is inconsistent with rational expectations and efficient markets, and consistent with psychological research," is the key quote from their abstract. The point is that you can find occasional cases of teams succeeding by taking this road, but you also find that at much higher rates, you find teams consistently failing. And no, it's not confirmation bias that it seems to fail most times. It really does. The academic studies that look at the data find that that really is how the probabilities work.

The whole "our window is only open for a few years and therefore we have the freedom to trade up" idea is a perfect self-fulfilling prophecy. Trading up will indeed have a hand in shortening your window. Once you have a QB like Josh Allen your window can potentially be open for the length of his career. The way to better succeed in the draft is to increase or at the very least maintain the number of chances you have. This has been studied in academic studies and that without exception they find that if you want to increase your chance of draft success you don't give up major draft major draft assets in trade-ups. In fact, you maximize the number of your picks. Massey and Thaler is the first and most important study showing this, but there have been many and they all show the same thing. You don't do this ... with one exception, which is that it makes sense to do it if you're trading up for a franchise QB. People must get tired of hearing this argument. It's boring. It's annoying. Same as kids get tired of hearing "don't cross without looking both ways," or "don't take candy from strangers." But no matter how bored your kids get, no matter how many times they've heard it, no matter how well they know that you think that, you still need to keep telling your kids this. It's boring but it will save your life. Or in this case maximize your chances at the draft, which is the major lifeline of the best franchises.

Yeah, agreed. But that kind of guy isn't highly valued by all teams. Only certain teams value space eaters. IMO they'll be able to get one even assuming Shelvin gets past us. [Just saw from Buscaglia and Dane Brugler on the Athletic that Dane Brugler says that Shelvin has motivation problems, that he has weight and conditioning issues and ballooned at one time to 390 and that he's very good when motivated but sometimes plays like he isn't. "was suspended for several weeks during the 2018 season due to laziness and weight issues (NFL scout: “He could be Vince Wilfork if he was motivated to be”). That doesn't sound like a Beane pick]. Guys like Tedarrell Slaton, Bobby Brown III, Khyiris Tonga and a couple of others could be had late as developmental players.

He really wasn't. He was very good at his one task, freeing up the LBs to run. Fair enough that he was a 2-down guy but he was doing what they need done by their space eater very well.

Your point about Wallace seems telling. But the one about LeVeon Bell came from last year, before Moss hit his turning point and started playing so well late in the year. That they wanted Bell then doesn't necessarily mean they would want him now with the situation changed. It might. But it's not necessarily so. Needs change year to year. Also, we're told that the three offers Bell had were close to equal between the Bills and Chiefs and one other. The Chiefs gave him $1M for 1 year. That's barely above vet min. If the Bills had thought Bell was all that important they could have had him easily with a fraction more money. And he said the OL was responsible and didn't bring any new OLs in ... but that OL that he brought back didn't play together last year for one single snap. All they have to do to be different from last year is actually get on the field together. Just assuming that Ford comes into the season knowing that he'll be at LG and stays healthy could be a huge difference from what we saw last year. You'll recall he started the season at RG, and switching sides destroys your whole muscle memory, as you're now mirroring yourself, like switching sides as a hitter in baseball (not as hard as that, but extremely hard).

By "at that spot," you mean the first round? He suggests WR and RB as "being likely possibilities at that spot"? Does he? Looked to me like he suggested they might be possibly in the top three. Unless there is more there than you posted.

You don't show promise with targets. You show promise with what you do with the targets. And producing 56 catches and 650 yards ... on 102 targets? That's not promising. It doesn't preclude great improvement later, but that's just not good. He was 34th in the league in targets and ranked ... 58th in the league in receptions ... 61st in the league in yards. That's not promising. And yeah, he led the team in targets, receptions and yards but that wasn't so much promise as a complete lack of talent at receiver. The other recievers on that team were Kelvin Benjamin in pure meltdown mode, Deonte Thompson, Robert Foster the year they realized he wasn't good, Andre Holmes, Kerley was active for one game, the last game of his career, RayRay McCloud racked up 36 yards, Isaiah McKenzie with 179 yards, Cam Phillips had one reception on one target for 9 yards, Terrelle Pryor was on the team but had zero offensive snaps, and Da'Mari Scott. Zay may have been the best of them, but that ain't murderer's row. Agreed that the chances of a trade are quite low. Moss is really excellent at pass blocking. Singletary's not as good, but he's still quite good at it. I would agree with the rest of your post.

Every player is limited. The perfect player has yet to be invented. The question is whether he's effective. Singletary is effective. He has hurt teams outside at times, with moves, but you're right that he doesn't have the kind of speed that makes him a home run threat.

No, that's NOT what he said. Not in that post or in any post here. What you ought to do when you talk about what other people said, you want to use the quote itself. You didn't, and therefore very poorly summarized what he said, whether deliberately or carelessly. Here's what he actually said: He did NOT say "this regime doesn't give up on early draft picks." He specifically mentioned, "after two seasons." Which is correct. Jones was traded five games into his third year. They gave him a shot to improve in his third year, but he simply didn't step up. Logic also DID say, "PARTICULARLY when the player showed a lot of promise in one of those years." And there isn't any question that Singletary showed a lot of promise his first year, top four in YPA among RBs. Where is Zay's top four finish? Top five? Top ten? I guess you could argue if you think that Zay showed a lot of promise. I'd love to hear you try to make that argument. I'd find it hard to swallow anything much beyond that he showed potential.

Also the same head coach who has taken this team from well below average to competitive for a Super Bowl. The guy who took this team from irrelevant for two decades to beyond relevant and into competitive for a title. Agreed that they wouldn't keep a player "just because they drafted him." True, not only for that reason. But the thing about Zay is that he wasn't good. Was Zay ever near the very top of the league in any year in any important stat as Singletary was in YPC in 2019? I sure didn't notice if he was. And despite having much more to prove than Singletary does, Zay did play with the Bills in his third year, though he didn't make it all the way through the season.

95% chance. EDIT: After re-thinking, it's a bit lower, maybe 80%. Weird stuff happens, but yes, he will. It'll come down to the draft. IMO the odds have risen a bit for picking an RB if more recent mocks are correct in guessing that most CBs, pass-rushing DEs, WRs worth the spot are gone, as well as guys like Barmore, Vera-Tucker, Owusu-Koramoah, Leatherwood, or a few others they might like. I put it around a 20% chance right now, which is higher than I'd figured before when how things seemed to be falling were a bit more favorable.

Puh-leeze. What swung that game was that the Bills were pretty bad in the second half. And that play on the kickoff was one of the rare, unusual and welcome cases when the NFL did the right thing even though they had to break the rules to do it. They followed the spirit of the game. It was fine. If they had not done that football fandom would have spent the next 50 years talking about how the Bills got a BS touchdown and the Texans, though the interpretation of the rules was correct, were ripped off. And they'd have been right. If we'd wanted to score on that drive, we should have earned it by going down and scoring.

But which team won? The better team. We scored when we needed to. And they got the ball with 2:30 left and our defense strangled them, not even letting them get near field goal range. The Chiefs - Browns in the playoffs was close also. Think they're worried about it?

I guess you're right about the financial area he'll be available at. And it's too much. Cap problems prevent it. Many people on these boards don't care about the cap problems, they'd rather find cans to kick down the road and worry about it all next year. Thankfully, that's not the kind of GM we have. We've got a guy who is building for consistent long-term competitiveness, and that is greatly aided by financial self-discipline. Which Beane has. He's a hell of a GM.