Thurman#1

KC did it for a QB. They didn't have one. That's pretty much the only good reason to give up so much to go up. Again, the Massey and Thaler study was only the first of many academic studies to look at giving up a lot to go up. https://www.datascienceassn.org/sites/default/files/Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League.pdf And they all say the same thing. Giving up a lot to trade up lowers your chances of a good outcome. Getting a lot to trade down raises your chances of a good outcome.

I'd argue the reason they let Teller go had less to do with Ford and more to do with Boettger, Bates and Spain/Long.

He's an absolutely excellent player. One of the better slot guys of all time. I don't much like him either but he was really good.

Me too. The defense was elite in 2019 and after 6 or 7 weeks to try to adjust to Star's absence and all the new guys on the DL, damn good in 2020. They need one more pass rusher.

He was also injured early in the year but played through it. And later in the year he was a lot better. I don't think that was coincidental.

Wow. Hunh.

Yeah, but Gallagher. He hasn't been a disappointment. If anything he's been unable to be unevaluated. First they put him in the wrong position for a year. Then they switched him in a year with no offseason. Then they switched him again to the other side, which is a huge adjustment. Then he was injured. He should be a good one as long as he doesn't turn out to be injury-prone. He has to prove it, but looks like he'll be good if they put him in one position - inside - and let him get used to it.

This year without the combine setup flattening out the situational factors, everyone is running faster than any other year. Yeah, Moore is fast, very fast. I like him a lot. But you wouldn't put him in Hill's speed neighborhood until he starts proving himself in the NFL.

We're already competing for a Super Bowl, as the roster is right now. If you count on injuries wearing down a team, that certainly happens, but not only to the Bills. It happens on every team, to varying degrees. There certainly is a way the receivers last. Might not happen. But it might. Same with KC's receivers, and every other team. But yeah, they certainly need to keep working, and the draft will be a very big part of that.

.. which is the McDermott system ... I think you're right that those others can do more, but especially on run downs I'm not sure McDermott wants more.

It is a very reasonable draft need, another 1-tech. No reason to think he would take over next year, though. They would save very little getting rid of Star even next year, so barring regression Star could easily be around to the end of his contract. Again, barring regression.

No, not all of them. There's a reason they call it a football team, not a football person. But yes, he was badly missed and is likely to make a big difference.

No. 1) This offense is already elite. 2) We're not getting TE Pitts.

Yeah. Allen needs to keep improving. He needs to keep getting better at working with Diggs. The intended starting OL didn't play together for a single snap. They need to do a lot better than that, and with Ford and Feliciano as the guards, they need to take advantage of that beef and aggression and improve the running game, and last year's RB rookie and 2nd year guys need to keep developing. Were you thrilled with how the defense performed against the Chiefs? I'd argue they have to improve a lot more than the offense.

Second in points isn't good enough? Nonsense. Ask Tampa Bay about that. They were 3rd, but had a damn good defense as well. And you're kidding yourself that one RB is going to crank scoring up 6 - 7 points per game to "37-38 PPG," your words. That's ridiculous. One team in NFL history has scored more than 37 PPG, and their run game was not particularly impressive (4.1 YPC). And with all those points they didn't win the Super Bowl.

Any first round RB. But the more I look at it, the more it seems that in the positions where we'd want to grab a guy in the first round, #30 is in no man's land. I'm hoping they trade down if that's their best option for a pick at #30.

Great post. Very thoughtful and a lot of effort. One small quibble is that you say "I think it's safe to say the first 21 prospects will be gone, and you can throw in QB Jones for 22." I would disagree. There's often a guy or two who falls. At a guess, 20 of those 22 will almost surely be gone, but I wouldn't be any surer than that. In any case, very interesting.

It's all speculation now but he did play a lot of STs, and that will tend to get you some head trauma.

Dugger is doing a lot more than LB stuff with the Pats. He did a lot of many different things. Which is what I think the Bills are going to ask of their big nickel, though it's impossible to be sure. "Dugger’s Pro Football Focus grade sat behind only Antoine Winfield Jr. of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Kamren Curl of the Washington Football Team and Xavier McKinney of the New York Giants among safeties from his draft class. "PFF credited Dugger for four quarterback hurries and 11 stops against the run. His coverage was held responsible 274 receiving yards and no touchdowns. Dugger’s in-the-box role brought assignments versus tight ends and running backs. It was spelled by work in the slot as well as in the outfield. It saw him start seven of the final eight games while playing no fewer than 53% of the downs in the process. "The longest look came in the finale versus the New York Jets. Dugger never left the defensive huddle over the course of New England’s 28-14 win. He served as an inside linebacker amid a series of injuries, with veteran arrival Adrian Phillips’ in-game exit being one of them." https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverthomas/2021/01/14/kyle-duggers-rookie-season-proved-to-be-a-hit-for-new-england-patriots/?sh=5551c7a74f5c They rush him, he played slot corner, deep safety, LB, covering TEs and RBs ... The Bills love to try to prevent QBs from getting easy pre-snap reads. Having a guy who can do nearly anything adds a lot of confusion to the pictures you can present. Many on here seem to think that big nickel means "guy to cover tight ends." And that is very far from the only thing a guy like that would be used for, though it certainly is one of the possibilities for a good one.

It'll depend who takes him and how each team sees big nickel, but Owusu-Koramoah might end up being used as a big nickel by whoever picks him, from what I understand. Ideally a big nickel doesn't have only one way they use him. It's precisely that multiplicity that makes that kind of guy valuable. It's not necessary to take a big nickel out on 80% of the plays as some seem to think. Kyle Dugger saw 51% of New England's snaps last year, and that's after not being in much early in the year. "The growing trend is to use the “big nickel,” or a third safety, as part of the base defense." "They started to use a “big nickel” defense with three safeties; the third acts as a hybrid linebacker/cornerback. With the right type of athlete, the big nickel can cover tight ends, receivers, and help in the run game. These players are being referred to as hybrid corner-linebackers, swiss army knives, big nickels, etc. The idea is to try to gain back the advantage over offenses. With more versatile defenders, defenses can mix up looks for the quarterback as the role of players is not so easily dissected by the quarterback before the snap." https://www.draftblaster.com/big-nickel-super-safeties-defending-12-personnel/

Thoughtful post. As for your point that my numbers seem to show that Rodgers is a bit higher than Allen's ... I agree.Rodgers won the MVP for good reason, he had a terrific year and if you want to use my numbers to say Rodgers was a bit better than Allen as far as those numbers go, I'm there with you. But it's a small difference. Rodgers is 6 for 16 (37.5%) and Allen 6/20 (34.6%). The difference between 34.6% and 37.5%, when we're talking about such very low numbers of attempts is absolutely miniscule. For 40 - 50 yards, it's a slightly larger difference, but only slightly. Rodgers was 5 for 12 (41.6%) and Allen was 3 for 9 (33.3%). If Allen had maintained the same percentage and thrown as many passes as Rodgers did, Allen would have gone 4 for 12 compared to Rodgers' 5 for 12. There isn't a statistician in the world who will tell you the differences in those numbers are statistically significant. You're dead on, and in complete agreement with me on this. Rodgers is slightly ahead. The slight difference has zero statistical significance. But I also posted numbers for Russell Wilson, and for Mahomes. And all told what those numbers for all four guys say is three or four things: 1) They're all fairly close together. Which would not be so if Allen were not one of the better deep ball throwers in the league. These are four great QBs, all pretty good at deep balls. 2) Allen and Russell Wilson are extremely close. 3) Mahomes' percentage between 30 and 40 yards is well below Allen's. His percentage between 40 and 50 is higher. They're not far different. If you're going to draw conclusions from numbers this small, the conclusion you should draw is that Mahomes, Allen and Russell Wilson are really close. 4) Nobody is terrific at deep ball throws. They're hard for the QB and for the WR. That's why nobody has very high numbers. Your argument that many other factors affect completion percentages is also on target. Certainly the 42 yarder Allen threw to Kroft that Kroft caught and came out of the collison with, which was somehow called an INT, is a terrific example of this. And if you want to look instead at the accuracy stats from BrickWallBlitz that Hapless posted, they tell the same kind of story, that Allen was 7th overall in deep ball accuracy. Accuracy is much more in the QB's control.

Hap, very interesting. I didn't see this post till now. I look forward to going more in-depth. 7th, hunh? One stat that combines them all and he comes in 7th. I'm betting that suddenly some will stop wanting to consider all longer throws together and will suddenly start dicing things up fine ... even when previously their emphasis has been on looking at all 25+ throws together. I'll check that tomorrow.

I've already answered this, but apparently you didn't get it. Shouldn't surprise me a bit. So again, when you compare all passes over 25 yards, you are comparing one guy's 25 yard passes to another guy's 50 yarders. It's idiocy, absolute idiocy. Again, combining a bunch of specific categories into one extremely general category. is simply dumb. You make the comparisons virtually useless. To repeat: For example, say a backup QB comes in and plays a few snaps and throws one pass between 30 and 40 yards, it's a 30 yard TD. And that's his only throw of 30 - 40 yards for the season. Who's number one in your category based on percentages? That guy is. He's a 100% passer between 30 and 40 yards. He's number one, baby. According to your numbers that guy's more accurate than Josh, Mahomes, Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers. Now, say the same guy in his sixteen attempts throws two passes between 40 and 50 yards, one complete for 42 yards, the other out of bounds. Who's more accurate on long balls, him or Josh Allen, Mahomes, Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers. Well, your buttheaded system puts him first on the list. 50% from 40 - 50 yards. Clearly this guy is more accurate than those four, according to your system. Now, let's give that imaginary guy a name, say ... oh, Matt Barkley. Oh, wow, what a coincidence, the real Matt actually did do just what I said. 1 for 1 and a touchdown between 30 and 40 yards and 1 for 2 between 40 and 50 yards. Just check the charts on nextgenstats.nfl.com So, according to you, Matt Barkley, who completed 2 for 3 over 30 yards, is thus proven a better long ball guy, better than Josh Allen, and better than Mahomes, Rodgers and Russell Wilson. Your slowcoach of a system puts Barkley (and probably many others) ahead of the big four QBs there. It's pure dumb-osity. That's nonsense. Assuming that Aaron Rodgers sees and throws to every wide open deep receiver every time ... is great evidence of your prejudice and willingness to use wild and obviously wrong generalizations. He undoubtedly missed open receivers, same as Allen did. Comes from being human. To find an example, I did something really difficult, I googled it. Took me around one minute, clicking on the second article to find an example of a play where Rodgers didn't throw to Lazard wide open deep with no safety coming. That was only the first example. The article has three or four examples of missing open guys. https://footballfilmroom.com/2019/12/11/aaron-rodgers-needs-to-play-better/ As usual, you're wrong. And wrong precisely about the main point. Hitting deep throws isn't easy. It's really difficult. That's why these four guys don't do it a large percentage of the time. It's why even the Aaron Rodgers misses long ball opportunities and long ball throws a lot of the time. Thought I could probably find an example just by watching the conference championship 2nd half, and yup, I found two in the 3rd quarter before I stopped. 10:31 Rodgers bails to the left, gets a moment or two outside, has a man open by a step or two at the back of the end zone about 35 yards beyond the LOS, he's slightly to the right of midfield and he cuts left. Beaten his guy. Rodgers has a moment. Hops left. Hops left again. Hops left again. Can't find anyone. See the guy finally, but only as the rushers finally reach him. He throws toward the guy, who has now gotten close to the sideline. As he throws, a rusher is right in his face and he lets it go ... and misses long and left. Possibly because of the rusher, but the guy was open all the way across the end zone. Rodgers had rolled left and only had to look at half the field. And he just missed his guy till too late. Poor play. 5:09. It's a 7 yard completion to Tonyan, thrown as a safety vale. But #13 is a step or two open long and Rodgers is looking left, has him, doesn't take it. Buttheaded idea, that there's anyone out there who sees it and does it every time. They all have problems. Josh included, but Rodgers also.

You're dead right. I went on too long. It's just that there were so many things that were so very very wrong and ridiculous about your post. I'm terribly sorry about that. Should have broken up your post and my replies into shorter more digestible posts.

Just caught this before I logged off. Oh, my God, I didn't even think of that, but yes, it was the Kroft play that absolutely in any sane universe should have been ruled a completion.