Thurman#1

So, nobody has answered, and that seems reasonable. The four sets of numbers aren't that far apart. There's nothing useful to help anyone guess. So I'll give the answers now. Rodgers is #1 Mahomes is #2 Allen is #3 and Wilson is #4 Note: https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/ So this is what it looks like together: Aaron Rodgers 2020: 30 - 40 yards: 6/16, 37.5%, 1 TD 40 - 50 yards: 5/12, 41.6%, 2 TDs 50+ yards: 1/4, 25%, 1 TD Patrick Mahomes 2020: 30 - 40 yards: 6/24, 25%, 4 TDs 40 - 50 yards: 3/7, 42.8%, 3 TDs, 50+ yards: none Josh Allen 2020: 30 - 40 yards: 6/20, 30%, 2 TDs, 1 INT 40 - 50 yards: 3/9, 33.3%, 1 TD 50+ yards: 0/1 Russell Wilson: 30 - 40 yards: 9/26, 34.6%, 4 TDs, 2 INTs 40 - 50 yards: 4/13, 30.7% 2 TDs 50+ yards: 2/2, 100% 2 TDs They aren't all that far apart. I'm on vacation and will take the next few days off. The wife is keeping me busy with para-sailing, sand dune sledding, museums, hot spring baths and great food, most recently Korean barbecue tonight. And my sand sprints and sand dune climb repeats are beating me up something wonderful. I'll be back Tuesday or Wednesday depending how long it takes me to catch up with my work.

Just wanted to add a bit to my previous response. In Week 1, Allen threw zero balls with over 30 air yards. In Week 2, he was 1/1 at 30 - 40 and 1/1 with a TD at 40 - 50. In Week 3, he was 1/2 from 30 - 40 with an INT, and 0/1 from 40 - 50. In Week 4, he didn't attempt one from 30 - 40, but was 1/1 from 40 - 50. In Week 5, he was 1/2 with a TD from 30 - 40 and didn't have a longer attempt. That means he was 3/4 from 30 - 40 with an INT and a TD, he was and 2/3 with a TD at 40 - 50. These are small numbers but look how they were both overall excellent and at the same time, consistently good from week to week. And after that teams went to the two-deep and it got tougher. But he still did well, which the comparisons to the best long-ball QBs in the league in my quiz shows very clearly.

It's gibberish? Oh, hey, I will be glad to explain it to you. I thought it didn't really require explanation, but I should have known that some might require a bit of help. Sorry about that. So, I'll use the stats for the first guy as an example for you. Quarterback #1: 30 - 40 yards: 6/16, 37.5%, 1 TD 40 - 50 yards: 5/12, 41.6%, 2 TDs 50+ yards: 1/4, 25%, 1 TD See where it says, 30 - 40 yards? That means that it is talking only about passes that went from 30 - 40 air yards. Sorry for making that too confusing for you. Now, the next thing is 6/16. This is a common way to refer to two different pass statistics. The first number, the 6 is how many passes were completed. The second number is how many passes were attempted. See how it works? That quarterback, attempted 16 passes of between 30 and 40 air yards, and completed 6 of them. Are you following? Now this next part is a bit complex. Stay with me. If you divide the first number by the second number, you can actually get an answer to that problem. So for example, 6 divided by 16 equals 37.5%, when you cut it down to one decimal place. See? And then, "TD" is a common football abbreviation for a six-point play, called a "Touchdown." And I sometimes used another abbreviation, "INT," which is another common football abbreviation, for an "Interception." I hope that clears things up for you. ...... Now, as for your several poor uses of statistics above, you say that "accuracy difference between Aaron Rodgers and Josh Allen on throws over 25 yards in 2020 was 14%(47% versus 33%)..............while the difference on all throws total was just 1% (70% v 69%)." Sorry, man, that can't reasonably be called an "accuracy difference." A completion percentage difference, yes. But it shows a ton more about how numbers and statistics work, and your poor use of them, than it does about anyone's accuracy. You are using statistics poorly in many ways here. First is your assumption that because you have a percentage that comparing it with any old other percentage allows you to draw the assumption the comparison would appear to show. 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 Now, perhaps someone like you might say that we have conclusive proof that Barkley is better at those distances or you could look at the wildly wildly obvious, which is that he wouldn't have continued doing that at that rate if he'd thrown a lot of attempts at those distances. Duh. But your slowcoach of a system puts Barkley (and probably many others ahead of the big four there. It's pure dumb-osity. Then your other, shall we say ... sub-optimal, way of manipulating numbers. There is no reasonable way to add together separate categories as you're doing with this quote: "the accuracy difference between Aaron Rodgers and Josh Allen on throws over 25 yards in 2020 was 14%(47% versus 33%)..............while the difference on all throws total was just 1% (70% v 69%)." That's just stupid. For example, you have two different QBs, QB A and QB B. QB A completes Wrong. In some cases this would be correct, but in plenty of others it's flat out dunderheaded. How? Between 30 and 40 yards, QB Smith throws 6 for 10, 60%, and QB Jones throws 15 for 30, 50%. Between 40 and 50 yards, QB Smith throws 10 for 30, 33.3%, and QB Jones throws 3 for 10, 30%. Anyone with half a brain can see that Smith was better at both distances and based on numbers alone is clearly the better QB. Anyone except, that is, your feather-brained method. Just add up the numbers and you get Smith throwing 16 for 40, which is 40%, and Jones throwing 18 for 40, 45%. So, at both levels, the shorter and longer, Smith threw better. But when someone half-wittedly adds up all the completions and attempts, Smith has a higher percentage above 30 yards. Why? Because he threw far more shorter passes, which have a higher chance of being completed. Jones was obviously better, but threw more long passes and therefore ended up with a lower percentage total. The idea of adding up several specific categories and thinking you're getting more meaning from the total ... well, it's ludicrous. What you do is ... you look at the raw numbers. And you compare each category for length of throw to how well the other QBs did at that same distance. DUH!!! And you also look at the raw numbers to throw out statistically insignificant differences. If one QB at a certain distance throws 100 passes and completes 50% and another QB throws 90 passes and completes 40%, that's statistically significant. But if one guy at a certain difference went 3 for 7 and another guy went 4 for 7, that's absolutely not statisitically significant. You're making all of these ridiculous mistakes because you're not looking at the raw numbers. You should. Without them you're throwing darts in the dark. So again, for you and everyone else, which of the four QBs in my challenge above is Josh Allen, which Mahomes, which Russell Wilson and which Aaron Rodgers. And yeah, what you see when you look is that these four were very very similar in their numbers in terms of long balls.

Nobody has guessed yet. Which one of the four QBs above is Allen? Which is Russ Wilson? Which is Rodgers and which is Mahomes? Compare their Completion percentages at similar distances. Very very similar. So again:

BIG QUIZ: Match the QBs to his Stats Here are four QBs, and four sets of stats for 2020 showing success in passes over 30 air yards. The four QBs are: Josh Allen Aaron Rodgers Russell Wilson Patrick Mahomes The quiz is this. Which of those four is #1, which is #2, which is #3, and which is #4. Quarterback #1: 30 - 40 yards: 6/16, 37.5%, 1 TD 40 - 50 yards: 5/12, 41.6%, 2 TDs 50+ yards: 1/4, 25%, 1 TD Quarterback #2: 30 - 40 yards: 6/24, 25%, 4 TDs 40 - 50 yards: 3/7, 42.8%, 3 TDs, 50+ yards: none Quarterback #3: 30 - 40 yards: 6/20, 30%, 2 TDs, 1 INT 40 - 50 yards: 3/9, 33.3%, 1 TD 50+ yards: 0/1 Quarterback #4: 30 - 40 yards: 9/26, 34.6%, 4 TDs, 2 INTs 40 - 50 yards: 4/13, 30.7% 2 TDs 50+ yards: 2/2, 100% 2 TDs There's just not a lot of difference there, is there? Particularly when there are so few attempts, the differences are either statistically insignificant or very slight. Completions of over 30 yards are really hard to get. Which is really why none of them threw very many. Feel free to guess!! You can even do the research. I used https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/ They have charts for each game. I went through and added all the games up for those four QBs. They had all the games for Rodgers, but missed one game each for all of the other three. For Allen, I was curious enough that I went to the game they missed and referring to a play-by-play checked every long pass, complete and incomplete to check the air yards. So I have all 16 games for Allen and Rodgers. I didn't want to bother with Mahomes and Wilson. Please feel free if you have an hour or so, to check the one missing game for each of those two guys.

Yes of course he is inconsistent in throwing the long ball. Everyone in NFL history is. It's extremely difficult to do well. The point isn't whether he's inconsistent. It's whether he's more inconsistent than others. He's not. You can put together a look at any NFL QB who has thrown long and put together a bad long throws highlight reel. Hell you can put together a bad shor throws highlight reel on any QB. Do you seriously actually not know this? You can do the same with Rodgers, Mahomes, Brady, anyone. Absolutely anyone.

Ah, I see. I wasn't quite sure what you meant. I'm excited to see how many ways they can use him.

During the 2019 season, that was correct. Allen overthrew guys a bunch of times. They simply didn't have the ability to connect long. Last year was very different, though. So different that teams after the first few games quickly decided the way to defend Allen and this offense was to use two high safeties and make it a ton more difficult to throw it long. They defended Allen the way they've traditionally defended Brady ... try to take away the longer balls and force him to go down the field using the short game. Make him dink and dunk. That's how they attacked us too. The reason they did that is because Allen came out on fire early in the year with long balls. And even with the consistent two-deep making it much tougher to get those long balls, he still got them with reasonable frequency, though he wasn't torching Ds as easily as he had before the defensive change.

I really appreciate your telling me that I've "become the #1 most consistently wrong poster on this site." It tells me I'm doing things right. Whenever I doubt myself, I'll remember you said this and realize I'm on the right track. Being told I'm consistently wrong ... by you ... is like being told by the Kardashians that you're not spending nearly enough time on social media, doing self-promotion or showing off your naked butt and your marital arguments in the media. You hear that from the K's and you know you're oriented well. And who's the truther, the guy who says "we all saw him overthrow or not put enough air under a significant amount of his deeper throws last year ... He just made too many uncompetitive/uncatchable throws for someone with his ability," isn't he? Thing is, there's no evidence of that. In fact, the evidence says just the opposite, that deep throws are difficult, particularly the 30 yards and longer throws you're talking about, that nobody throws them well consistently, but that Allen is right up there this year. You said, "He has so much room for growth in that area and it could alter the trajectory of his career if he gains the kind of confidence that guys like Russell Wilson and Brady have in their ability to throw accurately over the top of defenses." So like Scott, you're sure that Josh just doesn't throw anywhere near as well as Russell Wilson over 30 yards ... right? That's a fact, you feel, right?

Seriously? That's your argument? That Allen had examples of games where he struggled to throw the ball deep? That's supposed to be convincing? Good lord, dude, that's pitiful. I mean, surely even you know that I could go to any QB in the league and find examples of games where they struggled to throw the ball deep. Any QB who has thrown any amount of deep balls. I've heard stupider arguments, but not many. So, again ...I gave you the chance to say that you believed what you were saying, and not even you were willing to make your own argument. So I'll give you one more chance ... So, you're saying that Russell Wilson's percentage of 30 - 40 yard passes, and his percentage of 40 - 50 yard passes, being "the best of the best," would be way better than Josh's last year. Right, Scott? That's what you're saying, right?

Yup, more crap. Thought so. I did watch the games. So did all of us. We disagree with your unsupported opinion. In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever. Just an unsupported minority opinion that you think is a fact. I don't think anyone is arguing he was terrific with the deeper balls last year, but many think he showed improvement and was good at it. I see. So, you're saying that Russell Wilson's percentage of 30 - 40 yard passes, and his percentage of 40 - 50 yard passes, being "the best of the best," would be way better than Josh's last year. Right, Scott? That's what you're saying, right?

They do often make small tradeups. And yet outside of the one year when they stockpiled large amounts of capital to trade up for Allen, and had not used it all up in getting him and so were able to also go get Edmunds, they haven't traded up in the first. Most likely because they'd have to give too much. Farley had back surgery a couple of days ago. If they vet him medically, maybe they take him, but he's more likely to fall to us or even farther at this point. He's likely a riskier pick at this point. I certainly wouldn't see us trading up anyway.

You say that's no secret, but in fact it seems to be no secret to you but more of a secret to most everyone else. You and Badol are asking for stats from others and then producing none yourself. You're saying "It's no secret that," and following up with your opinion. Badol says "We all know that," and follows that up with an opinion as well, and it's an opinion that most here totally disagree with. The two of you both seem to all know things that very few others actually do know. Nothing wrong with opinions, but you are clearly in the minority here with those opinions, so where is your evidence?

Beasley didn't line up at Z all that much, sometimes, but he was generally in the slot. And I'm not sure what Sanders will be and I don't think anyone can be. He can play any role. He lined up everywhere at New Orleans. He's likely to be a puzzle piece they put in different places on different plays for different effects. I'd guess that he'll see a bunch of time at Z, as he did more than anything else in NOLA, and perhaps they'll run two slots sometimes, Beasley on one side and Sanders on the other. In the article, Joe points out problems with good press coverage, so Z might be a good fit. After watching all the Sanders' snaps last year Joe says he thinks Sanders will be starting ahead of Davis in three-receiver sets. That's my guess too, though it certainly could be wrong. As for Brown, I didn't watch all that closely but I saw him playing both on the line and off it a pretty fair amount

The fact there might be room for a rookie isn't the part that's utter nonsense. This is: And utter nonsense may be understating it. One of those "JAGs" was a second-team All-Pro last year. We've got probably a top three or four group of receivers. https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-offseason-all-32-teams-wr-situations-ahead-of-free-agency-draft https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2021/2/25/22299202/state-of-the-buffalo-bills-roster-wide-receivers-stefon-diggs-gabriel-davis-john-brown-andre-roberts https://thespun.com/nfl/afc-east/buffalo-bills/details-emerge-from-emmanuel-sanders-new-deal-with-buffalo-bills https://www.syracuse.com/buffalo-bills/2021/03/bills-stefon-diggs-reacts-to-emmanuel-sanders-joining-team.html We could indeed find room for a young WR, particularly if he's genuinely good. He'd have to compete with Hodgins and a few others, but they'd probably keep six if someone made it worth their while.

I'd argue more like, "Assuming things go the way we think they will for the first two QBs, it's Josh Allen or bust." Except for what you're saying about Darnold or Allen (which makes sense, I think), and Lamar, and your speculation about Lauletta or Rudolph, this is much what they have said before. Yeah, I heard the Collinsworth podcast too, thought it was good.

The article doesn't prove anything much beyond the fact that the Bills kicked the tires. They might have made an offer or might not. It just isn't clear. But yeah, if they can find a way to improve at a cost they find acceptable, they'll do it everywhere, offense, defense, and every position group. CB, WR and LB/big nickel will also likely be in play there. Perhaps even one or two other spots. DT I greatly doubt. Maybe if someone has a significant fall and is sticking out there, but I personally doubt it. Not to mention the possibility of a slight trade-up or some level of trade-down if they don't find BPA at a position of need available at that point.

Without even reading, I'm sure this has already been said here. But still ... Pure BPA is used extremely rarely. It is mitigated, for just about every team and every year. By two or three factors. First and most important it's mitigated by team needs. The Bills simply are not going to draft a quarterback in the first round this year, no matter if they think that one is there and he's sticking out as the best player. Not going to happen. It's BPA at a position of need. Second is position value. Guards and RBs go early in the first only for players who appear to be once-a-decade guys. Generally if you need a guard but you're drafting at #12 and you think that a guard is the 12th-best player, the best player left, you're still going to go LT if you have a need there and an LT is close to BPA. There are more: scheme fit, culture fit, lack of self-destructive habits, etc. And QB is so far beyond any other position in position value that it makes sense to take a shot. You're still screwed if you pick badly. But teams without franchise QBs don't have a realistic chance of doing anything significant. Pretty much every good team follows a BPA strategy, but it is absolutely mitigated.

Sorry, man, but that's just utter nonsense. McDermott has now had Star as his space eater for years. The reason that's so is very very simple. He's good at it. No, he's not good at penetrating or rushing or running up stats. Fans want that when they see the salary. But McDermott knew what he needed, knew what Star provided in Carolina and went out and signed him. The Bills have made it as plain as possible that they like him. You don't. Fine, whatever. But they do, which is the point. Doesn't mean they won't draft someone to platoon, learn from him and take over as he ages. They easily might. But they like Star no matter what you think.

Sure, you can put things on the credit card. But that has its effects down the road. And teams that are tight on the cap can sign players. But not as many or as expensive players as they would like. It has its effects.

Wow, your saying "Star wasn't that good two years ago," and then adding "Period." was very forceful. Still pretty misguided, but very forceful. Yes, he got a lot of criticism. Most of that came from people who were busy scapegoating. Not that he was terrific or anything. He wasn't. Had a few bad plays too. But overall he was a good solid player who did what they hired him to do. And what they hired him to do is something that very few people in the world can do at a high level. It made a great difference in our ability to stop the run when he wasn't here this year. And Milano is far better than "decent." He's really smart, really quick and very instinctual. One of the better LBs in coverage in the league and good at the run as well.

Yeah, it wasn't just one game. It was a lot of the beginning of the season. But the last ten games or so they were good, very good actually. In the last ten games, if their per game stats on points and yards were pro-rated out to 16 games, they'd have been 8th in yards allowed per game and 5th in points allowed per game. That's not great, but it's very good. How many good QBs did they play when the defense was playing well later in the season? Russ Wilson, Kyler Murray, Justin Herbert and Roethlisberger. Which is 4 out of 10, and 40% is probably about how many teams in the NFL have good quarterbacks, so these are fairly normal numbers. The defense didn't look great against the Colts but the Colts have a terrific offense. Holding the Colts to 24 points and 340 yards was a good solid game, well below the Colts averages. And the D ended up winning the game that day, as the Colts got the ball at the 14 with 2:30 left on the clock, plenty when a field goal would have tied it, and the D systematically strangled them on that drive. Yes, they were outmatched by the Chiefs offense. You do realize that pretty much the whole rest of the league was too, right? You didn't have to be a bad defense to have the Chiefs perform well against you. The defense was very good. Not great. They certainly need to work on being better - as does every person, every coach and every unit really - if they want to compete for a championship. But they were very good after those first six games where we had injury problems and problems with the new guys meshing and learning to deal with not having a space eater as well.

Yes, Lynn. Pegula is the one who let Ryan go during the season. You can bet he had the OK on any move for an interim guy. The buck stops there. And Whaley was retained when he could have been let go. That is absolutely a form of hiring, keeping a guy in place when you could let him go. The buck stops there also. The Pegulas are responsible for Ryan, Lynn, then McDermott, and at GM for Whaley in 2015 and 2016 and then Beane. It would've been bizarre to fire Marrone in December when they weren't awful, so it's legit not to give the Pegulas any blame for him. But these guys above? Absolutely.

Really?

Yeah. It's likely to be more complicated than that, especially for the first couple of years, but that's how things will eventually settle out, doubtless. Wouldn't be surprised to see rookie minimum and vet minimum salaries being raised by a fraction either.